Indigenous History Debate

[DavidSSS]

Not "expecting" anything now?
Give yourself another uppercut.
You're the worst sort of bigot.
You want the disadvantage to continue

You just want the lack of action on indigenous issues to continue, that much is obvious.

Tell me, how does the debate over whether we should feel guilt help solve disadvantage?

We need to take responsibility for that which benefits us and disadvantages Aboriginal Australians, and take action.

DS

 

[Djevv]

I think the treaty is a good example of something expensive that will make mainstream Australia feel better about its self but have no impact on aboriginal disadvantage. After it is granted something new will be required to mend things. There are many good policies in place to assist aboriginal disadvantage. They need to use them. There is a democratic political system in place to represent them.

 

[Sintiger]

Nah. The "progressive" movement is defined by intellectual hubris. You lot believe your politics reflect a higher consciousness than man has previously experienced. It's just a case of whether you're prepared to admit it.

You lot ....

How about a New Years resolution to try for once to understand that people are individuals with individual views? I don’t have any “politics”, just what I believe. If I think you or anybody else is wrong then I am entitled to say it.

It’s got nothing to do with intellectual hubris of a group think, that is simply your convenient defence against those who disagree with you. So many people attack your views not because they believe they are intellectually superior, but for the very simple reason they (we) believe you are often wrong.

 

[Giardiasis]

I don't see it as being an individual guilt, but a collective responsibility.

What does this even mean? Individuals are responsible for their actions, they are not responsible for the actions of others that are within the same group identity.

As an aside, it is important to distinguish between legal responsibility and moral responsibility. You might feel a sense of responsibility personally, that’s up to you. You might even think others have a responsibility. I think that’s fine from a moral perspective. However legal responsibility must be purely about personal actions one took that resulted in a property right violation. Otherwise justice can never be resolved as people will forever be on the hook for the actions of others. So when people demand government action to absolve group identity guilt, they aren’t delivering justice but are in fact delivering more injustice.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

You lot ....

How about a New Years resolution to try for once to understand that people are individuals with individual views? I don’t have any “politics”, just what I believe. If I think you or anybody else is wrong then I am entitled to say it.

So you voted for ScoMo at the last election? Or Pauline?

 

[mrposhman]

Australia needs to provide the most disadvantaged, those living in remote communities, the opportunity to progress and spend less time on worrying about the whining of those who live in locations where Australia already provides enough resources for all.

We do need to provide more opportunities but a lot of the differences that we have between those that live in the cities and the rural communities of the aborigines is due to scale. For example, we cannot possibly provide the same healthcare systems into the outback as we do in cities, therefore things like life expectancy / disease treatment etc will always fall short of what those in cities receive. Similar for schooling.

Its very difficult to provide the equality that is being demanded when we have such small rural communities.

On teaching history, we need to teach history as it happened, not just what we want to teach. Being a pom, there are huge amounts of british history that looking back makes me feel ashamed. Not only things like the Crusades and things like that on other religious groups, but also the murdering of our own soldiers in bunkers during WW1, to things like the Dresden bombing in WW2. All of these things are part of our history. I do not feel accountability for what went on, but I do feel shame that these events actually occurred.

 

[Sintiger]

So you voted for ScoMo at the last election? Or Pauline?

Neither, but I didn't vote ALP or Greens either

I have never been a member of a political party nor an active supporter of one

 

[Giardiasis]

On teaching history, we need to teach history as it happened, not just what we want to teach. Being a pom, there are huge amounts of british history that looking back makes me feel ashamed. Not only things like the Crusades and things like that on other religious groups, but also the murdering of our own soldiers in bunkers during WW1, to things like the Dresden bombing in WW2. All of these things are part of our history. I do not feel accountability for what went on, but I do feel shame that these events actually occurred.

I think that's right, but teaching history needs to dig a bit deeper than just looking at what happened. You can't just focus on what happened and ignore the human action aspect. What values did people hold to compel them to act a certain way? I think that's what some people have been calling for, overlaying an understanding on top of events that occurred. The subjects of historical inquiry are the value judgements of the humans involved, the ends aimed at according to their value judgements, the means employed to achieve these ends and the outcomes of their actions.

Interpreting historical events is largely a function of the values and knowledge of the historian. Most historians lack the knowledge of human action. Given government's largely control school curriculum, it becomes difficult for school history lessons to encroach on events that don't fall in line with the government approved narrative. E.g. Germany caused WW1 and WW2, union movement caused wage increases, The American Civil war was about ending slavery, etc. Interpretation of historical events is largely a factor of the values and knowledge of the historian. Alas without competition and the freedom to interpret history in different ways, Aussie children are doomed to be taught history that falls in line with the values of the bureaucratic class. The bureaucratic class will ensure history lessons enhance the image of the big state. Government funding of universities perpetuates this further.

As a general comment, overlaying the moral standards of today on top of yesterday doesn't really help to understand why people acted the way they did in the past. How the hell did the Holocaust happen? What could have lead people to act with such brutality toward others? Just saying they were evil bigots doesn't really help us understand how it happened and how we can avoid it happening again.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Neither, but I didn't vote ALP or Greens either

I have never been a member of a political party nor an active supporter of one

But you can't simply disregard context when it comes to history. The intrinsic "worth" of a civilisation in colonial times was determined by its advancement, and Aborigines scored very low on that scale.

