Little Children are Sacred
According to the following report John Howards Federal Government will now:-
1. Enact alcohol prohibition laws.
2. Ban non-violent sexual erotica that shows sex between consenting adults.
3. Tell people how they are to spend money.
4. Apply these “reforms” largely on the basis of peoples race.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/21/1182019253560.html
There is no getting past the fact that there is a real social problem motivating these “reforms”. That does not mean that they are wise or reasonable. They look somewhat like more of the same - paternalism.
Yes this is a scary thing.
I’d be broadly behind these alleged emergency measures if I knew it was for short sunsetted bursts.
Like only six months max at a time.
Because they need to protect the kids on the one hand.
But on the other hand the bad effects of this sort of gross compulsion will manifest itself more and more over time.
It’s amusing to see the Democrats actually object to intrusive government for once
But didn’t the nation vote in 1967 for the federal government to be able to make laws exclusively for Aboriginal Australians?
The 1967 referendum included two reforms.
1. Include aborigines in the census.
2. Allow federal laws that discriminated between Aboriginies and other Australians.
The first was a significant and worthy reform. The latter was stupid. The common misconception that 1967 gave aboriginines the vote lead me to recently create a Wikipedia article on this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_of_Australian_Aboriginals
If a bunch of white people was living way out in the donga where there were no jobs and few community services, reliant on welfare, drinking excessively and taking drugs, engaging in chronic domestic violence including sexually abusing children, the law would come down very hard.
They would be required to meet the work test to continue receiving welfare. Their children would be removed and placed in foster care until they had cleaned themselves up. They would be prosecuted for violence and sexual abuse. All but the most dim-witted would relocate so that, at the very least, they could meet the work test and continue to receive welfare. Those with a semblance of dignity would see that people with jobs had a better life and would be inclined to follow suit.
What is the difference here, apart from the fact that the aborigines are black?
I say end racial discrimination and treat aborigines like white people. Those who don’t want to join modern society can maintain their traditional lifestyle if they choose but without society’s modern assistance (eg welfare and alcohol). Just as they did prior to 1788.
David I agree. Although I think that abolishing the minimum wage would produce some scope for small scale economic activity in some of these areas so people could live a largely traditional lifestyle supplemented by low scale trade with the outside world. If you have to get out of bed to make a living then drinking yourself silly the night before becomes less viable.
The politicisation of policing and overly generous welfare is a soft tyranny - they have a lot of resources to waste with no repurcussions as to susbstance and child abuse.
Now it is entrenched generational welfare.
The main thing is to not artificially subsidise these communities to induce people to enter the job market. The federal government plan doesn’t do this but engages in heavy handed micromanagement and prohibition
If you left them alone, the high rates of child abuse would still go on, and that is unacceptable. We actually do need more police, for that specific problem. Perhaps Aborigines should be automatically conscripted into the police force, and assigned to non-kin communities! When their ‘term of service’ is up, they would know what steady employment was like, and what police have to go through.
Nicholas, you are right - child abuse is a very serious crime and it is a matter for the police, although there is a constant problem with prosecution due to lack of admissible evidence.
In a white community with a chronic problem they would prosecute a couple of high profile perpetrators in a “show trial” to shame them and create a new paradigm. They would also remove children from known or potential offenders while they remained at risk.
Even if the aborigines wanted to live on witchetty grubs and yams, that option is still available, with evidence still the main challenge.
I’m opposed to doing anything unilaterally and “by race”. Automatically conscripting aboriginals, for example. The concept is good, but if it’s good for the goose… then you get a situation like (Sweden’s?) compulsory national service. Which I’m actually in favour of, but that’s just me.
Personally I’m pretty opposed to this whole thing, much like anything else Howard’s done. It will be interesting to see how the opposition handles it. Rudd jumps up and says it’s wrong and Howard will just say he’s soft on child abuse. Rudd’s been pretty strong but “pro-child-abuse” isn’t exactly a winning election platform.
It’s impossible to ignore that there are genuine issues in these communities, but applying these draconian police state laws is not the answer.
I want to leave this comment with two quotes on this from our esteemed leader. Not the queen. The other pseudo-leader.
“The point should be made that . . . in the end we are prepared to apply the same principle to all sections of the Australian community,” Mr Howard said.
“What matters more, the Constitutional niceties, or the care and protection of young children?”
*leaves to throw up*
This legislation is highly racist and condesending.
I personally think this type of treatment has psychological ramifications.
I think some Aboriginals think society owes them. But most of the Aboriginals that were wronged in the past are now dead and unfortunately cannot be compensated.
Extra welfare payments and special legal treatment reinforce the incorrect belief that Aborigines have different rights to normal people.
The new legislation doesn’t overcome any of the difficulties involved in prosecuting sexual abuse. Rape will always be difficult to prosecute due to the need to prove consent. I imagine sexual abuse has its own set of challenges. But I agree with David’s assessment that a bunch of white people living in whoop whoop engaging in this type of behaviour would be treated differently.
David, there has recently been a high profile conviction for an Aboriginal leader. Geoff Clark (the former chairman of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission). He was recently sentenced for leading some gang rapes.
Digging beyond the headlines there are some good measures in this.
1. Ending the permits system that essentially cuts off aboriginal communities from the outside world.
2. More police resources. Although this is neutralised by the new police job of rounding up drinkers and DVD voyeurs.
3. Ownership reforms.
4. Rental reforms.
5. A sunset clause on the alcohol prohibition.
Interesting that the same interference stemming from good intentions is being applied to the problem it created. Now that we have fixed them of living the natural life they developed, we just need to forcibly refine the results.
Still, no law or it’s enforcement can be too draconian when the precious children are at stake. Who knows, perhaps if we can prevent them from drinking we can get them reading. As long as it’s not books on Islam.
Few people would argue against the drastic need to deal with the abuses of children and other problems, but as a “constitutionalist” I question the method used to seek to achieve it.
For example, the States and Territorial Government had every right to legislate as to Aboriginals up to the 1967 referendum was held, however since then the Commonwealth of Australia only can legislate as to Aboriginals race within the framework of Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution. It means that the Commonwealth of Australia neither can legislate within its sovereign powers within Section 122 of the Constitution as it lost that right by the 1967 referendum as much as the States did.
There is nothing to prevent States/Territories (so the commonwealth of Australia) to legislate as to matters dealing with children provided it is not a racial directed legislation but a general legislation directed at all children subject to sexual abuse, etc.
If the Commonwealth of Australia seeks to invoke its legislative powers within subsection 51(xxvi) then as the Framers of the Constitution made clear (see also my INSPECTOR-RIKATI® published books) then it must be regarding the entire race, and as such all people of that race will be subjected to that legislation.
Meaning, for example, that if the Commonwealth of Australia were to legislate against landholdings by Aboriginals, then it cannot just apply against Aboriginals in the Northern Territory but would affect any other Aboriginal regardless if they reside in Melbourne, Sydney, etc and regardless if they are a doctor/lawyer/judge/politician, etc.
Many people misunderstand how Subsection 51(xxvi) legislation applies, but for example the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, not being an act against a specific “coloured race” is in fact unconstitutional.
Personally, I do not accept that Aboriginal children are to be subjected to any special legislation where as other children likewise abused are not. We must protect all children in equal manner.
If we desire to deal with unlawful conduct by any person (not just Aboriginals) then we must ourselves ensure that the legislation is lawful in the first place, and not manipulate powers to use draconic laws upon Aboriginals and not against others.
The States/Territories have their sovereign powers to deal with welfare matters regarding children and it should be applied to all children regardless of their racial heritage!
One law for all people!
Wake up people!!!
John Howard just Declared ‘Martian Law’ in Aboriginal Communities…
oops, actually it is quite possible they have enacted Martian Law considering John Howard and his cronies live on another planet…
Wake up People!!!
John Howard just Declared ‘Martial Law’ in Aboriginal Communities…
Matt, im not entirely sure what you were getting at with your talk on military conscription.
However, being a descendent of the highest decorated soldier to ever serve with the British empire, and knowing many many people in the military, (the father of the 2nd in command in Afghanistan is a family friend).
I completely disagree with your views on conscription, Australia has one of the best defence forces in the world, there are things that contribute to this, such as the relatively small size, or the high level of training. But one of the biggest things that makes Australias military one of the best in the world, is that for the majority, everyone who is there is there by choice. They want to defend the Australian way of life and make a difference.
