[anarchist23]

Swagman.The aborigines have been forced off the the best land by white squatters over the past few hundred years.This is undeniable..The aboriginal children were stolen from their parents.This is undeniable..Your arguments have the stench of racism and you don't even realize that your arguments are racist and so old fashioned and dated.
You again are an apologist for the endemic racism in Australia.I have heard exactly the same arguments from white South Africans and White Rhodesians. Are you a white supremacist?
The refugees housed in remote out of the way places seems very similar to what has been dished out to the indigenous Australians.Don't you think?
I will quote from another Australian."I'm appalled by the way they treat Boat People refugees."

[Pants-of-dog]

Why does that matter?

Feel free to enjoy your history in the place where you have that history then. Just don't pretend that your history is tied to the Land of Australia.

Really? What about the British tribes? They were colonised by Rome were they not? Did not the British culture get decimated, what of Boudica and the Iceni? They had their lives, land and children taken away from them by these colonialists (imperialists is same difference )?

What about the Anglo Saxons? They most certainly had their lands taken away from them by the Danes and the Normans?

Check your history books POD.

No. They did not. Do you learn your history from Asterix and Mel Gibson movies?

Did the Romans set up a program where little Brits were taken away in an effort to eradicate British culture? No.

Ok just for a moment put aside the plain and indisputable fact that many indigenous children / families were living in squallor and as a result their communities had high infant and mortality rates in general.

Maybe you should not have stolen their land (basically all their wealth).

There were an element of bible bashing fanatics that were trying to convert the hethens of course. (That didn't only happen here BTW) The main motive was to save the lives of the children by removing them from the squallor and the desease in much the same way as Child Welfare authorities operate today.

Yes, that was the rationalisation for trying to eradicate their culture.

They have equal access to health (actually more than equal) because they have Govt funded Indigenous health organisations to assist them as well as the mainstream public health system.

No, they do not. This is why there is a nationwide campaign to close the gap. It's called Close The Gap.

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/close-ga ... h-campaign

That's up to the individual indigenous person as to whether they wish to live within their culture or gravitate away from it. Nobody is forcing them which appear to be what the posters here seem to be implying. Indigenous folk are not forced to live any particular way in Australia in this day and age. I have indigenous friends, I work with indigenous people I have many indigenous clients, I've been to the remote areas. They have a strong collectivist / community attitude but some individuals have moved away from the communities and are making their way as individuals in the mainstream community.

Considering the fact that many Aboriginals were forcibly assimilated into white culture, you are objectively wrong.

Firstly people are marginlised because of their circumstances. There is no "marginaliser" going around and branding people whether they be indigenous or non-idigenous as marginalised.

Yet another white guy claiming racism doesn't exist.

Secondly, there is a huge gap in health and education outcomes for aboriginals versus non-aboriginals because a large number of indigenous people choose to live in their communities in very remote areas and in their traditional way.

What can the Govt do? Force them to live in cities. Force them to go to school? That would be very racist from your point of view I suspect?

So there is a 'catch 22'.

If that were the case, then rural white Australians would have similar health outcomes as Aboriginals. They do not.

For the reasons in the previous point 'white' kids were not seen to be living in the squalid conditions that aboriginal kids were living in. Towns and cities where 'white' kids lived had running water, housing, sewerage & schools & work opportunities. Aboriginals choosing to live in remote traditional communities didn't have these mod conditions. Goody-goodies of the day thought they were doing the correct thing by removing kids from what they saw as squalid conditions. Their families not knowing any better thought they were being abducted and the Goody-Goodies didn't listen to reason.......much the same as you and the Anarchist are doing now in reverse.... .

I will repeat myself with boldingbecause you ignored the point:

This is such a horrible fallacy of equivalency. White kids were not taken en masse from their parents. There was a special law put in place allowing the gov't to take aboriginal kids without any evidence of abuse or neglect, while no law was ever made to let the gov't do this to white kids.

Most importantly, non-aboriginal kids were not taken away from their parents for the purpose of eradicating their culture.

Way to not address these points.

So you believe cultures don't evolve and assimilate without force?

