The recent shenanigans around the use of “invasion” instead of “settlement” was annoying on so many levels. Not least of which was the stark reminder of how many Australians just require an inciting “green light” from media to let loose a tirade of hatred and ignorance aimed at Indigenous people.

It can happen at the drop of a hat, over the most insignificant of events.

Even a years’ old document stating things that have been around for decades can set it off. Never mind that it is not an enforceable document demanding students think and talk in a certain way. Never mind Captain Cook – who wasn’t even mentioned in the document in question – was not the first white person to come to Australia. Never mind that the Australian national ethos can proudly embrace historical criminals who opposed government in the form of bushrangers, but feels threatened by the acknowledgement of Aboriginal resistance fighters.

Never mind that the edicts from England which spoke of peaceful negotiations, purchasing land and forming treaties were completely ignored in favour of the myth of Terra Nullius, or that the infamous posters pictorially claiming that both white people and Indigenous people alike would be hanged for killing each other was completely ignored (the only white people to be hanged for killing Aboriginal people was after the Myall Creek Massacre, the only massacre that has entered mainstream Australian consciousness, not because of the horrific nature of the massacre itself, but because of the fact that white people were punished for it).

Never mind any of that because, as amateur historian Kyle Sandilands said, “get over it, it’s 200 years ago.”

This is a common catch-cry of white Australia, one that flies in the face of our other famous war slogan “Lest We Forget”.

It is a catch-cry so filled with racist crap that we rarely stop to unpack it, but it has always made me curious about just what people like Sandilands think so many Indigenous people are angry about.

Do they think that all of this is about our refusal to “get over” the fact that Captain Cook landed here over 200 years ago, rather than everything that has happened since?

Pemulwuy was killed over 200 years ago, but today his head still sits, unnamed, on a shelf in England somewhere.

The Myall Creek massacre, which I mentioned earlier, was in 1838, 178 years ago.

Jandamarra was killed 119 years ago today, but most people living in Australia still don’t even now his name.

The last formally recognised massacres of Aboriginal people, the Conistan massacres, was 88 years ago. There were plenty of massacres in between too. Australia has such a poor record of acknowledging these that you probably don’t know where the closest massacre site is to where you sit while reading this, but it is a relatively safe bet that it isn’t that too far away.

Aboriginal people were only given the right to vote in the 1960s. Five decades ago.

Lang Hancock called for the sterilisation of “half castes” in 1984, 32 years ago.

John Pat was killed by police in 1983, 33 years ago.

Mulrunji Doomadgee was killed by a police officer in 2004, 12 years ago.

Ms Dhu died in police custody last year.

These stories are not isolated, and there is no reason to suspect we will not hear more similar stories in the future.

Remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia are facing forced dispossession of their land right now. Aboriginal children are locked up or removed from their families every single day, as they have been for generations. This week, white Australian media absolutely lost its shit at the mere mention of the word “invasion”.

These are just snapshots, there are infinitely more stories like these.

Every time these stories occur though, we can still be confident that Indigenous voices will not be invited onto most shows to discuss these issues rationally. Not only will Indigenous voices be largely omitted, but the most racist commentators available will be invited to talk on many shows instead.

We can still be confident that politicians making racist comments will garner public support. That the most disgusting and malicious radio media commentators will be given airtime. That police officers who kill Aboriginal people will not be held to account. That governments who fail to meet their own Closing the Gap targets due to their preference of implementing racist, paternalistic and punitive policies will not be held to account. That gross breaches of human rights will be ignored and swept under the rug.

We can be confident that every victory ever won by Indigenous people in terms of getting our rights is constantly under threat of being taken away. As Kevin Perkins once said, “We pray eternally that the white authority structure will not turn on us and impede what little progress we have made”.

“We live off the crumbs that fall off the white Australian tables and are told to be grateful.”

“We ask for land rights with tongue in cheek knowing full well that the land belonged to us in the first instance”

All of these comments are as true today as they have ever been.

So tell me, do you really think that we are upset over what happened “200 years ago”, or what started 200 years ago?

You can not “get over” a colonial past that is still being implemented today.

You cannot come to terms with a national history that the nation refuses to acknowledge ever happened.

