[Fasces]

Then we agree that the idea that Australians can do whatever they want to Aboriginals only makes sense if we assume that Australia has turned into some xenophobic and fascist country and the Aborigines have chosen to stay in those parts of modern Australia that are now (in HFL) white Australia.

No. "Whatever they want" doesn't have to be read as malicious. They can choose to treat the aboriginals with perfect kindness.

I don't really care what you think about what I think of some metaphysical topic that does not affect relationships between settlers and Aborigines.

Then stop debating my points, because my argument is not about the extant relationship between settlers and aborigines. I don't care about how they treat each other.

Again, you're the one who choose to start this discussion, not me.

Feel free to provide evidence for your claim in another thread that you start for the purpose of discussing it.

It is evidence for my claims in this thread. You can either accept it or not, but you can't say "you can't support your argument with that fact".

I agree that sovereignty is a good idea, and I believe that many Aborigines agree.

I would, however, caution against assuming that you know what is best for Aboriginal people and their communities. After all, the Stolen Generations and the cultural genocide inflicted on Aborigines is (partly) a result of such paternalist notions.

No shit. That's why they should rule themselves.

I am not sure that they need to follow the more or less modern European invention of a nation-state.

I define a state rather simply. You're the one attaching the liberal democratic baggage. They can live in mud in the desert for another 100,000 years for all I care.

And we have already agreed that that claim only makes sense if (a) Australia turns into a fascist and xenophobic nation and (b) Aborigines decide to stay a part of this nation instead of building their own nation in their own areas.

I agreed to no such thing, and wording your statements like this is childish.

So, there can be no authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there is no authentic Australian society and never has been (again, according to you).

Exist in the reality =/= can be conceived.

Same way - I've never been on Mars. I can conceive of being on Mars. Me conceiving of that doesn't require me to go a religious parallel universe full of forms.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. "Whatever they want" doesn't have to be read as malicious. They can choose to treat the aboriginals with perfect kindness.

Yes. This does not, in any way, contradict anything I have said.

Then stop debating my points, because my argument is not about the extant relationship between settlers and aborigines. I don't care about how they treat each other.

Then why are you in a thread about attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society.

Again, you're the one who choose to start this discussion, not me.

Actually, the OP started it. You introduced essentialism.

It is evidence for my claims in this thread. You can either accept it or not, but you can't say "you can't support your argument with that fact".

Then support it with evidence in this thread. Mind you, the homogeneous nations of Europe were responsible for WWI, WWII, colonialism, and the destruction of many other cultures. So, I disagree.

No shit. That's why they should rule themselves.

Glad we agree on that.

I define a state rather simply. You're the one attaching the liberal democratic baggage. They can live in mud in the desert for another 100,000 years for all I care.

You brought up nation-states, which is itself a European concept. If you wish to use a different definition than the traditionally accepted one, please provide said definition. Thank you.

I agreed to no such thing, and wording your statements like this is childish.

You have not denied that Australians cannot do whatever they want right now because they are a liberal democracy and therefore limited by such things as the rule of law and the idea of equality and staying on the good side of the USA. You have had plenty of time to disagree with this and you have not.

You have agreed that in HFL, they would be separate nation states and therefore would not be able to do whatever they want to each other.

Therefore, the only possible situation where Australians would be allowed to do what they want is if they were no longer a liberal democracy, and Aboriginals were not sovereign.

You may disagree with this, but it is the logical conclusion of what you have said.

Exist in the reality =/= can be conceived.

Same way - I've never been on Mars. I can conceive of being on Mars. Me conceiving of that doesn't require me to go a religious parallel universe full of forms.

Like I said, there could be an authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there can be an authentic Australian society even though there never has been (again, according to you) because they can somehow "get in touch" with their "inner essence of Authentic Australian", as defined by stereotypes about Australians.

Or, Australians could simply follow their own laws as they are and establish a relationship of mutual respect with Aboriginal communities.

One thing they could do is stop separating families, and they could also start teaching Aboriginal languages in all Australian public schools.

