Lamb Ad - 2017

[magpiecol]

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.

Wow!!!! The racist card. Who would have thought.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Wow^^^^^ A three word slogan in response.

Who would have thought, especially after CB trying to assist by suggesting ways to better participate in healthy debate. Surely there must be some information that you can share with us that may be considered as constructive Col?

 

[PD77]

This thread is a great read from start to finish and I really like lamb. Looks like I'm a winner on all fronts.

Thank God we live in Australia and have the freedom to engage in healthy debate without getting shouted down by those wanting to stifle free speech.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

You're free to state and say whatever you like, however if you can't substantiate your opinion you deserve whatever lambasting you cop. With the freedom of speech comes the return serve, the freedom to criticise.

Even offer a "that's what the Greens/2GB told me to say." It's infinitely better than saying "you're a bigot/racist/left wing nut job/lunatic."

 

[PD77]

You're free to state and say whatever you like, however if you can't substantiate your opinion you deserve whatever lambasting you cop. With the freedom of speech comes the return serve, the freedom to criticise.

Even offer a "that's what the Greens/2GB told me to say." It's infinitely better than saying "you're a bigot/racist/left wing nut job/lunatic."

Agreed. We all know what opinions are like…

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

You're free to state and say whatever you like, however if you can't substantiate your opinion you deserve whatever lambasting you cop. With the freedom of speech comes the return serve, the freedom to criticise.

Even offer a "that's what the Greens/2GB told me to say." It's infinitely better than saying "you're a bigot/racist/left wing nut job/lunatic."

Agreed. We all know what opinions are like…

Yep, backsides. Everyone has one, and some stink.

 

[Geo]

Mmmmmmm….Lamb basting...I've always found Lemon Garlic and Rosemary good..

 

[PD77]

Mmmmmmm….Lamb basting...I've always found Lemon Garlic and Rosemary good..

I literally just inhaled a roast lamb roll. Hence I have a body like Blocker…as he is now, not in his heyday.

 

[magpiecol]

Wow^^^^^ A three word slogan in response.

Who would have thought, especially after CB trying to assist by suggesting ways to better participate in healthy debate. Surely there must be some information that you can share with us that may be considered as constructive Col?

Sure. About what exactly?

 

[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?

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.

It wasn't an analogy.
My point is, the rest of the world dont hold germans accountable for what their country did in the past.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

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.

It wasn't an analogy.
My point is, the rest of the world dont hold germans accountable for what their country did in the past.

Some Jews still have their noses out of joint over it, understandably. The main reason the world does not hold current Germans accountable because of the reasons I have already listed - the Germans held themselves accountable and still are up to this present day, the Merkel mention. But the Nazi leaders infamously at the Nuremburg Trials did not take responsibility but most of them never seen the light of the next day for their efforts. The Japanese have been a lot less responsible for their WW2 adventures than the Germans have been.

 

[gallagher]

Jews with noses out of joint? Racist joke?

lol, just kidding BBF!

 

[happy_tiger]

Mmmmmmm….Lamb basting...I've always found Lemon Garlic and Rosemary good..

I literally just inhaled a roast lamb roll. Hence I have a body like Blocker…as he is now, not in his heyday.

What 😱pen_mouth:
\
\
There was a difference in his hey day ???

No surely not

 

[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?

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

I support them collectively and individually have a full role in issues that determine all aspects of their life at all levels. Some want to set up their own nation/s separate from Australia - that is their right. Others of course would choose to stay in white society. There would be at least half a dozen steps between these two opposing positons that many Aborigines would arrive at after consultation with their communities and individual families. If there was (I doubt) widespread support to eventually take back the whole country (over a very long period) then I would support that as well. No one can extinguish their rights that have not been forfeited in any way up to date.

 

[Nelson]

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?

I support them collectively and individually have a full role in issues that determine all aspects of their life at all levels. Some want to set up their own nation/s separate from Australia - that is their right. Others of course would choose to stay in white society. There would be at least half a dozen steps between these two opposing positons that many Aborigines would arrive at after consultation with their communities and individual families. If there was (I doubt) widespread support to eventually take back the whole country (over a very long period) then I would support that as well. No one can extinguish their rights that have not been forfeited in any way up to date.

What legal basis do you have for any of this? What law do you think you're applying and what land rights do you think they have that cannot be extinguished in any way other than voluntary forfeiture?

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Most societies has advantages and disadvantages. …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?

I support them collectively and individually have a full role in issues that determine all aspects of their life at all levels. Some want to set up their own nation/s separate from Australia - that is their right. Others of course would choose to stay in white society. There would be at least half a dozen steps between these two opposing positons that many Aborigines would arrive at after consultation with their communities and individual families. If there was (I doubt) widespread support to eventually take back the whole country (over a very long period) then I would support that as well. No one can extinguish their rights that have not been forfeited in any way up to date.

What legal basis do you have for any of this? What law do you think you're applying and what land rights do you think they have that cannot be extinguished in any way other than voluntary forfeiture?

What legal basis did white Australia have in setting up a country that was forcibly obtained with, at that time 1901, probably still a sizable portion of the land (if not majority) still occupied by the native peoples? This question actually refers more accurately to 1788 as well.

The island was seized by force, recognized by a world of nations that many of which were also stolen by force. As there has been no legal agreement it is still open slather what the Aborigines can strive for. It is racist to hold the view that only white people can declare ownership of a country or the island now called Australia. The Aborigines had absolutely no say in the matter and are therefore not bound by such declaration and recognition.

