Aboriginal children in care now exceeds stolen generations (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

hahahahahahaha oh no jesus

The specific issues that formed a part of that agenda were: firstly, the transfer of culturally significant areas of land to the Aboriginal community, including those currently proposed in the legislation which is before you, Mount William National Park, Rocky Cape National Park and Mount Roland; secondly, rights to practice cultural fishing, hunting and gathering; thirdly, rights to perform traditional cremations and burials; fourthly, the decriminalisation of public drunkenness; and fifthly, the issue that Aboriginality and eligibility as an Aboriginal person should be determined by the Aboriginal community.

"Sup bro. We want to be able to fish wherever and whenever and however we want. Also, we should not get in trouble for falling out of pubs drunk and being a public nuisance...."

The last bit is true though. To claim Aboriginality for Centrelink, the only proof you need is a letter from an Aboriginal elder saying 'yeh bro she abo"

 

[Will Shakespear]

hahahahahahaha oh no jesus



"Sup bro. We want to be able to fish wherever and whenever and however we want. Also, we should not get in trouble for falling out of pubs drunk and being a public nuisance...."

The last bit is true though. To claim Aboriginality for Centrelink, the only proof you need is a letter from an Aboriginal elder saying 'yeh bro she abo"

you could totally bribe them with some $$$ or alcohol

i dunno why more people haven't done it, pretty sweet handouts

 

[Iron]

lol @ legal conquest.

Fucking bitches.

Seriously.

Imperial Britain explored and conquered land. It's what they did. It's what countless of civilizations before them did. I think compared to the Irish, Britain went easy on the Abos.
They were nomadic. They had no "claim" or sense of ownership to the land. They hadn't developed the technologies available to defend or protect "their" land, therefore it was ripe for the picking.

There's a big difference between settling a supposedly unoccupied land and conquoring lands from an enemy. The aboriginals were so primitive and unestablished that to take the land by 'conquest' would have had to have been a bloody massacre -racial genocide. Thinking by the time of settlement was enlightened enough to say that that wouldnt be cricket. We therefore decided that they didnt have sufficient claim over the land, so they didnt really exist, so Australia was settled.

 

[boris]

I dont get this need to have legally conquered the land. Land is land. The person with the most guns etc will take control of the land if they so desire. If the aboriginals had banded together and fought the british because they had a western sense of entitlement to the land etc and the british had beaten them, would this be any different to any other military conquest over the years? It was done relatively peacefully. How is any conquest ever legal? Pretty sure thats why there are wars. They dont want to give up their land, so they kill each other. Whoever kills the most wins and gets the land.

 

[impervious182]

I dont get this need to have legally conquered the land. Land is land. The person with the most guns etc will take control of the land if they so desire. If the aboriginals had banded together and fought the british because they had a western sense of entitlement to the land etc and the british had beaten them, would this be any different to any other military conquest over the years? It was done relatively peacefully. How is any conquest ever legal? Pretty sure thats why there are wars. They dont want to give up their land, so they kill each other. Whoever kills the most wins and gets the land.

Agreed. I don't understand this whole obligation to the past thing. And in any instance, why should Australians apologise now? We didn't commit the crimes and certainly not to those alive today, and neither did most of our ancestors who were sent here, without a choice.

So as for having an obligation... that's ridiculous. It's through compassion that Aboriginal people get extra treatment now. Certainly all Australians should be cared for... but there needs to be a will to improve and use the provided resources.

 

[boris]

Yeah, if we had come here with an army with the idea to taking the land by force and killing any inhabitants, whether they be a civilisation or scattered aboriginal tribes, there would be no precidence to paying compensation etc. Land has changed hands many many times throughout history.

 

[The_highwayman]

the british should have finished the job they started. then we wouldnt be in this mess.

 

[boris]

I believe that any other imperial power of the time would have fucked the abos up much worse. Look how the spanish treated the people they conquered. Imagine if they had conquered what they would assume to be an inferior race?

 

[The_highwayman]

i bet the dutch were kicking themselves when they found out about the east coast.

 

[Rockyroad]

lol @ legal conquest.

Fucking bitches.

Seriously.

Imperial Britain explored and conquered land. It's what they did. It's what countless of civilizations before them did. I think compared to the Irish, Britain went easy on the Abos.
They were nomadic. They had no "claim" or sense of ownership to the land. They hadn't developed the technologies available to defend or protect "their" land, therefore it was ripe for the picking.

'imperial Britiain explored and conquered land' - that doesn't mean it was ok! Just becuase it happened it doesn't mean what happened was right. That doesn't make sense. And like boris was saying - 'The person with the most guns etc will take control of the land if they so desire' - that doens't mean it is ok! What kind of logic is that?
And Katie - just because they were nomadic and didn't have the technology the defend their land it doesn't give the right for the whites to claim it. That is like what Terra Nullis said.
'they had no "claim" or sense of ownership to the land' - I don't know whether to laugh or cry at what you are saying. They lived here, they lived here for over 40000 years, I think that gives them a claim to the land - the fact they lived here. 'It was not ripe for picking', Aborigines had been here for 40000 years who you are dismissing as having no claim because they had little technology and because they were nomadic. I don't think I even understand this - nomadic=no claim to land? I love the way you put "their" land in quotation marks. Katie it was their land. You need to accept this like most other people with a brain have.

