Lamb Ad - 2017

[gallagher]

Surely you cannot be serious. This is 2017, build a bridge for God's sake. You cannot change history. Just do better in the future. We have certainly done that.

:brick:

I'm someone who stands proudly and says "lest we forget", so I could never tell people to "get over it" when it comes to their family that was killed.

Thats a fair call but you don't blame the leaders or people of Germany today for what happened in the war do you?

 

[stryker]

The aboriginies got a raw deal back in the day as they did on every contininent in the world through many millenia. It is the way civilisation advances…the strong conquer the weak. Its not a new story. Im sure if you went far enough back in time youd find they did the same to some other poor buggers.

Refering to Australia day as invasion day is only telling part of the story. Why no sympathy for the convicts and white (mainly Irish) slaves who were stolen from their families, ripped from the cultures and countries and sent to this arid land on the other side of the world to perform back breaking labour in what for them would be very oppressive conditions? Its not their fault nost of them came here yet their legacy lives on. They overcame the conditions and treatment and rose above.

You never see these do gooder sooks who usually come from priveleged backgrounds give a second thought for them as they dont fit the victim narrative that the abo's do.

 

[Tim Sheens]

The aboriginies got a raw deal back in the day as they did on every contininent in the world through many millenia. It is the way civilisation advances…the strong conquer the weak. Its not a new story. Im sure if you went far enough back in time youd find they did the same to some other poor buggers.

Refering to Australia day as invasion day is only telling part of the story. Why no sympathy for the convicts and white (mainly Irish) slaves who were stolen from their families, ripped from the cultures and countries and sent to this arid land on the other side of the world to perform back breaking labour in what for them would be very oppressive conditions? Its not their fault nost of them came here yet their legacy lives on. They overcame the conditions and treatment and rose above.

You never see these do gooder sooks who usually come from priveleged backgrounds give a second thought for them as they dont fit the victim narrative that the abo's do.

It is rare that we can agree on a topic similar to this, but I can align with just about all of this post.

There are many issues from those days and they have played their respective parts in shaping our country, some better than others. It is the attitude of so what, or that it wasn't me from some that continue to benefit, consciously or not from past actions that annoys me

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

A gentle method of achieving justice for the Aborigines if the non-Indigenous were slowly bred out over a period of a few hundred years by for example of a one-child policy. Over this period Aboriginal thinking could adopt over what final solution they would like.

There are precedents for this type of action already in the 20th century.

Of course the land would also have to go back to the way it was 230 years ago

Most societies has advantages and disadvantages. It is a broad issue where cherry picking could be rife.

In the native environmental atmosphere the Great Barrier Reef would not be in mortal condition, we would not be contributing to global warming that is the complete wrecking of the biosphere in only a few centuries since the industrial revolution began etc. etc.. This issue is the greatest threat facing civilisation/communities for the past 10,000 years and it is a man-made threat.

But I sense a dose of nastiness in the statement going back to undeveloped as at 230 years ago. If the native community had to suffer all the disadvantages of 230 years, including the introduction and spread of deadly diseases, why can't they have some advantage that would be left behind by the illegal occupiers to make up for unpaid rent for those centuries?

 

[Newtown]

A gentle method of achieving justice for the Aborigines if the non-Indigenous were slowly bred out over a period of a few hundred years by for example of a one-child policy. Over this period Aboriginal thinking could adopt over what final solution they would like.

There are precedents for this type of action already in the 20th century.

Of course the land would also have to go back to the way it was 230 years ago

Most societies has advantages and disadvantages. It is a broad issue where cherry picking could be rife.

In the native environmental atmosphere the Great Barrier Reef would not be in mortal condition, we would not be contributing to global warming that is the complete wrecking of the biosphere in only a few centuries since the industrial revolution began etc. etc.. This issue is the greatest threat facing civilisation/communities for the past 10,000 years and it is a man-made threat.

But I sense a dose of nastiness in the statement going back to undeveloped as at 230 years ago. If the native community had to suffer all the disadvantages of 230 years, including the introduction and spread of deadly diseases, why can't they have some advantage that would be left behind by the illegal occupiers to make up for unpaid rent for those centuries?

Byron, What exactly do you want for today's Aborigines?

 

[Geo]

More Lamb..

 

[TCL]

Why only go back 230 years lets go back further, we are all African, it's a fact that's where all of our ancestors came from. So theoretically we are all African and so are our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, they walked over long before we did, we took the scenic route and turned up after extensive stays in Europe, Asia etc…

No more lamb on Australia Day, from now on its springboks and biltong!

