Daisy on Indigenous round and the minute's silence for the Queen

[Bystander 903]

Saw Daisy's comments. Also read with interest the comments of that girl who won MasterChef. Goodwin? Can't wait to hear from someone from The Block.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Bystander
Grammar

[redandbluemakepurple 358]

22 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

But you understand she personally signed the Act that legalised the stolen generation?

Was it in her own handwriting?

[KysaiahMessiah 725]

Thought I'd share this, without comment, for others comment

 

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/warren-mundine-slams-aflws-decision-to-boycott-minutes-silence-for-queen-elizabeth-because-of-indigenous-round/news-story/6ad339920eee0566320e1a61b6c8b55b

 

PS I have read most of this thread and dont think its been posted before, apologies if it has

[The heart beats true 18,123]

I too thought I’d share this, without comment, for others comment

[redandbluemakepurple 358]

Firstly let me declare my conflict of interest, I am a middle-aged to elderly white male of protestant English and Scottish heritage.  You could glue some improbable side-whiskers on me and pass me off as a Victorian State Premier c. 1880.  I also so replied to Greens Senator Lidia Thorpe when she emailed me earlier in the year and crowed about a Blacks-only senate ticket.  I just don't have the same gut reaction as Stan Grant and others.  I am entitled to have other interests.

Without departing to far from the topic for a Football forum, suppose that I thought that the "Acknowledgement to Country" was illogical and/or the use of the term, First Nation, means offensively that I must always be a runner-up due to my racial origin.  I would or do still keep quiet at the local sporting club because the community has made a decision to do that and if I carry on people would think that I was big-noting myself.  I would be saying that my opinion like myself was more important than they were. 

Therefore the AFLW should not have committed that social faux pas or gaffe with respect to QE2..

Like La Thorpe, Stan Grant (us patience), Andrew Bolt (through the neck), Greens Councillors and PETA, they should not seek the buzz of "making a difference" i.e. forcing us to do something that we would not otherwise do.  Just hit the gym and kick sand on our faces at the beach.

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by redandbluemakepurple

[BoBo 2,941]

The Queen paid millions of pounds for her pedophile sons legal costs and then contributed a large proportion of the 12 million pound settlement.

Pedophile son was then allowed to walk in the state funded funeral for the queen, some people yelled at the pedophile, for being a pedophile, and THEY were arrested. 
 

Seems like the current royal family was cool with letting the pedophile participate. 
 

Fun fact: there’s photos of the royals doing a Heil Hitler sign in the 30’s.

Great people. Wonder why anybody would resent a minutes silence for them.

 
 

 

 

 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

2 hours ago, KysaiahMessiah said:

Thought I'd share this, without comment, for others comment

 

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/warren-mundine-slams-aflws-decision-to-boycott-minutes-silence-for-queen-elizabeth-because-of-indigenous-round/news-story/6ad339920eee0566320e1a61b6c8b55b

 

PS I have read most of this thread and dont think its been posted before, apologies if it has

Oh good, just what this thread needs more of - Sky News opinionists...

[Ethan Tremblay 30,861]

18 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Oh good, just what this thread needs more of - Sky News opinionists...

I agree. What Warren Mundine has to say on the issue doesn’t count.. 

[darkhorse72 1,917]

It was a typical stuff up by the AFL.  The first AFLW game observed the minute of silence, then it was scrapped.  I don't agree with the position that the AFL took in not acknowledging a queen, that was a good monarch (overall) in terms of being progressive.  Given that indigenous round runs for two weeks, the second weekend that would have been no other focus.  But I don't get paid the big bucks. 

Unfortunately Australians  don't really understand the role of the queen or queen in English and our democracy.  She follows the advice of the government of the day, it has been this was since the little thing called the English Civil War, they no longer dictate government direction in an shape of form officially.  that is not to say in private she agreed with the government, she gave console on what should be the best course of action in weekly meetings, but in the end the elected government made decisions on what they thought was best.  Best example is our GG giving scomo half the govenrment :) 

 

[Fritta The Hair G.O.A.T. 510]

I'm kind of surprised at how strong some of the reactions some people on here have had, as if they're personally insulted on behalf of the Queen.

