Thread: Sadly our history has some very dark parts

Originally Posted by garrycol

Yes - just gave up rather than protect their rights and land - very typically, with a couple of exceptions, the same applied throughout the colonisation process - no invasion, much was just given up - contrast the resistance of Australian indigenous peoples with those in NZ.

That's like comparing the Hippies at Nimbin to a battalion of SAS troopers.

There was 150 years of conflict, but they were always going to lose against overwhelming odds.

Yes, what a terrible, savage people they were, hoping to peacefully coexist with a strange race of people rather than fight and die against overwhelming technological superiority.

Let's not forget that Aboriginals did fight and die for their country in virtually every conflict in which Australia has been involved since Federation and, by extension, fought for Australian values. I would have thought the Aussie principle of 'a fair go' would at least mean that current Aboriginals' call for a date change would at least be considered respectfully and fully. It's hardly an ancient tradition; it's only been a public holiday since the mid-90s and, as has already been pointed out, is really only of historical significance to NSW (regardless of its size at the time). Changing it would hardly rock Australian society to its core.

And regardless of whether what occurred on the 26th of January in 1788 and in the years following was invasion or settlement or colonisation, subsequent treatment of Aboriginal people was shameful and appalling. And it's not a case of 'that was a long time ago'. The Australian government was forcibly removing Aboriginal children from the parents and communities as recently as the 70s. The people responsible for that - and more importantly affected by that - are still around. That's the sort of trauma that affects communities for generations.

I don't have children but I hope to one day so I can only try to imagine what it would feel like to have them taken away from me by society. At the very least I would think it would make me reject being a productive member of that society and perhaps turning to alcohol or other substances. So just perhaps, the Aboriginals aren't 'bludgers' or 'alkies' but deeply traumatised. It's still an unresolved legal question as to whether the policies that led to the Stolen Generation constitute genocide.

Giving greater recognition, and a fair go, to minorities is a positive-sum game, it makes society as a whole stronger and more cohesive. It's exactly what just happened in the recent Marriage Equality law changes.

Originally Posted by Classic88

I don't have children but I hope to one day so I can only try to imagine what it would feel like to have them taken away from me by society. At the very least I would think it would make me reject being a productive member of that society and perhaps turning to alcohol or other substances. So just perhaps, the Aboriginals aren't 'bludgers' or 'alkies' but deeply traumatised. It's still an unresolved legal question as to whether the policies that led to the Stolen Generation constitute genocide.

you do realise that exactly the same policies were directed at the children of poor white, brown and brindle people, who were also taken and fostered out, until the early 1970s ?

misguided arrogant hypocrisy for sure but genocide, really ?

Originally Posted by incisor

you do realise that exactly the same policies were directed at the children of poor white, brown and brindle people, who were also taken and fostered out, until the early 1970s ?

misguided arrogant hypocrisy for sure but genocide, really ?

The Bringing Them Home report commissioned by the Federal Government said: "The Australian practice of Indigenous child removal involved both systematic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law. Yet it continued to be practised as official policy long after being clearly prohibited by treaties to which Australia had voluntarily subscribed."

The Community Guide to the Bringing Them Home report said: "indigenous families and communities have endured gross violations of their human rights. These violations continue to affect indigenous people's daily lives. They were an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out indigenous families, communities, and cultures, vital to the precious and inalienable heritage of Australia"

So yes, the original finding was that is was a genocidal policy. As I said, the conclusion has been challenged in the courts but the matter has not been settled.

Originally Posted by incisor

you do realise that exactly the same policies were directed at the children of poor white, brown and brindle people, who were also taken and fostered out, until the early 1970s ?

misguided arrogant hypocrisy for sure but genocide, really ?

Not to mention the forced adoptions of babies from unmarried mothers.

The hierarchy treated poor and working class whites badly for decades. Striking and protesting workers were shot by police and special constables and trodden down by mounted police. This was still happening post WW2. Miners were shot and killed in the Hunter Valley for striking then.

Originally Posted by Classic88

As I said, the conclusion has been challenged in the courts but the matter has not been settled.

with good reason...

it's drivel.

there is a reason the saying "the law is an ass" exists...

Originally Posted by Bigbjorn

Not to mention the forced adoptions of babies from unmarried mothers.

The hierarchy treated poor and working class whites badly for decades. Striking and protesting workers were shot by police and special constables and trodden down by mounted police. This was still happening post WW2. Miners were shot and killed in the Hunter Valley for striking then.

Saying 'we did it to poor white people too' doesn't negate or excuse the bigotry or abuse, it simply widens its scope.