Changing this and bringing in people who dont want to, would only bring rise in the level of post traumatic stress in soldiers and the general bitching from hippies.
On the topic of this thread, Yes John Howard’s action is rascist and condescending, and personally i have no problem with that what so ever.
In my opinion, The Northern Territory government hasnt taken hard enough action to stop the problems in many Aborignal communities, and it is right, in every meaning of the word, for John Howard to do what he has done.
It is debatible as to wether the specific laws he enacted will make a huge difference, but as for imposing the laws, i believe he was right in doing so.
We really just need to enforce existing laws, rather than enact new ones specificly for members of certain racial groups.All of the matters of concern in this are already criminal offences, with the exception of alcohol abuse.
From a simplistic point of view, Howard needed a hot election issue, which he knew would creat a wedge in the community. After many years of such reports, which both State and Feds ignored, Howard took a decisive (dictatorial?) “something must be done” stand. It will have many in white middle classes saying “Yes, he showed great leadership, getting rid of grog and checking up on the children”. (as long as those w.m.c people can still have their grog and their children don’t have to be checked). They will be the ones who may vote Howard back in.
Then there will be the group of people who will see this as massive discrimination, too little too late policy and in the end perhaps a waste of money and police resources, which doesn’t address the real problems of remote Aboriginal communities. Those groups probably wouldn’t be voting for Howard anyway.
This has shades of Howard’s 1996 and 2002 gun buy backs which didn’t achieve any great good, but was seen by many, who were not affected, as “decisive and responsible leadership”.
Could this be Howard’s “Black Tampa”?
Pete, Are you saying that the same kind of situation exists in the white middle class that exists in remote Aboriginal communities? Of course you wouldnt, So why would those people need to have these same laws be forced upon them?
Instead of criticizing the motivation behind the laws, perhaps just see this as a positive step towards correcting the actions of the past.
Instead of criticizing the motivation behind the laws, perhaps just see this as a positive step towards correcting the actions of the past.
Spoken like a true Howard believer.
I wouldn’t matter if it was the best idea ever, John Hunt the Coward does not do things for their inherent merits. He’s had 12 years to prove that. He’s behind in the polls and needs a distraction.
And is it a positive step? It relies on lots of bureaucrats and police officers looking over the shoulders of a lot of people. That’s never been very effective before. You can lock up pedophiles and remove kids from risk without big brother tactics.
How do you lock up pedophiles and remove kids from risk? With big brother tactics! It would be like conducting a military operation without first conducting surveillance or gathering intelligence on the enemy.
How else are laws enforced without police officers watching over communities?
Exactly what is happening apart from their getting their arses kicked for not taking large enough steps in the past.
Ok, John Howard is doing this as a distraction. I believe this, I have no problem with it. But i would also say that, He is a politician, They tend to not be very influential when not in power and take steps to ensure they stay high in the polls. And if we had whoever you support in power, Im sure they would do exactly the same thing, No matter who is in power, it will happen, fact of life. And if you can kill 2 things with 1 stone, (Getting higher in the polls and taking steps to stop the problems in Aboriginal communities). They go ahead and do it!
I dont see the situation as being any different from the opposition leader saying he will… for instance, Saying he will cease ties with America, because of the strong public opinion towards ending ties with them, Even if he has supported relationships with America in the past.
(I am just trying to give a hypothetical example of political winds changing)
Perry; I have seen the problems first hand - try Boorooloola on a Thursday night after the cheques have arrived. It’ scary.
Believe me mate there is no simple solution while those communities exist in their present form. They seem like dormitory areas for people who rely totally on social security. There is nothing there apart from houses people and a couple of stores, one of which is the grog shop.
Take away the grog, and there is nothing. I was left with a feeling of despair for them, they are the closest thing I have seen to totaly lost souls.
Any solution to this problem has to rely on building some other form of social structure to take over from the current one,(well its not one). Any long term solution will have to come from within and will have to be based on something more constructive than welfare.
Look, I just dont have the answer, but it isn’t force. As I said before the current law is all that is needed to deal with the criminal aspects. The rest needs more than a quick political fix.
Perry - At the end of comment 17 you suggested that it was debatable whether these laws would make a difference but it was right to enact them. I suppose all laws are debatable but you seem to be supporting laws that reduce basic liberties without much interest in knowing whether they will do more good than harm. That seems grossly irresponsible. Without further qualification it is hard not to conclude that you merely support these laws because John Howard supports them.
Peter - your analogy with the gun ban has a lot of merit. Both are examples of legislation being hammered through in an air of crisis. And again some people are willing to support laws irrespective of whether they will ever achieve what their proponents claim.
Jim, Thanks for giving me some perspective on that, I had no idea it was such a two dimensional world for them. And i agree with you completely that it is just a beginning step and much construction of social services etc must follow. (If that is what you are saying).
Terje, Supporting laws that reduce basic liberties, I thought Aboriginals blamed the white man for bringing alcohol and drugs to this country, and have since ravaged their communities with them. So couldnt this be seen as the government doing what they have been asked to by Indigenous people? Let them live the way they did before?
Also, isnt the founding basis of Libetarianism- Freedom, under all circumstances unless it impinges on the freedom of others. With this, couldnt we argue that we are impinging on the rights of the adults in the community to protect the children?
And without some kind of body to regulate impingements on freedom, wouldnt we live in Anarchy? From what you were saying about me supporting a law that reduce basic liberties (Getting drunk and going with rape gangs to get meat), This liberty of yours sounds more like a might makes right anarchist society.
Perry - getting drunk and engaging in gang rapes is already criminal in all parts of Australia. Nobody here is arguing that gang rape should be decriminalised. Nobody here is even arguing that rape be decriminalised. You are defending the Howard legal reforms on a completely false basis.
My conscription comment was in reference to comment 8, and was in disagreement with conscription “by race” in principle. Though the conscription in this case was to police, not military.
The issue of compulsory national service is so far outside the realms of discussion here as to be not worth mentioning, though I will say in its defense that it works well in some countries.
Regarding other things you’ve said… *shudder*
You’re taking Terje’s comments way too far. By suggesting that he’s advocating some sort of lawless darwinian anarchistic society of violence… Extending the same exaggeration to your views says what you think should be done is all people should be constantly monitored for signs of incorrect behaviour and thought, and and promptly punished.
No one is advocating lawlessness here. We’re smarter than that. We know humanity’s basic nature can be a bad one and that there needs to be checks on that.
There’s a real danger with “protecting the children”. It’s an easy win. Sure, we need to take the alcohol off the aboriginals because we need to “protect the children”. We also need to ban all violent video games to protect the children. We need to ban pornography (not just among aboriginals, but in the wider community) as that contributes to pedophilic activity and we have to protect the children. In fact, we have to ban homosexuality. Quick. Protect the children.
Sure, this is a few steps beyond what we have here, but it’s not a long walk at all. We already have moral agendas being pushed to “protect the children”. Violent video games HAVE been banned to protect the children, despite the fact that the average gamer is 28.
The simple fact (opinion, I guess) is that the theft of civil liberties under the banner of “protecting the children” is NEVER appropriate. And the removal of liberties on the grounds of race is even less acceptable.
Next step is banning Jews from owning cars. To protect the children.
Sorry, that’s kind of absurd and extreme. But so is this law.
I am completely happy with the current policing system in my state (Tasmania).
I am not advocating constant monitoring of civilians as to keep them all in order, However, I do believe that there should be a strict system in place for the punishment and rehibilitation of people who behave in a unrespectful way to society.
In your argument about videogames etc, Yes some games should be kept away from children, children being from around 5-14. I would love to spend time arguing about teenagers, however, i still am one and i have witnessed first hand the effect that some movies and games have on young uneducated minds.
With sub cultures like “emos” on the rise, i believe it is important that there be restrictions for content shown to teenagers/children. I have seen some of my female friends be coerced by older men simply by appealing to their bleak views of existed, and fueling them.
It is extremely difficult to know the damage to society that young minds being filled with trash can produce.
History is filled with examples, Charles Manson and his followers for example. Marilyn Manson music is incredibly entertaining and i have a good laugh at his lyrics quite often, however, there are many people who take his music far too seriously and adopt it as a philosophy, who then engage in acts of suicide and other dangerous behaviour.
While i am aware that this is all pretty standard teenager and im not bitching about it, i am merely saying that it is a problem that needs to be addressed at some stage and that imo, education is the key.
