Invasion day protest on Saturday

[spoljar]

[Zakal]

[stui magpie]

Some interesting comments.

The government has committed to making an apology. Hopefully that will allow the majority of indigenous people to start the process of moving on and focus on the now and the future.

However, it won't be a magic cure.

Some will use it as an opportunity for litigation;
Some won't believe it goes far enough and still want more;
Some just won't accept it period.

From a totally pragmatic perspective, making the apology (irrespective of any negative consequences) takes that card out of play, regardless of how many people accept it. It will mean one less thing to agitate about so maybe we can start fixing the modern issues and stop putting kids back into dangerous situations because social workers are scared of being labelled racist if they remove them.

[Zakal]

[stui magpie]

Agree Zakal.

I also doubt whether those who don't want an apology would be anywhere near as passionate about it as those who do. There may be some noses out of joint, but I'd expect that once it's done they'll get over it reasonably quickly rather than holding a grudge for years.

[stui magpie]

[Dr Pie]

Mention of the situation of North American Indians highlights the issue that goes with the apology. In nearly every other former British colony where the indigenous inhabitants have lost their land to colonisers there has at least been some sort of treaty signed.

The US Governments have treaties with many differerent "Indian" tribes. Most of the treaties have been broken and dishonoured over the years and in mid 20th Century US there seemed to be an understanding that the discovery of oil nullified previous treaties but formally at least the treaties existed. Native Americans may have had the same issues with stolen children, alcoholism, unemployment and welfare dependancy that Australian Aborigines have, but the treaties at least give them some legal defence of their communities unavailable to Australians.

In Canada and New Zealand treaties have been treated with greater respect (another way to put it is that the Canadian and New Zealand Governments have behaved with more honour). No-one suggests that Canadian natives or Maori do not still have problems but no-one who has any knowledge of the situations would doubt that Maori are in a much better situation than the majority of Aboriginal Australians or that the Treaty of Waitangi is a major part of the reason for the bettter situation.

In the 70s a movement began to agitate for a Treaty between Australia and its dispossessed Aboriginal population. Hawke and his Government believed that a treaty was not politically possible and argued instead for "Reconcilliation." Howard was not even prepared to consider Reconcilliation. His position was that Aborigines were no different from other minorities, and he was also chasing votes from Hansonites who believed that Aborigines were inferior to other Australians.

I think that an apology is a good thing. The post-War German government apologised (and paid some compensation) to Jewish and other victims of Nazism and the post-War German government had no legal responsibility for the acts of murderous predecessor. The Rudd and Howard Governments are responsible for upholding every diplomatic and business decision taken by all Australian Governments since 1901 until they legally reverse them. In which case the current Australian Government has legal responsiblity for Commisssioner Neville's child theft in the 1930s or the Coniston Massacre in 1928. Of course we should apologise!

But the most important thing that the government can do is sign a real treaty with the original inhabitants of this country who were dispossed by the actions of the British Government and its Australian successors!

[stui magpie]

Very good argument Dr. Pie. Definite food for thought.

[HAL]

Ayuh. Can you speak any foreign languages? Try saying that with more or less context. Let us change the subject.

[nomadjack]

Sorry, but I don't understand the relevance of the points you raise Stui.

"Even though the english colonised Australia, they effectively relinquishd control in 1901 when federation occured and we became a self determining, self governing country. The Aboriginals became marginalised not because of "invasion" but by immigration."

What difference does it make when control shifted from Britain to Australia, the point is that Aboriginal autonomy was not restored. Aboriginals were marginalised because their sovereignty and rights were completely ignored following white invasion on the grounds of terra nullius.

Same with the US example you raised - Native American sovereignty was never restored. What is your point?

You seem to be suggesting that these two examples somehow demonstrate that "hanging onto the notion of being "invaded" isn't going to help anything." I don't understand your logic here. I also don't think it is up to you or me to decide when Aboriginal people should move on.

How does the amount of time that elapses change the significance of the term 'invasion'? If it is so irrelevant why are you having so much trouble admitting that it is an accurate reflection of our history? In my experience, this is what pisses many Aboriginal activists off. Instead of accepting that our history is not picture perfect and moving on, people play these bullshit semantic games. You expect Aboriginal people to move on but you are not willing to recognize and call what happened in the past for what it is. This comes across as a lack of genuine remorse for what happened and as a lack of respect. It's no different than Japan denying its wartime history or fruitcakes denying the Holocaust. Again
here is a definition of invasion (American Heritage Dictionary):

1) The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2) A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3) An intrusion or encroachment.


Please feel free to demonstrate why this term is not an accurate description of how this country was settled by whites.

[stui magpie]

OK Nomad, lets see if I can explain although Dr Pie put a very good perspective as well.

[Alec. J. Hidell]

[spoljar]

[nomadjack]

Stui, control was not relinquished to the original inhabitants in either of the cases mentioned. This is why I regard these cases as being fundamentally different to those Zakal raised.

Of course nobody is going to leave as a result of people admitting that 'invasion' is an accurate description of what occurred. It's also not going to solve all the practical problems associated with Aboriginal disadvantage. Neither is a formal apology. What it will do though is demonstrate to indigenous Australians that we are finally mature and honest enough as a nation to admit our past failings rather than attempt to gloss over them.

It's interesting that you raise psychology because I find your choice of language interesting. You use benign words and terms like 'discover', 'previously unexplored lands', and 'encountered scattered tribes of nomadic stone age hunter/gatherers.' which either consciously or subconsciously underplay the extent of conflict or dispossession. Instead, the arrival of whites sounds like quite an exciting adventure!

You could describe it from the Aboriginal perspective quite differently though: Whitemen came with guns, shot our men, raped our women, stole our children, forced us of our tribal lands, forced us to work for no pay, destroyed our society with disease, and refused to recognize us as human.

Yes we can change history. This is largely what this argument is about. We can change it by finally recognizing and acknowledging the truth rather than accepting a glossed over version written solely from the perspective of the invader.

[Alec. J. Hidell]