Originally posted by aussiespeeder
what a great display of ignorance

I'm afraid you're the one who is display ignorance, my friend, if you believe someone deserves special treatment purely because of an accident of birth.

Why should anyone have an advantage or disadvantage nowadays, just because they happen to share a few superficial racial characteristics with some people who were wronged in the past, generations ago ?

Don't you believe in racial equality ?

Originally posted by aussiespeeder
this country was built on the backs of blacks and their resources, not ours.

Here we go again. Racially biased attitudes. People are people. An Aborigine born today in Australia, has no more or less right to anything in that country, than a non-Aborigine.

The modern-day Aborigine didn't personally suffer any atrocities, nor did the modern-day non-Aborigine inflict any.

We need to be moving away from these out-dated attitudes, and leave ancient history, that no-one alive today is responsible for, in the distant past, where it belongs.

Originally posted by aussiespeeder
please look at the pacific island protection act, the country was colonised illegally under their own (british) laws
their land, stolen, their resources, stolen, their graveyards and other sacred sites DESTROYED or desecrated.

No one is doubting the shabby actions of the British colonialists, hundreds of years ago.

It is very unfortunate how the modern day country of Australia was initially formed, but you'd be hard pressed to find any country in the world that hasn't had some terrible events in their past.

This is 2010. We have to leave these attitudes behind, because endlessly bringing up the past, perpetuates racial problems and is counter-productive.

Once again, it wasn't ''their'' land. They are immigrants too ( as we all are ); and nobody has a ''right'' to any land, based on an accident of birth.

In my long association with Australia it has become plain as the nose on my face the victim poor me attitudes of the abbo's.
You have Australia day, they have a day of victimhood and mourning.. They need to grow up.. Grow a pair, get jobs and stop seeking entitlements for things that happened many years ago.. They want something for nothing which has been fed by your governments...

Most Aussies are hard working people, why should you keep these people in houses that they burn for firewood?

If they want to keep playing the victim then let them, but they will soon stop when Aussies stop putting their hands in their pockets to let them keep on doing that... After all, why should they do anything if they can keep living off your shame of stuff you did not do? Good work if you can get it huh? I think i will move to Oz, say that i feel abbo and claim my free stuff...

Yeah this will be great, my turn to sit back with my hand out and demand recompense. When I get my free house I will burn it down and demand another one, my kids will get paid to go to school and get free feeds all over the place. I wont have to pay a cent for medical and every 2nd year I will demand a new Landcruiser..make 1 payment and let the Government pick up the tab.

Wow I like this idea the more I think about it, imagine not ever having to work again...getting paid more than most middle income workers get for just "sit down money" and if anyone complains that I am getting a free ride I will scream "Racist" at the top of my lungs for all to hear.

What I wont do though is feel sorry for myself but because when I get this deal I will truly become free.

Originally posted by aussiespeeder the law society uses english words but changes the meanings to your detriment. for instance, in court saying you "understand" the charges brought against you is not as the english word would have you believe to "comprehend " the charges, under the blacks law dictionary meaning it means to admit guilt to the charges. so, you say yes i understand the charges, no i am not guilty and whammo you have just committed perjury, everything else you say can be discounted as the utterance of a liar. they can then do what they want with you.

The only way that definition of "understand" could be used would be: "Is it your understanding that these charges are factual?" or "It is understood that the charges against you are true. Do you disagree?" There is no legal dictionary that defines "understand" exclusively as a synonym for "accept".

In other words: that's a load of crap.

In my state there is an Aborigine they called Yagan who was revered in native folklore as a king savior who stood up to colonial invasion and was rewarded by being beheaded and as a token his skull sent to Europe for to see.

Now I was taught this guy stood as an icon for freedom and defiance against Empire and that nobility would of surely been begotten to him except for his skin colour. How ever History is unkind and eventually the revisionist's will catch up with you, alas poor Yagan was the son of a mass murderer Midgegooroo and his deeds through the chinese whispers of time show he was nothing more or less than his kindred.

