ChrisPer, one problem with the PC brigade is they take their own PC obsession too seriously, thus leading them to leave a place where there is robust debate. The first rule of political correctness is that you mustn't talk about political correctness

Hunter I don't think you quite realise how insulting and disrespectful your remarks were.

"The gist of my opinion is the aboriginal culture you speak of is a figment of the imagination of the PC multicultural brigade which is driven mainly by the Aboriginal industry $$$$dollar."
-In one sentence you disregard an Indigenous culture that has existed for thousands of years. There is not one Indigenous culture, each clan group has different beliefs systems and practices but of course there are also similarities between each. Your claim that Aboriginal culture 'is a figment of the imagination' is just plain wrong.

"By all means ban the average Australian from their tax-payer subsidised Ayers Rock but just wait until the Aboriginal 'custodians' are begging for the tourists to return. (when the grog runs out)"
-This is a discriminatory statement because you imply that all Aboriginal people are alcoholics 'when the grog runs out'. How much do you drink hunter?

"Aboriginal Land rights is the biggest land scam ever perpetrated on the Australian population."
-Aboriginal land rights occurred because of a recognition that the land was taken from the Aboriginal people by the ancestors of the white people whose descendants (us) now enjoying the benefits of this action. It is a recognition that Australia was inhabited by Aboriginal people and that the land originally belonged to them.

I find it hilarious that so many white people have such strong opinions regarding Indigenous people when most of them have no idea what they are talking about, including you Hunter. Maybe you should do some research before you make your next post to make sure you actually know what you're talking about

I couldn't let his comments go unchallenged and am surprised that no one else has taken Hunter up on these points.

Most land originally belonged to someone else. Aborigines are free to buy land if they want to. It's worth noting that Aborigines themselves have ultimately benefited from the settlement of Australia - remember that tribal life with no transport, no static housing, no agriculture and no beasts of burden didn't exactly lead to a high quality, or even lengthy, life. There are now more Aborigines than there have ever been in history, and they are living far longer than they had been prior to settlement.

Well, no see Aborigines are not free to 'buy' land if they want to because in order to buy land one has to have money, in order to have money, one has to have a job and participate in 'white' society.

'...Aborigines themselves have ultimately benefited from the settlement of Australia'
-very broad statement, those that were killed by disease and the attempted genocide in Tasmania may not agree with you. Those that participate in white Australia may. But it's much more complicated than this. In some ways, yes many may agree they benefit. In others, they will argue they have lost their connection with their land and lost their culture. So it's a mixed bag. Besides which the scientific benefits brought by white people do not justify the dispossession, they are just a consequence of it.

It's not that Aborigines have to participate in 'white' society, but rather, have to participate in modern society. It isn't that there are two competing cultures and one is oppressed by the other to the point where it cannot deliver high standards of living - rather, the unreformed Aboriginal cultures are unable to create or sustain the high standards of living regardless of external influence. One cannot live in a fashion that is economically unproductive, but also be self-sufficient in the things that high economic productivity brings (modern medicine, transport, technology and development, etc etc).

Modern society requires an evolving and changing culture that can adapt to the necessary living changes that such advances encompass. This is why giving land to Aborigines through Native title hasn't actually delivered significant improvements in the state of Aborigines.

Deleted by Hunter

Deleted by Hunter

Hunter of course that letter's content is horrendous no one is disputing that. I'm sorry for any person who has experienced any kind of abuse. It is a dreadful thing to have to encounter and a very sad, sad situation.

So, Hunter, since you claim to have greater insight and are accusing me of ignorance, what do you think the solution is to Aboriginal disadvantage?

Rather than insult everyone by not responding to their comments, claiming they are 'ignorant and dismissing all Aboriginal people as alcoholics why don't you offer a constructive solution and actually show a bit of respect and tolerance so that people will be actually interested in hearing your views rather than dismissing you as an ignorant racist.

Also, just because you 'worked' with Mabo (whatever that means) doesn't mean you hold all the answers nor that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's. I'm happy to hear your views but I am not happy for you to believe that you are the only person who knows the 'truth'. There are many perspectives, and this issue is very complex.

Deleted by Hunter

What if there were a group of people who thought that Mount Everest was a holy site that should not be climbed? Should we seek to stop people from climbing?

I think that Uluru/Ayers Rock differs from somewhere like the Vatican or Mecca or any church/mosque etc because it is not a human-created monument. Ownership of a building is much easier to enforce than ownership of a large land mass. I don't know (forgive my ignorance, I'm not Australian) who owns the land but in my view I think it's quite important. If Mr Bloggs of North Wales owns some land that has a nice hill on it then he may legitimately be able to claim that I can't walk on it. But if it's not privately owned and/or has a public right of way then I can walk there. Why shouldn't the same reasoning apply to Uluru? If it's public land then the public should be allowed to use it [subject to reasonable limitations of safety and environmental protection].