We cannot “reconcile” what happened yesterday when we are too busy bracing ourselves for what will inevitably come tomorrow.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2016/apr/02/dont-tell-me-to-get-over-a-colonialism-that-is-still-being-implemented-today

Lets be real, anything we do nowadays is a token gesture because the most heinous crimes were not committed by those who are alive and in power today.

We can only be empathetic and understanding. We can't be sorry for what we haven't done.

Also as someone who did exchange to Germany, I did not experience the teenagers feeling 'sorry' for what their country did during the Holocaust. They felt empathetic towards those who suffered.

Yes, we can. We can be sorry it happened. It's an extension of empathy. When somebody says that something horrific happened, you say sorry. Not sorry because it's your fault. Sorry because you're sorry that it happened at all.

On an institutional level, we damn well can be sorry. Previous Australian (and British) Governments were culpable of heinous crimes. It's only fitting that modern day incarnations accept the faults of the very same institutions in years gone by.

Substitute the word "company" for the word "government".

Supposing, decades ago, a company was responsible for things like murder, torture, extortion, whatever. Supposing everybody involved in perpetrating the crimes had subsequently died. Do you think the victims could still sue the company for damages?

You bet they could. And the principle is exactly the same with governments and such institutions.

So, on an institutional level, governments still need to apologise and to acknowledge.

They got an apology from the prime minister?

Is this what you want?



Would having all white Australians go through this ceremony suddenly fix the cultural problems amongst the indigenous Australian community?

Edited by 11.mvfc.11: 2/4/2016 11:00:43 PM

They got an apology from the prime minister?

Is this what you want?



Would having all white Australians go through this ceremony suddenly fix the cultural problems amongst the indigenous Australian community?

Edited by 11.mvfc.11: 2/4/2016 11:00:43 PM

I think you have a somewhat limited understanding of how guilt and sorrow manifest.

Also, you may think laws relating to suing are absurd (I may even agree with you about some of them to some extent), but it doesn't change the fact that they are what they are. They are the law and that's what we're going by. In any event, to liken the laws by which your firm has been sued with laws for victims of this kind is the most absurd thing I've heard. Do you not see how some laws by which victims sue might just be necessary?

Answer me this question, please.

Supposing a person was abused by a religious cleric 30 years ago or more. Then the abuse was covered up and there was no attempt to help the victim deal with this. It fucked the victim up big time. It destroyed their life. Meanwhile, the cleric who abused them subsequently died. All those involved in the cover-up had also died. Do you think it would be just for the religious institution which covered up the abuse to have to issue an apology to the victim, to pay for counselling and to pay them a substantial pay-out in damages?

At what point do we have to concede that more needs to be done by aboriginals themselves do you think? Where do we draw the line and hand responsibility back to community leaders?

Johnny Howard sunk billions into improving their welfare and all he got out of it was negativity and a lack of tangible results.

Yeh sorry I don't save a university degree in a soft science.



It's an example of being sued for doing nothing wrong which is essentially what you're trying to argue is applicable (to clarify, today's generation are not responsible for the crimes). Probably not a good example but an example of how ridiculous some lawsuits are nonetheless. Our legal system is not set up to help anyone no matter how innocent you are.

Where do you draw the line in the case of indigenous suffering though? When is enough, enough? On what basis can you justify that decision to cut off the ' indigenous suffering' period? You can't. So we could open ourselves up to decades of massive, indefensible lawsuits to achieve what? So today's generation answers for the crimes of the past? That's nonsense. Anyone who agrees with this needs to get their heads out of the clouds and go and shower with a toaster.



Then there would be no one to answers for the crimes but innocent people. So you would like to screw over [b]innocent people? I'm torn. I see the need for people to answer for their crimes and see damages sure. I however have a bit of a moral issue with suing an institution for the crimes of people who aren't there. I have a moral issue with causing unnecessary suffering to innocent people who had no connection to a crime which is essentially what would be happening there. It's guilt by association and I'm uncomfortable with it. No matter how much you use the word 'institution' or 'government' it's the innocent people and the tax payer who suffer. Our services will suffer.

Your next argument will be about how much the indigenous suffered and how it's our responsibility to make things right but how far are you willing to go to retain your moral superiority?


