Invasion or Immigration?

[Marty_d]

12 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Pauline reckoning it's unsafe to climb Uluru does  not constitute a valid reason for a total ban.

I reckon helicopters are unsafe and nobody takes any notice.

My wife thinks it's funny that I consider helicopters unnatural.  They're all flying machines to her.

[Bruce Tuncks]

The theory is that helicopters don't fly, they are so ugly that the ground repels them. AND, having grown up in Alice Springs, where half the kids in the primary school were black, I never met or heard of a "stolen " kid.

Come to think of it, I never heard about child molestation either, although boys knew to stay away from the Rajah. He was an old Afghan cameleer and I think the suburb of Sadadeen was named after him.

 

[old man emu]

It seems that the First Nations people have changed tactics a bit. "Invasion" is no longer PC. The concept which that term used to describe is now described by the more PC-acceptable term "dispossession".

 

Looking around my town, I wonder from where these people have been dispossessed. 

[Yenn]

You are just seeing the current ridiculous idea of changing names to be politically correct.

All words nowadays are suspect in the do gooders eyes. I recently read that weeds should not be eliminated, because they were good. The idea was that certain plants are called weeds and they were not necessarily bad. They didn't know the definition of a weed. Using the correct definition there is no way that you would want a weed to be allowed to stay.

[facthunter]

If there's nothing else there weeds will keep the soil intact but some introduced weeds will trouble us greatly. Plants get immune to a spray if it's used repeatedly. Weed control is a science,  Nev

Edited September 30, 2022 by facthunter

[old man emu]

The most basic definition of "weed" is a plant that is growing where it is not wanted. The plant of itself might be quite useful, but if it is inhibiting the growth of a preferred plant, then it is a weed. A simple example is white oats growing in a wheat paddock.  

[old man emu]

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If there's nothing else there weeds will keep the soil intact

Barley grass is a weed of commercial grain for two reasons - it competes with grain plants for space and nutrients, and its seeds are contaminants in the commercial grain.   A combination of its potential for rapid germination and developed resistance to Group A and B herbicides can make barley grass difficult to control.

 

However, where it is not growing amongst grain crops - as it is along the edges of a certain country aerodrome, it is preventing taller annual plants from growing. But it should be mown down, simply so the aerodrome can be a "good neighbour" in the community. Poor weed control is the major reason commercial agriculturalists hate Pitt Street farmers.

[facthunter]

One years seeding, 7 years weeding, they say.  You can really muck things up if you don't know what you are doing in this area,    Nev

[facthunter]

Paspalum is becoming a nuisance her where I live. Frosts used to control it, Mowing it doesn't stop it seeding as it lies flat on the ground for enough to create a problem. Nev

[spacesailor]

Strawberries Are weeds .

But nice .

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

One day, the pc lot are going to find empty shelves. They will blame the farmers of course, while the reality is that their own stupidity has come back to bite them.

This will devastate the remote aboriginal communities first, as they are now totally dependent on welfare.

[nomadpete]

There may be hope for some of them - there is a group of indigenous doomsday preppers.

Do they see the irony of that?

[Bruce Tuncks]

I hope u are right nomad, but have you ever seen those signs which say "do not feed the wildlife, it makes them dependent".

Well way worse has been done to our indigenous.

I guess a tiny percentage might be able to return to the old ways , my guess would be less than 1%.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon I'm as indigenous as any too....I've been here for 77 years, so why is a 27 y/o blackfellow more "australian" than I am?

[Yenn]

Bruce. The 27 year old has the ingrained culture of accepting handouts. Can you honestly say you have that culture?

[old man emu]

I wonder how many of these militant First Nations would really like to fully take up their cultural practices. Like being accepted as an adult male by being circumcised with a sharp stone.

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Like being accepted as an adult male by being circumcised with a sharp stone.

Ouch! That's gotta hurt!

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I don't profess to know much about Aboriginals at all... but I can imagine that generations of disposession, opppression, racism, disrespect, etc is going to have an impact on their lives and outcomes. Add to that it progressing over generations, the racisim being continual and systemic, and that the impacts felt on existing generations are picked up by successive generatioons, and I can see how Aboriginals have ended up where they are. But, this is not unique to Aboriginals. Over here, in the UK, there are intergenerational welfare families that are vilified by the press and at least one side of politics. I am guessign there are whitites in Aus that fit that same bill.

 

Sadly, my beloved Hawthorn is embroiled in a racism controversy at the moment. At last read, it is still allegations, but I have a feeling it runs somewhere between what is alleged and absolute denial of those alleged. I get it is all too easy to label any misconduct as racist, but at the same time, if you have been on the receiving end for generations, it is not easy not to label misconduct as racist when it is against you.

