- Joined
- 29 January 2006
- Posts
- 7,217
- Reactions
- 4,438
That's an excellent point.Disagree Mr Galah. The no camp will win this by just quoting the yes campaigners over and over.
Given the referendum question only introduces recognition, and gives it a practical focus, Albo is right. I have never yet seen a credible case for a different interpretation.They've really cocked this up, dramatically. Albo saying it's got nothing to do with anything else but recognition is almost a final straw in credibility.
Just wondering which of them are better than Australia, New Zealand and Canada, it should be an interesting list.
The mere fact that refugees who arrive in Australia with nothing but the clothes on their backs, from places like Somalia, Siri Lanka etc and still forge a life for themselves, while not speaking English when they arrive and being black skinned shows that the racial card is a very flimsy argument for the Yes campaign.
So the City, country town aboriginals who can avail themselves of the same opportunity that other citizens enjoy, really are contributing to their own outcomes be they good or bad.
The only two issues IMO that the 'Voice" can lay claim to having any credible reason for being, is the compensation for the colonisation and the issue of dealing with the problems associated with remote and very remote communities, as they have a unique set of issues.
The issues they have, is there is no logical reason for them being there, other than the fact there is a cultural and emotional attachment to the area by the local inhabitants.
Why they need something in the constitution to fix that, is just showing how out of touch Canberra and the political circus is. IMO all it will do is exacerbate the issue as there would be even less motivation to change their circumstances they have a constitutional stamp of approval.
They were here first, they were happy living like this, why should we change just because you want us to.
Well from visiting all those countries, I feel there is a lot more opportunity for new arrivals and local inhabitants, in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.I don't know about 'better', because the country you are born in is almost always where your heart is. However, three come to mind - the United States, Germany, Japan
It is difficult to solve economic disadvantage, when you want to live in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to support the community.Lets face it , 'disadvantage' usually boils down to economic factors which are not unique to aboriginals.
Solve economic disadvantage for all and we will have a better country that is united and not divided by race.
There is no indigenous interpretation that comes anywhere near the interpretation that you suggest, so you appear to be fearmongering or ill informed.Does anyone have a different interpretation of Makarrata other than reparations?
Well from visiting all those countries, I feel there is a lot more opportunity for new arrivals and local inhabitants, in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
That was never their choice. History shows dispossession, and that has been consistently been in relation to lands of value. Furthermore, dispossession often involved transfer to lands they had no cultural connection to. Tangible evidence of this occurs when there are disputes over which tribe should be involved in welcome to country ceremonies.It is difficult to solve economic disadvantage, when you want to live in the middle of nowhere, with nothing to support the community.
Not necessarily. The reports I read on some of these projects showed there were no plans for sustainability as they invariably overlooked infrastructure needs and failed to provide a budget that would address the long-term set up costs that are built into any business model. In plain English they were planned to fail.So enterprises have been started in the past, orange plantations, emu farms, cattle farms, they fail because that isn't what the indigenous want to do.
I didn't say there is no opportunity, just the disparity between the haves and have nots is more marked.I have relatives in the USA, they have done pretty good for themselves.
My relatives from both my grandparent's side left Europe in the 1960's, some came to Australia, and some went to the USA & Canada. All have made a very good life for themselves, and all their children and grandchildren are happy with good lives. Though, our North American relatives do have extremely large homes on big parcels of land.
Have you ever thought of going to the Melbourne comedy festival, you come up with some crackers. ?That was never their choice. History shows dispossession, and that has been consistently been in relation to lands of value. Furthermore, dispossession often involved transfer to lands they had no cultural connection to. Tangible evidence of this occurs when there are disputes over which tribe should be involved in welcome to country ceremonies.
Not necessarily. The reports I read on some of these projects showed there were no plans for sustainability as they invariably overlooked infrastructure needs and failed to provide a budget that would address the long-term set up costs that are built into any business model. In plain English they were planned to fail.
There is no indigenous interpretation that comes anywhere near the interpretation that you suggest, so you appear to be fearmongering or ill informed.
I didn't say there is no opportunity, just the disparity between the haves and have nots is more marked.
Have you checked out their welfare systems?
What is their basic unemployment benefit conditions, annual leave, sick leave, leave loading, medical benefits, pension benefits etc.
I've worked for the U.S Govt, their employees can't get over Australia's work and welfare conditions.
I know that, as I said I worked for and with them.Don't believe everything you see in the movies or on the news. There is a welfare system in the US, it may not be as comprehensive as ours but it is there.
What do the indigenous want to do ?So enterprises have been started in the past, orange plantations, emu farms, cattle farms, they fail because that isn't what the indigenous want to do.
Only 17% of indigenous live in remote communities, so, yep, most of them have access to good govt infrastructure as everyone else.The mere fact that refugees who arrive in Australia with nothing but the clothes on their backs, from places like Somalia, Siri Lanka etc and still forge a life for themselves, while not speaking English when they arrive and being black skinned shows that the racial card is a very flimsy argument for the Yes campaign.
So the City, country town aboriginals who can avail themselves of the same opportunity that other citizens enjoy, really are contributing to their own outcomes be they good or bad.
The only two issues IMO that the 'Voice" can lay claim to having any credible reason for being, is the compensation for the colonisation and the issue of dealing with the problems associated with remote and very remote communities, as they have a unique set of issues.
The issues they have, is there is no logical reason for them being there, other than the fact there is a cultural and emotional attachment to the area by the local inhabitants.
Why they need something in the constitution to fix that, is just showing how out of touch Canberra and the political circus is. IMO all it will do is exacerbate the issue as there would be even less motivation to change their circumstances they have a constitutional stamp of approval.
They were here first, they were happy living like this, why should we change just because you want us to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?