The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'Sorry' first, but progress later > Comments

'Sorry' first, but progress later : Comments

By Howard Glenn, published 8/2/2008

The most encouraging part of the debate is that it has the prospect of re-kindling a bi-partisan approach to Aboriginal issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
“Without any clear fundamentals in place, addressing the social problems won't work. Little government actions or inactions are based on misunderstood and undefined principles: we have to leave this group of drunks sitting in the middle of the town, because that's self determination and it's their land or if we take this child away from the abuse, that's contributing to genocide. And there's a nonsense that basic human services can only be delivered by Aboriginal organisations. Or among individual Aboriginal people, that their situation is solely a result of hundreds of years of dispossession, rather than about the choices that they can make today.”

This is sensible stuff coming unexpectedly from a ‘human rights’ type.

Government using misunderstood and undefined principles.

Allow aborigines to sit around drunk and call it self-determination.

Calling removal of children from abuse genocide.

The “nonsense” of aboriginal organisations being the only ones able to deliver human services.

And, the best one of them all – individual aborigines insisting that their situation is solely a result of hundreds of years of dispossession, rather than about THE CHOICES THAT THEY (NOTE THEY!) CAN MAKE TODAY.

This, from a person definitely left of centre and genuinely concerned about aboriginal well being. Now, will the two loud mouths claiming to be aboriginal and their wet left mates call Howard Glenn a racist because he has come out with a few home truths?
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 8 February 2008 9:20:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is indeed good to see Howard Glenn's article, pointing out that a bi-partisan approach to reconciliation seems to be happening, with the Rudd initiative of at last saying “Sorry” to the aboriginal people.

Glenn says: "Saying “sorry” shouldn't be allowed to be a proxy for addressing the more fundamental needs. It's simply a matter of clearing up long unfinished business, and a first step towards addressing the bigger issues."

Well – it better be a first step towards addressing the bigger issues. And there are many of those.

But my particular concern is in the exploitation of aboriginal land.

Around this precious, finite globe, the “First World” countries have long found it convenient to dump their rubbish on indigenous peoples’ land.
It’s noticeable that the easiest places in which to mine uranium always seem to be on indigenous land – whether of the First nation peoples in Canada and the USA, or in Africa, or in Australia.

Now we have this world-wide problem of toxic nuclear waste – whether it be “high level” or so-called more benign “low level” waste. In Australia, we have those well-known little entrepreneur groups – John White (Australia Nuclear Fuel Leasing), Ron Walker & friends, - and companies like Halliburton, Pangea, Fortescue mining, developing transport lines that would fit in so well with nuclear waste importing.

Internationally, the polluting corporations like to bribe or coerce indigenous peoples into hosting the stuff that the rich societies don’t want.
Australians should stay on guard, against this happening to our aboriginal people.

Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net
Posted by ChristinaMac, Friday, 8 February 2008 9:56:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post Leigh, of which I would only add

From the article “The most encouraging part of the debate is that it has the prospect of re-kindling a bi-partisan approach to these issues.”

Hopefully that bipartisan approach will result in agreement that Australian government is there to represent all the people, equally and not to elevate segments of the nation above the rest, based on any racial reasoning, indigenous “ethnicity” included.

The sooner bipartisan government says “no” to the cargo-cult expectations of some, the sooner those would be beneficiaries will find real self esteem and self worth as part of the reward of their own efforts.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 8 February 2008 10:02:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
interestingly, humankind appears to 'need' the apology first(if their have been wrong doings)before they are able to put this wrong doing behind them and move on in a fully cleansed way.
So it is only right and fair for 'Parliament' to accept this responsibility as it was a decision 'ultimately supported by the 'Government' of the day, no matter how many individuals, or individual groups contributed.
Surely progress WILL follow, as is also the natural process after after an apology(forgiveness and healing and a personal release from this burden of being wronged)
after this apology it will be up to us ALL, every single one of us, to move on.
And in particular the multitudes of people who still feel guilty, as this guilt also stops healing, a sense of remorse does not contribute to happy times.
Remember Aboriginal peoples are 'PEOPLE' first, and anything else comes second.(whether spiritual beliefs or customs etc) lets all move on to a happier'country'.
Posted by mariah, Friday, 8 February 2008 11:31:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

“Hopefully that bipartisan approach will result in agreement that Australian government is there to represent all the people, equally and not to elevate segments of the nation above the rest, based on any racial reasoning, indigenous “ethnicity” included.”

I agree with that. Self-imposed aboriginal ‘leaders’ have merely aggrandised themselves and done absolutely nothing of any value for their ‘constituents’ except stir the easily-led up
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 8 February 2008 11:33:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh
It is true that some 'self-imposed Aboriginal leaders' have done as you say; but it is wrong to infer that all or most Aboriginal leaders are guilty of such conduct.

The best thing about Glenn's article is its sense and balance. He provides facts and thoughts on ideas and campaigns from past decades to illustrate his arguments. Unlike the NITsters, Graham Ring & Chris Graham, he doesn't colour his arguments with emotiveness or make a vehicle for his ego or his own agendas and allow these to dominate his writing. He reflects on his own past attitudes and actions in a considered and open way. In other words, he is not a propagandist or manipulator. This is the kind of commentary that ensures that outlets such as OLO are worthwhile endeavours.
Posted by Dan Fitzpatrick, Friday, 8 February 2008 12:06:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
lIEGH AND Rusted on Col.

AS PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER ENTERED THE MIRKY WATERS OF PUBLIC LIFE and Making public comment OR HAD THE GUTS TO - ON ANY ISSUE, I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU FEEL SO COURAGEOUS VENTING YOUR SPLEEN HERE ON OLO. You have both proven over and over again that you know little Aboriginal people or culture and even less about your own.

What the author of this article has flagged is for community leaders, politicians, and people that are engaged in the real world you both run away from - attempt to resolve outstanding issue.