Another thing they could (that you will probably ignore) is to form a multinational state where some system of legal plurality allows for both Aboriginal and Australian self-governance within the Australian state.

[Quantum]

Australia ought to never mention human rights due to the way they mistreat their Aboriginals. Funny how the concept of human rights has been relegated to a political football rather than genuinely improving human rights?

[Fasces]

Yes. This does not, in any way, contradict anything I have said.

It contradicts what you say I said.

Then why are you in a thread about attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society.

My post was simply stating that whatever the Australian attitude toward aboriginals is, I support it. Not because I may agree with that attitude or support it, but because it is their right to treat non-Australians in any way they desire.

Actually, the OP started it. You introduced essentialism.

The OP did not start our discussions. You started our discussion.

I responded with my belief that third parties, like the British man who started the thread, the native who responded, or the white Canadian cannot condemn the Australian attitude toward aboriginals because they are not Australian - and only Australians, such as Rejn, can.

Then support it with evidence in this thread. Mind you, the homogeneous nations of Europe were responsible for WWI, WWII, colonialism, and the destruction of many other cultures. So, I disagree.

You just told me this thread wasn't the place for that.

You brought up nation-states, which is itself a European concept. If you wish to use a different definition than the traditionally accepted one, please provide said definition. Thank you.

I never once in this thread mentioned the word nation-state.

I brought up the word state, and I defined it. You can press ctrl+F to find that post and reread the definition.

You have not denied that Australians cannot do whatever they want right now because they are a liberal democracy and therefore limited by such things as the rule of law and the idea of equality and staying on the good side of the USA. You have had plenty of time to disagree with this and you have not.

Because I am not talking about that level of detail. I understand that being a liberal democracy limits the actions a state can take. I'm not denying that.

Like I said, might makes right. Australia has the might - they can choose what is right, and in this case, they chose to be a liberal democracy. I'm talking about how value systems are created, not the particular details or merit of the one they have created.

Using an analogy:

Fasces: Bob can do anything he wants - he can be a police officer, or a criminal.
PoD: Bob is a police officer, he cannot break the law.
Fasces: Yes, but he can choose to stop being a police officer and become a criminal. He can do anything he wants.
PoD: No, he can't do anything he wants because he is a police officer and police officers can't break the law.
Fasces: I don't care that he's a police officer, he can stop being one at any time and break the law.
PoD: No - police officers can't break laws, and that's all that matters.
Fasces: I'm not talking about whether police officers can break laws, just that Bob can choose too.
PoD: Bob is a police officer so Bob can't break the law.

You see how this starts getting old? It may be true that police officers do not break laws, but I'm not talking about police officers (you are). I'm talking about Bob.

We're not talking about the same thing, and I don't want to talk about what you keep trying to get me too, so either let it go and stay on topic, or stop talking to me.

You have not denied that Australians cannot do whatever they want right now because they are a liberal democracy and therefore limited by such things as the rule of law and the idea of equality and staying on the good side of the USA.

They can do whatever they want. They can live with the consequences of those decisions, but as long as it is sovereign, Australia can do whatever it wants.

Like I said, there could be an authentic expression of Australian ethics (according to you) because there can be an authentic Australian society even though there never has been (again, according to you) because they can somehow "get in touch" with their "inner essence of Authentic Australian", as defined by stereotypes about Australians.

Look, what I said isn't particularly controversial, and is pretty standard in the fields of biology, linguistics and psychology - not to mention everything else. If you have an issue with essentialism, that's on you. Which you don't, by the way. Because you say "liberal democracies can only act in certain ways" which is an essentialist statement. When you use any noun that isn't a Proper Noun, you are being an essentialist.

Another thing they could (that you will probably ignore) is to form a multinational state where some system of legal plurality allows for both Aboriginal and Australian self-governance within the Australian state.

Multinational states are impossible.

Either each group has equal representation, which gives undue influence to the minority group.

Or one group has more representation, which is what most heterogeneous states are.

