NationStates Jolt Archive

It has become apparent to me that a lot of Australia's negative press overseas comes from the unfortunate situation regarding the indigenous people known as Koories. I feel that a lot of people don't truly understand the particulars of the situation. So, Let us begin at the beginning.

Australian history began around 50 000 years ago (give or take 10 k either way) when a bunch of humans migrated from modern day indonesia via a then-existant land bridge. Concurrent with the aboriginal migration to Australia (is that an oxymoron 'aboriginal migration' :P ?) was the largest mass extinction of land mammals in the continent's history, in which virtually all megafauna were killed off. They also brought with them a kind of dog known as a 'dingo' introducing a large carnivourous predator to a continent which had never had one. Eventually nature formed an equilibrium around the destructive aboriginies, and most suviving species were small and fast ones which could escape their clutches (Not trying to slander them, rather just refuting the common misconception that the aboriginies were a people who were in balance with the ecosystem of Australia). For the next 50 000 years, the aboriginies lived as a nomadic people (not actually tribal, however, though we call it thus), wandering and fighting amongst themselves whilst building a unique culture around a profound connection with the land.

Then the white man came. He had more people, stronger immunities, better technology, and global fleet behind him. Instead of invading and conquering (or signing a treaty if you want to pull a NZ) the aboriginal people of Australia, Captain Cook (the leader of the expedition to Australia) couldn't be bothered, so he declared Australia 'Terra Nullius' (uninhabited land free for claim), based on the assertion that the aboriginies did not have civilisation and were practically animals, and thus did not own the land.

As you can see this claim is inherently flawed. However, nobody cared at the time, because they were ultimately just 'savages'. From the point that Australia was colonised, aboriginals were usually chased off into the desert, murderd enmasse (be it by infected humanitarian supplies, starvation, or plain old shooting). Unlike the New Zealand Maoris and American Natives, Australian Aboriginals did not truly for any kind of real resistance beyond the occasional farmer which was speared (There was an exception to this, wherein an Aboriginal warrior known as 'Pemulwuy' formed a small guerilla group to resist and raid white sttlements. However he was quickly shut down). In Tasmania there was a systematic extermination of entire race (the genetically unique Tasmanian Aboriginals).

By the coming of the 20th century the Aboriginal race and culture had been driven into the barren deserts, shattered, and significantly impoverished (if you can impoverish people without possessions). The aboriginal people had been bereft of their stability and land, and as such had become largely itinerant. This was the beginning of the decay of Aboriginal culture (i.e. once the white colonists had finished raping them). It was then that Australia became a country of it's own, and slowly began to address the 'Aboriginal problem'.

The first policy was to put all of the aboriginies on reservations under the authority of a white 'protector'. This didn't work for 2 main reasons, firstly the Aboriginies did not hold a true respect for european concepts such as borders and codefied law (and as such telling them that they were allowed only inside a designated area didn't stick well). Secondly, the aboriginal women and children were routinely raped and abused by their protectors.

The next policy was Assimilation, wherein aboriginies were to be made white in all aspects possible, to be eventually bred out. This is where the disasterous 'stolen generation' occured, wherein the government collected all haft-caste children from their families and raised/educated them in special 'aboriginal only' institutions. Most of these children were never to see their families again. For obvious reasons, this policy was discontinued.

The next policy was integration, wherein aboriginies were to be included as part of white society and urbanised, so as they in themselves would comprise part of the Australian culture as a whole. It was under this policy aboriginals were granted citizenship. This policy was eventually dumped because it was practically impossible. The Aboriginal culture had decayed to a point that the Aboriginals were mostly alcoholic, plagued by domestic abuse, racism, and lacked any motivation/ethic to gain and maintain employment.

The final and current policy is 'Self-Determination', wherein Aboriginals are given overwhelming government welfare and support/affirmative action, and are otherwise left to their own devices. Logically, this has lead to the widespread converions of the aboriginies into a 'welfare race', whose existence is supported almost entirely by public funds. Aboriginials constitute about 2% of the entire Australian population, yet they represent about 10% of total welfare spending. However, despite this, the 'aboriginal issue being as messy as it is, no polititian wants to touch it. It is far more politically expedient to simply throw money at the problem, rather than risk face trying to solve it.

Today, with exceptions, the aboriginal people are jobless delinquent, alcoholic, petrol sniffing, criminal, incarcerated, domestically abused, and miserable. The further away from urban areas you go, the worse they are. In the outback mining settlements and town, the aboriginals are just plain filthy (no slander intended, but it true. They really cannot take care of themselves.) It truly is depressing, and demanding of action. In urban areas, aboriginal kids are not unlike poor white kids, except that they face extensive racism, and lack virtually any positive rolemodels.

