Aboriginal children in care now exceeds stolen generations (1 Viewer)

[Trefoil]

What do you mean their art language and music is inappropriate. What about their history, is that inappropriate too? I don't think so at all. I think that your history and all the rest of it influence who you are.

Um, maybe you should re-read my post? I said alienating them from their art and language is inappropriate.

The problem with teaching them their history is that it gives them a false sense of entitlement (which leads to some of the problems with aboriginal society today). But I see no way around this. You can't not teach them their history.

 

[Shibby.........]

Lol read the post back silly. Thats not what he meant.

[qoute=[B]Trefoil][/B]
It depends on the aspects of their culture you're alienating them from. If it's their art, language and music, that's inappropriate. If it's their worldviews, social attitudes and unofficial laws, those are probably exactly the things you want to alienate them from because they've become a destructive force in modern aboriginal society.[/qoute]

The what the hell dose that mean?

 

[Rockyroad]

Um, maybe you should re-read my post? I said alienating them from their art and language is inappropriate.

The problem with teaching them their history is that it gives them a false sense of entitlement (which leads to some of the problems with aboriginal society today). But I see no way around this. You can't not teach them their history.

What false sense of entitlement comes from the teaching of history?

 

[Shibby.........]

Um, maybe you should re-read my post? I said alienating them from their art and language is inappropriate.

The problem with teaching them their history is that it gives them a false sense of entitlement (which leads to some of the problems with aboriginal society today). But I see no way around this. You can't not teach them their history.

I don't agree. If we don;t teach them their history, it not like they can not find it from external sources like the net or books. It will just cause more negative stigma if you don;t teach them their own history.

 

[Trefoil]

The what the hell dose that mean?

It means alienating them from their art, language and music is inappropriate. Please re-read it carefully.

I don't agree. If we don;t teach them their history, it not like they can not find it from external sources like the net or books. It will just cause more negative stigma if you don;t teach them their own history.

Are you even bothering to read my fucking posts anymore or just trying to find somebody to argue with? I distinctly said they need to be taught their history.

But I see no way around this. You can't not teach them their history.

 

[rasengan90]

I don't agree. If we don;t teach them their history, it not like they can not find it from external sources like the net or books. It will just cause more negative stigma if you don;t teach them their own history.

I think you need to take a little time to read posts before you go guns blazing,

"You can't not teach them their history."

 

[Shibby.........]

It means alienating them from their art, language and music is inappropriate. Please re-read it carefully.


Are you even bothering to read my fucking posts anymore or just trying to find somebody to argue with? I distinctly said they need to be taught their history.

Oh sorry

I read that as

You can not teach them....

My mistake.

 

[Iron]

see but thats the thing that i dont understand. how did we win the land 'immorally'? what are the methods of conquering, and how was the English settlement unconventional?
Similar cases were seen in Canada, Northern America, Hawaii, Pacific Island and yet none of them have had the same extent of 'Indigenous sympathising' (could not think of another phrase) as we have. We were one of the first countries to ridiculously apologise and yet we still have no 'moral' gain to the land?

Canada's probably a good example, but their history is still very different. We dont have, for instance, a serious issue with a french-speaking province. Unlike the new world, no major power but Britain wanted a slice of Australia, and the powers certainly werent willing to fight eachother for it (despite our delusions)

So here we are, alone with the natives at the end of the world. Crickets cherp. We sometimes like to distract ourselves from the awkwardness by convincing ourselves that we're being swamped by Asians and refugees, but we cant escape it. Unlike other colonisers, we were left with the embarrasing lot of coming up against a totally hopeless people, and no-one else. There was no point seriously fighting them, so we mostly pretended that they werent here. With the absence of other claims on the land, whether they be German, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, Terrorist or Indonesian, we cant deny that the natives were treated shabbily - despite the enlightened intentions. Along with the fact that we started as a penal colony, it has kept us from truely embracing the land as our own. Some have reacted with hatred against Aboriginies for denying us the victory, others have fallen short of loving and identifying with the country -knowing that it has been obtained unfairly from a prehistoric people whose cultures and communities subsequently, inevitably collapsed into ruin. It's a chilling contradiction to our otherwise unique standards of 'mateship' and the fair go.
Reconciliation is therefore a national imperative

 

[rasengan90]

Maybe the most dangerous thing is not them learning their history itself but a warped view of it that is quite prominent in the community. They seem to feel more entitled to the land than whites/asians/whatever that were born and raised here. The exaggeration of the massacres perpetrated also needs to stop. Did anyone else watch the "First Australians" series on SBS? One 'massacre' was a story of a white policeman forcing two women from a tribe through a forbidden canyon, they were killed when they returned to camp by the elders and the commentators made it out to be the white policeman's fault. Quite a warped moral/justice system some of these tribes have, this is why they should follow the laws which are applicable to all other Australians regardless of race.

