The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
With all due respect Indo,
I get the feeling that your perspective of
'those that are stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence etc will still be unless they themselves make change'...is exactly the reason why these changes to the constitution and to the political landscape need to be made.
You're completely supported in your views by a vast majority of the Australian population.
And look how that's turned out for those you mentioned above.
So as i said above, respectfully, i don't think your, or a vast majority of Australians who think just like you, are those the most qualified or properly informed enough to make those decisions.
I won't go into the details on that, particularly on generational trauma and it's lasting effects, because as you pointed out above, we'll never agree.
Indo "The big difference is more who gets to control things and $$$$, you can guarantee one thing for sure the ones behind the voice will ensure they keep the $$$ coming in to them or flow it onto those they are aligned with, the industry is worth literally billions."
Funny, don't recall any commentary from Indo about the billions shoveled out by the LNP to the likes of Gerry Harvey, Solomon Lew, The Murdochs, Hillsong Church and so on during the pandemic, or under Sports Rorts and the other rorts, or Barnaby's drought envoy $$$, or Angus Taylor's Cayman Island water fund or the taxpayer $$$ spent propping up property developers with negative gearing, or retiree boomers receiving franking credits.
Seems he only worries about indigenous $$$.
He's not racist though, he just cares too much!
Exactly, Indo wasn't worried about the revolving door of fossil fuel and finance "lobbyists" who were working not as advisers but actually as part of government. I mean, the Minerals Council of Australia's ex-Deputy CEO was Scott Morrison's Chief of Staff.
And Indo's talking about The Voice possibly being responsible for a "segregation of representation and voices"??
Eugenics Dreaming at his finest.
Sad watching another AFL player copping racial abuse from the fans last week.
It's almost a weekly occurence in one code of football or the other.
Even sadder watching as that same player, Jamarra Ugle Hagan broke into tears in the post game interview...after playing a cracking game ...just expressing how he's just an indigenous boy that wants to play footy. The weight of racism must be severe to carry in the public spotlight. Can't imagine.
I'd say the system is broken for indigenous Australians...this is just an example of the very end of the line from all of the causes.
Change is needed and whether the changes proposed are the right ones or not, i think it's time for all of us non indigenous, to let go of control and pass some power back to the original inhabitants of their own place in this land.
Either operate from fear or love. Fearing the outcome isn't healthy for anyone.
Hats off to the other indigenous fella, Arty!!....from around these parts, just up the road, that played a cracking first game tonight also.
To think a player has to make this point 30 years later almost to the day.
Disgraceful.
adam12 wrote:To "govern" in Australia you have to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Voice will provide advice and make submissions that the Government of the day can accept, modify or reject.
Many groups provide advice and make submissions to the Government.
But, yeah, "co-governance", "segregation". Pfttt
You better tell Marcia Langton the voice is only advisory, she doesn’t seem to think it should be:
Waveman, the wording in the interviewers question "until the Voice had been heard" is key, "heard', so a decision that comes within the scope of the Voice, i.e. one that specifically involves indigenous Australians, taken without "hearing" the Voice could be challenged, because the Constitution will say those decisions or laws can't be made without "hearing" the Voice. It doesn't say that the Voice prevails, just that it must be heard. The power to make laws is still contained in s51 & 52 of the Constitution, which can only be exercised by the Australian Government and to be the government you have to win a majority of House of Reps seats in an election. The Voice will not co-govern, it will have the power to be heard in specific areas, and as I said, it can be accepted, modified or rejected by the government. If it is not "heard" in those specific areas then a decision or law can be challenged in the High Court because the Constitution says it should be. Capiche?
Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.
“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.
On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.
“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.
The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.
It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.
The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”
blackers wrote:Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.
“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.
On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.
“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.
The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.
It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.
The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”
Good work @blackers, also checked into the background of Fair Australia. They also claim to be a “grassroots” organisation just like those other well known Australian grassroots organisations like the IPA, the Minerals Council and Murdoch Media who routinely bankroll such campaigns, grifters and supporters
Have a go at the redneck guest speakers , can only imagine the type of crowd they would attract .