Multinational states are also far less stable. Even Canada gets how many referendums a decade to split up? When's the last time that happened in mainland Japan?

[Pants-of-dog]

It contradicts what you say I said.

I was discussing how Australians cannot do whatever they want to Aboriginals in modern reality, nor can they do so in HFL, unless certain specific conditions arise. The idea of whether or not the behaviour is malicious has no bearing on that claim.

My post was simply stating that whatever the Australian attitude toward aboriginals is, I support it. Not because I may agree with that attitude or support it, but because it is their right to treat non-Australians in any way they desire.

Different Australians believe different things. Which is "authentic"?

The OP did not start our discussions. You started our discussion.

I responded with my belief that third parties, like the British man who started the thread, the native who responded, or the white Canadian cannot condemn the Australian attitude toward aboriginals because they are not Australian - and only Australians, such as Rejn, can.

No. That makes no sense. Everyone can criticise other nations' policies. According to you, even Australians are not "authentic Australians", so by your own logic, no one can comment.

The fact that neither of us is Australian has no bearing on the truth of our arguments.

You just told me this thread wasn't the place for that.

Let me put it this way, I don't care if you do it in this thread or any other, but I am not going to believe you without convincing evidence. I would prefer you did it in another thread because it is irrelevant.

Because I am not talking about that level of detail. I understand that being a liberal democracy limits the actions a state can take. I'm not denying that.

Like I said, might makes right. Australia has the might - they can choose what is right, and in this case, they chose to be a liberal democracy. I'm talking about how value systems are created, not the particular details or merit of the one they have created.

Then you agree. Moving on.

They can do whatever they want. They can live with the consequences of those decisions, but as long as it is sovereign, Australia can do whatever it wants.

They can do that (I am agreeing with you here!), but they are still not justified according to their own morals. Please see our previous discussion about how morality is not objective, so we look at it through the relevant moral paradigms.

In the relevant moral paradigms, they cannot justifiably do what they want.

This is because the might rests in the hands of people who like the trappings of liberal democracy, i.e. the relevant moral paradigm.

I am not saying Bob cannot break the law. Bob can break the law, but according to Bob, breaking the law is wrong.

Just like Australia is currently being non-egalitarian and not respecting the property of its citizens, which is wrong according to Australian law and their claimed cultural mores.

Look, what I said isn't particularly controversial, and is pretty standard in the fields of biology, linguistics and psychology - not to mention everything else. If you have an issue with essentialism, that's on you. Which you don't, by the way. Because you say "liberal democracies can only act in certain ways" which is an essentialist statement. When you use any noun that isn't a Proper Noun, you are being an essentialist.

No. I am using definitions. That is a different thing.

Multinational states are impossible.

No. Canada, which includes the nation of Quebec, plus many indigenous nations, exists.

Either each group has equal representation, which gives undue influence to the minority group.

Or one group has more representation, which is what most heterogeneous states are.

That does not make them impossible.

Multinational states are also far less stable. Even Canada gets how many referendums a decade to split up? When's the last time that happened in mainland Japan?

Japan isn't on the mainland.

I think that if you count up the number of violent conflicts that have occurred on Canadian soil as opposed to Japanese soil during the same time frame, Canada would be more peaceful.

[Fasces]

I was discussing how Australians cannot do whatever they want to Aboriginals in modern reality, nor can they do so in HFL, unless certain specific conditions arise.

They can.

They have the manpower to do it. They have the material to build the camps. They have the guns with which to round up the aboriginals. They have the money with which to buy Zyklon B canisters.

In the same I can choose to jump out of my office window, or continue doing my work.

No. That makes no sense. Everyone can criticise other nations' policies. According to you, even Australians are not "authentic Australians", so by your own logic, no one can comment.

The fact that neither of us is Australian has no bearing on the truth of our arguments.

My position is that regardless of what you say and what Steve Irwin say about Australian society, Steve Irwin is right and you are wrong because he is Australian and you are not.

Then you agree. Moving on.

