Australia Day attended by growing controversy

[skysurfer]

Interesting article about Australia Day (now it is one day after).

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/26/australia-day-attended-by-growing-controversy-and-calls-for-date-change

[AussieTrooper]

Changing the date implies that the act of settlement that began Australia in its current form on that date was a mistake.
If people honestly believe that it was, then their best course of action is to leave, and hand over any land they own to Aboriginies.
Remaining on land that you claim was 'stolen/invaded' whilst criticising that exact thing, is totally hypocritical.

[AussieTrooper]

Yep.

[Nath2099]

The Aborigine's probably think it was a mistake. That's the whole point.

[PhilTas]

Totally agree, Matt,
There are far more important issues to consider than small scale diversions like this. Changing the date is symbolic at best, and will not improve quality of life for anyone in Australia, indigenous or otherwise.

[casstony]

The date probably doesn't matter to most Australians provided it's still a day off work, so why not change it to avoid offending indigenous Australians?

[Nath2099]

My thoughts exactly. Then they can join in. Even better, make it the last Friday in whatever month, then it's guaranteed to be a long weekend.

[Larryp]

Leave it where it is!
Warren Mundine advocates January 1st since that is the date we achieved federation. I can understand his point, but we might as well scrap Australia Day altogether, as no-one would bother celebrating again after New Year's Eve.
And I cannot think of any other potentially appropriate dates.

[Nath2099]

June 7th, April 15th, May 9th, September 25th... who cares.I really don't see why it's such an issue. Change the bloody date and move on with more important things.

[AstralTraveller]

It's a fact that 26/1/1788 was the beginning of an invasion, dispossession and genocide. We can't change that but we also can't unscramble the egg. Whites can no more leave Australia than the Celts can uninvade Britain or white Americans return to Europe. We can't change the past but neither should we deny it; we have to make the best of situation we have before us. If that means moving the date then so be it. And don't forget that from the white perspective 26 Jan 1788 was hardly covered in glory: people carted half way around the world and dragged ashore in chains for, generally, petty economic crimes committed by people desperate to survive in an inequitable and dysfunctional economy.

My biggest problem with moving the date is finding a viable alternative. Unfortunately federation occurred on 1 Jan, which is not a day for another holiday. It can't be a sporting or military commemoration. So I'm a bit stumped. Any suggestions??

[AussieTrooper]

That bad things happened in the past is not in question. That Aborigines are far better off now they were in 1787, is also not in doubt. If any Aborigine legitimately felt that way, then there is nothing to stop them returning to that way of life.
Europeans CAN leave if they actually want to. It's easier now then ever. The fact is, that they are happy enjoying the spoils of what happened, whilst decrying it at the same time, and making no effort to undo it.
This is hypocrisy.

[Eratosthenes]

...cant move forward as a nation without recognising the crimes of the past and reconciling and compensating with the original indigenous owners of this soil.

The Commonwealth under British imperialist expansionism over several centuries resulted in over 70 treaties with those displaced and occupied. Only the Australian colony was conveniently declared under Terra Nullus status over 50 years after the initial 1788 invasion. And remember it was Captain Authur Philip that landed on Botany bay, and he was given explicit orders from London to seek consent and a treaty with the indigenous peoples of this land.

It's very easy to say, come on just move on that happened a few hundred years ago. There are lots of past crimes and genocides that still resonate today and havent been resolved. This is certainly one of them - perhaps the biggest and it cant be ignored and shoveled under the rug.

Incidentally Australia is only one of two states, in the UN that didn't implement the anti-genocide conventions ratified when the UN was first set up post WW2.

Lot's to think about and do before WE move on with some sort of resolution and integrity as a united people imo

:earth:

[LewisM]

Too right Matt.

Don't fear, Alesia doesn't have any occupation agenda - she didn't like Thompson St. much either lol :)

[LewisM]

Good god I deplore the term "invasion". Such an evocative (in the negative sense) choice by protagonists of this whole "We are sorry" line.

Let's think about it damn it - EVERY single country on Earth has been invaded, since we know for certain that Homo Sapiens invaded Neanderthal and others...good lord, lets apologise for the African Homo Sapiens decimating the Neanderthals (and inter-breeding with them).

Just wake up all you apologists, forget the past, and MOVE ON. Apologising - what REALLY does it do except appease a very small minority???

[75BC]

What I can’t understand is how anyone can right a wrong from over 200 years ago. I don’t know if just changing the day would appease them. What do indigenous people want exactly? I’m not sure they could all agree on that.

I think for the overwhelming majority of people who do celebrate Australia Day, it’s not about celebrating an event from the past, it’s about what we have now. Inclusive of EVERYONE who makes this country what it is TODAY.

[Hans Tucker]

https://thewest.com.au/news/indigenous-australians/australia-day-opposition-hurts-our-people-isaacs-ng-b88367562z

[casstony]

Regardless of arguments for and against, a tiny effort by the majority can make a significant difference to a minority. We should try to include everyone in our community where possible.

[AussieTrooper]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The actions on 26 January 1788 were peaceful ones. The bloodshed occurred when the instructions you mentioned were not followed through years later.

There appears to be nothing at all wrong with the day, and it is indeed something to celebrate.

[PCH]

At risk of being shouted down, and I realise this is just one point of view, but I'm gonna say it anyway...

Notwithstanding that there is truth in the simple fact that the Brits came and took over this land, things could easily have been very much worse.

Consider the current state of the major Anglophile nations, - being the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - are they not pretty much the most civilised and advanced and desirable places on Earth to live, from a variety of points of view?

On the other hand, consider the lot of the indigenous peeps if the Frenchies had grabbed Australia as they were about to do. How many ex-French colonies would you be happy to live in today? They all kind of fell apart when the colonial power moved out in the last 50 years or so.

Or the Belgians! Maybe a repeat of the Congo would have been more warmly welcomed in hindsight.

Imagine how things may have fared if the Chinese or Japanese had landed first, - the indigenous race may well have ended up on the menu!

So while things are far from perfect here and now for this minority group, there's no doubt that one colonial power or another was going to grab this place at around the same time as the Brits did. That's an in indisputable fact, - so while I get why they may choose not to welcome the 'invasion', it was the best possible outcome in many ways a couple of hundred years later.

That said, I propose we should replace that ridiculous 'sorry' day with a national 'Thank You' day for making this country into the fabulous place it is today ;)

Just my 2c and no offence intended to anyone.

[LewisM]

I was born in Alice Springs in 1973. My mother could not suckle me due to post-delivery issues (she has never forgiven me :p), nd I was suckled by the ladies of the Todd River - several, apparently. My father was the pilot for the TAA subsidiary, QLD and NT Aerial Medical Services - more or less today's RFDS. I grew up with aborigines. I have respect for those in the bush, as they are sincerely good folk!

