Political Correctness Rant

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

How are we segregating anyone? In fact, the attempt is to bring people closer together.

So many points you raise, Jerry. Starting with the last.....

Bringing people together, in the context of the discussion, was called integration. And that failed due to many tribes (mobs, whatever name is PC) wanting to live in the bush. (I don't blame them for that, I like it better out there, too).

However it is false to call it a traditional way of life, the way it is done with modern housing, power, plumbing, waste disposal and support services. And it is arrogant to demand the government to provide a city standard of infrastructure, and services which are not economically feasible to provide for non indigenous who wish to live in similar locations. That creates inequality, which our society claims it wishes to stamp out.

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

what about, for instance the Voice denies equality?

Conversely, what about a special voice, available to only one segment of the public, creates equality? And with whom?

 

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

traditional rights should go with traditional methods

One reason... Do you want equality or not? Equality of hunting makes all available methods available to all people regardless of their heritage. Many prey are prohibited targets to non indigenous people - protected species. For good reason. Maybe the roos need culling anyway so they are a bad example. But Nobody thought that taking the odd turtle (for instance) would be a problem to turtle populations. As long as it was done in the traditional way by a couple of blokes in a dugout canoe. Now they take a outboard boat and can catch a bunch at a time.

This is an example of inequality.

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

they have been here as a single culture for, what, up to 320 times longer than anyone else

I can't see how this is relevant to the arguments.

 

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Sanish Inquisition, anyone? Babylonians, Ottoman Empire?

As you point out there have always been displaced people all around the world. Due either to migration or war. Your argument suggests that perhaps the Brits ought to be entitled to demand special restitution from the Romans, too? And so on.

 

After any event, it is up to people to let go of old grudges, however valid they are and get on with finding pathways to peace in the present world.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I knew of a whitey who was employed by the local mob to shoot magpie geese for them. He could do that under their traditional hunting rights. He shot a lot. They couldn't be bothered,

[old man emu]

At a recent non-football event I attended, a well-known local Elder was asked to carry out the "Welcome to Country" ceremony, which he did. However after doing so, he launched into some ditty about his football team. Totally inappropriate and a disregard of expected behaviour. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

We will always find indivividual cases that fit a narrative; have some bizzare behaviour, or will rort a system.. I think every culture and society has that trait about them; or for some reason do we hold Aboriginals to a much higher standard?

 

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Bringing people together, in the context of the discussion, was called integration. And that failed due to many tribes (mobs, whatever name is PC) wanting to live in the bush. (I don't blame them for that, I like it better out there, too).

Integration does not mean homogeneity; in fact integration in a multi-cultural society perspective is more about respecting differences while living in harmony and of course in a more general cultuiral and legal  sense. I fail to see what living in the bush (presumably v suburban or urban environs) has to do with it. It appears there has been a systemic failure of Aboriginal integration into what for them, without migrating to a new land, being integrated with a society that has taken over; there appears to be a recognition this is in part due to the new order not understanding and  respecting their culture and traditions from day 1, and trying to impose homogeniety (aka control) over them rather than respect Aborignal culture and live harmoniously.

 

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

However it is false to call it a traditional way of life, the way it is done with modern housing, power, plumbing, waste disposal and support services. And it is arrogant to demand the government to provide a city standard of infrastructure, and services which are not economically feasible to provide for non indigenous who wish to live in similar locations. That creates inequality, which our society claims it wishes to stamp out.

The whole thing that kicked this off what how traditional Australia day is being hijacked; and often on these forums we talk about how Australian tradition is being lost in a global world. Yet, what is treaditional Australian? Do we live in wattle and daub huts, do our bushies still use primitive farm instruments? Do we even eat meat + three veg? Most of Australians celebrate Christmas as a tradition, but do they go to church and study the bible? It's a furphy to suggest that people should deny themselves modern conveniences, yet can't somehow partake in traditional life? It never has been and never will be an all or nothing affair for anyone, maybe except for that island off India and a few other South American pockets of land.

 

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Conversely, what about a special voice, available to only one segment of the public, creates equality? And with whom?

