This battle to protect and stand with our indigenous brothers and sisters began with this
It has been six months since the federal government signed over funding responsibility for providing municipal and essential services to Western Australia’s 274 remote Indigenous communities to the state government and four since the WA premier, Colin Barnett, said between 100 and 150 of those communities faced “closure” because they were “not viable”.
On Tuesday, Tony Abbott further inflamed the situation by saying his government could not be expected to “endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have”.Tony Abbott is so bad he makes John Key look okay. Lifestyle choices??? The response has been sharp
The Aboriginal leader Noel Pearson has blasted Tony Abbott’s comments that living in a remote community is a lifestyle choice, saying it is a “deranged debate” conducted in a “substandard manner”... He described the comments as “shameless” and a “disgraceful turn of events”.and
The chairwoman of the Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia, Michelle Nelson-Cox, said Abbott’s comments were “hugely disappointing”.
“The prime minister’s comments about Aboriginal communities place no value on the connection to country and culture that these communities provide, nor the important role they play in the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal people,” she said.
“Aboriginal people are obligated to maintain a connection to country to sustain spiritual beliefs, customary activities and traditional lore. In addition to providing a home to many Aboriginal people, these communities provide a continuing sense of identity through this ongoing connection to country.”This article dispels the myth of closing these communities because of sexual abuse.
And Gerry Brownlee
denied co-leader of the Māori Party, Marama Fox leave from the House of Representatives to vote on a motion to condemn the Australian Government’s impending closure of remote indigenous communities in Western Australia.What can we do from here to support our brothers and sisters over there?
Facebook site here And here is a great profile of Sam Cook who is one of the leaders of the social media campaign.
March on 1 May to show support - will update soon.
UPDATE: Current A-Z listings of upcoming actions #SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA
13 comments:
I went on a demo against the fascist led Reclaim Australia demo in Brisbane today. The counter demonstrators, focused on anti-racism and anti-fascism, also protested against the closure of the communities. Even though it's planned on the other side of the country, there are many people here standing in solidarity. There are many great Aussies. Looking at them from home, we often get the impression that they're all racist bogans. This is about as correct as thinking that all Kiwis love FJK.
The community closure is based on the same logic that FJK uses to drill in dolphin sanctuaries - miners and fossil fuel companies uber alles. Neither Labor nor Labour have a real alternative vision.
Good one mate - yes there are many Australians horrified by this decision to close these indigenous communities - facebook is really raising awareness of this I reckon - a good use of social media.
So good you are getting out there on the street - kia kaha - we will join you on 1 May and we will stop them and their disgusting agenda!!!
"Aboriginal people are obligated to maintain a connection to country to sustain spiritual beliefs, customary activities and traditional lore."
So why does this require endless amounts of tax payer money being thrown at them?
Presumably this "connection" existed before Evil Whitey turned up and was required to finance their "customary activities".
Technology, services and rising living standards come from Capitalism ( Socialism was an epic Fail as an alternative model). People actually have to PRODUCE THINGS that IMPROVE productivity or that people need or want.
Aboriginals living a "traditional" lifestyle are not producing anything,they are not developing new technology, increasing productivity - all things needed to create the wealth required to develop and run services like education, health,water supplies, power, transport, roading etc.
If a group wants to opt out of 21st Century Capitalism because they fell it is beneath them or for whatever reason, that is their choice. But they can't then turn around and demand free money to pad out their "spiritual" or "traditional" lifestyle with the materialistic trappings of Capitalism like electric power, water supplies,law enforcement, Gender Studies and other twatty Liberal Arts Degress, health care, smart phones, selfies, and Tumblr accounts for Social Justice Warriors.
Squeals of out rage and shrieking racism is only a smoke screen to hide the fact you supporters want to preserve a Cargo Cult.
anon I think you need to read a bit more widely on this - try this link
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/11/of-three-remote-communities-here-why-are-only-the-two-aboriginal-ones-under-threat
People don't need to improve productivity - that is a very narrow and sad position to take - once again perhaps read a bit more because you seem well out of your depth on this topic and you are just sounding quite silly.
There is a great study from the 1950's (I think) which set out to study the health and teeth in particular (including jaw shapes) of certain aboriginal tribes throughout the world. Those living most closely to their pre colonisation lives were healthier by far than those colonised and under a western health system. I will try and find the name of it. It is fascinating and includes a chapter on Maori and Aussie Aborigines.w
Marty Mars, your link is to a very bias sympathetic article, but I read it anyway as it did contain some interesting points, some of which validate my position.
