There are some things wrong in this explanation- or at least misguided in some sense...(not personally, just generally) 1. American/European anything will never endanger itself due to overcompensation for past wrongs of ANY nature. Nothing of consequence is ever given in that particular aim. I don't think any power would unless forced by a greater power than themselves. 2. When you refer to the sub-Saharan slave trade, you are refering to a period that extends almost or over a millenia in scope. Added to that, the name makes it seem like it was a purely African enterprise, but it was transcontinental in scope- slaves actively sought by a wide range of clients. You could extend the slave trade back to Egypt if you want. Even further, if you like. The intensity of the two trades cannot be compared in the same way. But we are not really talking about who else practiced slavery. That's the... 3. Point-the-finger move. Basically, when you (not you, personally) do something wrong, you point the finger at someone else, in that sense trying to diminish the severity of a crime by saying "everyone else did it". Not a great display of merit because it's not about everyone else. The subject is what the current people who are around today suffered at the hands of another. How ridiculous would it sound if one thief tried to get out of being convicted by pointing to other thieves saying- "look, other people did it"? This is a particularly biting criticism for a country whose core ideals and foreign policy is based on them being the defender of human rights and dignities. But...about modern slavery, people do talk about it and it is condemned. It certainly appears more in media than slavery except around Black History month in the states. We routinely jab at other countries for the way they treat their people. It's one of the first things spoken of. Child slavery, adult slavery...the reason why they probably aren't addressed so much is that some US/European companies still profit from it in some way. As for Emperor Hirhito, who knows what he would have done. I doubt the victims would have been taken any more seriously than the Chinese victims of WW2, which outnumbered the Jews of the holocaust by far. But, by default, empires rarely extend into a region they don't plan to extort. But, again, the point isn't to compare monsters or hide behind them, it's pretty much accountability. We already know the others are bad. We hear it often. I believe they are still facing issues where they aren't working on a completely level field in society as the majority and they are trying to advance themselves to at least that stage. I think that recognizing this past will at least go some way in attempting to bridge a social gap in the area instead of this increased mentality that one should resist an an overzealousness that certainly was never present to begin with. Maybe in rhetoric on the part of some, but not in actuality.
The German nation should be held responsible for the rehabilitation of the people they nearly destroyed. The punishment should be equal to the crime because even though the next generation would be innocent, one generation inherents the burdens of the last. You destroy the first generation, the second starts with nothing. In fact, had not Britain and the US cradled European Jews till this very day, what condition do you think they would have been in? I think it would have been very fair that Germany should have been the one to take on that responsibility. (Of course, they couldn't because they were in ruins, but you see what I mean...) Besides, you don't see anyone forgiving national debts because they were created by the last generation, do you? You could have a "let-them-be" policy, which is practiced in many other parts of the world. The refugees in the Middle East live in near absolute squalor. These aren't conditions you can pick yourself up from. There are no holds to climb up with. When people's or societies sink to these levels, it's almost impossible to rise without some form of aid. The aid is definitely a burden. But that is what is supposed to mark the difference between human beings and lizards- or at least a progressive society and a regressing/repressive society.
Im sure this post will garner a few responses. Lets pare it down a little further then. Using your argument, what happens if your brother, lets say, rapes a girl. Do you then have to carry that burden as your guilt ?
It's not the same thing. His crime does not effect an entire people. The problems of the past have effected entire peoples, not just a certain group of individuals. It's a matter of insitutional, state policy from one group towards another.
Just another heart felt post that's simply overlooked! Why is it that we attempt to make the simple sound complex! The greatest response is simply a human response, not all this excuse making, double standard nonsense that some obviously find it hard to identify when arguing a case! If you talk to aboriginal people you will find that all they want is a fair go free from stereotyping and racism! They don't want to be treated special, they just want to be treated justly and fairly! I don't think I would want to experience having to live my life with people questioning my character based on my colour or race every single day! Surely it has to be a psychological burden! Be true about the past and be fair about what justice should look like for aboriginal people! Not hiding behind some blatant double standard excuse! You bring realness to discussion DV, unfortunately it is too simple for simple minds!
Ok i will run with this, as i am intrigued as to know exactly, in your opinion, how long you see the decendents of the oppressors will have to pay for the actions of previous generations ? What is your time limit on this ?
As long as it takes to adequately remedy the abuse on the people. For instance, Germany should have been made to provide much reconstruction and stabilization to the Jews of all the countries it affected. A hard burden for a brutal crime sounds fair. The reconstruction of schools and homes as well as paying for welfare of Jews to a certain extent, but only for a certain amount of time as necessary to provide the general re-establishment of Jews within their socieities. I think you might be thinking I advocate reparations now for these disenfranchised people, which I do not. The abuse it too far in the past for such an action to be called reparations. When I bring up the past, it is to make the point that the abuses of the past have effects which linger- and may magnify- down the line. While the ability to legally hold one accountable disappears with time, the injustice remains, as well as the destructive effects of it- basically meaning a crime goes unpunished...a staute of limitations of a kind. But, even though that were the case, a nation should put a sincere effort in raising the living standards of all it's citizens (not just throwing money at it).
Most likely people from both the government and the people, themselves, would come to a consensus, but that decision is a decision between them. Has nothing to do with what I think.
What's wrong in this explanation is your part not mine. I dont know if did it on purpose or if you simply do not know what I was referring to. Anyway you prove my point! I was referring to the trans-Saharan slave trade not the sub-Saharan slave trade. In other words the dozens of million of African slaves, dragged from their homes, send on death marches through the Sahara (65-75% died, but it was was a culculated loss), there collected to work in mines or to be castrated (simply cutting off the genitals - most of them died of course, but the price for the survivors are the higher) or to do all the work which ends up necessarily in death. Of course by number, effects and bestiality corpse by corpse comparable to the trans-Atlantic slave trade. As it seems to me you either try to avoid this topic with a change of "trans-" into "sub" on purpose to keep up a picture of the good Arab Muslim world against the evil White man or ... you have simply never heard of that, because you heard from the beginning of your childhood on the story of the evil White man dragging slaves from Africa to America causing all of African problems, but strangely never heard a word of Arabs dragging African people from Africa to the Arab world. It's a quite unsatisfying fact, when it comes on blaming someone for the situation in Africa, right? Oh stop there. You are the one who wants to prove us the portray of the evil White Man as a plague for the world hated by the rest of the world for good reason. Another user replied simply thats because of your own racial hatred, which you rejected at once. Now we have the strange situation, that I can prove that every point of your accusation against the White Man would be a sufficient sufficient point against Arabs, Blacks or Asians as well and now you tell me thats a simple "point the finger move"? This move is absolutely correct and leaves the question, why you think specificially European cultures are despised for a good reason? This is the point another user wrote of your own racial hatred and even if I think that to choice of words is not really proper, I myself doubt now after your statement that you would judge an Arab or African society with the same meter. Oh, as for my part, I would not label Hirohito as a monster, at least not compared to the Stoneage Communists he would have spared East Asia. I dont like the Anglo-Saxon mentality and there would not have been anything which I cared less than Australia populated with Japanese and cleansed of Anglo-Saxons, its simply not my cup of tea, what happens there. As I told you above because of its own weakness I consider the Western societies as inferior to e.g. China which copies the Western achievements in technologies, but will not repeat the same mistakes.
If you followed the history of post war Germany and Israel you would know West-Germany did this. This was - by the way a move by Adenauer to come to a normalization of the relations to the Western World (most important the US). In the opposite it was highly controverted in Israel, if Israel should accept any such offer from West-Germany. Even although they needed it. Ben Gurion decided to accept it, a move for which he became nearly a traitor for the Begin followers. Becaue of the Halstein-doctrine in West-Germany later on even established even official relationship with Israel because of an outrage that Egypt recognized the GDR in East-Germany. Stupid dogmatic idea. Since then Germany supports Israel constantly with weapons and gives a f*** how the relationship with the Arabs get worse for that. So Germany does as you demand, unluckily, I have to add.
I don't believe there is any real appreciable difference in the terms, but I was referring to the same thing. Still, the term you were referring to is the one that spans over a millenia and cannot really be compared to the compact, but far more efficient methods of the 15-16 century slave traders. More to the point, I don't believe I brought up the slave trade to begin with because it wasn't my point. I'm talking about the Aborigines of Australia, and my point was to say that the abuses of the past have lasting effects on the future generations. Because of this, consideration of this past should be given in order to bring about a society that benefits everyone, equally, in a practical and sincere manner. This point is well known and obvious. However, the question is not how many people committed the same crime throughout all of history. That would be pointing the finger. The concept I'm trying to bring about is acknowledgement, if not accountability. We already point the finger at every other country and tell them how bad it is. We can either spend time telling every other nation to be good, or we can take our own advice and do the same thing. By saying that the current occupiers of Australia should be considerate to the people whom they have wronged, and whose lands they now occupy...this is hatred? I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to say here. True enough. Apologies.
mate I do not know what world your living in, but in Australia we can't even get consensus over a bloody broadband policy. Getting full consesus between vested interests over this particular issue would be like herding cats. In the perfect utopia maybe this would happen, but here in the real world my money would be on NEVER. What you are proposing, as wonderful and uplifting as it may feel to you, is basically condemning all parties to an endless drive around a round a bout with no exits. I like your feel good attitude, don't get me wrong, and unfortunately it is lost in this present world. To me there are two choices to be made on this issue. 1. The Aboriginal people have to let go of the hate and anger, and move forward into the future as a proud race of people. It is this hate and anger that is holding us back. Our youth don't even know what they are angry about, it has been inherited, just like racism. 2. We do what we are doing now. Nothing. Talk in circles. If we do what we have always done, we will get what we have Always got. nothing. I always look to nelson Mandela and how he was able to let go of his anger as an example to his people. He knew that hate and anger would debilitate their future. We could all learn from this great human being.
I have no illusions as to cooperation in the public on virtually anything. One of the reaosns I said asking for reparations is impossible. Scratching puddles... Those are usually the general views towards the situation, but you have to wonder if there are still formal and informal pressures relating to prejudice, stigmas, or anything like that which prevent them from being able to do just that. I don't know anything about the situation in Australia, I just compare it to here in the US and the usual, general, myopic advice of people to just pick up your bootstraps. That actually is good advice, but it just might not be that easy or feasible. Being poor is a totally different world, and thing you don't even consider in your day-to-day present considerable obstacles for them. As in all things, I believe the loss of perspective makes it harder for people to appreciate their position but I think, overall, you are right. No one will really care. Whatever their situation, they have to rise up out of it on their own. But...a question. Do you think the people in your country would ever receive a dominant resurgence of Aborigines in government and economic control of the country with welcome arms, or would such increasing acumen and presence in all parts of the nation be considered a bit of a cultural theat? Honeslty, what do you think the political interpretation would be?
garry - sorry to be so late in the thread with a response to your post on my points about the Intervention. I don't advocate special treatment for any individual or group based on their ethnic origins. I know it's policy all over Australia and I don't think it's a good idea although I'm open to argument on that one. Rather I advocate a generic approach to disadvantage. My criticism of the NT Intervention is based on two points. The first is that it is paternalistic. I keep reading that line about teaching a man to fish. It's applicable here. A paternalistic approach will not have any long-term effect except to propagate a sense of dependence and learned helplessness. The second is closely linked to the first in that the policy is top-down. The same criticism can be levelled against the policy from that position. It will achieve nothing in the longer term. What needs to be done is a mix of approaches. Very broadly the situation demanded immediate, almost emergency action. But it demanded it because of neglect and wilful blindness by many parties. That emergency action should have been aimed at dealing with the most critical situations which could be resolved using crisis-based intervention methods and law enforcement. But even while the emergency action is doing on there should have been work using a self-determination approach which is more complex but more beneficial in the longer term. There appears to be no effort to look at the real causes of the various situations and that has to happen in longer term solutions are going to work. This issue is out of sight, out of mind for most politicians. Redfern is right in the urban eye but Redfern (using “Redfern” as a metaphor for urban disadvantage) is not about indigenous issues, it is about social disadvantage which in the case of Redfern itself can be placed in an indigenous context. There are plenty of “Redferns” in Australia which are not in an indigenous context and are about social disadvantage. The fact is that in various areas of Australia that are not labelled as “indigenous” the sorts of behaviour that were exposed in the Intervention are happening every single day. It's below the radar so it doesn't get the headlines. The Intervention has to be evaluated. From that the broader policy on social disadvantage can be framed and executed.
This is a good question, and Upside Down I have enjoyed this debate, as it has been carried out in somewhat civil manner and in the spirit a good debate should be. I think politically there is an under current of tokenism toward Aboriginal involvement in politics and the running of this country, but it is tokenism at best. I believe right now it is purely politically motivated. Politically Correct if you like. This country is a bit too caught up in political correctness for my liking. So as far as to say it would be received with open arms, perhaps by a minority in truth. Even if Aboriginal Australia could be a force politically( I say this with the full knowledge that we do have very learned and ably suited persons for the job), there is no way at this point in time we would be cohesive enough to be the force we need. We seem to turn on one and other at will. We have great leaders that have been shouted down by there own people. There is a lot to do at grass roots level before we could even begin to imagine a political force of our own. At this point in time it is only the anger and hate that binds us together. Until that dissipates we can not really map a way forward with real priories for our own. I hate to say but it is ol'whitey that holds us together with his paternalism. I think to understand this situation, you must understand that Aborigines can not be resurgent, as we have been in the past the bottom of the food chain politically. So you have to of actually been a force to be resurgent. Our culture like everyone else is always evolving, so the culture of even twenty years ago is different to the one we have now, and this will of changed in twenty years time. So to answer your question in regards to the cultural threat is difficult. Our problems will take longer than twenty years to rectify. If we look at our current state, yes it would be grounds for concern, Twenty years from now it may be another thing. We may be controlled by Muslims, or more likely Chinese. LOL. Idealistic I wish The interpretation to be positive, but we would have to offer more than we can at this present moment. Idealistically I hope all racism dies out, or breeds out if you wish. Idealistically an Aboriginal head of state would be great. Idealistically ! Unfortunately this world in its current state doesn't take to idealism very well. I know it has to start somewhere, but we as people have to give the rest of the nation something to be idealistic about.
I can never fully have "their perspective", and my opinion that resentment and bitterness is a massively destructive mindset, is just my opinion. None of us can claim full knowledge. My grandfather often quoted, "to a wise man, the world is a constant source of mystery and confusion, while an idiot will have an answer for everything". In my almost 60 years of experience with Aborigines, I have too often seen good people self destruct. IMO, the more people allow the sensation of marginalisation to control their lives, the more likely they are to self destruct. Thing is, anyone can allow themselves to sink into self pity. Aborigines generally, have a hell of a lot more to contend with in life than anyone else. The reputation that the bad ones give the rest, is regrettably understandable, but it is lethal to them. I keep saying that for every Aboriginal crime, there are ten more white people, who "learn" to mistrust all Aborigines, to a greater, or lesser degree. It`s not realistic to expect anyone not to "learn" from life`s experiences. To deny this, is to eliminate any chance of solving any problem.
Tell your wife from me. We all have to deal with rsoles, and ignorant people in life. She`s lucky that her race, helps her sort them out quicker than whitey can.
Fair enough. So in essence you agree with majority of what people are saying within the thread? Yes it has been very patronising, I do agree. However, as in war, the all-out approach is probably best at the start. The fact that now years later with initial concerns addressed earlier, should this have continued??? I believe it has been carried far too long but again, I am not at the heart of the situation and like you not completely informed of the progress. I am aware however, that there still needs to be better representation of the little people in this area and that the neglect of the government and people of this area must not return. I agree in part, but the fact that self-determination approach has been tried in the past and failed and that certain levels of the community demanded action and have collaborated in the intervention demonstrates that drastic measures needed to be introduced and that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) footing around would only perpetuate the problems. However, the intervention will not work on a longer term and the issue of neglect from governments seem likely to return. The behaviours that created a situation for the intervention does occur around Australia and you are right they are not simply an indigenous situation, but they are not as prevalent as they were with so little resources to address. As stated, if the same levels of behaviour were occurring in your own neighbourhood then you too would be calling for an intervention. If you did call for one, don't complain about it because it does not do what you want... The intervention has to be evaluated (should have been long time ago) for advancement. That is, should it continue? If it should be rolled back (which at present I would assume) it is extremely important to realise that the issues have not disappeared and resources need to be kept to assist in the community welfare and not simply withdrawn. A long term solution is important and the use of racial tension to disseminate between the ethnicity of groups only further erodes any advancement from the problems of the past...
I've enjoyed the debate also. It's good to talk rather than slap-box more often than not, lol. I understand exactly what you mean and it's called a permanent cementing of the underclass or an institutionalized underclass. I recognize the destructive aspect of leaning on senitment or sympathy or handouts, and if people there are like people here, there are a number of snakes in their own ranks who willingly peddle that sort of rhetoric for personal advancment. I do think there is a chance, but it would require remarkable cohesion. For instance, a unilateral effort of Black voters in the US expressed an influence on national politics that has Republican's reorganizing their campaign methods. Where they would either ignore or antagonize minorities, they now try to either enlist their support or disrupt their seemingly unified loyalty to Democrats. (I think allegiance to either one is unproductive- a people should push their interest, not back the interests of another) If they can function as a communal whole, they could create influences on politics and economy that will bring men to the bargaining table. Such things, however, are rare and, as you said, idealistic. I suppose it's not to dissimlar to an abused child. Abused children tend to develop differently. Their confidence is sabotaged, the outlook is always in question, and they are never really sure how they fit in with the rest of society. I think we know the instinctive outlook people have towards other people and these things are not missed by a people who might feel they've already been boxed into a position they can't escape. I certainly understand your opinion and the outlook is poisonous, but this is an outlook that's been imprinted in them. It was taught to them. For instance, in the US, they had racism in cartoons. That omnipresent physical and mental oppression on an entire society will definitely linger for a while- most understandably in the form of paranoia and general resentment. Can only wish for the best, though...
Alright, can I have her phone No.? lol What I`m on about, is to try to identify problems, and search for solutions. I have had quite a lot to do with Aborigines, and to me, they have an appealing "way" about them, so I do admit to being biased. I could easily fill volumes, on the subject of Aboriginal (general term covering highly variable cultures and situations) trauma and disadvantage. One small example. Why would an Aborigine value our money system? The only reason that I avoid the sympathy (outward) approach, is because I`m firmly convinced that it`s overdone to the point, of becoming a highly destructive influence. Look at any living thing. Anyone, anything, burdened with the load of self sympathy, will invariably carry a defeatist mentality, will be more prone to resentment, segregation, all destructive, handicapping influences. We can`t change the past, but we CAN change the future.
I`m not going to cry JUDGEMENTALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, lol I`m simply going to point out that the world can`t and won`t, operate within the narrow confines of politically correct type thinking. In fact, I truly believe that we need a broad vision, to even meaningfully discuss topics such as this.
Anyone living in Australia has to value our money system - it's how we do things. Bartering is not a feature of capitalism. And to some extent that little example sums up my view to indigenous policy. We - government, society, all of us - should be working towards the day when there is no indigenous policy because there's no need for it. And just before someone offshore accuses me of harbouring genocidal thoughts, I mean indigenous policy, not indigenous people. Nor do I mean integration. I do mean self-determination. Easy for me to say, damn hard to implement. But as a nation we should start discussing this until we get to an agreement that self-determination is the way forward.
