Federal Aboriginal intervention (2 Viewers)

[yourfacehere!]

While I support the Federal intervention, to a limited and controlled degree, by no way do I support the notion that Aboriginal people would be better off in cities than in remote communities.

A properly managed remote community is a far better context for Aboriginal people, especially the Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory, those clinging on to ancient languages and cultures. Those living in successful remote communities, getting by on a thriving tourism and art industry, are far happier than those in Redfern. Such remote communities do exist, I've already provided two examples above.

Moving Aboriginal people into cities will do little. They will naturally fall to the bottom level of society economically, with almost equally high unemployment rates as before and probably a worse health situation due to poor diet and exersize. Domestic violence and sexual assault will remain issues - all of this can be found in urban Aboriginal centres across the country.

The last thing moving Aboriginal people into towns or cities would do, especially to those in the NT, is strip them of their pride. Many, especially the older members, find the Aboriginal culture a great source of pride, and most youths who shift off to Alice or other cities in their younger years eventually return to find out who they really are. Take this away from them and they have little else.

And who was the douchebag who used the Native Americans/First Nation people of Canada example?
First Nation people in Canada, commonly known as the Inuit or Eskimos, are in a worse situation than the Aboriginal people of Australia - worse incarceration rates, health rates, domestic violence, substance abuse etc. And Canada is worse on racism as well. There is nothing to be gained from Canada except circle sentencing.
American Indians are pretty similar, though slightly better. Mainly because they were fairly thoroughly destroyed in the early years of American history, and because of their now infamous casinos. Casinos aren't the solution to all of this, I'm sorry.

And like the other guy, I am curious as to Justin's grand plan for Aboriginal Australia. Do tell....

 

[withoutaface]

While I support the Federal intervention, to a limited and controlled degree, by no way do I support the notion that Aboriginal people would be better off in cities than in remote communities.

A properly managed remote community is a far better context for Aboriginal people, especially the Aboriginal people living in the Northern Territory, those clinging on to ancient languages and cultures. Those living in successful remote communities, getting by on a thriving tourism and art industry, are far happier than those in Redfern. Such remote communities do exist, I've already provided two examples above.

Where the community can sustain itself and provide jobs, I agree with you. But, from my limited knowledge on the issue, the vast majority do not fit this profile, and if they want to cling to ancient culture and languages, then they can find a way to sustain themselves under their own steam, as they have for thousands of years.

Moving Aboriginal people into cities will do little. They will naturally fall to the bottom level of society economically, with almost equally high unemployment rates as before and probably a worse health situation due to poor diet and exersize.

That's because there has not been a real commitment made to tackle the welfare problem. It's just been accepted that these people will remain on welfare for the rest of their lives and left as it is, which is unacceptable.

Domestic violence and sexual assault will remain issues - all of this can be found in urban Aboriginal centres across the country.

Not to the extent found in regional communities, and when it does happen we can detect it far more easily.

The last thing moving Aboriginal people into towns or cities would do, especially to those in the NT, is strip them of their pride. Many, especially the older members, find the Aboriginal culture a great source of pride, and most youths who shift off to Alice or other cities in their younger years eventually return to find out who they really are. Take this away from them and they have little else.

Then they can make a living off of it, or work first and use their savings to pay for this way of life. I don't see a reason why someone who's working in the city should give their taxes for an indigenous individual to sit around admiring culture.

 

[Evilo]

well said withoutaface

 

[_dhj_]

Welfare has never been the main issue. The discrepancies between indigenous and anglo australians in all aspects of living cannot be explained by welfare - because anglos receive welfare as well. Quit pushing the idealistic libertarian agenda.

 

[jb_nc]

Welfare has never been the main issue. The discrepancies between indigenous and anglo australians in all aspects of living cannot be explained by welfare - because anglos receive welfare as well. Quit pushing the idealistic libertarian agenda.

boongas get the dole by sitting round sniffin petrol and drinkin goon bags, other australians have to apply for jobs/work for dole or they'll have it cut off

 

[withoutaface]

Welfare has never been the main issue. The discrepancies between indigenous and anglo australians in all aspects of living cannot be explained by welfare - because anglos receive welfare as well. Quit pushing the idealistic libertarian agenda.

Aboriginals have been disenfranchised throughout Australian history, I will not deny that. It is well documented, however, that once a family, area, or ethnic group become poor and are offered welfare cheques without any real incentive to hunt for jobs attached to them, the children of such people are more likely to drop out in year 10 (or not go to school at all) and continue the cycle of welfare dependence because that's all they, or anyone around them, knows. There are various methods to move these people (or at least their children) out of the trap and into work, and these include making sure that these people are in areas where jobs are actually available, providing workshops for interview skills, ensuring that young people receive a proper education in the first place (this is one aspect of the government's plan where I will concede they have it at least partially right), and by increasing the tax free threshold.