If you don’t want conscription of Aborigines, what would give them a job? Their own communities haven’t done it so far, and I think regular employment would be better for the whole community. Do we give them ‘Affirmative Action’?
‘Sit-down money’? What do you recommend, and can you point to any examples of such practices anywhere?
Does anyone know how the government will determine whether it’s new actions are working?
I am highly sceptical that you can actually keep alcohol out of aboriginal communities for example. There is already a black market trade of porn, drugs etc.
Perry, Terje is right to question the efficacy of these laws. Personally I believe these measures are immoral. But even if they weren’t, will they work? and do the pros outweigh the cons?
I understand there is a problem of finding people to testify against child abusers in these communities. How do any of these laws solve that problem or protect abused children. Taking away alcohol, porn and creating more welfare conditions doesn’t protect children. Prosecuting child abusers protects kids.
People engaging in self destructive activity like excessive drinking are probably depressed. Enacting draconian laws that treat aboriginals like babies will worsen a depressed person’s bleak outlook on the world which in turn will lead to more self destructive behaviour. These laws could ultimately make things worse and it would be nice to see an article in the mainstream media investigate this possibility.
Perry maybe my comments will help you understand the libertarian perspective.
What goes into your mind is your responsibilty, not the governments. The government’s resposibility is to protect people from physical or property harm.
Perry personally I don’t think much of Marilyn Manson’s musical ability but the man himself is quite intelligent and has a fairly healthy philosophy on life. I’d say most fans realise this. But even if his music did promote suicide, should it be banned? Does your body belong to you or the state? Suicide may actually be warranted in some rare cases.
When people go out into the big bad world, many things influence them. But these are just influences. Ultimately the choice is yours and that’s what people need to be taught. Regulations do not achieve this because they do not teach people self responsibility. They deny people the option to behave responsibly.
Are you really worried about emos and video games?
Emo music is far less popular than heavy metal was in the 80s so I doubt “sub-cultures” are on the rise. We’ve had goths, punks, metal heads, ravers, etc etc. If they have fun, find an identity and make friends, good on them, are they hurting you?
Millions of people around the world play violent computer games. Maybe a handful of these gamers are violent in real life. Even less would be violent because of the computer game (perhaps those with a mental illness who can’t understand reality but are still able to play computer games).
Why should everyone suffer by banning them?
How does the actual act of playing a video game hurt anyone?
Why should innocent tax payers pay for the regulations, government departments etc?
How could the government possibly know what is good or bad for everyone?
What about substances that have both good and bad uses eg/ sniffing paint solvents, NO2 cannisters, various gases such as butane, even textas. Should we ban or regulate textas?
What if the valuable use of a substance isn’t realised yet?
Why employ people to regulate when they could be doing jobs of real value to society?
All this bureacracy slows down our societies economical and technological progress.
In addition, regulations usually don’t work. They cost us a lot of money only to create a black market and increased crime rates. For example alcohol consumption and murder rates rose during the alcohol prohibition years in the US. The rise in murder rate was significant.
It’s no one else’s fault you were born and as such other people shouldn’t be made to suffer by paying for regulating your individual vices/virtues.
That was actually very helpful, Thank you.
It answered the question i had been trying to find which was, Freedom gives self responsibility, but alot of people cant handle that self responsiblity so what is the answer, in the case of alot of social issues, people tend to blame society for not taking enough action, so is society to be held responsible for not taking action or is the individual to be responsible for his own actions?
Growing up with only the mainstream media to get information from, i had the opinion that it is our duty to do these things.
Although, with the freedom that Libetarians talk about, What happens to the people who… just dont want to participate in society and are perfectly happy to remain uneducated and naive?
Mormons for example?
As a note, i generally agree with most of the things that have been said, i am just being an advocate for other things. Mainly because when asked to describe my views i am questioned about welfare and education and other things that rely on self, and i dont really have an answer to those people.
I accept that it is self responsibility, but in the freedom that were talking about, people are free to become bums and never contribute anything, And while i respect peoples choices to make those decisions and i would happy risk my life for those people to make those decisions. i dont really agree with it or thing it is it a good thing.
By the way, Could somebody name the quote that i tried to reference in that last paragraph? It went along the lines of, I dont agree with your opinion but i will fight for your right to express it.
Oh, I think we can all agree that Mormons should be outlawed.
Joking.
And as for Aboriginal issues, I see you’re from Tasmania. I guess you guys had one long-term solution? (Moderated down for trolling)
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Voltaire
It’s widely attributed to him, but never seen in his writings, so it’s probably more “about” him than something he actually said.
Just on the topic of computer games (a passion of mine) I wasn’t referring to children at all. I wasn’t referring to teenagers. I was referring to adults. I believe the government should have classification systems to inform parents to make the right decisions for their children (which they do) but should never block any form of media outright from adults (which they also do).
I have no problem with children not being allowed to play adult games. I have a problem with ME not being allowed to play them! And I have a problem with “the children” being used to justify that. And this.
What happens to the people who want to remain naive and ill informed? They move to the US. Seriously, though, stupidity is a human right. No one has the right to make anyone “better” any more than to take their children away, etc. If you’re not harming anyone you should be left alone. If you’re REALLY dangerously stupid, you should probably be moved into management or politics.
No, Matt, they should be moved AWAY from management and politics- those fields are crowded with such people! They should be put into the army, as testers of new weapons. Their next of kin can then be informed that they died serving their country. Pushing up daisies could be their next task.
Perry - I don’t think it is a good thing for people to waste their life intoxicated on anything or to remain entirely idle. However we have imposed idle behaviour on low skilled communities in two ways:-
1. We criminalises low wage work.
2. We provide people with money if they are without work.
Coupled with poor policing of real criminal behaviour (ie rape) we end up with the social decay seen in some of these communities. The solution is to:-
1. Police real crimes (eg rape)
2. Decriminalise low wage work so the private sector can create jobs.
3. Turn off the welfare tap.
However these are not measures that I would apply in isolation to aboriginal communities. The same problems exist in pockets right across Australia and is not limited to specific racial groups (although no doubt more prevalent in some such groups).
Actually Perry, I know a few mormons, all good people, none eneducated, naive? well they seem to have more faith in human nature than I do, but then it could be me that is wrong. This is probably not the case as I am always right, well mostly.
One was the research director of the Progress Party, and a QC, and despite his profession was one of the most ethical and principled men I know.
Aborigional people may blame the white man for alcohol and drugs, however the pubs and pushers are around here too, but only I can choose whether I use their products or not, the same as them.
On page 12 of todays edition of The Australian there is an article by John Hirst called “The Myth of a new paternalism”. In it he blames the plight of aborigines in remote communities on libertarians. The article is introduced on the front page of the paper with the heading “Poisoned by white libertarians” along side a picture of an aboriginal child.
It is nice to know that libertarians are now on the lips of the mainstream media. Such a pity they are blaming us for the failed socialist policies of years past. Strange even that they attribute these policies to libertarians.
Just goes to show the general intelligence level of reportive journalists at the Australian.
How on earth can the treatment of Aborigines in Australia ever be called “libertarian”?
In what ways do they think we have failed Aboriginies?
Hah, who said this dopey idea wasn’t based on the even dopier idea of the noble savage?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21966257-7583,00.html
“Paternalism’s claim is to full control of someone else’s life. This is not what is contemplated here. If outsiders restore social order and run services, traditional leaders can get on with traditional business. When the men are drunk and the kids are sniffing petrol, traditional knowledge and ritual will not be passed on. This move will help preserve traditional culture.”
They have no traditional culture if they are so disaffected and rely on handouts.
“It is nice to know that libertarians are now on the lips of the mainstream media. Such a pity they are blaming us for the failed socialist policies of years past. Strange even that they attribute these policies to libertarians.”
No it is not. These conservative muppets have swallowed the far left line hook line and sinker and Gough Whitlam to them is a “libertarian”.
When Liberal and Libertarian are taken, what can we call ourselves?
What is so noble about savages? A noble primitive makes sense, but a noble savage sounds like an exercise in double-think!
And let’s not fall for the idea of preserving a culture simply because it exists. Evolution applies to cultures as well as species. Their culture should change from dying traditional to living modern.
One element of their culture, which I would strongly support, would be another language for Australia. Aborigines should get together and create an artificial Aboriginal language, which all Australians could learn as a second language. Many languages show similarities which suggest a common source in the past. A second tongue would help us to stay Australian in an increasingly-globalised world.
