Society/Culture Australia Day - Date Change

[ferball]

Mate, you're advocating a teen Aboriginal boy who beats the sh*t out of his sister is solely the fault of the 'white fella'. You're not looking at the cause of those incarcerations, you're purely giving the impression it's the 'white fellas fault coz white' without laying any responsibility on the individual as to why they are incarcerated.

That is offensive and just plain wrong, and people wonder why people get pissed off with this narrative.

You can't be taken seriously with this attitude, please don't reply.

Is every case in the territory a "teen Aboriginal boy who beats the sh*t out of his sister" and it is only the sort of thing that happens in indigenous communities?

Do you know that happened or have you just made it up as a hypothetical? In 2015 about 1/3 of kids in NT detention were in there for acts likely to cause harm or injury (presumably to others). Why don't the others have a right to bail?

Why is it that only indigenous kids are locked up in the territory? Is it something bad about their genes maybe?

Why is it that in 2010 in the same jurisdiction 5 non indigenous (adult) men can go terrorising people for hours, drive vehicles at their beds and force them to jump out of the way in fear of their lives, point and fire replica weapons at them then kick one of them to death and all of them be out of prison within five years (some within a year) because they are "of essentially good character"?

You said:

However how about celebrating what we are now.

That is what we are now.

 

[SaltPeter]

was there any slaughter on the arrival date of jan 26 1788?

I always wonder this.....no-one ever has an answer

Sent from my CPH1879 using Tapatalk

Some historians believe that shortly after arrival the convicts were unloaded. The men and woman had been segregated on different ships and hadn't placed foot on land since their stop over in Cape Town.

The result was soldiers and convicts alike breaking into the rum stores, and a predictable massive drunken orgy

 

[SaltPeter]

It is a day in which the veterans of multiple wars, those who passed and those who didn't, are remembered by the rest of us. Given how the vast majority of these vets were conscripted prior to and until Vietnam, I think that it's rather unfair to deride that day as simple patriotic bunkum.

There was no conscription, prior to the Vietnam Conflict.

 

[Gethelred]

There was no conscription, prior to the Vietnam Conflict.

Conscription in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In WW1, recruitment was sufficiently high that, while they attempted to train civilian men - from age 12 - to serve in the army, they didn't serve. WW2 is a complete other matter:

In 1939, at the start of World War II, all unmarried men aged 21 were to be called up for three months' military training. These men could serve only in Australia or its territories. Conscription was effectively introduced in mid-1942, when all men aged 18–35, and single men aged 35–45, were required to join the Citizen Military Forces (CMF). Volunteers with the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) scorned CMF conscripts as "chocolate soldiers", or "chockos", because they were believed to melt under the conditions of battle. Or it might be an allusion to George Bernard Shaw's Arms and the Man, where Bluntschli filled his backpack with chocolate bars rather than ammunition. However, several CMF Militia units fought under difficult conditions and suffered extremely high casualties during 1942, in slowing the Japanese advance on the Kokoda Track in New Guinea (at the time an Australian territory).

So, yes there was. There was the initial act, the Defence act 1903, which (in sections 60) still has conscription as law.

Section 60 is:

DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 60
Proclamation calling upon persons to serve in time of war
(1) In time of war the Governor-General may, by proclamation, call upon persons specified in section 59 to serve in the Defence Force in accordance with this Act for the duration of the time of war.

(2) A Proclamation under this section must call on persons in the order in which they are included in classes established for the purposes of this subsection under subsection (3).

(3) The regulations may establish a series of classes of persons for the purposes of subsection (2).

(4) A Proclamation must be laid before each House of the Parliament before, but not more than 90 days before, the day on which it is expressed to come into effect.

(5) A Proclamation does not come into effect unless, within the period of 90 days before it is expressed to come into effect, it is approved, by resolution, by each House of the Parliament.

Where the persons are defined as:

Persons liable to serve in Defence Force in time of war
All persons (except those who are exempt from service under this Part or to whom this Part does not apply) who:

(a) have resided in Australia for not less than 6 months; and

(c) have attained the age of 18 years but have not attained the age of 60 years;

are liable, when called upon under section 60, to serve in the Defence Force.

DEFENCE ACT 1903

classic.austlii.edu.au

So, yes, Australia conscripted people before Vietnam, and technically could still conscript people today.

 

[SaltPeter]

Conscription in Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In WW1, recruitment was sufficiently high that, while they attempted to train civilian men - from age 12 - to serve in the army, they didn't serve. WW2 is a complete other matter:


So, yes there was. There was the initial act, the Defence act 1903, which (in sections 60) still has conscription as law.

Section 60 is:


Where the persons are defined as:

DEFENCE ACT 1903

classic.austlii.edu.au

So, yes, Australia conscripted people before Vietnam, and technically could still conscript people today.

In WW1 in particular referendums (2 initiated by Little Billy Big Ears) were held for conscription, which were soundly beaten.