My family have been farmers/settlers in QLD and Tasmania since first settlement. The Hobart suburb of Rosetta is named after my descendant, Rosetta Heckscher (or Hunsley - I can't remember which as both were in Hobart! Yes, we had MANY first settlers in our family and First Fleeters too - the good and the bad :)).

Do I feel the need, as a descendant of these "invaders" to apologise? No. Did my family partake in the genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigines? I have no way of knowing! Is it pertinent to my life today? No.

History is rife with mistakes. We can't change it, and apologising certainly won't.

[Nath2099]

It's really not about you though, is it? Maybe it is pertinent to Aboriginal people.

I don't get it.. just change the date and move on.

[LewisM]

It is as pertinent to me as an Australian as it is to Aborigines.

While we are at it, let's change the fllag, the national anthem and so on ad nauseum ad infinitum

[AussieTrooper]

That's also my experience. It seems that the majority of Aboriginies are not in support of this constant pressure for change. A look at who was actually protesting at Federation Square supports this view.

Treating one ethnic group as special or different rarely ends well.
What one group of dead people did to another group of dead people can be worth remembering and acknowledging, but allowing it to continue to cause friction is not a good idea.

[sharpiel]

Wow Lewis. Maybe it's your signature but I always thought you were Greek ancestry.

It seems that human history is filled with the need to dislike and divide ourselves from each other based on the wrongs of the past. Most continents have lingering hatreds based on past dispossessions and atrocities. As a species who wants to reach the stars I don't understand why we look backwards instead of looking forwards.

Having said that, I don't come from one of those groups who feel disposed so perhaps if I'd had that history, I'd feel differently..?

It would be lovely if we could just all get along. Why can't we integrate, unite, forgive and be stronger?

[GTB_an_Owl]

if we are to have a new date for Australia Day, it should be " May, 8"

(think about it) ;)

geoff

[OICURMT]

SIDEBAR: Sorry, couldn't help myself...

True, you can't unscramble it, but you can uncook it.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-scientist-wins-ig-nobel-prize-for-uncooking-an-egg-20150918-gjpq12.html

My personal opinion regarding the date. I wouldn't change it as it's become "tradition" to have it on the day. American's will tell you they would never support a change to the 4th of July.

As for the day off... never did like that as a reason to have a holiday. A date is a date, period. The date signifies a remembrance. If it falls on the weekend, too bad.

OIC!

[LewisM]

Les, mysignature is Russian, not Greek. Russian is a distinct part of the continuance of my lineage :) (on a sidenote, it's all my mothers fault - she learnt Russian in the 1960s for a particular "job" during the Cold War and imbued what she learned into me...)

Anyway, let's just stop dwelling on the past and move forward as Australians

[sjastro]

Perhaps these sobering statistics reveal why not all indigenous people and other Australians view Australia Day as a day for celebration.

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/the-gap-indigenous-disadvantage-in-australia

[billdan]

We could all have been Dutch descendants as they discovered the continent first. I guess the King of Holland didn't have an overcrowded prison problem like the Brits did.
That would make an interesting "What if?" movie.

[Astrophe]

It's probably time we gave some serious consideration to moving Australia Day to a less contentious date. January 26th is not looked on favourably by indigenous Australians, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps it's time to move on and to take a different tack and discuss other issues around the Australia Day theme.

What about the joint propositions that Australia should become a republic and indeed, adopt a new flag?



Alternative Australian Flag.jpg (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=209685&stc=1&d=1485496619)

[Wavytone]

That's not really the issue. The real agenda of the aboriginals is that there be NO Australia Day.

Time to stop kowtowing to that bunch of losers.

[skysurfer]

Indeed, as a foreigner, I consider the flag with the Union Jack in it is from the colonial era.
In the bicentennial year 1988 I visited AU and saw proposed yellow-green flags with a Kangaroo and Crux which is more 'Australia' than the current flag. But it did not make it.
The same applies to NZ.
Last year, even the 'real' Aotearoa flag with the Crux stars and the fern leaf did not make it either. It is still almost the same colonial flag as AU with red stars.

[PCH]

What's wrong with a flag depicting a country's origins?

[PCH]

Didn't they themselves come here from somewhere north of Australia?

Ok, so it was a bit before the Brits got here, but they came here from somewhere else nonetheless!

[PCH]

Bill, if we're to believe Robert Hughes in his book 'Fatal Shore', it wasn't so much that the pommie prisons were full to over-crowding (although they may have been), the decision to ship them far away was because the thinking of the time was that criminals were in a genetic classification of their own, - in other words criminals were in the family, - sort of 'in the blood'.

So by getting rid of them they'd remove that characteristic from the local gene-pool, and in time be rid of criminals, period.

Of course they didn't know of, or use, terms and concepts like genes and gene-pools, but the basic familial notion was there. And that was how they decided to deal with it. They had a new land that needed 'filling' somehow, so they decided to kill two birds with one stone.

[AussieTrooper]

Please don't lump all Aborigines into one monolithic group who all share an identical opinion on this issue. They don't.

[AussieTrooper]

On a side note, what we know as the nation of Australia came into being in 1901. Prior to that it did not exist. There were separate colonies, and many separate Aboriginal nations even earlier, but none were called Australia.
Given that the nation of Australia came into being in 1901, doesn't that make every person whose ancestors were born here prior to that date indigenous?

[OICURMT]

You mean the Big Bang? :rofl:

[Eratosthenes]

Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal who resisted the initial British invasion fleet in 1788. In 1802 Pemulwuy was eventually caught, decapitated and his head was sent back on the next boat to London in pickle jar. (It's rumoured that ISIS is using similar terrorist tactics in Syria as we speak).

Chris Warren also argues that the first fleet's introduction of the smallpox virus, which killed thousands of Aborigines in 1789 was no accident. Biological warfare of this type was also used in South and Central America and in other regions of the world by the British and other colonising powers such as the Spanish, French and Dutch etc.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/was-sydneys-smallpox-outbreak-an-act-of-biological-warfare/5395050

The population of Aboriginal people in Australia rapidly declined post 1788 (actually collapsed) - hardly a peaceful policy by a few settlers in boats setting up camp on the coast of this great land of ours

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Boyd_Hunter/publication/277336614/figure/fig3/AS:272604695101481@1442005432489/Figure-5-Smallpox-and-other-diseases-spread-by-colonial-expansion-1780-1850NotesThe.png

There are lots of questions that are avoided by the media and sadly the education system and academia.

In Australia Aboriginals are jailed at a rate which is 8 times higher than the Black incarceration rate in Apartheid Sth Africa of the early 1990s. Aborigines also have one the lowest life expectancy in the world. I wonder how many Australians know that the Anti-discrimination Act ratified by the Australian parliament was suspended by the Howard government in 2006, and its suspension has continued under the Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull governments? Selectively suspended for the Aboriginal people only.

