Aborigines mark 40 years as 'human beings'

Zebra3

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/australasia/aborigines-mark-40-years-as-human-beings-684824.html

Aborigines mark 40 years as 'human beings'

Saturday May 26 2007

EXTRAORDINARY though it seems, it was not until 1967 that Australian Aborigines were recognised as citizens of their own country.

Before that they were classified as native wildlife, along with kangaroos and koalas.

This weekend Aborigines are converging on Canberra, the national capital, to celebrate the 40th anniversary of a referendum that led to the constitution being amended.

The anniversary is a reminder of the massive inequalities that still exist in housing, health, education, employment and life expectancy.

Until the referendum, Aborigines were not, officially, human beings. They were "flora and fauna". They were confined to white-controlled reserves and forbidden to travel without special permission. They were not allowed in pubs, and were paid wages in meat and salt.

While some traditional lands have been handed back to indigenous people, they remain, on thewhole, marginalised - socially, politically andeconomically.

Ms Burney is one of only a handful of Aboriginalpoliticians. The same istrue of academia and the professions.

Many communities are blighted by alcoholism and violence.

Black Australians are still waiting for an official apology to the "Stolen Generation" - the thousands of children forcibly removed from their families and assimilated into white society, under a policy introduced early last century and not abandoned until 1975.

For the past decade the Prime Minister, John Howard, has resisted calls to apologise.

- Kathy Marks

I knew they had been discriminated (to put it mildly) in the past, but that is absolutely shocking. :eek:

karen3212

I don't know about an apology,

I'm not sure whether it happened or not, but someone told me Tony Blair apoligised for the famine - I felt very insulted by that.

I would feel very insulted by an apology for the famine,

so I'm thinking aboriginies might feel insulted by an apology too,

don't know though.

Yes it's disgusting that people ever think they are in some way more human than others - whether because of skin colour, nationality, how they speak - any other ridiculous markers.

daiixi

Blah blah blah. Noone forces Aborigines to drink or to beat each other up. They are given money to attend school so it's their own fault if they don't go and get a proper education. In fact there's a huge amount of negative discrimination against the rest of the Australian population so that those Aborigines who do want to make something of themselves have every opportunity to do so.
They don't want their way of life back and most of the time when they are given "sacred" land back they sell it off to the highest bidder.
John Howard has apologised a number of times however it's not an official apology from the country which would lead to even more claims of compensation and return of land.
Were the Aborigines hard done by when the Brits arrived? Yes a lot were but tough ****. I had nothing to do with it so why should my government apologise on my behalf?
Women haven't been treated as equals forever either yet I don't see us likely to get an official apology from men any time soon.
./edit What about the Maori's in New Zealand? Noone in the rest of the world actually seems to care that when the Maori's arrived they wiped out the native population and "colonised" the county. People just care that the "white man" turned up and wronged the "locals"

brianthebard

Daiixi providing opportunities for aboriginies is not negative discrimination (your use of the word negative speaks volumes btw). The op has shown quite clearly that Aboriginies have been discriminated against for centuries, and continue to be discriminated against to a large extent. If you don't think that all the equality acts that have been passed to amend gender discrimination doesn't count as an apology then that's fine, but really gender equality has been pushed so much more than ethnic equality and I don't know why you can respect one but not the other. Smacks of selfishness tbh.

daiixi

It's not my word brianthebard it's the word used all over the world.
As for the equality acts being passed equalling an apology to women then does the referendum and subsequent law making to make Aborigines "humans" rather than "fauna and flora" and full citizens not equal an apology? You can't have it work one way for women and another way for Aborigines.
Anyway, women continue to be discriminated against. Whether I actually care about that is neither here nor there - it's just a fact.
Another fact is that a white 20 to 40 year old is most likely to be discriminated against in Australia.
Tbh I don't care if I sound selfish. I don't see why I should have to pay (literally) for something which I didn't do. For something most of my ancestors (having arrived in Australia in the late fifties) did not do. /edit: If the government issues an official apology then they will open pathways for land to be reclaimed. Like the land my parents bought in the 70's and own. Land which could just be taken off them because someone a couple of hundred years ago ****ed up.
If the Aborigines really want an apology then maybe they should start looking at the British who colonised Australia and declared terra nullius in the first place.

