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 > Assimilation v self-determination > Comments

Assimilation v self-determination : Comments

By Mike Dockery, published 20/2/2009

Must Indigenous people give up their culture to 'close the gap' and improve their socio-economic status?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
This article merely presents us with more “findings”.

Self-determination is a crock. Black Australians living outside the mainstream simply cannot exist without the huge amounts of money that have been wasted on them in the past, and are still being wasted on them.

Immigrants from cultures different from the mainstream have continued to maintain their cultures, without cost to the economy, while still participating in mainstream work, housing and the laws of the land.

It’s time all the rhetoric about “findings”, special needs and other nonsense was stopped. Black Australians should be required to get off their backsides and do something for themselves. They can live as they wish, but they must stop expecting the rest of us to pay for it; and our useless politicians must stop doing the paying.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 20 February 2009 10:46:53 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
The problem can also be seen as the integration of Western society into indigenous culture.

In the language of the previous comment, non-indigenous Australians should be required to get off their backsides and do something for themselves by way of achieving equity between women and men, with a Republic with provision for women's legislatures alongside men's legislatures to reconcile indigenous with non-indigenous decision-making.
Posted by whistler, Friday, 20 February 2009 11:12:24 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
This reference describes the nature of the technocratic "culture" that now dominates the world.

And how it has inevitably destroyed (or would destroy) ALL other ways of being in the world.

http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/bridge_to_god/index2.html

Assimilate or die!
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 20 February 2009 11:28:20 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
One thing on which all parties are agreed is that trying to solve indigenous problems by policy has been ‘a dismal failure’. Yet the author then goes right ahead with the same old assumption underlying the chronic problems, which is that more officious meddling must be the solution. The question is whether the particular form of intervention should be this, or that. It doesn’t seem to occur to him to leave people alone, stop trying to force others to sacrifice their values to his, and that the indigenous people of this country would have been, and would be better off in the absence of race-based laws and policies. This would enable those who desire self-determination to pursue it, and those who desire integration to pursue it, without someone else’s opinions being imposed on either, with those sympathetic to either option to support it without being hindered by government, and without people who don’t agree being forced to fund these dopey and destructive policies.

People should have rights because they are human beings, not because they belong two a particular racial group. Race-based laws are bad in principle and bad in practice. They assume either that Aboriginal people are too pathetic to have the liberty and responsibility of ordinary human beings, or that they are nature's aristocrats, entitled to special privileges at others' expense.

Australia's race-based laws and policies should be abolished.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 20 February 2009 1:01:25 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
"Maximising wellbeing, after all, should be what policy is about."

This assumes that policy *is capable of* maximising wellbeing. The assumption is based on a fallacy. Policy as a means is not capable of achieving the end of maximising wellbeing. That's not what it is, and it's not what it's for.

Political power derives from a claim of a monopoly of the legal use of force. It's about power. It's about A taking from B and giving to A, or to A's political favourites.

In transactions based on force or threats, including taxation, the stronger party takes from

Policy only *appears* to be capable of maximising wellbeing if you ignore the costs. But obviously if you ignore the costs, anything will appear beneficial, not matter how vain, destructive or anti-social it is. For anyone to receive without working, someone else must work without receiving. That's the part that's missing from your analysis. You haven't considered the ethics, and the value, and what benefits might have been with the wealth that is confiscated to pay for your schemes.

What you are suggesting is fundamentally unethical, and that is the root cause why these racist schemes have failed so badly in practice.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Friday, 20 February 2009 7:31:48 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
At last. A subject worth making a deeply thoughtout comment on.

Culture & Australia. Assimilation v Self-determination.

Over many years (I'm 63 & from Nth. Qld originally) of shifting loyalties & listing to the media & indigeonous hype. I have come to a conclusion. Most Social professors at any University are airheads (or intentionaly blonde.) Aboriginal activists look after their own interests only. The general population that get involved in these arguements are fanatics on one side or the other, stired up by the Media or Aboriginal Activists. None of them have any interest in solving the problem in any way, shape or form. Their only interest is to further their own careers.

The Media show pretty pictures of bush Aboriginals & we all go "Ahh..." then they show the riots in Redfern & we all go "bastards."

There-in lies the problem. Professors, Polititions, Social Do-Gooders, Aboriginal Activists & the Fanatics on all side are stiring up & manipulating the emotions of ordinary people. It's called the Opera Game. We get told when to go Aw..., Ohh..., or Ahh.. It has become expected behaviour & ordinary people fall for it every time. I was one of those people in the TV studio that held up the "Ohh/Ahh" board a long time ago.

Bush Aboriginals & Town Aboriginals. There is a difference. A big difference. The bush ones claim want all the benifits of the town but want to live following their 50000 year old customs. The town ones want to live a modern life but want claim the right to live their culture. Then they all want to be treated equal, both Town & Bush & Modern Culture. It can't be done. It must be one or the other.
Con't
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 20 February 2009 7:42:00 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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