I can understand why there are many today who want to "move on" or have the attitude "it has nothing to do with me - that's all in the past".

[sharpiel]

Oopsie. My bad. Sorry..not up on my Cyrillic obviously.

To lighten the mood slightly:

https://youtu.be/W7vRYbLrJ9o

[Astrophe]

The present Australian flag is a colonial relic and is no longer relevant to many Australians (whose ancestry is non Anglo/Celtic) and to many of Anglo/Celtic ancestry, as well.

It sends the wrong signal to the world at large, that we are still a colonial appendage of Great Brittan. We are most definitely not that and further, it sends the wrong message to ourselves. We need a new flag to express the present realities of modern-day Australia, with its diverse ethnicity.

The same arguments apply to the Australian head of state. At present, we have a foreigner as our head of state. This sends the wrong message to ourselves and to others. Just think of this..... under the present arrangements, no Australian can ever hold the office of Australian head of state....that office will be held, in perpetuity, by a foreigner. No Australian can ever aspire to be our head of state. Surely, this cannot continue. I have nothing personal against Her Majesty the Queen, she is entirely an estimable person in every way. But this argument is not about the suitability of the Queen or the future King Charles lll, it's about the fundamental proposition that an Australian should be the Australian head of state.... President or Governor General, the title doesn't really matter that much.

[pmrid]

The thing about history is that it is just that! It's gone. And the thing about the future is that we have yet to make it. We will not make any kind of future for our kids if we are constantly whining about things we cant change and holding out our hands at the same time. I don't remember who said it but there is an apt phrase in recent literature that describes those who crawl on their knees towards a handout while simultaneously shaking their fists instead of standing up and finding a place for themselves and their kids in the future of this country.

I want a day on which I can identify as an Australian. And so should everyone who enjoys our citizenship or protection.

I don't really care what day it falls on. Perhaps moving it to another date would serve to sever that link to the past and the connotations some see in it. Perhaps that would be a good thing. But whatever day it is on, it should be about how we move forward not trying to conjure up guilt about what we cannot change.


Peter

[PCH]

Some good points well made John, thank you.

On the other hand, people born outside Australia can aspire to be Prime Minister, - which is something some other nations don't allow.

[Larryp]

The current flag reflects our history and ancestry. Same thing with New Zealand. Even the U.S.A. did not find it necessary to remove the Union Jack from the Hawaiian flag-it's part of Hawaii's history.
Our history and where we came from, warts and all, is just as important as where we are going.
As for our political system, it seems to work well enough, and without the violence of many republics-even the U.S.A.

[astroron]

Too those people who advocate changing the flag because it is not relevant to today's generation,working on that generalization,the flag should be changed about every fifty years or so, Australia has changed remarkably over the 100 years or so and is nothing like it was at even the start of federation.
We have to embrace our countries history good and bad and strive to do better.
Changing the flag will only please certain % of the people but will add very little or any to the well being of the country.
Without the people of the country that the union jack in the left hand corner of our flag, all of us would never be here.
Countries all over the world have been invaded, colonized throughout history
That's what makes countries what they are.
Britain was a a popular place to invade for hundreds to thousands of years.
How far should we go back and complain about being invaded?
I still think there should be a lot more done for the indigenous people
of this country,it is very difficult living in two so very different cultures.
Changing the date of Australia Day and also changing the flag will have no significant effect on them what so ever.
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Astrophe]

The old....if it ain't broke don't fix it....argument. Yes, no one is disputing that the present arrangements don't work....obviously they do. The violence of American society has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the USA is a republic. It is a cultural thing. That American society is more violent than Australian society is a product of American history and culture, not some inherent tendency towards violence, in a republican form of government. The two issues are not connected.

[torana68]

Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal yes, he murdered an unarmed man, guess thats ok and I'm ignoring the probable reason as I'm not Aboriginal and killing an unarmed person runs against the grain (without trial), he then lead the Locals in a guerilla war against the people living in the area, this went on for many years till he was shot dead, not as you put it "caught, decapitated" I do believe his head was sent back to England to study as were a lot of "English" peoples heads, this was not part of some "terrorist Tactic" but , and Im not defending it , thats what they did back then. There are probably people on here who have had decendants heads studied around the same time, for scientific purposes.... to be blunt you post was ....... :(

[Larryp]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293060]The old....if it ain't broke don't fix it....argument. Yes, no one is disputing that the present arrangements don't work....obviously they do. The violence of American society has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the USA is a republic. It is a cultural thing. That American society is more violent than Australian society is a product of American history and culture, not some inherent tendency towards violence, in a republican form of government. The two issues are not connected.[/QUOTE

I originally supported the idea of an Australian republic, hoping that our bloated forms of government at all levels would become streamlined and more efficient.
Unfortunately none of the pollies wanted to see their numbers reduced and their bureaucracies cut, and we were offered a president elected by parliament from a list of candidates supplied to parliament. You only have to look at most of the recent Australians of the Year to see what we might wind up with!
The Australian public saw it for exactly for what it is-just another job for the boys, and if the republican movement cannot come up something better than that, then they will be doomed to failure again.

[Astrophe]

[QUOTE=Larryp;1293064]

If you are referring to the republic referendum held in 1999, it was set up by the then PM, John Howard, to fail....that's what he wanted and that's what he got.

The question as to how we should choose our head of state, is indeed relevant. A popularly elected head of state is not, IMO, desirable, for the simple reason that it will have the tendency to create two competing centres of political power....i.e. the PM and the President or GG. A head of state who is elected, will possibly believe that he/she has a mandate to exercise power, where, in reality, under our (Westminster) parliamentary system of government, the head of state is a largely ceremonial office and not in any way like the American executive presidential system, where the offices of head of state and head of government are held by the same individual. No one is proposing such a system for Australia. We would continue to have a parliamentary system of government with the PM as the head of government and the President or GG as head of state.

[torana68]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293070]

an example is who'd vote for someone from WA? fair chance no one would know of him/her, maybe , and not exactly the same cause obviously it doesn't work they way they have it, something like the USA, all political parties put someone up and we all vote. But whats the point they could or should not have any power to do anything over the elected reps so why? maybe just some tinkering and renaming of the GG's position? or are we suggesting they should be able to remove an elected government if thought to be useless by the opposition?

[Astrophe]

I originally supported the idea of an Australian republic, hoping that our bloated forms of government at all levels would become streamlined and more efficient.
Unfortunately none of the pollies wanted to see their numbers reduced and their bureaucracies cut, and we were offered a president elected by parliament from a list of candidates supplied to parliament. You only have to look at most of the recent Australians of the Year to see what we might wind up with!
The Australian public saw it for exactly for what it is-just another job for the boys, and if the republican movement cannot come up something better than that, then they will be doomed to failure again.[/QUOTE]

Under the present arrangements, the PM, alone, selects the GG....that is, he sends a list of 3 names to the Queen with a clear indication as to which is the preferred candidate and the Queen duly appoints that person.

