Happy Straya day all
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Nah, get citizenship, stop stuffing round.
You can always go to England to live, I'm sure you'd love the weather.   |
Mate this summer I feel like I'm already there 
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
Shit their treatment couldn't have been too bad if they are still alive today, it was over 100 years ago!
I reckon you should go out bush and make amends,
I'm not saying get over it, I'm saying reconciliation is a two way street, and maybe it's time to stop pushing the hurt. I don't see segregated bathrooms any more.
What date would you suggest all jokes aside? I'm sure there will b someone that whinges about it |
I wouldn't put it quite that way, TP, but i have some sympathy with the point of view. Aboriginal Australians were treated badly by the British, but even that treatment was probably better than any other power would have granted at that time. Many dreadful things were done by people who lived in a world where slavery was still a legal and widely-accepted paradigm, and homo sapiens' understanding of the "other" was not far above our chimpanzee forebears ; but the early colonial administration did try to protect aborigines to a limited extent.
I do not have a copy with me now, but Robert Hughes in The Fatal Shore deals with this complex interaction between the naked racism that dominated the time, and the British desire to impose a rule of law that included the rights of aboriginal people. Many of the atrocious things that happened, such as the stolen generations, sprang from blundering insensitivity and misunderstanding, and a desire to mitigate disadvantage. Some sprang from simple greed and abuse, too.
British colonialism was not a good or noble thing; but it was probably better than any likely alternative in the tragedy that befell native peoples in the first globalisation of the world. Maybe that is also worth consideration if we are to embrace complex narratives, rather than simple tales of good vs evil.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | think positive wrote: |
Shit their treatment couldn't have been too bad if they are still alive today, it was over 100 years ago!
I reckon you should go out bush and make amends,
I'm not saying get over it, I'm saying reconciliation is a two way street, and maybe it's time to stop pushing the hurt. I don't see segregated bathrooms any more.
What date would you suggest all jokes aside? I'm sure there will b someone that whinges about it |
I wouldn't put it quite that way, TP, but i have some sympathy with the point of view. Aboriginal Australians were treated badly by the British, but even that treatment was probably better than any other power would have granted at that time. Many dreadful things were done by people who lived in a world where slavery was still a legal and widely-accepted paradigm, and homo sapiens' understanding of the "other" was not far above our chimpanzee forebears ; but the early colonial administration did try to protect aborigines to a limited extent.
I do not have a copy with me now, but Robert Hughes in The Fatal Shore deals with this complex interaction between the naked racism that dominated the time, and the British desire to impose a rule of law that included the rights of aboriginal people. Many of the atrocious things that happened, such as the stolen generations, sprang from blundering insensitivity and misunderstanding, and a desire to mitigate disadvantage. Some sprang from simple greed and abuse, too.
British colonialism was not a good or noble thing; but it was probably better than any likely alternative in the tragedy that befell native peoples in the first globalisation of the world. Maybe that is also worth consideration if we are to embrace complex narratives, rather than simple tales of good vs evil. |
I do know all that of course, I'm was just being silly, cos I get sick of going over the same shit! And it all comes back to white men are mean! And we are not all! When do we get past the sins of the father and look forward.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | think positive wrote: |
Shit their treatment couldn't have been too bad if they are still alive today, it was over 100 years ago!
I reckon you should go out bush and make amends,
I'm not saying get over it, I'm saying reconciliation is a two way street, and maybe it's time to stop pushing the hurt. I don't see segregated bathrooms any more.
What date would you suggest all jokes aside? I'm sure there will b someone that whinges about it |
I wouldn't put it quite that way, TP, but i have some sympathy with the point of view. Aboriginal Australians were treated badly by the British, but even that treatment was probably better than any other power would have granted at that time. Many dreadful things were done by people who lived in a world where slavery was still a legal and widely-accepted paradigm, and homo sapiens' understanding of the "other" was not far above our chimpanzee forebears ; but the early colonial administration did try to protect aborigines to a limited extent.
I do not have a copy with me now, but Robert Hughes in The Fatal Shore deals with this complex interaction between the naked racism that dominated the time, and the British desire to impose a rule of law that included the rights of aboriginal people. Many of the atrocious things that happened, such as the stolen generations, sprang from blundering insensitivity and misunderstanding, and a desire to mitigate disadvantage. Some sprang from simple greed and abuse, too.
