The coalition will never win the federal government again.

[Crankyhawk]

Yeah the Uluru statement is all about enshrining racism in the Constitution...or....you are just making s**t up.
The choice is all yours.

I think he is saying that implementation of the Uluṟu statement involves the indigenous voice to parliament which can only be filled by a person of a specific race therefore giving a special status based on race ie “racism”. The alternative view is that it is “necessary reparations for an invasion over 200 years ago”

 

[Gough]

I think he is saying that implementation of the Uluṟu statement involves the indigenous voice to parliament which can only be filled by a person of a specific race therefore giving a special status based on race ie “racism”. The alternative view is that it is “necessary reparations for an invasion over 200 years ago”

Almost every single person non indigenous Australian has materially benefited from the dispossession of First Nations people. It's not racist to somehow want to give something back and a voice in Parliament could be seen as the start of us repaying some of our debt to them.

 

[QuietB]

When these guys say they are going to change, they don't actually mean they will change for the better

 

[kranky al]

I think he is saying that implementation of the Uluṟu statement involves the indigenous voice to parliament which can only be filled by a person of a specific race therefore giving a special status based on race ie “racism”. The alternative view is that it is “necessary reparations for an invasion over 200 years ago”

Or massacres far more recent than that….

People dont realise that some of the massacres are living memories…..


The Coniston massacre, which took place in the region around the Coniston cattle station in the then Territory of Central Australia (now the Northern Territory) from 14 August to 18 October 1928, was the last known officially sanctioned massacre of Indigenous Australians and one of the last events of the Australian Frontier Wars.

Coniston massacre

Coniston Station Coniston Station (Northern Territory) Location in Northern Territory
Date	August 14 – October 18, 1928
Location	Coniston (Northern Territory)
Coordinates	22°02′35″S132°29′28″E In a series of punitive expeditions led by Northern Territory Police constable William George Murray, people of the Warlpiri, Anmatyerre, and Kaytetye groups were killed. The massacre occurred in response to the murder of dingo hunter Frederick Brooks, killed by Aboriginal people in August 1928 at a place called Yukurru, also known as Brooks Soak. Official records at the time state that at least 31 people were killed, however analysis of existing documentation and Aboriginal oral histories reveal that the fatalities were likely to have been as high as 200.[1]

 

[ray1984]

I have.

Now relate that to a political party now. Which party espouses leninism or trotskyism?

Point out some of their policies that coincide with either.


Ill wait.

Go back to your rant sky in the previous comment about sky! If you have read any Trotsky or Lenin you’ll understand why the network exists

 

[Number37]

I think he is saying that implementation of the Uluṟu statement involves the indigenous voice to parliament which can only be filled by a person of a specific race therefore giving a special status based on race ie “racism”. The alternative view is that it is “necessary reparations for an invasion over 200 years ago”

Australia was taken by the British on the basis of Terra Nullius.
Not only did Terra Nullius render the indigenous people as non-existent it did so on the basis that they and their culture was nothing.

When we took over this country we said to them "you are nothing".
What they are asking for is recognition that they weren't nothing.

Not only did we say "you are nothing", we almost completely destroyed whatever they had.

To say what they are asking for is somehow racist is just completely f'n stupid.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

Australia was taken by the British on the basis of Terra Nullius.
Not only did Terra Nullius render the indigenous people as non-existent it did so on the basis that they and their culture was nothing.

When we took over this country we said to them "you are nothing".
What they are asking for is recognition that they weren't nothing.

Not only did we say "you are nothing", we almost completely destroyed whatever they had.

To say what they are asking for is somehow racist is just completely f'n stupid.

Wasn't Arthur Phillip the pioneer what would now be described as an invasion by the British of Australia? Upon first settlement wasn't he a somewhat decent person who wanted the Indigenous people to be treated with respect?

I've come to know the posters and where they are coming from and it's important to be critical of those who've graduated from the Arts History/Politics because I know we learn a loaded interpretation of History at Uni over the past few decades so it's important to hold your views to account and be contrarian.

I'm sure the Indigenous people got screwed no doubt, but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking.

 

[Number37]

Wasn't Arthur Phillip the pioneer what would now be described as an invasion by the British of Australia? Upon first settlement wasn't he a somewhat decent person who wanted the Indigenous people to be treated with respect?

I've come to know the posters and where they are coming from and it's important to be critical of those who've graduated from the Arts History/Politics because I know we learn a loaded interpretation of History at Uni over the past few decades so it's important to hold your views to account and be contrarian.

I'm sure the Indigenous people got screwed no doubt, but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking.

What the F does any of that mean?

 

[ExcitementMachine]

What the F does any of that mean?

It means that when Europeans first settled on Indigenous lands - the Indigenous people were expected to be treated with respect.
Rest assured it would not have been the experience for many indigenous - and I'm sure it went downhill at a certain point.
Basically what I'm saying is in all these issues that aren't black and white - it's the same people giving their loaded-hyperbolic views, on this occasion you and your version of history.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Wasn't Arthur Phillip the pioneer what would now be described as an invasion by the British of Australia? Upon first settlement wasn't he a somewhat decent person who wanted the Indigenous people to be treated with respect?