Ok. So that is the history. To summarise, Aboriginals were doing their own thing in Australia, then the british came over and crashed their party, stole their land, massacred their people, shattered their culture, slept with their women, and stole their children. This pretty routine when it comes to wars and conquest. However, the problem lies in that it was not officially a war, but rather an invalid declaration of 'Terra Nullius' (uninhabited land). So, through a technicality, the Aboriginals (the conquered people) have legal claim to all of Australia and everything in it. Obviously the government has taken steps to obstruct this, but at the end of the day, yes, legally they *should* own Australia. However, we obviously can't just give it back to them.

So what to do?
I personally think that this is an entire load of BS. You don't see the tibetans filing for land rights and government support from the Chinese. No, they were conquered. It sucks to be conquered. That is life.
That being said, I think we have to face up to our responsibilities (as a nation, not individuals). Captain Cook fucked up. So did the previous governments of Australia. As such, I think we need to assemble a new Aboriginal Authority like ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commision, which was disbanded for corruption and embezzlement). Then we need to go to them and say "How much is the entire land and sea area of Australia worth to you, in dollars and cents?". Then say "How much is the two centuries of abuse, massacre, theft, and misery worth to you in compensation?". Combine these two figures and pay them lump sum. It doesn't matter how much they dream up of, our economy is strong and we can take a hit like that (plus the recovery will be hastened considerably when we lose the welfare burden of the aboriginal race).

You then make the sustenance of the aboriginal people the responsibility of the Aboriginal authority. Regardless of how much you give them, they will assuredly piss the money up the wall until they have nothing in less than a decade. Suddenly, the Aboriginal people will be just like every other disadvantaged group (poor white people, poor immigrants, etc..). They will still have access to standard welfare benefits all citizens have, but nothing outrageous like they have now. By the tenets of the adversity theory, they will improve or fade away. If the Jews can do it, if the Chinese can do it, than the Aboriginals can do it too. Whatever the outcome, they are far better off off welfare than on it, in the long run.

Please, that idea is stupid. We should just farm them and eat them, duh!:rolleyes:

we are wasting money on them that we can use on other things

The extinction of mega-fauna actually conincided with a major climatic shift. The exact date of the arrival of Aboriginals is unknown but might post-date the decline of mega fauna. The land bridge evidently still left a significant gap between Sahul and Sundra (the masses of exposed land that formed the 'bridge'). Quite how the Aboriginals came to Australia and spread throughout is not conclusively known.

The aboriginals did indeed have a long standing equilibrium with the environment. It is clear that they inhabited Aussie for 10's of thousands of years and could have continued as they were for many more. In contrast the modern usage of Australia post-white folk arrival is unsustainable as even the Aussie prime-minister finds himself no longer able to deny.

I believe that their are fundamental issues of social justice and income inequality to be resolved in Aboriginal communities, this is partially the result of rampant individualism endorsed by Howard, but the quasi-autonomous far-flung aboriginal communities mostly dispersed throughout the NT are not viable to any degree. They exist under the pretext of giving aboriginals limited autonomy, but in fact they worsten their plight.

No one can get jobs in these communities without going to the cities (Alice Springs in particular) and even then they are uneducated and have little chance. I am all for subsidising incomes for them, but they have to be productive, and in the communities they are NOT productive, they just need to be normal Australian citizens in our cities, not revenue drains.

And please noone whinge about aboriginal sovereignty, sovereignty is the antithesis of their culture.

I personally think that this is an entire load of BS. You don't see the tibetans filing for land rights and government support from the Chinese. No, they were conquered. It sucks to be conquered. That is life.
Uh... what?

Uh... what?

Before you start waving the 'Tibetan' flag around.

Democracy by voting and representation is important, right?

I'm going to point out that if a entirely uninfluenced referendum in Lahasa today was held whether Tibet is part of The People's Republic of China. The results would be at least 70% in favor of staying within the PRC.

I hear you arguing that Han Chinese has flooded out the 'native' 'helpless' 'peaceful' Tibetans, and this skews the vote in Beijing's favor.

Europeans did basically the same in North America, we wouldn't make the vote 'Native Americans Only' now would we?

Before you start waving the 'Tibetan' flag around.

Democracy by voting and representation is important, right?

I'm going to point out that if a entirely uninfluenced referendum in Lahasa today was held whether Tibet is part of The People's Republic of China. The results would be at least 70% in favor of staying within the PRC.

I hear you arguing that Han Chinese has flooded out the 'native' 'helpless' 'peaceful' Tibetans, and this skews the vote in Beijing's favor.

Europeans did basically the same in North America, we wouldn't make the vote 'Native Americans Only' now would we?
Except that before, there weren't well-drawn borders everywhere. Now there are. There were well-drawn and well-accepted borders before China took over Tibet as well.

Also, I was saying "uh... what" to the statement that Tibetians aren't attempting to reclaim the land.

Except that before, there weren't well-drawn borders everywhere. Now there are, there were well-drawn and well-accepted borders before China took over Tibet.

Also, I was saying "uh... what" to the statement that Tibetians aren't attempting to reclaim the land.