Fantastic Vote No to the Voice Event in Tamworth. Guest speakers Alan Jones, Barnaby Joyce MP, Senator Pauline Hanson and Gary Johns. pic.twitter.com/xzWJ1TUAQv
— Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO (@nyunggai) April 1, 2023
AndyM wrote:Eugenics Dreaming at his finest.
This is such a weird insult and kind of a low life one too, can you tell me what its based on and what you are suggesting?
Im happily married to an Indonesian lady with brown skin and very proud to have kids of mixed race with quite brown skin. (especially my boy, lucky kid)
So if im a supporter of eugenics in anyway then it's one in making the world browner which is kind of weird thing to insult someone about especially considering the conversation.
From a physical point of view i do think brown skinned people do have advantages, i get burnt easy with my fairish skin, but my kids or wife can stay in the sun for hours with no suncream and rarely get burnt, plus i just think most white people in general are unattractive while people with brown or black skin in generally are more attractive but i guess thats down to personal opinion.
Indo if you can't work out by now why so many of your comments have rubbed people up the wrong way, there's no hope.
blackers wrote:Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.
“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.
On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.
“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.
The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.
It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.
The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”
So they're right wing nationalists.
AndyM wrote:Indo if you can't work out by now why so many of your comments have rubbed people up the wrong way, there's no hope.
I know why, because it challenges their beliefs, people dont like that especially when they have no proper counter argument's
It's also the reason why people like you throw around lame insults trying to discredit people instead of having proper debate, it's sadly seen not just here but in wider society and media.
A great example was the whole "Let women speak" womens right rally thing the other week, instead of a mature debate in media and wider society on why women's safes spaces are important, everything was just thrown under a label of transphobia.
blackers wrote:Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.
“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.
On its 'about' page, Advance says its three key beliefs are ‘freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity’ - and it wants Australia to double its defence spending.
“While the elites forget about the threats of Islamic terrorism and the spectre of the aggressive Chinese Communist Party, ADVANCE fights for a defence force that’s fit for purpose,” the page reads, next to ‘security’.
The group also claims that “mainstream Australia is under siege by stupid laws and woke ideologies like ‘net zero’”.
It states that “Australia is a free country”, fights to protect Australia Day and rejects “putting down Australia’s western cultural heritage as 'racist' or 'discriminatory'”.
The authorisation says the group is based in the ACT and has over 75,000 likes on Facebook.”
I dont recall this group, but many of these aspect's sound very positive and real issues of concern.
Only aspects i really wouldn't agree with here is "The net Zero" thing, i think the long term goal should be net zero, although i don't believe its realistic or possible.
And the "doubling of defence spending" I have no idea whats so ever what our defence spending budget should be, i say leave that up to the experts to decide.
Indo, supporter of white nationalism.
Why am I not surprised.
Come on, Andy. You're better than that.
Morning IB.
I’m reasonably serious, that group appear to have the underpinnings of white nationalists and Indo supports them.
As an aside, Indo’s been nailing his colours to the mast here for many years.
AndyM wrote:Indo, supporter of white nationalism.
Why am I not surprised.
Here we go again trying to paint me as some white nationalist when everything I believe in and practice in life completely goes against those ideals, why on earth if i was a white nationalist would i be married to a person of colour with mixed race kids???
You just talk complete nonsense, just endless insults about me or other groups
I havent even clicked the link so havent looked into this group, but where did the "White Nationalism" aspect come from?
I didn't see anything to suggest anything to do exclusively with so called white people?
Id be assuming that like the rest of Australia, the group and follower's are of all kinds of ethnic backgrounds and just proud Aussies, in my experience some of the proudest most patriotic Aussies ive met havent even been white, many people of various ethnic backgrounds are very patriotic because they know how great Australia is compared to countries they have come from.
While many white people like you dont appreciate how lucky we are to live in Australia, and have things like freedom,' 'security’ and ‘prosperity its just endless nonsense of how hard done by you are, because you have to live in a country with free markets and democracy and freedom of speech, just completely detached from how lucky you actually are and how other people live elsewhere in the world, you even crave the very things people flee from like Communism and Socialism.
