The Caledonia thing was pretty crazy -- I'd have arrested and imprisoned every last one of those pricks.JPesadilla wrote:
Aboriginals (IMHO) are asking for the best of both worlds. They are all trying desperately to keep there own lifestyle/culture but at the same time are screaming at the Government(s) to be treated special.
I am a Canadian Citizen living in Southern Ontario. I have been dealing with a group of "First Nations" Mohawks that decided that they had been cheated out of a parcel of land on the outkirts of town. Mind you they weren't too interested in this land until a developer began building 600 houses on the property.
Now they have occupied the land for almost a year and there is no sign of them leaving anytime soon. They have disrupted the town, terrorized the non-aboriginal residents and generally gotten away with just about anything.
The Provincial Police force was brought in at the beginning of this occupation to "Keep the Peace" That has meant allowing the aboriginals to do anything they please without repercussions. On the other hand any non-aboriginal that attempts to protest this occupation is arrested for "Breaching the Peace"
If that isn't special treatment then I don't know what is.
Poll
Should Aboriginals be Treated differently?
| Yes | 24% | 24% - 18 | ||||
| No | 50% | 50% - 37 | ||||
| Yes and no, explain | 10% | 10% - 8 | ||||
| Aborigonals? | 13% | 13% - 10 | ||||
| Total: 73 | ||||||
I reckon only the Tasmanian aborgines should get reparations.
+1 to anyone who knows what I'm taking about.
+1 to anyone who knows what I'm taking about.
It's interesting no one has yet mentioned that although the US agreed through treaties to compensate American indigenous people for land, oil, grazing rights, mineral rights, etc. through a trust set up for that purpose, literally BILLIONS of dollars have gone missing from said trust and the Department of the Interior spends more time stonewalling an accounting than trying to figure out where the money went.
But those pesky aboriginals, acting like they actually have a legal right to profit from what's theirs and was agreed upon in a binding treaty. They should agree that it's all for the good of the State, eh comrades?
Screw "reparations" and all of the "how dare they demand something for nothing blah blah blah" shit. How about we give them what they're owed and call it good? Or is someone going to try and tell me that Soviet-style collectivism is GOOD now?
But those pesky aboriginals, acting like they actually have a legal right to profit from what's theirs and was agreed upon in a binding treaty. They should agree that it's all for the good of the State, eh comrades?
Screw "reparations" and all of the "how dare they demand something for nothing blah blah blah" shit. How about we give them what they're owed and call it good? Or is someone going to try and tell me that Soviet-style collectivism is GOOD now?
Spoken like someone who knows truly nothing about the state of Aboriginals in Australia.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
The title of this thread should be
"Should Aboriginals find some new shit to cry about because they want shit for free and they know that the government will give it to them"
There are outback communities, and some of those who don't live in the outback still visit, esp. for special occasions. Some outback areas are owned by Aboriginal communities (including one or two uranium rich areas of spiritual significance, which recently became an issue).cpt.fass1 wrote:
Do they still live in the outback?
Because that would mean relocating millions of people, for one.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
How about we give them what they're owed and call it good?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-02-17 03:56:17)
Oh I meant specifically in this case what they've essentially been cheated out of by the US government and the Department of the Interior. But bizarrely enough, I have encountered more than a few people whom, by some unknown internal mental filter, converted my arguments regarding treaty violations and stonewalling by national governments against their indigenous peoples into "Hurrrr, Europeans go home!". Not exactly sure how that works, but I think serious and debilitating head trauma has something to do with it.Bubbalo wrote:
Because that would mean relocating millions of people, for one.
Because the Treaties were signed at gunpoint, and modern law would not recognise them.
That is rather a shame, considering Australia has the worlds largest deposits of urnaium.Bubbalo wrote:
There are outback communities, and some of those who don't live in the outback still visit, esp. for special occasions. Some outback areas are owned by Aboriginal communities (including one or two uranium rich areas of spiritual significance, which recently became an issue).cpt.fass1 wrote:
Do they still live in the outback?
That wouldn't happen. The native title claim is extinguished is the land is not 'crown-land' (commonwealth land).Bubbalo wrote:
Because that would mean relocating millions of people, for one.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
How about we give them what they're owed and call it good?
Also, some aboriginies have a habit of selling off their sacred land as soon as they get it.
Mcminty.
They should get little bit of benifits like free uni, only if the abo population isn't really going to school... Gives them a motivation to be educated eh?
I'm pretty sure it's been sorted now so that the uranium will be sold, however at the time I was a little pissed off with John Howard's stance which was (basically) if you don't let us, we'll do it by force. Which basically translates into "we're more than happy to honor native title claims so long as it doesn't inconvenience us".mcminty wrote:
That is rather a shame, considering Australia has the worlds largest deposits of urnaium.Bubbalo wrote:
There are outback communities, and some of those who don't live in the outback still visit, esp. for special occasions. Some outback areas are owned by Aboriginal communities (including one or two uranium rich areas of spiritual significance, which recently became an issue).cpt.fass1 wrote:
Do they still live in the outback?