You're going to start talking about the old British McMahon line (or its Western China equivalent) anytime now, aren't you?

Those lines were recognized by the Qing dynasty, who was basically bitch-whipped by the European powers into re-defining this whole national entity as 'Tibet'.

Pre-European arrival Tibet pay constant tribute to the Manchu Qing Empire, and was pretty much a vassal state.

The Nationalists overthrew the Manchu but had more important on their plates than some far-off segment of the country. So they briefly recognized 'Tibet' as a soverign nation.

The Communists seeked to bring Tibet back into the fold, the fedual Monarchs resisted with weapons aquired from India. India's ambitions in Central Asia weren't exactly well-hidden either.

The United States would have done pretty much the same (occupy and control) if a foreign power tried the same during the Texas Revolution.

What are we ment to do? We try and help them but they just abuse it. We give them heaps of money to try and do soemthing with these life and they just waste it.

What we should do is take away all those extra benefits they get just for being Aboriginal and force them to learn that they cant get everything on a silver platter, this will hopfully force them to start working.

Im not being racist but i had a great aboriginal friend when i was younger, he was great at school and everything but when the government came in and started giving him hundreds of dollors just because of his skin colour he got lazy and stoped doing anything.

He was raised by a white foster family (he wasnt 'stolen his parents died) and they were the kindist people around.

It has become apparent to me that a lot of Australia's negative press overseas comes from the unfortunate situation regarding the indigenous people known as Koories. I feel that a lot of people don't truly understand the particulars of the situation. So, Let us begin at the beginning.
-snip-


I think it is obvious what must be done. We must ship them all off to Ecuador.

The aborigines were unfortunate - most societies had progressed past the stone age except maybe some Amazon and African tribes. So when you have industrial age England vs the natives, it was one-sided. And for most of the white rule, we did treat like animals or less. Nowadays they are recognised as people and just want to have the same opportunities but not totally sell out their culture.

I live the NT where where you run into drunk natives more than most people in the Southern states. Yes, there is a big problem with itinerants and remote communities being third world of Australia.

Giving out money is not solution but letting the communities become commercially viable without being enslaved to government or corporate Australia is the solution.

People should not be punished for their skin color.

Equally, they should not be rewarded for this.

As such, yes, they should receive welfare benefits equally with normal Australians.

Also, isn't fuckloads of land in Australia still public/unclaimed? Isn't it possible to at least give them title to that?

People should not be punished for their skin color.

Equally, they should not be rewarded for this.

As such, yes, they should receive welfare benefits equally with normal Australians.

Also, isn't fuckloads of land in Australia still public/unclaimed? Isn't it possible to at least give them title to that?

As for land claims, the natives liked to live in areas with lot of water and food - which then was taken over by the settlers. The rest of the land is desert and quite unpleasant places to live. The natives weren't dumb and settled in the "nice" places first.

Yes, but they can surely re-sell the land to some corporation or something that'll develop it or whatnot.

Even at $100 an acre they'd come out big.

Yes, but they can surely re-sell the land to some corporation or something that'll develop it or whatnot.

Even at $100 an acre they'd come out big.

Local natives with have mineral resources on their land - are already allowing miners to come in for example. Yes, they are doing what you say but some lands out there is just horrible desert - with no commercial interest unless someone finds something of worth.

I'm going to point out that if a entirely uninfluenced referendum in Lahasa today was held whether Tibet is part of The People's Republic of China. The results would be at least 70% in favor of staying within the PRC.

Very true. This has been repeatedly proved by the free and fair elections and referendums that Chicoms regularly hold in Tibet. Oh wait....


Pre-European arrival Tibet pay constant tribute to the Manchu Qing Empire, and was pretty much a vassal state.

That's right. Hence we should try and get all the states which have been vassals in history to accept occupation by their previous masters.

India's ambitions in Central Asia weren't exactly well-hidden either.

True. That's why India has occupied territory in central Asia and invaded China and occupied Aksai Chin. Oh wait....

Some great points made by all, the way I see it (and I'm not racist) is that the English came on their boats, invaded, the Aborigines fought back, lost and subsequently were conquered. We have so many so called 1/57th 'aborigines' in Tasmania claiming benefits in the name of trauma caused to their descendants . Aborigines should be happy that they weren't completely wiped or assimilated out.

my eyes hurt from your overly long post.

The extinction of mega-fauna actually conincided with a major climatic shift. The exact date of the arrival of Aboriginals is unknown but might post-date the decline of mega fauna. The land bridge evidently still left a significant gap between Sahul and Sundra (the masses of exposed land that formed the 'bridge'). Quite how the Aboriginals came to Australia and spread throughout is not conclusively known.

The aboriginals did indeed have a long standing equilibrium with the environment. It is clear that they inhabited Aussie for 10's of thousands of years and could have continued as they were for many more. In contrast the modern usage of Australia post-white folk arrival is unsustainable as even the Aussie prime-minister finds himself no longer able to deny.

