NT Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.


There's a small, easily amused part of me that hopes they're silly enough to do this.

  • She's shown over her career that (beyond carefully staged photo ops) she's a complete policy lightweight, with very little to show in for her time on Alice Springs council beyond a poor attendance rate.
  • Her default response to any tough questioning is threatening to sue the outlet or journalist in question.
  • She can't win Lingiari, as for all she claims to represent the outback and remote communities, residents actively detest her.
  • She might be able to swing Solomon, but running for a metro seat would expose her as the kind of obnoxious, hypocritical elite she's built her profile railing against.
 

There's a small, easily amused part of me that hopes they're silly enough to do this.

  • She's shown over her career that (beyond carefully staged photo ops) she's a complete policy lightweight, with very little to show in for her time on Alice Springs council beyond a poor attendance rate.
  • Her default response to any tough questioning is threatening to sue the outlet or journalist in question.
  • She can't win Lingiari, as for all she claims to represent the outback and remote communities, residents actively detest her.
  • She might be able to swing Solomon, but running for a metro seat would expose her as the kind of obnoxious, hypocritical elite she's built her profile railing against.

Parnell is an insufferable dropkick at the best of times, but she's really dialled up the stupid on this one. She's arguing with randoms on Twitter over it too lol
 
Saying colonisation was ' good for Indigenous people'was a lie and offensive and racisr imo. Anyway, we can both agree that Newman has demonstrated enough to be able to call him a racist.
I cant remember the exact quote but I think she said running water and modern health advances that came from colonisation was good for indiginous people. I think everybody would say those inventions were remarkable achievements for all of humanity would you not? And in the case of indiginous people those advances (eventually) came with colonisation along with a number of others.

How you weigh those advances vs the very negative effects of colonisation such as violence, murder and being forced to move from ones land for all of indiginous people both past and former is very difficult to say. For many colonisation was solely negative obviously. However for others living today it probably put them in a better position then they otherwise would be (In terms of health, life expectancy, ease of living and opportunities to engage with the world) even if they are disadvantaged relative to non indiginous people in the same country.

to simply say its a lie and offensive and racist (when its literally being said by an indiginous person) shows you are not engaging with what is a complex topic properly. Note she wasnt saying colonisation was right or justified. I think almost everyone would say no to that statement. She was talking about whether indiginous people are better off? That is a very different question.
 
Last edited:
I cant remember the exact quote but I think she said running water and modern health advances that came from colonisation was good for indiginous people. I think everybody would say those inventions were remarkable achievements for all of humanity would you not? And in the case of indiginous people those advances (eventually) came with colonisation along with a number of others.

How you weigh those advances vs the very negative effects of colonisation such as violence, murder and being forced to move from ones land for all of indiginous people both past and former is very difficult to say. For many colonisation was solely negative obviously. However for others living today it probably put them in a better position then they otherwise would be (In terms of health, life expectancy, ease of living and opportunities to engage with the world) even if they are disadvantaged relative to non indiginous people in the same country.

to simply say its a lie and offensive and racist (when its literally being said by an indiginous person) shows you are not engaging with what is a complex topic properly. Note she wasnt saying colonisation was right or justified. I think almost everyone would say no to that statement. She was talking about whether indiginous people are better off? That is a very different question.
Running water is important if you've been driven away from traditional water sources so that colonisers can put cattle there. I'm not sure their life expectancy has increased very much. It would be very hard to test pre-colonisation life expectancy. But they're only at low-70's now, so it's not like there isn't a long way to go before declaring that a success for colonisation.

It's very difficult to balance the health benefits of modern medicine (infant mortality and anti-biotics) against the impact of being driven from fertile land to the outskirts of barely-survivable areas or barely-allowed into a colonial system.

The net benefit is hard to calculate as positive or negative overall. I can envision arguments both ways. And, of course, with 21st century hindsight and morality, the best thing would have to given indigenous Australians access to medical discoveries without stealing nearly everything from them in return.

I don't think anyone is saying no benefits exist. But Jacinta Price is saying no disbenefit exists at all. Which is obviously an untenable position if logic is involved. Jacinta is a classic neo-liberal. She thinks that if people just try really really hard then they all have the same benefit. Which is easy to say when your mum is a tribal leader and Government-employed and you've been on the same gravy train since childhood.

She's a typical conservative spoiled rich kid looking down on all the others, patting herself on her back.
 