I believe they do, usually because the colonialists are racist. I have no idea how this makes your statements somehow not racist.

Australia didn't colonise Australia. The English did. You want to hold someone to account, go and knock on 10 Downing street....

Your refusal to be responsible for the fact that you live on stolen land sure shows how "superior" white culture is.

[Decky]

Your refusal to be responsible for the fact that you live on stolen land sure shows how "superior" white culture is.

Says the white Canadian.

[Pants-of-dog]

Says the white Canadian.

At least I am not pretending that Canada is not a colonialist nation, nor am I pretending that Canadians are holding their gov't accountable for racist laws such as the Indian Act.

This is what settlers need to do: acknowledge native rights to traditional lands, and the treaties that allow for a respectful relationship between settlers and natives.

Unfortunately, it would be very destabilising to the current economic order if all colonial nations actually had to pay for the land and resources they are using, so it will be an uphill struggle against entrenched capitalism. However, we should not let that stop us.

[Decky]

[quote]Unfortunately, it would be very destabilising to the current economic order if all colonial nations actually had to pay for the land and resources they are using,[/quote

What about the resources they have already used and what if the natives don't want to sell? Should the natives be able to round them all up down to the last man woman and send the back (my solution to the orange question in occupied Ireland)?

[Pants-of-dog]

What about the resources they have already used

They (we) should pay for them.

and what if the natives don't want to sell?

We have existing treaties. If we simply respect those, then all parties have essentially already agreed. We just have to keep our end of the deal.

Should the natives be able to round them all up down to the last man woman and send the back (my solution to the orange question in occupied Ireland)?

I don't think this is a realistic option.

[Decky]

They (we)

Speak for youself I am not a colonial remember. I have not set foot on anyone elses land apart from as a tourist once in Germany and once in the US.

So you claim to be all for native rights agaist the invaders (laughably called settlers; were the Germans "settling" in Poland?) and it turns out you don't think they have any say in their own land. Good to see that you are consistent.

We have existing treaties.

Treaties signed at the barrel of an invaders gun are meaningless scraps of paper and native peoples should go back on them as soon they have to power to do so.

[Pants-of-dog]

Speak for youself I am not a colonial remember. I have not set foot on anyone elses land apart from as a tourist once in Germany and once in the US.

I wasn't talking about you.

So you claim to be all for native rights agaist the invaders (laughably called settlers; were the Germans "settling" in Poland?) and it turns out you don't think they have any say in their own land. Good to see that you are consistent.

I don't know what you are saying.

Are you saying that I think that natives should not have a say?

Are you saying I don't think settlers should have a say?

Both of these are incorrect, and I have no idea how you inferred that from anything I wrote.

Treaties signed at the barrel of an invaders gun are meaningless scraps of paper and native peoples should go back on them as soon they have to power to do so.

Maybe. However, the current treaties do deal respectfully with the nations involved. If not, then other arrangements need to be worked out. The important thing is to have a relationship of mutual respect.

[Decky]

I don't see how someone is meant to have mutral respect with an invader standing on their soil.

[anarchist23]

Swagman.Where have you got to?Have you given up defending the indefensible?Perhaps you should put yourself into the shoes of the aboriginals or the refugees and feel a little compassion.
A little respect possibly???

[Swagman]

Feel free to enjoy your history in the place where you have that history then. Just don't pretend that your history is tied to the Land of Australia.

I don't have to pretend I was born here, I work, pay lots of tax to the slave master and I haven't stolen anyone's land.

Really? What about the British tribes? They were colonised by Rome were they not? Did not the British culture get decimated, what of Boudica and the Iceni? They had their lives, land and children taken away from them by these colonialists (imperialists is same difference
)?

What about the Anglo Saxons? They most certainly had their lands taken away from them by the Danes and the Normans?

No. They did not. Do you learn your history from Asterix and Mel Gibson movies?

No?

Don't they educate kids about the Roman conquest and the Norman conquest of Britain in Canadian schools? Is it too politically incorrect maybe?

Did the Romans set up a program where little Brits were taken away in an effort to eradicate British culture? No.

No the Romans just massacred just about everyone and made slaves of those that survived? Pretty sure that put a dent in the culture of the Iceni POD?

