Racism in Australia

[RossFW]

Choosing pre-conquest life expectancy as a point of comparison seems to be to be disingenuous at best. The question is how aboriginal Australians do compared to the rest of the modern Australian population, not how they do compared to their long-dead ancestors.

I dis-agree. In places in the world that were NOT colonised (such as the less accessable parts of South America and New Guinea) people continued with there traditional life styles for centuries after the rest of the world was rapidly modernising. As has been pointed out, much of the lifestyle was no pic nic for the participants. Life expectency remained at pre-civilisation levels.

If it has been possible to colonise Australia and bring Aborigines straight into the modern world, that would have been great. I certainly don't think there was a great deal of good will or effort done in that regard, and Aborigines could be much better off now if there had been.

My point is that, regardless of that, they ARE better off in many ways then they were.

I do, however, believe they are now NOT generally as well off as they were say 50 years ago, as clearly the NON interventionist policies and degree of self government imposed has not yeilded positive results

My view is that they would not make those choices if they were well-informed, rational, and had the opportunities available to other Australians. We can help them on all three fronts.

And what form will this "Help" take? In what way do they not currently have access to information? How will you "Help" them to be rational? What opertunities do they not have (when, in fact, they are entitled to many government sponsored programs and grants, IN SPITE of most having access to sufficient funds without these) that other Australians do?

Absolute nonsense. Being opposed with hindsight to a dumb and counterproductive government program does not commit us to opposing all government programs ever. That would be appallingly simple-minded.

"Appallingly simple minded" descibes most politicians admirably!! I don't agree that the removal of children from dangerous situations WAS "dumb and counterproductive" but the fact that you can voice it so easily shows that that is how it is seen looked at by current comentators. Any government KNOWS that any form of interventionist policy wrt Indiginous Australians is completely open to accusations of racism (and, by definition, any policy that sets out different treatment for Aborigines IS racist!) and comparisons to the "Stolen Generation."

Honestly, what policy would you advocate that hasn't been (unsuccessfully) tried before, but a Government would have the political will to stick too?

An alcoholic also CHOOSES to drink. Trust me on this - I am one. Does that mean that this is good or healthy?

No, but would you have accepted having sobriety imposed on you by Government intervention?

 

[Damien Evans]

I dis-agree. In places in the world that were NOT colonised (such as the less accessable parts of South America and New Guinea) people continued with there traditional life styles for centuries after the rest of the world was rapidly modernising. As has been pointed out, much of the lifestyle was no pic nic for the participants. Life expectency remained at pre-civilisation levels.

If it has been possible to colonise Australia and bring Aborigines straight into the modern world, that would have been great. I certainly don't think there was a great deal of good will or effort done in that regard, and Aborigines could be much better off now if there had been.

My point is that, regardless of that, they ARE better off in many ways then they were.

I do, however, believe they are now NOT generally as well off as they were say 50 years ago, as clearly the NON interventionist policies and degree of self government imposed has not yeilded positive results



And what form will this "Help" take? In what way do they not currently have access to information? How will you "Help" them to be rational? What opertunities do they not have (when, in fact, they are entitled to many government sponsored programs and grants, IN SPITE of most having access to sufficient funds without these) that other Australians do?



"Appallingly simple minded" descibes most politicians admirably!! I don't agree that the removal of children from dangerous situations WAS "dumb and counterproductive" but the fact that you can voice it so easily shows that that is how it is seen looked at by current comentators. Any government KNOWS that any form of interventionist policy wrt Indiginous Australians is completely open to accusations of racism (and, by definition, any policy that sets out different treatment for Aborigines IS racist!) and comparisons to the "Stolen Generation."

Honestly, what policy would you advocate that hasn't been (unsuccessfully) tried before, but a Government would have the political will to stick too?



No, but would you have accepted having sobriety imposed on you by Government intervention?

Oh look, Andrew Bolt has signed up.

