Indigenous Groups are Calling for the 'Decolonization' of Australia

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.vice.com/read/indigenous-groups-are-calling-for-the-decolonisation-of-australia

On February 9, members of the National Freedom Movement gathered on the lawns at Parliament House in Canberra to present the Australian minister for Indigenous affairs, Nigel Scullion, with the Aboriginal Sovereign Manifesto of Demands. This document calls for negotiations between the Commonwealth government and Indigenous nations across the country to set out a framework for what's known as "decolonization."

The National Freedom Movement was born out of the Freedom Summit that took place in Alice Springs last November. The summit saw a delegation of Aboriginal leaders from around the nation meeting to declare the independence of Australia's First Peoples and address the growing disparities they face. These include increasing levels of incarceration and suicide, the continuing forced removals of children from their families, and the Western Australian government's intentions to close down up to 150 remote Indigenous communities.

On January 26, the delegates along with 500 supporters converged on Old Parliament House in Canberra to stage a sit-in, protesting the occupation of their land for the last 227 years. When they returned on the day federal parliament reopened to present the manifesto, politicians from both sides of government met with the leaders to discuss their grievances.

The National Freedom Movement is not alone in demanding decolonization. Other Indigenous movements, such as the youth group Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance, are also calling for an end to the colonization of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

So just what would the decolonization of Indigenous Australia entail?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why just Australia? Lets decolonize every nation on the planet. That would mean we all get to live in one tiny spot somewhere in Africa.

 

[Tigers!]

I suppose that when we (the colonisers) leave we could take everything post 1788 with us and leave the countryside as it was on 25/01/1788 but somehow I don't think that is what the decolonisers are after.

Trouble is I don't know where to go. On my mother's side we go back to the 2nd fleet (c. 1790) and my father's side is gold rush Melbourne (c. 1850s).

 

[Bronzeage]

http://www.vice.com/read/indigenous-groups-are-calling-for-the-decolonisation-of-australia

On February 9, members of the National Freedom Movement gathered on the lawns at Parliament House in Canberra to present the Australian minister for Indigenous affairs, Nigel Scullion, with the Aboriginal Sovereign Manifesto of Demands. This document calls for negotiations between the Commonwealth government and Indigenous nations across the country to set out a framework for what's known as "decolonization."

The National Freedom Movement was born out of the Freedom Summit that took place in Alice Springs last November. The summit saw a delegation of Aboriginal leaders from around the nation meeting to declare the independence of Australia's First Peoples and address the growing disparities they face. These include increasing levels of incarceration and suicide, the continuing forced removals of children from their families, and the Western Australian government's intentions to close down up to 150 remote Indigenous communities.

On January 26, the delegates along with 500 supporters converged on Old Parliament House in Canberra to stage a sit-in, protesting the occupation of their land for the last 227 years. When they returned on the day federal parliament reopened to present the manifesto, politicians from both sides of government met with the leaders to discuss their grievances.

The National Freedom Movement is not alone in demanding decolonization. Other Indigenous movements, such as the youth group Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance, are also calling for an end to the colonization of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

So just what would the decolonization of Indigenous Australia entail?

It's not a matter of what it would entail, but a matter of when it would end. The Neanderthals might have a case against the Cro-Magnons.

 

[Metaphor]

I suppose that when we (the colonisers) leave

There are no colonisers. The colonisers are all dead.

 

[bilby]

I suppose that when we (the colonisers) leave

There are no colonisers. The colonisers are all dead.

I'm not. I colonised Australia in the early 1990s.

 

[Metaphor]

There are no colonisers. The colonisers are all dead.

I'm not. I colonised Australia in the early 1990s.

I know you're making a joke, but colonisation is a specific kind of geopolitical act that is not carried out by individuals. Immigrants are not colonists and it doesn't add anything to the debate to pretend they are. Neither are the descendants of colonists, colonists themselves.

