The current plight of Native Americans, African Americans, Maoris, and the Aborigines

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,446
Australia
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)
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 ?

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 . "
A simple example, why should we have sympathy for people who are claiming land as theirs ?
I suppose some people just have a sense of justice .

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)...
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.
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)
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 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
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,446
Australia
In terms of equal rights, there's a big difference between how it's supposed to work on paper, and what actually happens in reality.

Blacks get longer sentences for the same crime, based on the United States Sentencing Commission, but the situation is improving:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2017/20171114_Demographics.pdf

And gets less callbacks when using the same resume:

I thought all this was obvious common knowledge .
 

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,770
Australia

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,446
Australia
Maybe its your use of terms ?



  • relating to or belonging to a profession.
  • 2.
    engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as an amateur.




    I see 'professional' as per dictionary definition. If you mean it in some other way , how would I know what you actually mean - without guessing ? So its not deliberate misunderstanding, it is actually trying NOT to assume what you meant, and maybe misunderstanding it but assuming you meant what the word actually means .
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,349
Sydney
it should be pointed out that Aborigines are at the top of the table for women abuse ,child abuse ( five year old girl with venereal disease )
"elders" holding their all community in fear of retaliation if some one pep on their abusive control
all in the name of " traditional ways"

should a white fellow pull up the same argument he would be spewed on as a pervert
but I guess it's OK in the back of Wilcannia as long as nobody care

P.S..... been there ,
there are alcoholic zombies in the street and every house has massive iron grid protection
very very few whites remain and they are under siege from the ferals
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,049
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 ?

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 .



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.


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 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
That's fine, we can take this definition as a basis....2 to 3 generations born in a certain geographic area...... But then , in the US these generations have had equal rights and I assume in Australia as well....

Somebody "sitting in the dust under a sheet of tin" is not necessarily "suffering oppression"...(famously Diogeners - though reportedly not using a sheet of tin but rather a large jar- was not) suffering from a lack of money sure.... Oppression is unrelated..... And should anyone below a certain wealth level be eligible for "free land" ?

I do not see why there would be justice in granting certain groups land or other benefits solely based on their ancestry/ethnicity...and then there are some borderline cases, a famous one being that of Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia

Warren released results of a DNA test in 2018.It concluded that "while the vast majority of [Warren's] ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago."The use of DNA to determine Native American heritage was criticized by the Cherokee Nation as being "inappropriate and wrong"

But anyway in an age where intermarriage is frequent, how to define objectively belonging to a "group" within a country is problematic

As for the rights not to be beaten by police... it does unfortunately happen to everyone..... It does happen much more frequently to men than to women..... Are we now to conclude men are "oppressed" ?.... In the current Gilets Jaunes movement in France, over 100 people have been gravely wounded, the overwhelming majority of them white men.... Should they ask for compensation from women of color for this "unequal treatment" ?
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,446
Australia
it should be pointed out that Aborigines are at the top of the table for women abuse ,child abuse ( five year old girl with venereal disease )
"elders" holding their all community in fear of retaliation if some one pep on their abusive control
all in the name of " traditional ways"
They are not the 'traditional ways' of Aborignals I have association with , their culture puts child protection and care right up at the top few things of the list. I see this as more of a a symptom of cultural degradation.

The evidence I gave above about the NT 'Intervention' and its unfair and racially targeted legislation - bought about by the type of claims you just made. They even had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to implement the actions .

The Suspension and Reinstatement of the RDA and Special Measures in the NTER | Australian Human Rights Commission

The fraud of the Intervention’s pretexts

My boss, New Matilda owner Chris Graham has demonstrated at length one part of the Intervention fraud. To simplify and summarise, the Indigenous Affairs Minister at the time, Mal Brough, claimed that there were paedophile rings in all Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.

He started receiving criticism in the media for his unsubstantiated claim. Then he received stunning vindication from the ABC, when it aired explosive allegations by a youth worker, who claimed that all of Brough’s lurid claims were true.


There was a paedophile ring in an Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory, where Aboriginal children were traded as sex slaves, the youth worker claimed.


But the youth worker, as it happens, wasn’t a youth worker. He worked for Brough, and had a history of making things up about life in Mutitjulu. For example, he claimed to have lived there for nine months. In fact, he had never lived there at all.

The Australian Crime Commission was given extraordinarily powers to investigate the alleged paedophile rings. Despite spending 18 months and millions of dollars, the ACC eventually concluded that there was “not organised paedophilia in Indigenous communities”. Not that there was no evidence of these claims – that these claims were actually false.


But that came 18 months later. When the Intervention was launched, public opinion was primed to support the measures in question. They had heard gratuitous smears of Aboriginal communities from the high-brow liberals at ABC, which quickly spread across the mainstream political and media spectrum.


The ABC story was followed by an investigation into sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in the NT. Though its investigations were launched on a fraudulent pretext, the report itself, “Little Children are Sacred”, was excellent. Pat Anderson and Rex Wild dealt with the issue of sexual assault in Aboriginal communities seriously and respectfully. They were
“impressed with the willingness of people to discuss the issue of child sexual abuse, even though it was acknowledged as a difficult subject to talk about. At many meetings, both men and women expressed a desire to continue discussions about this issue and what they could do in their community about it. It was a frequent comment that up until now, nobody had come to sit down and talk with them about these types of issues. It would seem both timely and appropriate to build on this good will, enthusiasm and energy by a continued engagement in dialogue and assisting communities to develop their own child safety and protection plans.”


