Play Nice Buddy speaks out

[Number37]

That is misleading because it assumes that the only way that indigenous folk could be, or were, classed as fauna is via a section of law that explicitly stated so.

The indigenous people were considered fauna because they weren't considered persons.


The act which gave authority to the census explicitly stated that ALL PERSONS were to be counted.
Indigenous people weren't counted because they weren't considered to be "persons".
If they're not persons they had to be something else, that something else is linked to the some of the justifications for declaring a land terra nullius, as put forward by the architect of the law which came to be known as 'terra nullius', William Blackstone. Some of those justifications included that the people inhabiting a land were so backward so as not to be persons and should be considered to be part of the land. i.e. fauna.

There is also further evidence to support the notion that indigenous people were considered fauna in the form of court cases from the 1820's where indigenous folk were not permitted to make their case for their right to land because they had no standing to do so. They had not standing because there were not subject to British law, like everyone else. They were not considered to be subjects of the British Empire, in order to be a subject of the British Empire you had to be a person.

The Invalid & Old Age Pension Acts between 1908 and 1942 also would only pay pensions to indigenous folk if the Commissioner of the Pensions Acts was satisfied that "by reason of character, standard of intelligence & development of the Aboriginal native" they could become a beneficiary of the Act.

Natives were defined as aborigines who lived nomadically or exclusively on a reserve, they had to get a court order to say they were no longer a native.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yes they were, you are mistaken about what the 1967 referendum said. The 1967 referendum counted them in the census for the first time, and transferred authority for aboriginal affairs from state to federal government.

But they had citizenship since Cook landed and claimed the land in 1770, before the first fleet even arrived. They could even vote (except in Qld and WA), for example both aboriginal and white men got the vote in SA in 1854, and women in 1896. I agree these are technicalities with regard to the centuries of abuse and mistreatment, but i think it is an important distinction to draw.

Good to get some important nuance, thanks, but I guess I’d say not being counted in the census of their own country is a gross humiliation in itself, and very redolent of the sort of things a certain European power did to a certain minority in its midst in the 30s and 40s. (Not mentioning any names of course.)

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That is misleading because it assumes that the only way that indigenous folk could be, or were, classed as fauna is via a section of law that explicitly stated so.

The indigenous people were considered fauna because they weren't considered persons.


The act which gave authority to the census explicitly stated that ALL PERSONS were to be counted.
Indigenous people weren't counted because they weren't considered to be "persons".
If they're not persons they had to be something else, that something else is linked to the some of the justifications for declaring a land terra nullius, as put forward by the architect of the law which came to be known as 'terra nullius', William Blackstone. Some of those justifications included that the people inhabiting a land were so backward so as not to be persons and should be considered to be part of the land. i.e. fauna.

There is also further evidence to support the notion that indigenous people were considered fauna in the form of court cases from the 1820's where indigenous folk were not permitted to make their case for their right to land because they had no standing to do so. They had not standing because there were not subject to British law, like everyone else. They were not considered to be subjects of the British Empire, in order to be a subject of the British Empire you had to be a person.

Excellent post.

 

[BarneyBent]

Aboriginal people were mistreated, in many cases they were thought as inferior and less than human.
Yes we can agree on that

The issue I have with the 'Aboriginal people were classified as fauna', is that you have people speaking that as an irrefutable fact, when it was not the case.
One poster on here said they learnt it in Aboriginal Studies at Uni...therefore if they were told it was true it must certainly be true.
If they learnt that I'd be questioning the entire course content they were given.

Aboriginal people suffered horribly as it is, why does the suffering need to be enhanced with falsities?

Some would argue that “classified as fauna” and “managed by the same government departments as fauna” is more an issue of semantics than anything.

 

[replicant]

Yeah, there is no excuse for how they were treated, which was almost uniformly appallingly.

Anyway, i'm out. Football forum doesn't feel like the place i want to get too deep into this stuff. Cheer cheer!

 

[Kummerspeck]

I absolutely love the aboriginal people and Goodsey is one of the best humans ive ever met

This sounds verrry close to "I love indigenous people and Eddie Betts, but no one is going to tell me who I can and can't boo".

 

[CheapCharlie]

Some would argue that “classified as fauna” and “managed by the same government departments as fauna” is more an issue of semantics than anything.

