Humanity shares a beautiful world that must be protected
I believe that we must have compassion, not just for our fellow humans (equally), but for all life on earth. We must also fight against delusion and lies.
|
|
|
|
Humanity shares a beautiful world that must be protected
|
|---|
|
|
I believe that we must have compassion, not just for our fellow humans (equally), but for all life on earth. We must also fight against delusion and lies. |
IntroductionEthics is a huge and complex subject and people will always argue over principles of ethics. In relation to the subject of 'Australian Aborigines and justice' my opinion is that all people, regardless of ancestry, race, religions or ethnicity, should have equal rights and responsibilities before the law.
Perhaps we should aim to follow an Indonesian motto: 'unity in diversity'? Celebrate our shared humanity rather than our ancestral backgrounds? Australian Aborigines were treated badly, unjustly, by European settlers; no doubt about it. But that was many years ago; they were injustices done by people who are long gone to people who are long gone. Do non-Aboriginal people now living owe reparations to Aboriginal people now living? Is it justice to hold 'the sons responsible for the sins of the fathers'? I don't think so. It seems that Aborigines (should this be people of Aboriginal appearance?) are treated more harshly by police and the court system than others. This is an injustice that should be corrected. Of course any Aboriginal person now living who has been treated unjustly, like any other person who has been treated unjustly, deserve justice and should have justice. Any non-Aboriginal person who has been treated unjustly deserves justice; the right to justice should apply irrespective of race. It is not fair to burden innocent people, either through taxes or reduced services or rights, because their ancestors may or may not have been guilty of crimes against Aboriginal people. And to indiscriminately give preference to people who claim membership of a particular racial group, when the individuals involved may not have suffered any injustice at all, is not ethically justifiable either. Anyone who is in need, irrespective of their race or ancestry, should be given support by society as a whole. Is it ever right to treat people differently based on their 'race'? (But then we are told that race is an outdated concept; that is another matter entirely. See Aboriginal DNA in the box on the right.) My ancestors were oppressed by the English establishment, particularly the upper class. Do the descendants of the English upper class of my great-great-grandparents’ time owe me compensation? At the time of the Irish potato famine the Irish tenant farmers were treated abominably by the English landowners. Do the descendants of the landowners owe reparations to the descendants of the tenant farmers? Or do all English owe reparations to all Irish? Going back to Australia, if there is to be compensation or reparation paid to Aborigines, or special rights under a treaty, why should others have less rights and privileges? If there is to be some form of compensation, who should pay it? I have European Australian ancestry going back at least five generations. Should I be held more responsible than my wife who was born in the USA? Who should receive reparations? All people who claim some Aboriginality, even if they have little Aboriginal ancestry, even if to all appearances the person concerned is 'white'? Isn't the only fair system to give everybody equal rights? Give everybody justice? Treat everybody according to their needs?
A can of wormsIf Aborigines were to receive preferential treatment, recognition in the Constitution, a special voice to parliament or special treatment under a treaty, there would have to be some qualifications placed on who can validly call themselves Aboriginal. There are many people at present claiming to be Aboriginal who do not appear remotely Aboriginal, but I'm told that questioning these people's claim to Aboriginality is "incredibly offensive".I have written on the question of "Aboriginal or other" on another page on this site. I wonder too how those who are clearly Aboriginal think about the 'white Aborigines' who often speak as if for all?
Such questions as these may be considered politically incorrect, I ask them not to be offensive, but because they need to be asked – and answered. I would think that a great many Australians would like answers to these questions, but many are probably afraid to ask.
An Aboriginal voice to parliament
Far from increasing access to parliament for select groups we need to stop the unequal access to parliament and government by privileged groups that exists today. The purpose of parliament should not be to serve special interest groups, it should be to serve all Australians. All Australians should have equal access to parliament and government. I have touched on this subject elsewhere on this page a little under a can of worms. I will add some other very important points here.
All Australians should have equal rights no matter who they are, what their 'race' is, who their ancestors were and whatever religion (delusion) they might identify with.