 

[gerg]

I dis-agree. In places in the world that were NOT colonised (such as the less accessable parts of South America and New Guinea) people continued with there traditional life styles for centuries after the rest of the world was rapidly modernising. As has been pointed out, much of the lifestyle was no pic nic for the participants. Life expectency remained at pre-civilisation levels.

Life expectancy though doesn't equate to a better life mind you. Western society has shown that with all these old aged people cooped up all lonely in rest homes...

 

[RossFW]

Damien,

Ah...Dis-agree and you go straight for Ad Hominem, nice one. Whats your solution to the Aborigines problems, apart from taking pot-shots?

gereg,

Totally agree, but I didn't bring it up, Andrew did. A modern person of Aboriginal descent can choose to have access to education, healthcare and preferential status for employment. Those that choose this have productive, healthy lives regardless of how long they last.

The question is how do we make people "choose" this path, and do we have the right to do so?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I dis-agree. In places in the world that were NOT colonised (such as the less accessable parts of South America and New Guinea) people continued with there traditional life styles for centuries after the rest of the world was rapidly modernising. As has been pointed out, much of the lifestyle was no pic nic for the participants. Life expectency remained at pre-civilisation levels.

If it has been possible to colonise Australia and bring Aborigines straight into the modern world, that would have been great. I certainly don't think there was a great deal of good will or effort done in that regard, and Aborigines could be much better off now if there had been.

My point is that, regardless of that, they ARE better off in many ways then they were.

As I said earlier I find that a completely disingenuous comparison. Other similarly situation nations have achieved far better outcomes for their indigenous populations. That should be our point of comparison if we hold ourselves to be a civilized nation.

And what form will this "Help" take? In what way do they not currently have access to information? How will you "Help" them to be rational? What opertunities do they not have (when, in fact, they are entitled to many government sponsored programs and grants, IN SPITE of most having access to sufficient funds without these) that other Australians do?

Helping people to be rational is also called "a decent education", and making sure that they actually get it.

"Appallingly simple minded" descibes most politicians admirably!! I don't agree that the removal of children from dangerous situations WAS "dumb and counterproductive" but the fact that you can voice it so easily shows that that is how it is seen looked at by current comentators.

That is a blatantly dishonest attempt at putting words into my mouth, and I suggest you retract it and apologise.

The "stolen generation" were morally problematic because they were not removed from dangerous situations nor were they put into decent situations.

I am very much in favour of removing children from dangerous situations, and also very much in favour of giving our social services enough money to actually see that such children get put into better situations.

No, but would you have accepted having sobriety imposed on you by Government intervention?

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I'm in favour of drug prohibition to exactly the extent that it does more good than harm. That applies to alcohol, methamphetamines, cannabis, everything. Of course the benefits and harms of drug prohibition vary with the drug.

I've heard anecdotal reports of alcohol prohibition in aboriginal communities being beneficial, but no hard statistics. If it turns out to work, I'm in favour of it.

 

[lionking]

The "stolen generation" were morally problematic because they were not removed from dangerous situations nor were they put into decent situations.

What, all of them? None were removed from dangerous situations and none were put into decent situations? Prove it.

 

[RossFW]

As I said earlier I find that a completely disingenuous comparison. Other similarly situation nations have achieved far better outcomes for their indigenous populations. That should be our point of comparison if we hold ourselves to be a civilized nation.

Name two! I'm sure you can, but I can name you plenty (try Dutch colonization in Africa) that were FAR worse. Sure, let's try for best outcome. But realize we will always fall short of perfection.

Helping people to be rational is also called "a decent education", and making sure that they actually get it.

How are we "making sure" aborigines get an education to any less of an extent than the rest of the population? How exactly do we make people learn?

That is a blatantly dishonest attempt at putting words into my mouth, and I suggest you retract it and apologies.

If you point out where I have been unreasonable, I'll apologize. I was pointing out that the fact that previous initiatives are viewed as racist failures is an EXCELLENT reason why there will be little political will to try similar initiatives in the future.