The article acknowledges none of those communities are economically viable and are 100% dependent on tax payer money to even exist.
Like a lot of Leftists you claim to be all about the interests of various "oppressed" minority groups and wanting to improve their station in life. That is why it so inexplicable that the only solutions you come up with involve high levels of dependency on other people's money. This is always a precarious position to be in - take a look at the tragic case of Greece to see where you end up when dependent on others willingness to continue giving you loans or charity.
The article points out white communities continue to get state funding, which is fair enough, maybe those need to be looked at as well. However making sure you have some kind of presence in remote areas of your vast country is a good idea when you have bordering overpopulated Third Wold countries ten times closer to those areas than your own capital.
In the article one of the Aboriginals points out that if the residents are forced to move into the white towns there will be trouble from alcohol etc. That could be a cost/benefit analysis that makes retaining funding a better option.
However you are still left with total dependency on the state - a position Lefties like yourself seem more than happy to arrange for everyone.
"People don't need to improve productivity" - what a silly thing to claim. I guess your mentality is "who needs to produce better goods and services more efficiently when we can just get the state to provide!".
Why don't you get your Labour leader to declare to the NZ public we don't need to bother being more productive, I'm sure it swing lots of voters to the left, lol.
" Those living most closely to their pre colonisation lives were healthier by far than those colonised and under a western health system."
Well there you go then! Natives are actually harmed by nasty racist White Man tools of oppression like antibiotics and surgery for appendicitis.
They would be way better off living in the middle of the forest with lots of yummy fern roots to chew on!
And of course being the evidence based Leftie pyou are, you are going to demonstrate that pre colonial Maori had a comparable or longer average lifespan and standard of living than contemporary Maor, right?
Well anon let me ask you a question - if these communities are closed down where are people going to go and what situation are they going to end up in? And for your fiscal mind - how much will that 'cost' the taxpayers? One of the problems of you righties is you never think through consequences, always just short term sticky plaster here and then there - never really trying to deal with what causes the need for the plaster. We pay out here money to investors who lose their money, we pay for elite sporting events as I'm sure they do over in oz yet we can't support indigenous people (whose land and culture have been stolen and deliberately reduced) to live on or close to their traditional homelands and we can't here or there and you come here and spout on about how much money the taxpayer pays - get real, the money is minuscule and you know it.
I did raise that point above:
"In the article one of the Aboriginals points out that if the residents are forced to move into the white towns there will be trouble from alcohol etc. That could be a cost/benefit analysis that makes retaining funding a better option."
But basically what they are saying is aboriginals can never be part of a 21st Century society and must be preserved in some kind of hermetically sealed off anthropological theme park on the tax payers tab for perpetuity.
In which case they are doomed, as nothing lasts for ever, especially state largesse.
Yes you are right about state handouts to cover private maleinvestments. And the consequences are the elimination of moral hazard, market price discovery and the cultivation of dangerous asset bubbles.
You reveal another weakness in your position - the comparatively "small" $90 million handout. This indicates little political clout, urbanites are hardly going to riot in the streets about it. So it is an easy low hanging fruit for a government in the red, collapsing tax revenue, resources industry bust, rising unemployment, economic stagnation and mainstream voters not in the mood for cut backs.
Well anon - first, you can use your Pseudonym then we know who you are - be brave.
secondly we just come from different worldviews - watch this it explains it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPVrr44KHI
When aboriginal communities had access to all their traditional land, they lived quite well. When they were driven into the desert and then even lost most of that because some racist POS flew over some iron ore deposits in a plane, naturally they were less able to look after themselves. When the racist POS's daughter gets huge subsidies to dig up iron that the Chinese no longer want, of course the small subsidies to remote communities can't be continued. Makes sense to anon because we need progress or some such mantra. Yeah, 4 degrees of global warming and the ruination of 90% of the potable water won't be enough. We need more. More, more, more....
LOL, that youtube link was a joke, for a start you can't reduce an entire civilisation to one philosopher, have you not heard of Locke, Decartes or Socrates? Where do you think the concept of democracy came from?
The video presents like the concept proposal for the cheesy Hollywood production Avatar.
Anyway its just a smoke screen you've put up.
wow you don't think there are different worldviews - the video explained it pretty basically I'm surprised indeed that you reject it.
Post a Comment