Aboriginal children in care now exceeds stolen generations (1 Viewer)

[Rockyroad]

occupiers.

owners :angry:
Hey I hav an idea- we disagree so let's let the High court decide. Oh wait a minute - they already did!

I repeat : "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."

 

[boris]

occupiers.

No no shes right, they owned it. That is britains mistake. Would there be any issue over this now if they british recognised their ownership and then annexed ( or whatever the process would have been) the land? In effect a peaceful invasion and overthrow of government (no gov but still)?

 

[impervious182]

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 in 1993

Why should we apologise for the Zeitgeist of the 18th and 19th century? Should a murderer's granddaughter also apologise to the granddaughter of persons killed, even if it occured before she was born?

 

[Iron]

Ive answered you, now shut up (youre boring)

 

[boris]

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

I realise that. That is my issue with this. If they DID legally recognise it back then, and had invaded and assumed control , ie conquered the land. Then there would be no legal precendent for the aboriginals to claim the land now?

 

[impervious182]

No no shes right, they owned it. That is britains mistake. Would there be any issue over this now if they british recognised their ownership and then annexed ( or whatever the process would have been) the land? In effect a peaceful invasion and overthrow of government (no gov but still)?

Yes but then, this draws us back to the age old question, can the past be judged by contemporary values? I don't think it can.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

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.

In short I agree with Terra Nullius and disagree with Mabo's decision. Instead of going on an on I will conclude by saying that I have no sympathy for the abos for they were defeated in a method that has been occurring for thousands of years despite it sounding harsh. Ironically they continue to complain and yet the treatment and benefits that they have received is far more than what they should have been entitled to.

 

[impervious182]

owners :angry:
Hey I hav an idea- we disagree so let's let the High court decide. Oh wait a minute - they already did!

I repeat : "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."

Politically correct do-gooders.

 

[Iron]

I realise that. That is my issue with this. If they DID legally recognise it back then, and had invaded and assumed control , ie conquered the land. Then there would be no legal precendent for the aboriginals to claim the land now?

There was just no scope to recognise them? The British were a wonderful enlightened people. They understood that it's unacceptable to massacre these people - if they were even considered people. War on benign apes!

 

[boris]

There was just no scope to recognise them? The British were a wonderful enlightened people. They understood that it's unacceptable to massacre these people - if they were even considered people. War on benign apes!

So if there was no scope to recognise them back then, how can they come up with a decision that recognised them 200yrs in the future?

 

[impervious182]

if they were even considered people. War on benign apes!

Even the least civilised society, to my knowledge, would never declare war on an ape. Ridiculous. Ridiculous!

Ive answered you, now shut up (youre boring)

You're more boring.

 

[Iron]

So if there was no scope to recognise them back then, how can they come up with a decision that recognised them 200yrs in the future?

We sort of federated and wrote us up our own constitution like. But sure, many respectable fellows say that the HC invented NT

 

[impervious182]

We sort of federated and wrote us up our own constitution like. But sure, many respectable fellows say that the HC invented NT

The apology was also to the 'stolen generation'. (Makes feeble attempt to redirect thread)

 

[boris]

We sort of federated and wrote us up our own constitution like. But sure, many respectable fellows say that the HC invented NT

So am i right,

IF (yes it wouldn't have happened but still) the british had recognised the aboriginal peoples ownership of the land, and then had taken ownership off them, they would have no claim to the land at all in todays society?

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

Back to thread:
With recent statistics showing that there are more abo kids in care than the number of kids involved in the stolen generation accumulates to two conclusions:
-kids who have 1/8 abo blood are classified as 'abo children' along with the increase of population which could result in this comparison being out of proportion.
- abos failing to care for their children along with other things in life

 

[impervious182]

Back to thread:
With recent statistics showing that there are more abo kids in care than the number of kids involved in the stolen generation accumulates to two conclusions:
-kids who have 1/8 abo blood are classified as 'abo children' along with the increase of population which could result in this comparison being out of proportion.
- abos failing to care for their children along with other things in life

+ the 'stolen generation' never occurred and these statistics expose a truth which was almost destroyed by political correctness.

+ that Iron needs to reply to my previous post.

 

[Josip Broz Tito]

+ the 'stolen generation' never occurred and these statistics expose a truth which was almost destroyed by political correctness.

John Herron

 

[impervious182]

John Herron

He's a good bloke and in fact, people's irrational behaviour when it comes to this discussion clouds all civilised discussion of the issue.

I just find it unacceptable, that the leading expert on the 'stolen generation', Professor Robert Manne, can't even name 10 of the alleged 100,000... Give me a break!

------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation#cite_note-herron-14

Some conservative journalists, such as Andrew Bolt, consider the Stolen Generations is a "preposterous and obscene" myth or "theory" and "propaganda" and that there was actually no policy in any state or territory at any time for the systematic removal of "half-caste" Aboriginal children.[48] [49] Professor of politics at La Trobe University, Robert Manne, has responded that Bolt's failure to address the wealth of documentary and anecdotal evidence demonstrating the existence of the Stolen Generations amounts to a clear case of historical denialism.[50] Bolt argues that a key issue of the debate over the existence of a "Stolen Generations" is the identification of particular persons as having been 'stolen' and further that it would require that it be substantiated that children had been 'stolen' in such numbers as to justify inferring the existence of a policy to do so, as opposed to such cases being aberrations. He and other sceptics of the existence of such a child removal policy would require that the circumstances of the removal of such children be subjected to the standard of scrutiny found in a court of law or a similar investigatory standard, and that it be shown that they were 'stolen' and not abandoned, given up or removed for legitimate reasons.

 

[katie tully]

Hi guys!
I'm back. At work. It's dull eh?

Anyway, in re: to Rockyroads rant about conquering not being very nice ... Well, no. By todays standards, one country cannot invade another country without ramifications. Stop putting todays fucking moral compass on something that was accepted and revered 200 years ago.
By your logic, anybody who has invaded anybody is a big bad meanie and should apologise.

Basically -
Italy should apologise to Britain, modern day Germany, and 70% of Europe for invading them 2000+ years ago.
Greece and Macedonia should apologise to India for invading them.
Spain should apologise to America
France should apologise
China should apologise

OMG you guys! Group hug!

No. Get the fuck over it. Conquering lesser peoples for land was a standard practice and although it may not be acceptable today, you can't sit here and say it was wrong back then, purely coz it makes you a little bit teary now.

 

[impervious182]

Hi guys!
I'm back. At work. It's dull eh?

Anyway, in re: to Rockyroads rant about conquering not being very nice ... Well, no. By todays standards, one country cannot invade another country without ramifications. Stop putting todays fucking moral compass on something that was accepted and revered 200 years ago.
By your logic, anybody who has invaded anybody is a big bad meanie and should apologise.

Basically -
Italy should apologise to Britain, modern day Germany, and 70% of Europe for invading them 2000+ years ago.
Greece and Macedonia should apologise to India for invading them.
Spain should apologise to America
France should apologise
China should apologise

OMG you guys! Group hug!

No. Get the fuck over it. Conquering lesser peoples for land was a standard practice and although it may not be acceptable today, you can't sit here and say it was wrong back then, purely coz it makes you a little bit teary now.

At last you return!

Iron was being a bully. They won't see reason (i.e. adopt my opinion. lol)