British colonialism was not a good or noble thing; but it was probably better than any likely alternative in the tragedy that befell native peoples in the first globalisation of the world. Maybe that is also worth consideration if we are to embrace complex narratives, rather than simple tales of good vs evil. |
Yep. great post. If the spanish had come here there wouldn't be any Aborigines left.
There was a zero chance that the continent would be left alone, some form of colonisation was utterly inevitable. If you had to choose from those capable around the time, you'd likely prefer the British over most other European powers.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
I'm not a fan of a popularly elected president either, but I'm not a fan of the idea of a group of "eminent" (whatever you mean by that) people making the decision either. Who decides who these people are? what is the definition of "eminent"? Screw that.
I'm happy with the model that the people elect the parliament and the parliament appoints the president, similar to the current model. |
I don't want The Mad Misogynist Miners Monk, Johnny pissant Howard to decide who gets to be president nor do I want Bill Shorten, former Prime Minster Gillard or Paul Keating for that matter etc. Too politicised.
I'd vote for Sir Les Patterson though
A panel consisting of former Australians of the Year.
Appoint Prince Charles as the first president.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | I'm not wedded to the date, why not do the trifecta in the near future and pin the date around that?
By the trifecta I mean:
1. Become a repulic
2. Amend the constitution to include recognition of the first Australians.
3. Get a new flag. Consign the union jack to a relic of the past. Jack off Australia
Do the trifecta, draw a line across the past (don't forget, just cast the anchor loose) and set the joint up to move and look forward.
The past can be an interesting place to visit, both potentially instructive and destructive. It's a shit place to live. |
it's funny, while I want a flag change I somehow want to have the Union Jack in it somewhere if in a corner or something as well as the Aboriginal Colours somewhere in it - but that type of flag could well be too "busy" in a design.
In terms of a republic which I support, it has to be selected by a group of eminent people - not elected by the people or it will undermine our parliamentary democracy. |
Rare for you and i to agree, WPT, but yes, 100% to this. if Australia has an elected president, it'll be King Rupert and Queen Jerry before you can say "editor, publish this". I think a flag with red and blue background, and four southern cross stars of red, white, yellow and black would tell our story.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | ^
I'm not a fan of a popularly elected president either, but I'm not a fan of the idea of a group of "eminent" (whatever you mean by that) people making the decision either. Who decides who these people are? what is the definition of "eminent"? Screw that.
I'm happy with the model that the people elect the parliament and the parliament appoints the president, similar to the current model. |
I don't want The Mad Misogynist Miners Monk, Johnny pissant Howard to decide who gets to be president nor do I want Bill Shorten, former Prime Minster Gillard or Paul Keating for that matter etc. Too politicised.
I'd vote for Sir Les Patterson though
A panel consisting of former Australians of the Year.
Appoint Prince Charles as the first president.[ |
%$^$%^&%% that.
Panel of former Australians of the year? Double %$^$%^&%% that.
Either the people elect the head of state or the people elect the people who elect the head of state. I prefer the latter but no chance in hell will I agree to some unelected, unrepresentative sub committee making the call.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Do we even need a head of state other than the PM? The only concrete reason I can think of is so that someone can step in if the government gets out of hand. But after Whitlam I can't really see a Governor-General doing that anyway.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^The parliament electing the head of state solves the constitutional problem while leaving the parliamentary system intact AFAIK.
Direct election would of course be cause for inane hysteria as Stui and WPT say, and was only ever a conservative time wasting tactic.
It's a symbolic role, and its de-fanged, local nature is the very symbol in Australia's case: Peaceful self rule.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Do we even need a head of state other than the PM? The only concrete reason I can think of is so that someone can step in if the government gets out of hand. But after Whitlam I can't really see a Governor-General doing that anyway. |
The way some of the recent PM s have behaved it would be nice to have a more gentlemanly, or ladylike alternative to show face to the world!!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
From a link WPT posted, this I found to be a good read.
And for the most part, I now get it. Some good (mostly for a change, instead of a slanging match) comments too.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-26/dillon-why-january-26-is-a-hard-day-for-our-mob/7112794
So has anyone got a date that won't upset anyone, from the aborigines to the English, to the Scottish, to the cane toads up north?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