She obviously leaves a massive legacy on world history and for the most part was a good monarch, but I think it' important to remember the perspectives of the current players.

Most AFLW players are aged between 20-35, and for people that age, the Royal family's legacy during their lifetime is mostly:

- The ugly ostracision of Diana from the Royal family

- The ugly ostracision of Harry and Megan from the Royal family

- The protection of the Queens pedophile son (of which the Queen played a big part)

- The racist and off-colour gaffes from Phillip over the years

And I understand that she's not the one at the Christian missions removing Indigenous children from their families or enacting acts of racism against Indigenous people, but she is the literal embodiment of the system/government that enforced it. I understand taking a different view on the Queen's legacy but at the same time the decision of the AFLW should hardly be a surprise.

[Grapeviney 9,721]

On 9/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Hannibal Inc. said:

I won't quote too much of his article in today's HS, but here's a snippet re Pearce.

Cue the melts, but if you disagree, try using facts over emotion.

The thing with Bolt is that he uses selective facts and very specific words and phrasing to distort the truth and present a warped version of reality. 

On 9/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Hannibal Inc. said:

Where did Pearce learn such a string of falsehoods and exaggerations? In school? And how many other young Australians have been coached into such hatred of our past and institutions?

Here's the first distortion of the truth. Daisy didn't express hatred for our past; she only said there were competing narratives about the impact of the  British arrival. That is a fact, evidenced by the debate we're having. Nor did she express hatred for any institutions, including the royal family. On the contrary, she acknowledged and praised the Queen's life and service.

On 9/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Hannibal Inc. said:

In fact, there was no “genocide”, and while land was “stolen”, Aborigines today have some form of control over 49.3 per cent of Australia.

The language is important here, as is the use of quote marks to trivialise the significance of the words 'genocide' and 'stolen'. Genocide has a number of definitions depending on which institution or dictionary you use, but Bolt is relying on most people's tendency to think of genocide through the lens of the Holocaust, where the plan to systematically annihilate the Jews was basically written in plain English (German) for all to see.

Other genocides - see Rwanda and Cambodia, for example - had different characteristics. You can quibble about the use of the word in relation to Australian history, but there's no denying the large-scale widespread killing of Aboriginal people in the so-called Frontier Wars, something which even the most conservative of historians admit happened. 

Here's a piece from the Australian Museum which argues that genocide is an appropriate descriptor of what happened in Australia. 

And here's an interactive map from the Guardian and the University of Newcastle detailing the massacres. Whether it was genocide or not is just semantics.  

As for Aboriginal people having "some form of control" over half the land, again the language here is important, designed to give you the impression that most of the country is off limits to the rest of us. It's a throwback to the scare campaigns around the Mabo decision and subsequent native title legislation, that Aboriginal people were coming to take your backyard. 

It's true that large parts of the country are "Aboriginal land" in some form or another, but it's not ownership as you and I know it. They can't just build houses or businesses on this land - in most cases they can't do anything with it at all. Here's a story which highlights some of the complexities around land ownership and tenure, bearing in mind that this is one community of hundreds which was successfully able to secure a bit more agency over their own land - ie they're the exception to the rule. 

On 9/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Hannibal Inc. said:

Nor has the Aboriginal culture and way of life been “erased” so much as adapted or abandoned.

Cultural traditions remain strong in some parts of Australia, with the Yolngu of Arnhem Land being one example. But elsewhere, much has been lost - songlines and stories, customs and traditional knowledge. 

When the British arrived there were about 250 Aboriginal languages spoken across the continent. Today it's less than half that, and many of those are in danger of disappearing too. Government policy was the key reason for the decline, with Aboriginal languages banned on missions, and children who were taken from their parents punished for speaking their native tongue. 

This is from the Commonwealth Office of Education in 1953: "There is a need everywhere for a planned, vigorous and maintained drive for English." 

Linguist Arthur Capell wrote in 1964: "Government policy looks forward to the loss of Aboriginal languages so that the Aborigines may be 'assimilated'.”

