BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

Ty wrote:

, anything that might keep Tony out of the Lodge is okay by me.

Who would you like to see in the Lodge?

At the moment I'd vote for this guy, and he's black so I hope that expresses my depth of feeling about the current candidates.



He'd make every weekend a four day weekend.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-04-28 06:02:57)

Nice ogre arm.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ty wrote:

, anything that might keep Tony out of the Lodge is okay by me.

Who would you like to see in the Lodge?

Anyone who's not Tony Abbott. At the moment that's Julia Gillard and that's enough.

If I could pick anyone in Australia to be the Prime Minster... hmm.... I'll get back to you on that.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/28/australia-boom-aboriginal-story-despair

We didn't even recognise Aborigines as eligible voters until 1967 and pretended until 1992 that they didn't even own the land that, pre-European settlement, had been living on for tens of thousands of years.

What did you expect?

The Mad Monk?

Spark wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/28/australia-boom-aboriginal-story-despair

We didn't even recognise Aborigines as eligible voters until 1967 and pretended until 1992 that they didn't even own the land that, pre-European settlement, had been living on for tens of thousands of years.

What did you expect?

i guess you guys being out on the antipodes, it doesn't get much coverage in UK/euro-centric news. we generally hold up the apartheid as the big shame of 20th century white race-relations... but it sounds like aussie-land was harsher, and worse.

Well I wouldn't go so far as to put it as apartheid. There wasn't active segregation post the 60s as far as I'm aware - though that whole "stealing part-white children from their families thing" was a little revolting - and the 1992 thing was with respect to native title, which whilst hugely important wrt property rights, probably isn't on the same scale.

For the most part, our historical policy to the Aborigines can be summed up as (a) ignorant (b) paternalistic and (c) see-no-evil-hear-no-evil (which I guess comes under "ignorant"). Fundamentally racist and horrible but without that actively malicious streak which I guess gets more media coverage (although I will absolutely say that it was there pre-Federation and I honestly don't know enough about the early 20th century record wrt this to comment, stolen generations aside). Also have to bear in mind that in modern times - modern being post-WW2, the thing about Aborigines is that there aren't that many of them and Aboriginal communities are a long way from anything else. So they're easy to forget about, basically.

The same cannot be said for our record on immigration policy.

EDIT: Added the caveat "historical" above. I wouldn't say our current policy is racist, though it is a tad paternalistic.

Last edited by Spark (2013-04-29 05:18:35)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

why aren't there that many of them anymore, though? that article talks - somewhat hyperbolically, i assume - about something akin to a well-executed genocide/racial project.

coz our government attempted to "breed" them out. stolen generation and what not

i'd read about that in passing before, but wasn't aware it was so systematic/successful. kind of crazy that aussie pundits are having to write about your race-legacy in british papers. is it a liberal hand-wringing exercise, or would such an article not get published in a mainstream paper at home?

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

why aren't there that many of them anymore, though? that article talks - somewhat hyperbolically, i assume - about something akin to a well-executed genocide/racial project.

Probably the best scenario is what happened to the American Native Indians once they came into contact with white people. A mixture of violence, active cultural destruction (a sort of "soft genocide", if you will), and diseases which they had no natural immunity to.

Pre-settlement, the estimated Aboriginal population was ~750k (hardly huge by any stretch) according to some archaeological/ecological studies (the official figure is about half that).

At its low point in the 30s, Wikipedia tells me it fell to a grand 74 000.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

Adams_BJ wrote:

I didn't read the article in full, but why don't we make an awesome incentive to send a whole heap of unemployed abos to work in the mines. Then they get lots of money, they stop being unemployed and then we can stop feeling bad for them

?

yeah, nothing says 'social justice' and 'sorry, welcome back into our society' like sending a bunch of people down a mine.

maybe if they're extra good you can let them stitch budget clothing for you, as well?

People are flocking to the mines. I'm not sure what its like in the UK, but here they can't get enough people. There are jobs to be had, fantastic paying jobs. Young men and women are going, working a year and coming back with property and investment portfolios. Unemployment among the aboriginal people is rife, along with substance abuse, teen pregnancy and obviously crime.

Giving them an incentive to get over there and make something of themselves is a win bloody win.

It's not like blood diamonds.

Last edited by Adams_BJ (2013-04-29 05:20:40)

mining is considered pretty awful work in europe. like, one of the worst jobs you can have. i know australia is on a natural resources boom, and there's a lot of money to be made... but the lifestyle in those mining/boom towns hardly speaks of stability and middle-class prosperity. aren't they just as rife with drinking/drugs, violence, gambling, prostitution etc.? it's the same story in the alberta oil sands, is it not?

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-04-29 05:21:58)

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

mining is considered pretty awful work in europe. like, one of the worst jobs you can have. i know australia is on a natural resources boom, and there's a lot of money to be made... but the lifestyle in those mining/boom towns hardly speaks of stability and middle-class prosperity. aren't they just as rife with drinking/drugs, violence, gambling, prostitution etc.? it's the same story in the alberta oil sands, is it not?

To an extent yeah. I know FIFOs are a special case, but for example.