Maybe its down to interpretation but even something like "western cultural heritage" can be interpreted in various ways, yeah while there is important aspects that have clear roots in aspects of Britain, i think Western culture is also about multiculturalism, arguably one of the most important aspects of Australia's history was the wave of immigrants during the 50s to 70s especially groups like Greeks & Italians, Chinese have always played a part or at least since the Gold rush times, then latter Vietnamese.
These days we have groups like Indians that make up 1.4% of the population, personally i think groups like Chinese or Indians are one of the most important groups in Australia they are groups that have very good culturally aspects in the sense of being high achievers from an education and income perspective and have a very strong culture of family values, low rate of divorce, low faithlessness rates and very lowly represented in prison systems.
BTW. Dont confuse Chinese people with the "Chinese Communist Party" two very different things, most Chinese Aussies would never want to live under the Chinese Communist Party.
BTW. That above should read "Low fatherless rates" not "Low faithlessness rates" damn auto spell thing.
Hey, you’re the one who said that group’s ideas sounded “very positive”.
What else am I supposed to infer from that?
At one stage I worked closely with Phil Garside the author of The Secrets to getting a job, recommended for those struggling with the process.
Anyway, Phil managed a CES office before Howard privatised the function. Phil had many 100s of firsthand hand accounts of people struggling to get a job. He’s basic premise is what he describes in his book as the “like ability factor” in other words people with better skills and/or experience are frequently overlooked in the job market for someone seen to fit in better with the boss or organisation. (He accurately said that this is why the entire front bench of the liberal party at the time were grey haired white men) … little has changed:)). Having established that the “like ability” was a constant in the job market he coached people to be more strategic in the application and interview process about how they present themselves, not to lie or be dishonest but to foresee tricky questions on interests, cultural background, beliefs etc etc and to be prepared for them so as to not make the interviewers nervous.
My respectful point, I hardly think @mrs info would, could or should refer to herself in the terms described above in her daily life outside the house nor the kids life can be a real bitch for those seen as different,so I’m a little confused as to why she is online here; presumably without her knowledge. @info is either brave or stupid risking an arse-whipping from hell.
blackers wrote:Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.
“The group's website says it was founded in 2018 to fight “woke politicians and elitist activist groups” that were “taking Aussies for a ride with their radical agenda”.
”
I went and checked these groups out.
Your argument that, just because this fair Australia page only has 7,500 likes while Get Up has 500K is pretty silly.
Firstly as you admit it seems to just be an off shot of Advance Australia, that has over 100K followers.
Not to mention Get Up was founded in 2005, Advance Australia in 2018, and this Fair Australia page only appears to have been created this year, any brand or group that got in on Facebook early have a huge first user advantage not only because they have 10 years plus of Facebook exposure but anyone that knows facebook, knows it's now very hard to get Facebook likes for a page unless you pay good money, and pages now get very poor exposure, this wasn't the case in the past, you use to be able to get very good exposure through pages without paying a cent.
Take someone like Pauline Hanson she has over 450K followers, cause she would have also got in early. for perspective Albo is the PM and he only has 350K followers.
So does that make her views more representative of Australian's than Albos? (not my argument)
Not to mention social media is more a young persons thing especially in the early years and the area of the brain that is rational doesn't mature until 25, hence why young people are more likely to be left leaning when young. (including me)
Hence why the old saying, 'If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No Brain' is so true.
AndyM wrote:Hey, you’re the one who said that group’s ideas sounded “very positive”.
What else am I supposed to infer from that?
Its truely bizarre how you link the beliefs in blackers post from Fair Australia to "White nationalism "
You must truely go down some weird far left conspiracy worm holes.
Like i said i checked out the page and just from the last few days, the voice and views of three different Indigenous people have been shared.
Heres your White nationalist.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:Indo if you can't work out by now why so many of your comments have rubbed people up the wrong way, there's no hope.
I know why, because it challenges their beliefs, people dont like that especially when they have no proper counter argument's
It's also the reason why people like you throw around lame insults trying to discredit people instead of having proper debate, it's sadly seen not just here but in wider society and media.
A great example was the whole "Let women speak" womens right rally thing the other week, instead of a mature debate in media and wider society on why women's safes spaces are important, everything was just thrown under a label of transphobia.