 

[Chief]

Nah, I'm not.

You're tripping if you think this stops at the changing of a public holiday. It's agitators are going all the way.

For many people, yes, the aim is indigenous autonomy. For others the aim is a treaty and a voice to parliament.

 

[Gethelred]

In WW1 in particular referendums (2 initiated by Little Billy Big Ears) were held for conscription, which were soundly beaten.

... you did read the rest of the page? Or even the excerpt I pulled, referencing the civilian battalions that served on Kokoda, in WW2?

 

[Snake_Baker]

For many people, yes, the aim is indigenous autonomy. For others the aim is a treaty and a voice to parliament.

It's time they came out and widely declared it then, but of course that would undermine the tactical evolution.

Also, thanks for not taking the opportunity to label me a racist this time.

 

[Snake_Baker]

In WW1 in particular referendums (2 initiated by Little Billy Big Ears) were held for conscription, which were soundly beaten.

Predominately due to the significant Irish population at the time.

 

[SaltPeter]

... you did read the rest of the page? Or even the excerpt I pulled, referencing the civilian battalions that served on Kokoda, in WW2?

Yes, but your original reference was in regard to Gallipoli. National Service and conscripted soldiers didn't leave Australia until that point.

 

[Goroyals22]

For many people, yes, the aim is indigenous autonomy. For others the aim is a treaty and a voice to parliament.

They can have a voice to parliament anytime they want. Like anyone else they can run and get elected... or in the case of Lidia Thorpe get parachuted in for her 15 mins of fame for the greens.. Nothing is stopping them apart from hard work..

Once they have a voice does that mean muslims, asians and other migrant classes get a voice also??

What about other social groups?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Chief]

It's time they came out and widely declared it then, but of course that would undermine the tactical evolution.

Also, thanks for not taking the opportunity to label me a racist this time.

A lot of people do come out and say it. Constitutional recognition has been featured in a big campaign.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes, but your original reference was in regard to Gallipoli. National Service and conscripted soldiers didn't leave Australia until that point.

I don't know how you read that into that post, but that wasn't my intention. Nonetheless, you lead to me factchecking myself, and it was an interesting little bit of research, so thanks.

 

[SaltPeter]

I don't know how you read that into that post, but that wasn't my intention. Nonetheless, you lead to me factchecking myself, and it was an interesting little bit of research, so thanks.

My father and uncle did national service, though they were too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam. Funnily enough I'd never really considered that conscription until reading those.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A lot of people do come out and say it. Constitutional recognition has been featured in a big campaign.

Okay, then folks should drop the "It's just a day change" crap.

It's a hell of a lot more than that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

My father and uncle did national service, though they were too young for Korea and too old for Vietnam. Funnily enough I'd never really considered that conscription until reading those.

The Irish would have been more likely to side with the Germans than the British at that time.

It's ultimately what decided the conscription vote, when they ran out of young blokes who were chomping at the bit to get involved.

https://jeffkildea.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Kildea-Killing-Conscription-2016-JACHS.pdf

Australia and Ireland in the bitter year of 1917

1917 was a bitter year – probably the most bitter in white Australia’s history – but also one of which Irish Australians can be proud.

tintean.org.au

Research Guides: Easter Rising, Dublin, 1916: The Australian conscription plebiscites

This research guide is a companion to the exhibition The Irish Rising: 'A terrible beauty is born' at State Library Victoria, 17 March–31 July 2016

guides.slv.vic.gov.au

 

[ferball]

A lot of people do come out and say it. Constitutional recognition has been featured in a big campaign.

He has probably put me on ignore but there are lots of people who claim they want sovereignty over their lives, land and the rest. But its not a general thing across the indigenous political landscape. Not everyone who wants to change the date or the name of a cheese wants indigenous sovereignty. Some want to feel comfortable and like they belong in Australia and those things genuinely stop that from happening.

Ironically those things will drive younger radicals to move toward full sovereignty as their only reasonable choice if they aren't addressed.

Ignoring them is like bombing the Middle East to stop terrorism (tho not on the same scale.)

 

[SaltPeter]

The Irish would have been more likely to side with the Germans than the British at that time.

It's ultimately what decided the conscription vote, when they ran out of young blokes who were chomping at the bit to get involved.

Never really considered that. My vague memories from high school history was that women were influential in the outcome and largely in the 'no' conscription camp.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Never really considered that. My vague memories from high school history was that women were influential in the outcome and largely in the 'no' conscription camp.

Yes, well that's high school teachers for you.

There was a women's peace movement, but it was not a pivotal factor.

Align the Irish population in Australia with the circumstances in Ireland and it's easy to see why it failed.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

Did you read what I said?

It is a day in which the veterans of multiple wars, those who passed and those who didn't, are remembered by the rest of us. Given how the vast majority of these vets were conscripted prior to and until Vietnam, I think that it's rather unfair to deride that day as simple patriotic bunkum.

