The Random thought thread

[facthunter]

You don't have any "small ones" if you use them.  Nev

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

For small ones you use a condominimum.

I can recall a cartoon on a page at the end of an article in a Playboy magazine in which one of the fairy-folk was running through the forest crying out, "The condominiums are coming! The condominiums are coming!" like a reenactment of the Midnight ride of Paul Revere.

[facthunter]

Lady Godiva beats him hands down.  Nev

[red750]

On 14/06/2024 at 4:39 PM, Jerry_Atrick said:

Has anyone heard of or from @Old Koreelah latelly (been meaning to post this question for a while)?

I emailed Old Koreelah, and he thanked me, glad he hadn't been forgotten. Has been fighting the black dog. This forum had helped him in the beginning, but some of the argy bargy, particularly around the Voice referendum, got him down. He is recovering, but did not indicate when or if he would return.

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Thanks, Peter

[Bruce Tuncks]

I don't remember if he ( old K )  was pro or anti the voice referendum. Personally, I was pleased at the outcome. I'll go further and state that I reckon the abos need tough love treatment. Sure, they need to have decent jobs offered to those who do the right thing and work and study hard, and this will cost lots.

Right now, I despair for them. Even the footballers...  you would have to be crazy to employ one at the moment.

 

[facthunter]

Whatever the Outcome was, some of the Rhetoric was very nasty. ALL colours are born equal might be a fair approach The lives we live are not  even close to being in our control and I don't get  close to the  simpler lifestyle I'd like but right now we have much bigger problems. We could wipe most of us out and make this planet unliveable  with mad people in charge of atomic weapons and more HATE than we can cope with.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

I can't imagine OK was anti-voice. I have been doing a course, which has touched on the impact of colonisation on Aboriginals and Torres Strait Peoples, and  what the population know is the tip of the iceberg, and only then one segment of it. There is an SBS series, https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-series/first-australians,  and although I have only watched a short part of it, it is an amazingly revealing documentary. I had to present how my knowledge of First Nations peoples evollved after the course. I opened is that it was not an evolutionary development of knowledge, but revolutionary. First nations peoples had it "relatively easy" with the British; Not if you know the massacres that actually happened: https://www.newcastle.edu.au/hippocampus/story/2022/massacre-map

 

Quite frankly, some, like some of anyone could use tough love. But, IMHO, is totally inappropriate to solve the problem. Thee are serioud and fundamental shifts in thinking required, in the same way that the Robodebt royal commission compels us no not think of the vast majority of welfare recipients as dole bludgers and a little tough love is required.

 

Remember, the settlement via the declaration of terra nullius was found to be a fiction in accordance with teh laws and community standards at the time. Apart from the settlemen of Australia therefore being technically illegal, it allowed the conquerors to ride rough shod overw First Nations people where they couldn't other populations where they declared conquest, for example the Moaries. The intergerneational impacts have been monumental.

 

Call me woke if you like, but spend time researching the real issues and what the Voice wants to achieve, and you are likely to find there is a far more compelling case for it than against.

 

One of the worst things about it, which will have a far bigger impact on Australia as a whole, is the success of Trumpism in Aussie politics. If it continues its success, well, welcome to life in Ausmerica.

Edited June 22 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

I '  personally ' objected to " splitting " our Nation " !.

like Canada & New Zealand also Northern & the Republic of Ireland. 

Jerry-Atrick,  the New Zealand  Maori had a treaty. 

Now, Maori & pakeha disputes can end up in a Maori court .

( Maori  self determination and justice system) .

spacesailor

[pmccarthy]

I hope OK recovers and comes back. I don't know what his views were, but I can certainly understand the impact of negative attacks. It is quite depressing to be attacked personally for genuinely held and soundly based beliefs.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I quite agree with you guys especially pmc. Space, the treaty of Waitangi was a sort of settlement between equal parties. The whites were only too well aware that the loss of an ammunition-ship could lead to them all going into the cooking-pot. So they agreed and then did a double-cross when the ships got through ok. Now they are being held to what they agreed to at the treaty table.

Personally, I never met an aborigine who was part of any stolen generation and I doubt that there were any in the Alice Springs area in the 1950's. They sure did lose their lands though, but that has long since been rectified. Gosh, they have Uluru etc these days.

