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 > General Discussion > Tears in the Fabric of 'Recognition' ?

Tears in the Fabric of 'Recognition' ?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
With only fourteen months to a possible 'Recognition' referendum, on top of a plebiscite on homosexual marriage, it's possible that, in that time, the expressly aspirations of many Indigenous people and of other Australians will massively diverge.

Non-Indigenous Australians may be willing to support reference to Indigenous people in the Preamble to the Constitution, perhaps even to get rid of Section 18c, but may baulk at Noel Pearson's suggestion of a de facto third House of Parliament, of Elders elected or chosen by Indigenous people with no input by the vast majority of Australians.

On the other hand, many Indigenous people may consider that even Noel Pearson's suggestion of an extra parliamentary house of review is too little – many won't be satisfied with anything less than the recognition of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Indigenous 'nations' across the country, the signing of a Treaty between Indigenous people (or their representatives) and other Australians, and/or the recognition of Indigenous Sovereignty over all of Australia – effectively, a recognition that Indigenous people should be paid rent by non-Indigenous people for the use of their land, into the future.

Perhaps sixteen million Australian would be able to vote in the 'Recognition ' Referendum, almost half of whom were either born overseas or have a parent born overseas. That huge population is not going to feel particularly guilty about what is supposed to have happened long before they or their ancestors arrived here. And they will be the least likely to wear the term 'racist' if they don't support whatever is decided on as the Referendum question (or questions). Ironically, it may well be guilt-ridden Anglo-Australians who come out and vote for more extreme demands.

So there may be a large space across which proponents of minimalist and maximalist positions will need to carefully and respectfully negotiate with each other, if the referendum is to even get off the ground.

So given the complexity of the debates desperately needed between now and May 27th next year, where do people stand ? What are Australians, such as yourself, dear reader, prepared to support ?
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 10:57:28 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
Dear Joe,

I am prepared to support it all:

A third house of review, a fourth house of review, a fifth house of review - whatever paralyses the parliament and government, I welcome.

I also would welcome the breaking of Australia into hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Indigenous 'nations`, because this will allow more individual freedoms: if one finds the laws of one such `nation' too oppressive, then they could migrate to another, thus those indigenous 'nations` will need to compete among them in order to attract good and productive people.

As you rightly observed, being born overseas, I do not feel guilty for what happened long before my times, as Anglo-Australians may. Yet by the same token, I have no reason to preference the Anglo invaders over the original people of this land.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 1:43:24 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
with African, bikie, middle eastern and Islander gangs running amuck in this nation I would prefer no further division. Are we going to recognise the British as the second people and the Italians (or whoever third) people. This is all nonsense.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 March 2016 2:15:30 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
I don't think the recognition "debate" matters much to anybody at all, indigenous people included, and is only an issue for a handful of elitists. It doesn't have the same moral or social significance as the 1967 referendum and is a distraction at best.

People are more concerned with the detail of their everyday lives and the outcome of such a referendum will not affect them in any way whatsoever - now or in the future.

Likewise the marriage equality plebiscite is really a stalling tactic at best and could have already been resolved.

There is enough division in society already without creating new ones.
Posted by rache, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 7:54:43 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
Thanks for those comments.

Wow, 3:0. So 'Recognition' is seen by some as divisive ? Isn't it supposed to bring people together ?

So you wouldn't vote for Indigenous Sovereignty at a Referendum then ?

Then how about a Treaty between a federal government representing all Australians, and a political entity, yet to be defined, representing some Australians ?

Or recognition of 'nations' ?

Yuyutsu, since 'nations; are basically family-based, as the primary landholding group, then one cannot ever 'migrate' from one to another: one is born into an extended family or clan, as the landholding group, usually the paternal ancestor's, and while it is possible to move to one's mother's country, or to one's father's mother's country, you can't just go and live in somebody else's country.

Of course, perhaps Warren Mundine's concept of 'nation' is not confined to an extended family or clan, as the landholding group, but to a collection of clans - perhaps a dialect group, or even an entire 'tribe'. Traditionally, there were eight dialect groups, and about 120 clans, within the Ngarrindjeri 'tribe' on the lower Murray, for example.

Since there were around five hundred 'tribes' in pre-European times, each jealously guarding its territory and jurisdiction, agreements would have to be made by any state or national government with each of the 'tribes' within its boundaries, and probably between many of the 'tribes' as well.

But first, Indigenous people themselves would have to track back and identify which particular 'nation' or clan or 'tribe' they claimed some identity with. That might be a dog's breakfast. What if, on the one hand, many Indigenous people are not the slightest bit interested, or on the other hand, wish to claim multiple affiliations ?

It's a tragedy that whoever thought up this 'Recognition' idea didn't anticipate and articulate some of these issues early on, instead of throwing one word up in the air: 'Recognition'. Of what ? Perhaps it's not yet too late.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 10:18:49 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
Dear Joe,

<<Wow, 3:0. So 'Recognition' is seen by some as divisive?>>

Why 3:0?

That much the three of us seem to agree, that the suggested acts (3rd house of parliament / division into small states) would/will be divisive - yet here we depart: I consider a division of the Australian people to be positive whereas my learned colleagues see it negatively, thus if the question of sovereignty comes up in a referendum, then I'll vote for it while they would vote against.