Edited by bethfc: 4/4/2016 08:32:58 AM

Edited by bethfc: 4/4/2016 08:33:52 AM

privilege. you should look it up. did your hard science teach you to read?

you may not have personally done something wrong. but your life in australia is built around the wealth and privilege gained by invasion, genocide and exploitation. you benefit from all the wrongs.

if a nazi took lots of gold from massacred jews and became relatively wealthy - and their children were rich because of it, should the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren etc keep the wealth?

Privilege is a word used by the intellectually disabled/dishonest to discredit the opinion of a person based on their position in society rather than the opinion itself.

I despise the nonsense that is privilege. It's essentially trying to segregate the 'validity' of opinions based on social status which is as bad as accusing someone as being racist simply because they have an unfavourable opinion and they're white. It's dishonest.



What do you suggest to take from privileged white Australians to absolve us all of our crimes?



Lets cut to the chase. What extent do you believe we are responsible? Would you care to answer the second paragraph of the post you quoted please.

there's little point arguing it any further with you. you are in denial. if that's what floats your boat i couldnt really care. your opinion isnt going to change much. but i suppose i need the practice.

privilege is an accurate representation of real lived experience. a concept developed and understood by much better positioned and open minded people than yourself.

i understand that it's a lot to take on. it is something that is enormously regressed in the australian white mentality. it's a big leap to recognise your own culpability. like the children of the nazi in the analogy i above described - white australia isnt innocent. they have amongst the richest lives by any measure across the planet. they have this by receiving stolen goods.

the problem with privilege is that those who have it often cant or wont see it. i think the discussion is too many steps at once. people who have it still need to have their experience acknowledged. people have a lot of struggle in their lives, and it's an offence to them to have their relative wealth and fortune pointed out.

the issue is helping them to see that their struggle - as real as it is - is not the same as others who dont fit the hegemonic norms. in australia - amongst other people - the first peoples struggle enormously. there are third world conditions in australia. and its not white people.

white people dont have the answers. white people should not try and force the first people into following our capatalist system as a means to end this. what we need to do is give them back what was taken.

we need to hand over more land - with full rights. acknowledge their sovereignty and sign a treaty. they should be allowed to secede with their land if they want.

If anyone is privileged it is the Aboriginals, before us there was no welfare to mooch off, no cigarettes or alcohol and definitely no petrol to sniff.

Oh no doubt, but if those on the other side of our argument want to compare us to Nazi's and hold us responsible for the rape, land "theft" and "slavery" etc. committed by white people hundreds of years ago, I will hold the current indigenous Australian's to task on their current behaviours.

If Australia was invaded, then isn't anyone who is non indigenous currently occupying stolen land? Wouldn't then the right thing to do would be to return the land to the indigenous and seek asylum in a country where we are welcome?

Wow. This thread has degenerated.

Wow. This thread has degenerated.

If Australia was invaded, then isn't anyone who is non indigenous currently occupying stolen land? Wouldn't then the right thing to do would be to return the land to the indigenous and seek asylum in a country where we are welcome?

It's been like this since page 1, just that the sensible posters have left and now it's just an echo chamber for people that aren't filled with white guilt.

[youtube]EuJzSTNDUGI[/youtube]

My feelings aren't hurt mate. I'm happy to acknowledge we treated the aboriginal's like shit. I'm just not happy to continue giving them a free pass and blame it all on the whitey's. There needs to be a sense of responsibility on both sides, we have held up our end of the deal (equal legal standing, free health care, community housing, free education, educational aids and programs tailored to indigenous Australians, welfare payments to indigenous Australians living in poverty, the list goes on) whilst they continue to, on average, throw it back in our faces.

This is why some have suggested a Treaty. A Treaty could identify the past history of the "Crown" and reach an mutual agreement with indigenous leaders on how to move forward. I doubt anything as drastic as you are suggesting in your second sentence would be agreed upon.

Why not? If we have invaded their land and are illegal occupiers of it why should they have to enter into a "treaty"? If someone stole your car would you have to enter into a treaty with the thief in order to get back what belongs to you?

Are we illegal occupiers? Was the invasion of Australia illegal?

If we invaded and took their land, and that land belongs to then, then that is theft and my understanding is theft is illegal.

Edited by rusty: 4/4/2016 06:34:11 PM

It is illegal, unless you're the US, Britain or Australia. Then you can invade as many countries as you want as long as you have a really good excuse (don't worry about the excuse bit though, nobody ever follows up on it)

Edited by tsf: 4/4/2016 08:17:42 PM