Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks to digital TV and the advent of the NITV channel, I have listened to many opinions from the aboriginal community and I do acknowledge my presence on an already occupied land. I do wish the very best for the indigenous community but of what practical use is it? At the annoyance of many, I've asked people in certain groups, how do I put this warm and fuzzy white guilt to good use and it has'nt been answered.
My background is English and I acknowledge that colonially, we are "evil personified" but England, indeed Britain was invaded in quite a similar way many times but it does'nt invoke same level of understanding. Indeed, the same nation that invaded and colonised Australia were once the invaded themselves.
Either way, I'm confused as to whether Aboriginal Australia wants to live independently of mainstream Australian society or whether it wants to funded by it. Until that has been defined, we ain't getting anywhere.
I am sorry, nothing needs to be defined.
Some will want to live independently and some integrating with others in mainstream society. Why in the hell would you think there is one answer, across an entire nation of people?
I think we should replace the union jack with the Aboriginal flag and change Australia Day to the day we become a republic, I don't think that because of any white guilt I just think it's the only fair thing to do.
I think we should replace the union jack with the Aboriginal flag and change Australia Day to the day we become a republic, I don't think that because of any white guilt I just think it's the only fair thing to do.
I would welcome that, but many aborigines actually would not want that.
Some will want to live independently and some integrating with others in mainstream society. Why in the hell would you think there is one answer, across an entire nation of people?
I get your point. There isn't one definitive answer but there also isn't one definitive question.
We've had an apology to the Stolen Generation, Mabo and land rights and other movements and we now have a campaign to amend the Constitution. All of these are top-down policies that amount to little more than paper shuffling and lip service from government. They don't change health, education, justice and socio-economic outcomes for aboriginal people.
I believe the government has been waiting for an opportunity to pounce and rip away funding to this area and a fake "budget crisis" has supplied them with this opportunity, so what now?
I get your point. There isn't one definitive answer but there also isn't one definitive question.
We've had an apology to the Stolen Generation, Mabo and land rights and other movements and we now have a campaign to amend the Constitution. All of these are top-down policies that amount to little more than paper shuffling and lip service from government. They don't change health, education, justice and socio-economic outcomes for aboriginal people.
I believe the government has been waiting for an opportunity to pounce and rip away funding to this area and a fake "budget crisis" has supplied them with this opportunity, so what now?
Its not really top down, when it is being driven by Aboriginal leaders..... we do not recognise there were people here before British came in our constitution.... It may appear insignificant, but ... I think we should start listening and working with Aboriginal Australia.
.. and yes agree, campaigns like close the gap, education, etc are obviously highly important. I think we should be capable of dealing with all aspects that need work/change
Its not really top down, when it is being driven by Aboriginal leaders..... we do not recognise there were people here before British came in our constitution.... It may appear insignificant, but ... I think we should start listening and working with Aboriginal Australia.
.. and yes agree, campaigns like close the gap, education, etc are obviously highly important. I think we should be capable of dealing with all aspects that need work/change
We don't recognise a lot of things in the Constitution (like the right of women to vote). The Australian Constitution is a nice simple legal document that explains how the federal government should work and the interaction between the federal and state governments. We don't have a preamble (thank God Howard's attempt at writing in "mateship" to the Constitution flopped) and we don't have a Bill of Rights. Be careful what you wish for when you let politicians start tinkering with the supreme law of the land.
On the other hand, I'm all for removing the section that allows the government to limit the right to vote based on race. It's arcane and has no place in modern Australia.
We don't recognise a lot of things in the Constitution (like the right of women to vote). The Australian Constitution is a nice simple legal document that explains how the federal government should work and the interaction between the federal and state governments. We don't have a preamble (thank God Howard's attempt at writing in "mateship" to the Constitution flopped) and we don't have a Bill of Rights. Be careful what you wish for when you let politicians start tinkering with the supreme law of the land.
On the other hand, I'm all for removing the section that allows the government to limit the right to vote based on race. It's arcane and has no place in modern Australia.
yeah I hear ya, (I'll have to read that properly later, lots of "preambles" in there) I am not opposed to a document that was written 200 years ago being updated..... its like that book some people follow. What made sense a long time ago, doesn't necessarily make sense today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian (x)lurker
think great
it would be much worse if abos had been subjugated by the Chinese or Muslisms
yeah I hear ya, (I'll have to read that properly later, lots of "preambles" in there) I am not opposed to a document that was written 200 years ago being updated..... its like that book some people follow. What made sense a long time ago, doesn't necessarily make sense today.
It was only written 115 odd years ago. It's not really keeping with the "tone" of the document to be inserting populist causes of the day, which is very different to the US Constitution and look at the problems that has caused esp around the Fourth Amendment (which they really just stole and changed a bit from the English Bill of Rights ). Remember, what we put in it today will still be binding people in 115 years time. We have no idea what the future will look like, so I just think you have to be extremely cautious about changing such a fundamental document.
It was only written 115 odd years ago. It's not really keeping with the "tone" of the document to be inserting populist causes of the day, which is very different to the US Constitution and look at the problems that has caused esp around the Fourth Amendment (which they really just stole and changed a bit from the English Bill of Rights ). Remember, what we put in it today will still be binding people in 115 years time. We have no idea what the future will look like, so I just think you have to be extremely cautious about changing such a fundamental document.
still old, and a different time
I dunno, is it populist to acknowledge the first peoples of this land?
But I do appreciate your common sense approach
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not opposed to a document that was written 200 years ago being updated..... its like that book some people follow
It's not really keeping with the "tone" of the document to be inserting populist causes of the day, which is very different to the US Constitution and look at the problems that has caused esp around the Fourth Amendment (which they really just stole and changed a bit from the English Bill of Rights 