I agree with myself.

They can do that (I am agreeing with you here!), but they are still not justified according to their own morals. Please see our previous discussion about how morality is not objective, so we look at it through the relevant moral paradigms.

I don't want to take it further, have no desire to do so, and won't. The extent of my point is that Australians can choose how they want to treat the aboriginal people. Period. End. If we agree, we agree.

Bob can break the law. Full stop. End of Fasces' statement. He didn't go further. He doesn't want to go further. He won't go further.

No. I am using definitions. That is a different thing.

It really isn't. Maybe you should read the wiki. It's one of those philosophical assumptions that is so fundamental that we never really think about it, but non essentialism often comes up when dealing with identity specifically for some reason.

I believe that identity is essentialist. That "Australian" has a definition. A form. An essence. Not a metaphysical one - that wasn't the idea I was trying to express. I believe there are Australians and not Australians.

Wearing a kimono is not Australian, for example. Having a barbecue is. An authentic Australian society would be one devoid of elements that are 'not Australian'.

No. Canada, which includes the nation of Quebec, plus many indigenous nations, exists.

This statement was not one that you could take in isolation. It was not an independent or complete thought. It was attached to the two statements which came after it, which qualified what I meant by impossible.

That does not make them impossible.

It makes them not multinational, in the sense that in a multinational state, every nation is equal.

Japan isn't on the mainland.

And every continent is an island. Don't be a smartass. You know exactly what piece of land I'm talking about. It's the big one. With the most people. and the capital city. The main island. The mainland.

I think that if you count up the number of violent conflicts that have occurred on Canadian soil as opposed to Japanese soil during the same time frame, Canada would be more peaceful.

Define violent conflict - my definition, as used in this thread, includes everything from simple assault to atomic vaporization.

Define number - absolute numbers or relative to population, because Canada is pretty fucking empty.

Also I said stable, not peaceful. Countries can be unstable in more ways than just violence. Spain, for example, doesn't have much violence in contemporary Catalonia or Basque country, but Spanish rule over these regions is far from stable.

[Pants-of-dog]

They can.

They have the manpower to do it. They have the material to build the camps. They have the guns with which to round up the aboriginals. They have the money with which to buy Zyklon B canisters.

In the same I can choose to jump out of my office window, or continue doing my work.

I agree, but they are still not justified according to their own morals. Please see our previous discussion about how morality is not objective, so we look at it through the relevant moral paradigms.

In the relevant moral paradigms, they cannot justifiably do what they want.

This is because the might rests in the hands of people who like the trappings of liberal democracy, i.e. the relevant moral paradigm.

I am not saying Bob cannot break the law. Bob can break the law, but according to Bob, breaking the law is wrong.

Just like Australia is currently being non-egalitarian and not respecting the property of its citizens, which is wrong according to Australian law and their claimed cultural mores.

My position is that regardless of what you say and what Steve Irwin say about Australian society, Steve Irwin is right and you are wrong because he is Australian and you are not.

No. If an Australian claimed that kangaroos are placental and I claimed that they were marsupial, the Australian would not be right by virtue of being Australian.

I don't want to take it further, have no desire to do so, and won't. The extent of my point is that Australians can choose how they want to treat the aboriginal people. Period. End. If we agree, we agree.

Bob can break the law. Full stop. End of Fasces' statement. He didn't go further. He doesn't want to go further. He won't go further.

You can stop there. I will continue and point out that Australian law and cultural mores do not support current treatment of Aborigines.

-----------------

You said that whatever the Australian attitude toward aboriginals is, you support it.

Different Australians believe different things. Which is "authentic"?

[Fasces]

I am not saying Bob cannot break the law. Bob can break the law, but according to Bob, breaking the law is wrong.

I'm not saying otherwise, but my entire argument is that Bob can break the law. This other stuff is superfluous and has nothing to do with that statement. Bob can break the law. Australians have the might to treat the Aboriginals how they want. That they say they'll treat them one way and then act in another has no bearing on that.