The megafauna in Australia survived multiple major climate shifts throughout their time. The only one they didn't survive was the one that brought humans.

There were 22 ice ages before the ice age that brought humans into North America, with the megafauna surviving all 22. Almost all of North America' large animals were extinct within 1,000 years of the ice age that brought humans to North America.

Madagascar's ecosystem was affected similarly.

It has been documented time and time again that the introduction of a foreign species can wreak havoc on an ecosystem's equilibrium, so the introduction of such a dominant predator should be expected to cause major extinctions. Why should we assume that humans would be any different?

Yes, but they can surely re-sell the land to some corporation or something that'll develop it or whatnot.

Even at $100 an acre they'd come out big.

That land in question - there is no way in hell you'll get $100/Acre.

Half it you'd be lucky to get $10 assuming you could even find a buyer.

The megafauna in Australia survived multiple major climate shifts throughout their time. The only one they didn't survive was the one that brought humans.
Except we do not know that humans arrived before or after the demise of the Australian megafauna, it is a matter of controversy rather than the 'settled fact' that the OP appears to be presenting.

There were 22 ice ages before the ice age that brought humans into North America, with the megafauna surviving all 22. Almost all of North America' large animals were extinct within 1,000 years of the ice age that brought humans to North America.
And again we do not know when humans arrived in the Americas, dates posited include 40,000 BC or earlier, approximately 20,000 years ago and as recent as 13,000 BC. We cannot given the lack of certitude of the arrival of humans in the Americas, conclude that humans were the cause of the extinction of megafauna there, especially given the extent to which large animals around the world disappeared at this time. Humans and megafauna co-existed in places before this, why would we conclude that humans were the cause of their extinction given that in many cases we dont know that humans were in the vicinity of extinctions.

Madagascar's ecosystem was affected similarly.

It has been documented time and time again that the introduction of a foreign species can wreak havoc on an ecosystem's equilibrium, so the introduction of such a dominant predator should be expected to cause major extinctions. Why should we assume that humans would be any different?
We shouldnt, anymore than we should assume that they definately were the cause of a particular series of extinctions in locations where we dont know that humans had yet arrived. Rather we should acknowledge that we dont at this time know either way whether or not humans caused the extinction of megafauna in either the Americas or Australia.

Except we do not know that humans arrived before or after the demise of the Australian megafauna, it is a matter of controversy rather than the 'settled fact' that the OP appears to be presenting.


And again we do not know when humans arrived in the Americas, dates posited include 40,000 BC or earlier, approximately 20,000 years ago and as recent as 13,000 BC. We cannot given the lack of certitude of the arrival of humans in the Americas, conclude that humans were the cause of the extinction of megafauna there, especially given the extent to which large animals around the world disappeared at this time. Humans and megafauna co-existed in places before this, why would we conclude that humans were the cause of their extinction given that in many cases we dont know that humans were in the vicinity of extinctions.


We shouldnt, anymore than we should assume that they definately were the cause of a particular series of extinctions in locations where we dont know that humans had yet arrived. Rather we should acknowledge that we dont at this time know either way whether or not humans caused the extinction of megafauna in either the Americas or Australia.

I will certainly admit there there is controversy as to how far in the past humans originally arrived in the Americas. However, while the Clovis culture has been well backed by archaelogical and DNA findings, any other model of migration is rather desparate in any support, other than a handful of disputed dates that may be trumped up for the professional goals of their finders.

In the end, we can pretty assuredly say that there was a migration of big game hunters across the Bering Land Bridge that closely coincided to the extinction of the megafauna of North America.

Ignore 'em. Let 'em saunter around in the bush for all I care. I've got more important things to deal with than primitives from an Island-Continent down south.

I will certainly admit there there is controversy as to how far in the past humans originally arrived in the Americas. However, while the Clovis culture has been well backed by archaelogical and DNA findings, any other model of migration is rather desparate in any support, other than a handful of disputed dates that may be trumped up for the professional goals of their finders.

In the end, we can pretty assuredly say that there was a migration of big game hunters across the Bering Land Bridge that closely coincided to the extinction of the megafauna of North America.
Even if we can draw a correlation, we'd need more than that. Consider the likely size of the human population in the Americas when they first arrived, unless the megafauna were already in decline, the number of humans wouldnt be significant in their extinction until quite some time after human arrival. After all these people would obviously be nomadic hunter gatherers who by necessity have a low population density. By the time of the hey-day of Paleo-Indians the mega-fauna had already been severly impacted.

So we have mega fauna declining on a world-wide basis at a time of severe climate change including in areas where they had co-existed with humans, you have a very likely small human population while the greatest decline is happening in the Americas, yet a swelling population by the time they have already severely declined. It's possible the hunter gatherers moved in and a small population dessimated the mega-fauna yet apparently thrived just at the time their main source of subsistence (mega-fauna) was no longer around in great numbers, but it doesnt seem all that likely.