Actually you know what? I've been discriminated against all my life in Australia. Imagine going to school with kids whose parents earn twice the amount that yours do yet they get paid to go to school because they're an eighth Aboriginal. Imagine being told there's no place for you in the university course you want to do because an Aboriginal with a significantly lower score than you wants to do the course and they have a quota to fill. Not only that but their fees are reduced because they're Aboroginal.

My grandparents arrived in Australia with nothing and paid their dues working for the government for two years for the "privilege" of being allowed to live in Australia and now I have to pay for this as well? Well excuse me for being selfish.

brianthebard

Discriminated against by who? How? Are you saying that whites in that age group now make up the majority of the poor, the lower classes, the oppressed in Australia? You're not making much sense daiixi.

karen3212

Well, lets face it, the whites haven't really been in Australia that long, you know, perhaps the Aboriginies will take back more of the country eventually;)

DublinWriter

Zebra3 wrote:

I knew they had been discriminated (to put it mildly) in the past, but that is absolutely shocking. :eek:

Almost as shocking as Switzerland not allowing women to have the vote until 1971.

For the record, the New Zealanders were a hell of a lot better in their treatment of the Mauris.

You also need to compare what Australia did with similar regeimes in the US and South Africa at the time.

Like the native Americans, the late introduction of alcohol arguably decimated the culture. I've heard similar theories about the Celts, as we were also late arrivals to the sauce.

brianthebard

How late are you suggesting? The greeks had wine, and the keltoi people's (whoever they were) traded with them, so they weren't much more than a few hundred years behind.

vorbis

dalixi i realise you have personal interests in mind when it comes to this topic. However, its far fetched to think that centuries of inequality just vanish overnight. People make the same arguments regarding black and native american people in the US.

Wealth is passed down through a family. Most people in Ireland with a college education did so with the aid of their parents. From age 1 to age 22, the parents financially supported that person. He / she will likely go on to have kids that will go to college.

I look back at my family's history and as far back as my great grandfather on both sides, they were doing ok money wise. I don't know your situation dalixi but a lot of people don't realise just how lucky they really are.

Time Magazine

DublinWriter wrote:

Almost as shocking as Switzerland not allowing women to have the vote until 1971.

Are you saying that no women voted in Switzerland before 1971?

karen3212

I hope thee ladies don't take this the wrong way, as I am ee ladee myself,
but I'd say the Swiss women are too busy shopping to vote much even today. I dont know if that is true, but I'm guessing?

Zambia

karen3212 wrote:

I hope thee ladies don't take this the wrong way, as I am ee ladee myself,
but I'd say the Swiss women are too busy shopping to vote much even today. I dont know if that is true, but I'm guessing?

Theres a shocking statement , I am sure some swiss WAG types wouldnt care but no need for that really off guess.

As for the aborigines yes it is pretty shocking. But its all well and good applying our 21st century ethos on a time when communications where a lot more basic and attitudes a lot worse. Education was not as prevalent and cruelty was almost part of daily life.

To be honest im just sick of folk asking for apologies all the time for actions performed by their ancestors before them.

My great grand father could be Employee of the Month at Auchswitz , but in no way would I feel responsible for his actions nor feel i should apologise.

daiixi

brianthebard wrote:

Discriminated against by who? How? Are you saying that whites in that age group now make up the majority of the poor, the lower classes, the oppressed in Australia? You're not making much sense daiixi.

The government/employers. Just because they have the numbers to *look* like they're not doesn't mean they aren't.

All I'm saying is that yes, something bad happened but bad things happen all the time. However I should not have to give up my land or have millions if not billions of my tax dollars go towards "sorry" payments to people who are, say, an eighth Aborigine and have grown up with the same opportunities as me. And there are plenty of Aborigines to take full advantage of those opportunities. Plus I will stress again that noone forces anyone to drink in Australia. If you choose to be an alcoholic then whinge you can't get an education, job or housing then you really need to take a long hard look at yourself before you whinge to me.

Zambia

daiixi wrote:

Plus I will stress again that noone forces anyone to drink in Australia.

Thats a lie my mates did

Akrasia

daiixi wrote:

The government/employers. Just because they have the numbers to *look* like they're not doesn't mean they aren't.