In Perth this year Yagans skull was reburied in a religous ceremony and was venerated as a hero.

Ignoramous

As it currently stands, Native Title means nothing to non-indig. Australia. This is due to the fact that there is never any benefit in the Native Title process for anyone other than the government - it is equally disenfranchising to Us as it is to you and a monumental con - as you would expect from people with scruples as low as those of the Crown and its lap dogs..

The Githabul people proven their blood line connection to the ground....beyond any mere form of previous possession....and the state of NSW agreed to certain terms in respect of that claim when it could not - for obvious reasons that even an idiot would recognize - disprove Our Sovereignty over OUR lands..

However, NSW has still failed to comply with one iota of its' obligations under the agreement struck in the federal court - again - such is the integrity of the Crown and its' abandoned franchise corporate administrative Executive Parliaments (Corporations).

It is for that reason - namely the belligerent indifference of the Parliaments and the courts of Australia to THEIR obligations and THEIR failure to perform with ANY integrity, that the Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) which was reached through negotiation is now abandoned as being still born.

NSW agreed to hand over certain forests - it was to have been handed over within 12 months....now some 4 years later, and after all the timber, which was part and parcel of the agreement, has been stolen and sold off by the state leaving this Tribe with no means of becoming self sufficient from an income from Our own lands.

Why is it that people have such a sad attitude to the Tribes being compensated for what was stolen from Us ?

This Tribe has been here for many thousands of years....and We have been very patient in waiting for our visitors to be more forthcoming in respect of recompense for the occupation, against Our will, of our lands.

Whilst We understand you should not be penalized for the sins of YOUR fathers - but why is it that you think We should continue to penalized for the sins of your fathers against Ours ?

If you owned land would you allow another family to come and dwell upon, dig up, desecrate, pollute and deface your property - or would you also demand some form of restitution like as we do ?

I am sure I know the answer.

You might well be interested to note that the author of the policy and procedure manuals for the operation of the International Courts of Justice is actually assisting in preparing Our case....Not to mention that a member of the 'Royal family' is providing documents to Us - copies of which documents have been destroyed by the Parliaments here as they knew long ago of there value to the Tribes.

Why do people think they have to be cautious or sorry for exposing the criminal nature of the crown and its' minions fraudulent, genocidal and megalomaniac ways ?

say it clearly....British subjects ARE bound by British statutes...Tribal people are NOT....and where the Tribal law clashes with the UK statutes, the old legal maxim states - FIRST IN TIME IS BEST IN LAW'......but I guess the Anglo-Saxons would find THAT a bitter pill to swallow eh ?

Originally posted by Pinke
Stuff like this comes up in Australia now and then. Then it vanishes.

If something like this went through (and it won't) it would have ridiculous global implications. The population of native Australians was fairly small I believe before Australia was settled though. I can't imagine how they can claim they were using the whole island.

Well, no. I'm sure you're aware that much as in the case of the Americas, post-contact diseases burned through the population of native Australia rather apocalyptically. Tuberculosis and measles were the primary culprit in Australia, with influenza, smallpox, and syphilis making noteworthy appearances as well. Now the thing about epidemics is, they don't happen without a fairly dense population, and they don't spread unless that dense population has contact with other dense populations.

In the Americas, nine out of ten people infected, died from these diseases. They had a 90% mortality rate. This rate of death from post-contact disease could be found in the khoisan people of South Africa as well as Polynesia and New Zealand, as well as the indigenous peoples of Siberia. I can't imagine that the Aborigines had any better results. This is before any attempts to kill off the people from invading forces.