No, they do not. This is why there is a nationwide campaign to close the gap. It's called Close The Gap.

Closing the gap. I know I run a program that is part of it and I can assure you from front line experience that indigenous folk are entitled to the same govt benefits as any of their fellow Australians. The 'gap' is there as I explained before

Secondly, there is a huge gap in health and education outcomes for aboriginals versus non-aboriginals because a large number of indigenous people choose to live in their communities in very remote areas and in their traditional way.

What can the Govt do? Force them to live in cities? Force them to go to school? That would be very racist from your point of view I suspect? So there is a 'catch 22'.

and that is why there is a 'gap' and that is why it is hard to close.

Considering the fact that many Aboriginals were forcibly assimilated into white culture, you are objectively wrong.

Some were forced in the past yes. That is no longer the case.

Yet another white guy claiming racism doesn't exist

Aren't you racially stereotyping me by assuming that I am a 'white' fella? Anyway, I didn't say racism doesn't exist, I just object to you guys inferring that the 'majority' of Australians are racist......




IMO this cartoon epitomises your view to a tee....

[foxdemon]

Anyway, I didn't say racism doesn't exist, I just object to you guys inferring that the 'majority' of Australians are racist......

Perhaps you could establish a disinction between racism of individuals and instutitional racism? To what extent, you might then ask, is the Commonwealth of Australia pursuing racist policies? We might compare with other states, say the British Empire or contempory Malaysia, so to make an objective assessment of how racist or not the state is today.


Afterall, individuals will do what they will. Surely it is that racism that can be implemented from a position of power that has far and away the greatest impact on a person's opportunites in life and the possibility of them participating in the community (assuming that is why we are objecting to racism).


Alternatively, Swagman, you could take the bull by the horns and present an argument as to why we are all wrong about racism being bad. Is racism (or xenophobic tribalism for that matter) really a bad thing? We have made the assumption implicitely on this thread.


Either way would certianly be an improvement on the old "I'm not racism but...." position.

Is that guy cuttin the power lines? I would have thought cutting the phone liens would be both safer and more effective in war. Hope he doesn't electocute himself

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't have to pretend I was born here, I work, pay lots of tax to the slave master and I haven't stolen anyone's land.

I wasn't talking about where you were born. Please try to read more carefully.

I said that your history is not tied to the Land of Australia, like that of the Aborigines.

No? :?:

Don't they educate kids about the Roman conquest and the Norman conquest of Britain in Canadian schools? Is it too politically incorrect maybe?

And you link does not show that the Brits were treated the same way as Australian aborigines.

No the Romans just massacred just about everyone and made slaves of those that survived? Pretty sure that put a dent in the culture of the Iceni POD?

No. The Romans were more interested in taxation than genocide, despite your history based on Tatum Channing movies. Please note that you still have not provided evidence that the Romans or anyone else purposefully took children from their families in order to destroy British culture.

But hey, if you want to rationalise modern Australian human rights abuses by comparing them to an empire that lived 2000 years ago and had slavery, go ahead.

Closing the gap. I know I run a program that is part of it and I can assure you from front line experience that indigenous folk are entitled to the same govt benefits as any of their fellow Australians. The 'gap' is there as I explained before

So you claim. Too bad that does not explain the gap in health outcomes.

Some were forced in the past yes. That is no longer the case.

If by "the past" you mean "within living memory of many people some of whom are in their forties" then I agree, but let's not pretend that this is in some remote past. It

Aren't you racially stereotyping me by assuming that I am a 'white' fella? Anyway, I didn't say racism doesn't exist, I just object to you guys inferring that the 'majority' of Australians are racist......

Why do white people get so annoyed when you point out they are white?

IMO this cartoon epitomises your view to a tee....

I assume you have run out of arguments that use logic or evidence, then.

[anarchist23]

Swagman.The word "majority" means over 50%…In Britain it is recognized that in the police force there is endemic racism.The police have put in place anti racism measures and these are monitored.If the racism in the police force was not recognized nothing would have been done.It is a duty of members in society to help the underdog,whether it is aborigines or refugees for example.This sticking up for the underdog I thought was very Australian.Possibly I was mistaken as the refugees are treated with very little humanity in Australia.