All I'm saying is that yes, something bad happened but bad things happen all the time. However I should not have to give up my land or have millions if not billions of my tax dollars go towards "sorry" payments to people who are,

And the Aboriginals should not have had to 'give up their land' to your grandparents.
Your attitude is 'Bad things happened in the past, I don't give a ****, it's not my fault. But from now on, from this point onwards, whoever 'owns' the land and resources is the rightful owner, and the dispossessed are trying to steal my rightful property.
(oh and I didn't know you were a billionaire that billions of 'Your' tax dollars should go towards 'sorry payments'. It's awfully nice of you to shoulder the entire Australian tax burden all by yourself.
If you do the sums, it's more likely that only a few hundred of 'your tax dollars' (or less) would be spent on trying to make amends for the harm your ancestors did to these people (even tho they weren't even classified as people back then).

The wealth you have now, was stolen from the native population who your ancestors and the British empire cast into abject poverty (and murdered by their hundreds of thousands). It is your responsibility to try and repair that destruction and help them recover from the devastation caused by your arrival.

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

The wealth you have now, was stolen from the native population who your ancestors and the British empire cast into abject poverty (and murdered by their hundreds of thousands). It is your responsibility to try and repair that destruction and help them recover from the devastation caused by your arrival.

Why ?

You do realise that a large number of Irishmen did the acts you spoke of we stole their land and killed them along with the British.

Should the Irish goverment be forced to pay reparitions to the aboriginals as our ancestors commited these crimes along with or for the British Goverment.

If the british didnt come along and do it someone else would have at the time.

I know of no law currently impeding an aboriginals personnal career in Australia.

brianthebard

daiixi wrote:

The government/employers. Just because they have the numbers to *look* like they're not doesn't mean they aren't.

All I'm saying is that yes, something bad happened but bad things happen all the time. However I should not have to give up my land or have millions if not billions of my tax dollars go towards "sorry" payments to people who are, say, an eighth Aborigine and have grown up with the same opportunities as me. And there are plenty of Aborigines to take full advantage of those opportunities. Plus I will stress again that noone forces anyone to drink in Australia. If you choose to be an alcoholic then whinge you can't get an education, job or housing then you really need to take a long hard look at yourself before you whinge to me.

What about your tax dollars that go to social welfare for white Australians? Does that bother you as much? I suspect not. The point of giving opportunities to underprivileged minorities is to try and help them become part of a society so they can contribute. If the government educates Aborigines, it means they get better jobs, meaning more tax, which goes back to helping the less well off. If a minority of a minority abuse this system (in your eyes at least) then that's unfortunate but..tough. You're just whinging at this stage. I doubt you don't take advantages of grants, scholarships, or any other benefits that are available to you, that might benefit someone less well off than you.

Zombrex

daiixi wrote:

However I should not have to give up my land or have millions if not billions of my tax dollars go towards "sorry" payments to people who are, say, an eighth Aborigine and have grown up with the same opportunities as me.

God stop complaining! Its not like you have it that bad. Bad things happen all the time, stop complaining and get over it ....


shoe, let me introduce you to the other foot :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Zambia232 wrote:

Why ?

You do realise that a large number of Irishmen did the acts you spoke of we stole their land and killed them along with the British.

Should the Irish goverment be forced to pay reparitions to the aboriginals as our ancestors commited these crimes along with or for the British Goverment.

If the british didnt come along and do it someone else would have at the time.

I know of no law currently impeding an aboriginals personnal career in Australia.

First of all, The Irish government didn't exist back then, Second of all, many of the Irish who went to Australia were sent there against their will, and thirdly, the Irish didn't build an empire by stealing land and resources from conquered peoples. The British stole from the aboriginals. Their empire grew fat through murder and theft. If there is any justice in the world, reparations should be made. (of course, when greed and justice ever meet face to face, greed almost always triumphs)

The British government should make a gesture of reparations, but the responsibility lies most heavily with the Australian people and government who are still benefiting from a nation built on stolen land. It is not too much to expect a portion of the Australian national product to be spent trying to undo some of the damage caused while the nation of Australia was being built.

FTA69

daiixi wrote:

Blah blah blah. Noone forces Aborigines to drink or to beat each other up.

The reason many of them are addicted to alcoho is because alcohol was used as a means of subduing them as a people.

In fact there's a huge amount of negative discrimination against the rest of the Australian population

I know, the poor white Australians are hard done by alright, what with their crippling poverty and life expectancy of 60. :rolleyes:

At the end of the day if you can't even admit the wrongs done to the Aboriginals as a people, or recognise the effects they've had on their society today, you seriously need to re-evaluate your position on the issue. If anything it comes from guilt I'd say, and your insecurity over the fact you know full well what you have was stolen from someone else.

