Opinion Adam Goodes

[ydraw]

If you are looking at percentages of the aboriginal population that were wiped out, then it was complete genocide in Tasmania, and something close to that in Queensland.

Nobody considers what happened in Tasmania a genocide because after the initial war it was mostly a matter of people interbreeding. There are still plenty of people who are descended from the original Tasmanian people, just none of them are full blooded, which was inevitable since there were only about 5000 of them to begin with.

Genocide has a specific meaning and part of the meaning is that it has to be a deliberate policy. There was never any deliberate policy to wipe out the Tasmanian aborigines, but the genetic stocks had fallen so low that there was no way to reverse it.

 

[rodney hoo]

I have been following your posts on here, and am utterly dismayed by them. Most of your posts are misinformed or false and to prove them you always seem to refer the person to a google search, and pass that off as "research".
Try reading the book The Biggest Estate on Earth, and when you have finished that read Dark Emu, and when you have finished that read Australians by Thomas Keneally (Volume 1) and when you have finished that read the Original Australians, and when you have done that go out and live with a remote Aborginal community for a year. (I have done all of these things and do not consider myself of knowing even one hundredth of the facts surrounding the stolen generation, the colonisation by the British, or the history or culture of Aboriginal people.)
I know we all like to talk about footy here. Most of the time all we are making educated guesses on tactics, team selection, players form ect, and that is fine. But when the subject is as important as this one, and you are passing off your ill-informed opinions as facts, then your opinions are dangerous. (Especially to those gullible enough to believe you.)

Thanks.

 

[Kram]

you can find examples if you google - nothing like I've ever heard, hence why it's become such an issue

Found a video, yeah pretty bad even for Eagles' fans.

 

[The Anchorite]

I don't read a lot of fiction.

You mean you don't read anything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions.

 

[pavsbootlace]

The graph basically reflects public support at the time. The Howard government was very popular until 2007 and the endorsements reflect that. I posted that graph to rebut someone's suggestion that fairfax was a right wing paper because they endorsed abbott in 1 election. Everyone endorsed Abbott in the last election because the Gillard government was the worst in living memory.

They probably won't do so again given how s**t Abbott has been and the fact that Gillard is no longer Labor leader.

Reflects public support or creates public support?

The Sydney morning herald has supported the coalition for every election in its history bar 2. It is not a left wing paper and neither is the Age. It could be argued that they are in the centre or less right than Murdoch, but to argue that Fairfax is left wing, is simply wrong. Further left than you maybe, but not the average Australian.

And... your statement on the Gillard government being the worst government in living memory is interesting. The Fairfax and Murdoch press certainly represented it that way, but if you look carefully at their achievements, they were much more effective than the Rudd government. (And I would also argue the Abbott government, but I wont bother arguing that with you).

 

[rodney hoo]

You mean you don't read anything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions.

Yep, he's never been wrong on any subject, I think from now every morning I'll open big footy see what ydraw wants then just goose step in line.

 

[pavsbootlace]

The mainstream media is horrendously left wing, when the only people who have come out and not defended Goodes are Rita Panahi, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones that tells you all you need to know really.

I mean the chief football writer in the Herald Sun (part of News Ltd, perceived by lefties to have a massive right wing bias) is pumping out articles daily and campaigning nightly on TV in support of Goodes you know that it leans to the left.

It tells you that the only people not defending Goodes are extremists.

 

[Borderline]

It tells you that the only people not defending Goodes are extremists.

Well, going off various polls online that means 70-80% of footy fans are extremists then

 

[Frank J Moose]

What you mean is you aren't capable of having a discussion because you don't have a clue what youre talking about. So like all the other faux intellectuals in this thread you resort to pretend exasperation in lieu of an argument. You haven't got a clue so you just insult me and hope others pile on. Weak as piss.

It's about the 4th time you've done the same thing fishing for likes and you still haven't got one yet. Must be annoying.

Its just pointless whe you are so removed from reality. John Hewson was the archetypal small l liberal and Abbott is a right wing IPA warrior. Abbott comes up with stupid ideas because he sees power as the end not the means so he just tries to oneupmanship any labor policy but at heart he is a conservative, not in the least bit wet. And you are telling us thats not the case and all the political commentators are wrong and you are right.

And you add Bernardi to give your argument substance. He's almost libertarian.

Honestly with your views Leyonhjelm would be more your cup of tea.


Nice to see RTB call anyone out who still think its ok to boo Goodes.

