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

[boris]

Hi guys!
I'm back. At work. It's dull eh?

Anyway, in re: to Rockyroads rant about conquering not being very nice ... Well, no. By todays standards, one country cannot invade another country without ramifications. Stop putting todays fucking moral compass on something that was accepted and revered 200 years ago.
By your logic, anybody who has invaded anybody is a big bad meanie and should apologise.

Basically -
Italy should apologise to Britain, modern day Germany, and 70% of Europe for invading them 2000+ years ago.
Greece and Macedonia should apologise to India for invading them.
Spain should apologise to America
France should apologise
China should apologise

OMG you guys! Group hug!

No. Get the fuck over it. Conquering lesser peoples for land was a standard practice and although it may not be acceptable today, you can't sit here and say it was wrong back then, purely coz it makes you a little bit teary now.

read my postings, im the smartest poster here.


Also, since when can't people invade people now?

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

since rockyroad said so

 

[boris]

Holy shit, NEWS FLASH

Aboriginal children are abos are thus are more likely to grow up to be abos.

 

[katie tully]

read my postings, im the smartest poster here.


Also, since when can't people invade people now?

Serious answer? Since we have clearly defined borders and human rights sanctions.

LOL! answer? Since the Germans tried it. Twice. Within the last 100 years.

And failed.

 

[impervious182]

Serious answer? Since we have clearly defined borders and human rights sanctions.

LOL! answer? Since the Germans tried it. Twice. Within the last 100 years.

And failed.

And then Russia tried and failed.

 

[boris]

Serious answer? Since we have clearly defined borders and human rights sanctions.

LOL! answer? Since the Germans tried it. Twice. Within the last 100 years.

And failed.

They had clearly defined borders 2000yrs ago bro. The only reason the germans failed twice was they picked too many fights at the same time. Countries have always formed alliances etc due to common interests to stop others invading. England, us, France, USA and russia in ww2. Sparta, various other greek nations that i cbf looking up when they were invaded by persia.

Its fine to invade someone these days as long as they dont have powerful friends with interests. Kuwait for example. Compared to Palestine. ww2 was the same scenario as the napoleonic wars. England and Russia etc didnt think it was ok for France to invade so they fought them. England etc didnt think it was ok for Germany to invade in ww2 to the fought them. Sparta didnt think it was ok for persia to invade them lol so they fought them.

See what im getting at. You're being just like the abo supporters now. Its perfectly fine for countries to invade one another, regardless of what those hypocrites at the UN say.

 

[katie tully]

They had clearly defined borders 2000yrs ago bro. The only reason the germans failed twice was they picked too many fights at the same time. Countries have always formed alliances etc due to common interests to stop others invading. England, us, France, USA and russia in ww2. Sparta, various other greek nations that i cbf looking up when they were invaded by persia.

Its fine to invade someone these days as long as they dont have powerful friends with interests. Kuwait for example. Compared to Palestine. ww2 was the same scenario as the napoleonic wars. England and Russia etc didnt think it was ok for France to invade so they fought them. England etc didnt think it was ok for Germany to invade in ww2 to the fought them. Sparta didnt think it was ok for persia to invade them lol so they fought them.

See what im getting at. You're being just like the abo supporters now. Its perfectly fine for countries to invade one another, regardless of what those hypocrites at the UN say.

Yes but what I was getting at, was that attitudes have changed. The people always supported (more or less) conquest, because it benefited them. The idea of expanding borders and forming alliances, ultimately, made civilisations grow stronger.

The only difference I can see now, is that -
a. Attitudes towards war has changed
b. No longer a sense of idk, well you can't compare how a person feels about their country now to how Ancient Romans felt about the Rome Empire.

Holy crap, even those retarded Germanic Barbarians managed to hold their own against one of the strongest military powers ever. They were hardly as advanced as the Romans, yet were instrumental in the downfall of the Empire (can't remember his name but some Germanic warrior became the first non Roman Emperor).

And it's fine to invade, as long as there is some underlying pretense. Like, if America invaded Iraq purely because they wanted somewhere to offload their prisoners, even America's allies would be like 'LOL WTF?'. Go under the pretense of 'liberating the people' and the majority are gunna be like "sweet cause man, lets go to war!"

 

[boris]

Yes but what I was getting at, was that attitudes have changed. The people always supported (more or less) conquest, because it benefited them. The idea of expanding borders and forming alliances, ultimately, made civilisations grow stronger.

