Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by spt5, Oct 1, 2013.

  1. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What is your evidence for that assertion? Just because someone obtains ownership to protect land the call sacred from a system they do not approve but cannot fend off, it doesn't mean they cannot at the same time hold the land to be something more than just property.

    Of corse they can say they are still A, but they would probably be better off saying they are no longer culture A exactly, rather a new culture, C.

    I don't see how that changes anything I said.

    I disagree. There was a particularly racist tone to the entire endeavor.

    I agree with you I never said they should.

    So what? be confused. i dont care and aboriginals shouldn't have to care either. they may still have a culture of their own that incorporates traditional ideas and modern australian customs. There is no problem with that.

    Lol actually they can do exactly that and remain highly credible. There is no mutually exclusive 'selection' when it comes to culture.
     
  2. Friend Of None

    Friend Of None New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Culldav seems stuck on the idea that culture is something that is rigid and unwavering. In reality it is actually the reverse, culture is fluid and adaptable. One can even simultaneously belong to more than just one culture. Thus there is not necessarily any fatal conflict or fatal contradiction between holding a traditional aboriginal view while operating in the norms of a western society.
     
  3. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Exactly
     
  4. Sab

    Sab Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Pretty much.
     
  5. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The whole concept around not "owning the land" is simply intended as a respect for its value in providing its livelihood and sustenance! The concept around Mother Earth is simply encapsulating this concept! If someone harms your mother, provider and protector you will defend it. Like not owning your own mother but respecting her and valuing her. It's pretty clear that this it is beyond the ability of some to comprehend, probably due to strong attitudinal dispositions that are built on the obvious.
     
  6. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Exactly right.
     
  7. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Some Aboriginal communities are doing a fantastic job in contradicting themselves by saying they want to be independent from Australians and not assimilate into Australian culture, but are willing to abandon their own cultural heritage, and use Australian social construction methods for monetarily profit when it suits their agendas.

    They are willing to accept and adopt aspects of Australian culture when it suits their agendas to make money, but then turn their backs on other aspects of Australian culture when they feel they are being hard done by.

    I think these terms are called “cherry picking” and wanting your “cake and eat it too“, and some Aboriginal communities are doing just that.

    Aboriginal people taken from their families in the name of racism, and white people taken from their families in the name of discrimination.

    I suppose in your view, it was more psychologically difficult for Aboriginal children to be forcibly taken from their families in the name of racism, than Australian children to be taken from theirs in the name of discrimination.

    Heaven forbid if Australians ever try to horn-in on the Aboriginal stolen generation sympathy train.
     
  8. Friend Of None

    Friend Of None New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ^^ Does this guy even read the threads or does he just rant?
     
    Bowerbird and (deleted member) like this.
  9. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The latter! It's an attention thing!
     
  10. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How many Aboriginals have you actually met?
     
  11. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You can twist and squirm until my cows come over the hill wearing green evening frocks signing the sound of music, but the facts remain the same.

    Some Aboriginal communities cannot use their ancient Aboriginal culture and heritage to advocate no one owns the land when it suits their agendas, and then use Australia culture and heritage to lease land they control to mining companies without them directly contradicting their own ancient culture and heritage.

    If Australians want to make a financial profit off Aboriginal controlled land, then Aboriginals claim no one owns the land, because its deemed sacred, but if the Aborigines own the same piece of land, then the Aboriginal people can dump the meaning of their own cultural values in favour of Australian cultural values, because “they” can make the financial profit.

    Nice back-flip!! No wonder cultural fences are not being mended when this kind of contradiction is taking place.

    Why am I not surprised no one has questioned this ruse aboard the sympathy train.
     
  12. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Adapting your culture is not the same as abandoning it, so your argument is totally wrong.

    And they have every right to do that, though I disagree that that is what the majority are doing.

    Again, if they can they may. Culture is fluid, not rigid.

    So it would seem. No one can deny the categorization if aboriginals and classification of them based on skin colour was part of a racist policy.

    It certainly would be if the aboriginal kids had family settings that were entirely adequate and did not require correction as was the case in many instances.

    No I think we should definitely critically evaluate it - we just shouldn't do it with a narrow and arbitrary conceptualization of history or the notion of cultural identity.
     
  13. DominorVobis

    DominorVobis Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just rant, he actually doesn't have a clue. Seems you have, as others before you have, already figured that out from his posts.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I'm not sure they let him out actually. I think when he's not on here he is medicated in his padded room.
     
  14. Wizard From Oz

    Wizard From Oz Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,676
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I guess that is as good an explanation as any for the high flow rate of ad hom and stereotyping going on
     
  15. Friend Of None

    Friend Of None New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If your argument is so convincing then why can't you address any counterpoints?
     
  16. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48


    You’re trying to convince me that its acceptable and appropriate behaviour for some aboriginal communities to advocate they want independence from Australian society and to live in their own independent communities away from Australian society in favour of their own traditional Aboriginal lifestyle, but then acceptable and appropriate behaviour to abandon their Aboriginal lifestyle when it suits their agenda in favour of an Australian lifestyle, when they can make a financial profit.