Read the bolded quote below from the Chief Protector of the NT about 'eradicating' Aboriginal culture. 

On 9/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Hannibal Inc. said:

Western civilisation is more attractive and makes for an easier life than foraging for yams and grass seeds. It’s also given Aboriginal women more rights than male-dominated tribes ever did.

Sentence 1 is really just an opinion - an agreeable one to most - but it's all a matter of perspective really, as Yolngu continue to forage for yams and other traditional foods and enjoy mixing the traditional and modern worlds. But no-one (including Daisy) ever denied the benefits or joys of the modern, western world. Sentence 2 presumes that Aboriginal women prefer the western justice system over the traditional one - where's the proof of this? And even if it's true, so what? It doesn't undo all the other harms and impacts of colonisation. . 

On 9/18/2022 at 4:41 PM, Hannibal Inc. said:

As for the “stolen generations”, the courts are yet to find a single person “stolen” from their family just because they were Aboriginal, and not abandoned or in perceived danger.

This is classic Bolt, using a very narrow framing of events to present an inaccurate picture of reality.

Just because there hasn't been a court case, doesn't mean the Stolen Generations don't exist. There's vast reams of evidence about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their homes - a whole report actually, the Bringing Them Home report.

You can go in there and pretty much pick any page you want and read for yourself the policy in action. Here's an excerpt quoting the Chief Protector in the NT about 100 years ago:

Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white ... 

Bolt and others will hide behind the "perceived danger" excuse, which is just another way of saying "it was for their own good", a smokescreen for the assimilationist policy articulated above, and in so many other places. Do we really want to pretend that every child taken from their parents was subject to neglect? 

And really, it's not hard to find people who were members of the Stolen Generation. The legendary Jack Charles, who passed away last week, was one of them. Read his obituary. 

Here's an excerpt from a speech by another - William Tilmouth. 

I am mix-matched – a creation by others who decided they knew what was best for me. I am a product of assimilation. I am a product of being denied my identity, my family, my country, culture and my language.

In the west I am a success. I was the kid who came good – became a model working citizen, living in my own home, paying my rent in advance, hiding my identity and keeping my relatives at a distance.

What you see today, you might think is acceptable – but to me it’s not.

Why? Because I have spent a lifetime, along with my brothers and sisters, trying to rebuild and recapture all that was stolen and denied us.

I have a good command of English but I can not speak my own language. I have grandchildren but I was denied my mother and father.

Sometimes I don’t know where I belong or where I’m going – or who am I?

That is a question that you are left with: Who am I?

Coming here was hard for me, coming back up north. I was stolen and taken to Croker Island. Minjilang and its people hold some of my fondest memories as a child. There was heaps of nature but very little or no nurture. Notwithstanding the efforts of the cottage mothers who had to spread their love over 12 or so distraught children each.

Leaving Alice Springs was hard because I still cling onto home.

I am the sum of my experiences and my experiences are such that my life doesn’t have the cultural integrity and grounding that it should have.

I’m not recognised in native title.

I’m not recognised in land rights.

When my father’s traditional lands were given back, my brother and I were not even notified of the ceremonial handback. The apology meant nothing to me – there are too many sorries and not enough truths. 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Grapeviney

[Adam The God 30,259]

PD, I said you should post more footy, not more culture wars.

In the footy thread you were happy to be open minded about Grundy and then when it comes to politics, not so much.

It's a very odd dichotomy.

[Fritta The Hair G.O.A.T. 510]

1 hour ago, Grapeviney said:

The thing with Bolt is that he uses selective facts and very specific words and phrasing to distort the truth and present a warped version of reality. 

Here's the first distortion of the truth. Daisy didn't express hatred for our past; she only said there were competing narratives about the impact of the  British arrival. That is a fact, evidenced by the debate we're having. Nor did she express hatred for any institutions, including the royal family. On the contrary, she acknowledged and praised the Queen's life and service.

The language is important here, as is the use of quote marks to trivialise the significance of the words 'genocide' and 'stolen'. Genocide has a number of definitions depending on which institution or dictionary you use, but Bolt is relying on most people's tendency to think of genocide through the lens of the Holocaust, where the plan to systematically annihilate the Jews was basically written in plain English (German) for all to see.