One of the greatest injustices throughout the history of the world was giving special status to people due to their ancestryA few days before writing this section King Charles III was crowned in London. He was made king simply and solely because he happened to be the son of Queen Elizabeth II. There was no justice in this.
Similarly, giving special access to parliament and parliamentarians to a group because of who they are descended from would be equally unjust.
It would be wrong to give one disadvantaged group special access to parliament without giving it to all disadvantaged groups.There are a number of groups in Australia who are disadvantaged: single parents, poor people, homeless people, physically or mentally handicapped people, asylum seekers, those with psychiatric problems, single parents (or just single mothers?) Women do not have as much say in parliament or in many other places as men have, should women have a special voice to parliament? I suspect that dark skinned people, irrespective of their background, might well be a disadvantaged group.
Plainly, if we are to start giving disadvantaged groups special access to parliament the decisions about who to include and who to exclude becomes very complex and, no doubt, contentious.
If we are to give those who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders a voice to parliament, why should these other groups not also have a voice?
At the other end of the spectrum the professional lobbyists, who are employed to look after the interests of the rich and powerful, have far too strong a voice to parliament. Any right minded person could not accept these people's disproportionate influence as ethically acceptable.
Speculation: why did so many very good people vote yes?The referendum is in the past, it has been lost. About 60% of Australians voted no. But as I have noted above most of the people I respect seem to have voted yes, while many I despise voted no.I wonder if many of those who voted ‘yes’ did so from thoughts that went something like this: indigenous peoples in Australia have been treated terribly in the past, they have had their lands taken from them, they have suffered massacres, some of their children have been taken from them, their living standards are lower than most Australians and they are incarcerated at far higher rates than other Australians. (All of which is true.) The Voice aims to at least partly correct this (also true). But perhaps they gave little thought to the further implications; all those implications that I have covered above?
Or am I being presumptuous to try to imagine how they thought?
Definition of an Aboriginal personThe definition below was extracted from CreativeSpirits on 2021/10/20.
Definition: Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander:
In practice it seems that anyone can decide to call them-self an Aborigine and everyone else must accept that. I've been told that it is 'incredibly offensive' to question someone's right to call themselves Aboriginal. So how could anyone ever decide on an objective way of settling the question of Aboriginality?
Truth-telling should go both ways
A quote from Wiradjuri and Wailwan lawyer Teela Reid… “In a country that denies the truth of its past, truth-telling requires courageous conversations and a preparedness to challenge the status quo.” That is the opposite of truth-telling. I’m 77 years old and I’ve known about dispossession, massacres and stolen children of First Nations Australians as long as I can remember. The higher incarceration rates of Aborigines, the higher levels of alcoholism, the poorer health, the lower life expectancy, have all been well covered. Certainly in the past couple of decades all these things have been very widely publicised. There are lists of massacres of aborigines, has anyone made a list of whites killed by aborigines? I have been unable to find such a list on the internet; indeed, I've been unable to find much at all about whites being killed by Aborigines, but it certainly happened. Most of the Aboriginal massacres were in reprisal for whites being killed. Any search for killings of whites finds many documents concerning killing of aborigines by whites. Settlers, shepherds, stockmen and explorers were killed by aborigines. Truth-telling should go both ways. Some time after writing the above paragraph I came across the passage below in a book by Tim Flannery: "The Aborigines killed or severely wounded seventeen Europeans (including Governor Arthur Philip himself) with no loss to themselves, before a reprisal was ordered."The piece above was in Flannery's discussion of Watkin Tench's book on the early years of the Port Jackson settlement.
In calling for the whole truth and nothing but the truth I’ve little doubt that some will call me a racist. Is asking for balance and truthfulness racism?
Beliefs held with a lack of supporting evidence; delusionsI have heavily criticised all beliefs that are held without supporting evidence, be they religious, be they 'super powers' such as water divining or just delusions in general. I once said that the Aboriginal belief that climbing Ayre's Rock (Uluru) would offend the spirits was a delusion and I was called a racist for doing so. I have also questioned the right of an ill-defined group of 'traditional owners' to stop people from climbing Saint Mary Peak.