The "stolen generation" were morally problematic because they were not removed from dangerous situations nor were they put into decent situations.

as lionking pointed out, that is a breathtaking generalization. There almost certainly were over zealous, racially motivated officials who made decisions that would be questioned today. But look at what has happened to many of the children who WEREN'T removed from the abusive situations that most certainly did exist in the fifties and sixties- they are the alcoholics and abusers of the current generations.

I am very much in favour of removing children from dangerous situations, and also very much in favour of giving our social services enough money to actually see that such children get put into better situations.

Agreed. But will you stand behind the people working for the social services when the NEXT generation smalls a windfall and starts suing, after framing todays actions in the no doubt different moral standards that will apply in the future?

The question wasn't addressed to me, but I'm in favour of drug prohibition to exactly the extent that it does more good than harm. That applies to alcohol, methamphetamines, cannabis, everything. Of course the benefits and harms of drug prohibition vary with the drug.

I've heard anecdotal reports of alcohol prohibition in aboriginal communities being beneficial, but no hard statistics. If it turns out to work, I'm in favour of it.

Why specify Aborigines or stop at alcohol? Wouldn't we ALL be better off in a dry society? Are YOU willing to be told what you can and cannot drink?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Why specify Aborigines or stop at alcohol? Wouldn't we ALL be better off in a dry society? Are YOU willing to be told what you can and cannot drink?

Everyone is told where they can and cannot drink all over society, so this point is a little moot. eg, I am not allowed to drink on the street (in certain municipalities), or at the beach, or drink heavy beer in the outer at the 'G' etc.

I think we also need to bear in mind that it is not the indigenous that have a prohibition placed on them specifically - it is a designated area. No one is allowed to consume alcohol in these communities and the importation is also banned.
The local police and the community can manage this themselves without too many problems.
Anyone is able to leave - so the desperate alky that has to drink can do so (depart), leaving the majority to live there the way they wish.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Name two! I'm sure you can, but I can name you plenty (try Dutch colonization in Africa) that were FAR worse. Sure, let's try for best outcome. But realize we will always fall short of perfection.

I don't think it's unreasonable to compare ourselves to the USA, or Canada, or New Zealand, just to pick three nations to whom we are culturally very similar and who also have their own indigenous populations.

How are we "making sure" aborigines get an education to any less of an extent than the rest of the population? How exactly do we make people learn?

How do we make sure any child gets an education, and a good one at that? You make schooling mandatory and you enforce it. You make sure you have enough teachers, good enough teachers and sufficient equipment. If necessary you feed the kids, give them medical checkups, keep an eye out for signs of abuse and have sufficient social services on hand to step in when evidence is found.

If you point out where I have been unreasonable, I'll apologize. I was pointing out that the fact that previous initiatives are viewed as racist failures is an EXCELLENT reason why there will be little political will to try similar initiatives in the future.

In response to my statement that stealing the stolen generation was dumb and counterproductive, you said "I don't agree that the removal of children from dangerous situations WAS "dumb and counterproductive" ".

If it wasn't me you were disagreeing with, who was it? To paraphrase Taxi Driver, I don't see anyone else around here so you must have been disagreeing with me. But I never said that the removal of children from dangerous situations was dumb and counterproductive, rather than the wholesale (legal) kidnapping of aboriginal children was dumb and counterproductive.

as lionking pointed out, that is a breathtaking generalization. There almost certainly were over zealous, racially motivated officials who made decisions that would be questioned today. But look at what has happened to many of the children who WEREN'T removed from the abusive situations that most certainly did exist in the fifties and sixties- they are the alcoholics and abusers of the current generations.

You should probably do some reading about the issue: A major reason the policy was seen as objectionable was that laws were specifically passed to eliminate the need for proving that half-caste children were neglected or abused before they could be taken into custody. There is strong historical evidence that there was a white-supremacist eugenic ideology behind these policies aimed at separating half-castes from aboriginal communities so the half-castes could breed into the white population and vanish, leaving the full-blooded aboriginal population to die off. It's a polite form of genocide but the intent was there.

No doubt some children were indeed better off, but you could say that of any sufficiently large group of children kidnapped into government care.

