Albo's question

[spacesailor]

And " DOG " MONEY.

National parks & Gas company pay them also. Even putting a TOLL on one road, ( for white folk ( Hermansberg )).

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 03/08/2022 at 4:26 AM, Old Koreelah said:

I believe the locals were never consulted; as usual, white fellas were in charge.

Isn't this the point of Albo's question?

 

While I am in favour of the concept, I still am not sure I could vote for it as I would want to see a bit more info beforehand. After all, even SFM said you can't trust pollies, and god did not frame this question (little bit of sarcasm creeping in).

 

Although the Aboriginal Affairs minister did say something like all neceessary info will be revealed before the referendum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

.

(Found a bug in the software).

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

50 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Although the Aboriginal Affairs minister did say something like all neceessary info will be revealed before the referendum.

 

I'm still confused.

We have a minister for aboriginal affairs.

Doesn't he have any 'voice' in parliament?  So WTF is his job?

 

And if the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs does not have an adequate voice in parliament (until we change the constitution to allow such), doesn't it also follow that all our ministers presently fail to have adequate voice in parliament ?

 

Real question. Not just my usual sarcasm.

Edited August 4, 2022 by nomadpete

[Jerry_Atrick]

The (right honourable) Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is... Aboriginal. Imagine that! https://www.niaa.gov.au/news-centre/niaa/ministerial-appointments-indigenous-australians

 

But, I am not so sure that the next LNP government would continue this.. nor coudl I be sure that Linda Burney will be successful and Albo will, if he has to, replace her with an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. In other words, the next minister may be unsympathetic to the nuances of Aboriginal culture, and making decisions that affect Aboriginals.

 

There is the tent embassy, which is still arounf, I believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tent_Embassy

 

But they have been manipulated by the LNP while they were in opposition to cause a mini-stampede against Gillard and Abbo(t). A quick look at artivles hasn't shown the lies, but I do remember reading about them at the time.. Or maybe I am somewhat confused... The least partisan article I could find was here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16753750.

 

By the way.. did you know that Osama bin Laden was finally killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Obviously they knew what Abbott was like as they gave a suburb name after him  😉: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbottabad

 

 

[old man emu]

43 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

We have a minister for aboriginal affairs. Doesn't he have any 'voice' in parliament?

It is not fair the demand that a Minister has deep and intricate knowledge of the matters the Ministry deals with. A Minister is the gateway through which questions and replies flow to and from the House of Parliament. As a person moves up the management ladder in some activity, the need to now the nuts and bolts of the activity decreases. This diagram sort of explains this

 

So, while the Prime Minister might appoint a good manager to a Ministry, it is not expected that the Minister knows all. Like the German commandant of the POW camp, he can manage the camp and still know "f*ck-all" about what else is going on. A Minister relies on the advice of Senior Public Servants, who rely on the lowly Public Servants to dig up the pros and cons forming the advice. So, even a White Supremist could make a good Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. 

 

What this referendum should ask is: "Should we have a special body, composed of First Nations people, to be the advisor to Government for matters specifically relevant to First Nations people?"  Unfortunately, that is not the proposed question, which has more holes in it than a string vest.

 

Having a referendum which would result in an amendment to the Constitution is the Kiss of Death to the idea. The only referendum recently that has resulted in a "YES" vote was the marriage one, and that simply resulted in an amendment to a piece of legislation that had been created by Parliament in its usual way of making laws. I'm sure that if the idea of amending the Constitution was dropped from the question, and one giving the "Voice" the same status as, say, the Reserve Bank, or Federal ICAC, then the 'YES" vote would be overwhelming.

[facthunter]

It won't take much "scary information" to kill it dead where a bit of goodwill would do wonders. Do something? IF not now, WHEN?  Nev

[old man emu]

I don't think that this is the way to bring equality. It is more likely to bring division. If one ethnic group can enshrine its "voice" in the Constitution, then why not the Europeans, Asians, Indians, Polynesians? We have State and Federal Departments of Aboriginal Affairs. The problem is that they are run by paternalistic city types who couldn't pick a Maasai, from a Muruwari . What is needed is the hosing out of ignorant non-Aborigines and replacing them with the sort of Aboriginal leader who would be part of the Voice if it was created after the constitutional amendment.

 

Those people would still be painted with the politician brush, but at least they would have a clearer understanding of the real needs and goals of Aboriginal people.

[nomadpete]

14 hours ago, old man emu said:

I don't think that this is the way to bring equality. It is more likely to bring division. If one ethnic group can enshrine its "voice" in the Constitution, then why not the Europeans, Asians, Indians, Polynesians? We have State and Federal Departments of Aboriginal Affairs. The problem is that they are run by paternalistic city types who couldn't pick a Maasai, from a Muruwari . What is needed is the hosing out of ignorant non-Aborigines and replacing them with the sort of Aboriginal leader who would be part of the Voice if it was created after the constitutional amendment.

