By all means, they can identify themselves how they want. They can preserve their culture the same way other groups do - it should even be a point of pride that the Australian government help them do that. None of them should live in squalor. But you shouldn’t create a separate country within your country.
Its not turning back the clock, its making up for past wrongs, and the start of that is by acknowledging that no Australia was not an empty country when the First Fleet arrived. It was inhabited by hundreds of tribal groups with their own languages, trade networks, religion and culture.
The current government systems to manage Aboriginal affairs in Australia are deeply flawed and take a condescending attitude that aboriginals are largely too stupid to manage their own affairs. The current appalling conditions of most aboriginal communities is not going to change under the current system. Something has to be done.
Well fix the flaws and change the attitude. That isn’t any harder than some 17 party treaty. Like I said, treaties didn’t stop Canadian Natives from living in 3rd world conditions.
That’s an imbalanced comparison. “Those members” are also mostly better off than the majority of Native Americans as well. Most reservations were selected based on it being land no white guy wanted at the time. Most of them were nowhere close to traditional tribal lands. The majority of them are still located in the middle of nowhere with no reasonable market for casinos or tax free tobacco to help their poverty. The casino market can and does get undercut in some locations as states allow gambling elsewhere.
A treaty isn’t necessarily a panacea for the problems created by the historical conquest. It was a convenient way for some Native American tribes to improve their situation without gaining broad public support for changes that could provide help/redress more equitably. If you have to get broad public support for a major political change anyway, why limit the means of change to pursuing a model that isn’t all that great to begin with?
Because first and foremost its what the majority of them want. If we negotiate with them as equal sovereign nations then what the majority of White Australians want doesn’t matter. Don’t you think its a little unreasonable to commit genocide for 100 years plus then turn around and say “well we out number you now, and sorry about that whole genocide bit, but democratically, you’re outvoted?”
Well I ask you this: is it more reasonable to expect the government to treat Aboriginals more fairly or for the government to give up sovereignty over parts of the country?
Its more reasonable to expect the government to give up some sovereignty, seeing as every other former UK colony has done so. No one is suggesting Aboriginal first nations would be absolutely sovereign, they would be “domestic dependent nations,” with limits on their powers just like the US system. The legal framework for this is well established.
So very wrong. Other colonies gave up that sovereignty a hundred years ago, with every intention of reneging on agreements. There is no way Canada or the U.S. would make those agreements now knowing that the courts would enforce them. No way.
Well you don’t have any solution. Your whole idea is “we”, the white people, should treat them better. Thats part of the problem. Real self determination, not just lip service to it is the only long term answer and if they fuck it up then at least they’re the ones that had the freedom to fuck it up.
I am not saying there shouldn’t be any negotiating and dialogue with Aboriginal leaders.l am just saying that giving them sovereignty and going through some laborous treaty process is not the way to go, imho. And your solution isn’t a solution.
Well then we just have to agree to disagree. A laborious treaty process is the only way to actually make up for past wrongs. And its the right thing to do from a moral and ethical stand point. Saying ‘sorry’ doesn’t cut it. Neither does handing out art grants, which is all Reconciliation Australia is doing.
Just curious but is there a viable political party that you can vote for that has a treaty as part of their policy platform?
Not a mainstream one, theres the Australian First Nations Political Party. They may get someone elected into the senate in future.
The Greens and others support Constitutional Recognition, which would improve some things but it wouldn’t solve the root of the problem.
http://www.recognise.org.au/
Heres an article explaining why the majority of Aborigines explicitly do not want consitutional recognition and instead want a treaty:
So are the conditions for most Native Americans.
Seriously, don’t use the US as a model of how to treat your indigenous population. We’re fucking horrible to ours.
Read the Guardian article I posted, this is what the majority of Australian aboriginals want. This is the model they want and its not my (me being a white Australian) choice to make. Even if I personally think its a dumb idea (which I don’t), I would respect their right to choose a treaty over constitutional recognition.
I don’t believe a treaty would satisfy Aboriginal leaders, it’s seems unlikely anything would satisfy Aboriginals activists unless we went home, wherever that is as I’m fourth generation Australian. It’s just a waste of time going down this path.
This is complete nonsense, since they have in fact told us quite clearly that a treaty is exactly what they want. See my Guardian article above.
But who is ‘they’? We have an article where apparently a number of tribal leaders are discussing constitutional recognition, while it appears to me a single source is saying actually no, the majority of aboriginals want sovereignty, but what basis do we have for knowing the truth of that? This has long been a problem in trying to formulate a consistent approach, especially nationally, the fragmented nature of the aboriginal groups.
I personally think a treaty is a waste of time and effort, which would be better spent on providing solutions to the problems facing the aboriginal people. I further don’t think sovereignty is the way to go, I am confident we would see the exact same problems mentioned upthread in Canadian native tribes with corruption and mismanagement.
I just had a look at that Wiki entry, and IMO that is total BS. It is somewhat tricky I must admit because it is a term aboriginals use amongst themselves, along with whitefella in referring to white Australians.
Your ‘used in the media test’ is a good standard, and you would never hear a mainstream Australian media outlet use blackfella.
[Oh, and if you like Australian cooking shows, see if you can find a show called My Kitchen Rules, I personally like it more than Masterchef. 
]
Its a grey area, but in the context I used it, arguing for a treaty and a day that “blackfella and whitefella” can celebrate together I don’t think any aboriginal people would be offended.
And the answer to “would a treaty satisfy them?” is very simple. Hold a referendum in which only those who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Straight islanders can vote. Let them choose Treaty or Consitutional Recognition.