Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Persia

Australia’s aborigines forced off land

93 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? :blink: 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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:

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

....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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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".

:D 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Crikey! How did you keep a straight face?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Nicely said.

Ahh, I see, now put like that it seems quite a reasonable thing to do. I guess one does not take that into account, one just thinks, hey, I just got here! What's going on?

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

I do believe it is the prime reasons for most of the confusion, If the Government put the apology the way you did above, I think many more people would be happier about it. But all in all, I think the Aussies who have read the history are all wondering why Britain is exempt from that which they are responsible for.

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.

I always thought the sneakiness was the Maori side of the deal. Instead of signing over the land as opposed to fighting for it, they leased it for like 200 years, now they are gradually collecting it all back. Such foresight! I believe the French were also in line to step up and try to claim the land weren't they?

I did know they invented trench warfare, amazing people that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe it is the prime reasons for most of the confusion, If the Government put the apology the way you did above, I think many more people would be happier about it. But all in all, I think the Aussies who have read the history are all wondering why Britain is exempt from that which they are responsible for.

Who is currently benefiting from the land taken from the Aborigines, the British or the Australians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the Saxons be apologising for their invasion of Angleland?

There has to be a point where we say "lets looks to tomorrow". KRudd's speech was that moment, it put a line under the past and said It happened and it was terrible now, what's will we do tomorrow to make sure everyone gets the most out of living in this great nation?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the sneakiness was the Maori side of the deal. Instead of signing over the land as opposed to fighting for it, they leased it for like 200 years, now they are gradually collecting it all back. Such foresight! I believe the French were also in line to step up and try to claim the land weren't they?

That's an interesting and, probably, more accurate take on it. I'm not that familiar with a lot of the history but I'm sure you're right that the french also had the scent. There are still quite a few places that retain a more french than british flavour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is currently benefiting from the land taken from the Aborigines, the British or the Australians?

All due respect, but I think this misses the mark. The British (and I'm one) cannot hide behind a comment like that to shy away from the atrocities that were committed in the spirit of imperialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect, but I think this misses the mark. The British (and I'm one) cannot hide behind a comment like that to shy away from the atrocities that were committed in the spirit of imperialism.

Whenever they mention atrocities it's always the British who committed them. But whenever they talk about the rugged pioneer spirit it's always the Australians who had it (or whatever colony we happen to be talking about). Yet they were the same people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Whenever they mention atrocities it's always the British who committed them. But whenever they talk about the rugged pioneer spirit it's always the Australians who had it (or whatever colony we happen to be talking about). Yet they were the same people.

There's some truth to that. Undoubtedly there is a bit of a romantic notion about that sort of thing. But if you look back at this thread there's lots of talk about what happened to the Aborigines, right up to the 1970s so I don't think anyone here is overlooking it.

Edited by Arbenol68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is currently benefiting from the land taken from the Aborigines, the British or the Australians?

Well, I do not know that benefit is the right word, it's trade. The land was "taken" in the first instance, and perhaps still is, why people get confused is that some like my parents only moved here in the 50's and due to history being largely written by the victors, that most immigrants never heard about any part of it. It is not taught in schools, my education came from Indigenous people, I then looked up official sources and was sickened by how much in the dark I really was. What is called racism in Australia is largely ignorance, and not by the fault of the people IMHO.

And as far as I know, we are still commonwealth, so Britain is indeed still benefiting to a certain extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the Saxons be apologising for their invasion of Angleland?

There has to be a point where we say "lets looks to tomorrow". KRudd's speech was that moment, it put a line under the past and said It happened and it was terrible now, what's will we do tomorrow to make sure everyone gets the most out of living in this great nation?"

I think Mr Rudd could have been a little clearer in that if that was his message. I think his real message was "Look at me!" After all, this was 200 years ago, a decent time frame I will grant, but not all that long at all in the scheme of discovery and mans historical record. I still think it would have been prudent to have a member of British Parliament in on the deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compromise means money! rolleyes.gif

Can't help them if they refuse to help themselves, I can't get dental subsidies and I was born here!disgust.gif

They get alcohol from living in the townships, in turn, the crime rate is shot, health system failing, legal system at an all time financial splatter and the children.,. Neglect is more important that, "a new car brother, with my big money royalties". I'll drive it into the ground then I'll dump it on the road side for someone else to clean up, if they didnt overly intoxicate themselves with the white man lifestyle they wouldn't have kidney heart and liver failure. The government pays them to live on"their" land. Save the culture properly I say".rolleyes.gif

I've lived right in the heart of this BS it truly is disgraceful!

"Money for nothing and ya cheques for free".

White man ball and chain.,. No one said sorry to me, when my cousin was raped, no one said sorry when my house was destroyed no one said sorry to me when I was called a white so and so! mad.gif I didn't steal no babies yet the new generation of tax payer pays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.