The only difference I can see now, is that -
a. Attitudes towards war has changed
b. No longer a sense of idk, well you can't compare how a person feels about their country now to how Ancient Romans felt about the Rome Empire.

Holy crap, even those retarded Germanic Barbarians managed to hold their own against one of the strongest military powers ever. They were hardly as advanced as the Romans, yet were instrumental in the downfall of the Empire (can't remember his name but some Germanic warrior became the first non Roman Emperor).

And it's fine to invade, as long as there is some underlying pretense. Like, if America invaded Iraq purely because they wanted somewhere to offload their prisoners, even America's allies would be like 'LOL WTF?'. Go under the pretense of 'liberating the people' and the majority are gunna be like "sweet cause man, lets go to war!"

Attitudes have changed - for now. Im sure during years of relative peace in Rome etc the roman senators (whatever they were) and educated people thought that they had made the world civilised and barabaric stuff like the pagans from germanic tribes did was over just as we feel the same.

When the next big power struggle comes along, it wont take people long to realise how much they took everything for granted. People are inherently violent warlike creatures. Sure the UN and the global society might look down on invading countries for pure fiscal/land gains now but thats only because for the past 50yrs there has been some sort of stability in most of the world.

 

[Will Shakespear]

Holy crap, even those retarded Germanic Barbarians managed to hold their own against one of the strongest military powers ever. They were hardly as advanced as the Romans, yet were instrumental in the downfall of the Empire (can't remember his name but some Germanic warrior became the first non Roman Emperor).

they were moar advanced than ppl think

they had some pretty sophisticated metalworking techniques, that the romans actually pinched off them

the abos didn't have metal at all (even though there's so much of it sitting around in WA)

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

the question that should be asked instead is, what 'did' abos have?

 

[Iron]

So am i right,

IF (yes it wouldn't have happened but still) the british had recognised the aboriginal peoples ownership of the land, and then had taken ownership off them, they would have no claim to the land at all in todays society?

Well, the question would have to be 'if land law was different'. Aboriginal elders could have taken the UK to Privy and convinced the Lords of the arguments made in Mabo. Small snag: We didnt deem them citizens until the 60s. Larger snag: we were a bit iffy on whether they were at all equal human beings to us until that time too. It's clear that many in this thread still hold the belief that they are an intellectually inferior race to us

 

[boris]

Well, the question would have to be 'if land law was different'. Aboriginal elders could have taken the UK to Privy and convinced the Lords of the arguments made in Mabo. Small snag: We didnt deem them citizens until the 60s. Larger snag: we were a bit iffy on whether they were at all equal human beings to us until that time too. It's clear that many in this thread still hold the belief that they are an intellectually inferior race to us

I dont think they are an intellectually infior race. I just think due to their self induced circumstances that a lot of them are fucking dumb as a stick. and we all know stupidity causes poverty etc and the cycle continues.


So if that had happened. Say the British turned up and saw aboriginals here and were like 'gee this place is already inhabited by this nation of people and they own the land etc we acknowledge this and so on but we still want the land. Ok we better get the marines and take it by forces', British kill and aboriginal, seek out the elders and make them sign over ownership of the land etc. No problems 200 years in the future.

 

[Iron]

It's not as though soliders were itching to fight but werent allowed. Aboriginals were not acknowledged to be fully human or with any superior land claims. They were simply shooed away from whatever lands we wanted. Any 'war' with them would have been pointless. If anything, it may have left Aboriginals with the respect of recognition, but in reality they still would have been driven away. The UK saw them at most as children, at least as some slightly more advanced ape
As to your other point, a treaty would have been unnecessary at the time due to their barbarous state, inability to defend themselves etc.
I'm not saying that no nation can conquor another, or whatever some twits were saying. I'm saying that the Aboriginal problem presents a unique moral problem to our competing claim of ownership. It's a unique Australian problem. We took candy from a baby and have nothing like a revolution or competitive local wars to distract us from this. But, you know, that's what ANZAC day's really about ('Our guys died in battle so we could live here, so that makes this home more ours!). The war with Japan comes close to this distraction, but in reality we havent satisfactorily buried our ghosts

 

[katie tully]

Turned out pretty well for Indonesia...

I guess Indonesia didn't really invade any place that anybody gave a shit about.