I cant remember the exact quote but I think she said running water and modern health advances that came from colonisation was good for indiginous people. I think everybody would say those inventions were remarkable achievements for all of humanity would you not? And in the case of indiginous people those advances (eventually) came with colonisation along with a number of others.

How you weigh those advances vs the very negative effects of colonisation such as violence, murder and being forced to move from ones land for all of indiginous people both past and former is very difficult to say. For many colonisation was solely negative obviously. However for others living today it probably put them in a better position then they otherwise would be (In terms of health, life expectancy, ease of living and opportunities to engage with the world) even if they are disadvantaged relative to non indiginous people in the same country.

to simply say its a lie and offensive and racist (when its literally being said by an indiginous person) shows you are not engaging with what is a complex topic properly. Note she wasnt saying colonisation was right or justified. I think almost everyone would say no to that statement. She was talking about whether indiginous people are better off? That is a very different question.
Come off it. There was a genocide. Price is a p.o.s. . Everyone called her out on that one.

'Running water and modern health advances' ?
They had water, they had medicines. They had a balanced rich society that was 65,000 years old. Colonisation was a disaster for them. Disease, mass deaths, massacres, land forcibly taken . You and Price are wrong.
 
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has claimed there are "no ongoing negative impacts" of colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, only a "positive impact".

Price has also cast doubt on the suggestion that some Indigenous people might have suffered intergenerational trauma.

Nationals leader David Littleproud and frontbencher Bridget McKenzie applauded that statement.

20230909001839517280-original.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has claimed there are "no ongoing negative impacts" of colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, only a "positive impact".

Price has also cast doubt on the suggestion that some Indigenous people might have suffered intergenerational trauma.

Nationals leader David Littleproud and frontbencher Bridget McKenzie applauded that statement.

View attachment 1819770
Do you have a link to confirm they actually said this?
 
Do you have a link to confirm they actually said this?

'Opposition Indigenous Australians spokeswoman Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has claimed there are "no ongoing negative impacts" of colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, only a "positive impact".

Price has also cast doubt on the suggestion that some Indigenous people might have suffered intergenerational trauma, saying that, if that were true, descendants of British and Irish convicts would also suffer such trauma.

Nationals leader David Littleproud and frontbencher Bridget McKenzie applauded that statement.'

 
Also: LOL at people who think that the Liberal Party would consider Jacinta Price as leader.

Remembering that the party with previous leaders: Dutton, Morrison, Turnbull, Abbott has never had a female leader. Apparently not meritorious enough, ever, compared to those illustrious names.

If Morrison can be PM, then so can Price, but she lacks three things all Liberal leaders have had. And she's currently against her own rights if she decided to add those three things.
 
Jacinta said she is going after trans kids after the referendum. Do you think pretend centrists are her target audience?
Really? What did she say?

I'd tired of both sides of politics pushing their angle of the transgender debate. It doesn't factor in how I choose to vote.

Pretend centrists are generally focused on other issues.
 
Also: LOL at people who think that the Liberal Party would consider Jacinta Price as leader.

Remembering that the party with previous leaders: Dutton, Morrison, Turnbull, Abbott has never had a female leader. Apparently not meritorious enough, ever, compared to those illustrious names.

If Morrison can be PM, then so can Price, but she lacks three things all Liberal leaders have had. And she's currently against her own rights if she decided to add those three things.
Julie Bishop would have made a good Liberal party leader and PM. I'm not so sure about Price.
 
Julie Bishop would have made a good Liberal party leader and PM. I'm not so sure about Price.
If Morrison is the bar, there couldn't be many people that can't meet that standard. To argue that the LNP promotes on merit and it just so happens that no women have ever been meritorious enough is absurd. They're clearly sexist.

Yet there are people out there thinking the LNP are about to promote not only a Senator, but also a female indigenous Senator as leader. They're truly off with the fairies.
 
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has claimed there are "no ongoing negative impacts" of colonisation on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, only a "positive impact".

Price has also cast doubt on the suggestion that some Indigenous people might have suffered intergenerational trauma.

Nationals leader David Littleproud and frontbencher Bridget McKenzie applauded that statement.

View attachment 1819770
Well i obviously disagree with her comment regarding no negative impacts.
 
Come off it. There was a genocide. Price is a p.o.s. . Everyone called her out on that one.