Aside from the commitment of Aboriginal communities to addressing sexual abuse, there was a lot of resentment at media stigmatisation of their communities. Wild and Anderson expressed concern that “Aboriginal men have been targeted as if they were the only perpetrators of child sexual abuse in communities. This is inaccurate and has resulted in unfair shaming, and consequent further disempowerment, of Aboriginal men as a whole.”

They observed that “While the Inquiry found no evidence of any ‘paedophile rings’ operating in the Northern Territory, there was enough evidence to conclude that a number of individual non-Aboriginal ‘paedophiles’ had been infiltrating Aboriginal communities and offending against children.”

More at:

A Decade On, The Fraud Of The NT Intervention Is Exposed - New Matilda

An awful lot if misinformation is flying around this subject. I present this as I was asked to show some evidence above

I am exposing the fraud becasue of what has been said above . But dont think I am denying child abuse doesnt happen, as it happens in all cultures. And AT THIS TIME CONSIDERING LATEST NEWS are we really going to blame 'traditional Aboriginal culture' for the one case you cited when :

Couple charged in what police called "worst case of child abuse"

should a white fellow pull up the same argument he would be spewed on as a pervert
All I see is a suggestion by you that this is part of traditional culture ... giving a child a veneral disease is certainly NOT part of any traditional aboriginal culture I know of ! However child abuse and disrespect of elderly and substance abuse and destruction of communal property, and (as we move along the scale ) , self abuse ad eventually self mutilation and suicide are symptoms of ALL cultures in crisis that are collapsing or have collapsed .

but I guess it's OK in the back of Wilcannia as long as nobody care
Apparently it is ok out the back of most places and in NT , if a whole range of things that go on out there , including 'Government interventions'. poverty, lack of housing, health services etc etc where enacted in other parts of (white) Australia, there would be absolute outrage .
P.S..... been there ,
there are alcoholic zombies in the street and every house has massive iron grid protection
very very few whites remain and they are under siege from the ferals
Like I said, 'culture in crisis' , and we got it bad in Australia. Even in white Australia, our culture is in crisis . Check out the drug abuse, self harm and mental health and suicide stats for Australian youth .

Also, I stayed in some 'rough places' , but usually 'in camp" one had a part time resident from Wales , a huge brikkie . The 'boys' took him around to 'the mission' on a friday night , I passed . Later they where talking about 'the joke' they played on him - people where yelling abuse at him and throwing bottles at him from across the road ..... but he " Just like my home town in Wales on a Friday night . "

... and some of the stories I have heard, first hand, from English, Irish and Scottish people , about their families ! Especially ones that lived in poverty and many kids had to share the same bed. One Irish woman, I worked with was telling me about how she had to share this bed with her brothers, then broke down and started crying and said that she had had sex with all 3 of her brothers as a child .

Any way, I dont know why you chose to broach this subject or why you think it needs to be "pointed out" . But since it was, I think we need to look at the bigger picture such things are set in .
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,446
Australia
That's fine, we can take this definition as a basis....2 to 3 generations born in a certain geographic area...... But then , in the US these generations have had equal rights and I assume in Australia as well....

Somebody "sitting in the dust under a sheet of tin" is not necessarily "suffering oppression"...(famously Diogeners - though reportedly not using a sheet of tin but rather a large jar- was not) suffering from a lack of money sure.... Oppression is unrelated
Oh, come on now ... a small semantical point . If you honestly do NOT know what I mean try watching the 'Utopia' film I linked to.


..... And should anyone below a certain wealth level be eligible for "free land" ?
? Who suggested that ? Not me . Why ask me a question like that . I already said what the requirements to make a land claim are and they had nothing to do with what you just wrote.


I do not see why there would be justice in granting certain groups land or other benefits solely based on their ancestry/ethnicity...and then there are some borderline cases, a famous one being that of Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren - Wikipedia

Warren released results of a DNA test in 2018.It concluded that "while the vast majority of [Warren's] ancestry is European, the results strongly support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor in [her] pedigree, likely in the range of 6–10 generations ago."The use of DNA to determine Native American heritage was criticized by the Cherokee Nation as being "inappropriate and wrong"



Depends on the testing . There has been a LOT of dodgy testing lately , with clearly Abrignal people coming up as not aboriginal , it depends on the how and type of test

But we cant talk about that .

But anyway in an age where intermarriage is frequent, how to define objectively belonging to a "group" within a country is problematic

As for the rights not to be beaten by police... it does unfortunately happen to everyone..... It does happen much more frequently to men than to women..... Are we now to conclude men are "oppressed" ?.... In the current Gilets Jaunes movement in France, over 100 people have been gravely wounded, the overwhelming majority of them white men.... Should they ask for compensation from women of color for this "unequal treatment" ?
No , because that would be stupid . And I dont see any valid comparison ... more like a clutch at a straw.