Like most places in Africa that have been in civil and other wars for the last 100 years. Nobody gives a shit.

If they'd attempted to invade Australia in 99' like they threatened, I'm quite sure enough of the bigger countries would care enough to have helped us wipe those slanty critters off the face of the planet.

 

[RSVPixie]

It's not as though soliders were itching to fight but werent allowed. Aboriginals were not acknowledged to be fully human or with any superior land claims. They were simply shooed away from whatever lands we wanted. Any 'war' with them would have been pointless. If anything, it may have left Aboriginals with the respect of recognition, but in reality they still would have been driven away. The UK saw them at most as children, at least as some slightly more advanced ape
As to your other point, a treaty would have been unnecessary at the time due to their barbarous state, inability to defend themselves etc.
I'm not saying that no nation can conquor another, or whatever some twits were saying. I'm saying that the Aboriginal problem presents a unique moral problem to our competing claim of ownership. It's a unique Australian problem. We took candy from a baby and have nothing like a revolution or competitive local wars to distract us from this. But, you know, that's what ANZAC day's really about ('Our guys died in battle so we could live here, so that makes this home more ours!). The war with Japan comes close to this distraction, but in reality we havent satisfactorily buried our ghosts

i agree entirely. Even when native title was recogised, indigenous australians still had to deal with Howard's prejudice against them with his ten point plan.

the aboriginies, once the Wik decision was made by he High Court, were wary of the government's response. John Howard started off the justification of his "10 point plan" by trying to numb the audience before shoving the knife in. He started off saying he sympathised with the indigenous australians and what they had dealt with. Then, straight after that, Howard outlined his plan, aimed entirely at watering down native title. This all happened at the Aboriginal Reconciliation Conference in Melbourne, and Howard was not just booed and shunned [people actually stood up and turned their backs on him during his speech], but he got flustered and started yelling. If you get a chance, watch the end of his speech where he declares the convention open. He is so furious its hilarious.

this wasnt that long ago at all, i.e. mid 90's. aboriginals still had to deal with idiots like Howard and Hanson within the last 15 years. these wounds are very much real and recent.

 

[impervious182]

i agree entirely. Even when native title was recogised, indigenous australians still had to deal with Howard's prejudice against them with his ten point plan.

What about the people who were currently living on the land. The ten point plan was a move to ensure that the Wik decision didn't have adverse effects on Australians currently occupying the land.

According to Howard it was to 'water down the Native Title Act'. It's just crap, to claim that this was actually racist or the result of an unfair prejudice. It's claims like that, which helped make Pauline Hanson popular in her time and undermine the idea of equality in Australian society.

In my opinion, Aboriginal people already have their fair share of land. This from the government's own website:

"Currently, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (who represent under three per cent of the total Australian population) own or control approximately 20 per cent of the Australian continent as a result of statutory land rights schemes and the recognition of native title. This is equal to 150 million hectares."​

Many farmers would have been forced to be relocated and they were also putting pressure on John Howard to act. Why shouldn't they have security?

the aboriginies, once the Wik decision was made by he High Court, were wary of the government's response. John Howard started off the justification of his "10 point plan" by trying to numb the audience before shoving the knife in. He started off saying he sympathised with the indigenous australians and what they had dealt with. Then, straight after that, Howard outlined his plan, aimed entirely at watering down native title. This all happened at the Aboriginal Reconciliation Conference in Melbourne, and Howard was not just booed and shunned [people actually stood up and turned their backs on him during his speech], but he got flustered and started yelling. If you get a chance, watch the end of his speech where he declares the convention open. He is so furious its hilarious.

Well I would be furious to do be honest.

I don't like Kevin Rudd at all, but what a disrespect if people turned their backs on him while he was talking to them. To be honest, I think John Howard's response was actually quite reasonable, he was trying to be heard over the loud boos and shouts interrupting his speech. There is nothing more annoying than trying to speak to an arrogant and ignorant audience, with the maturity of 4-year-olds, who don't understand the complexity of one's position and the different interests and groups one has to cater to. This might surprise you, but John Howard was PM of all Australians, not just Aboriginal people (who represent 3%).

People were turning their backs on him as he tried to talk to them. We've all seen 'The Howard Years' too, by the way... In any case, it was absolute rudeness on the part of the audience and John Howard showed great restraint in simply not walking out of the room...