I admit that, having been born overseas, I have no particular interest in the aboriginal society and [whatever still exists of] their tribal structures - so my vote in favour would be plainly opportunistic.

As per your latest suggestion of "a Treaty between a federal government representing all Australians, and a political entity, yet to be defined", I suspect that it would further legitimise the federal government (which does not represent me in any way!), so I would be likely to vote against it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 16 March 2016 12:51:42 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
What is to be gained by this for both politicians and indigenous people?
I cant see the government giving up any power, and I'm not sure what potential gains indigenous people will get.

Is it just symbolic, or is there more to it?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:33:35 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
Hi Yuyutsu,

Okay, 2: 1, with the '1' in favour of almost anything which would break up State power and bring about a suitable level of utter chaos: Gramscianism on steroids.

But your mention of 'small states' raises the possibility that Noel Pearson's proposal for an unelected third House of Parliament would have to include the state and NT parliaments - with those unelected 'members' on full salaries. Sweet, for some.

Okay, if recognising some sort of Indigenous sovereignty across Australia, and all of the rest of us paying rent into the distant future, is not a goer, and a Treaty with five hundred 'nations' (first proposed, I recall, forty years ago), seems a bit unworkable, and extra houses of parliament stacked with unelected members (for life ?) seems a bit undemocratic, then what about starting at the other end:

* mention of Indigenous people in the Preamble to the Constitution;:

Should such an addition to the Preamble include reference to the preservation of Indigenous cultures and languages, or be more general ?

If referring to cultures and languages, etc., does this mean in all schools ? If 'languages', should government documents and TV programs etc. be translated into Indigenous languages ? Not all five hundred of course, but just, say fifty ?

And if Indigenous cultures are mandated for schools, should all Indigenous kids be pulled out of classes - yet again - in the name of 'social inclusion' ? i.e. be excluded from, say. maths classes, in the name of 'Indigenous culture' ? [Yes, I've known it to happen.] i.e. exclusion in the name of inclusion: Orwell would be proud.

Or just stick to cleaning up Section 8 (c) ? To drop 'offend' and 'insult', for example ?

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 17 March 2016 8:13:49 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
Dear Joe,

<<But your mention of 'small states' raises the possibility that Noel Pearson's proposal for an unelected third House of Parliament would have to include the state and NT parliaments>>

Wait, it's either-or: you can't have a third house of parliament once Australia has already been divided into hundreds/thousands of smaller (indigenous) states.

<<* mention of Indigenous people in the Preamble to the Constitution;:>>

I would not vote for this one since it would make the Australian constitution appear more legitimate.
(again, not because I have anything against the indigenous people of Australia)

<<Or just stick to cleaning up Section 8 (c) ? To drop 'offend' and 'insult', for example ?>>

Why do that? Surely the owner of a place should be able to set the ground-rules there. Looking at this section (18c, I presume, not 8c), I see a problem with the definition of "public" being too inclusive, but as far as those locations that indeed belong to the public go, I see nothing wrong about restricting people's behaviour there so one doesn't offend or insult other members of the public.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2016 11:05:36 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
I will not support it. The fabric was already worn out when big-noting politicians and socialists decided to stitch it up. Another government run by the aboriginal industry and its confidence tricksters? Pig's ribs! We don't want any more of the idiots we are already paying too much for. As for the whole 'indigenous' nonsense, there are no indiginese left: they all died out years ago. If they had been let alone by to live the indigenous way, there would be no trace of them now. Natural law. As it is, we have a few trouble makers (with the help of a few whites and vote - trawling politicians, propping up a group that no longer exists; a few people, many more white than black, looking to take advantage of whitey's stupidity.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:33:48 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
Yuyutsu,

I admire your honesty. But your constant negative opinions of just about everything (e.g the government doesn't represent you, you are not interested in anything that happened before your arrival etc) makes you a miserable old coot, who will never find a place he likes.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 17 March 2016 2:42:47 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 Yuyutsu,

Yeah, I didn't think of that. But there would be very many Indigenous people, or people with some Indigenous ancestry (as I suspect more and more people will describe themselves from now on) who were born in cities (as their parents may have been, and perhaps their grandparents too) and have only the most tenuous links to any particular area, and know even less about even the name of the clan whose land it was/is, i.e. very many people who would not really be interested in 'nations' at all. Of course, they would gammon that they did.

So perhaps more than half of the population with Indigenous ancestry would be as interested in day-to-day politics as any other Australians.

Then there is the problem of 'who represents whom' in a third house of parliament, federal and states'.

As for Section 18 (c), I have no problem with retaining a ban on intentionally 'humiliating, or inciting violence against' any individual or group, but allowing 'offending' and even 'insulting' to stand. Otherwise, where's the fun in being on OLO ?

An old fart like me doesn't have many pleasures :)

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 17 March 2016 3:56:39 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
I'd vote against any proposal for indigenous Australians to be treated any differently to the rest of us, we're supposed to be one nation.

It's time for the Aboriginal Industry to be abolished.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 17 March 2016 4:00:37 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
Dear Joe,

<<Otherwise, where's the fun in being on OLO ?>>

As I said, the definition of "public" in section 18(c) is too inclusive.
OLO should be considered a private club whose sovereign is Graham Young.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2016 4:04:59 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
My sincere wish: that you all read Stan Grant's book 'Talking to My Country' before you comment further.

By 'my country', he means you, me, all Australians.