"...there was little reason for anyone to think that killing Aborigines was a crime, especially when it was done to protect sheep and cattle, and settlers’ lives.

The economic and political realities were masked by a view of Aborigines as primitive, if not sub-human..."

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication.../changing-policies-towards-aboriginal-people/

That's just how it was.

 

[mrposhman]

I think that's right, but teaching history needs to dig a bit deeper than just looking at what happened. You can't just focus on what happened and ignore the human action aspect. What values did people hold to compel them to act a certain way? I think that's what some people have been calling for, overlaying an understanding on top of events that occurred. The subjects of historical inquiry are the value judgements of the humans involved, the ends aimed at according to their value judgements, the means employed to achieve these ends and the outcomes of their actions.

Interpreting historical events is largely a function of the values and knowledge of the historian. Most historians lack the knowledge of human action. Given government's largely control school curriculum, it becomes difficult for school history lessons to encroach on events that don't fall in line with the government approved narrative. E.g. Germany caused WW1 and WW2, union movement led to wage increases, The American Civil war was about ending slavery, etc. Interpretation of historical events is largely a factor of the values and knowledge of the historian. Alas without competition and the freedom to interpret history in different ways, Aussie children are doomed to be taught history that falls in line with the values of the bureaucratic class. The bureaucratic class will ensure history lessons enhance the image of the big state. Government funding of universities perpetuates this further.

As a general comment, overlaying the moral standards of today on top of yesterday doesn't really help to understand why people acted the way they did in the past. How the hell did the Holocaust happen? What could have lead people to act with such brutality toward others? Just saying they were evil bigots doesn't really help us understand how it happened and how we can avoid it happening again.

Fair call.

Context provides a lot of meaning and providing context from multiple angles gives perspective to children to make their own minds up.

For example, the murder of british soldiers in the trenches of WW1. The army at the time believed these actions to be valid, due to regarding these soldiers as deserters. Putting context around that from the other side, and many were kids 15-18 years old and were scared about going "over the top". WW1 was brutal.

 

[Giardiasis]

Fair call.

Context provides a lot of meaning and providing context from multiple angles gives perspective to children to make their own minds up.

For example, the murder of british soldiers in the trenches of WW1. The army at the time believed these actions to be valid, due to regarding these soldiers as deserters. Putting context around that from the other side, and many were kids 15-18 years old and were scared about going "over the top". WW1 was brutal.

Yeah WW1 was the greatest calamity of the 20th century, the end of civilisation. I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for those poor bastards.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Who knew Scott Morrison would develop a simple test to determine the racists among us?

Anyone who objects to changing a word in the national anthem because it might help Aboriginal people feel a little more connected to it, needs to be shipped off. And judging by the comments on the newspaper articles about it, that's quite a few.

TBH I don't see how it specifically relates to Aboriginal people. But at a time where some are seeking to divide the nation, "one" makes sense to me.

 

[Djevv]

Who knew Scott Morrison would develop a simple test to determine the racists among us?

Anyone who objects to changing a word in the national anthem because it might help Aboriginal people feel a little more connected to it, needs to be shipped off. And judging by the comments on the newspaper articles about it, that's quite a few.

I often wonder why people want to label others as racists on such a flimsy pretext? Factually we are a young nation. We became a nation in 1901!

But we are also one as a nation so no problem. Mind you the change will not stop people protesting about the national anthem.

 

[artball]

it's an awful anthem, and inconsequential Scotty thinks its a masterstroke changing one word ..
it's a decent change, but spin nonetheless from the rapture believing nitwit . . ..

 

[Sintiger]

But you can't simply disregard context when it comes to history. The intrinsic "worth" of a civilisation in colonial times was determined by its advancement, and Aborigines scored very low on that scale.

https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication.../changing-policies-towards-aboriginal-people/

That's just how it was.

I thought you weren’t going to debate?

 

[Djevv]

So when you see people writing things like 'I'll keep singing the old words', then I think they needed to be called what they are.

Righto Big Richo you keep calling out the racist smiles who sing ‘young’ when they should be singing ‘one’. Luckily we have you and SCOMO to keep us on the good path.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Who knew Scott Morrison would develop a simple test to determine the racists among us?

Anyone who objects to changing a word in the national anthem because it might help Aboriginal people feel a little more connected to it, needs to be shipped off. And judging by the comments on the newspaper articles about it, that's quite a few.

I wonder if those who are objecting to changing one word in the anthem realise that there has been words in it changed in the past. I believe Bob Hawke changed the words “Australia’s sons” to “ Australians all” in 1984. Would those objecting now have objected back then?

 

[Althom]

TBH I don't see how it specifically relates to Aboriginal people. But at a time where some are seeking to divide the nation, "one" makes sense to me.

Subtle

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

I thought you weren’t going to debate?

It’s just a response to your “things were different in those days” post.

 

[Djevv]

Yeah and you keep telling yourself they are just passionate devotees of Federation.

Not everyone wants to indulge in cheap name calling. I don’t assume things about those who protest like this about the national anthem. I’m glad they are passionate enough about our nation to get upset about something as minor as this.

You can bet changing the wording will not change the minds of those who protest by refusing to sing it.

For the record I think it is a positive change.