Aboriginals and Their "Insane" Demands

A post was made on Reddit about Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen who asked twitter user @TheKooriwoman to 'Get Over' Colonialism.

 
User Chaddles made an informative post detailing how Colonial Australian policy is still very recent and the rights of Aboriginal people are still being denied. He was asked what rights exactly Aboriginal people were being denied by user MarchMarchMarchMarch.  Chaddles responded by arguing that they've been denied the right to a treaty demanding equal recognition, recognition that historically the Aboriginal people were invaded, and that the rights of Aboriginal Land were taken from them. Chaddles then provided a link to a Treaty in 1989 drafted by the Hawk government in response to Aboriginal demands in that year.

Today's post highlights user Ardinius' responses to Wallyupdabungenstien, who claims that the Demands made in a draft Treaty in 1989 are "insane" due to it's threat to the Australian Nation.

wallyupdabungenstein

It's absolutely insane. I've done the sums, and 2.5% of GDP is $38Bn. That gives each of the 500,000 Aboriginals $40K per year (and they want a lot more for the first twenty years). That's the entire cost of the NBN, but not over ten years, that's every fucking year in perpetuity.

The bonus is that since taxes would have to skyrocket for the rest of us to pay for it, it would destroy the economy, and thus trash our GDP, bringing down our maintenance payments to the Aboriginals. We won't have to pay as much when we're all dirt poor. :D At least there's plenty of rabbits and roos about to eat, because it will be like the great depression all over again.

Even someone with the most rudimentary understanding of economics should be able to see that imposing such a burden on society would have disastrous consequences, and they've obviously had no rational advice at all when drafting this 'treaty'.

I say again that it's a joke, and the only thing it achieves is demonstrating that some Aboriginals will never be satisfied, no matter how reasonable you are.

Ardinius

You seem to have missed the context here. The Australian nation (and it's colonial settlers) wasn't very reasonable when they:

-Invaded Aboriginal Land

-Conducted the Ethnic Cleansing of the Aboriginal people throughout history

-Abducted Aboriginal Children

-Attempted to wipe out the Aborginal race using germ warfare

-Bombed Aboriginal land with Atomic Weaponry

-Institutionalized racial violence towards the Aboriginal people, including slavery, child labour and concentration camps.

-Destroyed the Aboriginal way of life and signficantly contributed to the destruction of Aboriginal culture and values.

-Did a whole host of other things to terrorize and destroy the Aboriginal people which I don't have the time to go into here.

Given such a context, I'd say the rolling back of Western Society and it's economic growth to benefit the remaining Aboriginal population is a pretty reasonable demand (especially given that there are more Aboriginals worse off today as a result of the context colonial Australia created for them than any other ethnic group in the country).

It's especially reasonable if we don't assume (as you do) that infinite growth under the overarching and linear system of globalized neo-liberal Capitalism (the predominant Political and Socio-economic system of Australia) and it's Western Values are naturally and unquestionably superior to the values of Aboriginal people.

A pretty unreasonable assumption to make given that the dominate globalized socio-economic system under which this nation (and pretty much the rest of the world) operates has resulted in unprecedented  levels of wealth inequality , upward trending suicide and increasing family break-up , not to mention the political, health and environmental dimensions of destruction it has wrought upon this country (and the rest of the world for that matter).
Issues that would largely cease to exist under a society that functions under Aboriginal values.

 

 

wallyupdabungenstein

I'm not making a judgement on that. I'm making a judgement on the conditions of this treaty.

You obviously think that it's totally cool to strip me of the house and land that I own and hand ownership to the Aboriginal people. To strip every landowner in Australia of their houses and land. You obviously think it's cool to impose and extra $38 billion annual tax on non-Aboriginal people so that they never have to work again. Per capita this gives each and every one of the 500,000 Aboriginals $40,000. A family of two adults and two kids get $160,000 plus free land, plus free council services and no rates to pay, plus three times that annual amount for the first ten years, and twice that amount for the next ten years, plus free land in any council precinct that they choose, plus being released from jail regardless of whether they've raped or killed someone?

Do you honestly believe that we owe each and every Aboriginal a work free lifestyle in perpetuity?, because that's what this treaty amounts to. It's the equivalent of installing Aboriginals as an elite upper class with priveliges far beyond those of the rest of us.