You both bring down the quality of debate and discussion on these issues simply by posting your names. Everyone knows you for what you both are and what you both think.

It would be a miracle if you could think outside the social, economic and cultural prison you have created for yourselves.

In fact, you represent the ugly white Australian most Australians detest.

I really think you should be banned from making comments on these issues -NOT because you are making alternative comments - but simply because you make these comments to protect your racist ideals. -These is a difference.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 8 February 2008 1:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Twenty years ago they were still having this tedious debate and they will be at it for another twenty years. And it gets more and more tedious.
What ever or how ever the colonists did at that time is not the fault or the responsibility of modern day Australians. Yet the activists still keep stirring, stirring because if they stopped, they would cease to be martyrs and heroes.
To say 'sorry' is to put the blame on today's Aussies and it is just stupid theatrics.It is also downright untruthful.
Posted by mickijo, Friday, 8 February 2008 2:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier “AS PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER ENTERED THE MIRKY WATERS OF PUBLIC LIFE”

Oh dear, shouting in forum, not good form.

“you know little Aboriginal people or culture and even less about your own.”

“little aboriginal people” like dwarfs?

my knowledge of my own culture, believe me, shows how little little rainier knows about me.

“in the real world you both run away”

I stand fast, always have.You mere try to piss down on us who engage in the real world, from the sanctuary of your ivory academic tower, far removed from the sweat and dirt of real work.

“You both bring down the quality of debate and discussion on these issues simply by posting your names. Everyone knows you for what you both are and what you both think.”

rainier's apologist, appeasement attitude, motivated by his own ethnically coloured prejudices!

“In fact, you represent the ugly white Australian.”

Thanks to the British heritage of public oratory, you can call me what you like.

That you object when I respond shows the limits of your democratic appreciation. Hence, you find no difficulty in pursuing your racially motivated demands for special consideration for you and your selected ethnic minority.

Just as a curiosity point what % of you is actually ‘aboriginal’, 100% or something less?

“I really think you should be banned from making comments on these issues”

You are incapable of arguing against a dissenting view so demand the voice to be banned.

rainier, has disclosed his real self, burn the books, the black shirted fascist has spoken.

“but simply because you make these comments to protect your racist ideals.”

I think you forgot what I have already said on another post

"Racism is to distinguish between people based on race. I do not support racism and those aborigines who demand different treatment or rights to the non-aborigines born in Australia are pursuing a racist agenda.

I support the aspirations of Dr ML King who considered race in the same context as I have expressed it."

Now you can bring it all on, rainier or piss off
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 8 February 2008 3:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree that this is a good article, and particularly with Dan when he refers to its "sense and balance". Given that some of OLO's most entrenched detractors of Indigenous activism have evidently found areas of commonality with some parts of the article, Howard Glenn has succeeded in initiating a potentially useful discussion about this very important issue.

Such a pity then that a couple of people have so quickly descended into the ad hominem crap that usually silences intelligent debate about Indigenous issues in this forum.

Glenn's general idea that it's a positive thing for Australian society, including Indigenous Australians, for the Australian Government to issue a formal apology to the Stolen Generations, is valid, in my opinion. I also see it as a kind of 'line in the sand' with respect to achieving what used to be called 'Reconciliation'. And until Australia reconciles itself with its Indigenous people, we have little hope of forging the kind of strong national identity that so many correspondents here seem to crave.

My only problems with Rudd's apology is that it doesn't go far enough. I think the Australian Government should be apologising to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people for the irreparable destruction of their way of life, and the way that their former lands now comprise the very basis of the Nation in which they are peripherally resident, for the most part.

And of course we still need a Treaty :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 8 February 2008 9:06:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan says:

"My only problems with Rudd's apology is that it doesn't go far enough. I think the Australian Government should be apologising to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people for the irreparable destruction of their way of life, and the way that their former lands now comprise the very basis of the Nation in which they are peripherally resident, for the most part."

"And of course we still need a Treaty."

I agree. But I think we need to go further than just apologies. A treaty, if it were to recognise orginal sovereignty, land rights and set up a system of recompense for disposession, would be a step forward.

However in my dotage I become more and more cynical about the ALP in Government. I think Rudd and others see an apology to the stolen generations as the end of the matter, not the beginning.

They are through their reluctance to go further dog whistling to the racists in their support base. Some of that constituency can't see that yet.

The struggle for justice is just beginning.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 8 February 2008 9:20:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ranier,

Now we should be banned from making comment. Your temper and hatred of white people has really got the better of you, and you have given yourself away for the uncontrolled person you are. You are like a child throwing a tantrum, shouting and screeching names at anyone who dares say anything you don’t like. You are a disgrace to your race.

If you think Col or I, or anyone else you hate, should be banned for what they say, take it up with Graham Young. Send him an email. Tell him you want Col and Leigh, and whoever, banned.

I wouldn’t want you banned because you represent the boofheaded arrogance that keeps your people from moving on.

Your penchant for calling people like Col Rouge and me ‘racists’ doesn’t hurt us; it isn’t true by any definition of the word, and just shows how desperate and sad you are. You are a loser: a bully used to people backing down when you call them names.

Your tactics don’t work here, but keep going by all means. Unlike you, most of us believe in freedom of speech, and it’s good that you keep us in touch with the nasty sector of the indigenous community. We are lucky to have such a shining example.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 9 February 2008 2:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Progress Later after Sorry First should naturally result in a Treaty similar to the natives of New Zealand - possibly permanent represntation in the Australian Senate.

Though maybe too late to do much good, we owe to to the Aborigines as the foundation human stock of the Great Southland.

Regards - BB, WA.
Posted by bushbred, Saturday, 9 February 2008 5:17:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, Contact Graham and ask for my direct contact details. I'd be only too happy to meet you in person. Then you can tell me to my face exactly how you see my world and I suspect I would be the first Aboriginal you have ever met. Go on you gutless wonder - i challenge you!