 

[magpiecol]

Not that I normally subscribe to Byron's views, at least he goes out of his way to explain why he feels the way he does Col. I don't think I've ever seen you substantiate your views in any way other than telling the person you disagree with that they need to seek help or lay off the Kool Aid. There's never any substance to your "argument."

No he does not. Did you read his post?? It was a post by someone who is not stable.

:crazy :crazy

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Not that I normally subscribe to Byron's views, at least he goes out of his way to explain why he feels the way he does Col. I don't think I've ever seen you substantiate your views in any way other than telling the person you disagree with that they need to seek help or lay off the Kool Aid. There's never any substance to your "argument."

No he does not. Did you read his post?? It was a post by someone who is not stable.

:crazy :crazy

Unsurprising response. He might not be all right in the top paddock but he doesn't just tell people they are crazy and/or stupid and think that constitutes a position in a argument. Which you do, constantly.

 

[innsaneink]

A gentle method of achieving justice for the Aborigines if the non-Indigenous were slowly bred out over a period of a few hundred years by for example of a one-child policy. Over this period Aboriginal thinking could adopt over what final solution they would like.

There are precedents for this type of action already in the 20th century.

Of course the land would also have to go back to the way it was 230 years ago

Most societies has advantages and disadvantages. It is a broad issue where cherry picking could be rife.

In the native environmental atmosphere the Great Barrier Reef would not be in mortal condition, we would not be contributing to global warming that is the complete wrecking of the biosphere in only a few centuries since the industrial revolution began etc. etc.. This issue is the greatest threat facing civilisation/communities for the past 10,000 years and it is a man-made threat.

But I sense a dose of nastiness in the statement going back to undeveloped as at 230 years ago. If the native community had to suffer all the disadvantages of 230 years, including the introduction and spread of deadly diseases, why can't they have some advantage that would be left behind by the illegal occupiers to make up for unpaid rent for those centuries?

No nastiness…just wanted to see your response, and as I guessed its ridiculous

They have the advantage of living in what many see as the best country on the planet..

But yes, some would rather put their hand out, play victim..take take take and contribute nothing back

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

The aboriginies got a raw deal back in the day as they did on every contininent in the world through many millenia. It is the way civilisation advances…the strong conquer the weak. Its not a new story. Im sure if you went far enough back in time youd find they did the same to some other poor buggers.

Refering to Australia day as invasion day is only telling part of the story. Why no sympathy for the convicts and white (mainly Irish) slaves who were stolen from their families, ripped from the cultures and countries and sent to this arid land on the other side of the world to perform back breaking labour in what for them would be very oppressive conditions? Its not their fault nost of them came here yet their legacy lives on. They overcame the conditions and treatment and rose above.

You never see these do gooder sooks who usually come from priveleged backgrounds give a second thought for them as they dont fit the victim narrative that the abo's do.

The convicts and slaves brought here against their will have their representation and rights established and protected (to an extent) by the Constitution, by labour rules, by trade unions, by democracy. Being forced here does not give them land rights - the same might that brought them here was mostly the same might that stole the land from the Aborigines. In many cases escaped convicts did shack up with Aborigines.

The many campaigners that I know well have a consistent attitude across the board against injustice no what flavour it may be - social, economic etc., even extending to the flora and fauna and the farm animals we consume. Jack Mundy is a perfect example - active and consistent in many fronts, as well he was not from a privileged background. You have brought up a can of red herrings and nothing else.

 

[gallagher]

A gentle method of achieving justice for the Aborigines if the non-Indigenous were slowly bred out over a period of a few hundred years by for example of a one-child policy. Over this period Aboriginal thinking could adopt over what final solution they would like.

There are precedents for this type of action already in the 20th century.

Of course the land would also have to go back to the way it was 230 years ago

Most societies has advantages and disadvantages. It is a broad issue where cherry picking could be rife.

In the native environmental atmosphere the Great Barrier Reef would not be in mortal condition, we would not be contributing to global warming that is the complete wrecking of the biosphere in only a few centuries since the industrial revolution began etc. etc.. This issue is the greatest threat facing civilisation/communities for the past 10,000 years and it is a man-made threat.

But I sense a dose of nastiness in the statement going back to undeveloped as at 230 years ago. If the native community had to suffer all the disadvantages of 230 years, including the introduction and spread of deadly diseases, why can't they have some advantage that would be left behind by the illegal occupiers to make up for unpaid rent for those centuries?

Byron, What exactly do you want for today's Aborigines?

did you get an answer?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Gallagher, I have many distractions so can only answer occasionally. But don't worry I will get there.

