The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Ok burleigh... the blackfella quandary (in yr mind) has been sorted. Now, get back on track and explain why yr no vote is also wrong and confused like Indo's
harrycoopr wrote:Ok burleigh... the blackfella quandary (in yr mind) has been sorted. Now, get back on track and explain why yr no vote is also wrong and confused like Indo's
I've already said several times on this page why i'm voting no. Go back and read them if you really care that much.
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:Ok burleigh... the blackfella quandary (in yr mind) has been sorted. Now, get back on track and explain why yr no vote is also wrong and confused like Indo's
I've already said several times on this page why i'm voting no. Go back and read them if you really care that much.
Wise choice, he doesnt listen anyway.
basesix wrote:jesus this thread is weird.
hahaha! Yes!! Indeed.
andy-mac wrote:Alana_a wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/no-campaign-b...
Hi Andy,
I think most people have understood this but what do you think will happen if the voice succeeds but their continual recommendations then after are continually knocked back from government? Will this just not drive a bigger wedge between the two parties? Will they be frustrated that it has been all for not much change at all?
I know it’s a what if but we shouldn’t deny there are a lot of them.""The Voice is an advisory body. It cannot challenge laws set by Parliament. The suggestion that it can is so ridiculous that no well-meaning person would say it was so, unless they were willing to lie. Yet, this key foundational piece of misinformation is being used to convince Australians that the Voice is a legally risky scenario that gives Indigenous people rights to challenge laws set by Parliament, rights that do not exist.""
Hi Alana_a
I think I get what you are saying and it is a what if, as there is with any legislation, change in Constitution etc. Some could be positive and others negative,
I still think it is the best step forward at this point in time. As we have seen with this debate, Australia is still a very conservative risk adverse country. My thinking would be once the Voice was set up (thinking unlikely at the point re Polls) the recommendations would be of a rather practical nature and not very controversial to the Australian populace, otherwise they would be rejected by parliament.
I would also think that after the vote was done and dusted and the Voice was up and running, that it would be something we hardly hear about as the media bandwagon would have moved on and would make no difference to the vast majority of Australians.
So yes, we don't know if it will be a success or not, but it is a step towards hopefully starting to address the many challenges facing FNP's.
'No' will just be more of the same same and that is not working.
I personally believe it is worth the very small risk of what if's.
Native title did not result in having people's back yards taken from them as some suggested it would at the time.
Finally, I think it would add an element of transparency for all parties involved.
What if the “voice” doesn’t listen to those it is meant to represent, like land councils don’t always listen to traditional owners?
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/20/beetaloo-basin-tr...
Further, the idea that the voice will be some sort of proxy environmental voice is fantasy. It’s the traditional owners/land councils that consent to the granting of exploration licences on aboriginal land. There’s also the mismanagement of Aboriginal owned pastoral leases.
Gday Blowin
GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
one day we'll all be together once more
when all of our ships come back to the shore
and I'll realise something that I've always known
we all call the forums, home
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:Ok burleigh... the blackfella quandary (in yr mind) has been sorted. Now, get back on track and explain why yr no vote is also wrong and confused like Indo's
I've already said several times on this page why i'm voting no. Go back and read them if you really care that much.
Wrrrrong.
Anyway i don't really care that much... yr type is dime a dozen...
‘ one day we'll all be together once more
when all of our ships come back to the shore
and I'll realise something that I've always known
we all call the forums, home ‘
Haha… nice work vj ;)
https://m.
stunet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
Ay caramba
All kudos to blowin
Thanks for the heads up @stu
stunet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
Can you please bring him back? He was by far the funnest person in these forums
Wotz in a name.
Crew might have noticed the predominant Aboriginal Place Name allocation on Oz Post Stationary!
tbb was happy to comply with new beaut tokenism & enquired about adding First Nation Place Names.
Naturally asked for the companion Oz Post Aboriginal Place Names Book.
Reasonably expecting a similar style Aboriginal Place Name Postcode Book. (Too Easy!)