No. If an Australian claimed that kangaroos are placental and I claimed that they were marsupial, the Australian would not be right by virtue of being Australian.

I stated my point too broadly. Morality isn't a fact, something you have stated as well. On moral/social/cultural issues, then, not on "scientific" issues.

Different Australians believe different things. Which is "authentic"?

There is no simple answer.

For example, some might say that, for Americans, a liberal society is natural. That the US has always been capitalistic and that doing so is authentic. Some others may point out that an economic system governed by self interest contradicts the values of an overwhelmingly Christian nation, because all Christian deadly sins criticize behavior done in the name of self interest (putting your needs first). What takes precedence? Many individuals hold incoherent values or beliefs - are nations the same way?

I can't begin to answer that question with anything you'd find satisfying, nor do I want to go to the effort (I've had you yelling at me for seven pages only to conclude with "we broadly agree on everything we're just talking about different things") and this thread isn't the place to do it even then.

A short answer, which I will not elaborate on:

Whatever system of values, traditions, languages, and work is most consistent with a majority of people that make up that nation over all time that nation has existed while excluding the influence of other traditions as much as possible.

I'll go on to qualify that authenticity is a concept meant to simplify thinking, and that I do not believe it is achievable or even a realistic request, just a mechanism to allow one to focus their policy from - is proposal X something that makes sense for my people and is consistent with our way of life, both present and historical. Does it respect our way of life and traditions, while helping our people survive and those traditions to propogate? As someone involved extensively in native politics, I'm sure you can understand this way of thinking. This is why law has no bearing on authenticity - the American laws that dismantled Japan in 1945 were not authentic, even though they were the law.

[Decky]

PoD do you take pride in destroying any thread you enter?

[KlassWar]

They can.

They have the manpower to do it. They have the material to build the camps. They have the guns with which to round up the aboriginals. They have the money with which to buy Zyklon B canisters.

In the same I can choose to jump out of my office window, or continue doing my work.

They can't, not really: There'd be serious opposition to an overtly genocidal policy, mostly (but not exclusively, not every non-leftist is genocidal) from the Australian left. The Australian government might try it, but it probably wouldn't work.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm not saying otherwise, but my entire argument is that Bob can break the law. This other stuff is superfluous and has nothing to do with that statement. Bob can break the law. Australians have the might to treat the Aboriginals how they want. That they say they'll treat them one way and then act in another has no bearing on that.

If all you are claiming is that the Australians can break their own laws, then you are saying something obvious, and you are also discarding your "might makes right" argument.

The fact is that there does not seem to a be a moral paradigm that excuses modern attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society, according to Australian ideals and Aboriginal needs.

If we were going to demand that Australians live up to the expectations they have set for themselves, they would help create a relationship with Aborigines based on mutual respect.

I stated my point too broadly. Morality isn't a fact, something you have stated as well. On moral/social/cultural issues, then, not on "scientific" issues.

Again, this is not correct. If an Australian claims that Australian culture is based on Inuit religion, and contradict him by saying it is based partly on English traditions, the Australian is still wrong and I am right.

Whatever system of values, traditions, languages, and work is most consistent with a majority of people that make up that nation over all time that nation has existed while excluding the influence of other traditions as much as possible.

What does this mean in terms of attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society?

[Fasces]

If all you are claiming is that the Australians can break their own laws, then you are saying something obvious, and you are also discarding your "might makes right" argument.

It establishes they have might. The Iraqis cannot treat the Kurds the same way the Australians can potentially treat the Aboriginals because they lack that might, in material terms. While neither may have the will to do so presently, will is malleable while material constraints are not.

Again, this is not correct. If an Australian claims that Australian culture is based on Inuit religion, and contradict him by saying it is based partly on English traditions, the Australian is still wrong and I am right.

That's an anthropological or historical claim, and not what I described.

What does this mean in terms of attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society?

That however most Australians feel about or treat the aboriginals is more important than any law concerning them. That complete separation between the aboriginal culture and the Australian culture should take place. That the aboriginals take ownership of their own fate, rather than depending on the goodwill of the Australian state.

