Here's the full Royal Commission, knock yourself out.
50k people and a government is still not "beyond the frontier". Slavery still existed, and the government knew about it. Keep on denying history if it makes you feel better though.
-
If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Indigenous History Debate
- Thread starter graystar1
- Start date
Here's the full Royal Commission, knock yourself out.
50k people and a government is still not "beyond the frontier". Slavery still existed, and the government knew about it. Keep on denying history if it makes you feel better though.
And the British government knew about the unethical killing of Aborigines in 1837. Doing something about it when the problem is remote is another thing.
Coolgardie during the late 19th century gold rush. Other parts weren't so civilised.
Last edited:
Hmm, nitpicking to excuse slavery.
You really are outdoing yourself these days.
DS
Do you have the full article? No? Well you know where you can go.
You can answer my earlier question any time you like, though.
It certainly is more difficult when talking to someone from abroad, but I would still talk about responsibility and trying to act with indigenous people to further their efforts towards a more equal society.
DS
I think someone posted a link above, your continued nitpicking to avoid the issue is noted.
DS
Any evidence produced will be excused as above. I mean, I could give more evidence about blackbirding in Queensland well after they had their own parliament and legal systems but I'm sure they would still find reasons to excuse these examples of slavery, or claim that it wasn't real slavery, or that because chattel slavery didn't exist in law then the fact that it existed in practice didn't matter.
Easy to see people's true colours on issues like this.
Easy to see people's true colours on issues like this.
Yeah, I'm going to study a century-old Royal Commission as though I'm tasked with solving the Aboriginal problem.
Just wanted the article, thank you.
Yeah nah. I look on the Stack thread today and some people are so goddamn desperate to see injustice that they convince themselves it's happening. That's half the problem with you lot; you've been conditioned to think the worst of this country and by extension, half the people in it.
Sorry, that grab of the article was all that was there.
I haven't, there's more good about Australia than bad but let's be clear eyed about the past, the present and where we are going.
Truth is more important than patriotism.
There was a Royal Commission in WA in 1906 - the Roth RC, which confirmed officially that the practices of slavery existed and had been tolerated for decades by the WA authorities.
To state it all happened "beyond the frontier" and no-one knew about is abject denialism.
Doesn’t this make the point that these practices were not condoned by the authorities - hence the Royal Commission?
As for indentured labor/servitude it was common in British Empire from the time of abolition onwards. Many races were involved including Irish. As a mate of mine says, who has impeccable English working class credentials: nothing the English did in the colonies was not also done first to their own people!
Yeah so it was ugly. Life was tough 100+ years ago. No welfare, hard manual labour, high infant mortality, safety practices unheard of but if you had no gainful employment you died of starvation.
Denialism of what precisely? I just don’t swallow everything I read in the mainstream media.
It goes further than that, it is about reparations. White guilt is pushed to justify modern Australian's paying for it, regardless that they had nothing to do with it. I think reparations make perfect sense, but only when a direct property right violation can be demonstrated. Given how long ago these crimes occurred that is basically impossible, so the white guilt angle is pushed (which is racial discrimination IMO) to justify theft to pass onto Indigenous Australians (which itself is impossible to define).
It seems to be a bit of a special argument.
- Slavery didnt exist in Australia.
- yes it did
- but the Brits outlawed it
- yes they did but it continued to occur
- maybe but it was outside of jurisdiction. In the wild west
- the same wild west that had a government. And that government set up a royal commission that identified that slavery was occurring. It was clearly significantly a problem to have a royal commission. It took the WA government over 30 years since their formation to act on the illegal and well established slavery practices.
So the result of the discussion is that yes there was slavery in Australia. It was outlawed and that was eventually policed.
The government/society response was far slower than other communities.
No doubt that local politics, the state capabilities/resources and racism contributed to the delay.
Good discussion!
<
The Murdocracy
|
Brexited
>