If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   Australia bans hot Bruce-on-Bruce, Sheila-on-Sheila action   (theguardian.com) divider line 21
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3946 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2013 at 2:25 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-11 11:07:11 PM  
5 votes:
Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)
2013-12-11 11:29:44 PM  
4 votes:

ArkAngel: optikeye: ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.

Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?

I'm not defending the practices done by the governments in years past, but the problems have existed for quite some time in both places.


You might want to read about the motivations. It wasn't to remove children from poverty, or alcoholic homes...it was about protecting white racial purity and nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations
2013-12-11 11:03:11 PM  
4 votes:
2013-12-11 11:11:45 PM  
3 votes:

Benevolent Misanthrope: Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.


It must be pretty embarrassing for them that South Africa is more progressive on marriage equality than they are.
2013-12-12 07:55:58 AM  
2 votes:
i.imgur.com
What Bruce on Bruce action might look like.
2013-12-12 04:54:44 AM  
2 votes:

Elegy: Don't kid yourself. Most of the children taken from the stolen generation were half aboriginal and half white, and many of them actually lived in horrendous living conditions surrounded by alcoholism, extreme poverty, sexual abuse, and violence.


Which is a relatively recent phenomena, it's really gotten worse in the last 25 years. The uptick in violence, sexual abuse and alcoholism is associated with the decline of economy in remote Australia. Jobs traditionally taken up by Indigenous Australians in remote areas, such as being a Drover, have basically become non-existent.

Elegy: Or perhaps they were rooted in.... a rapidly declining aboriginal population?


Despite what wikipedia might tell you, there is no evidence of a decline in the indigenous populations, we have no evidence of the population of Aboriginals at all. As you should apparently know, indigenous populations  were purposely excluded from the census, it wasn't until the 1960's that we even knew many Aboriginals there were.

Do you have a source?


Elegy: Yeah, thanks, but I've read all of this, I know all about the stolen generation. And the grog laws. And the massacres. And the Tasmanian genocide. And the switch in the official stance from one of integration to one of self-determination. Etc. I've seen the videos, the interviews, and I've read the primary sources.


I would like some sources then. You've claimed that Child protection was one of the motivating factors of the stolen generation, it should relatively easy too find sources for it.
2013-12-12 04:13:27 AM  
2 votes:

optikeye: ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.

Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?



Originally it was a eugenics program. I'm sure there was the idea of a social welfare behind it, but indefensible. The aboriginal people weren't allowed to vote, or considered people until 1969, they were considered "flora and fauna"
2013-12-12 02:32:10 AM  
2 votes:
Who'd have thought a bunch of sunstroked, kangaroo punching, Fosters chugging English criminals would be so uptight?
2013-12-11 11:15:40 PM  
2 votes:

ArkAngel: optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)

Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.


Shouldn't that be done on a case by case basis? Instead of routinely removing children without due cause?
Did any of those parents stop drinking, get a better job and have their cases heard in court and back custody of their children? Or was just a policy to kidnap their children for 're-education' based on race and nothing else?
2013-12-11 10:50:55 PM  
2 votes:
Congratulations, Australia.  You've now lived up to your Commonwealth reputation of being "real" countries' embarrassing backwater ignoramus cousin.
2013-12-11 10:42:38 PM  
2 votes:
Well that sucks. Er, stinks. Whatever, it's not good
2013-12-12 12:35:48 PM  
1 votes:
"I come from the land down under"

i.telegraph.co.uk
2013-12-12 09:12:12 AM  
1 votes:

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


Yeah, no one here in the US would EVER do that.
2013-12-12 07:37:56 AM  
1 votes:

Evilnissan: Can we ship all of our Tea Party people over there?

Asides from their strick gun laws it seems like a good place for them.


It really isn't. Even conservative Australians seem bewildered by TPers. Wait, they DON'T want everyone to have Medicare?!? What, it isn't Medicare, it's private insurance? How is that Communism again? They're complaining about WHAT tax rate?
2013-12-12 02:41:47 AM  
1 votes:

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


That's around the same time Irish priests stopped taking infants from potentially "bad" mothers and sending them off for adoption, so par for the course.

Australia never fails to astonish me: they seem like they should be the most progressive of English-speaking nations, but then they do shiat like this which makes the USA look good.

/We closed down the Indian Schools (where they taught skills like clarinet and water polo) decades ago
//obscure?
2013-12-12 02:37:40 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: I talked to an actual black person once


That must have been thrilling for you. Do you tell stories about your black friend now?

andrewmoriarty: It was definitively it was was about race


Nobody ever said it wasn't.

andrewmoriarty: even the theories about a declining population was rooted in paternalistic white supremacy.