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

 

[tupac chopra]

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

Why not? That is, why would it not be morally desirable?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not. I colonised Australia in the early 1990s.

I know you're making a joke, but colonisation is a specific kind of geopolitical act that is not carried out by individuals. Immigrants are not colonists and it doesn't add anything to the debate to pretend they are. Neither are the descendants of colonists, colonists themselves.

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

How would the current aboriginals go about proving they did not replace earlier aboriginals? I don't accept your assertion of geopolitics. Geopolitical it seems is just another form of conquest.

 

[Bronzeage]

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

Why not? That is, why would it not be morally desirable?

You got me there. This doesn't even come close to the "right thing to do."

That does not mean there is not a right thing to do. There is always this kind of conflict when a private property society meets a common property society. There will always be a lot of rationalization and justification, but it is the private property society who believes land and resource can be owned, and also believe it can be stolen. It's interesting to see their reaction when they are accused of theft. It's an attack on their right to ownership.

 

[Metaphor]

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

Why not? That is, why would it not be morally desirable?

Indigenous children are already far more likely to experience disadvantage, and more likely to experience sexual abuse, than non-Indigenous children. Taking these children out of the legal sovereignty of Australia is guaranteed to make that situation worse. That is not morally desirable.

 

[Metaphor]

I know you're making a joke, but colonisation is a specific kind of geopolitical act that is not carried out by individuals. Immigrants are not colonists and it doesn't add anything to the debate to pretend they are. Neither are the descendants of colonists, colonists themselves.

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

How would the current aboriginals go about proving they did not replace earlier aboriginals? I don't accept your assertion of geopolitics. Geopolitical it seems is just another form of conquest.

I'm not sure what you're saying. But yes, historically speaking, later waves of Aboriginal migration may indeed have forced South earlier waves.

 

[bilby]

I know you're making a joke, but colonisation is a specific kind of geopolitical act that is not carried out by individuals. Immigrants are not colonists and it doesn't add anything to the debate to pretend they are. Neither are the descendants of colonists, colonists themselves.

There cannot be Aboriginal sovereignty, because we cannot turn back the hands of time. The entire notion is a fantasy.

But even if it were somehow possible, it would not be morally desirable.

How would the current aboriginals go about proving they did not replace earlier aboriginals? I don't accept your assertion of geopolitics. Geopolitical it seems is just another form of conquest.

The archaeology suggests that the ancestors of the current aboriginals settled in Australia astonishingly soon after humans left Africa. For there to have been an earlier aboriginal settlement that they displaced would have required them to come from Africa using power boats or aircraft, neither of which has yet been found at any archaeological site (although there are many submerged continental shelf sites that have not been, and may never be, examined, and which cannot be proven not to conceal a 40,000+ year old Cat-III runway and the remains of a pre-paleolithic Jumbo Jet).

 

[Axulus]

Why not? That is, why would it not be morally desirable?

Indigenous children are already far more likely to experience disadvantage, and more likely to experience sexual abuse, than non-Indigenous children. Taking these children out of the legal sovereignty of Australia is guaranteed to make that situation worse. That is not morally desirable.

Yes, it sounds like the forced removals of the children taking place that they are complaining about are more often than not necessary (they should be placed with relatives when possible). However, it sounds like the high incarceration rate and the closing of 150 remote communities against those communities' consent are legitimate issues.

I'm really not understanding how declaring independence would do anything to solve the disparities they talk about. I would think it would make them far worse as they receive far more monetary aid from Australian gov't than they pay back in taxes.

 

[Toni]

Why not? That is, why would it not be morally desirable?

Indigenous children are already far more likely to experience disadvantage, and more likely to experience sexual abuse, than non-Indigenous children. Taking these children out of the legal sovereignty of Australia is guaranteed to make that situation worse. That is not morally desirable.

Why is it that indigenous children experience more abuse and disadvantage? What are the specific circumstances which contribute to disadvantage? Abuse?

