I'm talking about ATSI people being the first inhabitants of Australia. Nothing to do with that.
I'm talking about British colonisation - when they claimed Australia as property of the Crown.
Oh, if they were here first, absolutely that should be recognised!
And of course, they are very welcome to give input into policies and the law through their right to form political parties and vote for members of the House of Representative and the Senate. Oh, and they are very welcome to form...
Well, it might be tradition, but it's not really seen as acceptable any more...
Harm done in the past - how far back do we go? Should the Turks pay reparations for the their continued occupation of 'stolen' land? Should the Normans? Should the Romans?
I'm not saying that there aren't wrongs to...
But - isn't all land stolen land? Lands have been lost, won, amalgamated, and fragmented in a ceaseless dance that has been choreographed by the ambitions of empires, tribes, and nations since the dawn of man! Is conquest not, historically, the most common means by which ownership of land has...
Of course I wouldn't just roll over and accept it. And 250 years later I would suspect that the descendants of the New-Russian colonisers would be making arguments similar to the ones I am making, and my descendants would be making similar arguments many ATSI people are making today.
No, I don't actually, but the presumption seems to be that they do. I think it's harmful for people in a multi-ethnic democracy to view individual legislators as owing political allegiances based on the concept of race - it creates a Balkinised political atmosphere.
But OP implied ATSI people...
I didn't realise they haven't been able to vote for the last sixty years? What are the 11 ATSI federal Parliamentarians up to? Where has all the hundreds of millions (probably more like billions) of dollars spent on ATSI lobby groups, organisations etc. gone? What does the Native Title Act do...
From a civic/legal perspective I am a citizen - a shareholder - of the Commonwealth. I pay taxes, I vote to decide who runs it. If all other shareholders were to perish, I would find myself in sole command of the legislature and executive - it would be my country alone (ignoring entitlements of...
No? When did I ever implicitly or explicitly argue that it does?
The message these ceremonies convey implicitly is that an ethnic group has a right to morally gatekeep the activities that occur within certain parts of the country.
Enabling these groups to ‘welcome’ people also, by implication...
I’m asking you to explain how you think.
It being ‘my’ country doesn’t equate to me having proprietary interests in the land - you know that I’m not saying that.
It means I have a moral right - within the confides of ‘Australia’ - to live, to participate in public/civic life etc. It’s where...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.