If the policy had solely targeted children who were provably being neglected or abused I doubt we'd even be talking about it today.

Agreed. But will you stand behind the people working for the social services when the NEXT generation smalls a windfall and starts suing, after framing todays actions in the no doubt different moral standards that will apply in the future?

Yes.

Why specify Aborigines or stop at alcohol? Wouldn't we ALL be better off in a dry society? Are YOU willing to be told what you can and cannot drink?

I specified aboriginal communities because I have not heard similar anecdotes about non-aboriginal communities, possibly because it has not been tried.

Yes, we would be vastly better off dry if it could be arranged. Alcohol kills thousands of Australians per year. Unfortunately the USA has already demonstrated for us that prohibition at the national level does not in fact do more good than harm, but it's a nice idea.

I'm perfectly happy to abide by laws restricting drug trade and possession to the exact extent that they do more good than harm. I'm happy to pay tax on my booze, for example, but I see no evidence-based grounds for criminalising cannabis or ecstasy.

 

[RossFW]

Kevin,

We are not actually far apart in our beliefs as to what would improve the lives of Aborigines.

Where we differ is in the placing of responsibility, the achievability of the things we probably both agree should happen, and I suspect on the issue of welfare.

Yes, I think we should provide all Australians with the opportunity for a good education, and mandate attendance as far as possible. How far, however, would you be willing to mandate this as far as indigenous people are concerned? Fines? Jail? Institutionalization for chronic offenders? MUCH easier said than done, and good luck convincing politicians it can be done without ramifications at the ballot box. What happens the first time Four Corners does a weepy expose on the "Next Stolen Generation"- kids who have been MADE to attend school rather than follow a "Traditional" way of life?

As to who is responsible, you can't on the one hand say people should be empowered to make their own decisions, whilst also absolving them of the responsibility of the consequences of their decisions up until now. Aboriginal groups waged a sustained campaign for land rights and self determination, and now live in the results of their "success" in those endeavors.

You seem content that it's OK to mandate to adult Australians whether they can drink alcohol or not(and Alfie, whilst your point is taken, the clear intent of the prohibitions has been to get grog away from Aboriginal settlements). Fine. Do you think welfare dependence is as much a problem as alcohol? I certainly do! So, if we are to apply different rules to Aborigines regarding alcohol, I suggest a much more effective solution would be to introduce a much different regime regarding Aboriginal social welfare, requiring an honest attempt at productive endeavor, community or otherwise,and demonstration that children have been adequately cared for (and made to go to school!) as a requirement for the receipt of welfare payments.

There is, in my opinion, no more valuable thing you can give a person than a reason to get up in the morning, or a feeling that one has achieved something when one goes to bed at night.

And yes, I appologize if it seemed that I was mis-representing your views. there is no doubt that many of the actions of the fifties and sixties do not fit modern standards of fairness and equality, but as i said, OUR actions will be judged by a future generation with very different views to our own.

 

[Meed]

You may not have said it was a racist city, but you did respond to a question about where the problem (ie racism) was more prevalent by posting "Surfers Paradise", so it was fair for me to counter it. I've been there many, many times.

No, you misread the question. It was about which part of Australia my parents visited, not which part the racism is more prevalent.

 

[Meed]

Ah, sorry. To "spit the dummy" means to lose one's temper. It's derived from what a baby does when annoyed (dummy=pacifier, in Strine).

Similar terms used here are "to have a spray" (supposedly of spittle from shouting - ew); to "toss the teddy" (similar derivation to the above); and to "chuck a wobbly" (literally, to lose one's balance while ranting).

Fair dinkum, mate.

As to the former, no-one minds the subject being brought up at all. But it does irk when it is raised in such a fashion that it clearly implies (1) all non-aboriginal Australians are seething racists, and (2) all aboriginals are downtrodden and destitute. It just isn't true.

I didn't gather that from the OP, I guess the link provided must have been offensive in ways I wasn't aware of.

 

[lionking]

No, you misread the question. It was about which part of Australia my parents visited, not which part the racism is more prevalent.

Fair enough. Thanks.