A Quarter of a Millenium Ago

[old man emu]

The 29th April 253 years ago, Lieutenant James Cook directed his ship into the wide bay which became known as Botany Bay. Is the 29th April going to become a day for racial vilification? Don't forget that within a few days of his arrival, a Gwagal man lay dead from a gunshot wound.

[nomadpete]

Don't start that again. If it gets traction we will end up with multiple "invasion day" guilt trips.

 

Look. If my ancestor once did something nasty to your ancestors, should I owe you favors today?

[facthunter]

Only if it was still happening. The left behind hates of centuries are still there all over Europe and east of it.  The arbitrary division of the Middle East and Africa. Just about everywhere if you think about it. Nev

[spacesailor]

A man lay dead ! .

If the white man hadn't defended himself , would the outcome have been different for the " spear throwing natives " .

On my ' Cape York ' trip I saw a museum piece,  that said " the natives welcomed the yelloww skined foreigner's .

And speared the whites " .

The same ' antaganistic posture ' we have today .

If only they would ' laydown their arms ' & Be a " civilised " race of people .

As the people they are Targeting now,  Are peacefully trying to live a good life in this " Brown Land of OURS '' .

spacesailor

 

[nomadpete]

23 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The left behind hates of centuries are still there all over Europe

And all over Australia

[Jerry_Atrick]

You mean like this: https://www.smh.com.au/nazis-next-door

 

[old man emu]

12 hours ago, nomadpete said:

If my ancestor once did something nasty to your ancestors, should I owe you favors today?

Hey! If I had anymore Celtic DNA in me, I'd understand speakers of Brythonic. My ancestor came here in the 19th Century.

 

I used the correct name of the clan which inhabited the location where Cook had that confrontation. If Cook had landed at a place further south, it would have been a member of some other clan that had the confrontation. The mistaken idea is that one day this "floating island"  suddenly appeared in Botany Bay. In fact the Aborigines had been reporting the movement of the ship all the time it was sailing up the coast. Cook was standing in close to the shore all the way up the coast because he was charting the coastline, and no doubt also taking depth measurements.

 

I raised the point of the anniversary because I forgot the reaction to the 250th anniversary in 2020. I was expecting something similar this year in view of the referendum debate. 

 

 

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

In view of the referendum debate

The referendum debate is entangled with the blame debate. Hence my inferance that there is an undercurrent of historic grudges around the actions of previous generations.

 

We cannot change the past. And the real referendum debate should be centred around the question of how this proposed constitution change can improve the lives of indigenous AND the rest of the present occupants of this country

[facthunter]

You are not seeing a debate . You are seeing stunts being played by amateurs and media.  Nev

[nomadpete]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

You are not seeing a debate . You are seeing stunts being played by amateurs and media.  Nev

That pretty much sums up my gripe

[Bruce Tuncks]

I agree with nomad and that is exactly why I'm voting "no" even though I quite like Albanese. The ONLY things I have seen happen at the behest of Aborigines is the prohibition of whitefellers being able to climb hills. I hate that. 

If Aborigines were able to come up with some new ideas on how to stop the lawlessness in Alice Springs, I would like that.

[Old Koreelah]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

In fact the Aborigines had been reporting the movement of the ship all the time it was sailing up the coast.

 

A few km north of Cook’s encampment and only about 18 years later, Governor Phillip was speared as he approached some locals. About 200 years later, a facinating detail about that was revealed by his decendants: the spear point was iron!
 

[old man emu]

Lawlessness in The Alice! Lawlessness in Darwin. have you heard any reports in the major city media of the quiet, peaceful lives of the Aboriginal people living away from those places? Oooo! A conspiracy theory!

 

I'll vote "No". Not because I'm anti-, but because it's crystal clear that the needs of the vast majority of Aboriginal people won't be attended to by some lobby group with branches in the Capital cities. 

 

I would like to see some of these academics in the Social Sciences such as education, actually get out into those remote areas and study the way Aborigines teach their children. Once they understand the cultural background of the learning process, they can work out how to integrate European topics into the children's education.

 

The next thing, or maybe the first thing, is to deal with the children's health, especially ear, nose and throat disease which is sending the kids deaf, so they can't learn from anyone.

