92 replies to this topic

[Persia]

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.

http://www.rawstory....-by-government/

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

seems to me it's a bit hard to get doctors to go into general practice anywhere, let alone small towns. I wouldn't see much of a problem with a large base hospital in the deep outback.

[ZaraKitty]

They would live longer if they weren't alcoholics and lived in a town or something instead of the bush.

[psyche101]

Hrmmzz, remember ATSIC?


Why the ATSIC gravy train must be derailed

[and then]

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?

[Arbenol68]

Australian aborigines have lived in that land for at least 30,000 years. I don't think there are many indigineous people that can make such a claim. When the Europeans arrived they set about the systematic destruction of the aboriginal people that continued right into the 1970s. This was genocide, as defined by the UN in 1948.

Throughout the history of European colonisation, the aborigines were brutalised and treated as less than animals. They certainly weren't seen as fellow human beings. It's hardly surprising in that context that contemporary aboriginals are plagued with such a mass of social problems. It's easy to blame them for high levels of alcoholism, but they did not have alcohol before colonial times. You can't consistently mistreat people then moan when they exhibit some maladaptive traits.

Why should they not continue to live in land that they've occupied for so many millenia. Why should they be coerced and forced to live in conditions that are completely alien to them? It's hardly like there's a shortage of space. And why should they compromise at all?

Sure it costs. But I think Europeans all over this globe owe indigineous races more than they've repaid yet.

[psyche101]

Arbenol68, on 19 April 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

Australian aborigines have lived in that land for at least 30,000 years. I don't think there are many indigineous people that can make such a claim. When the Europeans arrived they set about the systematic destruction of the aboriginal people that continued right into the 1970s. This was genocide, as defined by the UN in 1948.

Throughout the history of European colonisation, the aborigines were brutalised and treated as less than animals. They certainly weren't seen as fellow human beings. It's hardly surprising in that context that contemporary aboriginals are plagued with such a mass of social problems. It's easy to blame them for high levels of alcoholism, but they did not have alcohol before colonial times. You can't consistently mistreat people then moan when they exhibit some maladaptive traits.

Indeed, I cannot disagree with this, every word is 100% true. All I would question is the maladaptive traits. It is more than obvious that alcohol and Indigenous simply do not mix. It has always been a  nightmare, and always will be. It strikes me that the Indigenous can see this too, and they should be taking steps away from alcohol, not insisting on more. I do not feel alcohol is an excuse for extremely bad behaviour. There are some amazing Indigenous ambassadors that show there is more to life than Alcohol, such as Ernie Dingo and the nations hero, Cathy Freeman. It is impossible not to feel deep respect for what these ambassadors have accomplished. As such, medical help with beating this addiction seems a more prudent move that would actually help a great deal more than building houses and shops in the desert. I think people need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and start to accept accountability for their actions.

Arbenol68, on 19 April 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

Why should they not continue to live in land that they've occupied for so many millenia. Why should they be coerced and forced to live in conditions that are completely alien to them? It's hardly like there's a shortage of space. And why should they compromise at all?

Now this is where I am getting confused. The article states that indigenous are being forced of their land, but when I read the article, that claims changes to:

Quote

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.

What do traditional indigenous want with housing? What else? Shops in the desert? It is not a land issue, it is a resources issue, which is why I posted that sign from the article. What do they want? Traditional lifestyle or the city lifestyle in peace in the desert with only other indigenous around? It seems they are indeed quite free to live life as a traditional, but not as a traditional with modern societies benefits.

Arbenol68, on 19 April 2012 - 04:47 AM, said:

Sure it costs. But I think Europeans all over this globe owe indigineous races more than they've repaid yet.

Indeed, but whom? Aussie residents? How many residents today do you think are directly related to the original British colonies? And even those that are direct descendants, are they to pay for the sins of their fathers? Does even indigenous justice work that way? It seems quite a harsh punishment for the crimes of people unknown, and that was the opposition to the governments apology. Most people did not know who they were apologising for, or indeed why. I always wondered why Britain was exempt from this apology. The atrocities you listed above are something to be ashamed of, and therefore hidden from view. It is not taught in schools, I know I was never taught such. Throwing good money after bad is not going to accomplish anything. It is a problem that needs to be adressed directly and with thought, not just throwing things at a wall hoping something will stick. The claim is not even n the level, it makes out that Indigenous are being thrown from their own land, but when we read the article, it is modern amenities that are the issue. Australia is vast, what is being asked for may not even be possible. I agree that most countries owe their own indigenous some type of repayment, but I think that repayment has to be thought about a little deeper than this shallow claim.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

psyche101, on 20 April 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Does even indigenous justice work that way?