 

[Iron]

Dont you get it? The fact that we live on the land now has contributed to the appauling problems facing Aboriginal communities today. You have to have a sense of responsibility. All talk of conquest is entirely inappropriate. These guys happened to have no way of resisting European settlement, we had no compelling reason to strike a fair bargain with them. The result is a nation improperly obtained. We're squatters who forced an old woman off her land so we could build a better house -all the while she's just been watching from the fringe of the garden: confused, humiliated, robbed. Reconciliation is the retrospective price we pay for this good.

 

[boris]

I dont see why this is different to any other conquest of land in the history of the world??

They didnt have any means of repelling the invasion? So what, that just means it was able to be done with less casualities.

They are lucky that another far more ruthless imperial nation had not beaten the british and wiped them out for the lulz

 

[impervious182]

These guys happened to have no way of resisting European settlement, we had no compelling reason to strike a fair bargain with them.

They were already fighting each other. It's not like this was a peaceful, angellic civilisation. It's the history of the world... I don't see anyone paying the relatives of long-lost Aztecs... poor Aztecs.

The result is a nation improperly obtained.

By this notion though, every nation which currently exists is illegal. The fact is there was no law then which prevented or restricted the actions... so it was only improperly obtained if we impose our laws to the past. However again, then every country almost has been improperly obtained.

...all the while she's just been watching: confused, humiliated, robbed.

Except the Aboriginal people that used to live on the land are long past. Their ancestors are part of this society... It's more like someone stealing the house of an old lady, in a world where that is alright... and then four generations later, the captors great great grandson apologising to the great great granddaughter's cousin of the old lady for harming her. It's not our obligation to.

In saying we should apologise, you're accepting that we (non-Indigenous) are different to (Indigenous) when in fact we are all Australians who played not part in the events which transpired.

 

[Iron]

I dont see why this is different to any other conquest of land in the history of the world??

They didnt have any means of repelling the invasion? So what, that just means it was able to be done with less casualities.

They are lucky that another far more ruthless imperial nation had not beaten the british and wiped them out for the lulz

That's not the point. However enlightened the settlement of Australia was in the early 19th c, it is not considered enlightened today. The issues surrounding that settlement are still outstanding issues today, so there's a need to revise the thinking. Native title was appropriate. The apology was appropriate.
We need to invite the old lady in and give her a room in the attic. We'll give her respect and dignity by giving her that room and apologising for taking her poor house from her in the first place. From this basis, she'll find the will to contribute to the house as a valuable member

The point is that you have to struggle to think of examples of where the gap between peoples has been larger. These were stone-age, ancient people. We had about a 10,000 year head start on them. The closest example -native Americans- were far more advanced and gave the Europeans a pretty good run for their money, from Cortez to Custer. In that sense, they were able to retain some pride amist the inevitable injustice.
I'm not saying that Australia should never have been settled, or that the British were particularly cruel about doing so. But I am saying that we have this lingering issue which stunts our national identity. To have the natives remain in a prehistoric limbo while we eagerly watch them in the hope that they soon die is totally unrealistic today. The sooner we get them to identify with the mainstream, the sooner we will have a satisfactory moral basis from which to proudly call ourselves Australians -defined by this place and no other.

 

[impervious182]

We need to invite the old lady in and give her a room in the attic.

But she's long dead and her children are stealing all the food from the fridge.

 

[The_highwayman]

or drunk.

 

[impervious182]

or drunk.

both.

 

[Iron]

In saying we should apologise, you're accepting that we (non-Indigenous) are different to (Indigenous) when in fact we are all Australians who played not part in the events which transpired.

Youre clearly an idiot, so i'll be brief with you. The apology was not just for one act in 1788 - it was for the total collapse of Aboriginal societies that flowed from the British claim to right now -the entire settlement. This collapse is evident today and was our fault. We bear the initial onus to fix the relationship with this ruined people.

 

[impervious182]

Youre clearly an idiot, so i'll be brief with you. The apology was not just for one act in 1788 - it was for the total collapse of Aboriginal societies that flowed from the British claim to right now -the entire settlement. This collapse is totally evident today. The onus is initially, totally on us to fix the relationship with this ruined people.

My major contention with the apology was that it also included the 'stolen generation'.

And as to the onus being on us. Wrong! The onus is on all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike. I don't like to quote Tony Abbott, but I will, he summed it up best when he said that the bottom line is that 'we can't frogmarch people down to their local GPs and force them to get a check-up'.

The onus is on Aboriginal people to use the resources they have been given, because it is undeniable that they are given more individual assistance than any other section of Australian society.

And again, they're not completely without blame in this. Much of the violence and low-living standards have been of their own doing. It was some Aboriginal elders who did and still abuse children for being half-castes... If you read the start of this thread, you'll see that Aboriginal children are being 'saved' at a higher rate now then they were during the 'stolen generation'.

Iron! I'm surprised by you. You were my favourite conservative moderator. *sniffle, sniffle*

I'm not an idiot. I'm rational. (Read the user title, not a misnomer)

 

[rasengan90]

And like boris was saying - 'The person with the most guns etc will take control of the land if they so desire' - that doens't mean it is ok! What kind of logic is that?.

Just like the tribe with the most boomerangs and spears controlled the land? Yeah, it turns out that conquest and war isn't a white disease.

In saying we should apologise, you're accepting that we (non-Indigenous) are different to (Indigenous) when in fact we are all Australians who played not part in the events which transpired.

Exactly. Some of us, me included, have no history in this country before the 1980's. Why should everyone be blamed for actions of people past who are not even the majority of people's ancestors?