    This is not about culture being fluid or rigid. Its about some Aboriginal communities advocating to live a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle away and independent from Australian lifestyles, but willing to abandon their traditional lifestyles in favour of Australian lifestyles when it suits their agenda. Does traditional Aboriginal lifestyle and culture include leasing land? If some Aboriginal communities don't want to be part of Australian society, then why cherry pick parts of Australian culture to use for their own convenience, when its not part of thier traditional Aboriginal culture? Doesn't their behaviour indicate having a foot in both cultures, not just both feet in one culture like they claim?

    There is a massive contradiction in that philosophy, and you don’t need to be a genius to see it.
     
  17. Friend Of None

    Friend Of None New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, there is no lethal contradiction that comes from holding a traditional indigenous view while operating in a western society. It is entirely possible to do both and to claim otherwise is to create a false dichotomy. It's purely a practical exercise that doesn't necessarily contradict their traditional beliefs. Yeah, it suits their agenda of not being put at an even greater disadvantage, losing more land, losing more cultural heritage and dooming themselves because they fail to recognize and operate within the new system that doesn't recognize their own view, but so what? This is more than fair considering the consequences for being so culturally rigid that you cannot even engage with the law being imposed by another culture would be disastrous.

    No, but the dominant culture that they are forced to operate within does, thus it would be absurd to pretend that this isn't the case and that nothing bad will happen if you continue to ignore these changes to society and fail to adapt to the new laws.

    Read the thread. If they don't do this then they are put at an even greater disadvantage. It's a practical thing and doesn't contradict their traditional view unless they actually make the choice to do away with traditional beliefs in favour of this new system.

    Just curious, but why do you care so much? I've never seen/heard anyone get so wound up over such an obvious non-issue. It seems you have a serious agenda against Indigenous Australians that is negatively affecting your judgement and reasoning abilities.

    Citation required.
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    OF COURSE! Why wouldn't it be?

    And what is your problem with that? Is it illegal? No. Is it harmful to someone? No. Is it unethical? No. So what is your problem?

    Sure if that's what they want.

    Because they want to.

    Maybe, depending on your perspective. But if it is, so what?

    what contradiction is that?

    Then explain it because as I said culture is WHATEVER you want it to be. If you think the title of 'traditional culture' needs to be in exactly the same state it was a few hundred years ago then your notion of traditional is not only arbitrary but also impossible.
     
  19. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I’m fascinated that some people are so mired in empathy and sympathy for the Aboriginal people, that they have forgotten to ask critical questions regarding their motives.

    Will Australian children be educated that its acceptable practice that some Aboriginal communities can be contradictory by advocating they are independent and separate from Australia society due to living a traditional lifestyle, but abandon their traditional lifestyle that teaches them no one owns the land, in favour of Australian lifestyle that teaches them land can be owned, when they can make a profit from that land.

    Will Australian kids be educated that contradiction is acceptable behaviour depending on whether you are Australian or Aboriginal?

    Some Aboriginal communities like to follow their traditional lifestyles and culture when there is no benefit to the Australian people, and then abandon Aboriginal lifestyles and culture for Australian lifestyles and culture when there is a benefit to the Aboriginal people.

    Everyone would like to be able to take all the good aspects from a society without any of the bad, but real life doesn’t work like that.

    Abandoning your own traditional lifestyle and culture in favour of cherry picking the best attributes of another society when it suits an agenda or profit margin is a contemptible practice.

    By the way, I believe culture is always in a state of change. But I’m not the one going around advocating to Australians and the rest of the world that: “non one owns the land” Australian Aborigines are, by saying that is their “traditional” cultural philosophy. Then they break their own “traditional” cultural philosophy by leasing the land Australians gave them under sacred land rights. So much for the Aboriginal philosophy of traditional sacred land rights, when its worth a few bucks to mining companies!!
     
  20. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It is only your ignorance and lack of understanding as to personal identity and the reality of culture that gives rise to confusion and a perception of 'contradiction'. Logical thought on the matter does not lead to such narrow minded and prejudiced conclusions. Empathy has nothing to do with it.
     
  21. culldav

    culldav Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48

    When you attack a forum member during a debate and not the topic, you have lost the plot.

    Cheers
     
  22. Friend Of None

    Friend Of None New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Another post that doesn't even attempt to defend itself, but needlessly reasserts it's prior position while failing to address any counter points. This is a very weak argument.

    It's been explained to you that this doesn't create any sort of contradiction for Aboriginal people. What part of this did you not understand? Have you even read the thread?
     
  23. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    May I interpose??? I think the point CD is trying to make is that at this very time there are some indigenous people who proclaim they are claiming land rights on land that is earmarked for mining on the premise of protection of the land. When the land is granted they turn around and lease it out for mining which opposes the original claim. While this can be demonstrated with certain groups as being something of substance the truth in the matter is that the people who are granted the land do not proclaim this.

    The problem is that while a small minority have given this appearance, it is not the example of all. While small groups proclaim these things as being good reason for claiming particular land the truth is that they have NOTHING to do with any claims. This is actually the claims of the ill-informed of the indigenous (those who do not want to be informed) and not the majority.
     
  24. truthvigilante

    truthvigilante Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 30, 2012
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    289
    Trophy Points:
    83
    How does it oppose the original claim?
     
  25. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What??? Have you got any idea what I was saying??? As this argument has been going for some time I would have gathered you are aware of what was being argued. I simply considered I was putting in context the argument as it has been placed and point out that it is not the reality of the situation. I would have thought YOU of all people would see the point I was making.
     

Share This Page