Can one criticise 'white' people's unfounded beliefs, but not equally ill-informed beliefs if they are held by Aborigines?
Questionable claimsOne hears claims made about Australia's Aboriginal history and cultures that are questionable. I have been very critical of unsubstantiated claims made by opponents of renewable energy, supporters of fossil fuels and a number of religious groups; I'd be remiss if I ignored what are apparently unsupportable claims made in relation to Aboriginal history and culture.There seems a reluctance to publicly criticise any claims made by, or on behalf of, Aborigines. Considering my experience in being called racist when I wrote that Aboriginal spiritual beliefs were delusional I can well understand this reluctance.
Oldest rock artThere have been claims that the Australian Aboriginal rock art in NW Australia is the oldest in the world. This seems highly questionable.“Archaeologists believe they have discovered the world's oldest-known representational artwork: three wild pigs painted deep in a limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi at least 45,500 years ago. The ancient images, revealed this week in the journal Science Advances, were found in Leang Tedongnge cave.14 Jan 2021”. See news.artnet.com and other references for similar articles. “A two-metre-long painting of a kangaroo in Western Australia's Kimberley region has been identified as Australia's oldest intact rock painting. Using the radiocarbon dating of mud wasp nests, a University of Melbourne collaboration has put the painting at 17,500 and 17,100 years old. 23 Feb 2021”. See University of Melbourne Newsroom for this article. Oldest continuing cultureWe hear repeated many times a claim such as “Australia’s First Nations peoples have the oldest continuous living culture in the world”, or the “oldest continuing cultures in the world”. In the absence of written records and with the very limited evidence available from archeology nobody knows what aboriginal culture was even 5,000 years ago, let alone 50,000 years ago.And is modern Aboriginal culture the same in any meaningful way as pre-white settlement Aboriginal culture? Does the holding onto of myths, legends and some practices constitute an unchanged culture when the entire life style has changed?
Aboriginal "knowledge"At the time of writing "Aboriginal knowledge" seems to be accepted by many as some sort of mystical attribute that Aborigines have by their very nature. Knowledge is not innately in anyone's nature, it must be acquired, learned with care and questioning. I have argued elsewhere on these pages that one of the most reliable ways of acquiring knowledge is through the application of science. Knowledge doesn't come innately or from old books like the Bible and it is not 'built into' people because of their ancestry.It has become common to hear that we should look to Aborigines to teach us how to look after the land, how to do fire-load reduction burns, etcetera. Aboriginal burning was done for many reasons, fire-hazard reduction was usually not the primary one. A piece on the the differences between hazard reduction burning and Cultural Fire practices is on the Australian Museum website. It was written by Rachael Cavanagh who identifies as a Minyungbal woman. Aboriginal cultural burning is very labour intensive. Fire authorities probably don't have sufficient staff to use the same methods.
There are things that wider Australia could learn from traditional Aboriginal methods, management of bush with an aim of bushfire reduction is one. We can all learn from each other. We must keep open minds and be prepared to learn in any ways available to us, but the learning must be rational and based on sound scientific principles.
InvasionIt has become fashionable to use the term 'invasion' when referring to the British settlement of Australia. I believe that the application of this word to the British settlement of Australia requires something of a rewriting of history or a redefinition of the traditional meaning of the word 'invasion'.The most appropriate of the definitions of invasion in the Cambridge Dictionary is "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country". The historical evidence shows that considerable effort was taken in the settlement established by Arthur Philip at Sydney Cove to develop peaceful relations with the Aborigines. Certainly there were many later acts of unjustifiable killing of Australian Aborigines (First Nations peoples if you prefer). Defining Australia as 'terra nullius' (nobody's land) was wrong. Aborigines were displaced unjustly, there can be no doubt about that. And there was an attempt to remove all the Tasmanian Aborigines to smaller islands. But most of the displacement of the Aborigines by Europeans (and to a much smaller extent, by Chinese), though unjustifiable, was peaceful. Languages evolve. In just the last decade or so 'incredibly' has come to mean 'very', 'backflip' has come to mean 'about-face', 'road map' has come to mean 'plan' and 'unfold' has come to mean 'develop'. So is it any more foolish for the meaning of 'invasion' to come to include the mostly peaceful European settlement of Australia? Perhaps not.