As for my comments, why don't you give everyone here an explanation why you post on articles (often the first) with the negative and racist bile that you are well known for.

Its as though you sit around waiting for them to be published on OLO.

What a sad piece of work you are!
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 9 February 2008 6:11:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will be watching the opening of parliment and the apology on Wednesday.

I agree that this country was invaded by the British Empire.
I agree that the indigenous people were treated appallingly by the Empire (as were my convict ancestors).
I agree with the government offering an apology, as it is a continuous entity (though some might question the invasion part of the apology since that was there was no Australian government back then). If this helps everyone move forward then this is a good thing.

I feel genuine sorrow and compassion for the disposession and inhuman treatment of our indigenous people and I can say that to them. The only thing I cannot do is offer a personal apology to any indigenous person who approaches me for one. The reason is that I cannot possibly be guilty of human rights abuses perpertrated by other people before I was born. Saying that someone is guilty of something based on their racial inheritence is a gross act of racism itself.

I work with a number of indiginous people, all of whom I get on very well with. I do hope that they accept and agree with my position, as I cannot see how it would be reasonable not to. There will be those who think that a personal apology from other Australians based on the colour of their skin is owed to them. I am sure they are a minority.

Let's hope this works without too many side effects..........
Posted by Fozz, Saturday, 9 February 2008 7:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fozz says:

"I feel genuine sorrow and compassion for the disposession and inhuman treatment of our indigenous people and I can say that to them. The only thing I cannot do is offer a personal apology to any indigenous person who approaches me for one. The reason is that I cannot possibly be guilty of human rights abuses perpertrated by other people before I was born. Saying that someone is guilty of something based on their racial inheritence is a gross act of racism itself."

I would make the following points. The consequences of past actions continue today both for the people stolen and their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren and the beneficiaries of that stealing and their inheritors.

Second, present policies, eg the invasion of the NT, are arguably the continuation of the thinking of the past that saw generations of Aboriginies stolen in the past.

Jack Waterford in a great artcile in todays Canberra Times wrote that the rate of removal of aboriginal children from their families is today 50% higher than the rate identified in the Bringing them Home report. We may well be repeating history under the false guise of saving the children.
Posted by Passy, Saturday, 9 February 2008 8:44:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bipartizans in the heat of their romantic fervor will be embracing the great historical fabrication forged by the revisionist historians Peter Read and Stewart McIntyre, not to mention the intellectually and morally weak Robert Manne and justice of the High Court Ronald Wilson, about the "stolen generation". It's plainly the case, and plaintively regretable, that "progressivist" ideology once again in its role as gravedigger, buried the historical facts.

http://kotzabasis1australiaagainst.blogspot.com
Posted by Themistocles, Saturday, 9 February 2008 8:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy, then you must think that leaving Aboriginal children in dysfunctional camps where they are subject to terrible sexual and violent abuse, neglect,malnutrition is preferable to taking them to safety.
You are very strange.Poor children.
Posted by mickijo, Sunday, 10 February 2008 1:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,

Are you suggesting that the children being taken these days should not be taken at all, but left in their current conditions ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 February 2008 2:01:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmm, I've gotta say Rainier, in this particular case, I'm going to have to side with Leigh and Col's posts, which isn't a common occurrence.
It seems to me that you're not responding to what they've posted here, rather, you're attacking them for other commentary.

It would appear that this article has found some pretty common ground, which is a damn good thing. I can only concur with the statement that the apology is largely symbolic and it is the actions on the ground that will change lives for indigenous communities.

The difficulties in this issue, as in most issues, lie in where we place our priorities.
Some say the apology is of paramount importance, others say it's merely symbolic and won't change anything, save for creating a risk of compensation claims.

Putting aside the issue of compensation for a moment - which, won't at the end of the day change the situation on the ground in remote communities, I can't see any problem with the apology.
I see it as a government apologising for sins the country has committed in the past - not as an apology for anything I have done, because I don't believe I carry any responsibility for those past actions. Those choices were made before I was born.
When I view the situation through this prism, I'm fine with it.

Once the apology is out of the way, I hope we can focus more on the practicalities. Then the issue becomes, how much paternalism will we accept from the government on this score?
I don't like the paternal actions that are taking place in relation to government intervention in indigenous lives, but quite frankly, I think most Australians are coming to the view that things have gotten so bad, anything is better than just letting it continue this way.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 10 February 2008 5:02:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Passy, then you must think that leaving Aboriginal children in dysfunctional camps where they are subject to terrible sexual and violent abuse, neglect,malnutrition is preferable to taking them to safety.
You are very strange.Poor children."

These are the same sort of arguments used to take the stolen generation. We were wrong then. We may well be wrong now.

I would suggest that the solution is in the hands of the communities, not sending troops in, taking their land and so on.

And I wonder why if all this alleged abuse justifies sending the army in, that there are not troops in Catholic schools to protect children there. My guess is that the level of abuse is higher in white schools than in aborignal communities. But there aren't any votes in doing that are there?

Also, I say alleged abuse becuase I wonder where are all the cases of abuse now before the courts as a result of rescuing the children? I stand to be corrected, but what are the figures now from NT?
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 10 February 2008 5:23:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy,

Just because a similar argument is used, doesn't mean that it is not valid in a particular situation. Of course, there are Indigenous (and other) kids right now who should be in care, and if you don't know that, you don't get around much. In fact, given the nature of poverty and destitution, and the fact that back in the thirties and forties and fifties, there were many non-Indigenous kids in care, in homes, in orphanages (when they weren't orphans), what is the mystery about a proportion of the 'Stolen Generation' being in care, due to dire poverty and estitution ? Surely the issue should be to castigate the governments of the day for the social, housing, educational and economic policies which forced so many Indigenous people into dire poverty, to the point where so many of their children were taken.

