@strongee said in [Politics Super Thread \- keep it all in here](/post/1295840) said:
The issue is , I think is that , we’ve somehow made people who want to celebrate being Australian alienated . Whilst also never really including the original owners of the land .
There has to be a happy median, because loving this country is ok . Because to those people , including me , this country is a lot more than a bunch of poms coming over a couple hundred years ago , to mess stuff up and create a slave colony . I think the fact we’ve transcended this start , is the point . It was never meant to be anything and we’ve turned it into something amazing .
But we also need to include the indigenous to make them feel like as crap as the past is , ***this a day to celebrate them*** as much as anyone else .
We have to get everyone to realise , these fundamental truths , and stop making everyone feel like they have to choose a side .
I agree with most of this except the highlighted. I want to keep the date because as I said earlier, history shouldnt be erased and there IS much to celebrate from our UK beginnings and where we have gotten to from such humble beginnings but the impact on the indigenous needs to be acknowledged and incorporated in the day. Where I differ with your post is that Jan 26 isnt the day to *celebrate* indigenous because it holds the painful connotation. There should be a separate date to celebrate indigenous culture, maybe NAIDOC week should be elevated.
Totally enjoy reading your posts 5150,but my main concern and arguments are that although many say that the indigenous population were hard done by,and history has proven lots,over the many,many years of negotiations and settlements we have become closer to our indigenous brothers and sisters than the much earlier years gone by...
We have given them education,finance,homes ,restored their tribal lands and named many areas as their land that they owned....so how can I honestly say that in my generation that I have done wrong by them and I should take a knee in aggreance with the agenda that a minority cant let go of the past..as far as Im concerned we have done well to make this country a nation to be proud of under the one flag and by each others side...
call me a racist or whatever,in my experiences the indigenous people my age had as much chance as I did to do well in the world we live in....just my opinion and will be glad to respond to people who think Im out of line with my comments and perception of our society today...
Just a couple of points, firstly I wouldn't call you racist , but there are a couple of things with you post. Your use of "we have given them" adds a sense of superiority to your post, who is the we you are referring to?
Also you state that indigenous people your age had as much chance to do well as you did, even if that was true they also had a larger chance of being incarcerated than just about any other group of people in the world.
We have given them what they asked for ...Equality and their tribal land rites back,we means all of Australians who have the respect or our indigenous brothers and sisters..
The guys I played football with had jobs and kids,the kids went to school and were treated no differently than the others in the school....those who were incarcerated either didnt want to take the opportunity to unite as one and do as all others did or it was easier to play the hard done by card,I really dont care what colour they are,if their incarcerated they have done the wrong thing...we all should know right from wrong if we have the right guidence from a young age...
So what is it about our society that leads to a higher percentage of indigenous people being incarcerated than other groups?
I told you the answer cochise....guidence from an early age...it starts at home ...the ones who want to play the hard done by card are the ones who dont want to get off their backside and be productive in our community,and they also would rather get the chq off the govt each fortnight than do things for themselves...I have seen it tenfold while I was in the Riverina....Im not going to argue with you cochise as I respect your input to the forum at the highest level...I have gone through plenty with the indigenous people to know what Im talking about...one example I will give you,I had an altercation with an Aboriginal man who called me white trash for saying hello to him,2 days later he found where I lived and kicked my door down and took my tv,video player and money I had on my bedside table....the police found him he went to court and paid a $200 fine...I lost my stuff and got nothing back....thats why they get incarcerated and so they should,if I had done the same I would be in Goulburn gaol for 6 months at least...so as I said I dont want to argue with you but I at least have got on with the other Aboriginal people that I was close to....cant tar them all with the same brush.....
So how do you break the cycle? you say it starts at home and I do agree and that is part of the problem, this is intergenerational and trauma from the governments actions in the past is passed down due to that. That is why this is such a difficult thing to fix and why there are indigenous people that feel outside our society.
Mate, I don't see this as a argument, more a discussion and have no ill will towards your point of view. I don't agree with it but understand where you are a coming from.
