loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Yes of course they have a right to choose where to live (though as an aside you called it a right cue childish teasing of your intellectual credibility) however do we have a duty to provide for them given that they have chosen to live where these services were not provided.
Or perhaps to rephrase more sucintly, do we have a civilising mission, a white-mans burden if you will?
The following may be confonting, however bear me out:
I think it is even pertinent to ask ourselves whether aboriginals are Australians? (ignore the inherant irony of this question).
Afterall if we define Australia as being a nation united by some commonalities as is the generally accepted way and then we divide these commonalities into the two broad categories they naturally fall:
Ethnic: this is ethnic ties eg WASPs, culture, language, mateship, etc.
Civic: common allegiance to the institutions of the state eg democracy, our justice system, etc.
Aboriginals and their supporters clearly hold them(selves) to be ethnically distinct and I dont think anyone is contesting this point. So they are out on this count.
Which brings us to the civic question, as such I would be interested in the stats on aboriginal participation and belief in democracy which I would hazard are low because it is antithetical to a tribal system of elders. And it would seem that rights as we percieve them fall below their own system and that tribal law is held apart from our justice system. So perhaps they count themselves out here as well?
So if we aboriginals consider themselves a seperate nation and shun contact with 'us' so we have a role interferring in their society through either welfare or law enforcement?
The dilemma is on the one hand do we have a right to interfere? and on the other can we do so without riding roughshod over their culture?
Or more tellingly referring to your original criterium of emasculation that is the inability of men to be the provider through work or hunting. Picking fruit is working and brings in dollars, hence it is providing and also liberating in that it frees oneself from dependency on welfare.
Perhaps your scoffing is driven my an elitist upturned nose?
Or perhaps to rephrase more sucintly, do we have a civilising mission, a white-mans burden if you will?
The following may be confonting, however bear me out:
I think it is even pertinent to ask ourselves whether aboriginals are Australians? (ignore the inherant irony of this question).
Afterall if we define Australia as being a nation united by some commonalities as is the generally accepted way and then we divide these commonalities into the two broad categories they naturally fall:
Ethnic: this is ethnic ties eg WASPs, culture, language, mateship, etc.
Civic: common allegiance to the institutions of the state eg democracy, our justice system, etc.
Aboriginals and their supporters clearly hold them(selves) to be ethnically distinct and I dont think anyone is contesting this point. So they are out on this count.
Which brings us to the civic question, as such I would be interested in the stats on aboriginal participation and belief in democracy which I would hazard are low because it is antithetical to a tribal system of elders. And it would seem that rights as we percieve them fall below their own system and that tribal law is held apart from our justice system. So perhaps they count themselves out here as well?
So if we aboriginals consider themselves a seperate nation and shun contact with 'us' so we have a role interferring in their society through either welfare or law enforcement?
The dilemma is on the one hand do we have a right to interfere? and on the other can we do so without riding roughshod over their culture?
Well if I can sell fruit (and vegetables) and find that masculating then why not the picking likewise?iron said:
Or more tellingly referring to your original criterium of emasculation that is the inability of men to be the provider through work or hunting. Picking fruit is working and brings in dollars, hence it is providing and also liberating in that it frees oneself from dependency on welfare.
Perhaps your scoffing is driven my an elitist upturned nose?