As for Howard being an idiot. Let me put it bluntly. The only idiots here, are you, and anyone that supports such a primitive and polar view. These are complex issues, they're not black and white. John Howard had no choice but to consider all parties involved, even if you would like to completely ignore any interested party who is not Aboriginal.

 

[zstar]

i agree entirely. Even when native title was recogised, indigenous australians still had to deal with Howard's prejudice against them with his ten point plan.

the aboriginies, once the Wik decision was made by he High Court, were wary of the government's response. John Howard started off the justification of his "10 point plan" by trying to numb the audience before shoving the knife in. He started off saying he sympathised with the indigenous australians and what they had dealt with. Then, straight after that, Howard outlined his plan, aimed entirely at watering down native title. This all happened at the Aboriginal Reconciliation Conference in Melbourne, and Howard was not just booed and shunned [people actually stood up and turned their backs on him during his speech], but he got flustered and started yelling. If you get a chance, watch the end of his speech where he declares the convention open. He is so furious its hilarious.

this wasnt that long ago at all, i.e. mid 90's. aboriginals still had to deal with idiots like Howard and Hanson within the last 15 years. these wounds are very much real and recent.

It's all Howard's fault, Blame everything on the bald lispy little man.


Aboriginal children don't go to school = Howard's fault
Aboriginal parents abusing their young ones = Howard's fault
Aboriginal kids sniffing petrol = Howard's fault
Not enough welfare = Howard's fault
Too much welfare = Howard's fault


It's always got to be the government that takes care of everyone.

 

[RSVPixie]

It's all Howard's fault, Blame everything on the bald lispy little man.


Aboriginal children don't go to school = Howard's fault
Aboriginal parents abusing their young ones = Howard's fault
Aboriginal kids sniffing petrol = Howard's fault
Not enough welfare = Howard's fault
Too much welfare = Howard's fault


It's always got to be the government that takes care of everyone.

im not saying everything is howards fault, im just pointing out that he made bad decisions, especially in relation to native title and the aboriginies.

of course its the governments job to take care of everyone. they are a branch of the law, and the law is in place to maintain order and provide justice to those who are in need of it. a.k.a. the aboriginies in this discussion.

In my opinion, Aboriginal people already have their fair share of land. This from the government's own website:

"Currently, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (who represent under three per cent of the total Australian population) own or control approximately 20 per cent of the Australian continent as a result of statutory land rights schemes and the recognition of native title. This is equal to 150 million hectares."​

Many farmers would have been forced to be relocated and they were also putting pressure on John Howard to act. Why shouldn't they have security?

yeah, that includes uninhabitable land like the nullabor [nullabor literally means "no trees"] plains and uluru. the only habitable place they "own" is arnhem land. both the nullabor plains and uluru happen to be in the DESERT! what could farmers want with land that is bone dry and practically nothing but dust?? yes, they have regained SOME of their sacred sites, but most of them are in places that farming would be completely useless. and what percentage of Australia is fertile soil that suits farming, anyway? OVER 80% is arid or semi-arid and not suitable for crops. that leaves about 20% of fertile land that ISNT desert, and that 20% includes the kakadu wetlands, which are uninhabitable and not appropriate for agriculture due to it being a national park. so i would say about 15-18% of Australia is useful for agricultural purposes and habitation. i think you'll find that of this, there is a very small percentage for aboriginals. and that is arnhem land.

now that the percentages are done, think that they USED TO own ALL of Australia. now they own 20%, mostly desert. thats hardly fair, or justice. and the ten point plan was put in place to stifle aboriginal rights. howard admits that. but it doesnt weigh up, it just makes aboriginies far worse off than they were to begin with, which was already bad enough.

did you know Australia has been found by an international study to have dealt with the native inhabitants of the land the worst out of all colonised countries? and we are getting even more behind every year, because the situation is being ignored? most aboriginies live in squalor equal to that of a third world country in the depths of poverty. we are obviously doing something wrong, and the problem needs to fixed, not watered down in answer to a small developement. its like the aboriginies have taken one step forward, three steps back, and all thanks to poor judgement on our part, the government's part, and the whole of Australia's greater community's part.

 

[JaredR]

Why can't we just give Aboriginals New Zealand?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Look, JaredR, I know with your Israeli background that simply taking over countries is something that you've grown to accept. We don't do things that way in Australia anymore, mang. So if you can't adjust to our values system, please, gtfo.