The simplest way to do this, is for the PM of the day appoint the head of state, but in consultation and in agreement with the leader of the opposition. That way, we are sure to get someone who is acceptable to both sides. Another method, would be for a council of eminent Australians to choose the head of state. The composition of such a council would need to be determined at a future date after sufficient community debate on the issue.

[Larryp]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293070]

Set up to fail? That was the model agreed on at the time and the Australian people needed to know EXACTLY what they were voting for.
If you want to just replace the Governor General with a president without modernising our whole system of government, then you are advocating spending billions of dollars changing currency, stationary, dept names and everything else you can think of, for virtually no benefit-absolutely ridiculous!

[Astrophe]

[QUOTE=torana68;1293074]

If we decide to elect our head of state, then we will end up with a Liberal and Labor candidate and that will (party) politicise the office....not a desirable outcome, I would have thought.

[Astrophe]

[QUOTE=Larryp;1293076]

'Modernising the whole system' would be a bridge too far and would doom any constitutional change of that nature. Let's just inch forward and take one step at a time. An Australian head of state, first, and then other changes (as deemed necessary)to follow at a later stage.

[AndrewJ]

If we want a head of state that is Australian, we need to come up with a method that gives the population a vote.
Only problem is that leaves it open to corruption by those who have money or power.
Allowing the parliament to select a head of state will just be a debacle, as they cant even agree on how to have a sensible meeting on it, let alone make a decision.
Sorry, but until we get politicians that are interested in the country, rather than themselves, it will ( and should ) stay on the backburner.
Having a head of state that is the queen may be unacceptable to some, but at least the position cannot be "bought".

Andrew

[el_draco]

[QUOTE=Larryp;1293064]

I'd rather suck on conc. Hydrofluoric acid than swear allegiance to ANY Aussie head of state; "it" would inevitably come from:

- One of the major polly parties.
- A sports moron
- Whoever paid the most for the gong
- The biggest liar

Australians have a habit of electing morons at all levels of government, with damn few exceptions I can recall and I think I'd migrate if it came to this country becoming a republic. :screwy:

President Everage anyone ?

[Larryp]

:thumbsup:

[el_draco]

Apparently, Smallpox was also in Batavia at the time, and its an historical fact that trade between the two places occurred on a regular basis well before the English arrived. Sorry about that, I don't believe you cant pin that on the Poms.

Having said that, the argument as to whether we need to move Australia Day is a good one. It causes a lot of Angst amongst the Aboriginal community, for whom I have considerable respect, and there are a number of other days that could be used instead, Cooks landing date or Federation date, (when we actually became a united nation) are two perfect examples.

If we want peace and reconciliation, it aint gonna be a one way process so anyone who wants to get precious about the First Fleet needs to do a bit of putting ones self in the others shoes, me thinks...:question:

[LewisM]

OMG, history conspiracies...for pity's sake!

I'd believe Dr. Fenner and Dr. Carmody over conspiracists like Warren any day. Academics like Warren are true pot-stirrers (or smokers - both fit). typical academic actually - transmogrify history to suit their outlandish hypothesis despite overwhelming and pre-existing evidence. They have little to no knowledge of disease (just as the colonists had no differentiation between smallpox and chickenpox despite Warrens assertions to the contrary).

History War indeed.

Why do people wish to hang onto these tenuous notions? Is there a need to blame? What does it achieve?

Australian aborigines are not native to Australia - they emigrated here too.

I suppose next we blame the first fleeters for introducing Chlamydia to the Aborigines so that they can thence infect the koala population - biological warfare after all.

[el_draco]

Gad Sir, nearly fouled me brigs:lol: :rofl:

[Stonius]

Nah, leave it where it is. On Australia day you want baking sun and beach. Wouldn't be much fun in Melbourne/Adelaide/Perth/Hobart in the middle of winter.

And what will changing the date do? Give it a generation, then *that day will be offensive for symbolising the invasion.

The Left have a way of rebranding or changing the language under the misguided notion that it somehow removes stigma. Think about it. White people have always just been 'white'. How many names for people of colour are there? Many of which were the PC term in their day which has now become offensive. Why should a non-pejorative term for a person of colour be offensive anyway?

The simple solution is just to admit to what happened; you can't reconcile while one party doesn't even believe there's anything to reconcile *for. Yes, we murdered the aboriginal people in a near genocidal event. But we are not our ancestors. So many people think we're being asked to feel shame for the actions of our ancestors, but really it's more about admitting the the fact that it happened at all. The Right seems to want to erase much of this vital part of our nation's history from the history books. We should just own it. Then we wouldn't even be talking about moving the date. We need to own our history, not to wrap it up in rebranding and euphemisms.

Markus

[pmrid]

The discussion here about having an Australian as Head of State is meaningless without also discussing the political context in which the HOS operates.

The HOS in many Constitutional models is largely a figurehead - as is the Queen in ours. He/she has little or no independent discretion. Rather, they act only on the advice of the Prime Minister. Just changing the identity of the HOS would achieve absolutely nothing. Nothing would change except the letterhead. The same old 2-party conundrum would still drive our political system and its outcomes.

There is absolutely no point in discussing a new HOS unless you also decide to modify the political model. And that is a decision that needs to come first. There is no way of doing that incrementally. You either move into a republican model in which the HOS has real power or you remain with the figurehead model in which the HOS is a ceremonial rather than substantive part of the political process. The catalyst for that kind of change is - more often than not - a post-conflict reinvention rather than some sort of consensual process. So the likelihood of change of that sort seems very, very small.

What that means is the most likely change will be a reworking of the Status Quo with only a change in the name of the HOS rather than the functions and powers. And that would be utterly pointless.


Peter

[AussieTrooper]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293077]

That is probably the best reason.

At present, the Governer General is a non-political office. It is independent and a safeguard to our democracy.
The ultimate call of a Governer General is to sack a government. This role would be compromised if they were party political, to the point where our democratic system is seriously undermined.

[Astrophe]

It's not about simply changing the name of the head of state, it's about changing the reality that as things stand, a foreigner is our HoS. It's about changing that situation....nothing else.....just that.

The history of referenda in Australia, is sad indeed. Very few get passed and to complicate matters by tacking on all sorts of other provisions to any future republic referendum, will ensure its defeat.

[Astrophe]

[QUOTE=AussieTrooper;1293153]

Exactly.....this is the reason a future Australian HoS should be appointed (not elected). This is how the system works at present and it would be desirable for that to continue. That is why I suggested that a future HoS should be appointed (as now) by the PM of the day, but with the small change that he/she would do so, in consultation and in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition.