Statistically in Australia the most dangerous place for any woman is her own home. It was you talking about public toilets and what not. So was it a woman’s safe spaces rally where domestic violence was high on the agenda? Is Posie Parker a speaker on domestic violence?
Indo, the group behind Fair Australia are called Advance Front and Centre.
On their site they spruik themselves as pro-military, pro-ANZAC, pro-Australia day etc.
Even the name has obvious military connotations.
So they have definite militaristic and nationalist tendencies.
Then they do some racial dog whistling around Muslims and Chinese.
Indo if you support this kind of ideology you're going to get tarred with a certain kind of brush.
Surely this must be obvious?
Johnny Farnham! A visionary for the voice??!! Who would've thought!
Onya Johnny.
Would love to hear a remix of this with the bagpipes and a didge. ;-)
If I ran this site you’d be banned immediately Southern Paul for your latest transgression
adam12 wrote:Waveman, the wording in the interviewers question "until the Voice had been heard" is key, "heard', so a decision that comes within the scope of the Voice, i.e. one that specifically involves indigenous Australians, taken without "hearing" the Voice could be challenged, because the Constitution will say those decisions or laws can't be made without "hearing" the Voice. It doesn't say that the Voice prevails, just that it must be heard. The power to make laws is still contained in s51 & 52 of the Constitution, which can only be exercised by the Australian Government and to be the government you have to win a majority of House of Reps seats in an election. The Voice will not co-govern, it will have the power to be heard in specific areas, and as I said, it can be accepted, modified or rejected by the government. If it is not "heard" in those specific areas then a decision or law can be challenged in the High Court because the Constitution says it should be. Capiche?
You missed the point. Interview concludes “Why would we restrict the voice to making representations that can’t be challenged in court?”
seeds wrote:If I ran this site you’d be banned immediately Southern Paul for your latest transgression
Glad i found your kryptonite Seeds.
I'm doubling down from this point on.
Fun fact. My mum saw little Johnnys first ever show at the Dandenong Town hall some time back in the...
Connected!
So you're saying that your mum was, umm, overly familiar with John Farnham and he's your dad?
Cool!
You’re Johnny’s love child?
Ps beat me to it AndyM
Hahahahaha!
blackers wrote:Had a look at the crew behind Waveman’s source above. FairAustralia, part of Advance. Their talking points sound eerily familiar. And with 75 000 Facebook likes, truly representative. Unlike those woke folks at getup with only 500 000+.
Its okay Indo you don't get it. You don't read properly and you selectively quote. We disagree on many things. Time to move on.
Andy M using words i never used...like 'overly'
Seeds jumping in with joy.
What a pair of fuckwits.
To actually go there.
There's online trolls, and then there's you two.
Ovary familiar then?
Disgusting. I'd never write that shit about someone online. What a couple of deadset fuckwits.
Crack another one Paul, she'll be right!
Completely disrespectul fellas.
Though it does explain your fantastic blond hair and divine singing voice!
Just remember, you can't bully me - I'm not gonna sit in silence, I'm not gonna live with fear :)
Thankyou Andy.
FINALLY, we're on the same page :-P
Just remember, Ooh, we're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
How long can we look at each other
Down the barrel of a gun?
The best thing about you Andy M and Seeds is you'll go out of your way to try to find a way to belittle me. Even bringing my mum into it in a completely derogatorive way.
You two jump on everything i say. You both have for a long time. Obviously you feel threatened by me.
A couple of online bullie boys. Wow. Who wouldn't be impressed!
Feel free to put your real names to your posts because you know who i am. I've made it clear for a long time.
Good for you for guarding your little safe space, though...swellnet. HA!
I do hope SN could see who the real antagonists on this site are.
I have no doubt in a toe to toe we'd know pretty quickly what's what here.
Pretty hard with anonymity. I've always given you the option.
Keep taking sniper shots....or...put your name to your posts and man up ya know.
Aloha.
Oh dear, not again.
Oh that was gold. Paul, you surely know I was simply joking about you posting a Johnny Farnham song. That’s it!
You certainly do spin a tale out of the most innocuous of comments. Big ups to AndyM the troll fuckwit!!
I had to double check the date today Andy M.
Thought it was April fools day.!!