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

'll vote "No". Not because I'm anti-, but because it's crystal clear that the needs of the vast majority of Aboriginal people won't be attended to by some lobby group with branches in the Capital cities. 

Do you have the basis for this other than intuition? The Voice hasn't been concocted in the halls of a Canberra lobby group, but the culmination of wide consultation leading to the Uluru Statement from the Heart - hardly stuff of lobby groups.

 

Much of the criticism levelled at the Voice is often deemed baseless by people eminent in things like social care, law, medicine, etc. The latest is from an ex High Court Judge as reported in the daily blog of The Age/SMH:

----

"Claims Voice could change Aus or Anzac Day baseless: former High Court chief justice

By Paul Sakkal

The former head of Australia’s top law court has labelled the deputy Liberal leader’s claim that the Voice to parliament could change the dates of Australia Day or Anzac Day as baseless.

Deputy opposition leader Sussan Ley said on Friday morning that the scope of the proposed Indigenous advisory body was “undefined” and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese couldn’t rule out “the Voice [having] a de facto veto role on … national days of commemoration such as Australia Day or Anzac Day.”

Australia’s twelfth High Court chief justice, Robert French, said the claim had “no substance”.

 

----

 

The claims it is racist as it doesn't constitutionally provide other minorities a Voice are slightly disingenous as well; firstly, all other minorities are afforded protectiojns of a legal culture that is more or less what they are used to; secondly, they don't suffer intrinsic intergenerational issues borne about by the people that are now governing them. Thirdly, and rightly, we expect new comers to our country to respect the ways of our life and laws; however, first nationsd people had their culture taken. Even the US seems to provide better for Native American Indians than we do.

 

I agree that the city academics should get out to the remote areas and see things first hand. And of course, we should be looking after childrens' health - regardless of background. They can co-exist and operate concurrently with the Voice - it is not one or the other. In fact, the Voice may well encourage that to happen.

 

The problems in Darwin, I have read are the result of the alcohol ban in Alice Springs, with the more vagrant dependent people moving to NT (homeless, of course) to get their booze. It is literally kicking the can down the road (or up the road in this case).

 

There is legal risk in the way the Voice is currently framed in terms of its remit (outside of being a consultative body) and what it can actually achieve. There is no power to compel, so there is no risk there. And it is unclear what, if any, monitoring it will be funded for. So, it may well end up being nonthing more than a gesture and not achieve anything. And we don't want a repeat of ATSIC, which was albelled a failed expirement. However, I can'ty help but think ideology was involved, as,m what is stated in this article (https://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/679/1/200511_behrendt_atsic.pdf):

 

"ATSIC was often portrayed as being responsible for every Indigenous issue. However, it
was not widely appreciated that it did not, at the time of its abolition, have fiscal
responsibility for the areas of health and education and was only a supplementary funding
provider on issues such as domestic violence, languages, heritage protection and housing.
In addition to this, there has also been a failure to understand that a large percentage
(almost 80 per cent) of the ATSIC budget was quarantined for programs such as the
Community Development Employment Program (a work-for-the-dole scheme) and the
Community Housing and Infrastructure Program. These misconceptions about ATSIC’s
role directed attention away from government departments (federal and state and
territory) with the actual responsibility for Indigenous policy and service delivery."

 

There is legal risk in the way the Voice is currently framed in terms of its remit (outside of being a consultative body) and what it can actually achieve. There is no power to compel, so there is no risk there. And it is unclear what, if any, monitoring it will be funded for. So, it may well end up being nothing more than a symobolic gesture that descends into worthlessness. In fact, without stronger wording such as constraints on its composition (it must bre representative of a cross section of Aboriginal Societies, appoitnment process is fair, transparent, and independent; is elected and overarching how), it is almost guaranteed to fail wien the Libs are next in because of their ideology and the way they will run (or ruin) it.

 

But, I guess, like the federal ICAC with mainly private hearings, it is a step in the right direction.