And that's what they're legally entitled to, not what they're owed.mcminty wrote:
That wouldn't happen. The native title claim is extinguished is the land is not 'crown-land' (commonwealth land).Bubbalo wrote:
Because that would mean relocating millions of people, for one.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
How about we give them what they're owed and call it good?
Also, some aboriginies have a habit of selling off their sacred land as soon as they get it.
I'm pretty sure they don't get free uni, they just have to pay less (although they still have access to HECS/FEE HELP same as everyone else). And, whilst there are problems with non-attendance, there are also other problems which factor into it: remoteness of communities makes it harder to access education, and getting to uni can be more expensive, for example.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
They should get little bit of benifits like free uni, only if the abo population isn't really going to school... Gives them a motivation to be educated eh?
As a person who administers welfare payments in Australia, I would like to point out that the above opinion is an urban myth, which has perpetuated the stereotype of the "bludging abo".*R*A*M*B*O*Z*O*R* wrote:
Native Australians.........get special benefits like free University entry, free housing, less tax, and a lot more things.
Do some fucking research for fuck's sake.
TeamZephyr, as funny as a burning orphanage (for those of you who are unaware, the Tasmanian Aboriginals were wiped out TO A MAN by white settlers).
Oh, and DesertNobEnd, way to contribute.
Last edited by Ratzinger (2007-02-17 14:08:43)
surprise cockfag.Turquoise wrote:
Keep giving them benefits. They can continue demanding equal treatment, but just let it pass. Besides, they only make up a miniscule part of your population. They can't be that influential.
aboriginals should stop b1tching
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
Geez, way to overreact mate.Ratzinger wrote:
TeamZephyr, as funny as a burning orphanage (for those of you who are unaware, the Tasmanian Aboriginals were wiped out TO A MAN by white settlers).
I'm aware of what the European settlers did to the Aborigines, and because their oppression lasted up until the 1970s, I can sympathize more with the equivalent of "reparations", but you can't demand both reparations and equality, because they are counter to each other.Doms wrote:
surprise cockfag.Turquoise wrote:
Keep giving them benefits. They can continue demanding equal treatment, but just let it pass. Besides, they only make up a miniscule part of your population. They can't be that influential.
By the way, if the best that you can express your influence is by calling me a "cockfag", then I must say that I am beginning to understand why your people are still marginalized.
Give them free blankets infected with small pox, then be all like- huh, that is pretty strange your all dying, maybe some more free blankets will help you guys feel better.
How does "reparations" IE compensation for the discrimination not coincide with equality which will be later achieved once reparation mechanisms are in place(in whatever form they come)?Turquoise wrote:
I'm aware of what the European settlers did to the Aborigines, and because their oppression lasted up until the 1970s, I can sympathize more with the equivalent of "reparations", but you can't demand both reparations and equality, because they are counter to each other.Doms wrote:
surprise cockfag.Turquoise wrote:
Keep giving them benefits. They can continue demanding equal treatment, but just let it pass. Besides, they only make up a miniscule part of your population. They can't be that influential.
By the way, if the best that you can express your influence is by calling me a "cockfag", then I must say that I am beginning to understand why your people are still marginalized.
Treating them any different is racist. So no, we shouldn't.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Well, I guess I would have to answer your question with another question. How many abodigitals do you see modeling?
You'd think I would have known that..................Ratzinger wrote:
TeamZephyr, as funny as a burning orphanage (for those of you who are unaware, the Tasmanian Aboriginals were wiped out TO A MAN by white settlers).
To be fair, burning orphanages are pretty funny.
Well, you can accept reparations in an attempt to make things equal for the future, but in doing so, you are admitting that you need governmental help to reach equality, and therefore, you are not currently equal.Fen321 wrote:
How does "reparations" IE compensation for the discrimination not coincide with equality which will be later achieved once reparation mechanisms are in place(in whatever form they come)?Turquoise wrote:
I'm aware of what the European settlers did to the Aborigines, and because their oppression lasted up until the 1970s, I can sympathize more with the equivalent of "reparations", but you can't demand both reparations and equality, because they are counter to each other.Doms wrote:
surprise cockfag.
By the way, if the best that you can express your influence is by calling me a "cockfag", then I must say that I am beginning to understand why your people are still marginalized.
Don't get me wrong, I think reparations are necessary for the Aborigines, but you can't claim you are equal if you also request help. That means you are disadvantaged, and therefore, you are not equal.... yet.