My father was in care for most of his childhood, after his mother went a bit crazy when her youngest baby fell into the copper; he was looked after by a very nice Salvation Army lady, so I am forever grateful (as an atheist) to the Salvation Army. My mother's mother was a Barnardo baby, put into care because her young mother, a domestic servant, couldn't look after her. My father was Irish, my mother's mother born in Hull.

And the whole aim of the Intervention is (as I understand it) not primarily to punish offenders but to stop the abuse and take away the conditions under which it festers. Getting idle people working might be one step (which will mean literacy and training programs). Getting parents caring for their kids might be another (which means controlling the grog). Putting a police station in every small settlement should be a last resort.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 10 February 2008 5:48:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy
The major problems with the government-sanctioned taking of kids in the time of the Stolen Generations were first, that the policies which enabled the removals were often motivated by naked racism; secondly that most of those removed were subjected to state-sanctioned neglect and abuse of varying kinds which were often worse than the situations they were being taken from.

These days child welfare departments no longer operate under clearly racist legislation or regulations. However, there still appear to be considerable problems with the ways that removed kids are often treated, with insufficient funds and focus to give at least some of them a better chance in life than they would otherwise be experiencing.

About your view "that the solution is in the hands of the communities, not sending troops in, taking their land and so on." You are very much on the wrong track here.

In some communities, if not many, there is clearly insufficient capacity to solve a lot of urgent problems. Expecting small demoralised, isolated and under-serviced communities to perform very difficult work for damaged kids is often quite unrealistic and unfair on the kids and everyone else.

By the way, troops have not "been sent in" in the way you seem to imagine. A few unarmed young blokes were sent to some places to drive medical volunteers around, put up tents for them and kick footballs around with kids in an attempt to interest their parents in bringing them down to clinics for normal health checks. Don't believe all the hype of the anti-interventionistas!

Re child sex abuse: There are around 38 investigations proceeding at the moment in the NT into alleged child sex abuse in remote communities. Some of these will come to court, but getting plausible witnesses remains a big problem.

There has been a time lag of several years in WA between starting investigations, increasing policing and being able to commence prosecutions.

I'd be very surprised if current abuse levels in Catholic schools are still what they used to be before the exposees of the 1990s.
Posted by Dan Fitzpatrick, Sunday, 10 February 2008 6:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy

It is wrong to return children to be abused ... especially since the evidence is over-whelmingly that that is what is allowed to occur. And if you read my latest Article I think you'll come to the conclusion that doing so in queensland is Quueensland Government Policy.

And you might like to check with a 12 year Queensland girl whether she thinks it's the right thing to do... if you can get past her current violence and anger.
Oh and currently after being returned to the situation to be raped over and over she is now permenantly housed ... alone, with paid departmental carers and psychiatric consultations in a house in a Queensland city. Which is far from the remote family where she had been returned.

So what is better. Keep her away from her family and community after the ongoing abuse or remove her from that situation after the fist rape?

I think addressing the issues that have caused the initial dysfunction are the best solution. There are three, NNoel Pearsons 'economic solutions', individual land ownership as opposed to community ownership, and a treaty which states exactly the expectations of both parties. I am writing another article on one of those currently.
Await with interest...:-)
Posted by keith, Sunday, 10 February 2008 7:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy “These are the same sort of arguments used to take the stolen generation. We were wrong then. We may well be wrong now.”

And dead children, their bodies torn, bled to death do not get to suggest being removed from the dysfunctional communities, responsible for the rape and abuse, might be the right thing.

“I would suggest that the solution is in the hands of the communities, not sending troops in, taking their land and so on.”

I am not a religious person, in the going to church sense but one thing I do recall from my Methodist childhood upbringing

Jesus said “suffer the little children to come unto me”

I think Passy is suggesting simply “suffer little children”,

Leaving children in the hands of “the communities”, their fate at the mercy of that community and those children more likely will complain, if they survive the rapes and live to have a functioning brain after sniffing some choice unleaded.

Rainier to Leigh “why don't you give everyone here an explanation why you post on articles”

Leigh is not obliged to explain why he chooses to post here and since you bracket Leigh and I, I will advise you that nor am I.

If any explanation is required it should be from you.

You who suggest that Leigh and I be banned, presumably because you cannot face the truth or challenge what we say.

In your demands lay the words of the coward.

You who cannot reason, demand OLO silence your detractors and dissenters through censorship.

Personally, I wish for you to post here. You and anyone else who either agrees or disagrees with Leigh or I.

I believe you should post for one dominant and prevailing reason. That reason is, by posting here you show yourself to be a racist.

The brief definition of a racist is “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”

I believe that extending to aboriginal people special rights to land, special rights to government aid and support, above and beyond that extended to non-aboriginal people is “racist”.

Now argue that!
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 10 February 2008 7:36:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: "The brief definition of a racist is “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.”

I believe that extending to aboriginal people special rights to land, special rights to government aid and support, above and beyond that extended to non-aboriginal people is “racist”.

Now argue that!"

It's really very simple, Col. Your claim is only valid if you consider Aboriginal people to constitute a "race". The corollary of that, of course is that, despite your attempt at sophistry, you are the racist beacause you classify people in racist terms.

For the Australian government to apologise to Australia's Indigenous people for the past obvious injustices against Abroriginal and Torres Strait Island people is no racist act. Rather, it is a significant attempt to resume the process of National Reconciliation that had an 11-year hiatus under the Howard regime.

That some people choose to vent their spleens in opposition to this overdue act of humanity from the Australian government, says much about their deeply ingrained antagonism towards Aboriginal and Islander people, if not their equally ingained racist dispositions.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 10 February 2008 9:03:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty Rouge,

"I believe that extending to aboriginal people special rights to land, special rights to government aid and support, above and beyond that extended to non-aboriginal people is “racist”.

Let’s invert this assertion and see how it reads-

o "I believe that extending to white Australian people special rights to land, special rights to government aid and support, above and beyond that extended to Aboriginal people is “racist”.