[facthunter]

Involve them more and they OWN it. You can't keep repeating the mistakes of the Past. Remember Mal Broughs "Bring in the troops stuff.". Grog's got plenty to do with it and whites have a similar issue. Dutton's actions are a stunt. He did the same with Victoria bringing in Border Farce to Melbourne. He's the Abominable NO Man and wrecker like all bar Turnbull (fizzer) who they hate with a passion, even though HE donated 1.74 Million of his own dough  to help them out.. Dutton's Wife says HE's Black and White there are NO greys. That's clear.  Nev

[Marty_d]

I will be voting yes.

 

The reasons people put forward for voting "no" seem to be:

 

1. It won't change anything for indigenous people 

2. Unexpected consequences from changing the constitution. 

 

Number 2 has been pretty comprehensively debunked by constitutional experts. 

 

As for number 1, yes, there's a chance that it won't help them. But there's a chance that it will. Doing nothing will definitely result in nothing changing,  and this is a process designed by some of the people it's meant to help. 

 

 

[spacesailor]

But , WE still haven't got ALL the information , on what IS going to be Law !.

so , NO , from me.

Lets vote WHEN it is ALL down in writing .

spacesailor

[red750]

A former indigenous politician who received a prestigious award from Barack Obama has described Aboriginal 'welcome to country' ceremonies as 'bullshit'.

 

Quote from former indigenous NT minister Bess Price (mother of Jacinta Price).

 

 'All the "Welcome to Country", all the "Smoking Ceremonies" and all the made up bullshit rituals about "pay our respects to elders past and present" is just one big lie.

 

The 'welcome to country' was adopted into Australia's parliamentary protocols in 2008, after the then prime minister Kevin Rudd delivered his apology to the ‘stolen generation’ (who were in fact mostly half-cast children taken into protective and educational care).

 

However, two years after that decision, Aboriginal entertainer Ernie Dingo claimed that he invented the concept in 1976 when visiting Pacific Island dancers demanded they receive a traditional welcome. The Aborigines have supposedly been here for at least 50,000 years, exterminating their predecessors the Mungo Man of light boned Chinese origin and the Kow Swamp Man of heavy boned Java Man origin (some say more like

60,000 years, but they came in waves when sea levels fell).

 

The fact is, as uncomfortable and as unfashionable as it is, aboriginal Australia had not produced anything resembling a Shakespeare, nothing much in the way of technology, never discovered the wheel, could not boil water, kept no written history, had no conception of the size or location of this continent, and no philosophy to speak of in the 50,000 years available to it. The English brought the rule of law, the Westminster system, a work ethic, the notion of progress and all the benefits of the science, technology and ingenuity of the modern European world.

 

On 26 January 1788 when the First Fleet ships unloaded their ~ 750 convicts, 245 Royal Marines and 15 officials, not a shot was fired. As they looked around what's now Circular Quay, they saw nothing other than bush. Not a single building, planted field, domesticated plant or animal - nothing at all. Very few natives were seen along the coast and it was considered there would be even fewer living inland. It was seen as "terra nullius" - a vacant land owned by noone.

 

There was no indigenous army to defeat, no Aboriginal flag to lower, no national leaders to consult. There was nothing to claim as the spoils of victory. There was just wild bush. There was no "invasion". The few Aborigines who came out to have a look at these strange people were

completely illiterate and innumerate and those on the south side of the harbour spoke a language completely unintelligible to those on the north

side of the harbour, and they'd been constantly at war with each other for as long as anyone can remember. Australian Aboriginal languages consist of around 290- 363 dialects belonging to an estimated 28 language families and isolates. 

 

Since the arrival of the English, only about 250 years ago, Australia has prospered and developed into a modern first world country, along with

all other Western democracies. Today, Aborigines enjoy many of these modern day benefits in preference to a harsh traditional Aboriginal life-style.

Yet for at least 50,000 years (prior to the arrival of the British) the Aboriginals seemed to have not progressed one step.

 

To put this into perspective, Aboriginals had inhabited our great land for at least 47,000 years prior to the ancient Egyptian empire. The Greek empire was at its peak in the period 500 BC to 300 BC and the Roman empire was at its peak around 117 BC.

 

Each of those empires were highly advanced and contributed enormously to the advancement of the modern world.