[Swagman]

I said that your history is not tied to the Land of Australia, like that of the Aborigines.

Not like the Aborigines no, but it's still tied here for 210 years and then GB. BTW do you deny yourself a culture?

And you link does not show that the Brits were treated the same way as Australian aborigines

The British tribes were wiped out completely or assimilated by the Romans and/or the Anglo Saxons so their treatment was at least on a par.

No. The Romans were more interested in taxation than genocide, despite your history based on Tatum Channing movies.

I believe you're the one with a preoccupation with movies...

The British tribes disappeared. Some like the Iceni were pretty much wiped out and the rest just merged into the Romano-British culture.

The Britons (sometimes Brythons or British people) were the people who spoke the Insular Celtic language known as Common Brittonic. They lived in Great Britain during the Iron Age, the Roman era and the post-Roman era. After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons the population was either subsumed into Anglo-Saxon culture, becoming "English"; retreated; or persisted in the Celtic fringe areas of Wales, Cornwall and southern Scotland, with some emigrating to Brittany.

Source

Please note that you still have not provided evidence that the Romans or anyone else purposefully took children from their families in order to destroy British culture.

As you haven’t provided any evidence that the Australian Government purposefully took children from their families in order to destroy Aboriginal culture.

So you claim. Too bad that does not explain the gap in health outcomes.

Explain why it doesn't?

Why do white people get so annoyed when you point out they are white?

As the 'peanuts' cartoon illustrates. Double standards.

I assume you have run out of arguments that use logic or evidence, then

One can lead a horse to water but one can't make it drink.

In Britain it is recognized that in the police force there is endemic racism.The police have put in place anti racism measures and these are monitored.If the racism in the police force was not recognized nothing would have been done.

So the British PC is regulated by PC....

It is a duty of members in society to help the underdog,whether it is aborigines or refugees for example.This sticking up for the underdog I thought was very Australian.Possibly I was mistaken as the refugees are treated with very little humanity in Australia.

It's a duty of members or prospective members of a society to comply with the laws of that society.

[Pants-of-dog]

Not like the Aborigines no, but it's still tied here for 210 years and then GB.

As long as we are clear that you do not have the same history in Australia as the Aborigines.

BTW do you deny yourself a culture?

I have no idea what this sentence means.

The British tribes were wiped out completely or assimilated by the Romans and/or the Anglo Saxons so their treatment was at least on a par.

You keep saying that. You have yet to provide evidence for that.

Besides, you guys descended from the Anglo-Saxons, so all you are really saying is that you also did this to the Iceni and other tribes.

I believe you're the one with a preoccupation with movies...

The British tribes disappeared. Some like the Iceni were pretty much wiped out and the rest just merged into the Romano-British culture.

...

Your quote does not support your claim, but even if it did, you are saying that it is right and just for Australians to wipe out Aboriginal culture because a slave owning empire did something comparable two thousand years ago. This is not a good argument.

As you haven’t provided any evidence that the Australian Government purposefully took children from their families in order to destroy Aboriginal culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Gen ... val_policy

Other 19th- and early 20th-century contemporaneous documents indicate that the policy of removing Aboriginal children from their parents related to different beliefs: that given the catastrophic population decline of Aboriginal people after white contact that they would die out, that the full-blood tribal Aboriginal population would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to inevitable extinction.

This supposed that the civilisation of northern Europeans was superior to that of Aborigines, based on comparative technological advancement. Some adherents to these beliefs considered any proliferation of mixed-descent children (labelled half-castes, 'crossbreeds', quadroons and octoroons) to be a threat to the nature and stability of the prevailing civilisation, or to a perceived racial or civilisational "heritage". For example, in the 1930s, the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, Dr. Cecil Cook, perceived the continuing rise in numbers of "half-caste" children as a problem. His proposed solution was:

Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.

Similarly, the Chief Protector of Aborigines in Western Australia, A. O. Neville, wrote in an article for The West Australian in 1930:

Eliminate in future the full-blood and the white and one common blend will remain. Eliminate the full blood and permit the white admixture and eventually the race will become white.

