92 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

Wearer of Hats, on 01 May 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

I may be mistaken, but wasn't the meat of Ruddy's apology about the Stolen Generation(s)? That's something self-governed Australian governments authorised.

Yes, it was the larger part of the apology,


Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our national history.

but the Stolen Generations had to be instigated by British rule, as the process was largely carried out between 1869 and 1969. Some instances also happened in the 70's.


As the former colonial power until the Australian colonies came together as a federation in 1901, Britain should also apologise for Aboriginal children being sent to foster families and institutions, said prominent human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC.

LINK - The Telegraph

British MP's seem to agree with me.



British MPs’ motion to support Australia’s ‘sorry’ to Indigenous Australians

21 February 2008 - EDM 1000 tabled in the British parliament

Begins
Indigenous Australians
That this House recalls Great Britain's role in the colonisation, settlement and early governance of Australia;  acknowledges Great Britain's responsibility for the suffering and degradation inflicted on indigenous Australians including the removal of indigenous human remains and material culture; supports the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, in his apology to the stolen generations and other indigenous Australians for the pain, loss, deprivation and abuse they have suffered; recognises the continuing strength and  vitality of the indigenous peoples of Australia and their culture; supports the Australian government's commitment to recognising the special status of Australia's indigenous peoples and tackling the inequalities still facing indigenous Australians.

LINK

I still feel Britain should have been there with Australia on this.

[psyche101]

Flibbertigibbet, on 01 May 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

The vast majority of Australians are descended from the British who settled there and did those things.

I beg to differ. Try visiting the place some time. Catch a cab in Sydney and get back to me on that one!

By 1868, when transportation ended, fewer than 200,000 British convicts has arrived, yet the population was over 1,000,000. I have already posted the immigration records as far as multiculturalism goes.

LINK

[psyche101]

Wearer of Hats, on 01 May 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

True but we didn't actually do nor condone those things.
Are you in the habit of saying sorry for things you didn't do? Be saddned they happened, yes. That's called compassion. Swear by all you hold dear that you'll fight to ensure it doesn't happen again? Absolutely.
But I refuse yo be held responaible for something that was done before I was born.

You did not have to Ruddy did it for you

[psyche101]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 01 May 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I don't believe either that the current British Govt should apologise, like I don't believe the current Italian Govt should apologise to the rest of Europe, the current Spanish and Portuguese Govt's should apologise to South American Indians etc etc.  But you reap what you sow and sooner or later cause and effect takes place in a life time or over a period of time.  

Why not? A little good deed too much to ask? If you can help someone feel better with some simple words, who is it hurting?

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 01 May 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

They were lucky that they reaped the benefits out of colonial Australia with little effect.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by little effect. An entire race of people was wiped out. That is genocide. I would not call that little on any scale. Perhaps you might click on the previous links I left to these massacres?

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 01 May 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

They probably weren't so lucky with other colonial acquisitions such as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, West Indies etc. resulting in a large influx of migrants moving to Britain, rightfully looking for better job and life opportunities in the land of their former colonial masters and current commonwealth partners, but unfortunately with the outcome of providing lesser job opportunities for the locals.

Australia has much space and plenty to offer. And it is much further away. I think that would have a lot to do with it. And that people were starting to realise that America might have gone another way about settlement, which is why Britain came here in the first place.

[psyche101]

Flibbertigibbet, on 01 May 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

The people reaping the benefits of the British Empire in Australia are the Australians. You speak as if the British Empire was a wholly bad thing, but all historical empires of any worth also advance human civilisation.

Hang on, you are saying the British empire set up in Australia, and are due for accolades with regards to modern lifestyles, byt should be exempt for any wrongdoing they instigated?

Isn't that the same thing as having your cake and eating it too?

[psyche101]

Robbie333, on 01 May 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

That is just wrong. We in the US did it to the "original" Americans. It is wrong. I had no idea that this went on so this extent in Australia.

See my post #45 it is not as clear cut as this.

[psyche101]

Robbie333, on 01 May 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

You don't like them? Why would you be so cold with a statement such as this? I am curious, thats all.

In general the negative view of Indigenous Australians is largely due to the fact that until 230 years ago, they had never experienced alcohol and as such easily consume harmful levels of alcohol. Their bodies do not handle it as well (that could be debated I feel though) as seasoned Europeans and the result in very ugly and rather violent 99.9% of the time creating the stereotype. People do not realise just how rich the culture is because much was buried when Australia was settled and most Indigenous records are oral. Pre-Captain Cook records are fascinating I find. But very rare.

LINK - Ernie Dingo on Alcohol Consumption

Edited by psyche101, 02 May 2012 - 02:02 AM.

[Black Red Devil]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

That is not the case here though, it is a bit from both worlds. The Indigenous want to live traditional, but with housing and modern amenities. From the OP:

The human rights organisation studied small groups in the central desert region and found those choosing to live on their ancestral lands were effectively denied services such as public housing due to a government emphasis on bigger towns.

How is it a "traditional" Lifestyle with Government funded public housing?

Traditional doesn't mean living in caves and painting hands on the walls, it means cultural heritage within their communities and land.  As for the two links (the OP and mine) I'm pretty certain the OP's is related to the Stronger Futures Program even though it doesn't mention it.