Zambia

Akrasia wrote:

First of all, The Irish government didn't exist back then, Second of all, many of the Irish who went to Australia were sent there against their will, and thirdly, the Irish didn't build an empire by stealing land and resources from conquered peoples.

Plenty went under there own steam Im sure and just because the british where in power we where still active in their military and the whole united kingdom.

The British stole from the aboriginals. Their empire grew fat through murder and theft.

Dont most empires back then peace and love never created any empires , granted there may have been no need for them but back then I am sure people thought different.


If there is any justice in the world, reparations should be made. (of course, when greed and justice ever meet face to face, greed almost always triumphs)

Yes thats true but thats the nature of man if the abogrinals where a strong sea faring nation they would have probably wiped out New Zuland

Akrasia wrote:

The British government should make a gesture of reparations, but the responsibility lies most heavily with the Australian people and government who are still benefiting from a nation built on stolen land. It is not too much to expect a portion of the Australian national product to be spent trying to undo some of the damage caused while the nation of Australia was being built.

I know lets kick the white australian farmers of their lands and give it to a load of aboriginals ...

It doesnt work it will only breed resentment amoung other australians against the aboriginals.

brianthebard

Saying the Aborginies would've wiped out NZ is silly on a whole new level. For a start, the Aborginies had to travel the Pacific ocean to get to Australia. So that point is moot.

Fratton Fred

is there a kind of Godwins law that states that everything discussed on a politics board will somehow end up being the fault of the British

An apology is one thing, but I don't see what that achieves other than giving someone a warm glow inside that their "Plight" has been recognised.

As for reperations, I really don't see how this would work. Who pays who, for what and how much? What have people actually lost? is their life better or worse because of the arrival of europeans?

Too may ifs and buts to actually compensate someone for it.

BigTommyBomb

The British stole from the aboriginals. Their empire grew fat through murder and theft.

Thats how the world works I'm afraid. One tribe conquering another. We are the descendants of succesive conquering tribes and peoples and its the same the world over.

Austrailan aboriginal trips were though of as animals for years and you can't really fault the logic behind that decision. They were at the time the most primitive human society for reasons due to their geographic location. Its only with the benefit of modern research can we trace their human hertiage.

Zambia

brianthebard wrote:

Saying the Aborginies would've wiped out NZ is silly on a whole new level. For a start, the Aborginies had to travel the Pacific ocean to get to Australia. So that point is moot.

Granted its not a piont I am going to go into to heavily , I have no idea what a large sea faring aboriginal Nation would have achieved.

But in essence its survival of the fittest...

Currently i eat meat , large numbers of Animals are slaughtered to satisfy this habit of eating meat. I see no issue with my breed enslaving and killing another breed as its currently how we live.

If in 50 - 80 years someone invents an animal translator and finds out what they think. This leads to laws that animals are declared equal to humans. Should my great grand children be paying reparition to the animals rights movement.

No they shouldnt as at present I dont know any better...

This is exactly why there are different laws for the under 18's as they need time to develop.

tallus

BigTommyBomb wrote:

Thats how the world works I'm afraid. One tribe conquering another. We are the descendants of succesive conquering tribes and peoples and its the same the world over.

Austrailan aboriginal trips were though of as animals for years and you can't really fault the logic behind that decision. They were at the time the most primitive human society for reasons due to their geographic location. Its only with the benefit of modern research can we trace their human hertiage.

They lived in harmony with the land, .. I dont see how that makes them out to be like animals. Your comment smacks of racism and small mindedness. Also I thought they were the oldest human civilisation as they have been around for circa 20,000 years.
I find it hard to understand how you can think of them as animals.

Akrasia

BigTommyBomb wrote:

Austrailan aboriginal trips were though of as animals for years and you can't really fault the logic behind that decision. They were at the time the most primitive human society for reasons due to their geographic location. Its only with the benefit of modern research can we trace their human hertiage.

What on earth are you talking about!!!
You're saying that Aboriginies are so far removed from us humans, that we had to use Genetic technology to prove that they are homo Sapiens?

Rubbish. Aboriginals had complex societies, they had language culture, history, technology. They were no less human than the animals who raped and murdered them.

What you said is an absolute disgrace and shows how truly ignorant some people are about very recent history.

Nobody really thought they were sub human, that was just an excuse used to justify the atrocities carried out against them (the same 'sub human' excuses were used against Irish people and Black slaves.