 

So, I go get most of the Aboriginal activitsts and what they are about.. and I think the problem needs far more intellect and time than a media with the need to make annual profits and pollies with the need to be re-elected every 3 years allow. But, in the same vain, so does resolving similar peoples' issues of non-Aboriginal heritage. I can't speak for all on these forums, but while, no doubt, most of us have had our challenges, most would have had wider support if we needed it - certinly more than Aboriginals were previously afforded - and I hazard to guess some of the support in offer, made with the best intentions, is not sympathetic... The road to hell is paved with good intentions, so to speak.

 

There is no question that Aboriginals have a culture. The art, the music (what else even sounds remotely like a didgeridoo?), their dance/corrobory. thier moiety and kinship (https://www.sydney.edu.au/about-us/vision-and-values/our-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-community/kinship-module/learning-module/moiety.html_).. Who else calls themselves a mob? There is a rich history of Aboriginal culture which has sadly been diluted and polluted by the white fella.. How many languages were there? (admittedly, to me, bloody hard to speak). To say there is no culture, though, is a little on the extreme side (BTW.. I was drilled the joke, "What's the difference between Australia and a tub of yoghurt? At least yoghurt's got a culture".. But to say there isn't an Aussie culture is also a furphy).

 

Even the "controversy" of mixed race Aboriginals identifying as Aboriginal, to me, is a distraction. The reality is that Britain was disingenous in claiming terra nullius, and that has led to the continual systemic opression of a race  of people - but those people are Australian, despite not being recognised as Australian until the 1990's (or was it the 80s?). So, although we can sit here and condemn or criticise Aboriginals for their generally poor behaviour, it is a bit more nuanced than that. Eddie Betts I think has the right solution - education. Education of non-Aboriginals of Aboriginals ways; and I would add education (not in the Chinese style of the Uighurs)) of Aboriginals, as well.. But not trying to convert them.

 

Every day I hear how immigrants are bad for Australia, but who on this forum did not stem from an immigrant? Should the boats have been turned back when your ancestors arrived? And in fact, Aboriginals were probably immigrants from 80,000 years ago..

 

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

There is no question that Aboriginals have a culture.

Jerry thanks for such a well considered post, and for looking at this 'issue' with balance.

 

My main gripe is with regard to the use of alleged 'indigenous culture' as a political tool. All cultures evolve over many generations and the indigenous one has evolved (a lot more than the 'white fella's BTW). In truth, the traditional indigenous culture had to change when large numbers of migrants were arriving (probably within a couple of generations after 1788). But I contend that the way that old culture change happened in their communities was NOT forced onto them (with exception of later attempts by misguided dogooders). believe the indigenous mob have collectively abandoned their age old culture. They have chosen to live a newer mishmash neither traditional indigenous, nor euro. My position on all the blame, is that we should not use blame as a tool - it only serves to divide people.

 

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

no doubt, most of us have had our challenges, most would have had wider support if we needed it - certinly more than Aboriginals

So true, except that there has always been ways to work oneself up from sad beginnings towards a better life. The 'disadvantaged' people of either heritage (dare I say black or white), systemically fail to access the support or self help required to end poverty, homelessness, drug abuse, bad behaviour.

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

culture which has sadly been diluted and polluted by the white fella..

No, the white fella did not 'do it' to anybody. In large amount, it has been pointed out to indigenous and bogan groups that the answer comes from within -mainly by education (neither group do much about) and adaptation, and sheer psychological empowerment .

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

sit here and condemn or criticise Aboriginals for their generally poor behaviour,

I have often sat here and criticised groups of badly behaved people whatever heritage they may claim.

[Old Koreelah]

Good discussion. To be totally non-PC, we should recognise a major factor holding back many mixed race people who identify as indig: their non-aboriginal ancestors.

Too often they were the dregs of white society, so their decendants have to overcome whatever genetic or attitudinal handicaps they passed on.

 

 

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

Even the "controversy" of mixed race Aboriginals identifying as Aboriginal, to me, is a distraction.

Is it correct to call the Celtic peoples of Ireland, Scotland and Wales a race? Is it correct to call the Angle/Saxon peoples of southeast England a race? If you say, "yes", then I claim to be mixed-race, as much as a a person from where I live whose ancestors were from the Wiradjuri nation and Anglo-Celtic sources.

 

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

despite not being recognised as Australian until the 1990's (or was it the 80s?).

Here is an example of a lack of knowledge of Australian history. If you are referring to the effects of a referendum held in 1967, then you have both time and meaning confused. First nations people were recognised officially as British subjects from 26th January 1788 by proclamation of King George III read out by Captain Arthur Phillip on the shores of Sydney Cove. From the adoption of the Australian Constitution in 1901, the numbers of non-mixed race First Nation descendants were  counted in each Census, but not included in the total number of persons for the purpose of determining the number of electorates which would form the House of Representatives. 