More likely the decline and extinction of mega-fauna was multi-factorial, humans may have been one of those factors, but it's far from certain that they were the sole or even predominate factor.

I say we nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. :)

I say we nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. :)

hey i live here
oh yes move all the whites then nuke them

hey i live here
oh yes move all the whites then nuke them

Move the whites then nuke them? Where to move them to? Maybe a small island in the south pacific where they can't swim away from before the nuke goes off. :)

That land in question - there is no way in hell you'll get $100/Acre.

Half it you'd be lucky to get $10 assuming you could even find a buyer.

At 10$/Acre I would buy it.

Move the whites then nuke them? Where to move them to? Maybe a small island in the south pacific where they can't swim away from before the nuke goes off. :)

white or the blacks
if its the blacks yer move them to a small inland get them pissed so they cant swim then nuke them

white or the blacks
if its the blacks yer move them to a small inland get them pissed so they cant swim then nuke them

Nuke em all. :)

Nuke em all. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qEa6CB3eEA

Why not just give Australia back to them?

Not the actual land, but the sovereignty of said land, say, when Queen Liz kicks the bucket, don't accept Charles as king, but rather create an Aboriginal aristocracy, with each Aboriginal given a feudal title, and a certain individual can be voted as King (or Queen) of Australia. Once you've got that sorted, the Aboriginals can now become a new foppish hereditary aristocracy, and they can do all the things that European foppish hereditary aristocracies do... like wander around in dressing gowns discussing Satre and smoking Opium.

The net result would be the same, they would still get just as much state hand-outs (the King would get more, especially considering his new huge palace has to built atop of Ayre's Rock)... but if transforming the Aboriginals into a new Australian lordship doesn't up their national morale, then I don't know what will!

white or the blacks
if its the blacks yer move them to a small inland get them pissed so they cant swim then nuke them

Advocation of genocide? Last time I checked that was a bannable offence?

Why not just give Australia back to them?

Not the actual land, but the sovereignty of said land, say, when Queen Liz kicks the bucket, don't accept Charles as king, but rather create an Aboriginal aristocracy, with each Aboriginal given a feudal title, and a certain individual can be voted as King (or Queen) of Australia. Once you've got that sorted, the Aboriginals can now become a new foppish hereditary aristocracy, and they can do all the things that European foppish hereditary aristocracies do... like wander around in dressing gowns discussing Satre and smoking Opium.

The net result would be the same, they would still get just as much state hand-outs (the King would get more, especially considering his new huge palace has to built atop of Ayre's Rock)... but if transforming the Aboriginals into a new Australian lordship doesn't up their national morale, then I don't know what will!



Advocation of genocide? Last time I checked that was a bannable offence?
its my nation and we call them blacks here
and they are doing it to them self as far as i can tell

So what to do?
I personally think that this is an entire load of BS. You don't see the tibetans filing for land rights and government support from the Chinese. No, you see the Tibetans affirming their sovereignty.

Then we need to go to them and say "How much is the entire land and sea area of Australia worth to you, in dollars and cents?". Then say "How much is the two centuries of abuse, massacre, theft, and misery worth to you in compensation?". Combine these two figures and pay them lump sum. It doesn't matter how much they dream up of, our economy is strong and we can take a hit like that (plus the recovery will be hastened considerably when we lose the welfare burden of the aboriginal race). I agree there should be compensation, but I do not agree that you should be pursuing the extinguishment of land rights.


You then make the sustenance of the aboriginal people the responsibility of the Aboriginal authority. Regardless of how much you give them, they will assuredly piss the money up the wall until they have nothing in less than a decade.
So in essence, you are setting them up to fail.

How enlightened.

And please noone whinge about aboriginal sovereignty, sovereignty is the antithesis of their culture.
Then you do not understand the term.

They were self-governing people with a system of laws and customs.

That is the essence of sovereignty.

You might be talking about individualism?

In the end, we can pretty assuredly say that there was a migration of big game hunters across the Bering Land Bridge that closely coincided to the extinction of the megafauna of North America.

What we can not say with any degree of certainty is that one event caused the other. There has been extensive refutation of the claim that aboriginal peoples wiped out the megafauna. Have you read Vine Deloria Jr. yet (for one source)?

You know, one major thing that no one seems to be taking into consideration here is that aboriginal peoples are not going to thrive, forced into alien systems of laws, and governance. Throwing money at us is not going to help. Giving us back the space to return to OUR systems of governance will. There is considerable common law support for this, which is very applicable to Australia. The Mabo case in particular recognises the common law duty of the Crown to aboriginal peoples, and the affirmation of aboriginal rights which have NOT been extinguished...including aboriginal title, but more importantly, self-governance.

What has been done to the aboriginal peoples of Australia has had a profound and detrimental impact...but continuing to in effect play out cultural genocide because that is the only option you can fathom is simply unconscionable. Another way is possible, and that way will be found in the pre-existing sovereing structures of aboriginal peoples themselves.