Or perhaps they were rooted in.... a rapidly declining aboriginal population?

andrewmoriarty: Also, the
whole bit about child protection is total nonsense and little more then after the fact rationalizations


Don't kid yourself. Most of the children taken from the stolen generation were half aboriginal and half white, and many of them actually lived in horrendous living conditions surrounded by alcoholism, extreme poverty, sexual abuse, and violence. Not to mention being ostracized from their "communities" for being born mixed raced.

Even today aboriginal children are 4.3 times more likely to be sexually abused as a child, and that number is considered to be vastly underreported.

In fact, according to the report linked above, as of June 2001 there were 4,073 aboriginal children that had been removed from their families because of abuse (sexual or otherwise) or neglect. To quote:

Statistics from the Western Australian criminal justice system reveal that in 2000, the rate of reports to police of sexual assault of Indigenous girls was approximately double that of non-Indigenous girls (Ferrante and Fernandez 2002, reported in Gordon, Hallahan and Henry 2002). Yet it is estimated that less than 30 per cent of sexual assaults on children are actually reported to police and that this reporting rate is lower in Indigenous communities than non-Indigenous communities. Further, it was noted in the Robertson Report (2000) that 88 per cent of all rapes in Indigenous communities go unreported. Thus, it would appear that the documented extent of assault in Indigenous communities is just the tip of the iceberg.

So you tell me - is the policy of removing aboriginal children from their families today driven exclusively by racism?

andrewmoriarty: A report by the attorney general, concluded that it was "an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Indigenous families, communities and cultures, vital to the precious and inalienable heritage of Australia."

You can read a more detailed report here, with witness testimony here.


Yeah, thanks, but I've read all of this, I know all about the stolen generation. And the grog laws. And the massacres. And the Tasmanian genocide. And the switch in the official stance from one of integration to one of self-determination. Etc. I've seen the videos, the interviews, and I've read the primary sources.

Look, I'm not saying the stolen generation wasn't a terrible thing to do - it was. I'm not saying that many of the people who supported and implemented the policies weren't racist - they were. I'm not saying that there isn't still quite a lot of racism in Australia against aboriginies - there is.

But saying the "stolen generation was exclusively about white supremacy" is retarded. Nothing so complex is ever about one single thing, and saying this ignores the enormously complex social issues that underlie aboriginal relations.

Just as an example, focusing solely on the stolen generation ignores Australia's wider historical predilection for stealing people's babies for the babies' own good. Estimates as to the size of the stolen generation range from lows of 20,00-100,000 children taken from 1910-1970; during the period 1930-1970 around 250,000-450,000 white babies were forcibly taken from their mothers, usually for the crime of being unwed, unfit, or poor. Of course, acknowledging that there was a wider governmental policy of stealing everybody's - whether white or black - doesn't allow you to tie up the stolen generation into a neat little package that says "racism," does it?

It's nice to treat racism as the big bad bogey man - the sole reason bad things happen. It reduces the big scary world to something simple that you can understand. It makes you look pretty stupid to anyone that is actually knowledgeable about the subject, but hey, whatever works for you.
2013-12-12 02:29:37 AM  
1 votes:
Better headline I wish I'd submitted:

Rules 1, 3, 5, and 7 upheld by the Supreme Court of Woolamaloo.
2013-12-12 12:55:50 AM  
1 votes:

Elegy: There were a lot of rationales behind the stolen generation - and not all of them were rooted in white superiority. Quite a number of them relied on anthropological-esque notions of protecting a declining population by attempting to integrate it with the majority population. The fact that some well intentioned individuals doesn't mitigate the fact that it was a horrible thing to do, but it was and is a complex and controversial topic.


It was definitively it was was about race, even the theories about a declining population was rooted in paternalistic white supremacy. Also, the whole bit about child protection is total nonsense and little more then after the fact rationalizations.

A report by the attorney general, concluded that it was "an act of genocide, aimed at wiping out Indigenous families, communities and cultures, vital to the precious and inalienable heritage of Australia."

You can read a more detailed report here, with witness testimony here.
2013-12-12 12:41:21 AM  
1 votes:

andrewmoriarty: The Federal Government wasn't defending Stolen generations, it saying that what it was doing at the time was not unlawful, as the civil suit alleges.


i865.photobucket.com
2013-12-11 11:11:34 PM  
1 votes:

optikeye: Consider, it wasn't until the 70's they stopped the practice of routinely removing children from Aboriginal families. To be placed in group homes with no other reason then they were 'black' or 'half black' children.

Imagine, someone shows up at your home and takes you children for no other reason than the color of the skin and there's NOTHING you can (legally) do about it. It's a shameful part of history and so recent too, and the whites still defend their actions.

Australian Government defends forced relocation of Aboriginal children. (from 1999)


Unfortunately, Australian Aboriginals tend to suffer the same problems as Native Americans, i.e. chronic alcoholism and high unemployment. Things must be done at a major level in both cultures.
2013-12-11 11:04:10 PM  
1 votes:
It sucks, but it may very well be that the court was right.  Dunno enough about the law over there.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report