Hang on?? Isn’t this what exists now and is considered normal here in Straya?

The status quo that Rusty Rouge calls for is the perpetuation of racism and racist policy.

His poor attempt at trying to appear to be colour -blind, liberal and fair-minded is revealed.

Racists often don't know they are racists simply because they refuse to even consider it a possibility.

Hence, one eyed Rusty Rouge is King in his blind little world.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 10 February 2008 9:18:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I believe that extending to aboriginal people special rights to land, special rights to government aid and support, above and beyond that extended to non-aboriginal people is “racist”."

You are drawing a rather long bow, Col. In my opinion, this is more a case of "squaring the ledger" by whites and probably a clumsy and overly one-sided form of atonement than racism. Real racism is what exists inside people's heads. In your quote, the Aboriginals are only passive recipients of a form of protection/welfare. While you've made it clear in past posts you don't agree with that, you can't blame racism for it. No doubt racism is mixed up with it and there are racists within Aboriginal communities, but this is another issue.
Posted by RobP, Monday, 11 February 2008 8:43:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ranier,

So, now it’s physical challenges is it? You know quite well that you are on safe ground; that you will never meet me in person. I think that this is not the first time you have offered this ‘challenge’ to someone.

Quite frankly, I would not go within cooee of you or anyone like you. You have clearly portrayed yourself as an uncontrolled hot head, determined to keep the old hatreds alive. There is no way any sensible person would place themselves anywhere near someone like you. Your written violence is enough.

No, you would not be the first blackfeller I have met as I have told you before. You just ignored the fact. I think of those I have known and do know when you rant and rave, and I’m reminded that not all are like you.

As for my explaining why I post, and sitting around waiting – well, the same thing applies to you. As for the “racist bile” you accuse me and others of spitting, that also applies to you. You have never been able to explain just how it is that white people can be racist, but non-whites cannot.

If you have been trying to frighten me off, Ranier, you have been a spectacular failure
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 11 February 2008 9:49:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan “It's really very simple, Col. Your claim is only valid if you consider Aboriginal people to constitute a "race".”

Then what you are suggesting is, aboriginal people are not a “race”. Then what are they?

A collection of races?

A range of different species?

That aboriginal people associate themselves with their “aboriginality” and non-aboriginals as
“different”, suggests to me that they define themselves as a racially of different race(s).

That aside, it does not alter my argument that anyone who wants to be treated, by virtue of their ethnic origin, differently to others in the nation is a racist.

Rainier “Hang on?? Isn’t this what exists now and is considered normal here in Straya?”

I have no “special privileges” beyond those of any other ordinary citizen.

I have no particular councils to represent me, beyond local council, state and federal parliament, who act for all within their ambit of authority.

I have no particular right to land claims.

I have no special dispensation for government financial subsistence which do not apply to all other Australians.

I would note, I can understand how you are possibly confused, I live in Australia, wherever “Straya” is might have different laws but at least I can write. Your capacity for spelling seems are consistent as your cognitive reasoning skills.

By the way, I did ask before and you have failed to respond, what % aboriginal are you?

“The status quo that Rusty Rouge calls for is the perpetuation of racism and racist policy.”

I have not asked for any “Status Quo” to be perpetuated.

I have requested all Australians be treated equal. That means the special dispensations and rights currently extended to aborigines be with drawn and the “playing field of civil rights” be leveled.

Public welfare is like a drug. The term “enabling” applies to those who support junkies in their addiction.

Aboriginal people will only get “clean” and “sober” when politicians stop “enabling” their addiction to public welfare and make them stand on their own two feet, as is expected of everyone else who is not aboriginal.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 11 February 2008 10:46:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foz says: 'The only thing I cannot do is offer a personal apology to any indigenous person who approaches me for one. The reason is that I cannot possibly be guilty of human rights abuses perpertrated by other people before I was born. Saying that someone is guilty of something based on their racial inheritence is a gross act of racism itself'

Please don't take offence Foz, but that statement comes from ignorance of what it really going on. Individual Australians are not providing the apology. The apology is being provided by the Australian Government in recognition of policies of past governments. No individual person is being asked to take personal responsibility and if anyone thinks that this is the case, they are wrong.

I have been amazed at some of the negative reactions to the apology.

My mother was taken from her family at the age of six for no other reason than she was deemed a 'half-caste' which meant she was a perfect candidate for assimilation. She grew up in an environment where she had no contact with her family and was told on a daily basis how disgusting Aboriginal people were.

We can't change the past, but we can make sure that the children of the Stolen Generation are no longer told that what happened to them was for their own good.
Posted by CoogeeGal, Monday, 11 February 2008 3:42:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: "Then what you are suggesting is, aboriginal people are not a “race”. Then what are they?

A collection of races?

A range of different species?"

Don't give up your day job, old bean counter - you certainly don't cut it as anthropologist. Not only you do you use outmoded 19th century terms like "Caucasian" and "Negro", but you seem unaware that anthropologists no longer refer to "races" at all. This is because, with the development of modern human genetics, anthropologists found that there is greater genetic variation within the so-called "races" than between them.

It is really only racists who continue to use such outmoded terminology, and those who have internalised that racism by being so catgorised.

Aboriginal people are just that - i.e. the descendants of Australia's original human inhabitants. Your reference to them as being different species merely underlines just how racist you are.

Fortunately, you are not only in the minority in Australia, you are now very much in the political wilderness. Suck eggs while the rest of us celebrate this small step towards National Reconciliation.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 11 February 2008 4:40:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

Your call for '... all Australians be treated equal.' is admirable.

Education services, health services, policing in remote communities are funded well below the levels of the cities.

There is not one tertiary institution in any remote area of Australia.

Employment opportunites are almost non-existant and business development funding in remote communities is also almost non-existant.

Not one person in a remote Indigenous community has the same right as you to land ownership.

The mortality rates of remote Indigenous children and adults are far higher than the same rates in our cities.

