I think it's a regular segment on the show (haven't watched sunrise in years, if the tvs on in the morning it's ABC4Kids these days :lol:). I'm pretty sure Pauline Hanson and Derryn Hinch have a similar thing. I think that says even more.

I don't know how you came to your conclusion. Would a liberal opinion make a difference? I think there would be issues with whoever Sunrise had talking about the issue (unless they were all indigenous).

I bet you cannot stomach Sky News? Richo and Jones would definitely wind you up sir.

How about at least 1 indigenous person? That would make a nice change.

No offence intended but I can see why they didn't. Every time an issue like this comes up the issue gets hijacked and the discussion becomes fractured and nasty.

I remember some of the debates over the 'national apology' to indigenous people. Nonsense on both sides.

Some things to think about on the broader issue:

http://theconversation.com/of-course-australia-was-invaded-massacres-happened-here-less-than-90-years-ago-55377

"The UNSW guidelines are not “rewriting” history – they are simply highlighting a history that has never been adequately told in the first place.

Detailed historical research on the colonial frontier unequivocally supports the idea that Aboriginal people were subject to attack, assault, incursion, conquest and subjugation: all synonyms for the term “invasion”.

This was particularly the case in Queensland, where the actions of the Native Mounted Police were designed to subjugate Aboriginal resistance to European “settlers” on their traditional lands, and to protect pastoralists, miners and others from Aboriginal aggression.

It is telling that when it is suggested people “get over it – it’s 200 years ago”, we so revere the notion of Lest We Forget when remembering our role in a foreign war (WW1) 100 years ago.

It is also worth remembering in this context that large scale massacres of Aboriginal people were still being carried out through the 1920s and early 1930s in some parts of Australia.

For many Indigenous communities, the physical evidence of frontier conflict in Queensland in the form of Native Mounted Police camps and locations where people were killed are — just like Gallipoli — important places of remembrance that should never be forgotten". Hopefully one day non-Indigenous people will be able to visit these sites and reflect on our collective history, rather than being threatened by it".

Edited by AzzaMarch: 31/3/2016 05:15:33 PM

Can you not see the simple fact that you think it is ok to not include the indigenous perspective on a topic that directly impacts their identity and history, just for the fact that it makes the non-indigenous people uncomfortable and defensive, indicates something about the problems of the mainstream view of things?

I love the fact that you even use the term "hijacked" like "we can't let the indigenous person talk, they might make us feel bad".

Yeah, that's where I decided to opt out of the discussion

Interesting. The whole 'get over it' attitude is somewhat misrepresented. History, including history we cannot control is used to paint the Anglo-Saxon portion of Australia as racist, evil etc. There are hundreds of videos on facebook on any day of National significance, look them up. These videos make all sorts of demands and call white people all sorts of names. It's equally as offensive and inappropriate as suggesting that aboriginal people belong in chains because their forefathers were confined.

The term 'get over it' to me in many respects points out that we cannot change the past and that no matter how much we apologise nothing can change it. It's a reaction the victim mentality that attempts to link our current generations to the crimes of the past which we cannot be anything but sorry and empathetic about.

Am I disgusted that aboriginal people were literally (and legally) treated like domestic animals until the 60's? Bloody oath. But as someone born 30 years after this was (thankfully) abolished, what can I do other than be empathetic?

Too much writing calls for us to feel guilt for things we could not and cannot control.

It's like making German teenagers feel responsible for the holocaust.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be helping the indigenous as best we can. However, we need to be asking them how we can help rather than telling them how we're going to help but hey, not relevant to the topic.

I can see it, I'm just pointing out the fucking obvious. You can't put a conservative and an aboriginal on tv together they'll shred each other.

Of course there should be representation but like I said, I can see why they didn't.

Don't read too much into hijacked, it was not a deliberate use of the word.

So what? Why do you care what videos people post on FB. You can just as easily find 10x more videos stating the most disgusting racist rubbish against indigenous people. It's not about painting anyone today as "evil". Its about acknowledging the basic facts about our history.

If you asked 10 people on the street if they knew there were documented massacres of indigenous people into the 1920s and 1930s, how many do you think would say yes?

How many people don't realise that far from the british just "settling", there were ongoing frontier wars for decades, and decades of resistance by indigenous populations?



That may be how you view it. But my impression based on what people say is that they really don't care, and just don't want to hear about it because they have no interaction with indigenous people or culture, so they just don't care.



Rubbish - that is your impression. But to me, just accurately acknowledging historical facts has nothing to do with any "victim mentality". It's not being a victim to want history acknowledged, not at all.



Acknowledge that it occurred, that it is a historical reality, instead of brushing it aside and acting like nothing happened.



Good example - did you know that it is compulsory for all german schoolchildren to visit concentration camps so that they have a full understanding of their country's history from a young age?