In the case of Australia, the northern and eastern coasts had a pretty thick population of people, as did the southwest. The interior, being a nightmarish desert hellhole, was pretty sparsely populated; you know, sort of like the Namib or Mojave or Atacama deserts. These populations crashed after European contact (Chinese contact in the north doesn't seem to have spread diseases; possibly travel was so inefficient that infected sailors either died or lost the bug en route) and then the Europeans, finding only scattered survivors on the prime land of the continent, made the argument you're making;

"Oh, they're not REALLY using the land, and there's not many of them; let's kick their asses and take their stuff!"

Point of the matter is, it doesn't matter how many Aborigines there were at the time of conquest, or what htey were using their territory for; it was theirs to do with as they pleased! Surely one rich man with ten houses on rambling estates isn't using them all, so does that give you any right to take them and shoot him if he comes to tell you off?

LOL. Where did this thread come from ? I barely even remember this.

Now you're pulling up some of my ATS juvenilia.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I would suggest you actually put some study into the matter.

We're not talking about "ancient history." Ancient history is the Punic Wars, or the invasion of Teotehuacan by the Mexica peoples. Stuff so deep in the past that it really has no impact on our modern lives.

I have already studied the matter and have formed my opinions consequently.

I'm pretty sure that I didn't mean ancient history as in antiquity. No, ''ancient history'' is just a dismissive general term that means something along the lines of: ''it happened in the past, stop whining about something that can't be changed, and get on with the present and future''.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Slavery is not ancient history. Jim crow is not ancient history. Apartheid is not ancient history. Colonialism is not ancient history. Land theft and genocide are not ancient histroy.

All of those are ancient history unless you or a close family member actually experienced it.

People who dwell on the fact that their great-great-great-great-grandfather was a slave, are selling themselves short. Navel-gazing about this is bound to be detrimental, and is more than likely going to lead to feelings of inferiority, anger, resentment and bitterness. Hardly very productive, is it ?

None of us choose the circumstances that we are born into, and nothing can change the past. Rather than vicariously living through the suffering of long-lost ancestors or someone who shares superficial traits with ourselves, it's better to get on with something that can be changed and that we have control over; our own lives and our present-day society.

There's one thing in common that all of the examples that you listed above have got: they have all been changed for the better in Western society: slavery no longer exists; Civil Rights and racial equality laws have superseded Jim Crow laws; apartheid is dead; European colonialism is irreversible, but measures have been taken to eradicate the more obnoxious laws and attitudes that may still linger in these colonies; ''land theft'' is not really a realistic concept, considering that, firstly, no race or ethnicity has the right to ''own'' any land on Earth ( what an arrogant notion that is ! ), and, secondly, the amount of tribes and peoples who have been the displacers and the displaced over the last 50,000 years or so, would make the childish, ''finders keepers'' idea of land ownership impossible to fairly or accurately implement; historical genocides can not be righted, so those should be kept at the forefront of our memory, but not lingered on too much in the present.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
They may be, for you, uncomfortable history, but it's still very relevant to the modern lives of people - people including yourself.

Why would it be ''uncomfortable'' for me ?

You're not making too much sense with this point.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I have no doubts that, whatebver you or your own family's history, you are the beneficiary of a genocide comitted in the Americas, and very probably have gained some material advantage from the says of slavery and the continued oppression of Africans in American society.

Of course I will have received some advantage from bygone slavery; you have also received these advantages.

But there's nothing much that you or I can do to change historical injustices that occurred long before we were even born.

Now, we could dwell on these injustices and the wrongs of the past, and feel sorry for ourselves, or we could use that misspent time and energy to better the current situation in the world. I know which option I've chosen !

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This doesn't make you a bad person, mind, except in that you would rather ignore it than address it. But it needds to be addressed.

Of course I'm not a bad person for being unwilling to bathe in self-pity because of someone else's actions or suffering.

There's nothing to be addressed. Once again, you cannot change history. If you want to live 50, 100 or 200 years in the past and continue the irreconcilable vicious-circle that dwelling on these matters perpetuates - then feel free to.

I, on the other hand, will live in the present, and attempt to deal with matters that can be positively changed now and in the future.