 

Those people would still be painted with the politician brush, but at least they would have a clearer understanding of the real needs and goals of Aboriginal people.

That is exactly my concern. Also, everything that OME posted about management relying upon the expertise of underlings (my blunt interpretation) would apply to whoever holds the position of the newly forged 'voice'. Along with the potential for derailing of due process by vested interests. Until now the Minister for aboriginal affairs (by whatever name) has had inputs from many local community groups but historically failed to create the desired outcomes. What magic will be used to make this new 'voice' any more effective than the present system? Who has the power to 'hose out' the ignorant self serving indigenous individuals who have been poisoning the present system just as surely as any white fella?

And what about the obvious discrimination that a special voice for one group might create for all the other minority groups of Australians who won't have the advantage of a designated 'voice'?

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, nomadpete said:

That is exactly my concern.

It is a concern. It is a concern because over the past 20-odd years we have developed a distrust of anything to do with government from the Prime Minister to the lowest functionary who has the authority to say "No" to a request . Remember when you went for your driving test? You were in fear, not because you couldn't operate a vehicle, or didn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law as it applied to the operation of a vehicle, but because you had to please an unknown functionary for whom one slight error resulted in failure. And wasn't it commonly said that boys didn't pass at the first attempt, but girls did? That was a whim of these functionaries. That's why Ambos, who are government functionaries, are held in such high esteem. They don't say, "No" to a request, or use their position to frustrate.

[willedoo]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Remember when you went for your driving test? You were in fear, not because you couldn't operate a vehicle, or didn't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law as it applied to the operation of a vehicle, but because you had to please an unknown functionary for whom one slight error resulted in failure.

When I had my first driving test, it was a bit more casual than that. The day I turned 17, I drove the AA160 International truck down to the police station. The local policeman got in the passenger seat and off we went. The only challenging task he set was to do a handbrake start on a slope. I asked him then if he wanted me to bring in the Commer semi trailer for that part of the test. He asked me if I knew how to drive it and I said yes, so he said not to worry about bringing it in for a test.

 

He did say that he wanted to see me ride my motorbike, so I drove the truck home and came back on the AJS 500 bike. As I rounded the bend, he was standing there with the license in his hand . I pulled up and he handed it to me and walked away. I got a car, body truck, semi trailer, motorbike and tractor license all in one hit. The category system has changed now. Tractors and the like are covered by a body truck license. If you have a semi trailer license, it covers car, body truck, tractors and machinery but not motorcycle, which is still a stand alone category. Apologies for thread drift.

[facthunter]

I asked  the copper if he wanted to ride on the pillion and he said 'you wouldn't get me on one of those death traps.". Caravans must be in the too hard basket IF they were fully articulated they would be safer and easier to reverse, Nev

[Yenn]

We don't have respect for anyone in power and it is fairly obvious why.

The "Voice" is lauded as the way to go. but it is not clear what it is. I heard the Aboriginal lawyer who stands up for his people, forgot his name, but I do respect him. He seems to think that the Voice will be the same as saying they were here for millenia before the white man. I thought he was educated and intelligent, but I just can't see where he gets that impression.

If that is enough to make the Aboriginals and Islanders happy, jolly good, but I don't think it will. I still feel Albo is happy to push his barrow, but doesn't care which way the vote goes, just so long as he can say he gave it a go.

[Old Koreelah]

13 hours ago, nomadpete said:

…Who has the power to 'hose out' the ignorant self serving indigenous individuals who have been poisoning the present system just as surely as any white fella?

Excellent point, NP. Hopefully the answer is proper education of the voter - which is the only sure-fire protection for any democracy, regardless of ethnicity.

The main two causes of voter stupidity is dumbed-down education systems and sophistocated campaigns of misinformation by powerful players.

A media regulator with teeth would quickly rein in the toxic effects of Murdoch’s empire, but what government has the balls to challenge the puppet master?

 

Ever wondered why Canada, NZ and many other prosperous countries are vibrant liberal democracies? They kept Murdoch out.

[facthunter]

Every person who came here didn't face being killed in order for their land to be commandeered by the later arrivals. Terra nullius was a lie and Brits knew it.. THAT's the difference between aboriginals and all the others who are part of what makes Australia. today. Nev

[Marty_d]

No other group has been here for more than 2 centuries.  Aboriginal people have been here for at least 200 times that.  So the argument that why should we have a voice for them and not any other group, is a bit of a straw man.

I see this as very similar to the marriage equality situation.  It's something that would mean a lot to a group of people (one that has been treated particularly badly historically, and still has worse than average outcomes in pretty much every category out there), and it's not going to affect the rest of us in the slightest.