Mark, I suggested once before that we could call ourselves Agorophilists, since we prefer the free market to government initiatives. Our opponents would then be Agorophobiacs, suffering from a psychiatric condition!
I have taken the liberty of sending a letter to the editor on this, the content is as follows : -
Aborigines and “Libertarianism.”
John Hirst seems to be incredibly confused as to the meaning of the term ‘libertarian’. A Libertarian is a believer in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and social tolerance. Nothing in the Aboriginal policies past or present has anything to do with libertarian philosophy.
Libertarians do not believe in ethnic based policy for a start. The very idea of establishing welfare dependent communities is something they would treat with ridicule and contempt, and none would consider the ‘dole’ a right.
What is probably confusing Mr. Hirst is the tendency of the left to regard their ideas as ‘liberal’, not libertarian.
The difference between ‘leftist liberalism’ and libertarianism is that while both tend to support the concept of social tolerence, (libertarians more so) libertarians insist that such freedoms carry with them individual responsibility, something the left shuns.
Jim,
I also wrote them a letter. Essentially I said that libertarians did not build the welfare state and don’t defend it and that he must be thinking of social democrats or some such group.
Regards,
Terje.
Didn’t see your letters today in the Australian. I think the Australian is engaging in some kind of anti-libertarian conspiracy.
Tim R
Normally the Australian is the one paper more likely to print pro-libertarian articles. they have also printed pieces with some scepticism to Greenhouse propaganda, so this is probably a temporary aberration from the norm. We can certainly hope so! And one piece of commentary, which the editor never endorsed, cannot be taken as a sign of a conspiracy.
Nicholas,
I tend to agree. However it is not the first time I have seen the Oz falsly define “libertarian” and slag off the concept. Perhaps it is the left leaning “civil libertarians” they are targeting but I’m not entirely convinced. Given the libertarian outlook of Lachlan Murdoch you would think they would be better informed.
I suspect that the large and prominant front page headline, positioned at the right hand side of the top banner in the paper version, that referenced the article and was titled “Poisoned by white libertarians” and sat beside an emotive picture of an aboriginal child was indeed an editorial decision. I can’t see front page presentation not involving the editor.
Regards,
Terje.
Yeah I wasn’t seriously saying there was a conspiracy.
John Hirst’s email address is j.hirst@latrobe.edu.au if Terje or Jim are interested in notifying him of his embarrassing error.
Ideally the editor should be alerted to the slander as well because of the front page ad for John’s commentary “Poisoned by White Libertarians”.
I have taken Tim’s suggestion as Follows: -
John;
While the above article is generally well presented, I have to take issue with your use of the term Libertarians. While various political groups claim to be some name or other, and it gets confusing, libertarian is a clearly defined term. The only area where the term is used, that could relate to your article are those who refer to themselves as ‘civil libertarians’, who are not really libertarians at all but confine themselves to a very narrow band within the concept.
I have worked in these areas and am reasonably convinced that traditional values have been replaced by welfare dependency, and I feel that alcohol and substance abuse is a result of this. The criminality follows. Any solution to the problems have to get at the root cause.
I have written to the Editor as follows: -
Aborigines and “Libertarianism.”
John Hirst seems to be incredibly confused as to the meaning of the term ‘libertarian’. A Libertarian is a believer in limited government, fiscal responsibility, and social tolerance. Nothing in the Aboriginal policies past or present has anything to do with libertarian philosophy.
Libertarians do not believe in ethnic based policy for a start. The very idea of establishing welfare dependent communities is something they would treat with ridicule and contempt, and none would consider the ‘dole’ a right.
What is probably confusing Mr. Hirst is the tendency of the left to regard their ideas as ‘liberal’, not libertarian.
The difference between ‘leftist liberalism’ and libertarianism is that while both tend to support the concept of social tolerence, (libertarians more so) libertarians insist that such freedoms carry with them individual responsibility, something the left shuns.
Jim Fryar,
If you wish to see the attitudes of real libertarians, I suggest that you try; http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/little-children-are-sacred/
If you feel like contributing to this debate feel free.
Good move Jim. It makes sense to seek out such commentators and engage with them in a positive way.
Thanks Terje, I am hoping he takes it up.
Good work Jim
An editor is one who separates the wheat from the chaff and prints the chaff. – Adlai Stevenson
clearly many of the contributors the comments on this blog do not have the slightest clue as to what prompted this outrageous attempt by the Howard Government to jackboot its way into communities to fix a problem that has been know about and neglected for decades. Child abuse is a serious crime which leave the young victims which scars that time does not heal. The moment one suspects or knows that it is occurring action, appropriate action, needs to be taken. Sending soldiers, who are not trained to handle social problems like alcoholism and child sex abuse is a total nonsense and sure to have done more harm than good, to a community who from past history would be terrified of anyone in uniform. This is not about helping kids. If it was about helping kids the situation would not have been allowed to continue as long as it has done with no assistance to the community. The notion that a blanket ban on alcohol for six months, with no other support programs in place would be laughable if not for the fact that the victims here are children. It infuriates me to hear comments that suggest that Aboriginal women care for their children less than white women do. I am a Koori woman of the Bogan Community and the kinds of insinuations are profoundly offensive. One of your bloggers even went as far as to say that if Aboriginals did not want to live like ‘normal’ people they should not get any support.
Did anyone suggest medically checking all the Christian children when reports of systemic child abuse came to light in a number of institutions and communities. And let’s not forget John Howard’s mate, Peter Hollingworth, appointed to the position of Governor General on Howard’s recommendation to the Queen. He was forced to resign when it was discovered that he protected pedeophiles in his ministry, and even went on record as saying a 14 year old girl contributed to the abuse she received at the hands of an ordained minister.
Get real you people. This is about land grab, and the need for John Howard to distract you before an election as he did when he lied about the ‘Babies overboard’ the children and women of the Mutitjulu did not need you to rescue them, they needed someone to act, and do so before now with appropriate measures. This is a joke and no one in Aboriginal communities is laughing. Remember we have had 230 years of white people, and we just don’t trust you. And with good reason.
It seems like you think you are speaking for the wider Aboriginal community there Kate,
1. People really dont seem to understand the situation of sending soldiers, They are acting as police, period, and they are only being sent in this capacity because the problem simply requires too many police officers from other areas that are already undermanned. And, if your referring to the stolen generation when saying that a community from past history would be terrified of anyone in uniform. The people who removed the children from community’s were government officials, dressed in suits or police outfits, not military.
2. In Australia, we have a democracy, divided up into states, this was the responsiblity of the Nothern Territory government, only if the situation gets bad enough and not enough action is taken is the federal government allowed to step in, and im sure thats debatible as well, as democrats spoke out against the federal government overruling the state government the way they did.
3. The blanket ban is the precursor, you cant expect everything to happen at once and be implemented immediately, the only thing you can do is wait and see if the federal government makes good on their promise to build more assistance programs etc in indigenous communitys.
4. And personally i agree with the person who said that if they dont want to live “normally” as it was put, i dont agree at all with providing incentives for doing nothing, oh, and last i heard Aboriginals didnt have to prove that they were looking for work to keep getting their welfare checks. I agree with the providing of supports such as counseling etc, although giving people money for doing nothing, is not a good thing.
5. Child abuse in white communitys is taken very seriously, a family member of mine runs part of the public housing system in my state, and i know that it is dealt with swiftly and suitably, and the health checks arent only checking for child abuse, they are also checking for drug/alcohol abuse, malnourishment and general sickness.
“Get real you people” “We just dont trust you” etc, Im glad to see you have constructed a non bias and non generalising opinion of “us”.
And personally, i dont know why people think this is a land grab, the only things worth having “we” can already get my negotiating with communitys to mine the land etc. Lets face it, its a desert, Why would “we” want it
Kate,
I agree with many of your points. This is about a forced restructure of land tenure and I can appreciate that some might choose to characterise that as a “land grab”. Some aspects of these land reforms I see merit in, however I think that given time some of these communities would have found the will to try these reforms out for themselves. I don’t generally believe that the ends justifies the means.
Election fever is obviously a contributing factor but I also think there is a sense of benevolence amoungst the perpetrators. Peters earlier comparison with the gun laws in 1996 is relevant because it is a case of reforms being hammered through with a air of emotive urgency and little or no time for any mature community debate. Governments love to tell people what is good for them.
It does seem to be the case that they have backed away from compulsory medical examinations. And from what I can tell the army is not going to be dealing directly with the issue of abused children but will be providing support infrastructure.