[Pants-of-dog]

It establishes they have might. The Iraqis cannot treat the Kurds the same way the Australians can potentially treat the Aboriginals because they lack that might, in material terms. While neither may have the will to do so presently, will is malleable while material constraints are not.

Yes, they have the power to break their own laws. That much is obvious. How does this add to the discussion on attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society?

That's an anthropological or historical claim, and not what I described.

You seem to be saying that for everything non-verifiable, you are just going to take the word of an Australian over someone else just because.

That however most Australians feel about or treat the aboriginals is more important than any law concerning them.

I agree that they are more important.

And we have already established that Australians hold multiple and often contradicting opinions about Aboriginals. They are not a monolithic bloc. I have no trouble accepting that two contradicting opinions can be correct, however, I am certain that you feel that only one set of opinions is "authentic". I bet it just happens to be the set of opinions that is most consistent with your ideology.

More importantly, racism against Aboriginals is dwindling over the long term. People are still racist, but they are not as overt about it and sometimes don't even realise it. A majority of Australians believe that something should be done about racism in their country.

That complete separation between the aboriginal culture and the Australian culture should take place.

This unrealistic opinion seems to stem from your own ideology rather than reality. Australia will not let the Aboriginals simply walk away with land. It defies economic sense, which is the whole point of Australian mistreatment of Aboriginals.

That the aboriginals take ownership of their own fate, rather than depending on the goodwill of the Australian state.

Yes, this has to happen, but since Australia is not going to separate out of the goodness of their hearts (nor because they believe in some bright, essentialist, HFL future) Aboriginal sovereignty will probably occur within a context of national sovereignty within the Australian state.

[Fasces]

How does this add to the discussion on attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society?

By saying that the attitudes of Australians toward aboriginals is only the business of the Australian people and not busybodies in Nunatuk.

You seem to be saying that for everything non-verifiable, you are just going to take the word of an Australian over someone else just because.

When it comes to saying "what i means to be a [GROUP]", what members of that group say it means is far more important than anything anyone outside of that group says. Australians, when talking about being Australian, and Australian values, are the only voice that matters.

I have no trouble accepting that two contradicting opinions can be correct, however, I am certain that you feel that only one set of opinions is "authentic". I bet it just happens to be the set of opinions that is most consistent with your ideology.

Nations can have incoherent opinions as much as any person. I do not have any ideology to speak of outside of integralism. This isn't an absolutist ideology that makes policy proscriptions regardless of the nation or its history.

This unrealistic opinion seems to stem from your own ideology rather than reality. Australia will not let the Aboriginals simply walk away with land. It defies economic sense, which is the whole point of Australian mistreatment of Aboriginals.

For the upteenth time, I'm making a moral/ethical argument not a practical one. And no, Australia won't let that happen, which is precisely why Aboriginals need to force Australia to let them.

[Pants-of-dog]

By saying that the attitudes of Australians toward aboriginals is only the business of the Australian people and not busybodies in Nunatuk.

That has nothing to do with your discussion of might makes right.

In fact, it seems like a weird logical leap. It makes more sense for me to see it as a tactic for censoring others than as a valid point.

When it comes to saying "what i means to be a [GROUP]", what members of that group say it means is far more important than anything anyone outside of that group says. Australians, when talking about being Australian, and Australian values, are the only voice that matters.

And I have pointed out that such a stance is illogical because you are assuming (incorrectly) that the truth of their comments is somehow related to where they were born.

For the upteenth time, I'm making a moral/ethical argument not a practical one. And no, Australia won't let that happen, which is precisely why Aboriginals need to force Australia to let them.

So we agree that your idea is impractical.

The idea that Aboriginals should try to seek sovereignty within the Australian nation makes more economic sense, and is consistent with the dwindling racism of Australians.

[Fasces]

That has nothing to do with your discussion of might makes right.

