Aboriginal children in care now exceeds stolen generations (9 Viewers)

[Josip Broz Tito]

'imperial Britiain explored and conquered land' - that doesn't mean it was ok! Just becuase it happened it doesn't mean what happened was right. That doesn't make sense. And like boris was saying - 'The person with the most guns etc will take control of the land if they so desire' - that doens't mean it is ok! What kind of logic is that?
And Katie - just because they were nomadic and didn't have the technology the defend their land it doesn't give the right for the whites to claim it. That is like what Terra Nullis said.
'they had no "claim" or sense of ownership to the land' - I don't know whether to laugh or cry at what you are saying. They lived here, they lived here for over 40000 years, I think that gives them a claim to the land - the fact they lived here. 'It was not ripe for picking', Aborigines had been here for 40000 years who you are dismissing as having no claim because they had little technology and because they were nomadic. I don't think I even understand this - nomadic=no claim to land? I love the way you put "their" land in quotation marks. Katie it was their land. You need to accept this like most other people with a brain have.

Of course it is ok. This is not some my little pony bullshit story. It would have been against human history and instinct for land not to be conquered, for the weak not to be eliminated as a stronger power takes their place. The aborigines could not defend themselves, therefore they had and have no right claim to the land. History is brutal and despite all of the abo's whinging, similar events have previously occurred...i.e the Roman, Greek and Turkish empires etc.

 

[katie tully]

The aboriginals were so primitive and unestablished

Thanks Iron!

 

[Rockyroad]

The aborigines could not defend themselves, therefore they had and have no right claim to the land.

You're just saying the same thing as Katie and I strongly disagree. Eg I am a young girl who could not defend herself against an assult where a big strong man wants to steal my purse. Does that mean it is ok to steal from me? Do I have no right to claim my own possessions because I cannot defend them?
Your logic sucks. It was not ok. They lost a lot more than a purse. I'm apalled by your attitude.

 

[Iron]

Of course it is ok. This is not some my little pony bullshit story. It would have been against human history and instinct for land not to be conquered, for the weak not to be eliminated as a stronger power takes their place. The aborigines could not defend themselves, therefore they had and have no right claim to the land. History is brutal and despite all of the abo's whinging, similar events have previously occurred...i.e the Roman, Greek and Turkish empires etc.

I broadly agree with this, but the reality is that such hard sentiments need to be modified in a globalized world which trumpets universal human rights and rejects theories of racial superiority. It might be acceptable to take your view after the natives were long-since destroyed or integrated, but the fact is that the Aboriginals are still here and more fucked and marginalized than they would otherwise have been. Reconciliation is therefore important now

 

[impervious182]

You didn't reply to my post, Iron.

:jaw:

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

You're just saying the same thing as Katie and I strongly disagree. Eg I am a young girl who could not defend herself against an assult where a big strong man wants to steal my purse. Does that mean it is ok to steal from me? Do I have no right to claim my own possessions because I cannot defend them?
Your logic sucks. It was not ok. They lost a lot more than a purse. I'm apalled by your attitude.

I am appalled by your ignorance and fucking stupidity. There is no way that you can compare the issues of abo's to a friggin horse. You fail to realise that land a piece of fucking material are two different things.
Several issues can be raised when considering land and abo ownership:
The abo's failed to create a united entity. Whilst they did have tribes, ironically enough their nomadic lifestyle resulted in them not claiming any land as well. Despite forty thousand years of living in the same fucking place, they failed to build a primitive sort of government, an empire or civilisation.
When compared, their lifestyle was similar to the Stone Age and the cavemen despite societal advancements in other continents. Their failure to establish themselves as a country and choosing to clap sticks instead, resulted in them not owning the land, but rather using its resources etc without giving anything in return.

I.e. Like a hostel with no owners, which the abo's have found when they trekked from Papua New Guinea. Despite living in this hostel for many, many years, they choose not to create an administrative operation for this hostel, but rather decide to move from room to room. Each room having an abo family that has different sticks and speaks different fucking languages.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

I broadly agree with this, but the reality is that such hard sentiments need to be modified in a globalized world which trumpets universal human rights and rejects theories of racial superiority. It might be acceptable to take your view after the natives were long-since destroyed or integrated, but the fact is that the Aboriginals are still here and more fucked and marginalized than they would otherwise have been. Reconciliation is therefore important now

I think this is where the debate originates from, because i see no fucking need to reconcile. Instead i think that they should get the fuck over it because their primitive nature resulted them in losing a 'war' against a more civilised (in a more organised and governmental sense) country that had already found use of modern weaponry and collective society.

 

[boris]

You're just saying the same thing as Katie and I strongly disagree. Eg I am a young girl who could not defend herself against an assult where a big strong man wants to steal my purse. Does that mean it is ok to steal from me? Do I have no right to claim my own possessions because I cannot defend them?
Your logic sucks. It was not ok. They lost a lot more than a purse. I'm apalled by your attitude.

So basically you are saying that the way the world has worked for the past millions of years is wrong and everyone is wrong?

 

[Rockyroad]

So basically you are saying that the way the world has worked for the past millions of years is wrong and everyone is wrong?

It was more to show that the fact that they couldn't defend themselves doesn't mean the whites had the right to invade and disregard the original owners, which it seems some people here believe. But yea I think imperialism is pretty wrong.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

It was more to show that the fact that they couldn't defend themselves doesn't mean the whites had the right to invade and disregard the original owners, which it seems some people here believe. But yea I think imperialism is pretty wrong.

But the abo's were never the original owners. They never fucking claimed the land.

 

[boris]

It was more to show that the fact that they couldn't defend themselves doesn't mean the whites had the right to invade and disregard the original owners, which it seems some people here believe. But yea I think imperialism is pretty wrong.