Giving us back the space to return to OUR systems of governance will.
1. Do you mean ALL the space?
2. Aren't there already reservation-like areas that aborigionals more or less self govern, including their own laws and trial system?

1. Do you mean ALL the space?
2. Aren't there already reservation-like areas that aborigionals more or less self govern, including their own laws and trial system?

Hahahaha, not physical space, political space.

Hahahaha, not physical space, political space.

Ahhh...

What about point 2? Or have I been badly misinformed?

Before you start waving the 'Tibetan' flag around.

Democracy by voting and representation is important, right?

I'm going to point out that if a entirely uninfluenced referendum in Lahasa today was held whether Tibet is part of The People's Republic of China. The results would be at least 70% in favor of staying within the PRC.

I hear you arguing that Han Chinese has flooded out the 'native' 'helpless' 'peaceful' Tibetans, and this skews the vote in Beijing's favor.

Europeans did basically the same in North America, we wouldn't make the vote 'Native Americans Only' now would we?

since when is china a democracy?
i dont know about your countries, but in mine tibetans protest daily for support in our capital and chinnese embassy.

why not try de-dessertafication? sure its hard.

Ahhh...

What about point 2? Or have I been badly misinformed?In Australia, there is an Aboriginal Land Rights act which does grant some freehold title, but Mabo was so important because it threw out the notion that Australia was 'terra nullis', and validated certain land claims. However, there is not to my knowledge a system of Reservations as there is in Canada, though successful land claims would in fact 'reserve' certain lands for aboriginals. I could be totally wrong on that, but I've never seen anything indicating to the contrary.

Point being, these lands have been hard won, there are various claims still to be settled, and the issue of self-government has not been totally resolved because in many cases, governance is severly restricted in how it may manifest itself.

Come on now...those of you living in countries with aboriginal populations but who are nonetheless not Australian surely have some opinions based on your experiences...I'm certainly not shying away just because I live in Canada:p

Why not just give Australia back to them?

Not the actual land, but the sovereignty of said land, say, when Queen Liz kicks the bucket, don't accept Charles as king, but rather create an Aboriginal aristocracy, with each Aboriginal given a feudal title, and a certain individual can be voted as King (or Queen) of Australia. Once you've got that sorted, the Aboriginals can now become a new foppish hereditary aristocracy, and they can do all the things that European foppish hereditary aristocracies do... like wander around in dressing gowns discussing Satre and smoking Opium.

The net result would be the same, they would still get just as much state hand-outs (the King would get more, especially considering his new huge palace has to built atop of Ayre's Rock)... but if transforming the Aboriginals into a new Australian lordship doesn't up their national morale, then I don't know what will!

You win the thread. That is an awesome 'aboriginal friendly' semi-solution to my problem. You still implement the rest of my plan, but instead of buying Australia off them, you just give it to them! I love you.

No, you see the Tibetans affirming their sovereignty. This is not the thread for that, it was an analogy. That being said, Tibet is a part of china, as confirmed by an authentic referendum held there. Looks like the people of tibet had enough sense to pick the economic powerhouse of China over the stagnant theocracy that was there previously.

*snip*


So in essence, you are setting them up to fail.

How enlightened. Yes that is the plan. Only the threat of failure can motivate the human mind.

Come on now...those of you living in countries with aboriginal populations but who are nonetheless not Australian surely have some opinions based on your experiences...I'm certainly not shying away just because I live in Canada:p

I thought you were an Australian Aboriginal? :confused:

You win the thread. That is an awesome 'aboriginal friendly' semi-solution to my problem. You still implement the rest of my plan, but instead of buying Australia off them, you just give it to them! I love you.

*blushes*

I say ignore 'em, and let 'em scurry around in the bush.

This is not the thread for that, it was an analogy. That being said, Tibet is a part of china, as confirmed by an authentic referendum held there. Looks like the people of tibet had enough sense to pick the economic powerhouse of China over the stagnant theocracy that was there previously.


You're giving PRC sponsored elections credibility?

You're giving PRC sponsored elections credibility?

There's no reason to expect that the referendum does not represent the truth. Maybe not the whole truth, but a good enough bit of the truth. If the Chinese Communist Party were to fake an election, they'd arrange a unanimous majority, not just 70%.

Besides, I'm sure the Tibetans themselves realise that it is better to be a province of the world's next emerging superpower than being a feudal state under the iron fist of a dodgily selected lama.

The Dalai Lama is the worst possible thing that could happen to Tibet, he openly states that he should be in total control of the whole state and rule it according to strict Buddhist law. 'Oh, but the Dalai Lama is a nice old man,' you might say, 'he wouldn't abuse his power'. Maybe not, but can you definitely say the next thing about his successor? Dalai Lamas are chosen during infancy and told that they will serve as supreme leader of a nation - indeed, megalomaniacal Lamas have been much more common than moderate wise leaders.

