Australian Politics Forum

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85043
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #75 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:21pm

As a direct descendant of the Ancient High Kings of Ireland - I want me cut.... traditional landowners restored.....

Jeez LE - comparison of the settlement of Oz and the United States is a very big issue - there is a lot more stuff around about the US than here... umm..... lemme think on it a while... gotta go lay some carpet with the woman I don't lay with no more...

That's not an ox - ye moron - it's a Loader bull!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:48pm by Grappler Deep State Feller »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #76 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:55pm

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

.... A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc. ....

Well said!

I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion.

That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare?

If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed?

Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous.

Good point, LE. What do others think about this view, particularly in light of the recent independence ballot in Scottland and other self determination measures in Northern Ireland?

Should US and Australian indigenous groups receive a similar say in their governance?

Feel free to respond.

Possession/dispossession happen in different legal worlds that collide and one will have to be the dominant one. You cannot have two different legal systems - Aboriginal and European - coexists and be applied randomly.

Europeans did not accept the Aboriginal legal system as applicable to them and forced the Aborigines to accept European law when dealing with anything involving Europeans and their property.

Aborigines can agitate for independence under European law - except what they want to return to did not and does not exist in European law. So they will have to be a nation with defined territory, like the Scots. But they are not one nation and they have no defined territory as a nation that is recognised in any jurisdiction.

This is not a million miles from the Palestinian dilemma - they are not a nation either.

Peoples used to be swept away by history without trace. Nowadays it's always a legal case. But the law, like culture, is not universal. So laws, like cultures, clash irreconcilably until they recognise a higher law and culture as universal and so able to arbitrate between the competing claims.

Alas, universality is a European idea too (a Christian one, in particular).i

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:12pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85043
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #77 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 5:10pm

The difference is that the US Indians are mainly covered by treaties - the current and very long-lasting argument is over past abrogations of treaties which cast the Native Americans as the villains, thus leading to the successive abrogation of treaty after treaty.

At meeting with government etc agencies, Indian chiefs repeated over and over that they did not wish to enter a new treaty that cost them more land etc, and were happy with the existing one. What usually happened then was that some act or acts were undertaken by US government or others to bring about a situation where the often defenceless Indians, men women and children, were attacked as 'renegades' - and often slaughtered indiscriminately so as to secure their land and gold and so forth without paying for it.

There are past antecedents of such things with the Scottish Highlands - the Massacre of Glencoe being one such... and any number of other similar situations, such as the displacement of the Irish from Ulster (my family's ancient seat of government was at Tara) which cost an estimated million Irish lives.

The Maoris on the other hand fought so steadfastly that the British pakehas were forced to sign a Treaty to which they are still held, showing that military strength and often success at arms was the great leveler there.

In most cases, the American Indians were relatively poorly armed and had little to no chance against military might that included cannon and such, and the Australian Aborigines - as well as being essentially a friendly group to early settlers - were far worse off in terms of arms etc.

In both cases, the actions of a few would be laid against the whole group and often horrendous punishment meted out, always in the name of either exterminating or moving on the tribes.

My family has very strong connections with the development of the New England area, and at this time there are two distinct Aboriginal tribal groups there through force of circumstances - one driven up from the Western Plains of Sydney basin (Penrith etc and back a ways) and the other from the Moreton Bay area. They are significantly different in many ways... but the fact remains that they were both groups driven off ancestral land and into clashing with other groups as well as Whites.... and they have no 'reservations' no matter how poor in soil and sustenance unless you count their reservations at the Long Bay Hilton and its offshoots.....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42221

Re: Freeedom
Reply #78 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:10pm

Indigenous Australians did resist European colonisation. Indeed, they caused considerable problems in and around the Sydney colony for about the first 20 years, while in Tasmania they held back European settlement for about the amount of time.

White Australia made a concerted effort to whitewash that those periods of settlement, in order to reinforce the concept of terra nullius. However, with the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions, that legal fiction was over turned and today, there has been an effort to bring back into proportion their resistance to European colonisation.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #79 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

Indigenous Australians did resist European colonisation. Indeed, they caused considerable problems in and around the Sydney colony for about the first 20 years, while in Tasmania they held back European settlement for about the amount of time.

White Australia made a concerted effort to whitewash that those periods of settlement, in order to reinforce the concept of terra nullius. However, with the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions, that legal fiction was over turned and today, there has been an effort to bring back into proportion their resistance to European colonisation.

And who will provide succor to the first wave of Aborigines - remnants of whom survived in Tasmania thanks to the rising seas - who were wiped out by the second wave, with no recourse to The Hague or the UN?

Who will compensate the people who were overrun by the Mongols? Who will compensate all the victims of human sacrifice by the Incas and Aztecs? Who will plead the cases of all the Europeans and their descendants, who were kidnapped by Muslim raiders and sold into slavery?