 

It therefore beats me why the stagnant Aboriginal culture is now so revered? In 1967, under the Holt Liberal government, 90.77 per cent of Australians voted to remove race from the Constitution, putting ‘indigenous’ Australian people on the same legal footing as all other Australians and allowing them to be counted in the Commonwealth Census. It was a momentous shift towards equality, removing the 1901 Commonwealth ban, which had been designed to prevent political exploitation of the aborigines, whose ignorance and malleability made them easy vote getters.

Half a decade later, the Albanese Labor government wants to insert RACE back into the Constitution!

 

To enshrine a special place in the Constitution, based purely on racial grounds, is racism pure and simple. Length of ancestry on this continent, whether it be 50,000 years, 250 years or 10 years, shouldn’t be the determinant for any special consideration to any population cohort in the Constitution. Furthermore, most 'Aborigines' today are of mixed ancestry and they live a non-traditional lifestyle in urban areas. 

 

JUST A LITTLE SOMETHING TO CONTEMPLATE BEFORE SIGNING UP TO A RACE-BASED "INDIGENOUS VOICE” BEING INSERTED INTO IN OUR CONSTITUTION. TAKE CARE - WE ALREADY HAVE A PARLIAMENT THAT REPRESENTS “ALL” AUSTRALIANS!

 

Our Federal parliament already has 11 Aboriginal members, which is proportionately higher than the rest of us. In addition, EACH of our State governments, plus our Federal government, have Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs who oversee Departments that provide for the particular needs of Aborigines.

[Old Koreelah]

29 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

But , WE still haven't got ALL the information , on what IS going to be Law !.

so , NO , from me.

Lets vote WHEN it is ALL down in writing .

spacesailor

Spacey this is the mantra of the No side of politics. A silly argument.
They conveniently forget that the Constitution itself isn’t very clear about how the country should be run. That simple document was a starting point for our system of government to evolve from.
The Voice is the same. The sky will not fall, if after 250+ years, we finally recognise the original inhabitants.

[Jerry_Atrick]

In fact, the Commonwealth doesn't even mention Prime Minister or anything like it. The reality is that even a written constitution is held together by unwritten conventions which aren't even justiciable, yet, the ramifications of breaching them are usually severe, especially in stronger democracies. Look at Australia's constituion, where it primarily divides powers between the Commonwealth of Australia and the states; Take defence - it says basically, that the Commonwealth is responsible for providing defence of the realm. It doesn't prescribe how or even what they have to provide defence:

he defence power is set out in section 51 of the Constitution as follows:

51 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;

(xxxii) the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth;^[1]

 

That is about it. It has the power to make laws with respect to defence, but doesn't have to. There are later sections which preclude the states from making such laws without the Commonwealth's permission. It can control the railways, but there is nothing about it controlling the roads, airspace, etc. in wartime. Yet, look at the body of legislation and laws around defence. Of course, the laws that will be implemented in The Voice will not need to serve as diverse (pardon the pun) a landscape as defence, but the point I am making is what is written in the constitution to cover an incredibly complex function of government is really simple.

 

Imagine if the states had the responsibility of defence and everyone realised it was a complete cock up because of cost and fragmentation; and someone proposed a referendum simply that said. "The powers to make laws and implement the military defence of the states and Commonwealth of Australia are to transxfer from the states to the Commonwealth of Australia". There would be few objectors, yet it goes nowhere near spelling out the laws that would have to be implemented to do it. I get it is more tangible than The Voice, but has anyone read the Uluru Statement?

 

@red750 - that post is a red rag to a bull... I will get into more fully, but a few comments:

• The whole prophecy of that argument is that Aboriginals hadn't developeed a European style culture of land and progress, therefore, they are not entitled to their country. Well, that is BS, really; before white fella, there were over 250 "countries" with natural land boundaries, their own culture, and engaged in things much the same as Europeans; trade, war, different languages, etc. The fact they didn't have a flag or fences was a nuance of European law that allowed the disingenius declaration of terra nullius; later rebuked in the Mabo case in the High Court of Australia. Their only problem was they didn't develop the hardware to defeat an unknown invader; just as in Europe where the weaker countries/regions would succumb to the stronger ones. And, not having a flag to lower - WTF sort of argument is that? Eddie Izzard explains better than I can; hopefully I will find a link and post it below.
• Jacinta and Best Price claiming welcome to country is BS.. Well, firstly, there were over 250 unique individual cultures, and it is not only practiced by Aboriginals, but white-fella, too. But the difference, is Aboriginals seem to have respect for more people that white fella, as white fella only performs these riturals for visiting VIPs; you know formal state welcomes, dinner with the GG, military welcomes, offical meets, etc.. The Queen had been doing it for years, and hosted some real nasty ones.  The Price's may have come from an area that doesn't do the smoking Welcome to Country, so to them it may be BS, but this article may shed some light, including different clans/counties, etc, had different ways of doing it, and the smoking one has become mainstream in public welcomes to country: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2016/03/richard-walleys-welcome-to-country/. Also, Jacinta and her mother are politicians; since when did we believe pollies over research?
• Nothing like Shakespear - just the world's oldest art that, in the absence of mining companies, seems to have lasted a lot longer than the oil paintings of only a few hundred years that need constant repair. Not advanced? Who invented the first aerofoils? Who is able to live in harmony rather than in spite of their environment untiul white-fella arrived? 

 

That was the short response.

 

 

 

Here's the link to Izzard..

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

Talking about flags, Shakespaere, mechanisation, etc is not relevant - just IMHO a deflection. What matters to me is this.....

9 hours ago, red750 said:

Our Federal parliament already has 11 Aboriginal members, which is proportionately higher than the rest of us. In addition, EACH of our State governments, plus our Federal government, have Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs who oversee Departments that provide for the particular needs of Aborigines.

So. In view of the present substantial representation in our governments....

 

How do you see the enshrining of another bunch of advisors, bringing about any improvement in the standard of living of the general empoverished (indigenous) section of Australians?

 

It would be a different matter if there was currently NO representation of indigenous voices in our government. But there already is.

 

And the proposed "voice" is by definition racist, because it represents only one race.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

51 The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(vi) the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth;

(xxxii) the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth;

 

(xxxii) is an example of the need for the Constitution to be regularly updated. When it was adopted in 1901, roads were too unfit for long distance travel. In fact it wasn't until over 75 years later that interstate routes really began to come up to a useful standard, and they still are not today.  So rail transport was the best option. In 1901 air travel was a fiction. To add wording to give the Commonwealth control of roads and airways for military purposes would require a referendum. Today we use the word "military" in common language to include air, sea and land defence activities. So, to to delete the words "the naval and" from that section would also require a referendum, trivial that those changes might actually be in practice.

 

Which brings us to the right the Constitution gives the Commonwealth to make laws relating to aviation. In the late 1940s, the Commonwealth tried to nationalise regular public air travel after it created the Government-owned airline TAA. The Government lost out big time to the States who argued that such an action was a breach of State's control of all transport within their own boundaries. From that time onwards, the Commonwealth made laws which affected routes and aircraft types that could be imported. The States made laws to control air routes within their own boundaries. RPT flight operators in NSW, and I suppose the other States, have to have a separate licence/permit for each route. It's like the route numbers you see on suburban buses. In both cases, operators can't simply create a route and operate on it. 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Well OME, you sure explained why Eddie Connellan was only allowed to import and fly pommy planes. It was because Menzies was an aviation-ignorant pommyphile.

Around Alice Springs, there was more than one mutually-hating tribe. In fact, some of the harm being done at present is due to politically-correct ignorant fools who have swallowed their own nonsense about "peace-loving first nations". They try and kill each other, yet they are allocated housing next-door.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

AND I just don't believe about them being homeless. I have asked why there is nobody around an outpost town, to be told that they had houses at other settlements and moved between them.

[facthunter]

People with money and influence have had easy access to members of Parliament, especially so with Sco Mo's government . Mines have access to almost anywhere. You don't own the land under your land and anywhere can be resumed for Public Roads and Rail etc..  Most mines are foreign owned and pay no tax because they can shift money around internally.. The MacArthur river in NT is too polluted to use the water from. Look at Ok Tedi in PNG. Like EVERYWHERE. Nev