IIRC some of the People's traditions do work that way.


Incidentally, a mate of mine overheard a member of the Indigenous Community saying "I wish all these foreigners would **** off, this is Australia for us Black fellas and you white fellas".

[Arbenol68]

psyche101, on 20 April 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Indeed, I cannot disagree with this, every word is 100% true. All I would question is the maladaptive traits. It is more than obvious that alcohol and Indigenous simply do not mix. It has always been a  nightmare, and always will be. It strikes me that the Indigenous can see this too, and they should be taking steps away from alcohol, not insisting on more. I do not feel alcohol is an excuse for extremely bad behaviour. There are some amazing Indigenous ambassadors that show there is more to life than Alcohol, such as Ernie Dingo and the nations hero, Cathy Freeman. It is impossible not to feel deep respect for what these ambassadors have accomplished. As such, medical help with beating this addiction seems a more prudent move that would actually help a great deal more than building houses and shops in the desert. I think people need to stop feeling sorry for themselves and start to accept accountability for their actions.

Couldn't agree more. I think if people simply expect the authorities to solve everything, they'll be waiting a long time. It will take a joint effort that will require aborigines to take a collective and individual responsibility. This goes back to a previous comment about compromise. I wrote "Why should they compromise?" By this, I don't mean that they should not, but was a genuine question. I believe the government still needs to step up and provide a climate that will be conducive to compromise. But...  

psyche101, on 20 April 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Indeed, but whom? Aussie residents? How many residents today do you think are directly related to the original British colonies? And even those that are direct descendants, are they to pay for the sins of their fathers? Does even indigenous justice work that way? It seems quite a harsh punishment for the crimes of people unknown, and that was the opposition to the governments apology. Most people did not know who they were apologising for, or indeed why. I always wondered why Britain was exempt from this apology. The atrocities you listed above are something to be ashamed of, and therefore hidden from view. It is not taught in schools, I know I was never taught such. Throwing good money after bad is not going to accomplish anything. It is a problem that needs to be adressed directly and with thought, not just throwing things at a wall hoping something will stick. The claim is not even n the level, it makes out that Indigenous are being thrown from their own land, but when we read the article, it is modern amenities that are the issue. Australia is vast, what is being asked for may not even be possible. I agree that most countries owe their own indigenous some type of repayment, but I think that repayment has to be thought about a little deeper than this shallow claim.

....to claim that "it wasn't us or our ancestors" is to miss the point I think. The opposition to a government apology just demonstrated that the divisions are still deep. The effect of acknowledging wrong far outweighs the negative of someone feeling they've had to apologise for something they have not done.

You're not called The Lucky Country for no reason. Many people from all over the world have done real well by emigrating there, and it's difficult to separate that from the fact that there were others there first.

I'm not singling out Australia, by the way. In NZ the situation's different, but there are some similarities. Settlement with Maori is running into billions of dollars and explicitly acknowledges the wrongs that were done, but I don't begrudge that (and I'm an immigrant with Irish / Italian ancestry - so it wasn't my forebears either). The result is that Maoridom is strong and is represented in the highest parts of government. There are still many here that love the stereotype that they're shiftless, alcoholic wife-beaters; but it seems to me they've made great gains in just a few decades.

[DKO]

Im trying to find the article now but I remember a few years ago the government set up mobile doctor surgeries and mobile markets to help the NT aboriginals. They ended up complaining that there wasnt any alcohol in the markets and refused to goto the doctors. What a waste of tax payer money that was.

[psyche101]

Arbenol68, on 20 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Couldn't agree more. I think if people simply expect the authorities to solve everything, they'll be waiting a long time. It will take a joint effort that will require aborigines to take a collective and individual responsibility. This goes back to a previous comment about compromise. I wrote "Why should they compromise?" By this, I don't mean that they should not, but was a genuine question. I believe the government still needs to step up and provide a climate that will be conducive to compromise. But...  

I do agree with you there. It was the west that introduced alcohol, it seems only fair that the west do something about making the situation better for both parties. And yes, the Government could go a bit further to make the environment more conducive to talks. I am not sure of that is inexperience, or that size of the task that lies ahead. I do agree with you on all that.

Arbenol68, on 20 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

....to claim that "it wasn't us or our ancestors" is to miss the point I think. The opposition to a government apology just demonstrated that the divisions are still deep. The effect of acknowledging wrong far outweighs the negative of someone feeling they've had to apologise for something they have not done.

