Society/Culture Casual racism - the scourge of our society

[Number37]

Strawman.

Govts spend $600bn per year on roads/schools/hospitals/PBS but you've never received a penny.

WOW, you must live in RWNJ utopia.

Do you count border control as being a benefit you receive?

 

[Colin Northcott]

Govts spend $600bn per year on roads/schools/hospitals/PBS but you've never received a penny.

WOW, you must live in RWNJ utopia.

Do you count border control as being a benefit you receive?

Of course they do. And they should. Indigenous funding of $33 billion is on top of that.

 

[Number37]

Of course they do. And they should. Indigenous funding of $33 billion is on top of that.

Stop deflecting.
You said you never received a penny from the govt. But you have. Stop whinging.

 

[Colin Northcott]

Stop deflecting.
You said you never received a penny from the govt. But you have. Stop whinging.

Strawman.

According to the 2016 census there are 649,200 people who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...02D50FAA9987D6B7CA25814800087E03?OpenDocument

That equates to $50,831.79 per person (including children ) based on the extra $33 billion.. On top of:

Driving on roads
Going to the doctor or hospital
Getting prescriptions
Kids going to school.

Would love some of that action.

 

[JackOutback]

No, but you're guilty of what you were complaining about. You're effectively saying 'as struggling as an Aborigine'.

I don't think identifying as an Indigenous person should provide a special claim on the state. Assistance should be given based on current disadvantage rather than full or partial ancestry to people who may have suffered historical injustice. Why should people who have a comfortable, or even privileged life, have an equal claim on programs to close the socio-economic gap just because they identify as Indigenous?

Assuming that ancestry to a 'first Australian' implies a social or economic disadvantage would appear to be blatant, not casual racism.

Simply identifying as Aboriginal does not guarantee you taxpayer assistance. Adam Goodes doesn't receive special taxpayer funding, Ken Wyatt doesn't receive special taxpayer funding (well, beyond being a politician). However,

Indigenous people as a group are massively disadvantaged, every stat makes that clear.

Much of that is directly attributable to past government policy. Not surprising then that the government is expected to address the issue of institutional disadvantage.

 

[Number37]

Would love some of that action.

So you're jealous of disadvantaged people. WOW.

 

[The Passenger]

So you're jealous of disadvantaged people. WOW.

The classic victims play many conservatives have become adept at.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Indigenous people as a group are massively disadvantaged, every stat makes that clear.

I'm all for members of cultural groups identifying with each other if they so choose. But for a number of reasons , it shouldn't be the basis of government policy.

Membership of cultural groups is subjective. The Australian Law Reform Commission counted 64 separate definitions of Aboriginal. The current legal definition requires some degree of ancestry - which makes it a racist policy. The reason Indigenous identity has become more politicised than other identity struggle is because there's more at stake. There's policy, massive funding, and even whole government departments specifically dedicated to Indigenous affairs. It has also created local power structures to determine who is recognised as Indigenous or not, and hence who has access to the funding. After all the bureaucracy, obtaining a letter certifying ‘Aboriginality’ doesn't demonstrate disadvantage; but it does qualify you for government special policies.

'Indigenous people' are not an homogeneous group. For example, 79% of people identifying as Aborigine live in non-remote areas. Regardless of of ethnicity
people living in non-remote areas will have more chance of employment, better access to schools, easier access to good healthcare. Also, most people identifying as Indigenous will have mixed heritage. They might also identify with their European ancestry, or any other culture - but if it is socially and economically advantageous to identify a certain way, the bias will show itself.

Government can't hope to consider the claims of individuals because of their cultural allegiances. Assistance should be given based on current situational disadvantage not on claimed historical disadvantage.

 

[Number37]

I'm all for members of cultural groups identifying with each other if they so choose. But for a number of reasons , it shouldn't be the basis of government policy.

Membership of cultural groups is subjective. The Australian Law Reform Commission counted 64 separate definitions of Aboriginal. The current legal definition requires some degree of ancestry - which makes it a racist policy. The reason Indigenous identity has become more politicised than other identity struggle is because there's more at stake. There's policy, massive funding, and even whole government departments specifically dedicated to Indigenous affairs. It has also created local power structures to determine who is recognised as Indigenous or not, and hence who has access to the funding. After all the bureaucracy, obtaining a letter certifying ‘Aboriginality’ doesn't demonstrate disadvantage; but it does qualify you for government special policies.

'Indigenous people' are not an homogeneous group. For example, 79% of people identifying as Aborigine live in non-remote areas. Regardless of of ethnicity
people living in non-remote areas will have more chance of employment, better access to schools, easier access to good healthcare. Also, most people identifying as Indigenous will have mixed heritage. They might also identify with their European ancestry, or any other culture - but if it is socially and economically advantageous to identify a certain way, the bias will show itself.

Government can't hope to consider the claims of individuals because of their cultural allegiances. Assistance should be given based on current situational disadvantage not on claimed historical disadvantage.

More nonsense.

Aboriginality does not grant you unlimited welfare money, you still must fall within the income and asset limits as per the income and asset tests in order to qualify.

 

[medusala]

lol at who they quote, attention seeking grub.

Indigenous activist Tarneen Onus-Williams, shared the video on Twitter and branded Delmege’s comments “disgusting”.

 

[Frank Bunn]

More nonsense.