Will the African-Americans seek compensation from today's Arab nations whose predecessors were kidnapped and traded by Arab slave traders to Europeans?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42221

Re: Freeedom
Reply #80 - Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:32pm

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:18pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

Indigenous Australians did resist European colonisation. Indeed, they caused considerable problems in and around the Sydney colony for about the first 20 years, while in Tasmania they held back European settlement for about the amount of time.

White Australia made a concerted effort to whitewash that those periods of settlement, in order to reinforce the concept of terra nullius. However, with the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions, that legal fiction was over turned and today, there has been an effort to bring back into proportion their resistance to European colonisation.

And who will provide succor to the first wave of Aborigines - remnants of whom survived in Tasmania thanks to the rising seas - who were wiped out by the second wave, with no recourse to The Hague or the UN?

If you can find someone who is a survivor, please present them, Soren. As there is more than sufficient evidence that such predecessor wave(s) of migrants interbred with, rather in the style than it's now been shown that Neanderthals interbred with Denisovans, I am unsure why you claim they wiped them out. Oh, and the Tasmanian peoples were not their last descendents, they were genetically the same as the mainland Aborigines.

All you're doing is perpetuating the tired old racist myths about the Indigenes, Soren.

Quote:

Who will compensate the people who were overrun by the Mongols? Who will compensate all the victims of human sacrifice by the Incas and Aztecs? Who will plead the cases of all the Europeans and their descendants, who were kidnapped by Muslim raiders and sold into slavery?

Will the African-Americans seek compensation from today's Arab nations whose predecessors were kidnapped and traded by Arab slave traders to Europeans?

They were then, today is today, we are, I am sure you would claim, morally superior to the Mongols or the Arab slavers (who it must be pointed out were well supplied with their merchandise by African slavers) or any of the other similes you try and draw. We dispossessed without declaration of war or even recognition of their prior claim, the Indigenes. It isn't as if the English didn't recognise such prior claims elsewhere in the world, the English were quite happy to make treaties with Indigenous peoples, yet they chose here, to try and do a bit of legal sleight of hand to justify their theft of other's lands. Now, we, as a society have to try and attempt reconciliation with peoples who we attempted to wipe out but failed to. They aren't going away, so it's time you and others of your ilk (and afterall, you're only a johnny-come-lately by your own admission), need to face it. Roll Eyes

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96294
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #81 - Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:29am

Soren wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:55pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

.... A lot of current issues - gay rights, women's rights, religious rights.. and so forth - remind me in a startling fashion of the position of the Plains Indians in the US - who had no issue with legitimate rights of settlers and people passing through etc - as long as it didn't abrogate their treaties and their traditions and holy places etc. ....

Well said!

I often think that the same comparison can be drawn with the settlement of this country and its subsequent treatment of its indigenous peoples, always bearing in mind the time and technological differences between the two. And the available resources of the two countries at the time of settlement and expansion.

That being said, what is your opinion of the treatment doled out to the original indigenous of the USA when compared to our own? And how do they compare?

If we are to discuss freedom, whose freedom are we discussing? Those of the possessors, or those of the dispossessed?

Any claim by me for the traditional right to the lands of my Scottish/Irish ancestors would be laughed out of court, yet we grant such rights to our own indigenous.

Good point, LE. What do others think about this view, particularly in light of the recent independence ballot in Scottland and other self determination measures in Northern Ireland?

Should US and Australian indigenous groups receive a similar say in their governance?

Feel free to respond.

Possession/dispossession happen in different legal worlds that collide and one will have to be the dominant one. You cannot have two different legal systems - Aboriginal and European - coexists and be applied randomly.

Europeans did not accept the Aboriginal legal system as applicable to them and forced the Aborigines to accept European law when dealing with anything involving Europeans and their property.

Aborigines can agitate for independence under European law - except what they want to return to did not and does not exist in European law. So they will have to be a nation with defined territory, like the Scots. But they are not one nation and they have no defined territory as a nation that is recognised in any jurisdiction.

This is not a million miles from the Palestinian dilemma - they are not a nation either.

Peoples used to be swept away by history without trace. Nowadays it's always a legal case. But the law, like culture, is not universal. So laws, like cultures, clash irreconcilably until they recognise a higher law and culture as universal and so able to arbitrate between the competing claims.

Alas, universality is a European idea too (a Christian one, in particular).

Thanks for your contribution, S. Excellent thoughts.

What do others think? Does anyone agree that Palestine is not a nation?

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85043
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #82 - Nov 18^th, 2014 at 6:27pm

No - Palestine is not a nation - it was a sort of national identity back in WWI - the Light AHorse etc campaigned in Palestine.. which included modern day Israel, parts of Lebanon and Syria and so forth...

Hang on a mo'.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Only wikipedia, but hell....

Now - you can argue that Israel is a 'created nation' as opposed to a nation based on ethnic or tribal etc occupation over an extended period... but remember that the Israelites/Hebrews were there before the Palestinians, and thus there is some sort of claim.