You state that there is a lot of ignorance amoungst many of the comments here. As I see it there is only one cure for ignorance which is enlightenment. So if you feel that you have insights that will alter perspectives you should stick around and share them.
Regards,
Terje.
Kate reading your comments, I actually thought much of what you wrote was in agreement with the other comments.
Libertarians do not support government intervention full stop. Especially this latest round of intervention.
When the word “normal” people was used, it was used in the context of saying that all people should be treated the same and have the same rights. From your illustration of how Christian communities were treated differently, it seems you want the same thing.
Prohibition, restrictions and curfews etc do not tackle the underlying problem of prosecuting child abuse.
I personally think there’s a good chance things could get worse because of Howard’s plan.
I agree with you that this is about vote buying and politics.
Thank you those who read my comments and responded. I do not know if any of you are Aboriginal and therefore have had a lifetime of experience of knowing that the white man cannot save us. We do not need any White Knights in shining amour as Mal Borough seems to want to project himself to be. In fact Aboriginal people are sick and tired of being vilified by Mal Borough who is on record for such outrageous claims that our culture is barbaric, our men are child abusers and our women don’t care enough for our children not to protect them from abusers.
To understand the sinister truths behind this latest Govt initiative to ‘clean up’ Aboriginal communities one has to know the history of attempts by the Howard Govt to buy back Aboriginal lands. Why on earth would a Govt want land in the middle of no where? Well here are a couple of clues. In 2006 the Australian Govt signed a deal to export 20,000 tons of unranium to China. As it stands we are only mining 11,000 tons. The land the Govt wants has beneath its surface what he needs. Also there is a need to find areas for radioactive waste dumping.
The Northern Territory Land Council NLC have recently agreed to sell 1.5 square kilometres of land north of Tennants Creek for the handsome price of $11,000,000. These funds will be used to build much needed infrastructure for people in the area. But the rub is the land will be used as a dumping ground for radioactive waste over the next 50 years.
This has a similar ring to the scenario in the USA where the First Nation people got conned into selling land for glass beads, and to this day non-indigenous people laugh at their stupidity. Unfortunately the First Nation people of the USA were very new to the trickery of the white man who knew that to offer glass beads for land was tantamount to theft.
In today’s Australia Aboriginal people are not ignorant of the scheming of white Governments and the depth of treachery they will go to to take back land. They offer all kinds of seemingly attractive deals to help the communities build much needed housing, and other basic needs to bring their living conditions about that of a 3rd world country. Why? should Aboriginal people have to sell back land to get the same funding and support that is available to all other Australian communities? Dont forget at one time Aboriginal people were the caretakers of this whole continent, and we did a pretty good job of looking after it and ourselves.
Is warms my heart as an Aboriginal woman that none of the bloggers came back at me with the kind of vile racial insults I have had to endure since the Howard Govt decided to disregard the recommendation in the Children are Sacred report and ‘do it his way’. The news papers here and overseas have depicted Aboriginal people as subhuman monsters. Not much new there, that is exactly how we have been portrayed for over 230 years, and there has been a willingness on the part of too many non-Aboriginals to fan the flames of the lies and misrepresentation of my people and culture, as opposed to a willingness to understand the problem and work together toward fixing them.
Someone made the comment that Aboriginals should not get paid for doing nothing, let me ask you did you pay ANY Aboriginal for the land your house sits on? You paid someone who stole the land from the Aboriginal people and did not even offer a box of beads. If Australia was to fund every Aboriginal man, woman and child from now until doomsday, to a level that kept all of us living in decent housing, it would still not repay what has been taken and the human suffering inflicted on my people since 1788 which continues to this very day.
Over 100,000 Aboriginal Children were taken from their families between 1906 and 1973, and placed in institutions and fosters homes, where they suffered unspeakable abuse. John Howard’s Govt has refused to even apologise. Only a very few of the 54 recommendations in the Bringing them Home report have been implemented to help the victims who are now adults. Severely damaged individuals who were just thrown back in communities with no coping skills and no support.
If all a person has known is violence and abuse we know that there is a better than average chance they will become abusers unless treated. NO excuses here for child abuse. However, John Howard has known about these problems for the whole of his 4 terms in office and has done nothing. Meanwhile children have continued to be abused, and many women have been bashed to death trying to protect their kids.
I am getting old now and my time on this land is in the shadows, so I may not live to see a reconciled Australia, as this latest stunt by the Howard Govt has done much to exacerbate the problems rather than solve anything. Excuse this old granny for being a tad cynical that he has done so in an election year.
Malcolm Frazer predicted that Howard would pull a race card prior to the election as he did in 2002 with the babies overboard lies that depicted decent Muslim refugees as monsters tossing their children into the sea. He has pulled a race card alright, and it is backfiring on him. Kate.
You should send that into the newspapers Kate
Tim, If I say anything that touches even ONE person, time at the keyboard is time well spent. The situation in the NT is a tragedy that was avoidable. John Howard was right about one thing. When he likened this tragedy to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. In the final analysis of that comedy of errors it was clear that New Orleans went under because the levies broke. The blame games raged for days while old people drowned in their beds, and the worst that human nature has to offer ran amok. They knew the levies were in disrepair, they knew the Hurricane was coming. The only only difference in the analogy between the situation in the NT and that in NO, is the greater number of deaths and displacement of citizens in NO. The level of bureaucratic incompetence and attempts to drop-kick a political field goal are paralleled.
Kate;
Thankyou for responding.
I have said before that Aboriginal policy has in the main been a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. I think that, not always but mostly they intended to do some good, although in retrospect many of those policies have been wrong, rediculous, and usually paternalistic.
As I have said above, I just don’t have an answer, and perhaps you can help us here. I think that to some extent one of our problems is that we just don’t understand your culture, which is probably part of your peoples state of mind, even where the outward signs of that culture have disappeared, can you help us?
Should we perhaps be looking toward some form of local industry, in which you use the land for some form of income production while maintaining some form of traditional lifestyle, allowing elders to regain their influence?
Perhaps that is silly? What direction should we be looking in? Is Noel Pearson right or wrong, he seems to be looking in areas outside the square, past policies have been found in.
Kate - do you think all white people are tricky or is it just that some people are tricky? I’ve met my share of tricky black people but I try not to deal in such racial generalities.
All Australians can have their land confiscated if the government decides it wants the minerals below the surface. Aboriginies are not unique in this regard. See the following article I wrote some time ago:-
http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/01/02/mineral-rights/
And this is not some abstract concept. I know white people who have had their land taken from them by the government so a mining company could dig holes.
Kate - I’d be interested to hear what you think of Noel Pearson?
Thank you, one and all for your response. Firstly, I hope that my previous comments have answered some questions, as they seem to have prompted more, for which I am grateful.
Jim, you feel that one of the problems is that non-Aboriginal people do not understand our culture. That is true in many cases. And bear in mind each Aboriginal
Nation and clan has specific cultural differences including language and laws.There are even variations concerning the ‘creation’ or Dreamtime stories. So to understand all may require a great deal of dedication and study.
To understand the problems facing Aboriginal people one does not need to have a grasp of ‘culture’. One needs only to understand that basic human rights are the inalienable right of all people, and not something that is earned on point system for good behaviour.
At the time of Federation my people were specifically excluded from the census. Which meant we were NOT citizens of Australia and not protected by the Constitution.
It was thought that we were a dying race.
A great deal of my early years were spent near the township of Brewarrina in far west NSW. In the 1960’s it was an apartheid town. White lines were painted onto shop floors. White fella’s to the front were served first. Non-Aboriginal Australians cannot even conceive of this kind of discrimination in their own country. This is NOT a whine, it is just how it was, not that long ago.
We cannot right all the wrongs of the past 230 years in one or two generations. In the words of Archie Roach, “All we need is time, for the healing to begin”. Time, and understanding that bridges of trust need to be built.
If you have come to help me, I say go away. I can help myself. If your liberation is caught up in mine let’s talk. Do not make decisions for me that effect my life without consultation.
One need look no further than the story of Albert Namatjira to understand what being an Aboriginal meant in the last century. No matter how talented or successful one happened to be, laws prevented Aboriginal people from even owning a piece of the land of their Ancestors. Non-Aboriginal Australians cannot even conceive of such a notion.
Perry, I trust you have since done some independent research that will have determined that my comment regarding the latest initiative by the Government is many faceted and pertains more to rolling back Native Land titles, for financial gain and fulfilling international trade agreements, than any heartfelt need by John Howard to ‘help the children’. Why would ‘we’ want the land? You asked, I hope that issue in now more clear in your mind.
