http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22656015-2702,00.html
Interesting read...opinions?
I'm interested in what this whole process would mean, and whether actually it would mean anything, or whether it'd just be all talk.
From reading that, it seems that the Indigenous people would like
and I quote
I'm sure that this would be the case basically for all the different tribes as they are very attached to their land - something I don't think "Australians" would understand (I certainly don't)
I guess the age old question, the selfish one, is what that would mean for land "owners", farmers, etc who now "own" the land, some who have been living on it for a while now. A few people have said to me that saying "sorry" would open all sort of legal problems in which we would see Indigenous Australians claiming all their land back through the courts.
It seems a bizarre scenario to consider, "Australians" who feel they have a right to the land - payed for or "owned by family" and those of the Indigenous Australians, who not only feel the land is theirs but have a much more spiritual connection to it. But I feel it's just as bizarre not to consider the situation - if we're going to resolve this problem - we're going to have to face it one way or another.
I think hypothetically *if* there was an apology - which I don't think there will be, there would be legal basis to a point. It would depend on how the courts chose to rule on this...it would be a very interesting court case for one, one that could potentially be very very messy. Some people will say that we were not personally responsible we shouldn't have to give back land. But surely the counter claim that this was their land to start with is just as valid.
Also the referendum on the Constitution - what would that mean at all. You can easily draft it so that it 1) means nothing 2) is unpopular so it won't get past the referrendum. This would be like the republic referendum - that was never going through. If it's going to be 1) then don't bother. And 2) well the same. I have very little hope in our leaders and our people to actually put together something that would actually mean anything to the Indigenous people and that would get through a referendum.
I don't even know how to weigh this one ethically either. It's like reinstating the state of Israel and displacing the Palestinians...almost. (Just using the idea of taking land away from people who have lived in an area to their owners - I understand the example isn't a very good one when you look beyond the surface) We certainly don't want that kind of violence here.
What would be the right thing to do? What can we do?
Interesting read...opinions?
I'm interested in what this whole process would mean, and whether actually it would mean anything, or whether it'd just be all talk.
From reading that, it seems that the Indigenous people would like
and I quote
What exactly would that mean? From the words it seems that they would like recognition that Australia is rightly their land and sea.
I'm sure that this would be the case basically for all the different tribes as they are very attached to their land - something I don't think "Australians" would understand (I certainly don't)
I guess the age old question, the selfish one, is what that would mean for land "owners", farmers, etc who now "own" the land, some who have been living on it for a while now. A few people have said to me that saying "sorry" would open all sort of legal problems in which we would see Indigenous Australians claiming all their land back through the courts.
It seems a bizarre scenario to consider, "Australians" who feel they have a right to the land - payed for or "owned by family" and those of the Indigenous Australians, who not only feel the land is theirs but have a much more spiritual connection to it. But I feel it's just as bizarre not to consider the situation - if we're going to resolve this problem - we're going to have to face it one way or another.
I think hypothetically *if* there was an apology - which I don't think there will be, there would be legal basis to a point. It would depend on how the courts chose to rule on this...it would be a very interesting court case for one, one that could potentially be very very messy. Some people will say that we were not personally responsible we shouldn't have to give back land. But surely the counter claim that this was their land to start with is just as valid.
Also the referendum on the Constitution - what would that mean at all. You can easily draft it so that it 1) means nothing 2) is unpopular so it won't get past the referrendum. This would be like the republic referendum - that was never going through. If it's going to be 1) then don't bother. And 2) well the same. I have very little hope in our leaders and our people to actually put together something that would actually mean anything to the Indigenous people and that would get through a referendum.
I don't even know how to weigh this one ethically either. It's like reinstating the state of Israel and displacing the Palestinians...almost. (Just using the idea of taking land away from people who have lived in an area to their owners - I understand the example isn't a very good one when you look beyond the surface) We certainly don't want that kind of violence here.
What would be the right thing to do? What can we do?