 

Section 127,  headed "Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population",  read: In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted. The Constitution required the calculation of "the people" for several purposes in section 24 and some others. Section 24 "requires the membership of the House of Representatives to be distributed among the States in proportion to the respective numbers of their people". The number of people in section 24 is calculated using the latest statistics of the Commonwealth which are derived from the census. In 1901, the Attorney-General Alfred Deakin provided a legal opinion on the meaning of section 127 of the Constitution. His legal advice was that "half-castes" were not "aboriginal natives", so were included in the numbers for section 24.

 

The same 1967 referendum gave the Federal Government the power to override some oppressive State laws, especially those in Queensland.  Before the referendum, Section 51 said: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:  and then goes on to list most of the legislative powers of the federal parliament. In that list, was subsection xxvi (known as the "race" or "races" power): The people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.  The highlighted words were removed as a referendum result.

 

One  impact of the referendum has been the benefit of counting all Indigenous Australians flowing from the removal of counting "aboriginal natives" ("full-blood") in the official population statistics. Without official statistics as to their number, age structure or distribution, it was not possible for government agencies to establish soundly-based policies for serving Indigenous Australians, especially in the area of health.

 

However, its removal was a two-edged sword.  The Howard Government intervened in the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy in South Australia with legislation that introduced an exception to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, to allow the bridge to proceed. When challenged in the High Court, the Court decided, by a majority, that the amended s.51(xxvi) of the Constitution still did not restrict the Commonwealth parliament to making laws solely for the benefit of any particular "race" on the one hand, but still empowered the parliament to make laws that were to the detriment of any race on the other. This decision effectively meant that those people who had believed that they were casting a vote against negative discrimination towards Indigenous people in 1967 had, in fact, allowed the Commonwealth to participate in the discrimination against Indigenous people which had been practised by the States.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes.. I did get the date wrong.. I guess I am fallibe, too.. However, trhe technicality of being "granted" citizenship and the practicality if being afforded citizenship are two very different things. And in fact, even 1967 didn't even completely fix the issue... This is a telling article from the Australian Law Reform Commission: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ALRCRefJl/1999/5.html  of which the following abstract just tells a story:

 

"Social rights. Australian citizenship was a pure formality for Indigenous Australians. They had none of the rights and responsibilities of Australian citizenship as laid down in Commonwealth legislation. Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution empowered the Commonwealth parliament to make laws in respect to “the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. Until 1955, the Commonwealth administration took the view that it had no power to make laws giving social rights to Aborigines living in the States. That year the federal Attorney-General, Sir Garfield Barwick, interpreted this section as allowing general laws, such as those giving social service benefits, not to be regarded as ‘special laws’.

Despite this ruling, Indigenous Australians were still marginalised and excluded from the social rights granted to Australian citizens. The Social Service Consolidation Act 1947 (Cth) granted age or invalid pensions and maternity allowances only to those Aborigines who had applied to be exempted from State legislation governing Aborigines (that is, had renounced their Aboriginality and isolated themselves from their communities). In States that did not provide for exemption, Aborigines had to satisfy the Director-General that “by reason of the character and the standard of intelligence and social development of the native, it is desirable that a pension should be granted to him”. This assessment of worth (and of assimilation) also determined the payment of unemployment or sickness benefits. Even when granted, pensions and allowances were not paid personally to Indigenous applicants but to “an authority of a State or to some other authority or person the Director-General considers suitable for the purpose”. Child endowment was not paid to nomadic Aborigines or those dependant on the Commonwealth or State for support. Despite the Attorney-General’s 1955 ruling, the Social Services Act 1959 perpetuated these inequities. The situation was not remedied until s. 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution was amended following the 1967 referendum, when Australian citizens voted overwhelmingly to allow the Commonwealth to legislate for the benefit of Aborigines as well as other Australians."

 

Your illustration thay they were not counted for political representation purposes also speaks to it.. So, yeah, in theory citizens.. but so are the Uhguirs of China.

 

It is a bit like saying Australia is treating refugees as refugees under the Vienna convention.

 

And yes, I recall in I think both world wars, people of German descent were also treeated rather poorly. However, Aboriginals have hardly been a threat - real or perceived - to national security.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Thank you OME.

 

I was unaware of all that background about "indigenous not being allowed to be Australian".

 

Blame our anglicised education syllabus. It is more complicated than I imagined.

 

PS    I wonder how many indigenous or mixed race folk are also unaware?

 

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by nomadpete
added an afterthought

[old man emu]

17 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I wonder how many indigenous or mixed race folk are also unaware?

Given the almost non-existent level of knowledge of history in the community in general I'd say only about one in one hundred thousand has any knowledge of it at all.

[rgmwa]

Given that the Aboriginals have a long history and a complex culture and social system, calling themselves a `mob' probably wasn't the best way to enhance their image.