It is false equivalency.

Why the need to enhance an already bleak past with falsities?

 

[The King!]

Me too, so why we can't just hold it on Jan 1st, which is clearly the most appropriate date, is beyond me.

I think it's time to drop this juvenile Oh-but-we-Aussies-just-HAVE-to-have-our-public-holidays-and-Jan-1st-is-already-a-public-holiday-so-it's-not-fair-that-we-miss-out palaver.

Well speak for yourself I don’t want less public holidays

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Yes they were, you are mistaken about what the 1967 referendum said. The 1967 referendum counted them in the census for the first time, and transferred authority for aboriginal affairs from state to federal government.

But they had citizenship since Cook landed and claimed the land in 1770, before the first fleet even arrived. They could even vote (except in Qld and WA), for example both aboriginal and white men got the vote in SA in 1854, and women in 1896. I agree these are technicalities with regard to the centuries of abuse and mistreatment, but i think it is an important distinction to draw.

I believe this to be correct. Many Aboriginal and TSI in urban areas filled in Census forms. ABS did not count defined rural and remote community folk until post 67.

As part of my work at one stage, I helped ABS improve its ATSI data collection and interpretation. It is has been a wonderful thing that more people are now willing to self identify. To its great credit our ABS campaigns heavily to encourage people to self identify in the Census and other Surveys.

 

[bedford]

This sounds verrry close to "I love indigenous people and Eddie Betts, but no one is going to tell me who I can and can't boo".

I do , but i'll celebrate what I want and won't have any commo telling me I can't ( that's not meaning you)

 

[Kummerspeck]

I do , but i'll celebrate what I want and won't have any commo telling me I can't ( that's not meaning you)

You've had two of the greatest players our club has had explaining why the day is painful to them and your main focus is making sure the commies can't tell you when you can have a BBQ?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I do , but i'll celebrate what I want and won't have any commo telling me I can't ( that's not meaning you)

Look.I think Bedders would be among the first here to intercede if he saw an Aboriginal person being abused at the footy or elsewhere.

Just as Connolly would and everyone who has posted here, including Opts. For some odd reason our Club attracts fans who are good folk.

The differences I guess, are more around between folk who think about and are prepared to actively support Aboriginal people having a loud and clear voice about the history of the country and current politics.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It is false equivalency.

Why the need to enhance an already bleak past with falsities?

Why the need, in the face of enormous deprivation and gross violation of the dignity and humanity of an entire race, to make academic distinctions?

We could banter on like this for hours.

 

[Opts]

Moved to the Bar as this discussion has gone well outside it's relevance to the Swans to a much greater political debate, feel free to continue the discussion.

The entire thread should be moved there. This was a politically based thread from the very first post.

 

[scaryness]

The entire thread should be moved there. This was a politically based thread from the very first post.

It has been, I left a redirect on the front page that will disappear after a couple of days.

 

[BarneyBent]

It is false equivalency.

Why the need to enhance an already bleak past with falsities?

Is it a false equivalency? The detail is incorrect, yes, particularly when people try to point to the specific act, but the meaning behind it is still relevant.

What you’re saying is “technically, they weren’t CLASSIFIED as fauna, they were just treated that way” as if the classification is the salient point. It’s not. The salient point is that they were managed by the government departments that were designed to manage fauna.

Whether this was enshrined in the Flora and Fauna Act, or just an ad hoc decision made by multiple state governments, is literally the least important part.

“Indigenous people were treated by state governments as fauna” is a correct statement. Would you be ok with that? If so, maybe instead of saying “total myth, debunked” when people try to say indigenous people were classified as fauna in the Flora and Fauna Act, you could say “actually that act didn’t do that, common misconception, but indigenous people were treated and managed as fauna by state governments at many points throughout history which is where that perception comes from”.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Well speak for yourself I don’t want less public holidays

Yep, speaking for myself, I think resolving this festering sore in our national conscience is a higher concern than "losing" a public holiday.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Geebers., C'mon Opts. I do not believe that you cannot understand that Aboriginal people are offended by celebrating the day the land of their Elders was invaded.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Why the need, in the face of enormous deprivation and gross violation of the dignity and humanity of an entire race, to make academic distinctions?

We could banter on like this for hours.