As to my opinion of Noel Pearson. I do not know him personally. Mr. Pearson, sometimes conveys the impression that he feels he is the ONLY reasonable voice for Aboriginal people, when some of what he says, in my opinion, is a load of old cobblers. However, I believe that Noel Pearson is a man dedicated to improving conditions for Aboriginal people. One can’t please all of the people all of the time.
If the Howard Govt had listened more closely to what Noel Pearson has said, he would have appreciated that the advances of the people on the Northern Peninsular are the result of many years in the planning and implementation. Support programs were put in place before drastic measures were taken to arrest the problems of drug and alcohol addiction. The fear of God was not put into people that caused women and children to run into the freezing desert.
Terje, thank you for the link concerning the Governments right to compel people to sell their land if it is deemed that it sits on mineral rich deposits. To my knowledge the Govt cannot force people off their land without compensation. This law however does NOT apply to Native Land title. The concept of selling land is foreign to Aboriginal people. Land is DIVINE, Land is sacred. Like our children it can’t be bought and sold. This is ONE aspect of our culture that non-Aboriginal people do need to grasp.
Aboriginal residents of Alice Springs town camps told the Northern Territory Govt to ‘bugger-off’ when they offered to pay $60 million in return for handing over control of their housing to the Government. This was the second time the Tangentyere Land Council refused to be bullied. Funds have been allocated to help improve conditions in the town camps and they should not be conditional upon the people handing over control to anyone. Mr. Mal Borough said that he was “deeply hurt’ by the decision. Well I say good for the Tanentyere people for standing their ground. It is outrageous that Aboriginal people are expected to hand over control to Governments in return for funding that has been allocated for distribution. Mal Borough tried to justify his attempts at blackmail the community by saying “you have no idea how difficult it is when you have witnessed the things that I have witnessed and the stories that I know about the fact that only a matter of a few weeks ago another woman was brutally murdered”. Women are being brutally raped and murdered right across this country, is anyone talking about taking control of the communities where this occurs?
When he couldn’t get his own way Mal Boroughs spat the dummy in spectacular style and took his bat and ball and went home. Saying that The $60 million will now go to another needy community. So much for caring about the plight of women.
There has been much discussion concerning Aboriginal children learning English. This is a great idea if kids are to leave communities and try and make their way in the ‘big smoke’. Not all want to do that. And why should they be required to do so? Why do Aboriginal children have to live what has been referred to as ‘normal’ lives? Which translated is live like non-Aboriginal Australians. I am all for the preservation of our culture, teach OUR languages to non-Aboriginal children, teach them OUR culture, so they develop some respect and understanding. Many progressive schools are doing that, but some things don’t change. Each year Australia celebrates Australia Day, I wonder how many Australians even know the name of the traditional land owners of what is now called the Sydney Port Jackson area? Very few as they were wiped out within three years of the invasion, and never included in the history taught in schools. Remember? Australia was Terra Nullius.
Many non-Aboriginal Australians have an irrational fear of Aboriginals advancing. They think we blame them for the sins of the past and want some kind of reparations. While I think that is absolutely appropriate for the survivors of the Stolen Generation, which was Australia’s Holocaust, I don’t want your money or your land. We are getting back all the land we can prove we occupied prior to the invasion. There have been vast improvements in the access to better education than there was when I was growing up. There is a long way to go, and all we want is a FAIR GO. We do not need your Government taking control of our lives. We have been there done that, and we all have the T-shirts. There is a long history of total incompetence and inaction concerning what is ‘good’ for our people. Only Aboriginal people KNOW what is good for them. We are neither stupid nor incapable of running our lives. We are needing to make adjustments from being persona non gratis, but we will get there, in time.
Australian Aboriginals were the PURE Libertarians we took care of ourselves for 48,000 years without the need of governments. Maybe we can teach the whitefellas a thing or two ***SMILES*** Kate.
Kate, I dont know where your getting your information about rapes and murders in white communities, but my family happens to be good friends with a high ranking police officer in our area, and your lucky if there is a murder every year in Tasmania, rapes…. maybe once every 6 months or so. It is not as common as you are making it sound.
And im sorry if this is offensive, but its the truth. My college english classes tried to do a course on a book called, “Wonderlands”. And the teacher went on about how great a story it was and how it represented the struggle between Aboriginals and white people, and not one person listened. I go to a quaker school, and not a single person could care about the story of Aboriginal land etc.
And having grown up in a capitalistic society, i honestly cant begin to understand where your coming from, and to me the Libertarian idea is capitalistic.
“Capitalism is creative destruction, a perpetual cycle of destroying the old, less efficient product or service or system, and replacing it with new, more efficient ones. Governments that allow the existance of capitalism, which tears down weaker and less efficient businesses, will survive and thrive. Governments that put up walls to protect the less efficient will fall behind.”- Dr Schumpeter
Terge, in response to your question “do you think all white people are tricky?” Let me say that I am a mixed blood Aboriginal, which means that although I am Aboriginal I have some white ancestry, which is Irish in origin. I identify with my Aboriginal heritage rather than the European, because I was raised by traditional women. I have met blackfellas I would not give you two bob for and others for whom I would lay down my life. Same with Non-Aboriginals I know. Blackfella, Whitefella, Yellafella. All that matters is that one is a Goodfella.
Kate - glad to know that you see goodfellas on all sides. And thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I like your suggestion that Australian Aboriginals were libertarians. I think that there is perhaps something in that. They certainly didn’t have central government on the scale we endure today, and even in tribal terms my understanding is that the decision making process was quite distributed.
What is your view of the welfare state? Do you view welfare a basic human right? What are the rights of taxpayers?
Perry, it is irrelevant whether or not you have a friend who is a high ranking police officer in Tasmania. The link below will give you the stats of reported rapes across 66 countries worldwide. Reported rapes in Australia were 15468 in 2006. That is 42 rapes EVERY DAY, or 1.75 EVERY HOUR! Do the math you will see that per capita of population Australia ranks 3rd highest in the world, behind South Africa and Seychelles. Does this surprise you? it does not surprise me in the least.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes
As to your comment about students in your English class not caring enough to even listen to the stories of the struggles of Aboriginal people in Tasmania, I have to tell you that this does not surprise me either. After all why should a group of privileged kids, Quakers even, care about the genocide of the original caretakers of the land your school is built upon? After all that is history, who cares? Excuse me for saying so but that is breathtaking arrogance, and profound ignorance of which I would not be proud if I were you.
Perry please save me the platitudes from people like Dr.Schumpeter, who with some research appears to be a notable academic, writer and thinker, and a glowing example of the age old adage “Those who can DO, those who cant TEACH”
Colonialism, driven by CAPITALISM has been the scourge of this planet. MIGHT is NOT always RIGHT. When you can come up with a more efficient Boomerang than that which my people invented more than 10,000 years ago, let’s talk. When you can point me in the direction of more efficient fish farming than the Brewarrina Aboriginal Fish Traps (Baiames Ngunnhu)that fed thousands of people in the area for centuries before the Chinese and Ancient Egyptians even walked the earth, you might convince me that getting rid of the old and replacing it with the new, or in this case trading traditional ways for whiteman’s capitalism, is the way to go.
Frankly, I am interested in HOW being a Quaker works with what seems to be your ‘worship ‘ of capitalist ideologies. Hardly in keeping with the ‘plainness’ and austerity associates with being a member of the ‘friendly’ society. Perhaps you may care to educate me on that issue.
Kate.
Capitalism may have funded colonialism and clothed it’s soldiers but capitalism is a system based on freedom. There is no “MIGHT makes RIGHT” within the philosophy of capitalism.
An analogy might be that a fishing rod may feed a warrior but fishing rods are not the reason we have wars.
Terje, I come from a culture that did not accumulate property or possessions. Land was not bought or sold, and if you needed to go anywhere, you went on Shanks Pony, in other words you walked. We had very structured laws and mores to maintain order and manage our resources. Poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, and certainly child abuse was NOT part of our culture. Men did slap their women around, but that went both ways. There were many hen-pecked Aboriginal men, and my advice would be never to get into a fight with Aboriginal women, we fight like blokes.
