1) Minority rights and racism have nothing to do with that thread in chesschat you are referring to. And Yes, I do use my brains and think before I speak. I also do read books, articles and research papers on an issue before i form an opinion of my own.

2) Jono is not insane. I disagree with him on a number of issues but i do respect his right to have an opinion! Furthemore, he is a well-informed person. Every opinion is subjective to some extent but he certainly makes sure that all of his arguments are clear and transparent. I would not compare him with Sweeney. With Jono, I can agree or disagree. With people who who say "WTF" to strengthen their argument ...i do not debate. (even though i nevertheless think it was wrong to ban him and i did point it out in one of my postings in chesschat and as for banning him from NSW tournaments - it was a ridiculous decision)
3) What gives you a right to say i am the worst judge of minority rights? Are you in a position to judge me? I appreciate your friendship and i will keep listening to you for "clues" but at the same time if you do not mind - i would also like to be able to listen to other people too as well as well as read latest reports on "abonomy" (aboriginal economy)
4) There is indeed only one race. This is why all Australian citizens should be equal in their rights and in front of the Australian Law.
5) Your example of Germany is something i am well familiar with (being Jewish). So let me clarify: What Germany did was offer compensation (even though no compensation is adequate for lost lives and torture) to victims of the concentration camps. A number of my relatives in Russia recieved the compensation. However, being Jewish - i do not think i am entitled to compensation myself...simply in the basis my nationality.

Therefore, I would like to make it clear that i never denied that those aborigines who personally suffered from the discriminatory Government policies in the past are entitled to compensation. However, i do not see how someone should be getting money from the government simply because of his nationality!

Greetings,

I have an alternative to this title.

"Breaking down Michaels cultural stereotypes within his mind."

1) Minority rights and racism have nothing to do with that thread in chesschat you are referring to. And Yes, I do use my brains and think before I speak. I also do read books, articles and research papers on an issue before i form an opinion of my own.

Greetings,

I have an alternative to this title.

"Breaking down Michaels cultural stereotypes within his mind."

However, lets think about the following issues:

1) Should people pay for the unlawful activities committed by previous generations..and should compensation be awarded not only to those who suffered..but also to those who simply belong to a particular nationality?

Well lets begin by doing some comparative analysis. Lets consider this Nation/State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Let us consider all the wealth, culture and resources located within this territory and ask ourselves a key question. Was the Nation/State of Israel possible without a political place? Was cultural autonomy for Jewish people possible without International boundary recognition before then?

Now lets remember this date the 27 of May 1967. Do Australian indigenous people have a political place? Do they have their own Nation/State? Is cultural autonomy possible without International boundary recognition?

cheers fg7

Ok, Great - its a good start!

1) Do Autsralian Indigenous people have a political place?

Of course they do!....However, the name of the place is...Australia!
I do not see how it is possible for them to have any other country to live in! When I say Australia - I refer not to the country it was 200 years ago but to the country it is now.

But, In continuing this conversation, I want you to agree with these facts. At the very minimum you must acknowledge in your mind that on this point of politics the discrimination lasted until 40 years ago, not 200.

cheers Fg7

Btw, there is an exellent point brought up by Spiny Normal in the ChessChat discussion of this issue. I will publish a link to it later.

2) Do they have their own nation/state?

They do! They are Australian citizens. Lets imagine for a moment (hypothetically anything is possible) that Australian government decides to create and independent nation/state for the Indigenous people ..emm say in the lands of WA or NT. How feasible is this idea? I do not see how any political will can create such a state.

In my opinion (you may agree or disagree but to be it appears obvious) in today's world - such a state would not be possible due a) there are no such precedents

b) I do not see Australian indigenous community as self-sufficient at this point in time

c) this would require Australian government to recongnize spiritual ownership of the land to the point of assigning various tarritories to individuals/tribes whose ancestors lived there before.

Should an aboriginal state be created, the dispute will affect every single Australian who owns some land/assets). This would be an absurd situtation

Unfortunately Spiny Norman's post is a terrible post.

cheers,

The Indigenous people of Australia do not have their own Nation/State. They have been given permission to participate as INDIVIDUAL citizens within the Nation/State called Australia. Other countries like, New Zealand, have indigenous seats set aside in parliament, thus ensuring some form of political representation within parliament. It must be remembered that the Nation/State complex was imposed upon these people, that is it is an imported cultural phenomenon.


Jewish people formed their own state in 1948. Therefore there are empirical precedents, try the Balkans for recent examples. Clearly its possible for a cultural group to form a Nation/State. But this point is academic anyway and not important. They key point in this argument is that Nation/States are formed by human beings and that modern Nation/States are the by products of Western Enlightenment.

Now this is important to remember because there are very few groups of indigenous people in the world who have flourished and prospered under Nation/States. And that is a historical fact, that is well documented and recorded for almost all indigenous populations across the globe.


This is an important statement you make. It is the reason why most people continuously misunderstand indigenous issues. Lets put it in historical context. Before European settlement all indigenous groups were completely self-sufficient. After European settlement indigenous communities are deemed to be not self sufficient. Now we know who is pointing the finger don't we Michael. We know who is saying look at them. But when are we going to acknowledge that it is OUR cultural practices that has produced this alleged outcome. How have our cultural practices made indigenous people non-self sufficient?

Heres how it works, you take away peoples cultural autonomy and make them dependent. Dependent on another culture that has imposed its traditions and values upon you as people.

I don't quite understand this point. All people have some spiritually sacred places. Most Melbournians pay homage to the MCG. Some Jewish people cheerish the Wailing Wall. The Egyptian have the Pyramids.

However, it is very true that generally nomadic people have a relationship with the land that is normally more subtle then Argarian based cultures. It is quite clear that cultures who support private property are hostile towards nomadic lifestyles. But it doesnt make sense to essentialise indigenous people as belonging to nomadic tribes. In fact most indigenous people have adapted to modern lifestyles. But what is true is that from a cultural/historic perspective is that this is a very recent forced adaption that has only been recognised for 40 years officially!



I don't think an indigenous state has that much support within Australian indigenous communities. But I could be completely wrong about that. What I find amusing is that you claim it will affect land ownership. That simply goes without saying. Just like when Europeans first settled Australia they claimed ownership over the whole country. Or when Israel was declared a state some people lost their land. The Dalai Lhama lives in India, but he was born the ruler of Tibet. These things happen, nothing is permanent, all things change.

This time i will be brief
1) Allocating parliament seats based on nationality is a joke!

2) In case of Balcan states....we can hardly call creation of newly independent states a successful venture (the way it was handled through bombings etc was not impressive) but this is not the point. The point is - Croatia, Bosnia etc. were all states in the federal republic of Yugoslavia prior to this!

3) Lets put things in historican context as you suggest. Prior to colonization...all colonized nations (African, South American etc.) were arguably (even though when we look at issues of economic productivity and evolution it is highly debatable in some instances) sufficient. When Columbus discovered America..people there were sufficient too. However, from the CONTEMPORARY! economic prospective - i do not see australian indigenous communities as sufficent. Furthermore, giving them $$$$$ will not improve economic climate within the communities much. Money handouts have been happening already and we can see the results.

4) Land ownership will be affected! You can not have 2 separate land laws operating in 1 country..based on one's nationality!

5) Yes, Europeans claimed ownership of Australia when all the land became property of the Crown. This was part of the colonization process (and i never claimed that colonization was good as it had a lot of negative sides) however, today it is a historic fact. Jews had to escape Egypt x number of years ago..does it mean they should now argue they have some rights over Egyptian lands? And should Gypsies return to india and argue that some Indian lands belong to them?