I think to break the cycle,education and equality for all is a good start...I did say I didnt want an argument and it hasnt been,its been a great discussion..however our indigenous people must realise that we are one nation and we are solid in our committment to our country..dont take this the wrong way ,but if they want to better themselves then they will have to have the want....it really is up to them to make a better life for now and the future,rehashing what crimes were done against them 200 yrs ago doesnt cut it in my books we all have been given a chance to do better for ourselves,lets face it we are one of the greatest countries in the world and our forefathers had many a battle to get us to where we are now...its really up to all of us to find a good solution to our problems rather than keep digging up the past and festering problems that should have been solved many years ago...
Nah, not one country. There are the 1st Nations People and then there are the Invaders.
And this is why we will never get a fully united great country while people think like that....my parents came to Australia after ww2,they worked hard under extreme conditions to make a better life for themselves,the govt at the time naturalised them both and called them Australian citizens...
I was born here and have never considered mum or dad or my brother and I invaders....that is crap Mike and you should really think about posting somethings...I can understand that some minority want to keep the invader dream alive,but thanks to my parents and many other migrants from war torn Europe they helped build this country to where it became an even greater country to live in...
One quick question for you....if the "INVADERS"hadnt came here would anyone know what Australia would have been like if the 1st nation people were in charge ? its just a hypothetical question,but needs to be answered as to find a solution to our problems associated with the first landing and settlement...
It’s not my view, but it is a view of some. I’m playing devil’s advocate. That’s why I ask what’s the end game. Change the date of Australia Day, sure, I don’t care as long as it’s in summer (personal preference) but it won’t make one iota of difference to those that are pushing it as invasion day (the invaders are still here). What’s next? What else do we have to do to satisfy our 1st Nations People? For some it will never be enough, that’s my point. So where do you draw the line?
To be honest, I would like to see constitutional recognition
Thats a no brainer and easy
>and a treaty
And what exactly does a Treaty mean, what does it include and what are the repurcussions?
That is what would need to be discussed and negotiated.
Not having a go at you but you think we should have a treaty without knowing what it includes?
I support (true) reconciliation but I wouldnt agree with a Treaty without knowing what it contains.
You do realise that a treaty is a negotiation?
A treaty is not a negotiation, it is an agreement, it is a social contract. The process by which you get to a treaty may be a negotiation, but a treaty is the end result.
>It is not up to me to decide what it includes, that is part of the process.
Yes it is. You will vote on it in a referendum. That is the process.
>Australia is the only commonwealth nation without a treaty with its indigenous people.
And? Why does that matter? What impact does a treaty in any other nation have on indigenous or non indigenous people in Australia? What is the significance of Commonwealth nations? Britain had 120 years to organise a treaty and it didnt happen. How many French colonies have a treaty with indigenous people? Dutch?
Im not saying we shouldnt have a Treaty. I am 100% for actual true reconciliation between indigenous and non indigenous people but Im not blind enough to simply virtue signal for a treaty without knowing what was in it.
How do you reach an agreement?
Of course there is negotiation, but you and I wont be part of it, you and I will only get to vote yes or no on the end result, the ACTUAL proposed treaty and if it is defeated at referendum, there IS NO Treaty, regardless of the process of negotiation.
Why would you agree to a social contract without knowing what is in it?
IMO your question is part of the problem of a treaty in Australia. Obviously the Govt negotiates on behalf of the Australian people, but who do they negotiate with? Who represents ALL indigenous people?
In the Uluru "statement from the Heart" they called for a federal aboriginal council that would have a say in matters impacting indigenous people. I think this was a great concept and would be a massive step towards reconciliation and ultimately a Treaty.
People suggest a Treaty, but there is not even genuine reconcillation between indigenous and non indigenous. I think the process is still in its early stages and both sides have a long way to go.
I was answering a question about what is the end game and stated that I didn't know but would think it involved constitutional recognition and a treaty.
I understood that and I asked why you would commit to a Treaty without knowing what was in it. We've discussed it, you didnt give me an answer but I dont think there is anything I can add to the discussion. Its just a discussion. Just as you were answering a question as part of a discussion, I asked a legitimate question that continues a discussion. Didnt belittle your opinion, call you names or cast aspersions. That is what a discussion forum is about.
Then I went on to add additional thoughts and information (The Uluru statement from the heart) which can further inform the discussion and perhaps enhance it.
Clearly this discussion has run its course, I have a horse to ride off on apparently.