 

[Trefoil]

Canada's probably a good example, but their history is still very different. We dont have, for instance, a serious issue with a french-speaking province. Unlike the new world, no major power but Britain wanted a slice of Australia, and the powers certainly werent willing to fight eachother for it (despite our illusions)

So here we are, alone with the natives at the end of the world. Crickets cherp. We sometimes like to distract ourselves from the awkwardness by convincing ourselves that we're being swamped by Asians and refugees, but we cant escape it. Unlike other colonisers, we were left with the embarrasing lot of coming up against a totally hopeless people, and no-one else. There was no point seriously fighting them, so we mostly pretended that they werent here. With the absence of other claims on the land, whether they be German, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, Terrorist or Indonesian, we cant deny that the natives were treated shabbily - despite the enlightened intentions. Along with the fact that we started as a penal colony, it has kept us from truely embracing the land as our own. Some have reacted with hatred against Aboriginies for denying us the victory, others have fallen short of loving and identifying with the country -knowing that it has been obtained unfairly from a prehistoric people whose cultures and communities subsequently, inevitably collapsed into ruin. It's a chilling contradiction to our otherwise unique standards of 'mateship' and the fair go.
Reconciliation is therefore a national imperative

I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that passive conquest is somehow less valid than violent conquest (although perhaps the point is that violent conquest provides finality), but New Zealand's situation is an interesting juxtaposition.

 

[Iron]

There was absolutely no conquest.
Terra nullius: Wiki it.

 

[blue_chameleon]

Canada's probably a good example, but their history is still very different. We dont have, for instance, a serious issue with a french-speaking province. Unlike the new world, no major power but Britain wanted a slice of Australia, and the powers certainly werent willing to fight eachother for it (despite our delusions)

So here we are, alone with the natives at the end of the world. Crickets cherp. We sometimes like to distract ourselves from the awkwardness by convincing ourselves that we're being swamped by Asians and refugees, but we cant escape it. Unlike other colonisers, we were left with the embarrasing lot of coming up against a totally hopeless people, and no-one else. There was no point seriously fighting them, so we mostly pretended that they werent here. With the absence of other claims on the land, whether they be German, Turkish, Japanese, Chinese, Terrorist or Indonesian, we cant deny that the natives were treated shabbily - despite the enlightened intentions. Along with the fact that we started as a penal colony, it has kept us from truely embracing the land as our own. Some have reacted with hatred against Aboriginies for denying us the victory, others have fallen short of loving and identifying with the country -knowing that it has been obtained unfairly from a prehistoric people whose cultures and communities subsequently, inevitably collapsed into ruin. It's a chilling contradiction to our otherwise unique standards of 'mateship' and the fair go.
Reconciliation is therefore a national imperative

My patriotism has been deflated after that.

 

[Trefoil]

There was absolutely no conquest.
Terra nullius: Wiki it.

I use 'passive conquest' in the sense of taking over a land without (much) violence. E.g. sheer force of numbers and/or intimidating military superiority.

 

[Iron]

Whatevs. It was in no way legal conquest.

 

[rasengan90]

True, there should have been a treaty of Waitangi type arrangement.

 

[Trefoil]

Whatevs. It was in no way legal conquest.

Legal conquest? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

 

[impervious182]

Legal conquest? Isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

Not at the time.

International law didn't exist, because multilateral organisations tasked with keeping the peace didn't either. Though I agree with you; I think that there was a conquest - certainly opposition was not coordinated or in the slightest way effective and the land occupied.

 

[katie tully]

lol @ legal conquest.

Fucking bitches.

Seriously.

Imperial Britain explored and conquered land. It's what they did. It's what countless of civilizations before them did. I think compared to the Irish, Britain went easy on the Abos.
They were nomadic. They had no "claim" or sense of ownership to the land. They hadn't developed the technologies available to defend or protect "their" land, therefore it was ripe for the picking.

 

[katie tully]

If you look at the theory behind them, they basically refer to the same thing.

Fucking shut up you science retard! They're not the same thing, "survival of the fittest" was NOT coined by Charles Darwin, and you're all dumb dumb heads.

 

[katie tully]

hahaha what the crap

I do NOT remember this.

Perhaps Australians should be reminded that a similar desecration a few months ago led to loud allegations of "white racism". When the grave of the late Eddie Mabo was daubed with paint in Townsville, the outrage against European Australians was almost vengeful. It even led to a special ceremony, in which European Australians apologised for their "guilt" - even though a police investigation was inconclusive. It might be noted that the investigation into the Mabo grave desecration has been completely dropped by the press, since one small report, never repeated, alleged that two Aboriginal children had admitted daubing the monument. But the Mabo desecration was, and is now, attributed to white racism".

What a load of shit.