You're not called The Lucky Country for no reason. Many people from all over the world have done real well by emigrating there, and it's difficult to separate that from the fact that there were others there first.

Yes, it is that acknowledgment, apologising for the sins of others. I think I with most of the country do miss the point, I would have liked to see Kevin tell us all why it is prudent for the current citizens to apologise for settlers, I think that would have gone a very long way for both sides, but I find Labor does tend to do "half a job" all the time. Again the Government have not thought something through before acting.
I think I understand the second line better, my parents were immigrants in the mid 50's. Do you mean it is difficult for the indigenous, or for Australia as a whole to recognise who would be todays guilty party?

Arbenol68, on 20 April 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

I'm not singling out Australia, by the way. In NZ the situation's different, but there are some similarities. Settlement with Maori is running into billions of dollars and explicitly acknowledges the wrongs that were done, but I don't begrudge that (and I'm an immigrant with Irish / Italian ancestry - so it wasn't my forebears either). The result is that Maoridom is strong and is represented in the highest parts of government. There are still many here that love the stereotype that they're shiftless, alcoholic wife-beaters; but it seems to me they've made great gains in just a few decades.

Those wily Kiwis! I have such deep respect for those brilliant men who were astute enough to know not to fight the oncoming invasion, but to use it to their advantage. The Treaty of Waitangi is ne of the most strategic contracts in history IMHO. I think all aspects of cultures have that unsavoury component, but for the original Kiwis to know they could not beat the British and or the French and whoever else was after their land at the time, so they created this lease. I mean in the 1800's who would have thought a 200 year lease would be a problem! THe Brits planned to have natives bred out by then didn't they? Yet the ancestors are here now, collecting the rent and taking back each piece if land as it becomes available again as the treaty permits. That was one hell of a forethought on their behalf.
I love NZ, I hope to retire there.

Edited by psyche101, 23 April 2012 - 06:06 AM.

[psyche101]

Wearer of Hats, on 20 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

IIRC some of the People's traditions do work that way.

I really did not know that, I thought that once the family head was removed that  it was a fresh slate. You would not know which part of Oz by any chance? I loosely study indigenous history, and as difficult as it is, I try to find as much pre cook as I can, which is exceedingly difficult with traditions being orally recorded.

Wearer of Hats, on 20 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Incidentally, a mate of mine overheard a member of the Indigenous Community saying "I wish all these foreigners would **** off, this is Australia for us Black fellas and you white fellas".

I think all the communities are not all that different to be quite honest. Both the indigenous and the Italian tilers at the end of the street are probably saying the same thing in different tongues.

[Eldorado]

psyche101, on 23 April 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I think all the communities are not all that different to be quite honest. Both the indigenous and the Italian tilers at the end of the street are probably saying the same thing in different tongues.

An Indian once complained to me that Glasgow has "too many Pakistanis and communists".  lol

[Arbenol68]

psyche101, on 23 April 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

I think I understand the second line better, my parents were immigrants in the mid 50's. Do you mean it is difficult for the indigenous, or for Australia as a whole to recognise who would be todays guilty party?

I don't think it's about contemporary guilt for what happened, but an acknowledgement that those who live there today are standing on the shoulders of those Europeans that originally settled the land. This is why that the collective responsibility could be acknowledged by all Australians, not just the Europeans. Asian, Indian, people from all over the world reap the benefits.

And the point you made earlier about Britain's apology (or lack of) is a very valid one.

psyche101, on 23 April 2012 - 05:59 AM, said:

Those wily Kiwis! I have such deep respect for those brilliant men who were astute enough to know not to fight the oncoming invasion, but to use it to their advantage. The Treaty of Waitangi is ne of the most strategic contracts in history IMHO. I think all aspects of cultures have that unsavoury component, but for the original Kiwis to know they could not beat the British and or the French and whoever else was after their land at the time, so they created this lease. I mean in the 1800's who would have thought a 200 year lease would be a problem! THe Brits planned to have natives bred out by then didn't they? Yet the ancestors are here now, collecting the rent and taking back each piece if land as it becomes available again as the treaty permits. That was one hell of a forethought on their behalf.
I love NZ, I hope to retire there.

Maori had an uncanny knack for taking certain European institutions and 'ways of thinking' and adapting them to suit their own needs. The Treaty, though, was a sneaky ploy by the British to get land without having to fight for it - lets face it, who'd want to go to war with fierce warrior tribes who invented trench warfare. I think they didn't have the stomach for it.

[psyche101]

Eldorado, on 23 April 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

An Indian once complained to me that Glasgow has "too many Pakistanis and communists".  lol

Crikey! How did you keep a straight face?