Yes, it does. The Australian people have the might to construct an ethical and historical narrative concerning the native population. These narratives always justify the political institutions which created them - hence why the Australian government recognizes native title law as existing, but gives it no legal weight which could be used to limit the capacity of the state to act or seize lands if necessary. Native title law also comes from the government, continuing the narrative that the Australian people are the rightful leaders of the continent, and the only authority with any power.

And I have pointed out that such a stance is illogical because you are assuming (incorrectly) that the truth of their comments is somehow related to where they were born.

Stop abusing the term illogical. Anyway, in these sorts of discussions - culture, art, etc - there is no "truth". 2+2 may always be 4, but the AFL being a cultural institution is a social decision.

So we agree that your idea is impractical.

I don't give a fuck. I'm not talking about public policy in Australia nor making any policy suggestions.

All I'm saying is that the aboriginals are a weak and impotent civilization that is utterly dependent on the benevolence of their conquerors and that their extinction, while tragic, would be deserved as a result.

Aboriginal access to education or clean water is really beside the point and a discussion I want no part in because I simply do not care.

The idea that Aboriginals should try to seek sovereignty within the Australian nation makes more economic sense, and is consistent with the dwindling racism of Australians.

And is dependent on the continuing dwindling racism of Australians. The growth of the far right in Europe should show you that these sorts of liberal ideologies are not as firmly entrenched as you may believe. The aboriginals deserve anything they get as long as they continue to depend on the goodwill of the Australian people - be it genocide or autonomy.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. but I don't feel like showing how you mixed up two discussions.

The Australian people have the might to construct an ethical and historical narrative concerning the native population. These narratives always justify the political institutions which created them - hence why the Australian government recognizes native title law as existing, but gives it no legal weight which could be used to limit the capacity of the state to act or seize lands if necessary. Native title law also comes from the government, continuing the narrative that the Australian people are the rightful leaders of the continent, and the only authority with any power.

Native title law does not come from the Australian gov't. It comes from the Aboriginal systems of governance. Australian law that recognises native titles to the land are just that: recognitions.

Native title law (by which I mean the Aboriginal laws that determine land ownership) does not continue the narrative that the Australian people are the rightful leaders of the continent, and the only authority with any power.

Instead, the mythological narrative that the Australian people are the rightful leaders of the continent, and the only authority with any power ends up limiting the Australian recognition of Aboriginal title.

Stop abusing the term illogical. Anyway, in these sorts of discussions - culture, art, etc - there is no "truth". 2+2 may always be 4, but the AFL being a cultural institution is a social decision.

Nitpick about my words all you want. I am still right that the truth of a person's claims has nothing to do with where they were born.

I don't give a fuck. I'm not talking about public policy in Australia nor making any policy suggestions.

Yes, you are ever so manly about your fierce apathy.

All I'm saying is that the aboriginals are a weak and impotent civilization that is utterly dependent on the benevolence of their conquerors and that their extinction, while tragic, would be deserved as a result.

And now you are back to your illogical (i.e. it does not follow from your premises) and racist claim. Yippee.

Aboriginal access to education or clean water is really beside the point and a discussion I want no part in because I simply do not care.

As long as we are clear that Aborigines have unequal access to these services and that this is contrary to Australian law and (indirectly) contrary to Australian public opinion.

And is dependent on the continuing dwindling racism of Australians. The growth of the far right in Europe should show you that these sorts of liberal ideologies are not as firmly entrenched as you may believe.

I admit that my idea is not without obstacles. it is, however, more realistic than yours.

The aboriginals deserve anything they get as long as they continue to depend on the goodwill of the Australian people - be it genocide or autonomy.

Fascists are lucky that their opponents do not agree with this simplistic view of history.

[Fasces]

Native title law does not come from the Australian gov't. It comes from the Aboriginal systems of governance. Australian law that recognises native titles to the land are just that: recognitions.

Native title law is not recognized in Australian courts. Legal recognition of native land claims comes from parallel Australian laws.

I am still right that the truth of a person's claims has nothing to do with where they were born.