While Indo and i have both expressed openly we don't agree with each other on this topic, and fark, he does my head in like i'm sure i do his on many of the topics discussed, it was hilarious watching him completely own you today.
With your flakey replies. hahaha.
Keep playing the man and driving the conversation way off track Andy M and Seeds.
A couple of SN icons in that regard.
Imagine swellnet without you!!
Heaven forbid. How would the conversation ever stay on track.
Fuck you’d be a riot at parties, what with that epic sense of humour you have.
This thread is about Indigenous suffering and belittlement...being treated less than humans...and you want to talk about parties?
Why are you even on this thread?
You’ve got the memory of a goldfish it must be all the grog you drink.
I was pulling up Indo on his usual racial indiscretions.
But of course my responses to him were “flakey” right?
As if you’ve got any idea.
Catch ya.
Yes catchya. .. run Andy M!
I would be very cautious labelling someone racist in this current environment.
Indo has his views. I don't agree with them. Don't think he's a racist at all. But there's you, calling someone a racist? With your flakey reasons (see todays posts). Geez, I've seen people banned for less. Much better posters than you too mind you! You actually add nothing.
To be honest, if these forums are about you and Seeds, 'dominating' i'd rather have nothing to do with them.
Enjoy lovebirds.
Uni assignment i did a few years ago. This is my take on things. I'm sure this will ruffle many feathers. I hope so.
Love Blue Diamond x
The Necessity of Reparation for Historic Injustices
Introduction – Compensatory Justice
Disparities between the standards of living of humans on this planet have long been a part of our history on this planet. From the wealthy nations of the West to the developing and undeveloped nations on this globe, the diversity in the quality of life when viewed from a moral standpoint are without a doubt grossly unfair.
In this paper I will look at why historic injustices do require some form of reparation. I take a strong stance that we are more obliged to solve current injustices than to provide reparation for every act of injustice in the past. In doing this I will first investigate the historic injustice of the Aboriginal people of Australia and I will look at the argument that they are entitled to some form of reparation and why.
I will incoroporate some interesting views from Jeremy Waldron, Robert Nozick and others which will help me slowly build to my conclusion that reparation should be in the form of Non Indigenous Australians surrendering some of our priveleges as a form of reparation.
Historic Injustices to Indigenous Australians:
Australia the continent was well inhabited for many years long before white settlement. It is commonly known that in 1788 Australia was colonised as a country under the rule of the British Empire, with total contempt for the fact that it was already inhabited by a native indigenous race of people.
The way the original inhabitants have been treated, including forced assimilation, execution, stolen families and not even allowed to be recognised as citizens for a large part of white Australia’s history are also well known facts. (Poole, 1999,pp114-142)
There exists now a situation where there is a large divide between Aboriginal and non Aboriginal Australian’s that can be traced back to the moment Australia was invaded by English settlers and the brutal and unfair treatment that has followed.
So at this point now, in 2013 what is the just and fair way to make amends for past actions?
I would argue that a moderate to large amount of reparation is overdue for this nation of people, the Aboriginal people. But there are many challenges to this view point especially that of how much reparation, and what sort of compensation.
Past injustices or present suffering?
One of the questions raised in an issue like this is whether it is better to provide compensation or reparation for past deeds, which have already been done in a previous generation and cannot be changed, or whether it is better to now provide assistance to those who are suffering in their current situations and consider that as a form of moral duty.
To understand this we need to delve a little deeper into this issue and hear some differing viewpoints.
Firstly we need to understand what the best way to provide reparation. How do we judge what is the best way of giving back and how much? Jeremy Waldron states “The historic record has a fragility that consists, …in the sheer contingency of what happened in the past” (Waldron,1992,p5 )
This is saying that we can’t trace every single injustice back to the original act therefore reparation for every act would be almost impossible because it would ultimately be guess work.
In this statement he has an objection from Robert Nozick who believes it is in fact possible to address this problem by “changing the present so that it resembles how the past would have looked had the injustice not taken place” (McKenzie, 2013)
This would be a way to ultimately provide maximum reparation, but is it the correct approach? I believe this is a fairly radical approach, although it does have some merits in the fact it would be working in a positive way for indigenous people, I don’t think it is entirely the right way to deal with these issues but it is on the right track.