It's an absolute disgrace that the wealthy called themselves 'civilized' when they were monsterous in their behaviour (and continue to be so)

Akrasia

Fratton Fred wrote:

is there a kind of Godwins law that states that everything discussed on a politics board will somehow end up being the fault of the British

'godwins law? We're talking about the genocide of almost an entire race of people by the British empire. Of course it's relevant to bring the British into this. Australia is still part of the commonwealth by the way, The Queen is still their head of state.

As for reperations, I really don't see how this would work. Who pays who, for what and how much? What have people actually lost? is their life better or worse because of the arrival of europeans?

Life for the millions of aboriginies who were wiped out over 140 years of British rule is certainly worse. Living conditions for the hundreds of thousands of Aboriginals in ghettos 'reserves' and 'missions' isn't anything to celebrate either.
There doesn't have to be actual transfer payments to survivers of the Australian genocide. But there absolutely should be far more resources put into these desperately poor communities to try and give them back some dignity and opportunity.

BigTommyBomb

It's an absolute disgrace that the wealthy called themselves 'civilized' when they were monsterous in their behaviour (and continue to be so)

Thats a very naive viewpoint. All humans are driven by the same instints and desires. It is a racist viewpoint to assume that western civilisation is evil and that all the other civilisations in the world just wanted to go about their happy business. Every tribe seeks to dominate, expand and destroy other tribes. If you know anything about history you will know that this is not just a western imperialist phenomen. Aboriginal tribes fought with each other. When tribes got big enough and settled into food producing chiefdoms they fought with other chiefdoms. The victors would gerneally either commit the losing side to slavery or commit genocide. Thats what humans do.

BigTommyBomb

I find it hard to understand how you can think of them as animals.

I don't think of them as animals. To a British observor looking at them a century ago they would have looked like animals.
They are hunter gatherers who lived in small bands. They had no craft to speak of except for the most primitive tools. No communities, no farming, no writing. What is there to seperate them from animals?

Fratton Fred

Akrasia wrote:

But there absolutely should be far more resources put into these desperately poor communities to try and give them back some dignity and opportunity.

it sounds like that is happening already. But because they are poor, does that mean they are worse off than they would have been if europeans hadn't turned up? is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

Zambia

Fratton Fred wrote:

it sounds like that is happening already. But because they are poor, does that mean they are worse off than they would have been if europeans hadn't turned up? is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

There are some things in place for the Indiginous Australians , please note Aborigines is apparently not PC

In 2004 Prime Minister John Howard initiated contracts with Aboriginal communities, where substantial financial benefits are available in return for commitments such as ensuring children wash regularly and attend school. These contracts are known as Shared Responsibility Agreements.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred, the question of living as they had before it a whole other philosophical/anthropological issue. The question should not be would they be worse off if Britain had not interfered, it should be would they be living as they saw fit, having been able to decide their own destiny?
Zambie, aborigines mean the original or first people. I don't see why its not pc, its used in several other instances for the same reason.

Zambia

brianthebard wrote:

Zambie, aborigines mean the original or first people. I don't see why its not pc, its used in several other instances for the same reason.

You have my complete agreement However Wiki disagrees with us

Note that the use of "Aborigine(s)" or "Aboriginal(s)" in this sense, i.e. as a noun, has acquired negative, even derogatory connotations among some sectors of the community, who regard it as insensitive, and even offensive. The more acceptable and correct expression is "Aboriginal Australians" or "Aboriginal people", though even this is sometimes regarded as an expression to be avoided because of its historical associations with colonialism. "Indigenous Australians" has found increasing acceptance, particularly since the 1980s.

monosharp

Zambia232 wrote:

Why ?

You do realise that a large number of Irishmen did the acts you spoke of we stole their land and killed them along with the British.

Should the Irish goverment be forced to pay reparitions to the aboriginals as our ancestors commited these crimes along with or for the British Goverment.

If the british didnt come along and do it someone else would have at the time.

I know of no law currently impeding an aboriginals personnal career in Australia.

In fairness being an Irish Catholic back then would probably have being as bad as being aboriginal.

In the USA being an Irish Catholic was far worse then being a black slave, simply because slaves were expensive.