Yeah you're missing the point

It doesnt matter if they couldnt defend themselves of not.

look at it the same way as if they could defend themselves, they did, and they lost. Would they still have this sense of entitlement? no? So why do they have it when they couldnt defend themselves?

It was an invasion, you cant just say "oh that was wrong because you took the land from us." the land was there to be taken by whoever had the most will/ biggest army. That is sadly how the world works. That is why we have defence forces.


lol if we didnt have a defence force right now, do you think no one would invade us just because we didnt have one?

Indonesia "oh look Australia has abundant natural resources and no army. we better not invade because they cant defend themselves"

That is what your argument amounts to.

 

[Iron]

But the abo's were never the original owners. They never fucking claimed the land.

Yes they were and did. They were just forced to relate to the land in a limited way which we did not recognise as valid. Now it is seen as valid.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Yes they were and did. They were just forced to relate to the land in a limited way which we did not recognise as valid. Now it is seen as valid.

This is where our opinions diverge. What constitutes to a land being claimed?

 

[Rockyroad]

I am appalled by your ignorance and fucking stupidity. There is no way that you can compare the issues of abo's to a friggin horse. You fail to realise that land a piece of fucking material are two different things.
Several issues can be raised when considering land and abo ownership:
The abo's failed to create a united entity. Whilst they did have tribes, ironically enough their nomadic lifestyle resulted in them not claiming any land as well. Despite forty thousand years of living in the same fucking place, they failed to build a primitive sort of government, an empire or civilisation.
When compared, their lifestyle was similar to the Stone Age and the cavemen despite societal advancements in other continents. Their failure to establish themselves as a country and choosing to clap sticks instead, resulted in them not owning the land, but rather using its resources etc without giving anything in return.

I.e. Like a hostel with no owners, which the abo's have found when they trekked from Papua New Guinea. Despite living in this hostel for many, many years, they choose not to create an administrative operation for this hostel, but rather decide to move from room to room. Each room having an abo family that has different sticks and speaks different fucking languages.

I found the bolded part interesting. Well the Aborigines took care of the land better than we do. We are the ones destroying the planet. What exactly was wrong about the way the Aborigines lived with the land? They didn't milk it for resources. They lived in peace with it, sustainably. What did the whites give the land in return?
I don't really see your point, or atleast a new one. Yea we all know they had different tribes and were nomadic. To me, this doesn't mean that the whites were entitled to invade. You are like agreeing with Terra Nullis. The Mabo decision overturned the legal fiction that Australia had been terra nulius (land belonging to no one) when the British took possession of it in 1788. The High court recognised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples were the original owners of Australia.
It's in my damn history textbook. Do you deny this? Disagree with the decision?

 

[Iron]

This is where our opinions diverge. What constitutes to a land being claimed?

There's our feudal ideas, which form the guts of property law (essentially built around farming) but since Mabo, native title is acknowledged as existing alongside this

 

[Rockyroad]

But the abo's were never the original owners. They never fucking claimed the land.

Far out. Your defintion of claim is the old Terra Nullius British one. Of course the Aborigines never stuck a flag in the ground and 'claimed' the land in the sense you are talking about. Why would they? They had been there for over 40000 years. They had different customs to the Europeans. 'Claim' in the sense you are talking about was a custom from Europe. The Aborigines were the original owners.

 

[impervious182]

Far out. Your defintion of claim is the old Terra Nullius British one. Of course the Aborigines never stuck a flag in the ground and 'claimed' the land in the sense you are talking about. Why would they? They had been there for over 40000 years. They had different customs to the Europeans. 'Claim' in the sense you are talking about was a custom from Europe. The Aborigines were the original owners.

occupiers.

 

[boris]

I found the bolded part interesting. Well the Aborigines took care of the land better than we do. We are the ones destroying the planet. What exactly was wrong about the way the Aborigines lived with the land? They didn't milk it for resources. They lived in peace with it, sustainably. What did the whites give the land in return?
I don't really see your point, or atleast a new one. Yea we all know they had different tribes and were nomadic. To me, this doesn't mean that the whites were entitled to invade. You are like agreeing with Terra Nullis. The Mabo decision overturned the legal fiction that Australia had been terra nulius (land belonging to no one) when the British took possession of it in 1788. The High court recognised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples were the original owners of Australia.
It's in my damn history textbook. Do you deny this? Disagree with the decision?

Who ever has the "right" to invade? Invasion of someone elses land is never right. That doesn't mean it is never to be done.

Yes the aboriginals are seen as the original owners of the land now. That is britains only mistake. If they had recognised the aboriginals ownership of the land back then and then took it off them, we would not have this problem at all. That is the only thing they did wrong.

 

[impervious182]

Who ever has the "right" to invade? Invasion of someone elses land is never right. That doesn't mean it is never to be done.

Yes the aboriginals are seen as the original owners of the land now. That is britains only mistake. If they had recognised the aboriginals ownership of the land back then and then took it off them, we would not have this problem at all. That is the only thing they did wrong.

Still doesn't explain why we had a responsibility to apologise... Australian government wasn't formed then, why shouldn't an apology come from British government?

 

[Iron]

Who ever has the "right" to invade? Invasion of someone elses land is never right. That doesn't mean it is never to be done.

Yes the aboriginals are seen as the original owners of the land now. That is britains only mistake. If they had recognised the aboriginals ownership of the land back then and then took it off them, we would not have this problem at all. That is the only thing they did wrong.

They were only acting within the confines of the law at that time. They simply could not legally recognise that a nomadic, hunter-gatherer people had any claim to the land. We ourselves only recognised that they did about 15years ago. Our society is still coming to terms with the decision