The Aussie system of government and public services is inherently based on originally European culture, which is pervasive around the globe. Australia is a signatory and implements many international conventions, including, for instance the International Convention of Refugees, so is legally obliged to give special treatment to refugees (although it is derelict in its obligations). Isn't it strange how we want to deny the very people who have lived in this country for the longest contiunual period of time, by about 320 times anyone else, a voice to be consulted on affairs that specifically impact them? I would argue the Voice brings them to a standard of representation that is already there for other sectors of the society, and does not elevate them above anyone else.

6 hours ago, nomadpete said:

One reason... Do you want equality or not? Equality of hunting makes all available methods available to all people regardless of their heritage. Many prey are prohibited targets to non indigenous people - protected species. For good reason. Maybe the roos need culling anyway so they are a bad example. But Nobody thought that taking the odd turtle (for instance) would be a problem to turtle populations. As long as it was done in the traditional way by a couple of blokes in a dugout canoe. Now they take a outboard boat and can catch a bunch at a time.

This is an example of inequality.

This is a fair point; my reference was to everyday living; but this is also an example how things are not black and white. For example, say we said if you want to take turtles (in this example), you have to live totally traditionally; no permanent abode, no mod cons whatsoever.. and a child contracted some fatal disease that could be cured with modern hospital treatment. Do we let the child die because his family want to eat a turtle? There has to be a balance; in the above example it reeks of lazy administration. For example, this simple fix is no turtles unless the method is completelty traditional; and maybe there is a quota (that is enforced). The concept of restricting other pursuits to purely traditional means and/or with quotas may be an option. These are not insurmountable challenges.

 

We have colonised their land to produce the food we traditionally eat. I have no problems granting Aboriginals the right to eat their traditional foods; My salivation glands don't get worked up over turtle, goanna, witchity grubs, snake, croc, etc. (in fact, once done with this, I am off for my Firday sausage roll, and I am already salivating at the prospect). I can see why others would have an issue with this though..

 

7 hours ago, nomadpete said:

I can't see how this is relevant to the arguments.

With refrence to Aboriginals being in Australia up to 320 times longer than European settlement. .Because, what kicked this off is Geelong removing reference to Australia Day in its official communications, introducing activities to educate its citizens about Aboriginal culture, and somehow this "political correctness" is offensive. Australia day is "traditionally" a commemoration of Australia since European (British to be more precise) landing; It has totally ignored a cultural segment of Australia that has been here up to 320 times longer, and remains. If this is not relevant to the discussion, I am not sure what is, as, after all, it is what kicked off this little exchange.

7 hours ago, nomadpete said:

As you point out there have always been displaced people all around the world. Due either to migration or war. Your argument suggests that perhaps the Brits ought to be entitled to demand special restitution from the Romans, too? And so on

Yes, but my point about this was also that on these forums and more widely, Aboriiginal culture is criticised because the fact they used to get into wars and commit violence. We conveniently forget Europeans (and others) have engaged in wars of far more destruction and genocide on systemic basis than Aboriginals.

 

Yes, there have been displaced people; But your point about restitution is a) not really relevant as we aren't talking restitution, and b) in the case of Romans providing restitution to the British is invalid on two counts; firstly, there was no widespread displacement of British by the Romans and since they no longer rule, there is nothing to really give back;and  the genetic pool of Brits, I understand, is still largely from pre-Roman tribes, so largely the original peoples' still have their land and eat the traditional food - kebabs.

 

The other reason why this is not really a good analogy is that reparations are often made by civilised societies (and I think most of us don't want to be part of autoractic regimes) in the case of conquest. Even the German goivernment have made reparations to families of Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies displaced and who had their assets siezed during WWII. At the time of discovering Australia, international (aka European) law was to make restitution by way of treaties, etc of populations displaced as a result of conquest. Conequest was considered when a land was taken over from a permanently settled peoples. The British disingenously declared Australia as terrra nullius, denying Aboriginals that right at that time (so it is not even applying today's laws and norms to a bygone era). The rest, they say, is history.

 

I agree, we have to fing a way forward; but surely by keeping Australia Day an all-since-European discovery affair is not the way to do it.

[octave]

On 24/05/2023 at 6:42 PM, red750 said:

Here we go again.

 

Not only do we have to have a Welcome to Country ceremony at the opening onf an envelope, now Geelong Council has cancelled Australia Day and turned it into an Indigenous Persons Day.

 

As a ratepayer and resident of Geelong, I am familiar with the details of this.   Your characterization of this could benefit from a little bit more research.