Oz Post Chick : "We don't got one of dem things dat you just said!"
tbb : " No worries! Will get onto Oz Post online to check!"
Oz Post Chick : " No! Don't waste yer time...everyone just leaves it blank!
This comes off the back of tbb's enquiry about Mob's Voice Booklets...
Oz Post Phone Chick : "Nah Mate we just Mail 'em out...can't expect us to hand them out!"
Leave all that open...
Where the noblest of Mob intentions fails to meet the laziest of slack arse Oz expectations!
Anyhow for Wot it's worth here's yer first step into this brave new World.
Your Address Reads like this...
```````````````````````[...]
Name
First Nation Place Name
Street number / name
New Australian Place Name
Post Code [..] [..] [..] [..]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Embrace yer Place...
https://auspost.com.au/community-hub/traditional-place-names
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/map-indigenous-australia
*Celebrating 50 years of Welcome to Country
12 May 1973 Aquarius Festival
Rainbow Region is sacred & Taboo for Women.
Bit of a bummer for Mystical Hippy Chicks!
Hippies requested the last Initiated Bundjalung Elder to lift the spirit by cleansing the site.
Giving rise to "Welcome To Country" Cleansing Ceremonies that are widely practiced today
https://www.facebook.com/KevinHoganMP/videos/nimbin-aquarius/18214123879...
https://lismoreapp.com.au/news-sport/news/aquarius-festival-celebrates-5...
https://www.echo.net.au/2023/05/the-rainbow-region-was-born-in-aquarius-...
https://www.nfsa.gov.au/collection/curated/nimbin-aquarius-festival-past...
burleigh wrote:stunet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
Can you please bring him back? He was by far the funnest person in these forums
I agree, but he was funnest when Viclocal was around.
In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…
burleigh wrote:stunet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
Can you please bring him back? He was by far the funnest person in these forums
He is due for a return, one of the better contributors to the forum.
Although probably a good thing he wasn't here when Uplift returned the other week.
Michael Adam wrote:In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…
100% would be such a backwards move, would set us back at least 50+ years.
Amazing that people cant see this (or choose not too see this)
stunet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
The king of Tiger Tracks!
Jokes Blowin, just jokes, jokes ok
While they scream revolution! Revolution! We just hope for evolution… evolution…
overthefalls wrote:burleigh wrote:stunet wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Gday Blowin
Blowin's in G-Land and it's 8ft today, 10ft tomorrow.
Highly doubt it's him.
Can you please bring him back? He was by far the funnest person in these forums
I agree, but he was funnest when Viclocal was around.
Haha Blowin and VicLocal going at it was the best.
Yes it’s time overdue for the censors to free Blowin.
indo-dreaming wrote:Michael Adam wrote:In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…100% would be such a backwards move, would set us back at least 50+ years.
Amazing that people cant see this (or choose not too see this)
It's not about race u idiots... there's only the human race... Unless yr a racist
Booyaa
Best comment in this whole thread
For all the antagonists, this accurate rendition by Groucho Marks is you.
With utmost respect to the beautiful First Nations People.
We need to look after our people! We need to look at our nation as a whole, being inclusive and not divisive, for we can help each other, You know the saying “Two heads are better than one”. Through my work, I have been fortunate enough to have benefitted by the teachings and skills of many aboriginal people. Through their intelligent art, wisdom, skills and advice. I am eternally grateful for having that time that I did with those lovely souls, my memories are truly fuzzy good feeling ones. For those of us whities that have the means to vote on something that is so very profound for the continuance, survival and prosperity of FNP we should vote YES to MAKE IT HAPPEN THAT THEY ARE GIVEN A VOICE IN THE CONSTITUTION. SIMPLE! It’s just a simple thing to write YES in the box, YES or No, No is unkind! YES is kind!
I think about what goes on around the globe with so much segregation and unjust. We here on this island can do better! The ultra-right wing agendas are creeping into our existence, the dark side of politics, that cost lives, oppressive viewpoints, and validation of racism, separation, lobbying and introduction of personal gun ownership, like the US. But this will happen only if we let it.