Aboriginality does not grant you unlimited welfare money, you still must fall within the income and asset limits as per the income and asset tests in order to qualify.

Nonsense from you.

You're making claims I did not make.

And you are not countering my case for assistance being given based on current disadvantage rather than claimed historical disadvantage.

 

[medusala]

Indigenous people as a group are massively disadvantaged, every stat makes that clear.

Disadvantaged in that they have a right to negotiate where as farmers who have bought their land don't?

Disadvantaged in that despite being circa 2% of the population they own proportionately far more land? Land which was by and large given to them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...n,-or-have-native-title-interests-to./8120326

EVERY stat

yep

 

[medusala]

More nonsense.

Aboriginality does not grant you unlimited welfare money, you still must fall within the income and asset limits as per the income and asset tests in order to qualify.

whats the asset and income test for Abstudy?

 

[Colin Northcott]

So you're jealous of disadvantaged people. WOW.

I'm not jealous.

Just think a bit of self responsibility should be taken into account.

Those cards that you can't spend on the woobla are a good start.

 

[Number37]

I'm not jealous.

This says you are.

Would love some of that action.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Disadvantaged in that they have a right to negotiate where as farmers who have bought their land don't?

Disadvantaged in that despite being circa 2% of the population they own proportionately far more land? Land which was by and large given to them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-...n,-or-have-native-title-interests-to./8120326

EVERY stat

yep

Love the inversion of history & logic here Meds.....

Try this one on for size: Land which is theirs by right, from which we stole & dispossessed them from......Fair dinkum mate.

 

[Colin Northcott]

This says you are.

No, no it doesn't.

 

[The Passenger]

Let me tell y'all what it's like, Being male, middle-class and white. It's a bitch, if you don't believe.



(You guys do sing this ironically yeah?)

 

[Frank Bunn]

More nonsense.

Aboriginality does not grant you unlimited welfare money, you still must fall within the income and asset limits as per the income and asset tests in order to qualify.

If there's no difference in the welfare rules between Indigenous and the rest of the population then Centrelink should not seek to identify who is Indigenous. It should treat everyone equally regardless of cultural background.

But what I actually said was 'special claim on the state'. A lot of the funding is given to organisations not individuals. There are dozens of federal and state government services and funding that are only able to be accessed by organisations providing services for people who identify as Aboriginal, without any requirement for income and asset tests.

eg
- reserved university places, scholarships, and other forms of study assistance
- government subsidies to businesses who take on indigenous trainees
- prizes and grants for art, music, sport and writing
- land acquisition assistance
- small business training, mentoring, funding and support
- miscellaneous funding for providing things like legal, medical, education, childcare and housing services

With such a large amount of government funding, especially to organisations susceptible to nepotism, there is a high degree of potential corruption.

Then there's the hidden policy costs because we maintain remote communities, at great expense, solely because they are Indigenous, despite many of these communities being dysfunctional in terms of health, employment, alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence, child sexual abuse.

 

[Number37]

If there's no difference in the welfare rules between Indigenous and the rest of the population then Centrelink should not seek to identify who is Indigenous. It should treat everyone equally regardless of cultural background.

But what I actually said was 'special claim on the state'. A lot of the funding is given to organisations not individuals. There are dozens of federal and state government services and funding that are only able to be accessed by organisations providing services for people who identify as Aboriginal, without any requirement for income and asset tests.

eg
- reserved university places, scholarships, and other forms of study assistance
- government subsidies to businesses who take on indigenous trainees
- prizes and grants for art, music, sport and writing
- land acquisition assistance
- small business training, mentoring, funding and support
- miscellaneous funding for providing things like legal, medical, education, childcare and housing services

With such a large amount of government funding, especially to organisations susceptible to nepotism, there is a high degree of potential corruption.

Then there's the hidden policy costs because we maintain remote communities, at great expense, solely because they are Indigenous, despite many of these communities being dysfunctional in terms of health, employment, alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence, child sexual abuse.

Nice try at deflection, but still more of the same rubbish that is your forte.

If you bothered to use your brain, you could easily work out, welfare is for the disadvantaged first and foremost the financially disadvantaged, beyond that Indigenous folk form one of many other disadvantaged groups that are afforded a leg up.


You are one of those RWNJs that constantly bleats that people should get a job, well here the govt is giving them a leg up to help them get a job and you still whinge. Give it up.

 

[medusala]

You are one of those RWNJs that constantly bleats that people should get a job, well here the govt is giving them a leg up to help them get a job and you still whinge. Give it up.

How many billions has the govt spent in this area over the last few decades? Improved things much?

No. Of course not.

But keep calling people RWNJs though

 

[Number37]

How many billions has the govt spent in this area over the last few decades? Improved things much?

No. Of course not.

But keep calling people RWNJs though

Thanks for the input RWNJ, but once again you are making up s**t to try to hide your RWNJ-ness.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Membership of cultural groups is subjective. The Australian Law Reform Commission counted 64 separate definitions of Aboriginal. The current legal definition requires some degree of ancestry - which makes it a racist policy.

How is it a racist policy? That's just plain idiotic from you again.

 

[Colin Northcott]

How is it a racist policy? That's just plain idiotic from you again.

64

 

[Bradesmaen]

64

Good explanation. Go to bed Tony, you've got whipper snappers to yell at to get off your lawn tomorrow morning.