[nomadpete]

Marty, I do see your point. However, as mentioned elsewhere, respect is not a right. I must be earned. For us who are financially wealthier, to continue giving money to the indigenous with the intention of improving their lives, there has to be mutual respect.

 

I do not see evidence of respect

 

Nor do I see the recipients of this money using it for the betterment of anybody (whie or black). I see the majority of recipients exploiting and abusing it. Just spend a day in any indigenous community to see proof of this.

 

On one hand we have Indigenous campaigners demanding that wealthy whities stay out of Indigenous matters, but financially support them so they can continue their present destructive (dare I say sometimes corrupt) culture.

 

The vast majority of Indigenous are no longer nomadic tribes. They are town dwellers, and as such must change their culture to embrace all those behaviours that we take for granted, that are necessary for healthy living in towns. That means abandoning some behaviours that have helped them survive in the millennia past but no longer serve for city dwellers.

 

For instance, nomadic desert dwellers deal with uncertain food security. As such they rarely have plenty. So occasional feasting does no harm. City people have endless white flour and sugar and alcohol at the corner store. I have watched Indigenous shoppers. THEIR CHOICES are worse for their health than the unhealthy whitie bogans. And don't you dare try to tell them not to. That is just one small cultural aspect that THEY must change. There are many others. Especially relating to domestic violence.

 

My point is that change must happen. Effective cchange always comes from within. And when archaic rules cease to be working, it is necessary to adapt to new rules to survive in new environment. The 60,000 years of previous success was only possible because those original newly arrived Indigenous people adapted to the changing environment of the day.

200 years ago another change happened. It cannot unhappen. No matter how much you revere the good old days it is time for them to adapt again in a positive way.

 

 

Now I duck for cover.

 

Edited August 6, 2022 by nomadpete

[Jerry_Atrick]

@nomadpete - I get yuour sentiment, but I want to touch on a few things...

 

8 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

However, as mentioned elsewhere, respect is not a right. I must be earned. For us who are financially wealthier, to continue giving money to the indigenous with the intention of improving their lives, there has to be mutual respect.

 

I do not se evidence of respect

I agree with this.. to a point. except, respect can't be bought - it must be earned.  Yes, we can pour money at the issue, but unless it is done in a culturally sympathetic way, why would anyone respect people who simply throw money at the problem? I bet there are relatively few people who begrudge some of their taxes going to indigenous causes, and I get that those taxpayers would like some appreciation. But,sadly, it appears the administrators of the said money and causes are not doing their job that well.. and that does not earn respect.

 

12 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Nor do I see the recipients of this money using it for the betterment of anybody. I see the majority of recipients exploiting and abusing it. Just spend a day in any indigenous community to see proof of this.

I get this.. but what I would like to know is why.. and once that is know, what is being done to address the why?

 

12 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

On one hand we have Indigenous campaigners demanding that wealthy whities stay out of Indigenous matters, but financially support them so they can continue their present destructive (dare I say sometimes corrupt) culture.

You may well be onto something, there..

 

13 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

The vast majority of Indigenous are no longer nomadic tribes. They are town dwellers, and as such must change their culture to embrace all those behaviours that we take for granted, that are necessary for healthy kiving in towns. That means abandoning some behaviours that have helped them survive in the millennia past but no longer serve for city dwellers.

I will take your word on the stats.. but how long does it take instincts to be bred out - if ever? Have they became city dwellers of their own choice or out of circumstance? I have lived in the UK for over 23 years.. but my traits are far more Aussie than British.. and yes, it is not intergenerational, but, my kids also show a decent amount if Aussie in them, despite their mother's attempts to subvert it.

 

16 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

THEIR CHOICES are worse for their health than the unhealthy whitie bogans. And don't you dare try to tell them not to. That is just one small cultural aspect that THEY must change. There are many others. Especially relating to domestic violence.

Dealign with food, first, we tend tyo put in as many calories as we think we need. In times of abundance, as a colleective, we tend to be more discerning; in times where the belt tightens, wee forgoe the discerness and go for more calorific options in deference to quality. Drug and alcohol abuse are rife in indigenous and modern Australia; are usually a bi-product of opression, marginalisation, boredom, suppression and the like. Of which, I think it is fair to say, indigenous populations probably suffer disproptiontately. Domestic violence? Probably not too dissimilar to the above, and no doubt, there may be a cultural acceptance.. that I do not know.

 

27 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

My point is that change must happen

🤞

 

[nomadpete]

20 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

How long does it take instincts to be bred out - if ever? Have they became city dwellers of their own choice or out of circumstance?

Are we really dealing with instincts here? I doubt it. That is why there is so much talk about culture, by both sides.