I could quote from the book, but a single quote would not do it justice. I'll just say, I was truly moved.
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 17 March 2016 4:24:14 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
Stan Grant is not everyone's cup of tea,

http://zanettisview.com/story/50-shades-of-grant/2624
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 17 March 2016 7:58:47 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
Fair enough. But read the book and make up your own mind.

Possibly why it touched me is because it rang true to me, a white women who has worked with Aboriginal communities since the 1970s. I've experienced the spill-over of racism - been followed by the police, physically shoved about by white people etc. The first words I learned in the local language were 'the police are watching us'. I'm aware of the hassles that Italian and Greek migrants had, but it has basically taken just a generation for that to fade. For Aboriginal people it is multiple generations. And while things have improved a lot, there's still a depth of antagonism against Aborigines in some sectors that isn't there against Italians.

Read the book and make up your own mind. Grant is pretty honest about himself and his stumbles and the difficulties he (and others) have in coming to terms with their combined Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal ancestry.

He's not perfect, but who is? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....
Posted by Cossomby, Thursday, 17 March 2016 8:56:23 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
Where were you in the Seventies?

I grew up on farms where Aborigines chose traditional or non-traditional lives and some flexed back and forth. They had complete freedom of movement across properties and worked as they wished. As children my siblings and I never saw any difference and nor did anyone else.

At boarding school there were students from Europe, PNG, Asia and Indigenous of course. Again, I cannot recall any friction or even mild discrimination. In fact, we benefitted in the football and athletics (maybe not having formal birth records might have helped) and as far as scholastic achievements went, the Asian students with their superior early grounding in maths, sciences generally and even in English were a boon.

Frankly I don't know that the patronising 'initiatives' of Whitlam et al did not create the very opposite result to that intended. The self management and the black curtain of self-imposed apartheid immediately gave power, opportunity and cover to bullies in the communities, and corruption and wastage became rife. Public money that was intended for services at the sharp end were gobbled up by the myriad of fleas on fleas, black and white.

There was a host of social workers and other professionals who created problems for the future by (wrongly) experimenting with and applying social change strategies and political activism that had failed or were in the process of failing in the US.

To be frank with you, what was needed at the time was practical skills, especially trades to build some useful infrastructure, including improved communication and transport. -Instead there was an expensive gaggle of social science and political science grads, bureaucrats and in NGOs, eager to stuff around with people's heads, to play politics (US left activist style) and gobble up $millions in the process.

Times haven't changed much and I wonder just how many dollars from the millions allocated each year actually deliver something of practical worth and MEASURABLE at the sharp end.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 17 March 2016 10:49:37 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
In the 70s I was beginning to meet Aboriginal people, and hear the stories of their families. It wasn't till I started working with them in the early 80s that I ran into trouble with the police and racists. I don't actually remember a lot of social workers and activists around at the time.

In spite of (or because of?) those evil professionals, there has been a lot of change for the better in my region - more young people in work, more self-confidence etc. But still too many youth suicides and a fair bit of racism still.

It's good to know you lived in a place where you saw no difference between Aborigines and non-Aborigines. But I wonder did you have any close Aboriginal friends? Visit or play at any Aboriginal homes? And are you sure that they really had 'complete freedom of movement' across all properties?

We could go on all day swapping anecdotes: my story is better than your story - whitefeller perspective.

What you need to do is to read or hear the Aboriginal perspective: to understand what was happening underneath (complete freedom of movement, or complete being moved on?) Start with Stan Grant's book, and I can recommend many others.
Posted by Cossomby, Friday, 18 March 2016 10:27:33 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
Cossomby,

The fact that you had trouble with the police suggests problems in your role and the way it was being exercised.

Your 'whitefeller perspective' sledging is also problematic.

-That was to take a couple of examples.

As for my relations with Aboriginals, the builder who did a fine job on my home might say to you that neither of us saw culture as at all relevant in that decision or in the management of the contract. He is just one of many who don't define themselves by ethnicity or colour.

He sees himself a good earnest man, a great husband and father, a competent builder and a solid friend and citizen, ahead of the black activist stuff borrowed from the US that you and others muck around with and use to earn your daily bread. It is incidental that he is indigenous or that I might come from the very mixed cultures that make up 'whites'. On the construction sites workers are judged by their skills and performance and as always by what manner of a man they are.

From your post it is YOU and others who are creating divisions. You are stereotyping and you are the problem.
Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 18 March 2016 12:29:37 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
Cossomby & OTB,

I listened to Stan Grant on Margaret Throsby's program yesterday and I have to say that I was astonished at his lack of knowledge, and misinformation. I'm not sure where to start.

First, 'terra nullius didn't mean that there were no people here, just that there didn't seem to be a recognisable system of land ownership - 'terra', relationship to land - 'nullius' no recognisable system. OF COURSE every visitor or explorer and his dog recognised that there were people here, from the Dutch to Dampier to Cook.

Right or wrong, pick up any textbook on the history of land tenure and it usually begins - post-hunter-gatherer - at cultivation, famers, agricultural societies, while usufructuary rights, the rights to hunting and foraging on land, is sort of an add-on. Use-rights and ownership rights seem to relate to quite different systems.