Don’t be divisive people! Be inclusive, help out where you can, assist older women or men struggling to get their groceries or disabled people because it makes a difference to their lives and it’s what makes the world go around when we show a bit of kindness.
I believe if the aboriginal people are given a voice, our land and our culture can only benefit in a huge way for the better, ecologically, environmentally, socially. We need to embrace this culture that has existed for over 60,000 years, not to censure it, for if your vote is negative it may be so detrimental for them making their struggles continue which only a sad soul would impose that on these beautiful people. So be positive, not negative and in a very positive way vote the YES vote, thanks.
Love your work @reform.
Really well said.
cheers!
Reform wrote:For all the antagonists, this accurate rendition by Groucho Marks is you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHash5takWUWith utmost respect to the beautiful First Nations People.
We need to look after our people! We need to look at our nation as a whole, being inclusive and not divisive, for we can help each other, You know the saying “Two heads are better than one”. Through my work, I have been fortunate enough to have benefitted by the teachings and skills of many aboriginal people. Through their intelligent art, wisdom, skills and advice. I am eternally grateful for having that time that I did with those lovely souls, my memories are truly fuzzy good feeling ones. For those of us whities that have the means to vote on something that is so very profound for the continuance, survival and prosperity of FNP we should vote YES to MAKE IT HAPPEN THAT THEY ARE GIVEN A VOICE IN THE CONSTITUTION. SIMPLE! It’s just a simple thing to write YES in the box, YES or No, No is unkind! YES is kind!
I think about what goes on around the globe with so much segregation and unjust. We here on this island can do better! The ultra-right wing agendas are creeping into our existence, the dark side of politics, that cost lives, oppressive viewpoints, and validation of racism, separation, lobbying and introduction of personal gun ownership, like the US. But this will happen only if we let it.
Don’t be divisive people! Be inclusive, help out where you can, assist older women or men struggling to get their groceries or disabled people because it makes a difference to their lives and it’s what makes the world go around when we show a bit of kindness.
I believe if the aboriginal people are given a voice, our land and our culture can only benefit in a huge way for the better, ecologically, environmentally, socially. We need to embrace this culture that has existed for over 60,000 years, not to censure it, for if your vote is negative it may be so detrimental for them making their struggles continue which only a sad soul would impose that on these beautiful people. So be positive, not negative and in a very positive way vote the YES vote, thanks.
Great work mate.
Be kind, be inclusive, vote Yes.
Peace.
harrycoopr wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Michael Adam wrote:In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…100% would be such a backwards move, would set us back at least 50+ years.
Amazing that people cant see this (or choose not too see this)
It's not about race u idiots... there's only the human race... Unless yr a racist
Harry, since you’ve arrived in this thread you’ve accused indo of not liking “blackfullas” + several other casual racist comments.
You’re the only person bringing race into it here.
burleigh wrote:harrycoopr wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Michael Adam wrote:In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…100% would be such a backwards move, would set us back at least 50+ years.
Amazing that people cant see this (or choose not too see this)
It's not about race u idiots... there's only the human race... Unless yr a racist
Harry, since you’ve arrived in this thread you’ve accused indo of not liking “blackfullas” + several other casual racist comments.
You’re the only person bringing race into it here.
Don't think so mate... the only racists here are the ones talking about race and diviseness... saying u don't like blackfellas is like saying u don't like icecream...it's just a preference...unless yr a creamist
https://m.
Voting NO to Aboriginal & Torres Straight Islanders is a big YES vote for Dutton and his gang.
Whose side are you really on?
harrycoopr wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Michael Adam wrote:In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…100% would be such a backwards move, would set us back at least 50+ years.
Amazing that people cant see this (or choose not too see this)
It's not about race u idiots... there's only the human race... Unless yr a racist
bruce lee said when asked about his beliefs(?) that he was a "humanist" and went on to explain when ha meets ppl he sees no colour of skin or any negative thought he accepts them as they are...or words to that effect, circa 1970's.
Correction above: that'd be Torres Strait Islanders...of all persuasions and proclivities!