 

 

Apart from that, this is actually none of your business.  This was passed unanimously by the council.   I have no idea what the average ratepayer thinks about this.   The people I mix with are educated and progressive and support this.  Whether or not the majority do we will not know for sure until the next council election.  This is called democracy. 

 

In terms of "welcome to country"  I am not particularly into ceremony etc. however I have never begrudged others, for example at my father's funeral (a nonbeliever) a speaker asked if they could include a prayer. Although I am an atheist, I am, not an unkind person. so I said yep fine. This is what I think about "welcome to country", whilst "welcome to country" has little meaning to me personally I am not insecure enough to be put out by it.  having said that, over the past few years I have had to ( and continue) travel to South Australia to look after my ailing parents.    Whenever we land at Adelaide Jetstar acknowledges the original custodians.   Whilst I was educated in Adelaide at no point was pre-settlement history ever discussed. The notion was that history started at white settlement.  We learned about Sturt and Flinders and Eyre etc.   The only reference to the pre-existing culture I can remember is a line drawing in our social studies book of Aboriginals waving at the Endeavor. This presented a skewed view of history. We need to be grown up enough to accept that our history is not perfect. recently I posted a parcel to a relative in another part of Australia.  The envelope left a space for the OPTIONAL inclusion of the indigenous name.  Whilst I like to be expedient I also enjoy learning.  I did have to look up the indigenous name and whilst it was irrelevant in the delivery of the parcel. I thought, why not learn some history?   

 

Getting back to "the voice" the word "apartheid' has been uttered more than once.  I am wondering if people believe that New Zealand is an apartheid country.  If the voice passes, some folks suggest that the country will somehow be ruined.  Having just spent a few weeks in NZ I can't really see that it has been adversely affected by recognizing prior occupation and in fact, they go much farther (Maori parliamentary seats) than anyone in this country is suggesting.  Whilst I was there I did take the opportunity to engage locals on this subject. I did some interesting opinions about Australia.    

 

In terms of the Voice, there is a great exaggeration about the power that it gives.  Another argument is "it's not fair" (said in the whiniest of voices)   If a homeless person gets free soup from a soup kitchen it would be pathetic for a person in full employment to suggest that they should also get free soup to be fair.  These people in my book are losers.    I would like to think that indigenous people being more involved in formulating policy (it is only advice)  may gradually improve things but if not what is the downside other than Andrew Bolt and Sky News and Dutton being pissed off.

 

I have been looking closely at the polling and the biggest group against are old men. If it fails to pass now something similar will happen when the number of old blokes has been thinned out a bit.  

 

It is sometimes acknowledged that whilst bad things happened in the past it was a long time ago and they should just get over it.  The problem is that people tend to remember and analyze the past. Gallipoli was a long time ago but people still think about it, or the bombing of Darwin. I am not one to dwell on the past however the past has to be fully acknowledged.  Mention the atrocities of Columbus and the average American will get quite irate and say it is all made up. 

 

 

 

As someone born in Britain although raised in Australia I do accept that my forbears did some pretty shitty things. I do not need a jingoistic fairy tale.  The fact is that humans of all colours cultures and religions do great things and horrible things but the mark of greatness is accepting the bad parts of our history and doing what we can to repair the damage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think ALL "old Men" behave the same.  The scare campaign will probably work for many and it is mischievous when they say don't vote for it IF you don't understand it. That's been used before as they continue to confuse the matter, rather than examining the  REAL effect. AS you say the NZ situation goes much further. it's NOTHING LIKE Apartheid, either.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

50 minutes ago, octave said:

if not what is the downside other than Andrew Bolt and Sky News and Dutton being pissed off.

Quite frankly, this is an upside and reason enough to vote for the Voice

Edited May 26, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

31 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Quite frankly, this is an upside and reason enough to vote for the Voice

Yep - you can pretty much judge the merits of something by who's either for or against.

 

I look at these ones:  Institute of Public Affairs, LNP, Sky News, 2GB, Murdoch Press, Business Council of Australia, Minerals Council of Australia, Phillip Morris...

Whatever side they stand on an issue (and more often than not a large majority of them are a bloc) then I find the correct place to stand is the other side.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I was really interested to read that BLACK south Africans are far worse off now than they were under the Apartheid whites. This is under anything that can be measured, like how many hours of labor are needed to finance food etc.