And - at least in SA - Aboriginal people were considered to be British subjects from the outset of colonisation - right or wrong - with only the qualification that, since they weren't Christians, they usually couldn't bear witness in courts, not being able to swear on the Bible. Aboriginal men could vote in SA as soon as universal male suffrage was introduced, and Aboriginal women could vote (in 1894) when the suffrage was extended to women in SA, more than twenty years before women got the vote in Britain. So my wife's Aboriginal great-grandmother could vote before my English grandmother.

And so on.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 18 March 2016 1:43:18 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
Commonwealth divides Australians racial tags their measure.

Commonwealth keeps to the Goebbels principle:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

-- Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

In their 1967 Constitutional Referenda Australians cast huge majority, voting overwhelmingly to eliminate government(s) racism from Commonwealth, States and Territories, end racism segregating Australian families.

Commonwealth claims pre 1967 Referenda lack of authority to legislate for Aborigines, did NOT stop Commonwealth doing so, banning Aborigines from entering town, consuming alcohol, receiving wages and equal pay, taking children from families, segregating families, all using word "Aborigine"...

Commonwealth still promotes apartheid with segregation of Australian families.

NOT working for equality of opportunity, Commonwealth wastes billion$ chasing illusions with negligible significant change.

Changes have occurred, more despite Commonwealth than by Commonwealth.

Commonwealth campaigns for one reason, to promote its' ability to divide Australians using racist filters.

Commonwealth NOT about addressing practical issues of disadvantage, rather distracting from these issues, to justify expansion of Commonwealth power...

Commonwealth defends its claim to segregate, separate families using racial identification.

IF Commonwealth serious about addressing practical issues of disadvantage, Commonwealth by now could have High Court determination of the issues.

Commonwealth denies legal aid to prevent judicial determinations, while maintains segregation and separation of families.

Income management is never a stand-alone solution to fixing the underlying problems like alcohol, drug and gambling addictions, poor budgeting skills and financial harassment.

This income management is Commonwealth qualification of our basic rights as Australians using racial identification as the measure, IF not why is income management not starting in Bankstown ?

.
Posted by polpak, Saturday, 19 March 2016 4:39:02 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
Onthebeach: it wasn't a matter of "problems in my role and the way it was being exercised".

In the late 90s, working in rural NSW, I visited an Aboriginal community. My son, back in my Sydney house, phoned me one night: 'Mum, are you alright?' A couple of cops had come to the house looking for me; my car had been seen in the Aboriginal part of the country town and the licence plate check gave the Sydney address. But they gave my son no explanation and he was understandably concerned. Next day I went to the relevant police station and introduced myself. Until then, they had no idea of my 'role' or 'the way it was being exercised'. [In this case, they said they checked out the car to see if it was stolen, which I accept.]

I could go though a long list of other examples, where my role was not known to the police, but the surveillance just seemed to be because I was a white woman visiting Aborigines or travelling with Aborigines (I'm keeping a degree of anonymity about why, but it wasn't social work). Initially I was totally surprised that it happened - naïve - but when I commented, Aboriginal people just said 'happens all the time, you'll get used to it."

I've recently been working with early 20C (1900-1940) archives including Police 'extraneous duty books' (which survive for a few NSW country towns). These were logs of 'extra' police duties such as collector of stock tallies, electoral registrar, and in NSW, Inspector of Aboriginal Camps. The Police logged the movement of Aboriginal people through town: name, age, date, where from, where to, and reason. The police had responsibilities under the Aborigines protection acts and issued rations.

But it must have been like living in a police state, something most ordinary white Australians did not experience (unless they were very poor, or crooks, or striking unionists, etc.). And my personal experience from the 80s and 90s and stories I heard from Aboriginal people, indicate that it has been on-going and so is a multi-generation issue.
Posted by Cossomby, Saturday, 19 March 2016 7:08:22 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
Onthebeach(cont.) As I said originally, I have no quarrel with your positive story about your builder. I have worked with and for quite a while now, often for Aboriginal people, and there's no doubt things have improved out of sight.

My comment about whitefeller perspective was not intended to stereotype anyone, but to point out that while we might have had bad or good experiences and stories to tell, we don't have the family or personal depth of experience that Aboriginal people who lived it have.

Finally,
1. re those 'who don't define themselves by ethnicity or colour', in this area, you may wish not to define yourself as an Aborigine, but you are defined as such by others.

2. 'you and others muck around with activist stuff and use to earn your daily bread.' Who's stereotyping now? You know nothing about me, and in fact you are quite wrong. (Ironically I've been called out by 'activists' for 'sitting on the fence - that is, for being even-handed).
Posted by Cossomby, Saturday, 19 March 2016 7:15:39 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
Joe: You are quite right, Grant and Throsby should have known the meaning of terra nullius. I suspect a lot of people are (still!) confused about this, but as journalists they should get it right.

Land tenure history is interesting - your account is right re most books though there are some that take a more complex view. I find it interesting that a lot of early Australian land policies (at least for NSW / Vic, the areas I know well) were based on the view that pastoralism was to be frowned on, and the push was for closer settlement and agriculture even in wildly unsuitable regions. It's quite significant that the word 'cultivated' means refers to both agriculture and civilised behaviour. Pastoralists and nomadic workers (drovers) were 'uncultivated' in both senses of the word, at least until they made lots of money.