#Soundtracks
#Vote NO
#Bound For Glory
#Angry, Batmobile, Footy, Beer
harrycoopr wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Michael Adam wrote:In the wake of the twentieth century experience it is staggering that this (or any other) government would wish to place race at the centre of its national constitution.
But as the early American politician John Adams (1735–1826) remarked: “The jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.”
Carry on useful idiots…100% would be such a backwards move, would set us back at least 50+ years.
Amazing that people cant see this (or choose not too see this)
It's not about race u idiots... there's only the human race... Unless yr a racist
If there is no such thing as different race's, then how can someone be racist?
This whole thing is about race(swap the word to ethnicity if you like) but the word race is actually already used in the constitution.
#Lo-Info
"If this were an article in a mainstream news outlet, this is the paragraph where I would attempt to provide faux balance with a compelling, conflicting viewpoint. I shan’t be doing that because a staggering proportion of the No campaign’s arguments aren’t even arguments, they’re disingenuous hypotheticals dripping in privilege and fear. They aren’t even positions based on fear – they are fear itself and little more.
Take their slogan, ‘If you don’t know, vote No’. A celebration, a championing of lazy, willful ignorance. You could find out more, but why would you bother, here’s some franking credits. At its core, this six-word brain worm isn’t all that far removed from, ‘The boogeyman might be under the bed, I’m not gonna check but vote to leave the nightlight on’.
Consider also the various interchangeable bits of excrement that flood your mentions if you express support for The Voice online.
‘It makes our Constitution race based!’ or ‘this is like apartheid!’ scream a sea of verified Twitter Blue subscribers without profile pictures.
Sorry, but the amendment doesn’t do anything of the sort, it simply acknowledges the truth of what’s been going on here for 60,000 years, like other settler nations – the USA, Canada and New Zealand – have done before us. Also, the Constitution already mentions race (Part III, Section 25) in a deeply probo section about how it’s legal to exclude people from voting based on race. You should probably advocate to have that bit removed if you don’t want a ‘race based’ Constitution!
‘It will add a third chamber of Parliament and The Uluru Statement has secret clauses in 20-something hidden pages that will cede control of the land to Aboriginal people’.
It is a single page, here, and Peta Credlin thinks you’re a pliable, convenient cog who knows that when you say ‘do your own research’ you really mean ‘watch Sky News’. There are also more entertaining conspiracy theories out there for you to consider, like the Flat Earth movement, or the one about Justin Trudeau being Fidel Castro’s secret lovechild, so why not get on that train instead!?
‘There are no details on how The Voice will work!’
Yes there are.
‘But those details won’t be mentioned in the Constitution!’
We vote on broad principle all the fucking time! Literally in every single election. And the Constitution is a fairly broad-strokes document. It provides principles and core rules that are then expanded upon in legislation passed through Parliament. The Constitution doesn’t describe how the tax office or the military or the fucking postal service is structured either, but that isn’t a problem, and neither is this. Peter Dutton knows this, and you should too.
***
The difficulty with dissecting all these No arguments seriously is that there’s basically nothing there except fear of things that won’t happen. This is the result of the least interested people in the world being cynically prodded to ask for ‘more details’. The No campaign is so full of shit it needs an enema."
https://theshot.net.au/general-news/the-no-campaigns-argument-isnt-based...
In 1986 John Farnham released “You’re the Voice,” - the B-side of the single was “Going, Going, Gone.” The Yes case might think they’re singing The Voice but the majority of the Australian people say they’re Going, Going, Gone.
andy-mac wrote:Alana_a wrote:andy-mac wrote:https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/no-campaign-b...
Hi Andy,
I think most people have understood this but what do you think will happen if the voice succeeds but their continual recommendations then after are continually knocked back from government? Will this just not drive a bigger wedge between the two parties? Will they be frustrated that it has been all for not much change at all?