As for choice vs circumstance, you make a good point. I think a bit of both. The 200years of influx of migrants has disrupted many songlines, so long distance hunter gatherer activity has become more difficult. But it graziers have provided better kangaroo hunting close to hand, plus pigs and goats and camels and rabbits. So it's hard to say. Suffice to say that it is far easier to go into a shop than to live off the land. The lean, fit aboriginal seen in old b&w photos is hard to find nowadays. I think they might no longer exist.

I suspect the emerging recent Indigenous culture has a preference for staying close to the food source (town shops)..... But then again, that was the always a tribal way. Some groups do still go walkabout. But not often as in the distant past. Most current tribal hunting is done from Toyotas, with guns.

But more often by (not very traditional) Toyotas to the supermarket.

Edited August 6, 2022 by nomadpete

[Yenn]

Over the years many tribal cultures have been overrun in similar ways to the Aussie Aboriginees. The Red Indians in Canada and USA, Many tribes in Africa and also Asia, even the original British tribes. They all seem to have survived better than a small number of the Aussie tribes. Maybe it is because it has all happened more recently, but the situation does not seem to be improving. In parts of Australia there is blatant disregard for the rights of others or compliance with the laws of the land. Probably caused by the kid gloves treatment of offenders if the have any colour about them.

It was thought back in the sixties that the aboriginees could assimilate and have the same voice as the rest of us and it was government policy for that to happen. The voice is to include Torres Straits Islanders, but they seem to be very different from the Aborigines. I worked with them in N Qld in the sixties and they were no different from us, except that they had a better sun tan

If and when they do get a voice it will be interesting to see if anything changes.

[onetrack]

The indigenes have done themselves no service by their constant self-serving childish approach to every cultural problem. Typical is the "cultural fishing rights" angle, whereby, anytime Aborigines are charged with serious infringements of fishing laws, they immediately claim their "cultural fishing rights" are being downtrodden and they're being discriminated against.

 

The fishing laws are there to protect the environment. The Aborigines claim they're the best at preserving the native Australian environment. I call BS on that, they are the worst abusers of the environment I have ever encountered, dropping vast amounts of rubbish everywhere, abandoning wrecked cars everywhere, just trashing the countryside - all the while claiming it's "white mans rubbish", because they didn't produce it in the first place.

 

The cultural fishing argument is just another round of childish BS that has nothing to do with preserving their way of life, but is just an attempt to avoid laws intended to apply to everyone, and intended to preserve the fishing environment for future generations. 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-04/aboriginal-man-hit-with-fishing-offences-says-practicing-culture/101302374

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by onetrack

[pmccarthy]

We have no idea of what culture existed in Australia 2000 or 3000 years ago, any more than we know anything about the culture of the people who built Stonehenge. We can see something of the tools they used but that is all. The archaeological record does not tell us what the culture was. So to claim that Australia has the worlds oldest continuous culture is complete BS. We just don’t know and will probably never know.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Pmc, we have a really good idea of true aboriginal culture. The last family group to come into Alice Springs from traditional living happened when I was there as a kid. Yes, they knew about whitefellers, but they chose to evade them.

Aboriginal culture was awful. Everything was taboo to young people, and the senior men got all the young lubras, as well as foods.  So the old men had it all, until they could no longer keep up with the tribe, when they were left to die.

Before dying ( quite young), they lived on the proceeds of the women's gathering, except that about one day in ten, the hunting party would have a kill and then they would have a feast, throwing the uneaten bits out to the women, dogs and children in the outer circle.

 

They had zero understanding of ownership of land, anymore than we have a concept of ownership of air. To call them "traditional owners" is a bit of nonsense, which is self-contradictory.

There are some good things in their culture, but as Nomad says, care for the environment is not one of them. Just imagine what would happen to whites who poisoned a desert waterhole? Yet that was standard practice in tribal times.

I am going to vote NO to the "voice"  referendum unless somebody can give me an instance of where it would do some good. Concrete good, not something about "self esteem " please.

[nomadpete]

To my way of thinking, this proposed "voice" is a divisive  move that will cause more trouble. As it stands, all australians have a voice, through the present structure. To give a particular group a special dedicated voice to influence government is a bit like allowing any other lobby group to have a special "voice".

For instance, magine the outcry if we changed the constitution to allow the mining industry or a church group to have their own special official "voice" to represent their interests.

 

I am in favor of equality and the proposed voice is not about equality.

[facthunter]

Mining and the Churches already had too much of the ear of the Last government and still so to a lesser extent now. The ACL is the Australian Christian Lobby but doesn't represent ALL Christians in any obvious structural way. The IPA is a Neocon think tank funded significantly by  Gina Reinhart. "Instutute" Of PUBLIC AFFAIRS sounds pretty innocuous but it has a lot of sway with the Liberal party.. Determines many of their policy aims. As does the MSM RUPEE. Costello and Stokes.  Nev