Imagine if we forced all schoolchildren here to visit locations of massacres of the indigenous population? Or visit the reservations they were forced to live as slaves on?


Edited by AzzaMarch: 31/3/2016 05:37:12 PM

I don't think people have a problem with that at all and that's not what I'm getting at. You have to admit that many people today are influenced by the half grass indigenous people who burn flags and protest everywhere.

People can't acknowledge history if they're not taught it.



None. I didn't even know that. I'd say 1 in 100.



It's not taught at schools so I'd say it's far from the forefront of common knowledge.



Can you blame people? Honestly, what do you expect people to do? Seems like the issue is education, not people themselves.



I agree.

I'd love to see the reaction to you asking an aboriginal burning a flag on Australia day what they want.



That's essentially what I meant by empathetic in less words. Accept, understand and be empathetic to those who suffered and those who suffer now. Can't do much more than that.

You can't blame every day people for not being informed. The extent of the abuse is not taught. It's like blaming your neighbour for not understanding your religion. The reality is they have more pressing things to do.

Your issue should be with the curriculum taught at school, not with people who are just simply ignorant (myself included here).



Yes. I did exchange to Goppingen near Stuttgart. My host was forced to visit Dachau. She told me that they were basically told 'look at what your country did' as in to feel guilt for what happened. I strongly disagree with the mentality that today's generations are even remotely responsible for past indiscretions. Respect, empathy and understanding needs to be as far as it goes.

I'm all for going to the sites of massacres and sending kids there. Out of curiosity, are any of them controlled by the government and protected to your knowledge?

Whatever you want to call what happened in 1788 with the landing of the first fleet and the people on starting to live in Australia it certainly was not carried out by Captain Cook. The first fleet was lead by Arthur Phillip so it is his name not Cook's that should be being used in this thread.

Very true.

But the Gauls/Britons had cities and tangible things to actually take possession of instead of just the land itself.

According to the twisted logic in this thread (to 'suit one's narrative' as BETHFC would put it), China is welcome to launch a nuclear strike & subsequently take over Australia, because we weren't smart enough to have a missile defence system. Just don't call it an invasion......

You've always got 3AW talk back tomorrow morning to vent your confected outrage......

Australia was never invaded, the many aboriginal clans, peoples and "nations" were. Australia only came about afterwards.

An argument thats irrelevant. It has no baring on the countries future tbh. Move on.

They did have tangible "things". The main item of value WAS the land. I don't see why you think hunter-gatherer populations have less rights of ownership over the land they occupied than agricultural settlements did?

Its not the indigenous population's fault that they had no arable crops, or domesticable animals, in order to make farming viable.

Don't name drop because I called you out on your right wing BS you still refuse to substantiate.

Nice logical fallacy btw :lol:

What does "half grass indigenous people" mean?

Well yes they can. Thanks to the internet we all have a world of information at our fingertips. But I agree our education system is severely lacking.



I blame people to the extent that they don't put their hands up and say "I don't really know much on this topic, lets ask an indigenous person". No - people often have very strong opinions about what they think is wrong with indigenous people not "moving on", but are themselves incredibly ignorant of history.



I don't think this equates to being a 'victim'. It's a political statement made to upset the mainstream. Not very effective in my view. But I also don't think most indigenous Australians would be doing that.



Its not so much criticising because people are uninformed. It is the combination of being uninformed and having strident opinions. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.



I have no idea about this myself. My knowledge is that these places exist, but there is barely any commemoration or even markers at many sites. Mainly because the massacres were often carried out on behalf of the govt, so they obviously didn't want to mark out what they did!

Agree with your general criticism of Murdoch Rags. But his point on this topic is well made.

A lot of people seem to be saying "bad luck natives, you were outgunned by a superior force".

Take that logic to its reasonable conclusion and that is exactly what Rags is pointing out.

Once you agree with the concept of "Might Makes Right", you can't complain when you get outgunned yourself.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword".

Edited by AzzaMarch: 1/4/2016 09:16:10 AM

Essentially a common term for a city aboriginal. From experience, particularly at work (I've been to a couple of remote areas in western QLD - not aboriginal communities but towns with high aboriginal populations) aboriginals that don't live in big cities are far more open and easier to talk to than those who live the city life. Just my experience but it's a pretty stark contrast.

One of my colleagues from our Brisbane office is aboriginal and he acts as a director for a drilling contractor. As he is an aboriginal director of a company he gets a lot of work within these remote areas from the government, they encourage businesses with aboriginal directors. Hence why I spend time out there with his drill rigs as the supervising engineer.

You don't see many aboriginal people from small communities burning flags and being racist.



Who goes home to look that up though? I can't even be bothered doing my chartered engineering units let alone researching aboriginal history.