 

[ydraw]

And... your statement on the Gillard government being the worst government in living memory is interesting. The Fairfax and Murdoch press certainly represented it that way, but if you look carefully at their achievements, they were much more effective than the Rudd government. (And I would also argue the Abbott government, but I wont bother arguing that with you).

I don't think the Abbott government has been particularly effective except in their promise to stop deaths at sea, which was the major failure of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Abbott government has failed on basically everything else they promised. But neither has Abbott government deliberately damaged any important industries like Gillard did with the live export ban and the mining/carbon taxes.

 

[ydraw]

Honestly with your views Leyonhjelm would be more your cup of tea.

Yup. Bob Day is ok too.

Lleyonhjelm is closer to Hewson than any of the current Liberals are.

 

[pavsbootlace]

Well, going off various polls online that means 70-80% of footy fans are extremists then

I prefer to use the term "uneducated".

 

[ydraw]

I prefer to use the term "uneducated".

And we use the terms "intolerant" and "smug" for people like you.

 

[pavsbootlace]

I don't think the Abbott government has been particularly effective except in their promise to stop deaths at sea, which was the major failure of the Rudd and Gillard governments. Abbott government has failed on basically everything else they promised. But neither has Abbott government deliberately damaged any important industries like Gillard did with the live export ban and the mining/carbon taxes.

Renewable energy industry might disagree with you.

 

[gungho]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[pavsbootlace]

And we use the terms "intolerant" and "smug" for people like you.

I'll take smug, though it wasn't my intention. By why intolerant?

 

[ydraw]

Abbott comes up with stupid ideas because he sees power as the end not the means so he just tries to oneupmanship any labor policy but at heart he is a conservative, not in the least bit wet.

Abbott proposed the PPL scheme which is the biggest new social welfare program since Whitlam, so he is a fair bit wet by my reckoning.

 

[ydraw]

I'll take smug, though it wasn't my intention. By why intolerant?

You seem to have a lot of trouble tolerating the views of people who don't align with yours.

 

[Borderline]

Renewable energy industry might disagree with you.

He said important lad

 

[Stronzo]

I don't read a lot of fiction.

Beliefs that are the most tenuously held need the most defence. In this case your defense amounts to intellectual dishonesty by way of dismissing first hand accounts, selectively quoting, totally ignoring or manipulating the argument onto grounds that suit your agenda.

We could front up a plethora of evidence that demonstrates a genocide, like this:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/bringing-them-home-report-1997

Or this from Mr Neville the "Chief Protector of Aborigines" in WA from the 1930s:

"One factor, however, seems clear; atavism is not in evidence so far as colour is concerned. Eliminate in future the full-blood and the white and one common blend will remain. Eliminate the full blood and permit the white admixture and eventually the race will become white.[20]"

In fact, almost anything from Neville should foot the bill.

Or from his NT equivalent, Cecil Cook:

"Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white."

Or perhaps the fact that the Indigenous population dropped from over 1 million from when Europeans settled to roughly 60 to 70k in the 1920s.

Or this from a national conference on Australian Indigenous in the 1930s:


"This conference believes that the destiny of the natives of Aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth and it therefore recommends that all efforts be directed to that end. Nobody who knows about these groups could deny that their members are socially and culturally deprived. We must improve their lot so that they can take their place economically and socially in the general community. Once this is done, the breakup of such groups will be rapid.[1]"

http://www.stolengenerations.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&Itemid=109

In fact this whole website gives a lot of details:

http://www.stolengenerations.info

I could keep digging, but it's a bit trying on the mobile and you'll probably find someway to ignore it all. Probably a left wing conspiracy or something.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

ydraw, is there any chance at all of you sticking to the thread topic and not trying to make every single post about you and your incredibly eclectic grab bag of knowledge?

 

[Big Animal]

Just seeking clarification but are we still 'allowed' to boo at the footy, say umps, Mitchell, Pinchy, SJ, Bruest, Zarke (Goodes is obviously off-limits)?

 

[Borderline]

Just seeking clarification but are we still 'allowed' to boo at the footy, say umps, Mitchell, Pinchy, SJ, Bruest, Zarke (Goodes is obviously off-limits)?

Zarke is half African American

 

[Stronzo]

Last thoughts please folks, we'll retire this thread later today.

 

[ydraw]

ydraw, is there any chance at all of you sticking to the thread topic and not trying to make every single post about you and your incredibly eclectic grab bag of knowledge?

If everyone else stops posting their political philosophy in the thread I will too. Seems to me there are a fair few people participating apart from me, including mods.