And, yes, SA was always way ahead of the rest of the country - all women got there first.
Posted by Cossomby, Saturday, 19 March 2016 8:58:05 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
Hi Cossomby,

We lived for some years in a 'community' on the Murray, and occasionally young blokes would turn up in very flash cars. They'd drive them around for a while, then do wheelies near a high river bank and when they got tired of that, push them over the edge. Sure enough, the frog squad would turn up and fish them out. One time, the kids pinched a really flash car, maybe a Merc or Volvo, drove it around for a bit then went back to the city and, reportedly, parked it a block away from where they found it. What larks !

Depot ledgers from last century may have been a way of keeping track of people, OR simply a record of what sorts of goods had been provided to whom - it depends on whether one want to tap one's inner paranoia, or simply read the record. After all, if, say, a 15-ft boat was provided to an old bloke on the river, it would be necessary to make sure nobody has pinched it from him and sold it on, or left it abandoned in the reeds - even now, such a boat would cost well over a thousand dollars.

In SA, according to depot ledgers (on my web-site: www.firstsources.info), occasionally if a bloke had a lease of land, at peppercorn rent, he might be supplied with fencing wire and posts, which may cost well in the thousands. The Protector, or later the Protection Board, would have been required to keep track of that sort of expenditure.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 20 March 2016 11:15:01 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
[continued]

By the way, a recent ad from the Queensland Government told of a young woman who had been forced to go to work as a domestic servant when she was fifteen, a century or so ago. Fifteen ? So did everybody. When I went through high school in the fifties, three-quarters of the kids were gone by the time they reached fourteen or fifteen.

And she worked as a domestic ? So ? My wife worked as a domestic in the sixties, as her mother and aunt had done. After all, until the War, what jobs were available for single women ? For middle-class girls: teacher, nurse, governess. For working-class girls: domestic servant or seamstress. And for indigenous women more or less confined to the countryside: domestics. No wonder women married early.

It's funny how we forget that back in those days, social welfare was almost non-existent, anywhere in the world. It's easy to assume that what is available now, has always been available.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 20 March 2016 11:41:08 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
Cossomby, Saturday, 19 March 2016 7:08:22 PM

The police example you gave shows you reacting to 'authority', oppositional even and predisposed to draw negative motivation (on behalf of the police), instead of the reasonable and simple explanation.

To take the example of one of my children's friends who was stopped and questioned by police in a vehicle, while he was walking on a pavement minding his own business.

At the AFL schools comp the following day I happened to be talking with a couple of police parents and as expected, one of them knew the story. She said they (she being one of the two police in the vehicle) had stopped and questioned the youth because it was mid-morning in school term and he looked so disheveled, confused with his school pack over his shoulder. The police were NOT interested in harassing a youth nor a possible drug bust. The police were concerned he looked so lost and depressed.

The simpler, practical explanation is usually right where police are involved. They would much prefer to be relaxed, shooting the breeze with indigenous youth.

Cossomby,

What about trying to foster some communication? The police, especially in those 'hard' areas you frequent (and I'm not sure why your role is so secret) are always trying to build a relationship with indigenous youth in particular and for a good end.

I have helped put at the PCYC in the past and you might encourage indigenous youth to go along. Car some there yourself and be amazed at the positive change and how it multiplies given a chance.
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 20 March 2016 2:01:09 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 Cossomby & OTB,

About Aboriginal people and police. In the early sixties, Aboriginal acquaintances used to come around after six o'clock and get me to go with them to a sly-grog shop, a bloke with a huge fridge in his back-yard.

They could have bought grog at usual prices before closing time (it was legal by then in SA for Aboriginal people to buy grog), but they waited until after closing time, just for the sheer fun of it, even if they had to pay a lot more to the sly-grogger. Hey, I didn't mind, I got free grog out of it, as sort of the cockatoo.

There was a famous sly-grogger down on the community on the Lakes who used to sell over the back fence of the 12,000-acre 'mission'. He ripped them off once and they belted the daylights out of him.

Cat and mouse, which is which ? - the police, and whites generally, may think they are in some sort of control, the masters, that they have absolute power - but not really from the Aboriginal point of view. Sometimes it's all just a delightful game, outwitting the cops, the social worker, etc.

If you think of Aboriginal people as cats, not sheep, or as the Joker - the Monkey in Chinese legend - rather than as puppets, you're nearly there. Don't forget that traditionally, almost everywhere, a favourite pastime was fighting, dodging spears and war boomerangs. What larks !

Cheers,

Joe.
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 20 March 2016 3:48:53 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
What part of Stan Grant is aboriginal? He used to be as white as I am, but his face is now an unusal yellowy-tan colour. Perhaps he has had the same treament as Michael Jackson, but in reverse. Aboriginality, like homosexuality, has become trendy.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 21 March 2016 3:26:51 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
Dear Onthebeach, I love the way you keep falling over backwards to devalue my comments.
Aboriginal people have had a tough time; not just in the past, but recently. I used examples from my own experience to show that I had actually seen it, not just read about it. In my case, I did nothing to antagonise the Police, just innocently walked into a situation where surveillance was the norm - it took me by surprise but the Aboriginal people with me accepted it as routine. In fact it was quite easy for me, a white person, to roll up to the relevant Police station, politely introduce myself and explain what I was doing, as I did on several occasions.
It was and remains harder for Aboriginal people. Here is a quote from Stan Grant:
'It was a fear of what could touch us - the sense of powerless, of being at the mercy of the intrusion of the police or the welfare officers...It was a heavy hand that made people tremble. I see it still in my father ... as he tenses up at the sight of a police car. He has done nothing wrong...We fear the state and have every reason to. The state was designed to scare us."
Here is another example of my "oppositional even and predisposition to draw negative motivation". Some years ago I was doing a project in a small town in western NSW, and got permission, from the regional police office to look at the historic lock-up, on police premises. The local constable was interested in history, and asked if he could go along with me the next day (his day off). When I arrived to pick him up, he looked at my old and ordinary 4WD and said 'shall we take mine?' We had a great field day touring the sites in the classy Police 4WD Toyota, going places (straight uphill!) that I would not have been game to attempt. Go ahead - tell me that this demonstrates my terrible negativity to the Police (sorry, the attitudes on OLO are catching!)
Posted by Cossomby, Monday, 21 March 2016 10:54:13 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
Cossomby,