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

I '  personally ' objected to " splitting " our Nation " !.

like Canada & New Zealand also Northern & the Republic of Ireland. 

Jerry-Atrick,  the New Zealand  Maori had a treaty. 

Now, Maori & pakeha disputes can end up in a Maori court .

( Maori  self determination and justice system) .

spacesailor

That is precisely the point, and the legal requirement as established in the 1600s, not now. Britain could not declare NZ terra nullius, and therefore, by international and British laew AT THE TIME (and not now), they had to accord land rights and provision for the locals laws. And often that meant that if there was an action on what were after the conquest, settled ttaditional lands, then first nations peoples law would prevail.. but only to an extent. This allows the preservation oif the original peoples' cultures as well as assimilation to the modern culture. There are limits of what a Moari coulurtcan do and the punishments or direcctions it can give; it is strictly limited to cultural issues and of course, putting to death as a punishment is not an option. It does not absolve the first nations peoples from complying with the law of the land, but it gives some cultural independence.

 

The other thing I understand is that it is not as if there is not education and information about how a pakeha may end up in a Moari court in the areas concerned.

 

This is what has been sytematically denied of Australian First Nations peoples for generations. While native title allows parallel rights over only certain lands, they are neither primary nor does that extend to the cultural laws and rites.

 

Yes, with a treaty (which is not the Voice, by the ay), you may end up iwith First Nations courts to hear issues arising from any exclusive First Nations lands or where there is native title, areas which are effectively the preserve of First Nations peoples, such as, I dunno, climbing Uluru. The usual punishment will be adminishment - hardly going to make a huge dent in a non-First Nations persons lifestyle. There are some breaches of sacred ground that do attract corporal and even capital punishment, but I can't see it being allowed, in the same way it is not allowed in Moari courts.

 

So, what is wrong with self-determination and justice? How will it threaten you or divide the community? They aren't asking for a complete divide between First Nations cultures and Westminster system. but that there is space in the Australian system to allow them to practice their cultureal lives.

 

For what it is worth, there are some things that certain sections of First Nations society are pushing for that I think is divisive. But a) it is a small section of their communities that are pushing it, and like most groups of people who are oppressed for long periods of time, they do tend to get more and more radicalised to try and get out of it. If we approach this rationally, we may just stop some of the more way-out ideas.

 

BTW, we already have Koori courts in Vic and NSW, and I think there are others in the other states, acknowledging the deep cultural differences require a different approach. As an example,  Westminster based legal systems value expediency and consultation only with legal professionals when say making peadings; First Nations peoples rely of a process of consultation in their mob, particularly with their elders (which is sort of a misnomer) and often with their wider community. Hence, they often just plead guilty to get things over and done with ASAP so they can then consult with their community - but by then it is too late.

 

And lets not forget the great Nrothern Territory intervention by Howard because of the alleged child abuse and padophillia/incest in the NT First Nations communities. Rather than involving the community to solve the problem, they dolled out, as Bruce calls it, tough love. So much so, that they had to suspend the Human Rights legislation to allow the laws to continue. How well did that go? Well, apparently, it went a lot worse, including even greater rates of child abise, molestation and pedophillia. At least it wasn't incest, because it was tghe government employees and contractors that were systematically involved. Way to go with that tought love, hey?

 

The reality is that the legal processes and community cultures are very different, and the inception of British law without provision for the differences between European and Aboriginal/Torress Strait Islanders culure, traditions, and laws, especially where the whole community is involved, makes it a much more extensive system of  culture and integration within their societies than anything I have seen in European/Western culture.

 

 

Edited June 22 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Personally, I never met an aborigine who was part of any stolen generation and I doubt that there were any in the Alice Springs area in the 1950's.

I think the correct phrase is you don't know if you met any.. I am not sure they advertise it. The generation stealing went on for decades - 60 years is in my head but I am not sure. It was prevalent in the NT and affected almost every mob. You should read up on te three stages of Aboriginal separation, prtection, and then (white/Christian) assimilation.

 

When you realise, the very tight traditional community bonds which is stronger than the commuity bonds we had when we were kids (and families looked after families more than they do now), you realise just how harshly they have been treated - sometimes though sheer ignorance.

