Nicholson nails Howard’s apologia.
I love the pitter-patter of Howards tiny feet – right out of office!
Anthropologists tell us that life-expectancy was about 30 in hunter-gatherer societies. As indigenous life-expectancy is now in the mid 50s, I for one will not be apologising.
Good on you melaleuca. So what, as a HG yourself you’ve got maybe one year left?
Melaleuca, you don’t get it, do you? Nobody wants your personal apology. Its the Government that should formally apologise for past wrongs on behalf of all Australians. When that happens, as it will, you can write in and tell us all that you are not an Australian. That would be nice.
Think Howard should have said “now, that’s un-Australian”
CK, thanks for a lol moment!
Well of course may above comment was provocative. My point is that the life of indigenous people prior to colonisation was nasty, brutish and short. Concepts like human rights and individual liberty didn’t exist, a simple and common complaint like appendicitis was a death sentence, no food surplus meant hunger in lean years and women were effectively commodities.
The life of convicts at the point of Australian colonisation was nasty and brutish and often short. Concepts like human rights and individual liberty didn’t exist for convicts, a simple and common complaint like appendicitis was a death sentence, there was often hunger in lean years and women were effectively commodities.
I imagine melaleuca gets his anthropological knowledge from the collected works of Keith Windschuttle or some other wondrously accurate source.
Clearly, melaleuca is attempting to tell us that Aborigines have never had it better!
And should be grateful for the improvement in their life conditions.
[Nicholson video unobtainable here].
Let’s see if we’ve got this right.
Leaving aside any long overdue apologies from the colonial power in London for anything evil that happened to Aborigines prior to 1-1-1901 …. Mr J. Howard, who, as Prime Minister of the Commonwealth Of Australia, has the power to apologize immediately to the Aboriginal peoples of Australia for evil that has been done to them since 1-1-1901 yet he still stubbornly refuses to do so.
The same Mr J. Howard and his mob lead us to believe that the Reserve Bank is a truly independent entity, responsive to market forces and free of government interference. In other words, he has no control over the Reserve Bank. Yet he is able to leap in immediately with his “Sorry” as soon as word comes out of an interest rate rise.
Something definately very screwy in that.
Suze, while I agree with the sentiment, that was a bit of a cheap shot. The following isn’t even true:
Concepts like human rights and individual liberty didn’t exist for convicts
Yes, they were transported in irons and kept (at least at first) under shipboard and prison discipline, but the British convicts never ceased to be subjects of the Crown, and had imperfect but definitely existent recourse to legal rights. The Irish who rebelled at Vinegar Hill who *didn’t* want to be British subjects were put down pretty mercilessly.
The argument-winning analogy you’re looking for is the Carribean and African slave trade which enriched the British imperial economy throughout the centuries leading up to Australian colonisation, and certainly reduced the lifespan, liberties, rights and conditions of its victims. HMG has not apologised for that, either.
HMG might not have apologised but Ken Livingstone Mayor of London did apologise for London’s part in the slave trade earlier this year.
Interesting that the appalling right-wing ALP hack, Liam, seeks to differentiate between the slavery of Africa and the Caribbean and that of the convicts of Australia.
Geez, where do these creeps come from?
Liam, seeks to differentiate between the slavery of Africa and the Caribbean and that of the convicts of Australia
Yes, because they had different experiences in a number of essentially different ways.
1. Convicts could not be bought and sold. Slaves were commodities.
2. Convicts retained the same legal rights, such as trial and habeas corpus, as free settlers. Slaves had no rights, even to self-defence.
3. Convicts, having served their sentences, were free to return to their homes, and the children of convicts faced no legal strictures. Slaves did not enjoy either of these rights.
4. For transportation, a convict had to have been convicted of at least some crime, in an admittedly unjust criminal justice system. Slaves were systematically kidnapped, en masse, for money.
I happen to think that these are fairly important historical points, worth a bit of differentiating. Is it historical perspective which makes me right-wing?
What aspect of my anthropology was incorrect?
I’m with Suze.
The problem with your “anthropology” is its implications, as you must surely know.
The implications aren’t what you think. I don’t for a moment think Europe was any better in its hunter-gatherer phase. In fact it may have been worse simply because of the vast numbers of cultures that had nothing in common.
I’m not talking about “Europe” in its hunter-gatherer phase. Suze’s point is that if you weren’t privileged in 1830, you could easily drop dead from appendicitis, etc…
Every primitive society succumbs to colonisation. It is now up to the Aboriginal people to take advantage of the gifts of civilisation that have allowed successive waves of immigrants to settle here and achieve prosperity. The best way to get the ball rolling is to end all handouts to Aboriginals who are not in work or job ready.
Comments are closed.