 

[magpiecol]

Not that I normally subscribe to Byron's views, at least he goes out of his way to explain why he feels the way he does Col. I don't think I've ever seen you substantiate your views in any way other than telling the person you disagree with that they need to seek help or lay off the Kool Aid. There's never any substance to your "argument."

No he does not. Did you read his post?? It was a post by someone who is not stable.

:crazy :crazy

Unsurprising response. He might not be all right in the top paddock but he doesn't just tell people they are crazy and/or stupid and think that constitutes a position in a argument. Which you do, constantly.

And will continue to do so, if they continue to say crazy and stupid things. No PC here.

 

[gallagher]

Gallagher, I have many distractions so can only answer occasionally. But don't worry I will get there.

Focus mate.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Not that I normally subscribe to Byron's views, at least he goes out of his way to explain why he feels the way he does Col. I don't think I've ever seen you substantiate your views in any way other than telling the person you disagree with that they need to seek help or lay off the Kool Aid. There's never any substance to your "argument."

No he does not. Did you read his post?? It was a post by someone who is not stable.

:crazy :crazy

Unsurprising response. He might not be all right in the top paddock but he doesn't just tell people they are crazy and/or stupid and think that constitutes a position in a argument. Which you do, constantly.

And will continue to do so, if they continue to say crazy and stupid things. No PC here.

Didn't realise elaborating on why you feel a certain way about a position was political correctness. I thought it actually just made you a critical thinker who could form their own opinion, rather than a sheep who listens to the horseshit around them.


 

[happy_tiger]

No he does not. Did you read his post?? It was a post by someone who is not stable.

:crazy :crazy

Unsurprising response. He might not be all right in the top paddock but he doesn't just tell people they are crazy and/or stupid and think that constitutes a position in a argument. Which you do, constantly.

And will continue to do so, if they continue to say crazy and stupid things. No PC here.

Didn't realise elaborating on why you feel a certain way about a position was political correctness. I thought it actually just made you a critical thinker who could form their own opinion, rather than a sheep who listens to the s*** around them.


Listening to talk back radio on the way home from work , they had said someone had come out and said that Advanced Australia Fair was pointed towards meaning Fair Skinned

Was this Mundine ?? That was who it sounded they meant , but they didn't actually say that it was him …..

 

[innsaneink]

Yes that's one of his points…. Also the line "for we are young and free" he has a problem with

 

[PD77]

A gentle method of achieving justice for the Aborigines if the non-Indigenous were slowly bred out over a period of a few hundred years by for example of a one-child policy. Over this period Aboriginal thinking could adopt over what final solution they would like.

There are precedents for this type of action already in the 20th century.

Of course the land would also have to go back to the way it was 230 years ago

Most societies has advantages and disadvantages. It is a broad issue where cherry picking could be rife.

In the native environmental atmosphere the Great Barrier Reef would not be in mortal condition, we would not be contributing to global warming that is the complete wrecking of the biosphere in only a few centuries since the industrial revolution began etc. etc.. This issue is the greatest threat facing civilisation/communities for the past 10,000 years and it is a man-made threat.

But I sense a dose of nastiness in the statement going back to undeveloped as at 230 years ago. If the native community had to suffer all the disadvantages of 230 years, including the introduction and spread of deadly diseases, why can't they have some advantage that would be left behind by the illegal occupiers to make up for unpaid rent for those centuries?

You've been outed!!! Senator Hanson-Young please show yourself immediately!

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Surely you cannot be serious. This is 2017, build a bridge for God's sake. You cannot change history. Just do better in the future. We have certainly done that.

:brick:

I'm someone who stands proudly and says "lest we forget", so I could never tell people to "get over it" when it comes to their family that was killed.

Thats a fair call but you don't blame the leaders or people of Germany today for what happened in the war do you?

I can't see too many similarities in this attempted analogy. The "native-title" owners in the Germany were the majority and ruled the land - exactly opposite to the Australian Aboriginal positon. (The Germans had full power over their destiny unless we agree that the Jews did run and sabotage the place?? But we should not side-track here.)

Germany put their children through a "re-education" after the war to counter their anti-Semitism. They are still paying compensation until today I believe. Many Germans were kept as forced labour in foreign countries for a decade or two after completion of WW2 to help rebuild what they damaged. So I don't think there is much of a comparison between Germany and Australian responses. The reason Merkel is so strong to help current refugees is an attempt to compensate for their predecessors sins.

I gave a hint in an earlier post that history can be changed and it occurred in the 20th century with full contrivance of Australia so there should be consistency or otherwise it is further racism against our native peoples.