[Black Red Devil]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Why not? A little good deed too much to ask? If you can help someone feel better with some simple words, who is it hurting?

Morally, it probably wouldn't hurt anybody but as the other poster said, after over a 100 years, it's become our problem now.  In fact, strange enough as it may seem, aborigines are filthier about what happened in recent times with the stolen generation rather than what happened over a 100 years ago.

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I am not sure I understand what you mean by little effect. An entire race of people was wiped out. That is genocide. I would not call that little on any scale. Perhaps you might click on the previous links I left to these massacres?

Little effect on Great Britain.

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Australia has much space and plenty to offer. And it is much further away. I think that would have a lot to do with it. And that people were starting to realise that America might have gone another way about settlement, which is why Britain came here in the first place.

Not sure how this refers to my point but anyway, in reference to the bold part, the British came here in the first place because they didn't want the French to be the first here.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 02 May 2012 - 04:36 AM.

[psyche101]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 May 2012 - 04:21 AM, said:

Traditional doesn't mean living in caves and painting hands on the walls, it means cultural heritage within their communities and land.  As for the two links (the OP and mine) I'm pretty certain the OP's is related to the Stronger Futures Program even though it doesn't mention it.

I actually thought it did! How do you practise the cultural aspects of the Indigenous lifestyle without learning the impressive tracking, and building aspects of Indigenous life? Like making Canoes, shelters, surviving etc?

The OP says they are on their land, but for some reason not providing public housing in these remote places is somehow "kicking them" off their lands?


Australia’s Aborigines are being forced off their traditional land because of government policy, despite the fact they would live longer if they stayed put, Amnesty International claimed Tuesday.
The human rights organisation studied small groups in the central desert region and found those choosing to live on their ancestral lands were effectively denied services such as public housing due to a government emphasis on bigger towns.
There does not seem to be much mention of cultural heritage in the OP's link. As you know, Australia is a big place, who is going to pay to place services such as electricity, water and sewage in these remote locations? That would be astoundingly expensive to instigate and it would only be serving a small population. When you look at Australia as a whole, and all it's peoples, it seems a very bad investment.

[psyche101]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 May 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Morally, it probably wouldn't hurt anybody but as the other poster said, after over a 100 years, it's become our problem now.  In fact, strange enough as it may seem, aborigines are filthier about what happened in recent times with the stolen generation rather than what happened over a 100 years ago.

I am sorry, but I do not believe that to be the case. I think there is great confusion about now and then as per the lady I mentioned who fears having her children taken from her by the Government. This is not reflected on Australia day, the invasion day marches are a direct protest to the first settlement, and every indigenous person I have spoken to regards the words "Captain Cook" as dirty words. And the stolen generation years began with, and under, British rule. I think there is plenty of both and all mixed together.

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 May 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Little effect on Great Britain.

My mistake, thank you for the clarification.

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 02 May 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:

Not sure how this refers to my point but anyway, in reference to the bold part, the British came here in the first place because they didn't want the French to be the first here.

I thought many did not migrate to Britain because Australia is large, has much opportunity and very good weather.
Yes they did wish to beat the French, but for many more reasons than that.
The American War of Independence put a stop to Britain sending excess convicts to America and needed a new land for their penal system
To expand the British Empire
To create a strategic eastern base which would assist with trade with China
For extra Flax and Timber requirement brought on by wars as her Baltic supply was under threat

On top of all this, natural resources would have been quite a benefit to Britain.

Edited by psyche101, 02 May 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Arbenol68]

Flibbertigibbet, on 01 May 2012 - 01:08 PM, said:

Yes, certainly they reaped the benefits. But there were basically 2 types of colony, the settler ones like Australia, America etc. and the ones that already had a large population that were exploited for trade purposes, like India or Africa.

I don't think you're describing 2 different types of colonies there. They're the same. The size of the population is irrelevant. The fact is that there were indigenous people already already living there (for many millenia, in the case of Australia). It's just a matter of scale.

[The Unseen]

and then, on 19 April 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

So they will live longer, more healthy lives on their own lands but if they don't live in larger groups they live in much worse conditions presumably on their own lands?   And the cities are not an advantage why?    It sounds like they want to have the services delivered to them in multiple locations which would be a much greater drain on resources.  I wonder what the Aboriginal word for compromise is?

There isn't one

[Flibbertigibbet]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

Hang on, you are saying the British empire set up in Australia, and are due for accolades with regards to modern lifestyles, byt should be exempt for any wrongdoing they instigated?

Isn't that the same thing as having your cake and eating it too?

It's the Australians that are getting the cake and eating it, rather than the British.

[Flibbertigibbet]

psyche101, on 02 May 2012 - 01:20 AM, said:

I beg to differ. Try visiting the place some time. Catch a cab in Sydney and get back to me on that one!

By 1868, when transportation ended, fewer than 200,000 British convicts has arrived, yet the population was over 1,000,000. I have already posted the immigration records as far as multiculturalism goes.

LINK

So, what percentage of Australians are not descended from British settlers, then? Not all the British who went there were convicts.

Edited by Flibbertigibbet, 02 May 2012 - 08:12 AM.