[jenchris]

I've tried reading a lot of the posts but eventually my eyelids began to droop - and it's only 930am.
We're all in the same boat as far as indigenes are concerned - most UK folks are part of Angle Saxon Hun Gall Roman Greek Sumerian ethnic extraction.
We've all been invaded at some point - at what point do we relax and say what the hell and just get on with it.
Anyone wanting to change the flag must wonder what UK decided to do when it incorporated Wales England and Scotland into the flag.
Anyone wanting Aborigine rights must wonder what the Aborigine meant when they said no one owns the land, we just borrow it and then give it back when we die.
We're selling a lot of it to foreigners as it is - China seems to be in the running for biggest owner.
I just think we should stop messing about and find a way of ensuring our heritage does not become "Tomorrow when the war began" when some foreign power decides they own enough to import their own army to look after their interests.
Revert all land sold to foreign nationals to 100 year leasehold.
We don't need trade deals - we need to get bloody minded and keep our own counsel.
We have sufficient minerals food and energy to be self sufficient.
The flag is nothing more than an icon that we use to denote our national pride - we're mostly Western European or UK expats so let's just keep the thing as it is and get on with being proud of our heritage.
I can't imagine what a **** fight having a president elected might bring, but if USA is any indication, I vote to keep the Governor General

[PhilTas]

Well written Jennifer.

[el_draco]

Yes, I agree, and if there was one defining point in history where Australia became Australia, then I'd argue for no change to Australia day, but:

1/ There is no unambiguous defining point
2/ The current arrangement is a significant issue for the Aboriginal community.

As regards the later, Aboriginals can't just "get over it" and that has to be taken in to consideration. They are regarded, by virtually all authorities, to be the first inhabitants of this continent and have maintained probably the longest continuous culture on the planet.

I believe that alone warrants respect and serious consideration of the issue from a First Peoples perspective, if nothing else. European presence here has been a mere blink of an eye in comparison to Aboriginal culture and, whether through ignorance, accident or design, we have buggered up the Aboriginal culture across most of this continent. Maybe we need to make concessions beyond just chucking welfare at the problem. :shrug:

The problem we have is not going to go away until we deal with it.

[xelasnave]

We could become a kingdom and have a royal family who will be aboriginal and the then king or queen can select a day and a date upon which we celebrate what we have become. That way our royal family will be the oldest in the world and all aboriginals would enjoy a higher self esteem and perhaps forgive the evil deeds of our ancestors.
Alex

[Larryp]

At the end of FY2016, land under foreign ownership was 52.1 million hectares, of which 9.4 million hectares, or less than 2o% was freehold, and 43.4 million hectares was leasehold.
The largest landholder was Great Britain, with 52.7%
USA with 14.8%
Netherlands with 5.7%
Singapore with 3.6%, followed by China with 2.8%

Perhaps we should be concerned about a second British invasion:)

[AndrewJ]

Gday Laurie

Whilst i had heard that the Chinese ownership was small ( but growing rapidly ), what is more concerning is what that 3% is.
10,000 hectares of a Nth Territory station is quite different to 10,000 hectares of prime dairy or vegetable garden, let alone key infrastructure like ports.
It would be intersting to see what the relevant countries have "invested" in by value, not area.
Andrew

[Larryp]

Hi Andrew
I believe more detailed information will become available as new laws come into effect

[el_draco]

Sounds like a plan to me :thumbsup:

[Tropo-Bob]

Have U every asked a Kiwi about how NZ settlement started. The ones I asked were quiet unknowing of their history. At least celebrating Australia Day seems have focused people both on Indigenous history and the shared history since 1788.

I would not care if the date were changed. I have probably only twice celebrated the day and when I was a lad, it was not even celebrated on the date. In fact, it was not really celebrated at all. I actually like the idea of Federation Day on New Years Day. Especially since many of the drunken yobos are probably already spent celebrating from the night before.

I rather find some excuse to have a different public holiday during the more pleasant, second half of the year so as to keep the same number of PHs during the year.

Back to NZ. There seems to be no "Big Bang" Event. Just a series of small, private-enterprise whaling settlements, which somehow grew into a colony. If somebody can point me to some NZ history that explains this better; I will be most interested.

[Nikolas]

Define The Left

[PCH]

Hi Bob,

There definitely was a 'handing over' deal struck between the Brits and the Maoris. Check out the 'Treaty of Waitangi' - the site of which is preserved beautifully as the location where ownership and control changed hands.

There were a couple of significant differences in the way the handover was negotiated, but I won't spoil it for you. Interesting reading though!

[Tropo-Bob]

Thanks Paul,

It was an interesting read. Gosh, the colony of NZ was only separated from the colony of New South Wales in 1841.

It really brings home how recent "White" history is on the geological timescale of our lands. And even Indigenous history is a mere speck in cosmological terms ... :rofl:

[AussieTrooper]

The threat of Chinese ownership of rural properties is overblown. It will ebb and flow with crop prices.
The majority of Chinese ownership is in cities. Certainly in my town Melbourne, the most expensive suburbs are becoming increasingly Chinese. Go to an auction in the inner east from Balwyn to Glen Waverley (an expensive part of the city), and you could well be in Singapore. Locals get blown out of the water by what the Chinese are willing to pay.
Likewise, city apartments are largely Chinese now too.

[AussieTrooper]

NZ is totally different to Australia. NZ has no remaining indigenous population.
The Maori were busy colonising NZ at roughly the same time Columbus showed up in North America. They are just as much migrants to NZ as the British are.
This is nothing like the 40,000 yr history of Australian Aborigines, who were likely this continent's first inhabitants.

[AussieTrooper]

This has to be (and already has been) acknowledged.
Where we get into serious trouble is where we treat one racial group as different to everyone else. This must never be allowed to happen.
Whilst serious wrongs were done in the past, today is today, and everyone must be treated equal. Anything else is just racism, no matter how you try and camouflage it.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Ben


I think that prices dont come into it in many cases.
The chinese upper middle class ( probably bigger than the whole Aust population ) are willing to pay way more than us for "clean green" produce. By owning the farms ( very specific high value ones ), you will soon see that the crops from these will never touch the Aust market. It will be exported direct and we will lose out on all fronts, as the value add will go to the owners.


You mean Shanghai;)
I have lived in that area ( inner east ) for 25 years and it has changed dramatically.
Some real estate agents now have 90% chinese staff and brochures with no english in them at all. One reason i was told they buy in this region ( other than good capital appreciation ) is it gets a place at one of the good schools, and they will spend what is required on a house to get that spot for their kids.

Andrew

[Tropo-Bob]

If only it could be true, that all are treated at equals, but alas, reality intervenes and it is not. I was at a taxi rank recently and progressed easily from no 5 in the que to no 2. However, the new, number 1 was an Indigenous man and the next 2 taxis slowed, looked and then drove away.

I have also heard many stories of Indigenous people having trouble renting a property.