With regard to welfare, I am pleased that I live in a country that has social welfare programs in place that help the less fortunate in our society. In my culture we did not need Centrelink. Everyone had a job to do. The men hunted and the women gathered, and everything was shared. NO ONE went hungry. But all of that was shattered with the arrival of the whitemen, who put up fences to stop the natural migration of traditional hunting grounds, and completely destroyed the traditional way of life for hundreds of tribes. Have you ever seen Norman Tindale’s Indigenous Map of Australia? It shows the territories of the 760 language groups that were said to have occupied this continent at the time of the invasion. But I digress. Welfare? Yes, I think welfare is a good thing as modern societies are no longer tribal in nature and have the every man for himself attitude.
I don’t believe that all men are created equal, some need a bit of a shoulder to lean on and not because they are lazy and don’t want to work. Some have unforeseen circumstances, accidents or ill health, that leave them unable to take care of themselves. In my culture there would have been no question that these people would have been taken care of by the wider community. In my culture the medicine man or woman, knew all the bush remedies to maintain good health and restore people to health as required. It was free, it came from the earth and the sea. Today we have Medicare, and I think Medicare is probably the most important program delivered to the citizens of Australia since Federation. The health of Australians is paramount to having a healthy society.
We have safe guards in place to discourage welfare cheats, the penalties are high and only the most greedy and foolish among us would take risks that could lead to a conviction and/or a goal term.
If you are really asking do I think that Aboriginal people ought to get welfare and not have to even look for work I have mixed feelings on that.
We have three distinct groups of Aboriginals. Those who have left traditional lands, those who were forcibly removed from traditional lands, those who have chosen to stay. All of these groups have one thing in common they all came from a society and culture which left alone could have continued to support all of them without anyone needing to put on a suit and ties and go to work. What bliss! So how does one deal with this is a modern world where greedy capitalist insist EVERYONE works, to pay taxes that feed their incompetent Governments? Good question and not one easily resolved.
Charlie Perkins referred to welfare as ’sit down money’ and the curse of our people. One part of me agrees, and says giving people money for doing nothing kills incentive to do anything. Another part says that for over 70 years Aboriginal people as a collective were not entitled to any welfare payments at all. Not even the aged pension, which was available to all Non-Aboriginal people so if some wanted to get paid for sitting on their bum after years of struggling to survive below the poverty line, who could blame them.
I have never drawn a welfare cheque in my life, in fact by the time I had children I was a wealthy women, and quite proud of the fact that I did not need child support payments, and never applied. But I do not resent the fact that other women and men supporting children may need a little extra help.
People seem to have NO problem with the money our Governments squandering on Wars we have no business being in.
We have approximately 104,000 homeless people in Australia. A large number of which are families, and women and children fleeing domestic violence. The plight of these people would be even more grim if a percentage of our tax dollars did not got toward giving them some assistance.
Capitalism has screwed up the world. So I say that as a result of that the HAVES should help the HAVE NOTS, and shut the whining.
Terje, I could not disagree more that Capitalism represents freedom. Mortgages, credit cards, and the commercialism that drives Capitalism has enslaved people. Kate.
As an American who visited OZ in the 1980’s and saw the stocks of ‘DARKIE’ toothpaste on the store shelves (with a cartoon caricature Aboriginal with big lips on the box), I am not surprised that some in Austrailia have a problem with seeing Aboriginals as ‘equals’. Racial Predjudice is drummed into people almost from birth and is difficult to overcome - even by those who see the error of it.
I can imagine the outrage among the white citizens of any Austrailian Terroritory if THEIR children were required to submit their private parts to the inspection of an Aboriginal Doctor. How difficult is it to understand the outrage of parents told that they must comply with this outrageous order ?
Here in the US, as screwed up as we are, the concept of ‘Probable Cause’ is still in effect (for now, at least). A child can NOT be required to submit to that sort of inspection WITHOUT some fairly good reason to suspoect that such abuse is actually happening. To require that an entire population submit without cause or specific suspicion is appalling and (to me) appears to be most blatantly RACIST. Alcohol does not turn people into child molesters any more than a vow of celibacy(sp?) turns a priest into one. I cannot imagine that the percentage of child molesters among Aboriginals would be much different than that of any other race.
It seems pretty clear to me that all of Howards gyrations are only a sleight-of-hand trick to steal uranium-rich land from the rightful ‘owners’ of that land. The US government used (and still uses) similar techniques to deprive our own Aboriginals of their rights and property.
Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong and what Howard is doing is just plain Wrong. I ‘have no dog in this fight’ . . . but, until we all as Human Beings come to RESPECT each other as such these sorts of problems will continue to plague us all . . .
Kate, That was my point about my going to a Quaker school and nobody there careing in the slightest. I agree with you that it is very sad.
And while i go to a Quaker school, I am not a Quaker, they just run the best private school in Tasmania. It is quite interesting really how a group of people like that can still preach their values while charging 15k a year to attend their school. And there are only 2 real Quakers in the entire place, You just cant win.
And as for your comment on capitalism, Terje could give you a much better answer but in my opinion.
Right wing capitalism, and Libertarianism, is very much about self responsibility, You dont “have” to buy a product just because its marketed to you, It is wrong to sue Mcdonalds because they “made” you fat. You made the personal decision to engage/buy/whatever in their product, and it is upon the person to seek out any information that may be needed, failing that, they might be able to notice that they are gaining 40kg. Credit Cards, if used the right way are a good thing, It is not a good thing when you go out and spend money you dont have in any way shape or form.
As for mortgages, Well, There are many ways of buying property without actually spending money, but that gets into corporate law etc. The smaller idea would be to bring yourself to a position of savings / investment capital so that you can just buy a house outright for yourself.
And as for your graphs, I think it is a load of huuey.
I am not seeing an of the African countries anywhere near the top and i can guarantee you that there would be far more in any of those countries than the industrialised modern ones.
This graph speaks more about women’s ability to speak up about what has happened to them than anything else.
I would hate to think what the rape/murder rate would be if Rwanda had been included on that graph.
Or the Congo etc.
And you talk about Capitalism like we worship it. And i guess some people do, but is that any different from people worshipping god? God is just an idea, so is money. and Materialism gives alot of people meaning to their lives. I have to problem with that, In an age where worshipping god really wont get you anywhere, i agree with them.
Sorry, my point about the graph was that the estimated unreported rapes would be very interesting, Especially in muslim countries where women and generally killed to death for reporting a rape.
Kate,
You made a lot of relevant points. We do disagree on several things but I’m pleased to say we agree on an awful lot. I do have a problem with the Iraq war if that is the war you refer to. I think it was a waste of blood and treasure although more so for the Americans than us. I was never a supporter although I do believe that many supporters were well intentioned and hoped that in removing a brutal dictator they would make way for democracy. Of course good intentions are what paves the road to hell.
Capitalism is an emotive word and you appear to be using it in a very loose way. Perhaps I will avoid it for a moment and return to it later because I believe that we are probably working by different definitions.
Clearly we seem to agree on something called property rights. If you own property others should not arbitrarily take it from you. I agree that historically that is what happened in Australia to the Aboriginals although the experience and it’s interpretation was very much complicated by the huge cultural gap that existed in terms of notions of ownership. In New Zealand the natives appear to me to have coped better with European colonialism essentially because the Maoris had similar notions of owning and defending land as the Europeans. I can’t undo the legacy of history and I won’t carry guilt for what others did, however I think like all nations ours has a history that includes tragedies and injustices (not just for Aboriginals).
Do we agree that people own their bodies and their property? That they are entitled to use both without interference from others so long as they continue to respect the right of others to control their own bodies and their own property? And that government whilst granted the legal right to use violence against criminals or invaders in order to defend peoples most basic rights should not in turn be used as a proxy through which the majority plunders the property, person or labour of any peaceful person?
Or do we instead believe that the strong must control the weak. That the minority must yield up what they own to the majority. And if you have too much then I may use government to take some for me?
Regards,
Terje.
Kate,
A while back, I proposed the idea that the Commonwealth could initiate practical reconciliation by issuing compensation money for lands lost to an Aboriginal tribe, one tribe per year, a ‘buy-back’ scheme. This might take years, but it would do some good. How would you, and other Aborigines, feel about that?
And I also think that all Australians need a second language. English is becoming the world’s language, and Aboriginal languages across this land shown similarities which suggest either descent from a common parent tongue, or diffusion of good words across the land. This suggests that we could recreate an Australia-wide Aboriginal language, a second tongue for all Australians. Or we could create such a tongue.
Any thoughts on the subject?
