Society/Culture The Welcome/Acknowledgment of Country thread

[threenewpadlocks]

No they weren’t. It was nowhere near what it is now then, but still was the most fair and progressive system in the world then. English Common Law was always and still is the most fair and progressive of all the known systems there is. That is why there is and can be reconciliation under it now. Nothing was ever perfect in history. What we do from now is important. Equality before the law should always be the goal, that is peak progress. Equality of outcomes is a retrogressive concept to rectify past wrongs in a backwards way.

It took until the Mabo decision in 1992 for the English common law system to recognise the fact that Indigenous Australians, at least in such a common law sense, were the owners of the land pre-1788, and as such the act of the British colonising took land away from Indigenous Australians

In some respects the "fair and progressive" system you describe took until 1992 to catch up

 

[Freshwater]

It took until the Mabo decision in 1992 for the English common law system to recognise the fact that Indigenous Australians, at least in such a common law sense, were the owners of the land pre-1788, and as such the act of the British colonising took land away from Indigenous Australians

In some respects the "fair and progressive" system you describe took until 1992 to catch up

Not saying that it is perfect, it’s is by far the best the world has to work with. We are getting to a fair opportunity for all, not there yet. And many ideas put forward by ‘progressives’ aren’t necessarily the best ideas either. That’s why the English Common Law system has democratic ideals built in, and these move slowly (not fast enough for many) but must move from the bottom up, not top down, to be effective and genuine.

 

[mighty_lions]

Not stolen? Sorry was there a treaty? I must of missed that.

seems like some sort of agenda you are on, not sure what "stolen land" has anything to do with anything

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

seems like some sort of agenda you are on, not sure what "stolen land" has anything to do with anything

It's their land that was stolen why can't you admit that?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not saying that it is perfect, it’s is by far the best the world has to work with. We are getting to a fair opportunity for all, not there yet. And many ideas put forward by ‘progressives’ aren’t necessarily the best ideas either. That’s why the English Common Law system has democratic ideals built in, and these move slowly (not fast enough for many) but must move from the bottom up, not top down, to be effective and genuine.

Taking 204 years resulting in a throwaway statement of "far from perfect" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and hand-waving away here.

Consider also the Uluru Statement of which the first political step is a Voice to Parliament and an amendment to the constitution and for there to be co-sovereignty heading forward. This recognises the fact that initial sovereignty was never ceded and in the interests of moral fairness that should considered in the metaphysical construction of our country, but also the need to balance the moral fairness of realities of the fact that the vast majority of the 98% of non-Indigenous people don't have a claim to live anywhere else but Australia, are not racist and also did nothing morally wrong in taking that sovereignty in the first place and being present in Australia, leading to the political realities of co-sovereignty through an acceptable-to-the-majority-of-Indigenous people through a Voice, Treaty, Truth principle outlined in the Uluru Statement.

Indeed, initially, when it was more of an abstract idea rather than something that had to be non-abstractally implemented, a majority of Australians agreed with the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum or even going back to 2018: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the...rt-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678

However, the "English common law" foundation meant that the transition from majority abstract support to practical reality rejection meant that it failed to achieve something that a majority of Australians can agree upon in the abstract sense of our country being co-sovereign heading forward (even though debates can be had about the ways in which that's implemented), as the debate over the referendum, and the practical nature of the implementation meant that support tanked, and therefore, was not the best way to achieve the goal.

 

[Freshwater]

Taking 204 years resulting in a throwaway statement of "far from perfect" is doing a lot of heavy lifting and hand-waving away here.

Consider also the Uluru Statement of which the first political step is a Voice to Parliament and an amendment to the constitution and for there to be co-sovereignty heading forward. This recognises the fact that initial sovereignty was never ceded and in the interests of moral fairness that should considered in the metaphysical construction of our country, but also the need to balance the moral fairness of realities of the fact that the vast majority of the 98% of non-Indigenous people don't have a claim to live anywhere else but Australia, are not racist and also did nothing morally wrong in taking that sovereignty in the first place and being present in Australia, leading to the political realities of co-sovereignty through an acceptable-to-the-majority-of-Indigenous people through a Voice, Treaty, Truth principle outlined in the Uluru Statement.

Indeed, initially, when it was more of an abstract idea rather than something that had to be non-abstractally implemented, a majority of Australians agreed with the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2023_Australian_Indigenous_Voice_referendum or even going back to 2018: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the...rt-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678

However, the "English common law" foundation meant that the transition from majority abstract support to practical reality rejection meant that it failed to achieve something that a majority of Australians can agree upon in the abstract sense of our country being co-sovereign heading forward (even though debates can be had about the ways in which that's implemented), as the debate over the referendum, and the practical nature of the implementation meant that support tanked, and therefore, was not the best way to achieve the goal.

I don’t believe the ‘Voice’ was the correct approach and neither did the populous. Because it didn’t treat people equally before the law, it took in their ancestry/bloodlines. This is the opposite of the move towards liberation and freedom. Liberty and justice are blind.

 

[Malifice]

Go argue with these types of people then.

Mate, there were literal civilizations in Mesopotamia going back twice as long as 3000 years and more. Crops were being planted from 11,000 BCE.

And it depends on how one defines 'civilization'. If its down to language, tool use, customs, culture, ritual, religion, building things etc then it goes back tens of thousands of years more.

 

[Roylion]

Mate, there were literal civilizations in Mesopotamia going back twice as long as 3000 years and more. Crops were being planted from 11,000 BCE.

And it depends on how one defines 'civilization'.

I tend to define a 'civilisation' as a human society that has a degree of urbanisation and a system of government that wields power over the population of that society. As well as this, the society has some sort of writing system for communication, a system of agriculture and a labour force that is at least partially specialised.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

It's their land that was stolen why can't you admit that?

Should I give it back?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Should I give it back?

Other than a few extremists, even the Indigenous community that wants people to accept that the land is stolen, is not asking you the above question. It's a pointless question.

 

[South of the Yarra]

Should I give it back?

Are your Beds Burning?

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Other than a few extremists, even the Indigenous community that wants people to accept that the land is stolen, is not asking you the above question. It's a pointless question.

I’d suggest there is a better way to describe the situation than a simple trope of ‘land is stolen’ then.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Should I give it back?

You should at least listen to Welcome to Country for 2 mins and vote yes to the Voice.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

You should at least listen to Welcome to Country for 2 mins and vote yes to the Voice.

Read my previous posts.

 

[burge13]

You should at least listen to Welcome to Country for 2 mins and vote yes to the Voice.

Then what

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Then what

Then continue to show respect for the custodians of the land you live in without being a smart arse.

 

[Kram]

Are your Beds Burning?

Brilliant song and musician.

Useless politician.

 

[Kram]

Garrat's politics through his music was absolutely brilliant and raised so much awareness but that's where it should have stayed.. if he really had to go there at least be an Independant, joining the Labor party as part of a team lmao.

 

[mighty_lions]

You should at least listen to Welcome to Country for 2 mins and vote yes to the Voice.

clearly you have an agenda also, the referendum that Australia voted NO has nothing to do with welcome to country or the OP

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

clearly you have an agenda also, the referendum that Australia voted NO has nothing to do with welcome to country or the OP

Why do keep saying agenda and why can't you sit through 2 minutes of Welcome to Country.
I know the reason why.

 

[sdfc]

Garrat's politics through his music was absolutely brilliant and raised so much awareness but that's where it should have stayed.. if he really had to go there at least be an Independant, joining the Labor party as part of a team lmao.

Took the hit for Rudd's poorly executed pink batts plan.