Its not an academic distinction
Either they were or werent officially classified as fauna.
Simple really

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Its not an academic distinction
Either they were or werent officially classified as fauna.
Simple really

Sheesh.

Were Aboriginals treated as fauna?

Yes, they were.

But CheapCharlie believes it's really important that we all know that they were never officially classified as fauna, so we all acknowledge that vital distinction here.*

Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.



*Notwithstanding very strongly-argued posts from Number37 and BarneyBent that make a very good case that they were not merely treated as fauna, but officially treated as fauna, even if not officially classified as such.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Sheesh.

Were Aboriginals treated as fauna?

Yes, they were.

But CheapCharlie believes it's really important that we all know that they were never officially classified as fauna, so we all acknowledge that vital distinction here.*

Talk about not seeing the wood for the trees.



*Notwithstanding very strongly-argued posts from Number37 and BarneyBent that make a very good case that they were not merely treated as fauna, but officially treated as fauna, even if not officially classified as such.

You can virtue signal all you like but it doesn't change the outcome that when guys like yourself claim that Aboriginal people were classified as fauna, it is not true. Surely this is not a controversial thing, to state an actual fact?

Your argument seems to be along the lines of 'even if it isn't true, it should be true, so saying it wasn't true is saying Aboriginal people were not mistreated'

The mistreatment of the Aboriginal people was abysmal enough and doesn't need to be re-written and re-classified by people such as yourself in modern times for greater effect.
There is more than ample evidence about their ongoing mistreatment without having to propagate lies.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You can virtue signal all you like but it doesn't change the outcome that when guys like yourself claim that Aboriginal people were classified as fauna, it is not true. Surely this is not a controversial thing, to state an actual fact?

Your argument seems to be along the lines of 'even if it isn't true, it should be true, so saying it wasn't true is saying Aboriginal people were not mistreated'

The mistreatment of the Aboriginal people was abysmal enough and doesn't need to be re-written and re-classified by people such as yourself in modern times for greater effect.
There is more than ample evidence about their ongoing mistreatment without having to propagate lies.

Oh man you have completely misread my words.

Go back and re-read my posts you were responding to. I chose my words very specifically.

(And please don't use meaningless phrases like "virtue signal". Useless terms like that, almost entirely a concoction of the unintellectual right for anything they can't construct a watertight argument against, add nothing to a mature debate about a very serious subject.)

 

[GotTheGoodes]

WARNING

I do not care how tolerant you may feel this board (or any other board) has been in the past regarding racial discrimination or use of language, naive or otherwise, which could be interpreted as such. I do not have a very high threshold for such things and as such feel it appropriate to provide a stern warning now, should it cross my path I will not tolerate anything remotely pushing those boundaries.

If you spot anything at all that you feel crosses a line then report the post &/or PM myself or another Mod to take action. Please do not engage and (as a result) spread the content through the thread.

Please show some respect for not just the posters here but those who may read these comments now & in the future.

 

[bedford]

WARNING

I do not care how tolerant you may feel this board (or any other board) has been in the past regarding racial discrimination or use of language, naive or otherwise, which could be interpreted as such. I do not have a very high threshold for such things and as such feel it appropriate to provide a stern warning now, should it cross my path I will not tolerate anything remotely pushing those boundaries.

If you spot anything at all that you feel crosses a line then report the post &/or PM myself or another Mod to take action. Please do not engage and (as a result) spread the content through the thread.

Please show some respect for not just the posters here but those who may read these comments now & in the future.

IF YOUR MEANING WHAT I PUT UP , I DID NOT HAVE ANY RACIST MOTIVES AT ALL , I MEANT IT AS AN ABBRIEVIATION , NOTHING MORE !
MAYBE THIS THREAD SHOULD BE STOPPED , AS ALL IT'S DOING IS CAUSING MASSIVE CONFLICT ON THIS BOARD. THIS BOARD IS FOR THE SWANS.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Oh man you have completely misread my words.

Go back and re-read my posts you were responding to. I chose my words very specifically.

(And please don't use meaningless phrases like "virtue signal". Useless terms like that, almost entirely a concoction of the unintellectual right for anything they can't construct a watertight argument against, add nothing to a mature debate about a very serious subject.)

Dont virtue signal and i wont have to use the words.

You are engaging in a shoot the messenger scenario