There is not one hospital in any of our remote communities.


How would you address these inequalities of entrenched government policies and treatment?
Posted by keith, Monday, 11 February 2008 6:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note that certain people put aside their 'might doesn't make right' rule when it suits them to be believe that most people agree with them.

What do you say Col Rouge. Will we end up as an oppressed minority?

If we do, I don't think we will be getting much sympathy from our do-gooding, lefty friends. We aren't 'colourful' enough.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 11 February 2008 6:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh, you already exist in a minority, sad lonely men whose only connection to the world is dependent on how they attempt to re-create themselves as intellectual giants here. If what you offer us here on OLO is the best you have, I'd hate to think what you're really like in the flesh. Scary or what!
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 11 February 2008 8:37:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I think you make some ridiculous statements above. No, there is not one tertiary institution in a remote area for the simple reason that they need to be near populations, and since a tertiary campus needs to have at least a thousand students, preferably five or ten thousand in order to be able to offer a minimal range of subjects, and since about four percent of the population is involved in higher education, if you do the maths, the minimum size for a catchment area of a university campus is about twenty five thousand people, preferably two hundred and fifty thousand. Curse the world if you like, but that's how it is everywhere.

The only place I can think of where the government built a university campus out in the sticks was Fort Hare in South Africa, under the Apartheid regime, specifically designed to keep Black populations away from the cities, and the new South African government has been trying to dismantle this instrument of racism ever since. But you would want to build them all over Australia ? And what - confine Indigenous students' choices to these out-of-the-way institutions ? Who's the racist ?

All university campuses in Australia are available to al Indigenous people. And twenty two thousand have graduated so far from them, that's twenty two thousand Indigenous people who would tell you what to do with your universities out in ther sticks. Fifty thousand by 2020. Do you want to respond with some racist crap about 'Western' education ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 11 February 2008 9:24:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

God good if some of my statements are ridiculous some of yours vary from simplistic to downright offensive.

You've ignored the overall thrust of my post to concentrate on just one aspect. The construction of a University in the sticks might be unrealistic and unworkable but this is the communication age and while you are stuck with 'down the line thinking' I'm much more immaginative and think laterally ... more often than not.

Anyway besides being focused only on tertiary education can you possibly address the other examples I used or even try to address the broader issue raised.

I shouldn't be left to think such a broad focus might be too difficult for you.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 6:44:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Do you understand how racist such an institution could be, how easily it could fit into a new policy of exclusion ? Didn't you pick up anything in my reference to South Africa ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 8:01:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith

“Education services, health services, policing in remote communities are funded well below the levels of the cities.”

On what parameter?

“There is not one tertiary institution in any remote area of Australia.”
“There is not one hospital in any of our remote communities.”
“Employment opportunites are almost non-existant and business development funding in remote communities is also almost non-existant.”

Those are matters of social critical mass.

Not every hamlet or is next to a Coles or Safeway.

Not every township is adjacent to or has its own hospital.

I would note the flying doctor service does not operate in urban Melbourne or Sydney.

If people want the services expected from large towns and cities, they have the free choice to move to them.

I do support the ideas of decentralization, particularly in the development of say new towns or the expansion of small towns into larger ones. It works for all people a lot better than the continued expansion of Melbourne or Sydney but when developing a hospital network one has to consider not only the building but the requirement to staff it and not many doctors or nurses want to live in a remote community.

“Not one person in a remote Indigenous community has the same right as you to land ownership.”

They do if they live where I live and can afford the mortgage.

Leigh “Will we end up as an oppressed minority”

We know, Leigh, we will be dead before being oppressed.

It is folk like you, yabby (and I ) who stand up for individual rights in the face of the mob of socialist thought police and levelers who, through small mindedness, think the state should run everything on behalf of no one.

It is you and I who get told we should be banned because the despots of the left are threatened by the merit of our thoughts and ability to articulate.

Rainier “minority” Leigh is an individual of one. Me too

As dearest Margaret said

“There is no such thing as Society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 9:41:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It is you and I who get told we should be banned because the despots of the left are threatened by the merit of our thoughts and ability to articulate".

I'm rolling around on the ground laughing, oh my stomach hurts...

Please Rusty Col, no more, no more, I beseech you!

Your comedic talent is second to none!

Keep them coming old son, keep them coming!

You're wasted here, you should do stand up, perhaps a ventriloquist act with Leigh sitting on your lap!!?? LOL!
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 12 February 2008 9:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On subjects such as this, the debate is far too polarised for any meaningful progress to me made. Time for a quote:

"In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."

Here's hoping that we're in for a real change (you can call it "levelling" if you like, Col).
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 10:06:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP” Here's hoping that we're in for a real change (you can call it "levelling" if you like, Col).”

As dearest Margaret Said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

RobP you might think there is something special in “leveling”, you might even think it represents “change”.

What it really means is people are repressed, disbarred, through the authority of the state from aspiring to their full individual potential.

The Cromwellian levelers pursued such strategies and in the end Cromwell was dug up and posthumously beheaded.

So leveling now will be no different to leveling 350 years ago. All you get is mediocrity, indifference, indolence and the bland lifestyle associated with fundamentalist Puritanism, “socialism” in a word.

I further recall the trade union movement consistently posture one of the most entrenched views for maintaining the status quo. I also recall that in UK Margaret Thatcher, first female prime minister of UK and from the right of politics imposed massive changes, cleaning out the nationalized industry sheltered workshops of socialist incompetence.

Change has never phased me. Simply because, change always represents opportunity for the innovative.

However saying “sorry” and pandering to parochial interests of indolent malcontents is nothing new.

It is no different to Neville Chamberlains “peace” agreement in Munich in 1938.

Appeasement has never resolved anything, it only gave false assurances to the feeble minded.

Rainier laugh all you want, you have tried everything else including bullying and demands for me to be banned. Do you really think you will succeed with sarcasm?

Trust me, you will not.