Our democratically Government through positive discrimination provides assistance to people who are disadvantaged and/or have a history of being downtrodden, and that make me feel proud to be an Australian.

[Eratosthenes]

A summary of the massacre sites identified in Western Victoria between 1803 to 1859 is given in detail by Ian D Clarke's research report

Scars in the landscape - A register of massacre sites in Western Victoria, 1803-1859
Ian D Clarke
http://nationalunitygovernment.org/pdf/2014/IanDClark-Scars_in_the_landscape.pdf.pdf

[xelasnave]

I have heard it said a country can be judged by how it treats its old people and we have the oldest people on the planet.
Is there not a case for preserving their dignity.
Whatever it takes.
I think it may be important that everyone comptemplates the terrible things that have been done, if for no other reason to provide a context for the confusion sourounding Australia day and moreover the difficulty of dealing with the elephant in the room whatever you perceive that elephant to be.
There are some who understandably are happy to move on and we must, however for those who understandably dwell upon past horrors we must be understanding.
I have visted a house many times and on the road there is a stone memorial of a horrible episode which I wont repeat, but each time I drove by I was reminded and so have developed a scence of loss.
But there is nothing I can do to change that past but I can at least remember.
Its not racist to give recognition to the fact we have an extrodinary case of the oldest human and we just want to assimilate them. We should not if that destroys their culture.
This is not a matter of assembling your facts and stamp out a reality. We can only try and look without denial and be understanding how the horrors of the past wont leave them.
There are many who know many of these stones that I infrequently passed, and for others memorials and other triggers are often present that wont let those horrors easily pass.
We should not be dismissive of folk who find it hard to move on.
Alex

[xelasnave]

We all feel threatened by the future and get an uneasy feeling if we think change will happen.
As to real estate, its the best thing we have to sell.
Be happy folk from os want to buy up.
Thats the name of the game.. You build a kingdom and get the rest of the world to put money in so you can run your game.
Buy some cheap acres and take advantage of a future world market.
Alex

[AussieTrooper]

One type of discrimination does not justify another. There is no such thing as 'positive' racial discrimination. You are picking out one race and discriminating against all others.
This is a democracy, and as long as you aren't promoting harm, it is legal to support and practice certain kinds of racial discrimination.
You may be proud of this fact. I am not.

[AussieTrooper]

As far as the make up of the population, I still think Singapore is a good comparison. Many Chinese and Indians, with a few Europeans and other Asians.
I live in the mentioned area, and now get handwritten letters from
Chinese investors/investment companies. The local agent now lists in Chinese as well as English. Balwyn High School is now roughly 90% Chinese. So much so that I would not feel comfortable sending my kids there. This kind of thing is often sold as being 'multiculturalism', but when it is just one country completely dominating, that's a buy out, not multiculturalism. There's no other phrase for it.
This is all government policy, and for the most part legal. But we need to have a serious think about what we want Australia to look like in 50 years time.

[el_draco]

Spot on Alex!:thumbsup:

[Tropo-Bob]

Well actually it doesn't. Being indigenous means taking on features that are specific to that area. Think of it this way, dingos are indigenous to Australia, but dogs are not. It doesn't matter if the European-bred dogs were here before 1901, they have not taken on significant features that makes them notable to this area.

[AussieTrooper]

Pretty sure dogs are not aware of federation.

But we'll go with your example. The dingo came over from Indonesia. Best guess is a few thousand years ago. They are in every way a dog, except for the bark (which the common dog ancestor wolf also does not do). Is there any proof that they changed after arrival due to features of the area? By that logic, the Blue Healer is indigenous, as are other Australian bred dogs, who were selectively bred for use in the Australian environment.

The Maori may not be the original inhabitants of NZ. They settled roughly 1250-1300AD. This wasn't long before Christopher Colombus showed up in the new world. So are the Maori indigenous? If so, given the timescale, are the first pilgrims to New England also indigenous?

It's a very unclear, arbitrary and very political attribute. This kind of thing is yet another reason why racist discrimination is a horrible thing for any government to tolerate, let alone embrace. Our government sanctions, embraces, and funds racial discrimination. And they are proud of it.

[Tropo-Bob]

Ben, I had a curiosity in how modern NZ started. We hear so much of Australia Day, I just wondered if there was a NZ equivalent. Fortunately, I was given information that allowed me to satisfy my curiosity.

On the issue of Government funds though; good governments care that every citizen has a chance to have a have a reasonable life. By improving their citizens' life-chances, we have a better nation, a more prosperous nation and a less crime ridden nation. There are some serious issues in society and racial issues is only but one of many. If no effort is made to improve upon these, those issues will still be here for an awful long time.

Still, I think we will have to agree to disagree, because I strongly suspect that we have very different views on what are the serious issues and how they should be approached.

[keioffice]

some very good points raised in here

[Stonius]

But you wouldn't call a Kelpie, or Governor Phillip 'indigenous' and expect to be understood. There is a common understanding of the word that precludes and precedes European settlement. Otherwise, you might as well call *me indigenous because I was born here!

Markus

[PCH]

You're all clever people I'm sure, yet it's clear that hardly anyone agrees with the next person. And yet each person is convinced they're right.

Imagine for a moment, if this is how difficult it is discussing matters on just a forum, how difficult would it be for Foreign Ministers etc to go and liaise with their foreign counterparts to talk effectively when war seems on the horizon.

[AussieTrooper]

Me too. I find it very interesting that NZ could have been federated, and WA may not have been. How easily history could have been very different.

On your second paragraph, I think we actually agree. There's no issue with helping out people who clearly need it. We are pretty good at this compared to many other countries.

It is when who their ancestor was is the driving factor for who gets the help, as opposed to individual circumstances, that you cross a moral threshold (in my opinion).

[clive milne]

Dude... they - (royalty) were bought centuries ago.

[AndrewJ]

OK if you want to go that way, it was a once off purchase as the end result of a series of wars and machinations. ( sounds like the other thread )
Its not 100s of millions per person each election.

Andrew

[LewisM]

This horse is already at the glue factory...

[Sol-Skysailor]

This thread curiously has parallels in the other thread….. LOL (nervous laughs).

Maybe the poster might have ‘no offence intended’, by their text quoted below,
but please reflect on what we take as valid, normal, funny, and OK….(since nobody AFAIK objected to it)!?


Imagine how things may have fared if the ---- or ---- had landed first,
- the indigenous race may well have ended up on the menu!

no offence intended to anyone.



What label do we stigmatise on these named people?

Would we call this whole country whole race whole shade cannibals: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/stefano-brizzi-cannibal-meth-addict-who-dissolved-policeman-acid-found-dead-belmarsh-prison-1605063

Similarly would we like it if people say ‘In Australia you’d get burnt alive?’ Would we like it if we had a label stuck on us ‘these ------- people bring diseases’? Would we like it if daily we become targets of labels suspicions accusations like 'the threat' 'the invasion' 'terrorists' 'confronting' or abuses or preconception mistreatment? Would we like it if our children get beaten up or socially tormented? Would we like it if posts here at a mention of us ‘the Ab----‘ get labelled ‘drunk, dirty, handouts‘?