Waldron argues that it is based on too many unknowns. “The status of counterfactual reasoning about the exercising of human reasoning of human freedom is unclear”(Waldron 1993,p10)
Which leaves the question somewhat open about the sort of reparation that is required, but provides one clear answer to the key question. Both agree that yes, reparation to some extent is required. But how much and in what form?
Another philosopher who leans more towards Waldron’s views is Kymlicka. He is somewhat more straightforward in his assessment that property rights in particular for Aboriginals would create “massive unfairness” and also he maintains the argument “Aboriginal rights must be grounded in concerns about equality and contemporary disadvantage. (McKenzie, 2013) I agree with both these views but I don’t think they provide any active solutions.
The Solution?
So if its not handing back all of Australia’s land to the original inhabitants that is the most appropriate way to deal with past injustices, then what is?
I look at the current country I grew up in, as a white Australian. I ask myself why I never had Aboriginal friends growing up, no understanding of Aboriginal culture and why my basic understanding of Indigenous Australians is mostly 200 years old. I look at our flag, a symbol of a nation that stole a country from its original inhabitants, with no recognition of the Indigenous people at all on it. I see that Australia considered Indigenous people as less than people until only 40 years ago and I see the way that Indigenous Australians live a completely separate life to the way of life I know as an Australian. I see that the only indigenous politician I am aware of is a former Olympian and it is because of this fact of her sporting status that I know this. I see no collective power or representation of Indigenous Australians and I see non Indigenous Australians,( a culture built on a history of stealing a land and mistreating its people) still taking, taking as much out of this land as they can, with little to no regard of sharing or giving to the original inhabitants. I see a government that says lots of words about ‘closing the gap’ and bringing the living standards of non- indigenous and indigenous Australians closer together, but apart from nice words, there is no conviction, no follow through, just assimilation , and all that still remains are injustices.
As stated by Sparrow, “Continuity gives rise to responsibility on part of present generations of Australians for our history”.(McKenzie,2013). Although deeds happened in the past beyond our control, what we do now to either ignore, or rectify these issues will reflect on us in history. So if we choose to do nothing, we are contributing to the history of the mistreatment of non- indigenous Australians. And this is simply unacceptable in my opinion.
Conclusion
So what is fair? I believe that the way forward is a surrendering of some of our privileges as non- indigenous Australians. The simple fact is it was morally wrong without a doubt what has happened in the past. And it is also morally wrong without a doubt to ignore these facts and not offer some form of reparation in the present. But how much?
I think that going back to Robert Nozick’s argument is a start. I think Nozick is wrong to make the present resemble the past in every aspect. But I do think that it would be reasonable to restore some aspects of the way things should be. The things that happened in the past were out of our control and we can’t go back to changing the way things were. But we could change the way things are.
For some examples. Why not give at least 50% of political power to indigenous people? It surely would be a fair thing to do considering this is their country. Media control. 50 percent. Industry. Realestate. The list goes on. Why do we not acknowledge the indigenous people on our flag, or better still use their flag? Why is Australia still a part of the Commonwealth when it serves little purpose to any of us and serves as a constant reminder to Indigenous Australians that they are still controlled by the original invaders. These to me are fairly simple reparations that would have minimal impact on Australia as a whole. Perhaps, it would alter the way we live but I think it is our responsibility, morally to forfeit some of our privileges for the greater good. Basically a little bit goes a long way.
In closing, it is a fact that a huge injustice occurred to the Indigenous population and suffering continues to this day. There is no easy solution to such a burden of pain. I believe the only solutions are for the non- Indigenous population to take responsibility and sacrifice our own way of life to bring about an overall equality. Sacrifice is not an easy word. But it all comes down to right and wrong. We are in a position to give, in this current generation. What are we so scared to lose, that was never ours in the first place??
Bibliography
McKenzie,C.”Prof” (2013), Lecture, Historic Injustices and Indigenous Rights, Macquarie University
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28
References
Poole, R. (1999). Nation and Identity.Routledge, London, pp.114-142
Waldron,J. (1992). ‘Superseding Historic Injustice’. Ethics, 103 (1), 4-28