Akrasia

Fratton Fred wrote:

it sounds like that is happening already. But because they are poor, does that mean they are worse off than they would have been if europeans hadn't turned up? is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

They didn't just live in the desert, Most lived in the fertile temperate areas around the coast of Australia. They were forced into the desert (or exterminated/asymilated) when the British came and requisitioned all the best arable land for themselves

And they weren't all 'hunter gatherers' as has been claimed here. Many Aboriginal people farmed the land , kept herds of livestock or fished the rivers and seas and supplemented their diet with whatever nature could provide for them

BigTommyBomb

kept herds of livestock or fished the rivers and seas and supplemented their diet with whatever nature could provide for them
Today 17:31

Not true. What livestock did they keep? What plants did they harvest?

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

Fratton Fred, the question of living as they had before it a whole other philosophical/anthropological issue. The question should not be would they be worse off if Britain had not interfered, it should be would they be living as they saw fit, having been able to decide their own destiny?
Zambie, aborigines mean the original or first people. I don't see why its not pc, its used in several other instances for the same reason.

agreed, but how do you compensate for that? to offer compensation you need to put a value on a loss and how do you put a value on it?

give them funding to go to school and start their own business? but that's just making them conform to european standards and hardly compensates them for losing their original way of life.

brianthebard

Fratton Fred wrote:

agreed, but how do you compensate for that? to offer compensation you need to put a value on a loss and how do you put a value on it?

give them funding to go to school and start their own business? but that's just making them conform to european standards and hardly compensates them for losing their original way of life.

What? You can't go back in time man. White Australia is there to stay, as police of the pacific these days it seems. What you can do is offer the poor and less fortunate of society regardless of their ethnic background the opportunity to better themselves, which is the point I've been making all along. I'm not the one who thinks that we need reparations.

Fratton Fred

brianthebard wrote:

What? You can't go back in time man. White Australia is there to stay, as police of the pacific these days it seems. What you can do is offer the poor and less fortunate of society regardless of their ethnic background the opportunity to better themselves, which is the point I've been making all along. I'm not the one who thinks that we need reparations.

100% agree on that.

stovelid

Akrasia wrote:

First of all, The Irish government didn't exist back then, Second of all, many of the Irish who went to Australia were sent there against their will, and thirdly, the Irish didn't build an empire by stealing land and resources from conquered peoples. The British stole from the aboriginals. Their empire grew fat through murder and theft. If there is any justice in the world, reparations should be made. (of course, when greed and justice ever meet face to face, greed almost always triumphs)

.

The politics forum is getting better. We got 20 posts into the thread before the sassnach bashing started.

Like another poster said, I have had it with the 'truth' and tribunal culture. The past happened and is regrettable, sometimes terrible. The current generation should not feel guilty or be obliged to right the wrongs of their forefathers.

Offer every help to aborginals -and any other disadvantaged group - that we can and end prejudice by all means but lets drop this constant blame culture.

FTA69

BigTommyBomb wrote:

I don't think of them as animals. To a British observor looking at them a century ago they would have looked like animals.
They are hunter gatherers who lived in small bands. They had no craft to speak of except for the most primitive tools. No communities, no farming, no writing. What is there to seperate them from animals?

Primitive tools? They could make sticks that came back when thrown, boomerangs took days to construct owing to the continuous planing and carving. They recognised the habits and properites of hundreds of different plants and animals from which they survived. They had knowledge of the movements of the stars as well as knowing basic medicinal properties of some plants and the need to apply heat to relieve pain and pressure to stop bleeding.

More importantly they had the same feelings as me or you (however racist you may be), they had dreams, aspirations, love for their families. And they suffered the same pain as you would if everything you had was stripped from you.

MoominPapa

Fratton Fred wrote:

is living off welfare worse than living off whatever you can find in the dessert?

Well the queues aren't as bad in the desert

podgerodge

FTA69 wrote:

Primitive tools? They could make sticks that came back when thrown, boomerangs took days to construct owing to the continuous planing and carving.

fair enough they used boomerangs. big deal

stovelid

podgerodge wrote:

fair enough they used boomerangs. big deal

Consider FTA69 spanked roundly by that comeback eh

FTA69

fair enough they used boomerangs. big deal

The point was that they had knowledge of wordworking and the physics invovled in making a boomerang.

daiixi

brianthebard wrote:

What? You can't go back in time man. White Australia is there to stay, as police of the pacific these days it seems. What you can do is offer the poor and less fortunate of society regardless of their ethnic background the opportunity to better themselves, which is the point I've been making all along. I'm not the one who thinks that we need reparations.

Er.. "White Australia" ????