I've come to know the posters and where they are coming from and it's important to be critical of those who've graduated from the Arts History/Politics because I know we learn a loaded interpretation of History at Uni over the past few decades so it's important to hold your views to account and be contrarian.

I'm sure the Indigenous people got screwed no doubt, but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking.

yes he wasnt a "kill them all" type, but two things to remember

1) he still wanted their land, and the right to further claims on their land if we wanted it.

2) his leadership and successive ones pandered to the mob. if attacks or crimes occurred, too often scapegoating of the local indigenous tribes was allowed because it was politically expedient (the colony was not an easy thing to hold together)


FWIW the English were not the worst of the worst, but their rep wasnt great. They made numerous treaties with many tribes around the world, some of which they adhered to (ie the Maori), others they shat upon repeatedly (American tribes sided with the French in the wars there mainly because of the better trust the french had built up over the years). why they never had a treaty with the australian tribes im not sure, but terra nullus allowed us to effectively claim without fear of compensation or complaint.

they may not have done here what the spanish did in the americas, or the americans in the westward expansion, or the Belgians in Africa, but Australia wasnt an open collaboration of shared growth between two cultures. the Aborigines got ****ed, and ****ed pretty badly.

 

[QuietB]

Wasn't Arthur Phillip the pioneer what would now be described as an invasion by the British of Australia? Upon first settlement wasn't he a somewhat decent person who wanted the Indigenous people to be treated with respect?

I've come to know the posters and where they are coming from and it's important to be critical of those who've graduated from the Arts History/Politics because I know we learn a loaded interpretation of History at Uni over the past few decades so it's important to hold your views to account and be contrarian.

I'm sure the Indigenous people got screwed no doubt, but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking.

Interesting take - talk me through this photo

 

[ExcitementMachine]

Interesting take - talk me through this photo

That's pretty ****ed up, when was it taken?
Doesn't discredit my point or what I was debating though.

 

[Vindicater]

It means that when Europeans first settled on Indigenous lands - the Indigenous people were expected to be treated with respect.
Rest assured it would not have been the experience for many indigenous - and I'm sure it went downhill at a certain point.
Basically what I'm saying is in all these issues that aren't black and white - it's the same people giving their loaded-hyperbolic views, on this occasion you and your version of history.

Mate. There were laws that stated indiginous people could be shot for just being on colony land.

You can look this up, it is not university history propaganda.

 

[kranky al]

No!
Under Turmoil and Scomo the current LNP and nations have been the most left leaning they have ever been! They have lost the conservatives base due to this!

Right won’t is what that one term bankrupt wonder Fraser Anning was

Going back to this bit of idiocy…..

The fraser government was far to the left of turnbull and scomo.

<<<
The Fraser government maintained many of the social reforms of the Whitlam era, but sought to introduce increased fiscal restraint. It passed the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, which established the Human Rights Commission and gave effect to five international human rights instruments. This government also established the position of Commonwealth Ombudsman in 1977 and introduced Australia's first freedom of information law.

The National Museum of Australia Act 1980created the National Museum of Australia.>>>

As i said - political neophyte…… fraser on many issues is to the left of current labor.

Oh and i nearly forgot - fraser championed the ostracism of south africa for their apartheid regime - what a trotskyite eh?

 

[Gethelred]

so you don't believe geologist and farmers seek a job working in nature because they enjoy working in the environment?

you don't believe industry creates wealth that provides the wealth to workers?

you don't believe workers care about the environment more, as their maslow hierarchy of needs is fulfilled?

you don't believe industry needs a constant push to create more wealth, more efficiently and constantly improve their practices?

you don't believe this push comes from external but also internal, as those that choose to live and work in nature "love nature"?


what part don't you agree with?

This is called a Gish Gallop. It is a disingenuous way to argue.

 

[QuietB]

That's pretty ducked up, when was it taken?
Doesn't discredit my point or what I was debating though.

It discredits this point you made - "but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking"

Your attitude is complete bullshit peddled by the conservative right, championed by the likes of Alan Tudge and Sky after dark. Bad s**t happened. Horrible things happened. We need to deal with it which includes acknowledging it and recording it in history and teaching it and trying to right it where we can.

Denying it will not make it go away. It hasn't yet.

 

[Gethelred]

Wasn't Arthur Phillip the pioneer what would now be described as an invasion by the British of Australia? Upon first settlement wasn't he a somewhat decent person who wanted the Indigenous people to be treated with respect?

I've come to know the posters and where they are coming from and it's important to be critical of those who've graduated from the Arts History/Politics because I know we learn a loaded interpretation of History at Uni over the past few decades so it's important to hold your views to account and be contrarian.