Of course if implemented it would likely cause much animosity towards Aboriginals, and likely cause a revolution before it inevitably destroys our economy and sends the vast bulk of the population who can't afford to escape this country, stone cold broke. There will be no more lucky country, because with such a huge tax burden there will be no more spending on anything but essentials, thus all businesses not in primary production will go broke, reducing tax revenue further in a never ending spiral. Our economy will tank.

The conditions of this 'treaty' are insane. They defy all logic, and would destroy us as a nation.

Ardinius

Let us look at that term insane. I take it you mean insanity as a form of Psychopathy (given you're arguing the treaty will destroy the nation).
Let's begin with a definition: Psychopathy is a personality disorder that represents a person characterized by a lack of empathy, coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle.

Now let's apply this definition to Colonial and present day Australia as a social entity with regards to it's behavior towards the Aboriginal people.

Lack of empathy? Check.

Coldheartedness? Check.

Egocentrism? It can be argued that institutionalized racism is a form of valuing the dominate race as more worthy or important than other minority races. Check and Check.

Manipulativeness? Given the Child Abduction Policy was enforced under a piece of legislation called the 'Aboriginal Protection Act' I'd say Check.

Superficial charm? It's debatable, but let's give commonly voiced Australian values like 'mateship' the benefit of the doubt for this one.

Irresponsibility? Check.

Impulsivity? Debatable given the impulsive nature of our resource economics, but let's give that the benefit of the doubt here also.

Criminality? Check.

Anti-social Behaviour? Check.

Lack of remorse? Up until 2008 (If we're not to take Rudd's apology at face value), Check.

Parasitic lifestyle? Check.

Diagnosis? Prototypical Psychopath.

The same diagnosis (according to the man who came up with the official checklist to diagnose Psychopathy) goes for the modern day Corporation, which is the dominate institution of the overarching Socio-economic system in Australia.

Now let's be clear, I'm not arguing that the demands on this treaty aren't problematic, but given that we have categorically shown the Australian Nation to be psychopathic, and given the Aboriginal people have borne the brunt of Australia's institutionalized psychosis, their demands are entirely reasonable.

And even if we were to ignore the entire context of what Aboriginal people have suffered and continue to suffer in modern Day Australia (which clearly precludes the draft), I'd invite you to go ahead and categorically diagnose someone making these demands as a psychopath - with specific regards to your claim that the treaty is, quote: "insane".

wallyupdabungenstein

I don't deny that a lot of atrocities were committed in the past. You'd have to be some kind of monster to have taken part in the massacre of an innocent peoples, but does that mean that every hard working Australian alive today should be stripped of the fruits of their labor, in the property that they own? Does that mean that every current and future Australia non-Aboriginal, regardless of their involvement, owes a work free existence to every Aboriginal, and all their descendents, now and forever more? For the first ten years they want 7% of GDP. this gives a family of four almost $400,000 per annum. In future after 20 years in perpetuity is $120,000 per annum for the same family. This is on top of a chunk of rate free land wherever they want. We have to pick up their garbage for free as well for fuck's sake.

Is it ours, and our descendants destiny to forever work to support them, and their descendants as some sort of elite class, owners of the entire nation, who never have to lift a finger to support themselves, in perpetuity?

You think this is not insane?

 

 

Ardinius

You think this is not insane?

If you can tell me how the economic disadvantage to the rest of the Australian population you've described can be characterised by a lack of empathy, coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behavior, a lack of remorse, and a parasitic lifestyle on part of those making those demands, then please, go ahead.

Is it ours, and our descendants destiny to forever work to support them, and their descendants as some sort of elite class, owners of the entire nation, who never have to lift a finger to support themselves, in perpetuity?

Taken out of context, this would sound like what a black man would say under white colonialism. It's a statement that also rings true for the majority of ethnic minority groups in this country, who have lower paid jobs, and work to support a privileged class of Australians that are predominately of Anglo-Celtic background.

To answer your question, if the situation was flipped, and Aboriginals became the new Elite class, the answer would still be no, we and our decedents should not pay for what our ancestors did.

However, as history would attest to, we and our decendents do pay for what our ancestors did. It's just the way things work. In the case of the demands made by the treaty, it may not be just, but as I've said before, it is entirely understandable and reasonable why such demands would be made given the context of what Colonial Australia has done to Aboriginal people over the years and what this country continues to do to them.