[Bruce Tuncks]

And I repeat again, I am against the "voice" being chose on racist grounds.  Personally, I never met a kid who was "stolen" and while I think it likely to have occurred say in QLD, I don't think it was widespread at all.

All the voice will do is to want more money, and they ( the blacks) already get too much of this for their own good.

[Bruce Tuncks]

If there was not good money in being "aboriginal", why do people who are at most 25% aboriginal want to identify as such?

[nomadpete]

5 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

, a voice to be consulted on affairs that specifically impact them? I would argue the Voice brings them to a standard of representation that is already there for other sectors of the society

You speak as though there has never been any indigenous consultation, or involvement in government policy. So I suspect that either you are not aware of the many avenues presently available, which are in place to specifically bring a high 'standard of representation', with regard to indigenous affairs at multiple levels of government as well as NGO ?

 

Or are they all abject failures and can therefore be dispensed with?

 

My major gripe with the proposed 'voice', is that I cannot perceive this voice making any significant difference to the wellbeing of those most in need.

 

I have no issue with acknowledging previous inhabitants.

 

As for the PC criticism of Australia Day, in my book as well as that one, there are lots of public holidays and most I can't get excited about - maybe it would help if we mark a Indigenous Heritage Day? That would more relevant and have more significance to me than a bunch of the current ones.

 

I'll let the other points of disagreement slide.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Of course I am aware of previous and at least some of the current representative bodies; but as far as I am aware, there is no national unified voice. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/aboriginal-representative-bodies

 

There are no guarantees that the Voice will achieve its aim - agreed. But it can enshrine in the constitution the need to consult with ATSIs on things relevant to ATSIs. If you look at a lot of these other representative bodies of days past, they weren't about consultation (although, yes, they had Aboriginal representation).  But many of them ended up political footballs. Maybe nbeing in the constitution will make it less of a football and more of something that can acheive goals ()

 

My bolding of consulted was to highlight it does not grant any powers to the Voice, as many opponents seem to "think" (or more likely use as pursuasion to others) it will. We will respectfully disagree, but there is only one way to find out who is right (so, vote, Yes, and let's find out 😉)

 

12 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I was really interested to read that BLACK south Africans are far worse off now than they were under the Apartheid whites. This is under anything that can be measured, like how many hours of labor are needed to finance food etc.

I think this was inevitable. But the Voice and ending apartheid and handing power over are two different things; And, there are Aboriginal MPs today - there wasn't any black African representation at all; it simply ins't comparable.

 

12 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

And I repeat again, I am against the "voice" being chose on racist grounds.  Personally, I never met a kid who was "stolen" and while I think it likely to have occurred say in QLD, I don't think it was widespread at all.

All the voice will do is to want more money, and they ( the blacks) already get too much of this for their own good.

On what grounds is it racist? Because it guarantees a small segment of a population the right to be consulted; when I (thought I) dealt with the fact that all sorts of other areas of the population already have more than a consultative right. Hey - I have never met a murderer - does that mean there are none? Seriously, not even the LNP nor Sky News are denying it.. It is so well documented; but here are a few more reputable resources, including reference to an 1800s NSW government decree of some sorts: https://australian.museum/learn/first-nations/stolen-generation/. Do a bit of research and I think you will find it was very widespread.

 

I have no doubt it was done with the best interests at heart - I honestly don't think there was malice in it; it was sort of an early day foster child/parent scheme, albeit forced. Will a Voice then have prevented it? Who knows?

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

But many of them ended up political footballs.

"no guarantees that the Voice will achieve its aim - agreed."

 

Aaaah, now I get it. Pro 'the voice' whilst freely admitting it may or may not fix things. You are rather a fan of football. And another football "that may or might not achieve a goal" although a political one this time.

 

Seriously, though, most of the pro voice people have not spent much time around the majority of (struggling) indigenous communities.

 

 

Edited May 26, 2023 by nomadpete

[nomadpete]

14 hours ago, octave said:

I have been looking closely at the polling and the biggest group against are old men.

Octave, thank you for your contribution. However, I take exception to that disparaging misuse of stats..

 

In indigenous circles, 'old men' are the elders, revered for their wisdom. You cast white old men as being bigoted whiners.

