The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[Haynzy]

Who said it was ?

No one is trying to take away our culture and heritage, but the indigenous people are slowly losing everything.

My biggest concern with this is that they lose their identity and we move them to where it suits us and force our culture upon them which is happening now.

It will get to the stage where we have no indigenous people to pass on their culture and heritage onto the next generation.

Mine too.
It's why I'm involved in language retention and revival.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Who said it was ?

No one is trying to take away our culture and heritage, but the indigenous people are slowly losing everything.

My biggest concern with this is that they lose their identity and we move them to where it suits us and force our culture upon them which is happening now.

It will get to the stage where we have no indigenous people to pass on their culture and heritage onto the next generation.

It is important that we, as a nation, retain the heritage of our indigenous people. In fact whilst the in some instances (such as acknowledging the local traditional owners of the land at every council envelope opening) there is a lot of PC bullshit regarding our indigenous history, in general I think there is not enough emphasis placed on indigenous history in schools/education.

However it's also an interesting argument when on one side we are saying that we don't want to force our culture upon then, and then on the other people are up in arms because of a decision not to provide certain services to every small community in the country.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes they are living in poverty. Way below non-indigenous. Equitable ?

They're not all living in poverty. And the ones that live in cities and go to uni are doing a lot better than the ones who choose to live in remote communities. Urban whites are doing similarly better than white people in impoverished rural communities.

But y'know, people are free to live where they choose.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Who said it was ?

No one is trying to take away our culture and heritage, but the indigenous people are slowly losing everything.

My biggest concern with this is that they lose their identity and we move them to where it suits us and force our culture upon them which is happening now.

It will get to the stage where we have no indigenous people to pass on their culture and heritage onto the next generation.

Their culture is being destroyed by Western poisons like alcohol and welfare dependence. These are ongoing, unlike the racist policies of the past.

 

[Twizzle]

exactly, so why make it worse

let them remain in the remote areas away from our poisons and other dependances.

 

[Haynzy]

They're not all living in poverty. And the ones that live in cities and go to uni are doing a lot better than the ones who choose to live in remote communities. Urban whites are doing similarly better than white people in impoverished rural communities.

But y'know, people are free to live where they choose.

I know you're just playing devil's advocate Pou but this is such a load of shite.


Sure if all we do is think in economic terms we can callously twist everything into 'it's unsustainable', 'it's a lifestyle choice'.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

I know you're just playing devil's advocate Pou but this is such a load of shite.


Sure if all we do is think in economic terms we can callously twist everything into 'it's unsustainable', 'it's a lifestyle choice'.

But at some point something that is unsustainable or uneconomic needs to be acted on accordingly. Should the services in question be removed for communities of 5? 10? 100? Each person will have their own opinion as to when economics out weighs social responsibility and vice versa.

Personally, I think if welfare was distributed better (be it those directed towards the indigenous, or the wider community), those in true need would have more than enough support. The trouble is that any attempt to remove welfare from anyone (even if they don't truly need it) is seen as punishing the battlers, and the only "acceptable" alternative is tax higher earners/corporates more.

 

[Gronk]

My opinion is that they should set up a fully funded scheme for indigenous communities like they have for the disabled.

Imagine if we had an NDIS for the first inhabitants.

http://fightingchance.org.au/about-...ance-scheme/?gclid=CLfz7JStpMQCFUcHvAodQCoAjA

 

[oldmancraigy]

So Gronk, you think indigenous communities are disabled?



(not a serious contribution to the discussion here!)

 

[Gronk]

So Gronk, you think indigenous communities are disabled?



(not a serious contribution to the discussion here!)

No, but clearly you are. ;-)

 

[oldmancraigy]

No, but clearly you are. ;-)

Yes, that is the correct answer :lol:

 

[The Elephant In The room]

My opinion is that they should set up a fully funded scheme for indigenous communities like they have for the disabled.

Imagine if we had an NDIS for the first inhabitants.

http://fightingchance.org.au/about-...ance-scheme/?gclid=CLfz7JStpMQCFUcHvAodQCoAjA

Not trying to stir the pot, but what would you classify an "indigenous community" as Gronk? Are you talking remote WA/NT? Central West NSW towns with large indigenous populations?

Often the issues with these kinds of schemes (and yes unfairly tarring all with the same brush) is who they are administered by and how. Just handing over money often sees it fritted away, but taking too much influence sees claims the administering body is trying to control the outcome.

 

[Gronk]

Not trying to stir the pot, but what would you classify an "indigenous community" as Gronk? Are you talking remote WA/NT? Central West NSW towns with large indigenous populations?

Often the issues with these kinds of schemes (and yes unfairly tarring all with the same brush) is who they are administered by and how. Just handing over money often sees it fritted away, but taking too much influence sees claims the administering body is trying to control the outcome.

No idea. I motion that they make me CEO (I won't get out of bed for under $500K pa), and we (the Board and I) can have a conversation as to what defines an indigenous community.

Those is favour, say aye ....

 

[emjaycee]

No idea. I motion that they make me CEO (I won't get out of bed for under $500K pa), and we (the Board and I) can have a conversation as to what defines an indigenous community.

Those is favour, say aye ....

"Sack the Board!!"

#sorryjake

 

[The Elephant In The room]

No idea. I motion that they make me CEO (I won't get out of bed for under $500K pa), and we (the Board and I) can have a conversation as to what defines an indigenous community.

Those is favour, say aye ....

Good enough for me.

Aye!!

 

[Delboy]

No idea. I motion that they make me CEO (I won't get out of bed for under $500K pa), and we (the Board and I) can have a conversation as to what defines an indigenous community.

Those is favour, say aye ....

But, but - you may have to give up your real job as leading Malcolm Turncoat cheer person and loony left poster extra ordinaire. Would you do that for a mere $500 k, you must be getting more than that from Shorten and Foley ( and the dimwit Bowen)

 

[Haynzy]

But at some point something that is unsustainable or uneconomic needs to be acted on accordingly. Should the services in question be removed for communities of 5? 10? 100? Each person will have their own opinion as to when economics out weighs social responsibility and vice versa.

I'm not convinced that removing essential services is the answer, regardless of size.
From my experience there are better ways to provide and maintain services to the remote communities in question than the ways are currently being employed.

Personally, I think if welfare was distributed better (be it those directed towards the indigenous, or the wider community), those in true need would have more than enough support. The trouble is that any attempt to remove welfare from anyone (even if they don't truly need it) is seen as punishing the battlers, and the only "acceptable" alternative is tax higher earners/corporates more.

I agree, welfare dependence is a huge problem.
It is also a seperate issue to the closing down of communities which will more likely drive more people to being dependent on welfare whilst exposing them to more destructive social ills.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I own a block of land in a town of 250 people. Not many aboriginal people there though. Is Tony gonna take my power?

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Really makes ya think, doesn't it.

 

[Haynzy]

Certainly does.