To summarise, I'm not claiming that welfare caused poverty, but I am saying that it does nothing to fix the problem.

 

[_dhj_]

Given the systemic problems, there are only so many employers willing to hire indigenous people and so many jobs within their own communities. The first cause is not welfare dependency but a lack of job opportunities and opportunities in general. Removing welfare will result in higher school drop-out rates and higher levels of crime as thieving becomes a necessity. The ridiculously high levels of aboriginal incarceration, as you know, will only get worse (leading to adverse outcomes for education).

The welfare argument draws its strength from the sentiment that "I don't want my taxes to go to abos". Obviously, this is extremely ignorant given the role of colonisation in placing aborigines in their current predicament.

 

[withoutaface]

Given the systemic problems, there are only so many employers willing to hire indigenous people and so many jobs within their own communities. The first cause is not welfare dependency but a lack of job opportunities and opportunities in general.

We must ask ourselves why they are living in communities where jobs do not exist, and why they are unemployable. The only way a community which has no jobs can exist is if there's money being pumped in from outside (i.e. welfare). They are unemployable because their parents have been too busy abusing solvents to send them to school or teach them basic civility.

Removing welfare will result in higher school drop-out rates and higher levels of crime as thieving becomes a necessity. The ridiculously high levels of aboriginal incarceration, as you know, will only get worse (leading to adverse outcomes for education).

Remove them from the communities then. Leaving them there is not a sustainable long term solution if our ultimate aim is to have a society where everybody (or as near to that as possible) contributes their fair share of labour.

The welfare argument draws its strength from the sentiment that "I don't want my taxes to go to abos". Obviously, this is extremely ignorant given the role of colonisation in placing aborigines in their current predicament.

...but by giving them money as we've been doing we're not helping them out of the hole we've created.

 

[jb_nc]

The welfare argument draws its strength from the sentiment that "I don't want my taxes to go to abos". Obviously, this is extremely ignorant given the role of colonisation in placing aborigines in their current predicament.

I agree. We should have "taken care" of them in the 18th century.

 

[Justin]

The Sky News reporter at the press club today had a good question.

The government has plans to introduce high speed broadband to 99% of Australias population.
It also has plans to prohibit x-rated pornography in NT communities.

It shows just how easily an MP can dodge a question. She basically said "if we come accross pornography, we issue a take-down notice".

Yeh, and uh.. pornography only exists on Australian servers.

.. and the internet.. it's restricted to Australian sites only.

With one question, David Spears basically undermined the whole of the governments plans. Pwnage

But the problem is that there are so many of them because the government fucked up by giving them welfare in the first place.

Ahh yes. They're lives were fucked up because they were given money. It's easy for you to say this, but outside the realm of white jealousy, what support do you have for this assumption?

Moving them to cities where school attendance can be more easily monitored allows us to ensure that future generations won't face this disadvantage when searching for employment.

yep, because the ones living in Redfern aren't facing disadvantage.

Also, I like it how you assume that it's a problem with them that causes them to be the way they are. You are totally blind to any part that white australians may have played in the creating the problem.

The other option is to leave them where they are,

and where they have been for 40,000+ years

with no jobs,

OH NO. Not contributing to John Howards wonderful economy. That's BAD!

and have them continue to be dead weight on society.

A DEAD weight on society. Hmm, ok then.

 

[withoutaface]

Ahh yes. They're lives were fucked up because they were given money. It's easy for you to say this, but outside the realm of white jealousy, what support do you have for this assumption?

Um, because you can't buy booze, paint, petrol or glue without having a job?

yep, because the ones living in Redfern aren't facing disadvantage.

They are, just it's not as significant. We need to take steps to fix them as well, this is the first step.

Also, I like it how you assume that it's a problem with them that causes them to be the way they are. You are totally blind to any part that white australians may have played in the creating the problem.

I never said it wasn't our fault, I said that welfare perpetuated an existing problem, largely created by European settlement.

and where they have been for 40,000+ years

That's fine, so long as they sustain themselves. They didn't have welfare 40 000 years ago.

OH NO. Not contributing to John Howards wonderful economy. That's BAD!

A DEAD weight on society. Hmm, ok then.

Ok, let's extend that standard to everyone.

Oh wait, then we have no products, way of life, or anything else.

 

[Justin]

Um, because you can't buy booze, paint, petrol or glue without having a job?

As I said, you have no proof. Your (old fashioned) anti-welfare attitude doesn't really make sense.

They are, just it's not as significant.

Um, no, i think they are having it as tough. Go walk down everleigh street.