A good reference to the early days of European settlementFor anyone who would like to read an eye witness account of the first few years of the English settlement at Sydney I strongly suggest a book edited and introduced by Tim Flannery titled Two Classic Tales of Australian Exploration: 1788 by Watkin Tench and Life and Adventures by John Nicol.Governor Arthur Philip took great care to try to maintain good relations with the Aborigines. Watkin Tench recorded that "the Aborigines were able to kill or severely wound seventeen Europeans (including Governor Arthur Phillip himself), with no loss to themselves, before a reprisal was ordered." Certainly the lives of the Aborigines outside of Sydney would have been hard. Mr Tench notes a number of times that many of the Aboriginal men had spear wounds. It seems that several of the local tribes were in a state of constant hostility toward each other. A woman, by the name of Gooreedeeana, who he was able to observe closely had numerous wounds on her head where she had been beaten and a spear wound to her leg. One paragraph in the book was particularly telling: "But indeed the women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity. Condemned not only to carry the children but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality. When an Indian is provoked by a woman, he either spears her of knocks her down on the spot. On this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club or any other weapon which may chance to be in his hand. The heads of the women are always consequently seen in the state which I found that of Gooreedeeana. Colbee, who was certainly in other respects a good tempered merry fellow, made no scruple of treating Daringa, who was a gentle creature, thus. Baneelon did the same to Barangaroo, but she was a scold and a vixen, and nobody pitied her. It must nevertheless be confessed that the women often carefully study to irritate and inflame the passions of the men, although sensible that the consequences will alight on themselves."
Was this typical of the Aboriginal tribes through Australia before European settlement? Food for thought at least.
Should ancestry justify special rights?One of the best things about Australia is that when it was settled by the British they didn't bring their class system with them. Australians don't have special status due to accidents of birth.
People should be treated as equals and judged according to their individual merit. There is another relevant question that could be asked. If Aboriginal ancestry gives people who identify as Australian Aborigines special rights in Australia, should I, with European ancestry, have similar rights in Europe? Surely not. Should my claim to special rights in Europe be denied because my ancestors left Europe voluntarily? Perhaps; but leaving Europe was not my decision; should I be stripped of rights due to a decision of one or more of my ancestors? I have written on the question of whether crimes against one's ancestors should be redressed to the descendants in the Introduction section of this page. Wouldn't the simplest and most fundamental principle be that all people, regardless of ancestry, race, religion or ethnicity, should have equal rights, privileges, responsibilities and access to justice?
Link between lack of schooling and high incarceration rates?Incarceration rates of Australia's First Nations peoples are significantly higher than for the remainder of the population. This is often mentioned, but its likely cause is not.It must be very difficult to get employment without at least a basic education. Aboriginal children have a significantly lower school attendance that do non aboriginal children. If a person is unable to obtain employment in a job that he or she enjoys surely that person is more likely to get into trouble with the law. Regular work provides something to do with one's time as well as a steady income. Quoting from an article on the Australian Institute of Heath and Welfare titled Indigenous education and skills: "In 2019, the attendance rate was 23–24 percentage points lower for Indigenous students in Very remote areas (61%) compared with those in Inner regional areas (85%) and Major cities (84%)."School attendance rates for the general Australian population is about 93%. In writing this I'm not laying fault with aboriginal people, I'm simply pointing out that there could well be a causal correlation between lack of schooling and high incarceration rates.