- - - Updated - - -

Indigenous children are already far more likely to experience disadvantage, and more likely to experience sexual abuse, than non-Indigenous children. Taking these children out of the legal sovereignty of Australia is guaranteed to make that situation worse. That is not morally desirable.

Yes, it sounds like the forced removals of the children taking place that they are complaining about are more often than not necessary (they should be placed with relatives when possible). However, it sounds like the high incarceration rate and the closing of 150 remote communities against those communities' consent are legitimate issues.

I'm really not understanding how declaring independence would do anything to solve the disparities they talk about. I would think it would make them far worse as they receive far more monetary aid from Australian gov't than they pay back in taxes.

Wouldn't that depend upon the source of the wealth of the Australian government and business communities?

 

[Tigers!]

I suppose that when we (the colonisers) leave

There are no colonisers. The colonisers are all dead.

Yesterday (23/2) I bumped into two (2) aboriginal ladies (not really though) on the tram. They were loud, obnoxious, vulgar and crass. Amongst the obscenities they hurled at those they deemed white trash (which includes kiwis, Asians et al) was the demand that the colonisers leave.
To such people the colonisers/occupiers are not dead, we are still here.

Such will never be satisfied except by our leaving or extinction.

 

[Tigers!]

Yes, it sounds like the forced removals of the children taking place that they are complaining about are more often than not necessary (they should be placed with relatives when possible). However, it sounds like the high incarceration rate and the closing of 150 remote communities against those communities' consent are legitimate issues.

It could be decided that 150 non-aboriginal, remote communities would close due to financial unviability and no one would bat an eyelid. If those communities didn't like it, tough toenails.

The colour of the community does matter, though it seems.

Be careful about falling into the 'stolen generation' (alleged or not forced removal of aboriginal children) trap. It appears the reporting of this overseas is very inaccurate.

 

[tupac chopra]

Be careful about falling into the 'stolen generation' (alleged or not forced removal of aboriginal children) trap. It appears the reporting of this overseas is very inaccurate.

In what way is it inaccurate?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How would the current aboriginals go about proving they did not replace earlier aboriginals? I don't accept your assertion of geopolitics. Geopolitical it seems is just another form of conquest.

The archaeology suggests that the ancestors of the current aboriginals settled in Australia astonishingly soon after humans left Africa. For there to have been an earlier aboriginal settlement that they displaced would have required them to come from Africa using power boats or aircraft, neither of which has yet been found at any archaeological site (although there are many submerged continental shelf sites that have not been, and may never be, examined, and which cannot be proven not to conceal a 40,000+ year old Cat-III runway and the remains of a pre-paleolithic Jumbo Jet).

But we don't know if those original aboriginals arrived over a period of several thousand years in several waves. If they did then only the aboriginal aboriginals can lay claim.

 

[repoman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia

This is wiki, so it is very cursory. But it is interesting:

Including this:

The direct cause of the mass extinctions is uncertain: it may have been fire, hunting, climate change or a combination of all or any of these factors, although the rapid decline of many species is still a matter of dispute.[23] With no large herbivores to keep the understorey vegetation down and rapidly recycle soil nutrients with their dung, fuel build-up became more rapid and fires burned hotter, further changing the landscape. Against this theory is the evidence that in fact careful seasonal fires from Aboriginal land management practices reduced fuel loads, and prevent wildfires like those seen since European settlement.[24]

The period from 18,000 to 15,000 years ago saw increased aridity of the continent with lower temperatures and less rainfall than currently prevails. Between 16,000 and 14,000 years BP the rate of sea level rise was most rapid rising about 50 feet in 300 years according to Peter D. Ward.[25] At the end of the Pleistocene, roughly 13,000 years ago, the Torres Strait connection, the Bassian Plain between modern-day Victoria and Tasmania, and the link from Kangaroo Island began disappearing under the rising sea.

50 feet in 300 years!?!?!? Yikes!