Thanks to the internet information which shows that mining isn't actually completely fucking the earth is available. However that doesn't stop even major political parties from opposing it :lol:



Irrespective of history it's still reasonable to want people to move on, especially if 'reconciliation' is what we're pushing these days.

I'd wager most people are sick to death of controversy regarding history we can't change irrespective of how informed they are. We have enough controvery in the media without trawling up history.



It's attention seeking. It is playing the victim at the same time. It's pretty much saying 'fuck you look what your people did' as in we as white people are responsible. To me that's playing the victim. It's looking for a reaction and sympathy for people who have done nothing wrong.



At what point are you allowed to have an opinion? That's like saying you can't have an opinion on mining because you don't know the in's and out's. People have opinions and we can't absorb every piece of information so we generalise.

Look at Murdoch's Rags. Look how strong his views on mining are. He's never spent more than a few hours (if any time) at a mine. Thousands are like him and they all bombard facebook and green websites with their opinions. Yet somehow their ignorant criticism is encouraged. I know it's apples and oranges but the premise is the same.

The sentiment is correct however I'm sick of the smug nonsense from Murdoch's Rags which is why I ignore his main points.

If China wanted to burn us all and salt the earth there's bugger all we can do to stop them. We would resent them and so would generations to come. At some point though you'd have to expect that after those directly affected have passed on, that the sentiment from the Chinese would be that we need to move on. The Chinese 'invaders' would die. Their children and children's children would say to us 'what can we do to change it'. Pretty much exactly what's happening with the indigenous here.

I'll direct this to you because I feel like you'll give a measured response, but I was on Wikipedia yesterday looking up aboriginal history and clicked on a link about colonization. At the bottom of the page, there is a few paragraphs on the colonization of Europe by middle eastern immigrants. The basis of colonization is the 'isolated' nature of many of the communities within countries like Germany and England (seen both first hand) backed up by the size and scale of these communities. Do you agree with this sentiment or is it drawing a long bow?

My opinion is that it's a stretch, these communities are still vastly outnumbered. However, applying the 'characteristics' of colonization is really the only thing that gives this theory any substance.

I know Waleed Aly is the flavour of the moment. But I think this article is actually really well written, and cuts to the chase of the issue:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-australia-lies-to-itself-about-its-indigenous-history-20160330-gnuo4t.html

Why Australia lies to itself about its Indigenous history

Every country has its weirdness, its reflex points that trigger spontaneous, uncontrolled actions that look almost comically irrational to the observer. It's the kind of thing you can only comprehend once you know the anatomy.

Take, for example, the United States' permanent weirdness on guns. Viewed from Australia – a nation that embraced gun control with relative (though not total) ease after a single massacre – it's gobsmacking that repeated mass shootings seem only to entrench positions rather than inspire a solution.

It's only when you grasp how guns have become totems of individual liberty and a principled distrust of government – and that these ideas constitute nothing less than the country's very reason for being – that you can begin to make sense of the madness.

So, beneath every weirdness most likely is a revelation. Not about the substance of whatever issue is in play, but about the essence of the nation grappling with it.

Debate about Indigenous history in Australia always descends into hysteria because it bruises our misplaced national pride.

Every country has its weirdness, its reflex points that trigger spontaneous, uncontrolled actions that look almost comically irrational to the observer. It's the kind of thing you can only comprehend once you know the anatomy.

Take, for example, the United States' permanent weirdness on guns. Viewed from Australia – a nation that embraced gun control with relative (though not total) ease after a single massacre – it's gobsmacking that repeated mass shootings seem only to entrench positions rather than inspire a solution.

It's only when you grasp how guns have become totems of individual liberty and a principled distrust of government – and that these ideas constitute nothing less than the country's very reason for being – that you can begin to make sense of the madness.

So, beneath every weirdness most likely is a revelation. Not about the substance of whatever issue is in play, but about the essence of the nation grappling with it.

For Australia, it's Indigenous history. The US may be caught in a cycle of tragedy and denial, but we simply do away with the cycle. For us it's a founding tragedy, then steadfast denial ever since. The specifics might change – terra nullius, the stolen generations – but the constant is a remarkable jumpiness at the very thought of facing the past. A jumpiness so powerfully reflexive, it doesn't matter how insignificant the stimulus.

This week it's a guide on "Indigenous Terminology" from the University of New South Wales. As documents go, it's resoundingly minor: an advisory list, likely to be read by very few people, that "clarifies appropriate language" on Indigenous history and culture. But that was enough to start the nation's most prolific outrage machines to humming.

"WHITEWASH", boomed The Daily Telegraph, taking particular exception at the guide's suggestion that Australia was not "settled" or "discovered" by the British, but rather "invaded, occupied and colonised". This instantly triggered the talkback reflex, with lines of angry callers – historians all, no doubt – venting with all the gusto Alan Jones or Ray Hadley could inspire in them. For colour, and certainly not content, Sydney radio host Kyle Sandilands joined the party, ensuring the meltdown covered all frequencies.