As early as about 50 years ago some Aborigines were issuing there own passports, refusing to be represented by Australian passports. There is another push now for a separate country. The final chapter has not been written yet and may not occur for decades to come.

How individual and groups of Aborigines decide on what tactics, strategy and methods they employ is up to them. But might is not right and what is good for the goose may also be considered good for the gander.

 

[stryker]

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

I support them collectively and individually have a full role in issues that determine all aspects of their life at all levels. Some want to set up their own nation/s separate from Australia - that is their right. Others of course would choose to stay in white society. There would be at least half a dozen steps between these two opposing positons that many Aborigines would arrive at after consultation with their communities and individual families. If there was (I doubt) widespread support to eventually take back the whole country (over a very long period) then I would support that as well. No one can extinguish their rights that have not been forfeited in any way up to date.

What legal basis do you have for any of this? What law do you think you're applying and what land rights do you think they have that cannot be extinguished in any way other than voluntary forfeiture?

What legal basis did white Australia have in setting up a country that was forcibly obtained with, at that time 1901, probably still a sizable portion of the land (if not majority) still occupied by the native peoples? This question actually refers more accurately to 1788 as well.

The island was seized by force, recognized by a world of nations that many of which were also stolen by force. As there has been no legal agreement it is still open slather what the Aborigines can strive for. It is racist to hold the view that only white people can declare ownership of a country or the island now called Australia. The Aborigines had absolutely no say in the matter and are therefore not bound by such declaration and recognition.

As early as about 50 years ago some Aborigines were issuing there own passports, refusing to be represented by Australian passports. There is another push now for a separate country. The final chapter has not been written yet and may not occur for decades to come.

How individual and groups of Aborigines decide on what tactics, strategy and methods they employ is up to them. But might is not right and what is good for the goose may also be considered good for the gander.

:roll yeah right…love to see that happen. They wouldnt last a year on their own.

 

[happy_tiger]

I support them collectively and individually have a full role in issues that determine all aspects of their life at all levels. Some want to set up their own nation/s separate from Australia - that is their right. Others of course would choose to stay in white society. There would be at least half a dozen steps between these two opposing positons that many Aborigines would arrive at after consultation with their communities and individual families. If there was (I doubt) widespread support to eventually take back the whole country (over a very long period) then I would support that as well. No one can extinguish their rights that have not been forfeited in any way up to date.

What legal basis do you have for any of this? What law do you think you're applying and what land rights do you think they have that cannot be extinguished in any way other than voluntary forfeiture?

What legal basis did white Australia have in setting up a country that was forcibly obtained with, at that time 1901, probably still a sizable portion of the land (if not majority) still occupied by the native peoples? This question actually refers more accurately to 1788 as well.

The island was seized by force, recognized by a world of nations that many of which were also stolen by force. As there has been no legal agreement it is still open slather what the Aborigines can strive for. It is racist to hold the view that only white people can declare ownership of a country or the island now called Australia. The Aborigines had absolutely no say in the matter and are therefore not bound by such declaration and recognition.

As early as about 50 years ago some Aborigines were issuing there own passports, refusing to be represented by Australian passports. There is another push now for a separate country. The final chapter has not been written yet and may not occur for decades to come.

How individual and groups of Aborigines decide on what tactics, strategy and methods they employ is up to them. But might is not right and what is good for the goose may also be considered good for the gander.

:roll yeah right…love to see that happen. They wouldnt last a year on their own.

Where would it all end though ??

The Greeks , Romans , American Indians , Hawaiians , Polynesia , virtually every African nation

Anyway we will at some stage face our own invasion of our country once natural resources become scarcer and scarcer

If you don't think much larger populated countries with far bigger armies and less natural resources aren't eyeing Australia off for the future you are being very naïve

The quicker we can populate this country the better , better off for all our industries and better for the overall protection of our country

 

[Tim Sheens]

What legal basis do you have for any of this? What law do you think you're applying and what land rights do you think they have that cannot be extinguished in any way other than voluntary forfeiture?

What legal basis did white Australia have in setting up a country that was forcibly obtained with, at that time 1901, probably still a sizable portion of the land (if not majority) still occupied by the native peoples? This question actually refers more accurately to 1788 as well.

The island was seized by force, recognized by a world of nations that many of which were also stolen by force. As there has been no legal agreement it is still open slather what the Aborigines can strive for. It is racist to hold the view that only white people can declare ownership of a country or the island now called Australia. The Aborigines had absolutely no say in the matter and are therefore not bound by such declaration and recognition.

As early as about 50 years ago some Aborigines were issuing there own passports, refusing to be represented by Australian passports. There is another push now for a separate country. The final chapter has not been written yet and may not occur for decades to come.

How individual and groups of Aborigines decide on what tactics, strategy and methods they employ is up to them. But might is not right and what is good for the goose may also be considered good for the gander.

:roll yeah right…love to see that happen. They wouldnt last a year on their own.

Where would it all end though ??

The Greeks , Romans , American Indians , Hawaiians , Polynesia , virtually every African nation

Anyway we will at some stage face our own invasion of our country once natural resources become scarcer and scarcer

If you don't think much larger populated countries with far bigger armies and less natural resources aren't eyeing Australia off for the future you are being very naïve

The quicker we can populate this country the better , better off for all our industries and better for the overall protection of our country

I think Col wrote about building a bridge earlier in the thread, so maybe you can ask him and his mates to help and save them having to build that wall they are supposed to be starting work on soon in the US.

 

[Geo]

Our Home is girt by Sea..

Don't need a Wall..