I dunno, but the first step is obviously to ask them what they want and then actually listen to what they have to say.

I thought you were an Australian Aboriginal? :confused:

Heck no...I'm Cree, from Canada.

I dunno, but the first step is obviously to ask them what they want and then actually listen to what they have to say.

That's entirely too rational.

And could we get off Tibet? I regret even mentioning it at all in response to it being brought up.

You win the thread. That is an awesome 'aboriginal friendly' semi-solution to my problem. You still implement the rest of my plan, but instead of buying Australia off them, you just give it to them! I love you.

Imposing a system totally alien to their traditional systems of governance is ridiculous, no matter what system you propose.

Come on now...those of you living in countries with aboriginal populations but who are nonetheless not Australian surely have some opinions based on your experiences...I'm certainly not shying away just because I live in Canada:p

i have an opinion, just not a terribly useful one.

i think that its time for non-aboriginal australians to stop thinking that they need to "fix" aboriginals. yes, you fucked up their lives. yes, you took their land and destroyed their way of life. thats water under the dam now.

aboriginal australians are people just like anyone else and only they can fix their own lives. giving them the impression that the government can take care of their problems only helps to perpetuate the problems they have.

the government of australia needs to make sure they have proper health care, housing and education, just like they do for the rest of the citizens of australia. making an effort to help make sure that anyone wants a job can have a job (as long as they DO the job) would be good.

treating them like dependant children is not going to work. throwing money at them means that that money will be wasted--stolen as it has been so many times before, spent on admistrative costs, spent on useless disposable things by the ultimate recipient, whatever. lack of money isnt the root of the problem, it cant fix the problem. (although there may come a time or be a program or 2 that can make wise use of extra money, i wouldnt know since im not australian)

those aborigines who do not want to integrate into the larger australian society have to do what it takes to make their lives and families work on their own. the government cant force people to live a certain way or to make different decisions. the more the government treats them like children, the more of them will stop taking responsibility for their own lives. yes they have huge problems but those problems cant be fixed from the outside. once they (as whatever groups they form into) decide how they want to live, how to solve their problems, then the government of australia might do something to support that decision.

However, while the Clovis culture has been well backed by archaelogical and DNA findings, any other model of migration is rather desparate in any support, other than a handful of disputed dates that may be trumped up for the professional goals of their finders.

as far as i'm aware, the 1000 years pre-clovis date for monte verde is becoming generally accepted, and that's all the way down in chile.

I dunno, but the first step is obviously to ask them what they want and then actually listen to what they have to say.

because that would be to treat them as real people. we don't so that for the lesser beings.

It's not a very easy topic to approach, because in reality the whole thing is a zero sum game. There isn't arable, livable land left anymore, so to give them their own zone, other people would have to be moved off livable land which they've been inhabiting for quite some time now. Relates to another recent thread about affirmative action in the US and righting the wrongs of the past, although that deals more with social status and prosperity.

One one hand, I definitely want to see these people be able to live their own lives in the ways that they choose and be able to prosper. I want to see these wrongs righted.

On the other hand, that zero-sum game comes back, and it bites generations down the line. The people affected by this had nothing to do with the decisions and actions that caused the inequality in the first place, but they will have to give up their homes and communities to make room for the aboriginals to make any meaningful correction.

Most of the solutions between amount to wishful thinking and bandaids in my opinion.

Self-government issues need to be examines in Australia in regards to aboriginal peoples. Australia hasn't gotten over its colonial attitudes in terms of the civil and political rights of aboriginal peoples, and it has hardly dealt with the common-law right to self-government.

Tossing money at people but then minutely controlling their lives, and refusing to even recongise pre-existing legal and political structures is no help at all. You are still expecting people to assimilate to your own system...and then BLAMING them when they fail at 'making it in' to a system that excludes them. The results have been disasterous. Setting up self-government will take time and effort, but it is a necessary resolution.

This may sound at first like a simple question, but does self government require a piece of land to govern, as well as a group of people? It's a novel idea to me that they might be able to have their own governing system within the nation of Australia, based only on the group, without the land.

What we need is more info on the 'pre-colonial structures' someone mentioned. Then, we figure out how to create those structures in the context of modern Australia. We spend whatever we have to in order to create these structures. If that means spending millions buying land from white landowners, then so be it. Don't FORCE them off, BUY them off.

Landowner: "Look here, I'm not giving up my land for some poor aborigines!"
Government official: "Would you do it if we paid you $100 an acre?"
Landowner: "Make it $200."
Government official: "Deal."

This may sound at first like a simple question, but does self government require a piece of land to govern, as well as a group of people? It's a novel idea to me that they might be able to have their own governing system within the nation of Australia, based only on the group, without the land.