I agree as to the strategic idiocy that was the repeated invasions of the Dardenelles by British forces - which we played a component - and I disagree utterly with the nationalistic overtones that accompanies ANZAC day and Remembrance day under a Coalition government, but you'll never get my support for this. These people were denied a future by their government - frequently without a choice - and for that alone they deserve to be remembered if nothing else.

Actually the "vast majority" of Australians who have fought overseas in all wars have been volunteers, not conscripts. Conscription was defeated twice in referendums in World War 1 (Australia sent between 400 and 500 thousand troops overseas to fight) and while it was introduced at the beginning of World War 2, CMF members were to be deployed in Australia only in defensive and logistical capacities.

Half a million Australians volunteered and served in World War one (counting Indigenous volunteers, who have also served in the military as far back as the Boer War). That number is extremely significant as a representation of a per-capita total population of around 5 million at the time, plus undocumented Indigenous folks.

In 1943 (WW2) Australia began to send CMF overseas, but only as a defensive measure in a limited area north of Australia (PNG and Timor being mandated Australian territories at the time so it was deemed more acceptable to do so), as there weren't enough regular troops to prevent Japanese movements into PNG. All smaller conflicts have been fought by regular volunteer units with the single exception of Vietnam, in which just over 15,000 conscripts served on active duty (of a total of around 50 thousand sent).

Roylion seems to have adequately covered the importance of the Dardanelles campaign so I wont bother with that. Other than to note that it was allied initiative, not solely British (more French troops served and died in the Dardanelles than Australia and New Zealand combined).

The idea you seem to have that Australian soldiers have not had a choice is, in effect, "bunkum". Particularly in World Wars one and two, it was a sense of national identity and a knowledge of their own cultural roots (among other things) which was a major factor in them serving in the armed forces during times of war.

If you going to make statements based upon historical events and motivations, it's probably best you know a little about them first.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

...But I will say we're bloody good at farming stuff and digging sh*t up. We're pretty rubbish at making stuff, like cars or clothes. That's why we do more of the former and not much of the latter.

I think you'll find that the reason Australia is not a manufacturing nation is economic, not as a result of "not being good at it".

 

[Ben The Donkey]

...and, I've just typed all that out and then read the last page or so where Gethelred's claims have already been called into question.
Oh well.

 

[Pessimistic]

Actually the "vast majority" of Australians who have fought overseas in all wars have been volunteers, not conscripts. Conscription was defeated twice in referendums in World War 1 (Australia sent between 400 and 500 thousand troops overseas to fight) and while it was introduced at the beginning of World War 2, CMF members were to be deployed in Australia only in defensive and logistical capacities.

Half a million Australians volunteered and served in World War one (counting Indigenous volunteers, who have also served in the military as far back as the Boer War). That number is extremely significant as a representation of a per-capita total population of around 5 million at the time, plus undocumented Indigenous folks.

In 1943 (WW2) Australia began to send CMF overseas, but only as a defensive measure in a limited area north of Australia (PNG and Timor being mandated Australian territories at the time so it was deemed more acceptable to do so), as there weren't enough regular troops to prevent Japanese movements into PNG. All smaller conflicts have been fought by regular volunteer units with the single exception of Vietnam, in which just over 15,000 conscripts served on active duty (of a total of around 50 thousand sent).

Roylion seems to have adequately covered the importance of the Dardanelles campaign so I wont bother with that. Other than to note that it was allied initiative, not solely British (more French troops served and died in the Dardanelles than Australia and New Zealand combined).

The idea you seem to have that Australian soldiers have not had a choice is, in effect, "bunkum". Particularly in World Wars one and two, it was a sense of national identity and a knowledge of their own cultural roots (among other things) which was a major factor in them serving in the armed forces during times of war.

If you going to make statements based upon historical events and motivations, it's probably best you know a little about them first.

If I were still a youngun, I’d be happy conscripted to home service (hopefully sometHing suited to my skill set).

But were these the things which cut the apron ties to mother England?

Strike 1. ANZAC slaughter
Strike 2. fall of Singapore and the Allies keeping Aussie troops ‘over there’
strike 3. UK joining common market and abandoning trade arrangements

 

[Admiral Byng]

I think you'll find that the reason Australia is not a manufacturing nation is economic, not as a result of "not being good at it".

.. and geographic, and demographic.

A relatively small population concentrated into tiny pockets spread out across a big wide land. The tyranny of distance and all that. Plus not having railways built to the same gauge made land transport between the major conurbations expensive. There is effectively no unified national market.

 

[Pessimistic]

.. and geographic, and demographic.

A relatively small population concentrated into tiny pockets spread out across a big wide land. The tyranny of distance and all that. Plus not having railways built to the same gauge made land transport between the major conurbations expensive. There is effectively no unified national market.

Manufacturing is heavily mechanised anyway. There just not the jobs in it any more, even if you’ve got some.