Where do you start? Perhaps with the Tele's remarkably sloppy allegation that "UNSW rewrites the history books to state Cook 'invaded' Australia". Of course, UNSW did no such thing. The reference to Cook is entirely a Telegraph invention. The guide talks of invasion but doesn't attribute it to James Cook, who had no army with which to invade. It's an extrapolation showing that not only does some editor or other know nothing about the history they're so keen to defend, but that they're also quite keen to rewrite the present.

Or perhaps you might begin with precisely which historical account does the rewriting: the one of "settlement" with its implications of an uninhabited continent, or the one whose language of invasion and colonisation implies the significant resistance of Indigenous people and the slaughter that flowed as a result?

All that history is well trodden. For now, it's the weirdness of this, and what it reveals, that interests me. Specifically: why is this hysterical response so entirely predictable? Why is it that the moment the language of invasion appears, we seem so instinctively threatened by it? This isn't the response of sober historical disagreement. It's more visceral than that. Elemental even. It's like any remotely honest appraisal of our history – even one contained in an obscure university guide – has the power to trigger some kind of existential meltdown. What strange insecurity is this?

An American observing this, perhaps even while carrying a gun, would be entitled to be bewildered. Theirs is a dark history too – one that encompasses indigenous dispossession, slavery and segregation – but it's a history they can hardly be accused of denying in the way we do.

Sure, indigenous American history is frequently ignored, but this is partly because it is buried beneath the sheer tonnage of black history that is so constantly rehearsed. There will be people in the US south who lament losing the Civil War, and who cling to the Confederate flag. But it's hard to imagine a public freak-out because a university wanted to discuss slavery. By now, slavery and its abolition are central parts of the American story. There might be varying degrees of honesty in the way the US tells that story, but it has typically found a way to incorporate its warts.

Why do we struggle so much more? Demography, sure. It's harder to brush aside the claims of 13 per cent of the population than the roughly 2 per cent of ours that is Indigenous. But it's also a function of national mythology.

The US is built on the idea of constant progress through individual liberty. It's a nation that is never finished, never perfect, but always being perfected. Its historical scars are therefore not fatal to its identity. Indeed, they are essential because they allow Americans to tell a story of their own perfectibility. In these hands, slavery is not simply a stain, but a symbol of how far they've come. So, in the process of acknowledging slavery, the US is celebrated, not condemned.

We're not like that. We struggle with our history because once we admit it, we have nowhere to go with it; no way of rehabilitating our pride; no way of understanding ourselves. As a nation, we lack a national mythology that can cope with our shortcomings. That transforms our historical scars into fatal psychological wounds, leaving us with a bizarre need to insist everything was – and is – as good as it gets.

That's the true meaning of the love-it-or-leave-it ethos that so stubbornly persists. We don't want to be improved in any thorough way, because for us that seems to imply thorough imperfections.

Instead, we want to be praised, to be acknowledged as a success. It's a kind of national supplication, a constant search for validation. And history's fine, as long as it serves that purpose. But if it dares step out of line, it can expect to be slapped swiftly with the Sandilands dictum until it changes the subject: "you're full of shit, just get on with life". Then we can be comfortable again.


Edited by AzzaMarch: 1/4/2016 09:57:01 AM

by muslims



Edited by condemned666: 1/4/2016 10:59:36 AM

Very interesting read AzzaMarch ... I wonder if psychologists have studied the Australian mentality / culture to this aspect??

it's not up to white people to decide whether it was an invasion or not.

if it upsets your shitty world view to have the events factually named - then you have some serious personal issues.


the brittish invaded the countries on the island and proceeded with genocide and the systematic annihilation against the first peoples of the island.

we need to acknowledge that we are living a lie. there needs to be a treaty. there is nothing wrong with accepting the past for what is was and taking the right steps that reflect the real lived history.

Edited by inala brah: 1/4/2016 12:04:53 PM

Interesting point. I've always been unsure of what formal things should be done.

Obviously improved education etc is a no-brainer.

But I always get the feeling that constitutional recognition and a treaty (kinda like the apology for the Stolen Generation) might end up being superficial, even tokenistic.

Not to say these things shouldn't be done. Just that a lot of political capital may be expended for something that won't change anything.

I'm not set in that opinion, just fear that might be the outcome. Is it something that indigenous people think is important generally? I have no idea...

You realise they were only counted as humans on the census in the 1960s, right?

You realise children were still being abducted from their parents by the govt with no court processes as would be afforded to non-indigenous Australians, up until the 1970s, right?

Do you really expect almost 200 years of subjugation as quasi-slaves and wards of the state to just stop having any negative social effects on the population within less than a generation?

Grow a brain.