Positive progress 2017 could be to replace preconceptions and insults, with kindness.


[Reading Mark Twain’s Huck Finn 1884:
“it wasn’t good of you to say it. If you was in his place it would make you ashamed; and so you oughtn’t to say a thing to another person that will make them feel ashamed.”

“The thing is for you to treat him kind.”]

[Sol-Skysailor]

The best time to discuss this is perhaps when calm,
not during the heat of the Day.
And these events take months in planning ahead for 2018.

An earlier post (please discuss the topic, not the persons)
offered a view that
“better it was the ‘Brits’….” “should call it a Thank You Day”

Is this not just like (as an analogy) saying in a domestic violence case,
“Stop complaining! You’re lucky I only beat you 5 times today.
xyz next door beat theirs 10 times.”?

Then “Don’t call this a sorry day, you should call it a Thank You day
in gratitude for being punched only 5 times! And not quite dead.”

And how would you know what it would have been like if the Dutch
or another crowd cultivated and irrigated here?

Only refuting the reasoning,
hoping for logic, reasoning, filters, and empathy to be part of the education system.

I believe it’s good to acknowledge past wrongs that happened,
happened to our people, to us as a nation,
(caused by many factors that continue to affect most beings now)
AND it’s good to work out what best to do next.

I reckon…. Not a sorry day, not a thank you Brits day, but a mutual celebration of peace day.

[PCH]

Well, there's no harm in dreaming, lol.

[Wavytone]

Fail.

The lefties have been peddling the "we wuz first" and "we wuz konkered" line to the aborigines. Until that dies down there can be no progress. There is no group with any credible claim to being "first" and its quite clear new arrivals were happening for thousands of years - the whities merely happened to be rather late on the scene and identifiably different by (a) being white, (b) arriving in ships, and (c) having all the accoutrements of 18th century european life i.e. education, clothes, science, technology and much better food.

And the influx continues to this day.

There are many migrants who have arrived here with nothing more than what they were standing in, have received very little assistance compared to the aborigines and done perfectly well. In this respect the aborigines are the least successful of all immigrant groups by any measure of success - despite the millennia here - and frankly a mob of dismal failures.

IMHO let's settle it once and for all and stop the whining about "reconciliation" which is really a never-ending demand for handouts from the taxpayer.
Put a stop to the bludging and move on.

[xelasnave]

Who is bludging?
Alex

[Ausrock]

An idle observation...........:

So many of us make these "judgements" based on our current values which are realistically only relevant to "the now" when we should be shutting up until we can honestly say we can understand the values of our predecessors times, whatever century they happen to have been in.

Think about it!!! ;)

[bigjoe]

True and proof that a lot of us are hypocrites if we believe that !!
And when are we going to stop apologizing- other people / countries have been conquering all over the world for millennia and never apologize yet we DO, ADD NAUSEUM .
Sure we should help , but enough is enough!!
bigjoe

[xelasnave]

Hi bigjoe....
I don't think anyone has apologised...ADD NAUSEUM...I think you have just made that up.

I don't know why folk are so down on our aborigines.
I ask this of anyone who has a problem with them.
Have you ever met an aboriginal?
Have you ever sat with one and had a beer and a chat?
Have you worked with them or spent time at some social occassion.?

And a further question ... Do you think it is wise to generalise having gleened a few clips on TV upon matters presumably presented to stir certain emotions and to promote division.

When we inject emotion without facts or experience we should take time to consider if we know enough to provide meaningful input.

Alex

[bigjoe]

I actually do have some aboriginal friends Alex ,and its just an opinion which I am allowed to express.
NO offence to my aboriginal friends!!!
bigjoe

[bigjoe]

I dont think bludging is the right word too harsh, but I get your drift.
bigjoe.

[xelasnave]

I only wish to explore your opinion bigjoe what I meant to ask and what I was actually leading up to but left it out was to ask what did you mean when you said enough is enough.

Alex

[bigjoe]

Lets just agree Alex, that everyone has there own opinions on these matters , and I'll leave it at that !
Best wishes to you bigjoe.

[xelasnave]

I understood a long time ago folk have a vast variety of opinion and I am happy to look at and understand yours however I sence you feel uncomfortable and accept you wish to "leave it at that".
No problems and best wishes to you from me.
Alex

[Sol-Skysailor]

What other groups at the time or earlier also had “… ships, education, clothes, science, technology and much better food“
(apart from the differentiated group that the post named ‘whities’)?

What geography and history classes did not teach we can find out
by a little research, and progress on logic some.
And I could be wrong of course... so we can go further through discourse.
Did these other groups go naked
or wear clothes, spin and weave practical and intricate textiles?
Did they have fresh foods unchemicalised and tasty cuisines?
Did they build some amazing engineering constructions?
(I quite like Machu Picchu, Cusco, pyramids, aqueducts.)
(Egypt is in Africa, right? Aqueduct etc builders were once insulted here as wogs?)
Did they navigate the vast Polynesian seas? Did they have ships (hints 1418, armada)?
Did they throw wastes into the streets, had 'boy...boy for sale',
traded captured slaves and lynched them? Or were they Hollywood and fake news.
Did they have health and hygiene or did they have plagues?
Did they have morals and kindness (too) or did their punitive system overflow?

All ‘sides’ did some good and did some horrids.
Let us stop quoting one ‘group’ as superior. What is ‘advances’ anyway…..??!
Advances closer to midnight?

To move forward any, from past lessons, it’s now
and by the non-superior unprejudiced we first-through-to-last people.

[el_draco]

So the longest continuous culture on the planet is a dismal failure? WTF!!! :eyepop:

Oh my Gog! that has got to be one of the most outrageously ignorant statements I have ever heard. Many Australian aboriginals are capable of surviving, long term, in terrain that would terminate your sorry arse in a couple of hours, (if that), and those that still live in contact with country have a vast knowledge of the land that would eclipse most, if not all, other cultures except, (possibly), the San. Their understanding of environment, the materials in it, their food sources, hunting techniques, art, their own history is incredible. We are only JUST NOW starting to comprehend the level of complexity of pre-European settlement aboriginal culture and that's about it. We have just scratched the surface.

The only "dismal failure" here is in your education and sheer bloody arrogance. You should be ashamed of your statement.