But do not let me discourage you. The more you try, the more pathetic you show yourself to be.

I like it, the cloistered academic failing to prevail over this common man.

Btw how much of an aborigine are you?

A full blood of half, quarter or was your mum just frightened by a face at the window when you were being conceived?
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 12:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge: "Btw how much of an aborigine are you?

A full blood of half, quarter or was your mum just frightened by a face at the window when you were being conceived"

You really are an offensive, racist bastard aren't you Col?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 12:32:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

You are simply a racist. To call you a bastard elevates you.

Keith Kennelly
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 1:06:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any chance of getting back to the topic and reasonable, civil discussion ? There is more at stake over this critical issue than a few petty egos.
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 3:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Coogeegal.

I recently had an experience that prompted me to mull over a few tough questions. An Indiginous lady I work with made comments last week which seemed to indicate to me that she would like an apology from me.

We have gotten on well for a long time. I was forced to question whether or not some people who identify with being indiginous believe that all people of British descent are guilty of something ( I'm sure there are some that are, just as there are some anglo-saxon people who dress in white gowns and hoods and set fire to crosses - both of these lots are hopefully a small minority).

I am happy to say that it appears I misinterperated what she said as it was not mentioned again. We talked about all sorts of things today but not about the apology.

I do hope some important progress was made today, if only symbolic. I think it would be a good thing for indiginous ceremony to be included in the opening of parliament from now on in recognition of the first Australians. The opening is all about symbolism of English history after all.
Posted by Fozz, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 8:58:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"RobP you might think there is something special in “leveling”, you might even think it represents “change”."

So what do you call yesterday's speech by Rudd to the Stolen Generations? It was a great leveller if ever there was one. Do you perchance have a view on whether this represented a healing process and, as such, a positive thing to do for Aboriginals?

Of course, there is a time to even things up and of course it is a form of change. Not to everyone equally, but to some people at least. The great thing about the speech was that even libertarians like yourself shouldn't have been bothered by it.
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 14 February 2008 11:24:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan “You really are an offensive, racist bastard aren't you Col?”

No, my parents were married.

So, did yours jump over the broom stick or were you simply spawned and left for the pond water to do the rest?

Keith Kennelly “You are simply a racist. To call you a bastard elevates you.”

Ah Keith how self righteous of you to comment.

Because I ask someone, who claims to be aboriginal and because I know a lot of “aboriginals” are not 100% aboriginal, due to the natural process of inter-ethnic marriage/coupling and because I am English, the mongrel race of Anglos/Saxons/Romans/Celts/Normans and Jews etc., an individuals “ethnic diversity” is of interest to me.

Asking such a question no more “racist” than an interest in anthropology is “racist”

The only folk who would find it so are those who are hiding a dark side of themselves, so dark, they are ashamed of their own baseness.

However, I see you and CJ Morgan both comment in the defensive, so I take it you share the level which CJ Morgan generally aspires to, the same baseness of character which qualifies as racist pond life.

RobP “It was a great leveller if ever there was one.”

A minority section of a society which demands the public apology of the majority of a society is the opposite of “leveling”. It is at best appeasement. The sort of action which panders to the worst characteristics of folk and ultimately fails to resolve the problem.

In that sense, it is typically socialist in construct: it requires huge amounts of effort and resources, grandiose speeches by political potentates, saddles the tax payer with an increased burden and obviously, actually delivers nothing to the intended recipients

Neville Chamberlain failed to produce the “peace in our time” which he claimed in 1938 when he tried to appease Hitler.

This appeasing effort of Krudds will not reduce the fraudulent clamor for institutionalized, ethnically biased, cargo culture payments, to be financed by ordinary Australian tax payers.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 14 February 2008 5:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col (last line) I hope you are wrong. I'll wait a few years before passing judgement on that one.
Posted by Fozz, Thursday, 14 February 2008 9:00:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, as a fairly recent immigrant you should make more effort to assimilate into Australian culture. When Australians refer to someone as a bastard, we're generally not talking about whether or not their parents were married. Rather, we are referring colloquially to

"an unpleasant or despicable person or thing" (Concise Macquarie Dictionary).

Further, Aboriginality in Australia is a question of being of Aboriginal descent and being accepted as such by an Aboriginal community. "Percentages" of Aboriginal "blood" don't come into it - you're either Aboriginal or you're not. If you weren't so deliberately obtuse in your racist sophistry, you might be aware that this was the very issue that gave rise to the Stolen Generations, to whom the Prime Minister apologised yesterday. You may profess to have an interest in anthropology, but your understanding of the subject wouldn't earn you the barest pass in an introductory unit in any reputable university.

Your understanding of history is similarly flawed. Hitler was as much a socialist as John Howard was a liberal. Just because some egomaniacal prick latches on to a popular political label doesn't mean that they actually understand or support the ideology from which they attempt to glean credibility. Your very selective application of the notion of libertarianism to your own odious philosophies comes to mind - what's your take on recreational drug use again?

Lastly, Maggie Thatcher is about as attractive politically to most Australians as her beloved General Pinochet - i.e. totally irrelevant. Your continual obsequious references to her with reference to Australian political discussions only underlines how little you understand your adopted country.

Wouldn't you be happier in the Falklands or somewhere?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 14 February 2008 9:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A minority section of a society which demands the public apology of the majority of a society is the opposite of “leveling”. It is at best appeasement. The sort of action which panders to the worst characteristics of folk and ultimately fails to resolve the problem."

Col, you always pick out examples that best sell your case. Sure there is a minority out there that clamours for an apology and sure they are often self-serving. That's the bit on the surface. However, for everything on the surface, there's something else completely different going on underneath. There are many ordinary Aboriginals (the majority of them) who have been detrimentally affected by many of the actions of Western culture. These ordinary people, who never did any injustice to anyone else, are the real beneficiaries of Rudd's apology. And to that extent, I think the apology serves a real and useful purpose.