Police will be where the offences are being committed. Nothing draws them like offences being committed against people. It is unfortunate that police are required to visit the same houses with the same people - colour of skin and ethnicity no barrier - who cannot run their lives without police intervention, direction and some lock-up to help.

SBS's 'Struggle Streets' drew out some of the problematic behaviours and lack of self discipline. Some people are just stupid and wilful. They sabotage themselves and everyone around them, especially the young and easily influenced, if they can.

However, speaking of Indigenous or any other group for that matter, in the same 'burb there will be many others who exist under the same conditions and are not problems. They are just unfortunate to have to put up with what is going on around them. Most set sail out of there as soon as they are able, or help liberate their children. Would that government (you were using government resources no doubt) concentrated on these good citizens to build and multiply their successes.

It is surprising you never got to ride in any of the many new Toyota Landcruisers and Camrys given to indigenous communities and bureaucrats that the taxpayer stumps up for each financial year. -Whitey cars that are flogged mercilessly and trashed. "Hey, there's more where they came from!"

You disregard, cannot explain and would prefer to dismiss the many (most?) Indigenous who are doing well. It was always that way. But why the difference?
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 21 March 2016 11:41:42 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 Cossomby & OTB,

I suspect that movements stand or fall depending on whether they have any sort of positive, coherent, agenda, and if they can negotiate the balance between identity and inclusiveness. Social forces are always at work, like it or not, know it or not, and not necessarily moving in the 'right' direction.

I have grave concerns that welfare-oriented populations in remote, rural and outer suburban areas are not going to thrive or pick themselves up, but instead are going to become even more de-skilled, if it's possible, and - metaphorically - walk over a cliff.

But on the other hand, that the working population - since it is necessarily working with non-Indigenous people on the whole - will socialise and marry and merge in with the rest of Australia's very multi-culti population. Yes, this population (or their children) may, perhaps off-handedly, remark that they are 'of Indigenous descent' but in the next generation or so, will 'disappear' into the multi-culti mainstream.

The upshot of all that will be a withering away of the Indigenous population. Maybe we'll start to see it happening if the 2016 Census growth figures take a bit of a dip.

The moral is that, instead of swanning around, the elites have to grapple with real issues, not fart around with yet more symbolic stuff - even worse, just symbolic and undefined words like 'Recognition'.

Message to 'leaders': You want to be a 'leader' ? Then, lead, for God's sake, before it's too late.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 24 March 2016 9:51:50 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
Surely this will just create separatism and what will actually be involved? Is it another money grab? When I left school in the 80s at fifteen to get a job to buy a car, the part aboriginal kids all landed brand new XE Falcons. They were educated, came from good hard working families and could have easily got a job and bought their first car like the rest of us. The Govt interfered with over-compensation and entitlement. This has only increased and I believe created White hatred and a sense of entitlement. As for 'paying rent' that is just ludicrous. Many proud and self respecting indigenous would surely frown upon the idea. The 'sub - culture' (like the one Stan Grant escaped from) those unwilling to be educated or earn a living are well compensated, more so than any other race in the world. As for racism in Australia, non-indigenous, in my experiences are the offenders, and sadly that also has increased. Throw away the kidd gloves, stop molly coddling and toughen the hell up Government. Yes and Stan Grants attempts to look aboriginal are a tad silly.
Posted by jodelie, Saturday, 26 March 2016 11:47:58 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
Hi Jodelie,

I think we really should try to understand as much as possible what is involved with each proposal which might be included in proposals for a Referendum on 'Recognition', including

* an inclusion in the Preamble to the Constitution recognising Indigenous prior occupation of Australia;

* an additional clause in the Constitution recognising special rights for Indigenous culture and languages;

* the recognition of Indigenous nations, or clans, across Australia;

* a Treaty between the Australian government and people, with a section of the population, or with each of the nations or clans within it;

* the recognition of Indigenous sovereignty across Australia written into the Constitution of Australia.

We need to think carefully how any of these may improve the conditions of the small minority of Indigenous people living in relatively tiny and utterly dependent settlements across remote Australia.

We need to understand how each of these proposals might decrease the violence and abuse in isolated settlements, and improve the chances for employment and education, i.e. self-determination, of people in those regions, if such are possible. If not, then alternatives must urgently be found to improve the life-chances for the next generations currently in those miserable and ghastly circumstances.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 27 March 2016 8:37:21 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
Jodelie,

This article illustrates the variety of Indigenous views on 'Recognise', from a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/11/treaty-push-should-replace-indigenous-recognise-campaign-says-yolngu-leader

There are three articles in today's Australian [at last !] on the Recognition controversy, which tease out some of the complex issues which have arisen since the Recognise campaign was initiated eight or ten years ago.