Other genocides - see Rwanda and Cambodia, for example - had different characteristics. You can quibble about the use of the word in relation to Australian history, but there's no denying the large-scale widespread killing of Aboriginal people in the so-called Frontier Wars, something which even the most conservative of historians admit happened. 

Here's a piece from the Australian Museum which argues that genocide is an appropriate descriptor of what happened in Australia. 

And here's an interactive map from the Guardian and the University of Newcastle detailing the massacres. Whether it was genocide or not is just semantics.  

As for Aboriginal people having "some form of control" over half the land, again the language here is important, designed to give you the impression that most of the country is off limits to the rest of us. It's a throwback to the scare campaigns around the Mabo decision and subsequent native title legislation, that Aboriginal people were coming to take your backyard. 

It's true that large parts of the country are "Aboriginal land" in some form or another, but it's not ownership as you and I know it. They can't just build houses or businesses on this land - in most cases they can't do anything with it at all. Here's a story which highlights some of the complexities around land ownership and tenure, bearing in mind that this is one community of hundreds which was successfully able to secure a bit more agency over their own land - ie they're the exception to the rule. 

Cultural traditions remain strong in some parts of Australia, with the Yolngu of Arnhem Land being one example. But elsewhere, much has been lost - songlines and stories, customs and traditional knowledge. 

When the British arrived there were about 250 Aboriginal languages spoken across the continent. Today it's less than half that, and many of those are in danger of disappearing too. Government policy was the key reason for the decline, with Aboriginal languages banned on missions, and children who were taken from their parents punished for speaking their native tongue. 

This is from the Commonwealth Office of Education in 1953: "There is a need everywhere for a planned, vigorous and maintained drive for English." 

Linguist Arthur Capell wrote in 1964: "Government policy looks forward to the loss of Aboriginal languages so that the Aborigines may be 'assimilated'.”

Read the bolded quote below from the Chief Protector of the NT about 'eradicating' Aboriginal culture. 

Sentence 1 is really just an opinion - an agreeable one to most - but it's all a matter of perspective really, as Yolngu continue to forage for yams and other traditional foods and enjoy mixing the traditional and modern worlds. But no-one (including Daisy) ever denied the benefits or joys of the modern, western world. Sentence 2 presumes that Aboriginal women prefer the western justice system over the traditional one - where's the proof of this? And even if it's true, so what? It doesn't undo all the other harms and impacts of colonisation. . 

This is classic Bolt, using a very narrow framing of events to present an inaccurate picture of reality.

Just because there hasn't been a court case, doesn't mean the Stolen Generation don't exist. There's vast reams of evidence about the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their homes - a whole report actually, the Bringing Them Home report.

You can go in there and pretty much pick any page you want and read for yourself the policy in action. Here's an excerpt quoting the Chief Protector in the NT about 100 years ago:

Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white ... 

Bolt and others will hide behind the "perceived danger" excuse, which is just another way of saying "it was for their own good", a smokescreen for the assimilationist policy articulated above, and in so many other places. Do we really want to pretend that every child taken from their parents was subject to neglect? 

And really, it's not hard to find people who were members of the Stolen Generation. The legendary Jack Charles, who passed away last week, was one of them. Read his obituary. 

Here's an excerpt from a speech by another - William Tilmouth. 

I am mix-matched – a creation by others who decided they knew what was best for me. I am a product of assimilation. I am a product of being denied my identity, my family, my country, culture and my language.

In the west I am a success. I was the kid who came good – became a model working citizen, living in my own home, paying my rent in advance, hiding my identity and keeping my relatives at a distance.

What you see today, you might think is acceptable – but to me it’s not.

Why? Because I have spent a lifetime, along with my brothers and sisters, trying to rebuild and recapture all that was stolen and denied us.

I have a good command of English but I can not speak my own language. I have grandchildren but I was denied my mother and father.

Sometimes I don’t know where I belong or where I’m going – or who am I?

That is a question that you are left with: Who am I?