I know it’s a what if but we shouldn’t deny there are a lot of them.""The Voice is an advisory body. It cannot challenge laws set by Parliament. The suggestion that it can is so ridiculous that no well-meaning person would say it was so, unless they were willing to lie. Yet, this key foundational piece of misinformation is being used to convince Australians that the Voice is a legally risky scenario that gives Indigenous people rights to challenge laws set by Parliament, rights that do not exist.""
Hi Alana_a
I think I get what you are saying and it is a what if, as there is with any legislation, change in Constitution etc. Some could be positive and others negative,
I still think it is the best step forward at this point in time. As we have seen with this debate, Australia is still a very conservative risk adverse country. My thinking would be once the Voice was set up (thinking unlikely at the point re Polls) the recommendations would be of a rather practical nature and not very controversial to the Australian populace, otherwise they would be rejected by parliament.
I would also think that after the vote was done and dusted and the Voice was up and running, that it would be something we hardly hear about as the media bandwagon would have moved on and would make no difference to the vast majority of Australians.
So yes, we don't know if it will be a success or not, but it is a step towards hopefully starting to address the many challenges facing FNP's.
'No' will just be more of the same same and that is not working.
I personally believe it is worth the very small risk of what if's.
Native title did not result in having people's back yards taken from them as some suggested it would at the time.
Finally, I think it would add an element of transparency for all parties involved.
hi alana and andy, some points perhaps u may be able to help me work out?
ok here we go...got me ref book, page 6 it goes blahblah then...
(i)their SHALL be a body of aboriginal and torres strait islander ppls as the first ppls of oz.
(ii)the aboriginal and torres strait islander voice MAY make representations to the parliament etc
(iii)the parliament SHALL, subject to this constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relateing to the aboriginal and torres strait islander voice, includeing it's composition, functions, powers and procedures.
legal term of SHALL is must be the way, no alternative.
legal term of MAY is should be the way but can be different.
so the way i read it is the parliament and govt have the final say on voice proposals...do you agree?
ifso why on numerous occasions have the voice elite said they will go to the high court of oz if they don't get what they demand(request)?? langdon, reid, davies plus others have all said so on numerous occasions over the years and recently.
‘There are no details on how The Voice will work!’
Yes there are.
https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles#voice-principle-2
Mario Speedwagon wrote:Voting NO to Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islanders is a big YES vote for Dutton and his gang.
Whose side are you really on?
allso the (ii) blahblah MAY make rep etc etc. means they listen to isolated communities reps go home to canberra and then decide what suits their agenda and ignore what the elders demand.
name and shame parents who corrupt their kids and gaol them and take (steal) their kids to be detoxed, taught respect etc away from the communities they are terroriseing...this is what elders want. no way the voice brigade will condone that, what do yes ppl think of this?
;)
https://m.
Mario Speedwagon wrote:‘There are no details on how The Voice will work!’
Yes there are.
https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles#voice-principle-2
thanks mario, but you have'nt answered my question...why does the voice mob say they have the right to go to high court when the parliament has "power of veto"??
sameaswas wrote:wow! did u make that up or is it some fnp wannabe nigga rapper usa style?
You changed the spelling there - swapped out the 'er' - didn't you?
Don't lie now. We see you.
Yes voters got johnny farnham…
No camp got noongah…
- going… going… far gone.
https://m.
&pp=ygUUbm9vbmdhaCBvdXQgZGEgZnJvbnQ%3D #Debate Bros
Mario Speedwagon wrote:Correction above: that'd be Torres Strait Islanders...of all persuasions and proclivities!
the torres strait islanders have given notice that in 2034 they want their own seperate voice body.
just a bit of info you may not know.
#Vote NO
Mario Speedwagon wrote:sameaswas wrote:wow! did u make that up or is it some fnp wannabe nigga rapper usa style?
You changed the spelling there - swapped out the 'er' - didn't you?
Don't lie now. We see you.
Mario Speedwagon wrote:sameaswas wrote:wow! did u make that up or is it some fnp wannabe nigga rapper usa style?
You changed the spelling there - swapped out the 'er' - didn't you?
Don't lie now. We see you.
ok i apologise, it was troll of me, but you yes ppl are good at givin it but snowflakes.
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28