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 > Can Australia afford not to be reconciled? > Comments

Can Australia afford not to be reconciled? : Comments

By Patrick Dodson, published 3/12/2010

Patrick Dodson's reflections on the way forward for indigenous Australians

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All
It's good to see people promoting B.U.G.S and The Mantra instead of White Genocide.
Talisman, in your opinion Ol'Bob whaitaker is a racist loon, you're just saying that because he's White.
Abe "Foxy" Foxman talks about an ongoing Genocide against his people but nobody calls him a Racist Loon.
There's no need for anyone to "fiddle" with the definition of Genocide laid down by the U.N, it's broadly defined and open ended for a reason, that reason is there should be zero tolerance for the most heinous of crimes against humanity.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 11 December 2010 11:50:59 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
@Joe.
There's no need to embellish my posts, they're clear and explicit.
I stand by my posting record on this site as a supporter of any efforts toward Reconciliation between White and Indigenous Australians.
That's the thing about Genocide by assimilation, it never achieves it's aim and it leaves a huge mess for succeeding generations.
White people have tried to stop Aboriginal genocide from day one, they ended African slavery in Europe and the Americas, they tried to stop the deportation of Jews from the Third Reich. It stands to reason that the same character would be shown by some of us in relation to the genocide of the White peoples of Europe, just as it is typical of a certain type of White person to condone and even facilitate crimes against humanity.
I'm asking people to take a side, Pro White or Pro white Genocide, such a stance in no way precludes involvement in any other acts of solidarity or reconciliation with people of other races.
From my point of view my Pro White stance enables me to better understand other races because I can understand racial ways of thinking and understanding.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 11 December 2010 12:33:36 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
Jay,

With the greatest respect, I don't think you understand anything much at all.

In the interests of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, indeed between all Australians, I am 100 % for reconciliation, for free and open interaction between individuals from groups (if you wish, you can call that 'assimilation').

I am 100 % pro-human. I believe in freedom, choice and the brotherhood of all humankind. This necessarily includes the freedom and choice to mix with and fall in love with whoever you like, marry who you like and have kids (and grandkids) by whoever you like.

If that somehow fits your definition of genocide, then welcome to Earth, my alien friend. When are you going back ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 11 December 2010 12:54:45 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
gobsmacked on Friday, 3 December 2010 at 3:08:58 PM, said:

"What '67 achieved was not a vote for a relationship
as Dodson characterises it. It was much more practical
than that. It essentially provided the head of power
for the Commonwealth to make laws and it provided for
Aboriginal people to be counted in the census."

The concluding phrase of this statement betrays a common (and, from memory, deliberately cultivated) misconception as to the now-removed Section 127 of the Constitution having prevented the counting of aboriginal persons in the census. It never did.

The Year Book Australia for 1971 expressly states, on page 136 under the heading 'The Aboriginal Population of Australia' that "Aborigines have been enumerated in all censuses of the Commonwealth, ... ".

It should be noted that there exists a difference in meaning between 'not being counted in a census', and "reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth" as expressed in the now repealed Section 127 of the Constitution, the full wording of which is shown in my post of Monday, 6 December 2010 at 8:55:49 AM. The latter expression relates to the content of Section 89 (ii.) (b), a transitional provision of the Constitution, which uses the term 'number of its people' in the expression of a formula for debiting to each State, proportionally, some of the expenditure of the Commonwealth incurred in the collection of customs revenues immediately after Federation.

It is claimed that Section 127 was placed in the Constitution at Federation as a necessary safeguard for the State of South Australia, within the then Northern Territory of which resided the bulk of the aboriginal population of Australia, a population that played little if any part in the commerce upon which customs duties were at that time collected. Without Section 127 in the Constitution, South Australia may not have agreed to Federation.

This 'counting of aboriginals' aspect of the 1967 referendum has an interesting sidelight that may well illuminate some possible whitefella electoral accountancy mischief around that period.

TBC
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Saturday, 11 December 2010 3:09:22 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
@ Joe.
I don't call solidarity or a desire for reconciliation between Indigenous Australians and White people "assimilation"and only I call assimilation Genocide when it's forced upon people against their will or by deceitful means.
Aboriginal people had no choice in the importation of millions of non indigenous people into their homelands post 1788.
The indigenous people of Europe similarly have no choice in the importation of millions of non Europeans into their homelands post 1945.
It's the same thing, the same method of genocide being used by the same Anglo Elite and it's having the same gruesome consequences.
All the Mantra does is expose a pattern of behaviour among what has come to be known as "The West", the extreme, supremacist, ethnocentric Anglo elite which is destroying our peoples, our environment and our biodiversity.
The Mantra also leads one to the conclusion that there are always consequences for promoting Genocide, even for the most tangential or seemingly inconsequential involvement.
I posted before that I'm not convinced of your stated enthusiasm for a "coffee coloured" future because your internet persona at least takes a moral and ethical position on other matters.
I and my "White Supremacist" colleagues just point out the obvious, you can't mourn one genocide and condone or deny another, it's neither ethical nor moral.
The indigenous people of Europe and by extension Diaspora Whites such as you and I are being forced by the states in which we live to assimilate.
A state is nothing more than a monopoly on the use of force, if Chancellor Merkel is telling Germans that Multiculturalism has failed and that assimilation is the only way forward that constitutes a forceful act.
Does it not?
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Saturday, 11 December 2010 10:22:01 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
Continued

A Footnote to the 1967 Referendum

The notes to a spreadsheet tabulation showing Australian electoral enrolment levels for the years 1947 to 1987, contained within a submission (No.123) to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the conduct of the 2004 Federal elections titled 'Australia - Aggregate Enrolment Levels 1947 - 1987' shed some interesting light upon the operation of Section 127 of the Constitution, so far as the counting of aboriginal persons in censuses was concerned, prior to its repeal in 1967.

The specific note was that to Cell C27 of the spreadsheet, titled 'Disregarding the Constitution?'. It can be found at page 21 of the PDF document that constitutes Submission 123, a document downloadable by clicking that submission in the list of submissions reachable here: http://bit.ly/h5ni9J

It appears from that note that there had been an after-the-event arbitrary increase made to the 1961 Census count in 1974.

The note concluded with these questions:

"Was the 1974 arbitrary increase of the 1961
Census count by 40,114 an attempt at cover-up
of the imagined unsanctioned inclusion of
Aboriginal persons in the population estimates
prior to the 1967 Referendum? Did it perhaps
confuse total population numbers with eligibility
within that population? Did it also conveniently
serve to inflate the national population estimates
sufficiently to conceal a situation of over-
enrolment that may have been known, at least
in some quarters, to exist in late 1961?"

It would seem that there might exist a need for all Australians to reconcile as to whether such after-the-event alterations to a census count as claimed in this study were in fact 'whitefella' electoral accountancy mischief, and if so whether the 'whitefellas' instigating and/or intending to benefit from such came from within, or outside of, Australia. It is very hard to imagine, from the population numbers, that 'blackfellas' could have been behind anything of the nature hinted at by the notes.

Could the same putative 'whitefella' interests be behind the current proposal to alter the Preamble at referendum?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Sunday, 12 December 2010 11:19:42 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. All

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