Implying I'm being blind and virtue signaling is not casting aspersions or trying to belittle others arguments?
If you say you want a contract without knowing what is in it, if you agree to a contract without knowing what is in it, that is pretty much the definition of blind.
The virtue signalling comment has nothing to do with you it was about how I would feel about it. If I blindly stated that I wanted a treaty without knowing what was in it, I would question why I was doing so. What if the treaty disadvantaged indigenous people? I would feel like I was virtue signalling as there is zero substance to it. The rest is you projecting and I cant help you with that.
*At no point* do I try to downplay or trivialise your argument on any topic on this forum. In fact I do the opposite regularly, you know this.
Well I was able to look straight past your passive aggressive implication that I didnt know what a treaty was (*"You do know dont you?"*) and having done so was able to have a completely normal civil conversation about the topic.
>A bit of respect goes a long way.
I havent disrespected you at all in this thread. In my experience a thicker skin and less projecting goes even further.
lol, thick skinned?
Mate you know what.....put me on ignore. I havent had a go at you here so I dont know what you would call it. You had a personal crack at me and then deleted it.
I dont know what your story is here tonight, but more simple for everyone if you just whack me on ignore.
No need for that,
No need for it on my end, but Im not the having a personal crack at someone here.
>I deleted a comment about a high horse, hardly personal, because I knew you wouldn't like it.
The high horse was half the comment, the rest of it was a personal attack on me, that was completely unwarranted. If you actually feel what you said in the deleted post, then putting me on ignore is a no brainer.
>Actually pmed you about 20 mins ago. I will state however so no one thinks I made a personal comment about you that I stated you were on a high horse.
Yep, you did PM me. Within about 5 mins, you got the passive aggressive thing done, told me in another post that you pump my tyres up, then posted a post with a personal attack (the high horse was about half the post and you know it) and then sent me the PM. All of these conveyed totally different messages.
Mate I dont know what is up with you tonight, the things you are emotional about, I didnt say about you and if you projected them onto yourself, I cant help you but I would have suggested you could have discussed it in the thread rather than the personal attack. But you do you.
This is INCREDIBLY boring to everyone else so like I said, grab the ignore button and you will not have to worry about imagining I said things about you ever again.
I’ve been reading the posts about the process etc. why do you think there should be a treaty?
I can't speak for the Aboriginal people of Australia but my understanding of the issue is that we don't have a treaty because, upon arrival of the British, the flag of Great Britain was raised, the land was declared to be a British possession and all inhabitants of the land were declared to be subjects of the British Crown. This is the "Terra Nullis" issue (that is that no nation or nations occupied the continent of Australia before the British did).
So at that point, according to British law, the Aboriginal people became subjects of the crown and a nation doesn't have a treaty with its own subjects.
I understand that establishment of a treaty is important to Aboriginal people because it would recognise that, at the time of the British arriving, the Aboriginal nations on the continent of Australia were not British citizens and that, to establish a relationship on this continent, a treaty between the British nation and the various Aboriginal nations should have been completed.
Now, of course, we are not British. We are Australian. And who would the Australian government negotiate a treaty with? There is no single Aboriginal voice or nation with whom to negotiate.
But that wouldn't be an insurmountable problem if there was any desire on the part of the Australian government to address this issue. It has been dealt wit elsewhere in the world under similar circumstances.
A treaty isn't going to solve all of the problems facing Aboriginal people and it isn't going to satisfy the perpetually dissatisfied, but those aren't valid reasons for not addressing a valid issue.
I reckon the less we try to 'fix' history, the better. And I think Britain's approach to its own history of various waves of invasion, occupation, migration - Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Viking, Norman - is a reasonably good model - it is all considered the history of Britain. The Balkan approach is the polar opposite - goodies v baddies in history = still goodies v baddies today, with all the resultant problems.
I think we can recognise there is much to cherish in having unique and ancient Aboriginal culture, as well as having a fascinating and successful British/European based culture that kicked off in January 1788.
History wars won't get us anywhere. Crowing about the triumph of western civilisation - or conversely - whinging about the evils of western civilisation, is pointless and counterproductive.
We're a continent that has produced the Bradshaws, as well as Patrick White. How good is that?