Nicholas - your question was directed to Kate but let me just say I don’t think the compensation scheme you propose is practical. Who gets compensated for Tasmania? And must I also pay for the things my Viking ancestors stole in the 12th and 13th century? I agree with most aspects of native title but not with what you propose.
Terje, contrary to myth, some Tasmanians still claim ancestry from the original tribes. Those people could be compensated, if their claims are proved. (DNA from blood, etc.)
Also, there is something wrong with the Recent Comments column. I contributed some comments, but ‘refresh’ did nothing to the list. It’s not just ego, but there might be systemic failures elsewhere, as well.
Tasmanian aboriginies are white, doesnt mean that they dont support their heritage.
I am an Aboriginal Canadian. I have been reading these posts for quite some time. I appreciate the comments from people who seem to think they should have some say in how Aboriginal issues are dealt with.
There are so many parallels between the colonial history of Australia and Canada, many post-colonial theorists argue that there was a template the English used to steal land and resources wherever they went. It was methodical, cruel and racist, the project of colonialism.
Now people on this board seem to be of the view that many of the crimes committed against Indigenous peoples are in the past. This is far from the truth. My people are still suffering from the ills inflicted on us from the white invaders. I myself am a victim of the genocide that happened in Canada. I am in my thirties! I was taken from my people, the Inuit, by the Canadian government. An inquest into this practice resulted in a Canadian judge naming this practice of stealing children, now known as the “sixties scoop” as genocide.
This is just ONE of the policies used to destroy Natives in Canada.
Many other policies have left harmful scars that won’t be repaired in this generation or the next.
So when I see settlers talking about the “Native problem” it leaves me thinking that the only post-colonial practice that seeks to mend our people must come from within our cultures.
It would do both Canadians and Australians a world of good to give an ear to Aboriginal peoples, there is alot to be learned.
Thank you Kate for sharing your insight, I think it was badly needed on this site.
Perry, thank you I am pleased you clarified the point about the students at your school, and distance yourself from that kind of blatant bigotry. I would be pleased to know more about the stories the teacher was telling that she thought were interesting and what in particular did you gain from the lesson?
Perry the BIG pieces of machinery that drive capitalism are the banks and stock exchanges. It is all well and good to say don’t spend more than you earn, but credit cards have made it possible for people to live above their means and many do. That is a form of modern enslavement the bank owns you until you clear the debt. As for saving to buy a home, and paying cash. Repayments for a loan for even a modest home is stretched out over a 20 25 year period. Taking a mortgage to purchase rather than rent property makes sense, however, be that as it may it still enslaves the lender for the term of the debt.
I gave you a graph from a credible source that showed reported rapes in 66 countries. I was not trying to make the case that there were more or less rapes in other countries, in particular the Middle East or Africa. My sole point for giving you that information was to demonstrate that the number of reported rapes in Australia IS significant and spreads right across the spectrum of our secular society. Whether you like the facts or not is inconsequential.
Perry, we in the west are in no position of high moral ground when it comes to domestic violence and the number of women killed by husbands, lovers and total strangers. Let, the Muslim women take care of their own problems, they are quite capable of doing so. We have created enough death and destruction in their country right now, that we appear just a tad hypocritical to even suggest that we care about women being stoned to death.
With respect Perry it was you that provided the quote from Dr. Schumpter, which I presumed you put forward as the paradigm to which we should all aspire to, which is to embrace capitalism as the only way to go.
Perry like most non-indigenous people one talks to you seem to be almost totally uninformed about the issues that confront indigenous people today. With access to a computer there is little to no excuse I could afford to that except complacency and a disinterest in knowing the facts of a matter. I hope that some of the information I have provided in previous postings has enlightened you on some issues, and better yet encourages you to seek more information. Kate.
Dennis, thank you for your understanding and empathy for a situation that continues to prevail in my country. Aboriginal people have many fronts to fight in our struggle for respect. We do not seek to be like Non-Aboriginals we are proud of who we are and that we have survived, albeit in greatly reduced numbers. Our culture is alive and well in many parts of Australia. Our people are well represented right across the spectrum of high achievers, both academically, in the Arts, and of course in sport, where my people excel. We are having some problems, which are NOT part of our culture, that need addressing. But, they need addressing with appropriate action and programs. Trying to bully us and treat us like cattle is not going to work. We have had 200 years of that. Kate.
Just wondering, Has there been a successful intigration of indigenous people into a culture that took over anywhere in the world to date?
Terje, We do seem to be on the same page on a number of points. Firstly, let me say that as a woman who at one time was the c0-owner of a substantial company in Australia I do not decry Capitalism. I prefer it to everything being run by the State, ANY State. I am not a Communist or a Socialist. My traditional culture however is VERY close in structure to that of Socialism, but only in so far as EVERYTHING is shared among the community. If I have 2 shirts and you have none, I would give you one of my shirts, with no thought of payment in return.
With regard to your comment that other groups in Australia have suffered some for of discrimination. That is very true. I am a child of the 1950’s and I saw first hand the way new immigrants to this country were treated. And Chinese Australians who had been in this country since the Gold Rush were also excluded from the Constitution.
“There is no greater sorrow on earth than the loss of one’s native land.” - Euripides 431 B.C.
Terje, as to each person having absolute control over their own body, I agree to the extent that providing a person is not recklessly endangering another, he/she can kill themselves if they like. I am pro-abortion for women who deem it necessary for the quality of their life and the potential life of the fetus.
I DO NOT agree that the strong should control the weak. I believe that there is a moral obligation in societies for the strong to HELP the less fortunate. We even have homeless dog shelters, and yet some people will resent providing housing for people who simply can’t provide it for themselves. Kate.
The fact that Aboriginals and Inuits were forcibly taken their homes, “stolen generations” is appalling and wrong. It shows how westerners or white people did not (and still don’t) understand some of the basics of what is right and wrong and also shows how we live in flawed societies. These incidents were major crimes and should have been or where applicable, be compensated for.
True capitalism (something that doesn’t currently exist anywhere in the world) does not involve force and is therefore not criminal. In fact it’s natural human behaviour stemming from our primate roots. If you watch primate animals, they operate on the “if I scratch your back, you will scratch mine principle”. They work in teams to find food etc. Capitalism is simply an extension of this. Free trade. Our society often doesn’t work by this principle. We are controlled, regulated and are not free to operate as we wish. We do not have full property rights and protections.
The libertarian ideal is that no one else is to blame for your existence and therefore you have to take responsibility for you and your family’s life. This is why libertarians are anti-welfare. They do not support a system that forces some people into paying for the well being of others simply because they happen to have been born. Luckily humans are naturally good willed and charitable. Again, this stems from our animal instincts. Look how big charities are even when the government takes over half of our money away through tax.
Nicholas, There is no such thing as a ‘common’ language among Aboriginals. Many language groups cannot speak to each other. The first Europeans to take down Aboriginal language were members of Cook’s party in 1770. Several members took down word lists from the Guugu Yimidhirr. Cook’s party saw a variety of large marsupials and elicited the name from the Guugu Yimidhirr ~ ‘ganurru’ which was recored as Kangaroo.
It has since been determined that ‘ganurru’ means “I don’t know”. There are many quite amusing stories about Aboriginal names taken into common use by the Whitefella’s but perhaps one of the most amusing is the naming of the Moomba Festival in Melbourne. When the Commanderks of Melbourne were asked to name the Festival. They said “MOOMBA, it means let’s get together and have fun”. It was adopted and used to this day. It actually means “Up your bum”.
Nicholas, Aboriginals no more need Australians to create a single common language for communication than the Europeans do. Could you imagine French speaking people adopting a separate language? Hardly likely. If you wish to communicate with non-English speaking French people you better get yourself along to Francias classes.
There are approximately 230 different Aboriginal language groups in Australia. Why should anyone of them learn another language? The only additional language that it would be advantageous to learn would be English, if they wish to leave their community and work in the larger towns or cities.
If you wish to be able to communicate with any particular language group then you would need to learn that specific language. There are many Aboriginal language courses being run in Universities around Australia. And to my knowledge there is NO commonality between any Aboriginal language and English.
Now to the Tasmanian Aboriginals. The attempt of the genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals was almost total, and Truganni was the last Full-Tribal woman to die according to history. However, there are approximately 16,000 Aboriginals living in Tasmania today spread over two communities the Lia Pootah and Palawa People. No amount of money can repay these people what was taken from then. You see Nicholas what whitemen DO NOT understand is t