We need to take steps to fix them as well, this is the first step.

Well it's great to see you're so proactive in wanting to help Aboriginals not less than 2 sentences after you basically called each and every single one of them booze addicts or paint, petrol or glue sniffers.

I never said it wasn't our fault, I said that welfare perpetuated an existing problem, largely created by European settlement.

And you have no evidence of this.

Generally welfare is indicative of an underlying condition, not the cause of it.

That's fine, so long as they sustain themselves. They didn't have welfare 40 000 years ago.

They didn't have dispossesion, petrol, alcohol or racism 40,000 years ago. They also had a strong family structure which was obliterated upon white arrival.

Ok, let's extend that standard to everyone.

We do.

Oh wait, then we have no products, way of life, or anything else.

Every single aboriginal person could not conform to your white economic standards, and Australia would be no worse off. Stop getting angry at a few aboriginals who refuse (or can't) feed your money machine.

 

[sthcross.dude]

it's great to see you're so proactive in wanting to help Aboriginals not less than 2 sentences after you basically called each and every single one of them booze addicts or paint, petrol or glue sniffers.

It is great to see. But some people have a different definition of "helping" to you. Allowing the current situation of welfare dependance is unworkable. We will help them away from this situation where many of them are "booze addicts or paint, petrol or glue sniffers" if we stop mollycoddling them.

 

[withoutaface]

As I said, you have no proof. Your (old fashioned) anti-welfare attitude doesn't really make sense.

No job, no welfare = no money.
No money = no solvents.
Are you really that retarded?

Furthermore I don't really see what you're trying to achieve by labelling my views "old fashioned".

Um, no, i think they are having it as tough. Go walk down everleigh street.

Strawman. I said that they were better off in cities, not ideal.

Well it's great to see you're so proactive in wanting to help Aboriginals not less than 2 sentences after you basically called each and every single one of them booze addicts or paint, petrol or glue sniffers.

Strawman #2. I said that those disadvantaged people you were referring to were more likely to be substance abusers. If you wish to contest this point I invite you to do so.

And you have no evidence of this.

Where's your evidence that welfare is helping them? I mean if we've got two arguments, both equally useless, we might as well take the one which isn't a burden on the taxpayer, right?

Generally welfare is indicative of an underlying condition, not the cause of it.

You're either saying it's because they were disenfranchised, which is repeating what I said, or because aboriginals are genetically hardwired not to be able to work, which is racist. Now which is it?

They didn't have dispossesion, petrol, alcohol or racism 40,000 years ago. They also had a strong family structure which was obliterated upon white arrival.

Nobody forced alcohol down their throats or petrol up their nostrils, that's a choice.
There will be no racism towards them if they're living off the land.
Dispossession is being solved, with the bulk of them being given back traditional lands, and if they wish to live on them and sustain themselves as they have for 40 000 years then there's no reason they aren't able to.

We do.

You can get welfare that you can live off without conditions tied to it if you're an anglo saxon living in the city? I think not.

Every single aboriginal person could not conform to your white economic standards, and Australia would be no worse off. Stop getting angry at a few aboriginals who refuse (or can't) feed your money machine.

They have two options:
1. Reject the machine, live off the land. If you're rejecting one part of the machine then you shouldn't be asking it for a handout either.
2. Accept the machine, and make moves towards getting a job.
You can't pick and choose which parts of western society you want to accept, because with every benefit comes responsibilities.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

No wonder he was elected to the union board! lol!

Here's an interesting quote...

What happens if the people in these communities don't do what they're told? Will they be shot in the leg, the arm or the heart? Will the police use their batons to beat them into being white? The deployment of doctors, nurses, teachers and social workers would have aided the empowerment of indigenous people. The military and police are not interested in helping the oppressed. They uphold our unjust laws with undue force.

 

[withoutaface]

Laws against child rape are unjust now?

 

[EmperorHirohito]

Laws against child rape are unjust now?

Yes for Paedophiles.

 

[sthcross.dude]

They have two options:
1. Reject the machine, live off the land. If you're rejecting one part of the machine then you shouldn't be asking it for a handout either.
2. Accept the machine, and make moves towards getting a job.
You can't pick and choose which parts of western society you want to accept, because with every benefit comes responsibilities.

Quoted for truth.

 

[banco55]

I love all this crap about how we should just send social workers, doctors etc. and leave the police out. If a social worker comes across a kid who tells them that he/she is being abused what can they do about it? If wives are getting beaten up a social worker isn't going to be of much use. Not to mention you are going to have a hard time retaining social workers if they aren't backed up by the police.

 

[sthcross.dude]

Some guy on the news said:

If its a national emergency, why hasn't John Howard done anything about it for 11 years.