 

I suggest that few younger white men have had the life experience and travel experience physically around our country, to understand much about cultural paradigms of various demographic groups.

 

Further, the older men are more likely to have worked and lived in more places and seen the changes (or failures) over a broader period than the younger people.

 

PS. Nothing personal. This thread is "Political Correctness Rant"

 

My posts here are simply my Politically (in) Correct rant.

Edited May 26, 2023 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

25 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

most of the pro voice people have not spent much time around the majority of (struggling) indigenous communities.

That is a very relevant comment. I don't know where the boundaries lie in Melbourne, Brisbane or Adelaide, but I reckon a heck of a lot of the White pro-Voice mob in Sydney haven't been west of the blue line. And the rest of the Sydneysiders west of that line have got their own survival difficulties to concentrate on.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

31 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Seriously, though, most of the pro voice people have not spent much time around the majority of (struggling) indigenous communities.

 

In my almost 57 years on this earth so far.. maybe three years or a bit more in total.. and not FIFO - so yeah.. not long. Admittedly, not directly.. as it was with mining and energy companies, but I did see some things in that time. And I did actually speak to them. .Was amazed they actually spoke English 😉

 

 

 

[octave]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

but I reckon a heck of a lot of the White pro-Voice mob in Sydney haven't been west of the blue line

I was born in England but came to Australia when I was 2.  I was raised and Educated in Adelaide then moved to Sydney for 12 years. I then moved to a large bush block in country NSW for 21 years. During this time I worked in The ACT. I then moved to suburban Melbourne and now reside in Geelong.  

[old man emu]

Here's a cat for the pigeons. It seems that the major destroyers of Aboriginal cultural sites where mineral extraction takes place are the multi-national corporations, not the people who call themselves Australians. Perhaps all the people who make up the Australian populous should raise one voice and cry out against the un-Australian self-serving behaviours of these corporations.

[octave]

4 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

You cast white old men as being bigoted whiners.

 

I don't believe I said that. my point is more along the lines that if this does not pass this time it likely will in the future.  Age does of course often bring experience which is good but it also often brings anxiety with change.  Most of my younger friends have traveled more extensively than I have.  When I left school "backpacking" around the world was not as common.  Sure we need the input of more conservative elders but we also need to optimism of youth otherwise we would just stagnate.  

 

I have raised a number of times the fact that New Zealand does have much more extensive provisions for its indigenous people and yet we don't see the negative results that some no campaigners are warning us about. 

 

 

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, octave said:

I was born in England but came to Australia when I was 2.  I was raised and Educated in Adelaide then moved to Sydney for 12 years. I then moved to a large bush block in country NSW for 21 years. During this time I worked in The ACT. I then moved to suburban Melbourne and now reside in Geelong.  

I was referring to the class of people known as Eastern Suburbs Trendies,  like the people in Adelaide today who are marching to protest the proposed "anti-protest" laws, or the "Animal Rights" mob who break into piggeries and poultry sheds to destroy and steal the property of others.   I often wonder if these professional protesters are existing on Government "sit down" money.

[onetrack]

I think it's foolish to compare Maori and South African tribes to Australian Aborigines, as the outlook of all three groups is vastly different, the cultural differences are vast, and the treatment of the "natives" in each case was substantially different.

 

In both SA and  NZ, major all-out wars were conducted to vanquish the "natives" - but Australian Aboriginals were never involved in any warlike actions, apart from a few, small, isolated instances, where an aggressive local landholder launched a murderous attack on local Aborigines, usually in response to a white being murdered.

[octave]

16 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I think it's foolish to compare Maori and South African tribes to Australian Aborigines, as the outlook of all three groups is vastly different, the cultural differences are vast, and the treatment of the "natives" in each case was substantially different.

I raise NZ because the "no case" suggests that any constitutional recognition or constitutionally sanctioned advisory committee will lead to bad things happening.  

[facthunter]

Australia has hundreds of different tribes and languages who would never unite and  be organised to oppose the invader back then who had guns and kept coming and occupying more land.  Nev

Edited May 27, 2023 by facthunter

[spacesailor]

Well !.

Now we are getting ' special ' , " Cadet " schemes ", for native Australians doing their apprenticeship  training.

None for the rest of Australians.  They are not required. 

Just what I read !.