Aborigines mark 40 years as 'human beings'

Fratton Fred

Akrasia wrote:

But there absolutely should be far more resources put into these desperately poor communities to try and give them back some dignity and opportunity.

it sounds like that is happening already. But because they are poor, does that mean they are worse off than they would have been if europeans hadn't turned up? is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote:

it sounds like that is happening already. But because they are poor, does that mean they are worse off than they would have been if europeans hadn't turned up? is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

There are some things in place for the Indiginous Australians , please note Aborigines is apparently not PC

In 2004 Prime Minister John Howard initiated contracts with Aboriginal communities, where substantial financial benefits are available in return for commitments such as ensuring children wash regularly and attend school. These contracts are known as Shared Responsibility Agreements.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred, the question of living as they had before it a whole other philosophical/anthropological issue. The question should not be would they be worse off if Britain had not interfered, it should be would they be living as they saw fit, having been able to decide their own destiny?
Zambie, aborigines mean the original or first people. I don't see why its not pc, its used in several other instances for the same reason.

Zambia

brianthebard wrote:

Zambie, aborigines mean the original or first people. I don't see why its not pc, its used in several other instances for the same reason.

You have my complete agreement However Wiki disagrees with us

Note that the use of "Aborigine(s)" or "Aboriginal(s)" in this sense, i.e. as a noun, has acquired negative, even derogatory connotations among some sectors of the community, who regard it as insensitive, and even offensive. The more acceptable and correct expression is "Aboriginal Australians" or "Aboriginal people", though even this is sometimes regarded as an expression to be avoided because of its historical associations with colonialism. "Indigenous Australians" has found increasing acceptance, particularly since the 1980s.

monosharp

Zambia232 wrote:

Why ?

You do realise that a large number of Irishmen did the acts you spoke of we stole their land and killed them along with the British.

Should the Irish goverment be forced to pay reparitions to the aboriginals as our ancestors commited these crimes along with or for the British Goverment.

If the british didnt come along and do it someone else would have at the time.

I know of no law currently impeding an aboriginals personnal career in Australia.

In fairness being an Irish Catholic back then would probably have being as bad as being aboriginal.

In the USA being an Irish Catholic was far worse then being a black slave, simply because slaves were expensive.

Akrasia

Fratton Fred wrote:

it sounds like that is happening already. But because they are poor, does that mean they are worse off than they would have been if europeans hadn't turned up? is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

They didn't just live in the desert, Most lived in the fertile temperate areas around the coast of Australia. They were forced into the desert (or exterminated/asymilated) when the British came and requisitioned all the best arable land for themselves

And they weren't all 'hunter gatherers' as has been claimed here. Many Aboriginal people farmed the land , kept herds of livestock or fished the rivers and seas and supplemented their diet with whatever nature could provide for them

BigTommyBomb

kept herds of livestock or fished the rivers and seas and supplemented their diet with whatever nature could provide for them
Today 17:31

Not true. What livestock did they keep? What plants did they harvest?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

Fratton Fred, the question of living as they had before it a whole other philosophical/anthropological issue. The question should not be would they be worse off if Britain had not interfered, it should be would they be living as they saw fit, having been able to decide their own destiny?
Zambie, aborigines mean the original or first people. I don't see why its not pc, its used in several other instances for the same reason.

agreed, but how do you compensate for that? to offer compensation you need to put a value on a loss and how do you put a value on it?

give them funding to go to school and start their own business? but that's just making them conform to european standards and hardly compensates them for losing their original way of life.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote:

agreed, but how do you compensate for that? to offer compensation you need to put a value on a loss and how do you put a value on it?

give them funding to go to school and start their own business? but that's just making them conform to european standards and hardly compensates them for losing their original way of life.

What? You can't go back in time man. White Australia is there to stay, as police of the pacific these days it seems. What you can do is offer the poor and less fortunate of society regardless of their ethnic background the opportunity to better themselves, which is the point I've been making all along. I'm not the one who thinks that we need reparations.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

What? You can't go back in time man. White Australia is there to stay, as police of the pacific these days it seems. What you can do is offer the poor and less fortunate of society regardless of their ethnic background the opportunity to better themselves, which is the point I've been making all along. I'm not the one who thinks that we need reparations.

100% agree on that.

stovelid

Akrasia wrote:

First of all, The Irish government didn't exist back then, Second of all, many of the Irish who went to Australia were sent there against their will, and thirdly, the Irish didn't build an empire by stealing land and resources from conquered peoples. The British stole from the aboriginals. Their empire grew fat through murder and theft. If there is any justice in the world, reparations should be made. (of course, when greed and justice ever meet face to face, greed almost always triumphs)

.

The politics forum is getting better. We got 20 posts into the thread before the sassnach bashing started.

Like another poster said, I have had it with the 'truth' and tribunal culture. The past happened and is regrettable, sometimes terrible. The current generation should not feel guilty or be obliged to right the wrongs of their forefathers.

Offer every help to aborginals -and any other disadvantaged group - that we can and end prejudice by all means but lets drop this constant blame culture.

FTA69

BigTommyBomb wrote:

I don't think of them as animals. To a British observor looking at them a century ago they would have looked like animals.
They are hunter gatherers who lived in small bands. They had no craft to speak of except for the most primitive tools. No communities, no farming, no writing. What is there to seperate them from animals?

Primitive tools? They could make sticks that came back when thrown, boomerangs took days to construct owing to the continuous planing and carving. They recognised the habits and properites of hundreds of different plants and animals from which they survived. They had knowledge of the movements of the stars as well as knowing basic medicinal properties of some plants and the need to apply heat to relieve pain and pressure to stop bleeding.

More importantly they had the same feelings as me or you (however racist you may be), they had dreams, aspirations, love for their families. And they suffered the same pain as you would if everything you had was stripped from you.

MoominPapa

Fratton Fred wrote:

is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

Well the queues aren't as bad in the desert

podgerodge

FTA69 wrote:

Primitive tools? They could make sticks that came back when thrown, boomerangs took days to construct owing to the continuous planing and carving.

fair enough they used boomerangs. big deal

stovelid

podgerodge wrote:

fair enough they used boomerangs. big deal

Consider FTA69 spanked roundly by that comeback eh

FTA69

fair enough they used boomerangs. big deal

The point was that they had knowledge of wordworking and the physics invovled in making a boomerang.

daiixi

brianthebard wrote:

What? You can't go back in time man. White Australia is there to stay, as police of the pacific these days it seems. What you can do is offer the poor and less fortunate of society regardless of their ethnic background the opportunity to better themselves, which is the point I've been making all along. I'm not the one who thinks that we need reparations.

Er.. "White Australia" ????