But the context of the whole article indicates that Mr Neville was referring only to some perceived problem at the time in multiple physical colours of skin in a society. The wider point he was making was that there were members of society that were being let down by the European community and Aboriginal communities and there is no reason why the European community should fear assimilation and were morally bound to provide for the disadvantaged.

Explain why it doesn't?

Because Australian borigines do not have access to the same level of health care resources as non-Aborigines.

As the 'peanuts' cartoon illustrates. Double standards.

One can lead a horse to water but one can't make it drink.

Please note that you have not responded to my point that there was a special law put in place allowing the gov't to take aboriginal kids without any evidence of abuse or neglect, while no law was ever made to let the gov't do this to white kids.

Nor have you addressed my point that aboriginal kids were taken away from their parents for the purpose of eradicating their culture.

[anarchist23]

Swagman.In Britain the police are not self-regulated.
The disgraceful way the aborigines were treated in Australia will not be forgotten or forgiven.
Swagman have you any balls to at least admit that the aborigines were treated without any humanity.
You come over in this forum as a proud Australian and this pride seems to made you unable to recognize Australia's INHUMANITY to aborigines and refugees.
You still have not dealt with another RACIST POLICY of your government.That is the White Australia Policy which was still in force till 1973...
Even the Constitution of Australia is racist as well.Section 25 permits any State to disqualify persons of any particular race from voting.Section 51 empowers federal government to pass special laws in regards "people of a particular race."
As I said the majority of Australians are racists and racism is enshrined in the Constitution.

[anarchist23]

Pants-of-dog.The removal of aboriginal children as a government policy carried on till the seventies.
I can not start to imagine what it must have been like for aborigines.The removal of children and the THREAT of removal of children must have been psychologically soul destroying for the Aborigines.

[Swagman]

As long as we are clear that you do not have the same history in Australia as the Aborigines.

I can agree with you on that particular point however the actual point was that non-indigenous Australians have just as much culture as indigenous ones. You have not been able to refute that.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Well, from previous posts I'm assuming you are Canadian. Is there a Canadian culture?

You keep saying that. You have yet to provide evidence for that

One piece of relatively strong evidence that the British tribes were wiped out or assimilated is in the fact that they no longer exist and that history makes no mention of them as a culture post Roman / Saxon Britain.

Your quote does not support your claim, but even if it did, you are saying that it is right and just for Australians to wipe out Aboriginal culture because a slave owning empire did something comparable two thousand years ago. This is not a good argument

My point was about the evolution / assimilation of cultures due to lots of factors such as invasion, migration, etc etc etc.

That's where the British tribes entered the discussion. Over time the British tribal culture disappeared. I said it was a natural process and it is still happening now and will continue to happen.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can agree with you on that particular point however the actual point was that non-indigenous Australians have just as much culture as indigenous ones. You have not been able to refute that.

I agree with that claim, however, I thought it was important to point out that culture is often tied to a particular land. This is definitely the case for indigenous cultures. The culture of white Australians is mainly tied to Great Britain, which is a land separate from Australia. It is also a culture that has no particular reverence for land except as a valuable commodity.

Well, from previous posts I'm assuming you are Canadian. Is there a Canadian culture?

There are more than one.

One piece of relatively strong evidence that the British tribes were wiped out or assimilated is in the fact that they no longer exist and that history makes no mention of them as a culture post Roman / Saxon Britain.

It may very well be that the Iceni no longer exist because of oppressive Romans or Saxons.

However, the devil is in the details, and there is the fact that empires from millenia ago are not comparable to modern liberal democracies that champion things like rule of law and equality.

My point was about the evolution / assimilation of cultures due to lots of factors such as invasion, migration, etc etc etc.

That's where the British tribes entered the discussion. Over time the British tribal culture disappeared. I said it was a natural process and it is still happening now and will continue to happen.

Now you seem to be saying that it is completely natural for humans to try and eradicate the cultures of others, and if you are saying that, are you also saying that it is completely natural for a modern liberal democracy to try and eradicate the culture of the people whose land they are currently living on?