[old man emu]

Perhaps a big part of the "problem" with these Land Rights and Native Title matters is a failure of governments to explain in plain language what exactly the Rights are. In Queensland, for example, the indigenous people of the part of the southeast coast have been granted Native Title. That gives them the right to fish, camp, have domestic use fire in that area, but it doesn't allow them to disregard laws relating to trespass, or allow them to get into commercial fishing without meeting the licencing requirements other people must meet.

 

The rights granted through Native Title are written in legalese, which the general public does not comprehend. It is so easy for agitators to take that legalese out of context and spin stories of doom to enhance their own agenda. If governments translated that legalese into material that could be read and understood by people with the same reading age as required to read and comprehend a daily newspaper or magazine, then the opportunity for misinformation would near be swept away.

[spacesailor]

The " stolen  generation " ! .

The same laws were used in England , but nothing happened there .

The " deported convicts " .

The English " sold " English convicts as slaves to the Americas.  Nothing happened there .

spacesailor

[red750]

Plane loads of unwanted children and babies shipped off to Australia and the US, some as recently as the 1950's. Placed in childrens homes run by churches, teenager`s put to work on farms, or "sold" into adoptions. I've seen interviews with some of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Does that justify not making things right?

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

.

 

 

 

Edited June 23 by Jerry_Atrick

[Litespeed]

The stolen gen still exists, I have a friend whose mother was kidnapped by ' white saviours' from her family and sent to Parramatta girls factory as a 'slave' for white people.

The were sent to homes as servants. She was raped and blamed as a delinquent. This was the late 70's . She was then sent to Hay as a virtual prisoner, the prison was closed to prisoners due to inhumane conditions but good enough for black girls.

 

Her, son was taken and given to a ultra religious white family, he is in his 40's. It has seriously affected them all. 

 

 

 

[spacesailor]

It shows , that is not a ' sole Native ' , aberration. 

But,  it's a historical happening,  that shouldn't be on the descendants shoulders .

A native was shot & murdered.  Will you execute his great great great grandson .

It seems to the " New " Australians.  we will pay the price for others , that are not  our responsibility.    ( who have no Australian ancestors )

spacesailor

Edited June 23 by spacesailor
A I changed my words

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, spacesailor said:

But,  it's a historical happening,  that shouldn't be on the descendants shoulders .

That tells me you do not understand First Nations' peoples culture.

8 hours ago, spacesailor said:

It seems to the " New " Australians.  we will pay the price for others , that are not  our responsibility.    ( who have no Australian ancestors )

As part of a society, whichever, and whenever one arrived (especially of one's own choice) you take the liberties with the obligations (or to put it crudely, the good with the bad). To take your logic further, your taxes shouldn't have to pay the debt incurred from Aussie forebears before you arrived. Is that your argument? Or is it only applicable as an argument when it comes to First Nations peoples, that it applies?

 

[Edit after typo fixes.. but I am sure there is at least one remaining]. This is the sort of poop of our derision of immigrants of a certain religious pursuasion.. They have to accept Australia, and not try and make Australia a copy of their culture.

Edited June 23 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

BUT

Thats my point .

I came to Australia at a certain time  .

That ' did not expect ' , the ancestors of murderers to spend the rest of their lives ,in jail, for crimes they did not Commit. 

will you make that same law , against a native for a crime against a European 's ancestors ! .

Toongabbie is well documented with theft by the native

Settlers.

That's the reason they were given " Blackstown " .

Spelt as I have read it .

when we have more native politicians.  our law  can legaly be changed to  " a spear in the leg ' .

spacesailor

[Litespeed]

It's Blacktown not Blackstown.

 

 

The Aboriginal peoples ( nations) have never said their cultural law should apply to others. It is practised in some areas but the white man's law coexists.

 

And if it did, "a spear in the leg" was often for a extremely serious crime and then justice was seen as served. Or they were normally cast out of the community. By its nature tribal law was not about been vindictive or disproportionately applied.

 

They certainly didn't send poms across the world for a hankie.

 

[nomadpete]

Have you ever seen these traditional culturally accepted acts of violence?

There is no way that cultural law can reside alongside Westminster law.

 

For instance, cultural law allowed beating of wives for misdemeanours.

 

And until antibiotics arrived, a spear in the leg could easily be fatal.

 

[willedoo]

4 hours ago, nomadpete said:

And until antibiotics arrived, a spear in the leg could easily be fatal.

Opponents of it cited cases of fatalities due to severing of the femoral artery and the victim dying of blood loss.