The major problem seems to be that what the elites who have proposed this 'Recognise' campaign and what many Indigenous people are demanding are very far apart: one asking for a few additions to the Constitution and the removal of any discriminatory clauses, while the other approach is to demand a recognition of Indigenous sovereignty or at the very least, a Treaty, written into the Constitution. Both remain somewhat undefined - in fact, every proposal for change seems to be rather undefined, to put it politely.

And yet sixteen million Australian voters will be asked eventually to express their preferences. It's not easy being an elite whose light-bulb moments hit the wall of explanation and cold reality.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 29 March 2016 9:41:41 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
Hi Cossomby, OTB & Jodelie,

Another article yesterday touched on the split between those who want Sovereignty NOW ! and those who want a Treaty NOW ! which must make the elites, with their slight change to the Constitution NOW !, feel a bit squeamish, including Mundine and his Nations NOW ! approach and Pearson and his Third House of Parliament NOW !

What strikes me is that all parties believe fervently in the One Magic Bullet theory - their particular Silver Bullet is the One and Only remedy that will work, and work 100 % to solve all known problems. There is something pre-modern, medieval, about that way of thinking. As well, these brilliant ideas seem to be two-second thought-bubbles which their 'thinkers' think are actually so brilliant that they don't require any sort of explanation, on the principle that if you have to ask then you don't know. Which only goes to show how brilliant the 'thinker' is.

I think that the 'Recognise' thought-bubble falls into that category: it was so manifestly brilliant to the 'thinker' that it didn't need explaining. Sometimes you wonder if some of these 'thinkers' have the mentality of six-year-olds, they 'think' that you can know what they are thinking and how they arrived at their particular thought-bubble. And that their 'thought' is so brilliant that they can live well on it for the rest of their lives.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 31 March 2016 10:46:35 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
[continued]

Yesterday in The Australian, an article cited another Great Aboriginal Thinker pushing for Sovereignty, BUT actually explaining in part what he meant, i.e. a separate Aboriginal State and Government, with Ministers, Parliaments, ambassadors overseas, its own university, etc. [No, he didn't go quite that far.]

Since I used to believe something similar until late 1972 [thank you, Buffy], I suppose I can't laugh. Back then, that 'thinker' would have been about 12. Maybe that shows the level of current political sophistication amongst some Aboriginal 'Thinkers': whether they are still locked in a medieval, one-shot-will-do-it, Magic Bullet, mindset, is not for me to say.

What might the Referendum voting paper look like ? Will it be trimmed to just a handful of options ? Or - in order to be representative of all Aboriginal 'thinking' - should it include all the options - from the most anodyne: a mention in the Constitution's Preamble - right through to a call for Indigenous Independence, with their own State or States, Government/s, etc. ?

Of course, this assumes that there WILL be a Referendum, sooner or later. My suspicion is that the whole 'Recognise' process is already a dog's breakfast, and it will get even more so in the coming months, regurgitated again and again. So who knows ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 31 March 2016 10:52:07 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
Loudmouth (Joe), "What strikes me is that all parties believe fervently in the One Magic Bullet theory - their particular Silver Bullet is the One and Only remedy that will work, and work 100 % to solve all known problems"

I don't think they do. The activism and demand will never stop but will simply morph into more and more excuses for not taking responsibility and care of themselves and being accountable for their own choices. There will be endless recriminations and demands.

The same as has happened with removal of discrimination, real and alleged, against homosexuals. It morphed into Queer Politics and Queer activism.

The drivers are firstly, activists are very often people who derive their sense of being and get perverse satisfaction from making 'authority' and the community bow and preferably cower to the activists' wishes.

Secondly and lapping over the first group, are the thousands who are swinging from the taxpayer's teat. {articularly the professionals and bureaucrats including academics who make their daily bread from maintaining separatism of indigenous. -Enlarged to ATSI, yet the Islanders have always hated Aborigines as lazy and having poor hygiene. No love lost there and very long memories, combined with the usefulness of such conflict as a time-passing activity (in lieu of a real job).

Interesting how the elite have now positioned themselves to get guvvy grants forever and make a claim for eternal 'ATSI'(sic)* victimhood by recasting the settlement of Australia as a 'war'.

*ATSI - needs better definition. Which none of the avowed activists want and contrary to the wishes and demands of 'full-blood' Aborigines, who also object to the 'indigenous' tag. I have never met an 'indigenous' outside of those who have grown up in the 'burbs of the metropolitan cities who accepts the 'Indigenous' tag and all are livid about the many self-entitled opportunists as they see them who are claiming to be aboriginal and cruise on guvvy benefits.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 31 March 2016 11:58:32 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
Is recognition divisive?

Yes, absolutely! That is aim is it not of the activists and the cynical self-serving opportunists especially politicians, professionals and NGOs who ride the wagon for secondary gain.

