- Oct 2016
Well, you asked "which human group" . I see modern ( lets say 2 or 3 generations born here ) Australians as a new human group. We come from all over the place and have variant ancestry . Does a group include all its ancestors ?No problem
But history does not start 200 or 250 years ago....it goes back millenia..... So if you have "european" ancestry (thats fairly broad btw) your ancestors have suffered endless wars, slavery, feudality, famine, pestilence (imported from Asia) invasions and slaughter at the hand of the mongols, huns, arabs turks etc... and even the romans (if you're not tracing your ancestry to Rome)
In that case, we are all Africans so okay , I guess 'we' had wars and disposessions etc .
But what I am talking about is the difference between some family sitting in the dust under a sheet of tin , ie, STILL suffering oppression and my family and others like it NOW living in the lap of luxury .
Something urks me about those that see this unbalance NOW and say 'Oh yeah , my ancestors where oppressed once . "
I suppose some people just have a sense of justice .A simple example, why should we have sympathy for people who are claiming land as theirs ?
That doesnt cut it for me as the dispossesion here is recent, people have to prove association/ownership before claiming on it and it only applies to some land . I am not even sure who my ancestors where or where they came from or if they owned any land or not.Most of us dont own land (aside perhaps from a few hundred square meters of suburban turf that our house is sitting on if we have one), our parents did not, our grand parents did not either... which means at some point our ancestors were dispossed from land (since way back most everyone was a peasant with a least some land)...
The thing is, for eg . We all have right NOT to be arrested without charge and not to be beaten to death in police custody. But it happens. It happens to white people but it happens to many more black people. So the rights are there on paper ... but not in statistics.I can even add that in some countries inheritance tax makes sure that after a few generation ownerhsip is pretty much wiped out unless one multiplies their inheritance during their lifetime... For example in France inheritance tax can be up to 45%... meaning the state takes almost half away for each generation.... (thats in addition to dilution when there are several heirs)... So if one inhereited say 1000 ha of land, the equivalent of 450 goes to the state..... And if one wishes to transmit 1000 ha to one's heir then during their lifetime they need to earn enough to accumulate the equivalent of these 450.....If they just maintain their ownership, they will transmit only 550 and so on down the line...
(next heir will get 55% of 550, so only about 300.... so just in 2 generations land ownerships would be down from the original 1000 to 300)
When there is a claim that some do not have equal rights I would expect to see actual legal texts that evidence this.. If there are not any (which seems to be the case in the US and likely in Australia though I admit not to be familiar with Australian legislation) then they DO in fact have equal rights... The rest is political discourse aiming at actually claiming MORE rights for certain categories (instead of equal rights) based on emotional appeal (e.g. using words like "plight") and pushing the idea that certain categories are due "reparations" (its always one way btw and always based on identify politics and emotions)
I dont have time today to hunt and post statistics today . Here is a quick and obvious one
Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 - Wikipedia
" With no warning, and no consultation, the federal government moved swiftly to seize control of many aspects of the daily lives of residents in 73 targeted remote communities. It implemented coercive measures that would have been unthinkable in non-Indigenous communities "
Ten years on, it's time we learned the lessons from the failed Northern Territory Intervention