Fashionable in 2023: some observationsI write this section of this page in order to record what seem to me to be several practices that have become 'fashionable' (for want of a better word) at the time of writing.Smoking ceremoniesAt one time it might have been fashionable at the opening of something to have a priest or minister of a Christian religion to come and pray (to an imaginary God) and perhaps to sprinkle some 'holy water' about. In 2023 it has become much more fashionable to get some representatives of the local First Nations group to do a smoking ceremony. The smoking ceremony is just as much superstitious humbug as was the prayer and holy water.Paying our respectsIt has become usual at any public event to start with a statement that is some variation on the following:"We acknowledge Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet and pay our respects to First Nation elders past, present and emerging."My feeling about this has several parts:
Acknowledgement of past occupancy by a particular groupIt has become fashionable to acknowledge the particular group of the Nation who were the occupiers of the local area. Fair enough once in a while, but over and over again as we are hearing now? It gets a bit much.Is guilt at the root of the present fashion?Much of the fashionable acknowledgement of First Nations peoples at present seems to me to be due to a feeling of guilt about how their ancestors were dispossessed and mistreated in the past. But should the present Australians be held in any way responsible for the actions of past Australians? Are we of European descent accountable for the crimes of people who may, or may not, be among our ancestors? Should anyone be held responsible for someone else's crimes?Can we right a past wrong by doing this sort of thing? The damage has been done, the crimes committed; they can't be un-committed. Surely it is far more important to try to do better in the present and in the future than to dwell on the past. I wonder if, at some time in the future, we will go through a similar 'guilt trip' over our treatment of refugees, which is just as shameful as the past treatment of Aborigines?
AppendixAt the time I added an appendix to this page, January 2023, there was only one item that I wanted to include. There may be more in future. |
A letter to the editor, Mandurah Mail, 2023/01/24
A recent editorial (Opinion, Mail, January 3), with its argument for the necessity and advantages of the proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament, rings hollow. First, we do not need to "acknowledge the Indigenous people of Australia" in the Constitution. The Constitution belongs to "the people" of Australia, of whom Aboriginals are a part already. As for "the Voice" itself, this body would consist of members elected by people considered to be Aboriginal, thus giving 2-3% (at most) of the population influence over the governance of our country that is to be denied the remainder. "The Voice" would give a minority of the population disproportionate power over the majority. This is not democracy. "The Voice," we are told, would not have legislative power. Therefore, it is a lobby group, but would be given special, preferential status over all the other lobby groups representing various interests. This is not equality. Aboriginal people already have "a means of expressing their views on matters of concern to them": their elected MPs and Senators and also various advocacy groups and advisory bodies already in existence which possess "the force of moral persuasion". The proposed change would certainly create the potential for Aboriginal people to ignore Parliament, the body which is at least intended to represent our nation as a whole, and look directly to this "Voice" as their Government. This would serve only to further divide us. 'The Voice is meant to represent and benefit only Aboriginal people. Will it be funded by the taxes of only Aboriginal people? One would venture to suspect not. This is taxation without representation. "The Voice" is a proposed, tax-payer funded, special-interest group, whose form, mechanics, and extent of power are un-known. Once it is added to the Constitution, it is extremely unlikely to ever be removed, no matter how much it might need to be. "The Voice" is discrimination to try to atone for discrimination. It is division claiming to create unity. It needs to be rejected. Sarah Meredith, Falcon |
|
|
Related pagesRelated pages on external sites...Dark Emu is a book written by Bruce Pascoe concerning whether Aborigines were hunter-gatherers or practiced settled agriculture, fish farming, etcetera. I recommend reading the book without necessarily agreeing with all the points Mr Pascoe makes in it.
The appendix on this page is a copy of a letter in a local paper by Sarah Meredith on the question of "A Voice to Parliament".
On this site...Compassion, not just for all humans, but for animals and the whole biosphereI would far prefer to see people unite in action to limit climate change than to argue about questions of rights in relation to ancestry. Contribution; what do people contribute to society? What do you contribute to society? Ethics, the really big questions Mateship; virtue or vice? Land ownership? It is wrong to hold that anyone owns land. A treaty with Australia's Aboriginal people Other related pages have been referred too in the text above. |