I'm sure the Indigenous people got screwed no doubt, but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking.

"Ignore your historians!" the post.

If you're going to take that stance, can I ask you how much you've actually studied the specific thing you're skeptical about?

 

[ExcitementMachine]

It discredits this point you made - "but try not get caught up in a hyperbolic interpretation of History through the Arts of cherry-picking"

Your attitude is complete bullshit peddled by the conservative right, championed by the likes of Alan Tudge and Sky after dark. Bad s**t happened. Horrible things happened. We need to deal with it which includes acknowledging it and recording it in history and teaching it and trying to right it where we can.

Denying it will not make it go away. It hasn't yet.

Don't lecture me on my attitude and how I come to from my views. Your assumption that I watch Sky After Dark because I dared criticize someone's loaded interpretation of history is wrong.

I'm not denying anything actually - just want a fair representation of History that of which is not cherry picked. I'm not expecting to be educated in such a matter that I'm yearning for by you.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

"Ignore your historians!" the post.

If you're going to take that stance, can I ask you how much you've actually studied the specific thing you're skeptical about?

Dark Emu says hello.
We must hold our Historians to account in 2022.

 

[Gethelred]

Dark Emu says hello.
We must hold our Historians to account in 2022.

1. Dark Emu's disputed, by historians, as part of the process of review. You know, because academic histories are reviewed, in order to ensure they are accurate.
2. Have you read Black Emu?
3. You didn't answer my question. How much do you actually know about the time period you're talking about?

 

[ExcitementMachine]

1. Dark Emu's disputed, by historians, as part of the process of review. You know, because academic histories are reviewed, in order to ensure they are accurate.
2. Have you read Black Emu?
3. You didn't answer my question. How much do you actually know about the time period you're talking about?

It doesn't even matter how much I know - I already know that you, Number37, QuietB are as partisan and as unreliable as Andrew Bolt is from the other side - which I can counter with what I already know on these issues.

You are a self proclaimed partisan 'lefty'. Your words. I don't hold you in good faith on these topics.

 

[Gethelred]

It doesn't even matter how much I know - I already know that you, Number37, QuietB are as partisan and as unreliable as Andrew Bolt is from the other side - which I can counter with what I already know on these issues.

You are a self proclaimed partisan 'lefty'. Your words. I don't hold you in good faith on these topics.

It actually does matter what you know, EM. You've dismissed an entire field of study, based on your opinion that they cannot be trusted. You think they cannot be trusted because...?

Your options are:

1. You know more than they do.
2. You don't know more than they do, but think they're exaggerating.

I'm left with option 2, because you're refusing to answer my question to confirm how much you actually know. Which makes you a) ignorant, as without any actual knowledge you're dismissing those with more as biased, and b) a propagandist, as you're spreading your doubt like your opinion is worth as much as an expert.

 

[QuietB]

Don't lecture me on my attitude and how I come to from my views. Your assumption that I watch Sky After Dark because I dared criticize someone's loaded interpretation of history is wrong.

I'm not denying anything actually - just want a fair representation of History that of which is not cherry picked. I'm not expecting to be educated in such a matter that I'm yearning for by you.

Where did I say you watch sky after dark?

 

[ExcitementMachine]

It actually does matter what you know, EM. You've dismissed an entire field of study, based on your opinion that they cannot be trusted. You think they cannot be trusted because...?

Your options are:

1. You know more than they do.
2. You don't know more than they do, but think they're exaggerating.

I'm left with option 2, because you're refusing to answer my question to confirm how much you actually know. Which makes you a) ignorant, as without any actual knowledge you're dismissing those with more as biased, and b) a propagandist, as you're spreading your doubt like your opinion is worth as much as an expert.

Just realised you gave a like to the post/poster I was initially critical of - just said that they were cherry picking and drawing a short/sharp conclusion from a complex history of human expansion/movement that's been happening since the beginning of times.

If you think that's it and he/she/they nailed it all in a few words, then perhaps it is you that is the one that needs to do more reading.

Your words, you're a self confessed partisan lefty - and that therein lies your problem on these issues. You're aware of it. You're doing it again.

 

[Gethelred]

Just realised you gave a like to the post/poster I was initially critical of - just said that they were cherry picking and drawing a short/sharp conclusion from a complex history of human expansion/movement that's been happening since the beginning of times.

If you think that's it and he/she/they nailed it all in a few words, then perhaps it is you that is the one that needs to do more reading.

Bit of a lol at you trying to school me on this subject in which you personally have admitted you know nothing about.

Your words, you're a self confessed partisan lefty - and that therein lies your problem on these issues. You're aware of it. You're doing it again.

This is the second post in a row you've said this.

One's political views should not interfere with the academic process of review; that is the point of having a process of review, so that ideas/evidence is checked and followed up. I'm comfortable with my position, as it is backed up by that process and by the numerous primary sources sitting on my bookshelf.

Can you demonstrate my bias interfering with my opinion here?