Does anyone imagine for instance, that the Greens 'Protest' Party would ever want to lose a club they can batter their political opponents with? The game of the Greens elite is to get those comfy Senate seats and the income and entitlements that go with it and forever through that golden handshake courtesy of the exasperated taxpayer.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 31 March 2016 12:04:30 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
Hi OTB,

" "What strikes me is that all parties believe fervently in the One Magic Bullet theory - their particular Silver Bullet is the One and Only remedy that will work, and work 100 % to solve all known problems"

"I don't think they do. The activism and demand will never stop but will simply morph into more and more excuses for not taking responsibility and care of themselves and being accountable for their own choices. There will be endless recriminations and demands. "

Of course, because there is no Silver Bullet and never will be. So yes, there will be still more demands, more One True Silver Bullets, as there has been ever since the 1967 Referendum itself. My point is that the constant search for one, and settling temporarily on this or that panacea, is an expression of pre-Enlightenment, semi-medieval thinking akin to something out of Monty Python. And this coming Referendum, if it happens, will be the daddy of them all, a rich smorgasbord of panaceas.

It really is time to admit that even panaceas like 'self-determination' and 'community' have shown themselves to be bankrupt. I write as a bitterly disappointed devotee, after all :)

Ultimately, there will be no Indigenous alternative, no Cargo, to sheer, boring hard work, based on skills, on rigorous education for children, wherever they may be (which is not likely to be in 'communities'), and on genuine personal self-determination. Whether Australia was invaded or settled or occupied or colonised or liberated is neither here nor there in the lives of Australians, Indigenous and otherwise: one can't constantly drive into the past in order to find the future. We can only be genuinely reconciled when we all admit the pros and cons of the past and on how to go forward into our common future, together. I'm not interested in picking at the scabs of history.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 31 March 2016 3:23:26 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 (Joe),

Agreed and well said.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 31 March 2016 8:04:34 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 had a rather acrimonious discussion with a friend last night about a Treaty: after all, she said, the Maori had signed a Treaty with the British in 1840 at Waitangi. Yes, I said, the chiefs of specific 'tribal' groups, for the specific purpose of seeking the protection of the British from the depredations of other Maori. The British were happy to sign in order tov forestall something similar engineered by the French around the Bay of islands, so they got in fist. I wonder how often in history paranoia has driven policy.

So what would be the relevance of a Treaty here in Australia ? Between the Australian government, representing all Australians including Indigenous Australians, and whom ? 'The Elders,' she said. Who are ? Anybody who claims to be one, including people the same age as my kids ? Representing whom ? The people in their 'groups' ? What, 'tribes' ? 'Clans' ? Who, in the 75 % of Indigenous people in cities and large towns, would know which particular group/tribe/clan they were descended from ? What about the overwhelming majority of Indigenous people who either couldn't give a damn about a Treaty, or are actively hostile, both on the 'Right' and on the 'Left' ?

How does a nation organise a Treaty with a part of itself ? Where does it leave Indigenous people who want to have nothing to do with a Treaty ? Will they thereby become less Australian, more 'Indigenous Nation', like it or not ? What impact would this have on their rights as Australians ?

And what on earth would be IN such a Treaty ? Protection from outsiders ? An official ceding of sovereignty (since that's really what the Waitangi Treaty was about) by Indigenous people/groups/tribes/clans/elders to the Crown ?

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 1 April 2016 1:49:23 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
[continued]

The wonderful thing about Silver Bullets is that you don't have to think about what they are made of, and what might be their consequences: after all, their purpose is to make you feel good for a while, until you realise there is nothing in them, they're just more piss and wind, and so you seek for yet another Silver Bullet.

I don't think Indigenous people have generations to sort themselves out: they are already fractured enough, without yet more thought-bubbles to go chasing after, for no particular purpose than to feel better temporarily - at least, some of them, usually the elite 5%. Get on with the business of holding the Indigenous population together and strengthening its solidarity and unity. Back in 1972, when my wife and I were making Aboriginal Flags after work in the factories, that's what we thought they might do. Little did we know .....

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 1 April 2016 1:50:21 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
OTB,

Am I completely obtuse ? Why can't I come up with anything that might be proposed for a Treaty ? Apart from the problems about who a Treaty would be between, the Australian Government representing all Australians and another 'party', and who would represent those other 'parties' and how would they be chosen and by whom, there is this very simple issue:

* what would be the issues covered by a Treaty ? What clauses ?

Land rights ? Tick. Equal rights under Australian law ? Tick. A measure of affirmative action, or positive discrimination ? Tick. Self-determination of 'communities' ? Tick. Funding for many thousands of organisations ? Tick.

Recognition of the rights of Indigenous mainstream graduates to unhindered careers in mainstream organisations, just like other Australians ? Ah, now there's a problem: after all, the racist argument goes, if graduates are Indigenous, they should WANT to work ONLY in Indigenous domains, shouldn't they ?

Well, no, not if they don't want to. As Australians, they're entitled to work anywhere that other Australians work 100 %, if they have similar expertise, aren't they, not just in some piddly 2 %, and out in the sticks ?

Of course, there is a way around that: strong advice to young Indigenous graduates not to tick the box: for Christ's sake, unless you want your career ruined: DON'T TICK THE BOX.

Can anyone think of anything else that should be in a 'Treaty' ? Something that might somehow be of benefit to Indigenous people ?

No, I'm stumped.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:08:33 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
Each should be given a mirror.

Underneath, "You are looking at the person responsible for your own good, safety and happiness".

or,

"If it is going to be, it has to be me".
Posted by onthebeach, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:51:49 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. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

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