'Running water and modern health advances' ?
They had water, they had medicines. They had a balanced rich society that was 65,000 years old. Colonisation was a disaster for them. Disease, mass deaths, massacres, land forcibly taken . You and Price are wrong.
Um i stated murder and violence in my post. Why bring it up when its already been stated? What additional relevance does it have?

you cant compare the benefits of western medicine and running water systems with what they had before. Thats just silly. People have been romantisizing the quality of life of hunter gatherer societies since Rousseau. All the evidence we have paints a much sadder picture unfortunately. Being a hunter gather is extremely hard and completely lacking in support and protections let alone technology and resources that we take for granted.
 
Um i stated murder and violence in my post. Why bring it up when its already been stated? What additional relevance does it have?

you cant compare the benefits of western medicine and running water systems with what they had before. Thats just silly. People have been romantisizing the quality of life of hunter gatherer societies since Rousseau. All the evidence we have paints a much sadder picture unfortunately. Being a hunter gather is extremely hard and completely lacking in support and protections let alone technology and resources that we take for granted.
You're a dingbat.
 
Um i stated murder and violence in my post. Why bring it up when its already been stated? What additional relevance does it have?

you cant compare the benefits of western medicine and running water systems with what they had before. Thats just silly. People have been romantisizing the quality of life of hunter gatherer societies since Rousseau. All the evidence we have paints a much sadder picture unfortunately. Being a hunter gather is extremely hard and completely lacking in support and protections let alone technology and resources that we take for granted.
Sorry but that's an ignorant opinion. Just because you don't have electricity or anti-biotics, doesn't mean your culture is substandard.
They had a wide range of medicines, a justice system, a religion, and were extremely healthy and lived full lives.
They also respected the environment and were living a sustainable life.
Western colonisation brought disease , drugs like alcohol , heroin ect and a racist class system.
 
You're a dingbat.
what the? Can you make me look silly with argument rather then name calling? Or at least attach an argument to back up the name calling?

Sorry but that's an ignorant opinion. Just because you don't have electricity or anti-biotics, doesn't mean your culture is substandard.
They had a wide range of medicines, a justice system, a religion, and were extremely healthy and lived full lives.
They also respected the environment and were living a sustainable life.
Western colonisation brought disease , drugs like alcohol , heroin ect and a racist class system.
who said anything about saying a culture was substandard? Why are you putting words into my mouth and then arguing against those words that were never said? I wouldnt even know what the concept of substandard culture even means let alone advocate for it.

your statement seems quite definitive regarding health. Do you have any evidence to back that up? My reading on the topic of Australian indiginous health is very limited (as i assume it is for most people) but from what i have read it appears no one really knows what indiginous health and average life expectancy was like pre colonisation. There just isnt any data to go on. Correct me if this is wrong? There are examples of people living into what we consider elderly ages but that tells us nothing about averages. All we have to make an educated guess is data from other hunter gatherer societies. And that data is terrible in comparison to modern life in terms of life expectancy, health and violence rates. Do we have enough evidence to suggest that indiginous australians per colonial times were dramatically different to the average hunter gatherer society on these measures?

you do make a good point on colonisation spreading illnesses. that is obviously a devasting impact of colonisation (or any engagement between long seperated groups of people). But this is a transitional problem (assuming it doesnt wipe out a race as it did in latin america) given people eventually build up immunities. if these diseases didnt come through 18th century colonisers they would of come from 20th century tourists. i.e. it wasnt specific to colonisers but foreigners in general.

I cant see how you could say they had good medicine in comparison to modern medicine. we know from scientific studies that modern medicine is vastly superior then anything else that came before it. What are you basing this comment off?

i like alcohol. I think my life is more enjoyable for it. I cant see how having access to it is an overall negative as you suggest. If access alone was a negative I think we should make it illegal. Do you advocate making alcohol illegal?

This is subjective but i wildly disagree with the comment that full lives can be achieved without engagment with the rest of the world, its history, its technologies, its ideas, its food, its cultures. If i didnt have heavy metal music, chocolate, enlightenment philosophy, geelong football club, cricket, opera, holidays to the swiss alps/south america, the washing machine, thai/italian/chinese food, jazz music, hollywood movies, scotch whisky, japanese anime, mountian biking, my airfryer, antibiotics, surfing, french fine dining, vaccines and roller skating then i could not possibly say my life is as full as it could of been. And my life could be even fuller if I find time to discover more of what the world can offer. the life that is lived in a society closed off from the world, no matter what society that is, is greatly reduced in its ability to provide a fullfulling life.
 
Probably worth pointing out that western societies, especially democracies were not exactly a peaceful system in the early 20th century. There were a couple of World Wars which suggest the myth that Indigenous people were at war more than western societies who brought peace are a bit ill-conceived.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top