Yes, we all need to live together, eventually, and give and take are important but its attitudes like this that just make me want to hurl. :screwy:

[xelasnave]

I would not try to change someone's view of the world but suggest the main benefit of having compassion and understanding is that it can only make you feel good about yourself, and compassion in the area we talk about is necessary even if one feels its time to move on ..for some that's not easy and many will understand why many won't see a problem.
Or we could all go back to Africa, all humans, that's where we came from.
Confine all humans to Africa...let the Americas, Asia Europe, everywhere regenerate and never intrude on the animals and confined to where we came from...Africa.
Imagine how nice so many places would have been without early humans even.
Unimaginable now but what a place it must have been...
Alex

[xelasnave]

I am thinking 1000 year old trees.
Alex

[Sol-Skysailor]

Thanks, Rom, in particular -very useful information.

I think it’s helpful to discuss. Not necessarily to change someone’s opinion,
rather laying a view for all readers to see and advance.
Huck Finn: In a barrel of odds and ends it is different; things get
mixed up, and the juice kind of swap around, and the things go better :-)



{Changing the date} implies that {……}
I think this is Logic False. No, it does not imply that.

{the act of settlement …} was {a mistake}.
I think this is an incorrect conclusion. I think the issue is
‘the violent or/and unfair manner’ rather than the co-habitation.

{ their best course of action} is {to leave, and hand over….}
Sounds like….Telling others where to go and what to do? If so,
is this not recognised more and more as power-over language?

{totally hypocritical}
Sounds to me like getting to be judgemental and accusative?
Hope you did not intend.
Based on earlier false conclusions too.

For discussion: Does this analogy work?
If I burnt toasts (or some relations or previous occupants did)
it doesn’t mean I should quit making toasts and return the toaster.
I would make better toasts next time.

And I don’t think any of our First People ask all the newcomers
to clear off the continent (the way some of these very newcomers tell
newercomers and newestcomers to go back to where they came from.)
Kind of funny.

How about this one? Suppose one moves into a house and the previous owner
or rental property owner (lets quit calling them/us landlords) communicated
that previous occupants intentionally or unintentionally caused some damage,
what’s wrong with saying
gee whizz I’d never do that and SORRY IT HAPPENED TO YOU.
Then one could make sure of not causing such damage,
and do something good extra.
Why, surely it’s not hard to be kind?

[el_draco]

I think its called, "basic respect". I became blood brother to an aboriginal I went to school with almost 50 years ago. I was vilified for it back then. I considered it then, and now, as an honour to be regarded so highly by a member of the First people and the aboriginals in my school school stood up for this poor little pommy ******* on many occasions, I might add.

I went on to become a teacher and have worked with a lot of aboriginal kids, and their families. When a white man asks permission to enter an aboriginals home and takes the time to understand their perspective and treat them with a bit of basic respect, bloody hell, the change is amazing. Years later, they'll still say "G'day" on the street and tell me whats going on for them now.

Yep, as a direct result of what MY culture has done, through ignorance, and sometimes design, there are a lot of very damaged aboriginals and that's just a consequence of cultural collision, but to speak in derogatory terms belittles us more than them.

I feel incredibly fortunate to live on the same continent as the First people. We have an awful lot to learn from them and an obligation to help them deal with the consequences of our ancestors' actions.

Anyone who wants to scoff should place themselves in the others footsteps and if that don't work, they can F-off back to where they came from :rolleyes:

[LewisM]

And this thread won't die.

I'd like to call it the Tardigrade Thread - this one can exist in the vacuum and radiative nature of space in perpetuity ad nauseum ad infinitum.

[JA]

Where's the aluminium foil when you need it.

best
JA

[The Mekon]

I wish you would do the same.

[LewisM]

Dragons can fly, can't they? :P

[Sol-Skysailor]

Thank you for sharing this, Rom. Please excuse extracting bits which I don't think changes the meaning.



I think 'basic respect' applies for all.
Yes, words of insults reflect on the speakers!
Easy to check whether an expression is with kindness? towards peace or towards conflict? superior or equal or inferior?

It's freedom of respectful, rational, towards-peace speech.
Nothing PC about this, nothing for any political gains.
Have we been through education by television, that promotes putdowns and cutting remarks?
We can't blame the media entirely, we consume.

Empathy can take less than 5 minutes, would you reckon...
how easy to close eyes from distraction, in calm, imagine born as one of ‘the’...

If a minority bunch of claimed-superior keep hitting another minority bunch of chosen targets,
the majority in the middle are the ones who can be effective in insisting on kindness and peace.
Let's not leave the targets to fight off alone.

We may need to quit categorising people as 'the'... or getting so attached to cattle-branding people.
You know... if we feel superior because of our skin, we didn't contribute, we just got born it. No colour is a superior colour anyway; if I could choose I'd choose one with plenty melanin. If we feel superior because we were born in a place, well... we didn't contribute either, our nurturing mothers were there.

[Sol-Skysailor]

Calm time is the best time to confer
to prepare for better Days. IMO

One specific relevance here may be some threads and activities in
astronomy embracing the First Culture.

I used to not get involved on social issues.
I used to just head down focus on engineering/science, work, family.
A lawyer acquaintance was passionate about our First People
I have always been interested but still I did not hear, did not listen,
did not register ‘someone else, somewhere else’.

As others have also expressed, sadder and more destructive world now.
My ‘doing something about it’
got escalated, when an astronomy friend I had hardly known died suddenly.
I did not know why I grieved so much
but I learnt too late that he was passionate about social issues
including as faced by our First People

My 1st positive step is this thread. Previously I hardly read this general sub-forum.

Rom, I do not have the experience you’ve had with your blood brother,
so for my 2nd positive step I intend to participate at a community group event.

Please propose and discuss what we can do towards respectful friendship and cohesive peace.
Thank You

[Sol-Skysailor]

++++ As to what date:

A proposal, towards solution, not controversy…. some date with a notion more of universal significance,
or local livelihood, not necessarily ‘nationalistic’,
nor even about the one species homo sapiens, but have it if we must.

Below is for a celebration day, for all.

The year’s Friday closet to SH Spring Equinox (looking to energy and growth?
–hopefully not for bad effects in different parts of the country) or


the year’s Friday closest to SH June Solstice (turning the corner,
not December that's too date-crowded) or


21st March (today!!) as it is also the UN Harmony Day


To TREASURE and to LOVE our inheritance or heritage if we may claim so. What date…
membe when the emu in the sky transits at midnight Uluru. (Or the galactic centre…nah. Or Alpha Cen.) We could tell the emu story, or another oldest most historical and astronomical story of this land.

The more I think of it…. why, we could have that as our National Anthem. Awesome beautiful with-nature Music!

[clive milne]

Ny ex-wife gets invited to perform at air shows... the barrel rolls she can do on her broom are a crowd favourite.

[Sol-Skysailor]

Pleased to hear about community consultation,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-04/aboriginal-support-for-council-move-to-change-australia-day/8412874
4-Apr-2017

Hobart City Council discussing and consulting
"about how we celebrate and when we celebrate".

Cheers