You have professed a liking for libertarianism. Taking this to its logical end, what's your view on the fact that the colonisation of Australia has led to the loss of hunting grounds and space to move for Aboriginals in their way of life. Once upon a time, they were at liberty to roam wherever they liked with a spear and hunt the local fauna. Since the advent of white man, however, they have been told that they can't go here and can't do that (at risk of once being shot or now of being locked up). Now I'm not expecting anyone to become like Aboriginals or talk down Western development, but the fact is that the way of life of Indigenous people has been irrevocably changed by force. It's a pretty hard thing to cop if that's all they have ever known.
Posted by RobP, Saturday, 16 February 2008 3:04:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just on that last point, about hunter-gatherers not being allowed etc., no, the law in most if not all States was that, all pastoral leases had to contain the clause:

“ And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made. ”

So no terra nullius. It was not law. In law, people had far more rights than people realise even now. Of course, there were massacres. Of course the law was not observed. Of course, many of us are descended from brutal criminals. But it was the law. And what did that last phrase mea
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 16 February 2008 3:41:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just on that last point, about hunter-gatherers not being allowed etc., no, the law in most if not all States was that, all pastoral leases had to contain the clause:

“ And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made. ”

So no terra nullius. It was not law. In law, people had far more rights than people realise even now. Of course, there were massacres. Of course the law was not observed. Of course, many of us are descended from brutal criminals. But it was the law. And what did that last phrase mean ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 16 February 2008 3:41:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

The totality of Aboriginal experience between about 1770 and 2007 was what I was referring to when I said that they weren't/aren't allowed to do the things they once did. The State law you quoted shows that there were some enlightened individuals in power. As we all know, however, in the real world possession is nine-tenths of the law and the ones that can utilise "guns, germs and steel" have a formidable advantage.

In the last phrase I was trying to say that, for Aboriginals, the stresses involved in the sudden change in their way of life would have been painful and difficult to deal with. It's probably a big factor in why they took the path toward welfare dependency.
Posted by RobP, Sunday, 17 February 2008 1:09:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ Morgan “we're generally not talking about whether or not their parents were married.”

Would you like me to apologise for interpreting your application of English correctly, instead of interpreting it based on your own bastardized colloquialism?

“you're either Aboriginal or you're not.”

So since my daughter was born on Australian soil, I take it she is “aboriginal” ?

If not, how many generations of white settlement are we going to use to define “aboriginality”

If you wish to tell me the child of a aboriginal and first fleet settler who grew up and mated with an English soldier whose offspring then mated with a china man, their child then mated with a Maori the progeny of which coupled with a Scottish migrant is

100% aboriginal

“regressive genes” argues against you.

“Just because some egomaniacal prick latches on to a popular political label”

we could be talking about Lenin or Stalin, Brezhnev, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung as well as Hitler.

Regardless of the “political label” the results were the same except whilst Hitler outranked Lenin in the death count, Stalin eclipsed Hitler by a factor of three.

“very selective application of the notion of libertarianism to your own odious philosophies comes to mind”

How many “dead” are you going to claim stain the hands of “libertarianism”?

“our continual obsequious references to her with reference to Australian political discussions only underlines how little you understand your adopted country.”

Just to disappoint you, I have already contributed to the Australian gene pool and my daughters are, politically, exactly like me (not that I educated them that way, they reasoned it for themselves)

Like they say, strength through diversity. My contribution to Australian politics is as valid as yours even though mine is far better researched and reasoned. I rely less on the limp, emotional drivel and inferiority complex which permeates every post you make.

Although you have convinced me, through lack of reasoning and reliance on the purely emotive, you and rainier are “analytically” inferior and it has nothing to do with “race”.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 17 February 2008 7:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP,

This is my point: rights to use land WERE recognised in law, if not in fact. The clause was still in pastoral leases in the late 1980s, less than fifteen years ago, perhaps until the late nineties; but, because every idiot thought that terra nullius was the law, they als othought thatthey had nothing to negotiate over, i.e. they had nothing to begin with - when actually they did. So, at least down here in SA, people negotiated away rights that they already had. So now, in 2008, Aboriginal people have to go through a comittee to travel on land which they used to have an unrestricted right to use, in law, until well into the nineties, barely ten years ago.
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 February 2008 9:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"My contribution to Australian politics is as valid as yours even though mine is far better researched and reasoned."

Col, Col Col, stop pulling yourself old son. You'll go blind! You wouldn't know critical analysis and academic research methods - even if it bit you on the bum.

As for your contribution to Australian politics - tell us just what it is?

Please note that the following cannot be counted as substantive contributions.

1. Writing bombastic comments here on OLO
2. Idolising an Ugly ex British Prime minister
3. Being a salesman and or bean counter.(or both)
4. Leaving Britain and pretending to be gentrified Australian.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 17 February 2008 9:24:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stick to the bean counting Col. You're not fooling anybody but yourself.

Have you been resident in Australia long enough to know what we mean when we refer to some whining immigrant as a "Pommie bastard"?

And your daughters could only be Aboriginal if you'd "mated" with an Aboriginal woman, but for some reason I doubt that's the case.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 17 February 2008 9:40:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

Fair enough. In a way, though, it could have been better that Aboriginals in the past did not exercise their land rights in law, as bigger forces would probably have legislated away their rights to the land anyway.
Posted by RobP, Monday, 18 February 2008 12:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not at all, it was clear from the 'Royal Commission into the Aborigines' in 1899 in SA that pastoral tenants were aware of, and did not seem to have worries about, the right of Aborigjnal people to come onto etc. the land that they had leased. And that Aboriginal people freely did just that. Only later, and I fear after 1972 to be more precise, people swallowed the convenient notion that the yhad no rights, that terra nullius was law, when it actually wasn't. What the hell were those shyster lawyers doing when they 'assisted' Aboriginal people in their negotiations over land rights ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 February 2008 4:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy