Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

Just cut through the bullsh!t and tell us how it opposes the original claim??? It's a simple question to an obvious simple statement!

 

I suggest you read the comment again, the point has nothing to do with what appears to be opposing the original claim, it has to do with getting one view from the wrong people... I have no intention on arguing somebody else’s claims with the ignorant.

As this comment was not directed at you and it is obvious you are unable to comprehend what is intended, I would assume that your obtuseness is through ignorance. I would have thought you better on this subject, but obviously not.

 

It was a question to the perceived perspective of what is the original basis for land rights claims. What intrigues me about the debate on anything Indigenous is people's attitudes to grab any little comment off the street from any joe blow to build their argument. Your example despite you obviously knowing better simply want to use a comment off the street to try and form some sort of argument. If you are unsure why speculate with nonsense innuendo? Native title has business and conservation as aspects of the law. How they see use for the land is their perogatige inside the bounds of the terms. It is their inheritance after all, especially if they have maintained ties with their land and local culture!

PS. Apologies for interposing!

 

That is the point; the 'perceived perspective' of the original claim is not the original claim... The people who give that impression have NOTHING to do with the claims and simply espouse traditional claims of cultural claims, which is protection of the land.

I am not creating an argument, I thought, I would put an argument in perspective. As you should be clearly aware the point was to show that it was using a minority claim (of people who have no idea) to what is really happening.

I have maintained

to be the best comment on this particular issue. That is because the perceived hypocrisy of CD's is based on taking one area of a communities comments, which is ill-informed and levelling them at the feet of the people who are actually working on these issues. Bit like me taking your word on the economic impacts of welfare when it is clear you don't understand what cost welfare has to an economy.

If I am wrong, I am sure CD will say so.

 

Ahh, thanks for explaining this clearly and without the misconceptions and vitriol. I don't agree with this sort of practice either.

 

Is it possible for anyone to please provide links to some of these cases?

 

I have never heard such a load of soft-brained verbal garbage in all my life.

To suggest some Aboriginals people can claim native title over some land on the pretence of some obscure traditional cultural values of pretending they will protect the land, and then lease that land off for financial profit to mining companies, who will exploit and devastate that land; is the biggest load of contradictory garbage I have heard in a long time.

To state: Aboriginal people are "forced" into making legal contracts with a dominate culture just highlights the shallow intellect of this debate.

To state: Aboriginal people are entitled to take land under one reason, and use it for another reason shows a untruthful, deceptive agenda.

Some Aboriginal people have elected to reside in rural communities, because they want to live a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle away from mainstream Australians. Does living a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle include leasing land to mining companies for financial profit?

Some of you really need to lift-up the shutters on your Aboriginal sympathy train, because you sound like a bunch of naive 5 year olds, who still believe in Santa Clause.

 

Oh please, settle down. Your poorly articulated point was lost in your vitriolic ranting.

And nobody can provide any links to these instances of deception?

 

If you do your own research and reading, then you might not be so dopey to the truth and facts. A quick google search will give you everything. I'm assuming you don't want to research, because you don't want to know the truth.

 

That's not how this works. You are making the claim so it is your job to provide evidence. If you can't even substantiate your own claims then don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

If you want to educate yourself, then research; I'm not here to do it for you. Unless you are going to offer me $ for my time?

 

Aboriginals would do well to avoid the state with a passion.

 

So in other words.... you don't have anything.

 

CD doesn't supply links, he can't, there are no links to his imagination.

 

There does need to be a lot more accountability in the native title system, just like there does in local planning permissions and zoning (State ALP members are some of the worst offenders). Corruption is rife, and it's always the "little people" that get screwed over.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/court_raises_aboriginal_native_title_LRoMVH0OZ7E2CgfDOePjPL

Culldav's ranting is over the top though. Native title just gives some limited bargaining power, it doesn't give absolute control over the land. Same way farmers can't just deny mining companies access to their land, but can generally get some level of compensation.

 

What an absolute load of mumbo-jumbo ziggy. The majority of Aboriginal people don't want to live within Australian society, that's why they elected to live in remote outback settlements and communities away from mainstream Australians to live their traditional lifestyles. When they get some land under native title, the values of living a traditional lifestyle goes out the window, as some want to immediately lease the land off to mining companies for profit.

An Aboriginal traditional lifestyle is to return to their traditional way of life, which includes nurturing and caring for the land, not leasing it off to be strip-mined. Leasing off land to be strip-mined is a methodology within the European Australian culture, not an Aboriginal traditional culture.

I have had 2 Aboriginal people working in our business for 5 years, and when these people tell me Aboriginal people are creating all the problems themselves by only seeing Australians as endless cash-cows, then only an idiot wouldn't be listening.

 

In other words, no, you can't substantiate any of your claims.

Thanks for playing.

 

You expect me to produce all the evidence and research, and you produce nothing, except "stuff" concocted in your head. You have hijacked this debate for an agenda, and reduced it to a shallow level, which is expected of most mindless do-gooders.

 

We all knew that

[video=youtube;ht8_5UlcgSQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8_5UlcgSQ#t=115[/video]

Didn't we

- - - Updated - - -

We all knew that

[video=youtube;ht8_5UlcgSQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht8_5UlcgSQ#t=115[/video]

Didn't we

 

Culture evolves as well! If they choose to lease land for purposes related to current societal structure good on em, its their land! Anyway Native Title is not simply about land conservation but also about economy! Aboriginal people did have an economy traditionally! All cultures had strong spiritual contexts that influenced their existence. Aboriginal people happen to hold on to these values longer and if they choose to continue the tradition, flick em or make them work together it is totally up to them not some silly rigid idea about what culture should be and how or if it should evolve!


Aboriginal people live mostly in urban areas I thought! This comment in itself raises questions about the person in questions true nationality due to lack of knowledge of Australian demographics!

 

Look while for different reason we are on the same tangent. The problem with the comment you make is the highlighted section. The fact is the belief is that NOBODY owns the land and land is not part of economy of the indigenous culture. To me this is the style of comment that supports CD's argument and is frankly untrue. FROM you previous comments I am safe to say you have nothing to do with these land rights claims and attempting to justify them with a commonly held belief (HOWEVER, wrong) is not helpful to full debate.

Culture does evolve, BUT what they choose to do with the land is not justified by rewriting the culture of the past.

 

In this debate, the do-gooders have shown how metamorphic they can be when it suits their beliefs and agendas.

The facts remain the same. Traditional Aboriginal lifestyles do not incorporate leasing land, and it never has. Therefore, these people wanting to live in outback communities away from Australian society, are only "pretending" to return to a tradition Aboriginal lifestyle for specific agendas. The agenda is money.

And the agenda seems to be, trying to get as much stuff as possible from Australians under the pretence of wanting to return to traditional Aboriginality.

Bit hypocritical for Aboriginal outback communities to advocate returning to a traditional lifestyle, which was primarily hunting & gathering, but still want all the modern conveniences of the 21st Century.

The Amish believe in living a tradition lifestyle not influenced by modern society, and have done so for hundreds of years. So what's wrong with Aboriginal Australian's doing the same in these outback communities, when they advocate they want to return to a traditional lifestyle?

There is only one difference between the Amish and Australian Aborigines. The Amish have absolute convictions about their intent in what they are doing, and the Aboriginals want to be Aboriginals when they smell money, and then want to become Australians when they smell more money.

 

That's not how this works. You made the claim so you need to provide evidence. If you cannot provide any evidence then it can only be assumed that you don't have any.

 

They didn't "elect" to live in the outback. Indigenous populations prior to European arrival were overwhelming in coastal areas, and now most Aborigines live in major cities. The outback populations are the remnants of forced re-settlements, as though populations would naturally spring up in the middle of the desert where there's practically no food or water.

As I said, Native Title doesn't mean they necessarily have the power to just stop mining exploration or mining projects. Not even private land owners have this power, as we've seen with the battles between farmers and mining companies over the years, and now particularly with CSG.

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/native-title-claimants-want-to-ban-mining

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ribunal-stops-mining-lease-20090528-bowc.html

That is from May 2009.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g9p6WTJ-SGPYGBQPL3InuuUkerIg