Not in the context in which I made that statement.

Yes, you are ever so manly about your fierce apathy.

OK?

And now you are back to your illogical (i.e. it does not follow from your premises) and racist claim. Yippee.

In what way is it racist? It is a statement of fact - aboriginal society could not compete with Australian colonization and was marginalized.

As long as we are clear that Aborigines have unequal access to these services and that this is contrary to Australian law and (indirectly) contrary to Australian public opinion.

OK?

it is, however, more realistic than yours.

So what?

Fascists are lucky that their opponents do not agree with this simplistic view of history.

It isn't a historical view - it's an ethical one. I am not asking a historical question.

[Pants-of-dog]

Native title law is not recognized in Australian courts. Legal recognition of native land claims comes from parallel Australian laws.

Native title law is recognised in Australian courts through legal recognition of native land claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Que ... %28No_2%29

Not in the context in which I made that statement.

It must be nice to merely affirm that your claims are correct rather than going through the effort of supporting them with logic or evidence.

In what way is it racist? It is a statement of fact - aboriginal society could not compete with Australian colonization and was marginalized.

Because you are essentially blaming a race of people for their own oppression by claiming they are too lazy/drunk/(whatever other insulting generalisation you want) to be treated decently , rather than look at history.

OK?

I understand that you agree that Aborigines have unequal access to these services and that this is contrary to Australian law and (indirectly) contrary to Australian public opinion. I am simply using this as an opportunity to state my claims, point out that they are being agreed with, and that even in your ideology, the Australians are not living up to their own ideals.

So what?

So it is more relevant to, and consistent with, attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society; i.e. the topic.

It isn't a historical view - it's an ethical one. I am not asking a historical question.

Whatever.

Fascists are lucky that their opponents do not agree with this simplistic view of ethics.

[Fasces]

Native title law is recognised in Australian courts through legal recognition of native land claims.

Yes - through parallel Australian laws, aka the goodwill of Australian legal institutions.

The National Native Title Register (NNTR), maintained by the NNTT, is a register of approved native title determinations. A determination can be that native title does or does not exist.

[...]

Only Australian laws are enforced directly in Australian courts. Native title is not a concept that forms part of customary Aboriginal law – rather, it is the term adopted to describe the rights to land and waters possessed by Indigenous Australians under their customary laws that are recognised by the Australian legal system.

[...]

The native title rights and interests held by particular Indigenous people will depend on both their traditional laws and customs and what interests are held by others in the area concerned. Generally speaking, native title must give way to the rights held by others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_tit ... _interests

It must be nice to merely affirm that your claims are correct rather than going through the effort of supporting them with logic or evidence.

I'm not going to prove a claim I did not make. Don't put words in my mouth, and we won't have an issue.

Because you are essentially blaming a race of people for their own oppression by claiming they are too lazy/drunk/(whatever other insulting generalisation you want) to be treated decently , rather than look at history.

Where does racism enter into it? I never said they were too lazy or drunk - though interesting your mind immediately went there. I said they lost. There are lots of reasons they lost, but I sincerely doubt the fact that they're black has a thing to do with it. And losers deserve to be treated like losers, whether they're German, Zulu, or Manchu.

Why are you so hellbent on using debate terminators like "racism" anyway? Would the fact that I were a racist change the merit of my words? Hitler was a racist and a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism?

I understand that you agree that Aborigines have unequal access to these services and that this is contrary to Australian law and (indirectly) contrary to Australian public opinion. I am simply using this as an opportunity to state my claims, point out that they are being agreed with, and that even in your ideology, the Australians are not living up to their own ideals.

You have provided no evidence that it is contrary to Australian attitudes. Regardless of whether it is or isn't, it's off topic. I'm not discussing that and I have no idea why you keep bringing up such a pointless tangent.

So it is more relevant to, and consistent with, attitudes towards aboriginals in wider Australian society

My point is relevant to the topic. If you don't want to discuss my point, stop pressing the "Reply" button.