You can have self-government without actually owning the land, but it would be much more difficult. You don't need underlying title (which is vested in the Crown), but it is pretty necessary to have some sort of proprietary interest in a piece of land in order to maintain and protect your right to self-government. Of course, the Australian government can say, 'this isn't your land' and the aboriginees can say, 'yes it is', and self-government can be practiced regardless of who is actually right.

But in terms of aboriginal people...connection to the land is key.

i have an opinion, just not a terribly useful one.

i think that its time for non-aboriginal australians to stop thinking that they need to "fix" aboriginals. yes, you fucked up their lives. yes, you took their land and destroyed their way of life. thats water under the dam now.

aboriginal australians are people just like anyone else and only they can fix their own lives. No, they really can't. They have become cultureless, self-abusive, parasites who would drink, beat, and petrol sniff themselves into oblivion without some kind of 'damage control' initiative put in place. giving them the impression that the government can take care of their problems only helps to perpetuate the problems they have. This is true, but not letting the government take care of the problems will worsen them (rather than simply perpetuate them). We really need to stop perpetuating and work on a 'plan' to avoid the consequent worsening of their problems. Otherwise, I see no end to this cycle.

the government of australia needs to make sure they have proper health care, housing and education, just like they do for the rest of the citizens of australia. making an effort to help make sure that anyone wants a job can have a job (as long as they DO the job) would be good. I agree, but prior to this, the government (or somebody) has to correct a few massive social maladies ravaging the aboriginal people. Until this is done, there shall be no stability for the aboriginal community (with a few exceptions).

treating them like dependant children is not going to work. throwing money at them means that that money will be wasted--stolen as it has been so many times before, spent on admistrative costs, spent on useless disposable things by the ultimate recipient, whatever. lack of money isnt the root of the problem, it cant fix the problem. (although there may come a time or be a program or 2 that can make wise use of extra money, i wouldnt know since im not australian) I agree. The answer is not in the continuation of excessive welfare programs, yet the aboriginal people are not capable of taking care of themselves without it. What we need is a program to wien the aboriginals from their welfare addiction (which will require combatting the many social problems facing them. Either that, or cut them off and let them suffer until they get off their arse (which they will eventually, but I imagine the period prior would be quite harsh.
[QUOTE]*snip* (sorry, but I am tired)QUOTE]

Imposing a system totally alien to their traditional systems of governance is ridiculous, no matter what system you propose.
Their traditional system of governence is irrelevant, especially in the case of the Australian Aboriginals. The current Australian Aboriginals are so far removed from their traditional culture the only reason most of them know anything about it is because of government funded initiatives to preserve their culture. Kind of ironic; the white man took the aboriginal culture and shattered it to a million pieces, now he spends billions trying to piece it back together again. Australian Aboriginals are Australians now, there is no point trying to make things the same as they were before.

No, they really can't. They have become cultureless, self-abusive, parasites who would drink, beat, and petrol sniff themselves into oblivion without some kind of 'damage control' initiative put in place.
What a horrible, ignorant and racist thing to say. If you were at all right...if Australian aboriginees were so lost as you seem to believe, then there would be no one fighting for sovereignty, no one fighting to retain a culture that you say is dead. And you are totally, utterly, and disgustingly wrong on that count.


This is true, but not letting the government take care of the problems will worsen them (rather than simply perpetuate them). We really need to stop perpetuating and work on a 'plan' to avoid the consequent worsening of their problems. Otherwise, I see no end to this cycle. Yet everything you've said so far is about perpetuating that cycle.

yet the aboriginal people are not capable of taking care of themselves without it. This is what I'm talking about. This is disgusting, do you even see it? it's the same thing that has been said about my people...about the Maori, about the Mapuche...about pretty much every aboriginal people that have nonetheless managed to survive hundreds of years of colonialism. You've never actually given us a chance...we've survived IN SPITE of your governments, and some of us are beginning to thrive again because we've rejected your predictions of doom based on this belief in our cultural weakness. Stop talking about how you are going to fix us, and how we are incapable of it, back the fuck up and let us do what we did for tens of thousands of years before you bust in and declared a new world order....govern ourselves.

Their traditional system of governence is irrelevant, especially in the case of the Australian Aboriginals. The current Australian Aboriginals are so far removed from their traditional culture the only reason most of them know anything about it is because of government funded initiatives to preserve their culture. Kind of ironic; the white man took the aboriginal culture and shattered it to a million pieces, now he spends billions trying to piece it back together again. Australian Aboriginals are Australians now, there is no point trying to make things the same as they were before.

I've met a number of Australian elders, and the Australian aboriginees have been very proactive in forming links with aboriginal nations throughout the world. They, like us, are still very aware of and connected to their traditional governance. That many aboriginees are culturally disconnected because of assimilationist policies does not mean the culture is dead. Who the hell are you to speak for them? I'm not an Australian, I don't live in your country...why is it that I seem to have more of a clue about aboriginee culture than you? That's a disturbing, and I believe, self-inflicted gap in your learning.