Coming here was hard for me, coming back up north. I was stolen and taken to Croker Island. Minjilang and its people hold some of my fondest memories as a child. There was heaps of nature but very little or no nurture. Notwithstanding the efforts of the cottage mothers who had to spread their love over 12 or so distraught children each.

Leaving Alice Springs was hard because I still cling onto home.

I am the sum of my experiences and my experiences are such that my life doesn’t have the cultural integrity and grounding that it should have.

I’m not recognised in native title.

I’m not recognised in land rights.

When my father’s traditional lands were given back, my brother and I were not even notified of the ceremonial handback. The apology meant nothing to me – there are too many sorries and not enough truths. 

Fantastic takedown of disingenuous, smarmy [censored] and convicted racist Andrew Bolt. Why his opinion matters to anyone I'll never know

[Cranky Franky 2,060]

1 hour ago, Grapeviney said:

The thing with Bolt is that he uses selective facts and very specific words and phrasing to distort the truth.

You complain about Bolt using selective facts then you go & do exactly the same thing.

Colonisation has been happening from the time of the first modern humans.

The Romans did it to the Britons.

The Chinese did it to the Tibetans & Putin is still trying it.

[BoBo 2,941]

4 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

You complain about Bolt using selective facts then you go & do exactly the same thing.

Colonisation has been happening from the time of the first modern humans.

The Romans did it to the Britons.

The Chinese did it to the Tibetans & Putin is still trying it.

Murder and rape has been happening since the time of the first humans too. 

But we think it’s bad yeah? And it’s something that should be opposed, not apologised for or downplayed? Right?

Because it would be weird to just say ‘colonisation is a thing that exists and has existed for a long time’ in a conversation about colonisation being a bad thing.
 

Almost like you’re trying to make a point without actually coming out and saying it. 
 

[DeelightfulPlay 2,548]

Thank you @Grapeviney for such an excellent and necessary post.

As a small postscript, what happened in Australia to First Nations people at the hands of the British Empire and subsequent Australian governments in the past 200 years quite neatly fits into the international law definition of genocide...

From article 2 of the UN Convention of Genocide:

Genocide can be said to have taken place if “any of the following acts [have been] committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”:

• Killing members of the group
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

[Wodjathefirst 2,632]

On 9/18/2022 at 6:58 PM, mauriesy said:

No one even listens to Andrew Bolt and Sky News any more.

When I saw the headline in eff head Bolt’s column in the Feral Hun I made a point not to read any of his comments.  He specialises in distorting information.
At best, I used to go to the back pages and read the sports section.  Don’t even do that anymore. 
It is not a newspaper, it is a Murdoch tabloid that is full of extremist views, positions and full of misinformation  (Trump, politics, climate change denial etc etc).   
And finally….we’ll done Daisy 
 

Edited September 20, 2022 by Wodjathefirst
Typo

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Just more white fellas telling black fellas what to think.

Or is it as simple as if you disagree with me you are my enemy.

What happened to moderation?

[darkhorse72 1,917]

I was going to post something, but decided not too.  Maybe it's time to close this thread as its not longer a footy discussion.

 

[The heart beats true 18,123]

9 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Colonisation has been happening from the time of the first modern humans.

This is undoubtedly true.

Essentially the contemporary discourse might be grappling to comprehend that ideological thought has replaced nation states as a sort of silent coloniser? Which begs the question is there anything wrong with that?

It’s one of the bigger concepts facing globalisation, and it’s ironic that small minded, self anointed protectors of colonialist culture are unintentionally bringing this conversation into the public sphere.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

10 hours ago, COVID Dan said:

Just more white fellas telling black fellas what to think.

Daisy talking about her change of mind and what she's learned from Indigenous people is the exact opposite of that though isn't it?

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

12 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Daisy talking about her change of mind and what she's learned from Indigenous people is the exact opposite of that though isn't it?

I should have stated I was not directly commenting on what daisy said, but rather the political hijacking of current ssues.

I have no issues with what daisy said, my concerns are around institutions and politicians deciding what we should feel and think.

My comments were about the hypocrisy on both sides