Certainly Jews and Arabs lived side by side there...... and often inter-married and shared cultural ideas and such.

The argument is about territory or land - and Palestine as it was has been broken up into various bits... and thus is no more.

Palestinianism is more of a group or ethnic issue than one of actual nationhood - and never forget that it is primarily the Arab countries who have kept the Palestinians locked into a relatively small area, and the only hope for the likes of Yasar Arafat was that by exerting pressure - a genuine nation of Palestine would be created, much as was modern-day Israel.

There is an old story of the Israeli Prime Minister, at a meeting with Yasar Arafat, telling a story of the Hebrews arriving at the Promised Land:-

When the Hebrews arrived and found these lovely flowing steams - they tore off their filthy clothing and jumped in - and while they were swimming about, the Palestinians stole their clothing!

Arafat leaped up and said - "That is a LIE! There were no Palestinians there!"

The Israeli PM nodded and Arafat stormed out of the meeting.....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29830
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #83 - Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:30pm

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

This is what you call a false dichotomy, if you are being polite.

The government should stay out of religion, in both a positive and negative sense. They should not be promoting or discouraging faiths. Nor should they prevent people from judging others based on their chosen faith.

No-one has the right not to be offended.

Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD?

How old are you, out of a matter of interest?

I take it you're too young to remember the sectarian divide in Australia between the Catholics and the Protestants? Where the Protestants would discriminate actively against the Catholics? Deny them advancement, jobs, education, etc.?

Ah, happy times, right? Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD. Roll Eyes

Surely you jest? Catholics did exactly the same & still do to this day. You must be a biased tyke. Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 42221

Re: Freeedom
Reply #84 - Nov 18^th, 2014 at 11:47pm

Gnads wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

Yes, but the government makes the laws. Should they promote the mockery of their own citizens, those whom they are elected to represent?

Or should they protect the right of people to believe what they like without fear of judgement and persecution?

I’m curious.

This is what you call a false dichotomy, if you are being polite.

The government should stay out of religion, in both a positive and negative sense. They should not be promoting or discouraging faiths. Nor should they prevent people from judging others based on their chosen faith.

No-one has the right not to be offended.

Ah, so you believe people should be allowed to discriminate against people on the basis of what they believe, they believe in, FD?

How old are you, out of a matter of interest?

I take it you're too young to remember the sectarian divide in Australia between the Catholics and the Protestants? Where the Protestants would discriminate actively against the Catholics? Deny them advancement, jobs, education, etc.?

Ah, happy times, right? Makes your efforts against the Muslims look rather paltry, FD. Roll Eyes

Surely you jest? Catholics did exactly the same & still do to this day. You must be a biased tyke. Roll Eyes

Two wrongs don't make a right. Around the British Empire, it was the Protestants who held the whip hand and liberally applied it, from the UK itself, through the Dominions to the colonies. If you were a Catholic, you were treated as a second-class citizen. In Australia, it lasted until the start of the 1960s and then started to melt away in the light of progressive attitudes and legislation. It lasted in Northern Ireland until the 1990s.

Back to top

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 29830
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #85 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 6:02am

well old mate when I was first job hunting in the early 70's there were certain businesses & sections of businesses in my town that were the domain of Catholics & you had little chance of a statrt there if you weren't a tyke.

e.g. the SGIO, Commonwealth Bank & QLD Govt. Railways Administration Office - all large employers. The same biases applied to other businesses as well, especially Pubs.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #86 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 6:59am

The very idea of banning mockery or criticism of ANY group is fundamentally un-Australian. We have a long and admirable history of being open in our critical assessments of govts groups and yes, religion. The concept itself is anathema, but to imagine how a govt would implement it is to shudder at the thought. Mockery and criticism can go too far - and we have laws to handle that. But these things, alongside a right to do so are what keeps any group - or religion - from becoming the kinds of institutions that are a law to themselves. Religions can and do add great value to our society, but they also have the potential to do a lot of harm. It is only by having the right to freely and openly criticise that we limit this risk. And yes, even unfair criticism has its place because sometimes unfair criticism reveals the ACTUAL truth, albeit by accident.

I would reject any concept of banning mockery and criticism of religion. it is therefore pleasing that no party or govt is actually planning to do anything even remotely like it.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85043
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Freeedom
Reply #87 - Nov 19^th, 2014 at 9:50am

Apparently according to some denizens of some religions you are mocking that religion unless you totally accept it and its tenets.

That is the nadir of stupidity and arrogance - as well as violent in that they also advocate violence and death to those who 'mock' it in that way.

I trust they do not see that it would be fair to treat them and all of theirs in the same way for not adhering to another religion.

Such adherents should applaud collateral damage from bombings of IS.... only fair, playing the game by the rules.

Beware what you seek - you may actually get it.....

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should government facilitate the mockery of spirituality?
Yes 6 (40.0%) No 9 (60.0%) Total votes: 15 « Created by: Karnal on: Nov 15^th, 2014 at 7:14pm »