There must be a way of finding a half-way point between the extremes of (apparently literally) letting people piss on it and not letting anyone on it at all. Whilst I am not very tolerant of organised religious practices I do think that there are pragmatic reasons for respecting and allowing for such practices, so a compromise can surely be found. Maybe a limited number of people per month and/or a limited area that can be walked on, like the Inca Trail in Peru?

Religious ideas should not be immune from criticism and/or prevail above all other people's interests simply because they are religious in nature. After all, they are ideas just like any other. So if the religious practice or requirement is unreasonable, and I think it is unreasonable to stop people walking on Ayers Rock altogether, we shouldn't just accept it.

And I don't think that the fact that the religious practice is ancient carries a particularly large amount of weight; just because an idea is old doesn't mean it's any good. In fact often the opposite is true.

Hunter I am not going to bother to continue to discuss this with you as you are not interested in discussing it yourself. That was clear when you dismissed my views as 'naive' rather than responding to the points I had made.

To be frank, your views disgust me. One thing I would encourage you to realise though is that 'they' are not one person; every Aboriginal person is unique, just as every white person is unique. So please don't make sweeping statements that imply all aboriginal people are alcoholics etc. Remember that Hitler used similar sweeping generalisations to justify his treatment of the Jews.

That is all.

Didn't take long for Godwin's law to make an appearance.

Hunter appears to have more experience with Aborigines than you do, and I'd say most people on the forum would believe you are at least a bit naive. Everyone knows that every individual is different, however to point out the endemic alcohol problems with outback Aborigines is merely a statement of fact - not a call to genocidal arms. Perhaps you are being a little paranoid?

hahhaha harry this argument is ludicrous... so because Hunter appears to have more experience with Aboriginals than i do his argument is more valid? And this is based on the fact that he said he had worked with Mabo? Right... By that same logic you could argue the only people who can make valid arguments regarding government are people who've worked in government, which i think you would find would undermine democracy... why is it that whenever Aboriginal affairs is discussed people seem to lose all ability to be rational and reasonable? It is sooo frustrating... and instead of name- calling, perhaps you could engage with my ideas? That would require rational thought...

Sigh... then again perhaps it's not worth the bother on this forum... I tried and instead of the ideas being considered they were shut down as 'naive' and 'black armband'. So why bother?

As for Godwin's law, well, what can I give but a typical gen y response: 'whatever' Godwin's law is absurd because it would mean that it is not possible to ever compare anything with nazi Germany at risk of being the 'loser' of the debate. There is nothing rational nor logical about Godwin's law and it has zero validity as an argument.

The only thing that stops me from losing hope with this whole debate is to know that many people- and particularly- young people are more open minded and aware of the disadvantage the Indigenous perspective (partly because racism is not as widely accepted as it was 50 years ago and partly thanks to our contemporary education system . That and the fact that many people are out there, working in communities trying to do their best to improve things in a respectful way. They believe things can change and they are working towards it. I live in hope.

Arry, do you not see the irony in demanding more open-minded thought so that everyone would agree with you? Outside of the modern day education system, you will find a multitude of views, not just a 'correct' singular view. Ethics is about what we ought to do - there is no correct answer as such.

If you only want to discuss Aboriginal issues with like-minded people with whom you are largely in agreement, there are plenty of left and far-left sites out there.

Deleted by Hunter

I think you mean arry

Deleted by Hunter

Agree with me? I haven't actually expressed an opinion the matter. All I am asking for is opinions to be expressed that are not racially discriminatory ('watch them want the money when the alcohol runs out') and for people to engage in rational argument rather than personal attack.

This is not about left- wing or right- wing. It is about engaging in ideas.

"Ethics is about what we ought to do- there is no correct answer as such".
-I disagree. I think sometimes there is a correct answer. For example, I think if a person is being abused one ought to report it. That is the 'correct' thing to do. Female genital mutilation is wrong. Full stop. It is not 'relative'. Extreme objectivists would never argee with you that there is 'no correct answer as such', on the other hand, extreme relativists would agree and argue there is never a correct answer, it is all 'relative'. Most of us lie somewhere in between relativism and objectivism depending on a range of factors.

On racially discriminatory remarks, yes, i am an objectivist. In my opinion it is always wrong (Jane Elliot's work gave me a greater insight of racial discrimination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCjDxAwfXV0.

As I understood it this forum is to discuss ethical ideas by engaging in rational and logical argument. If the content of a person's argument raises ethical issues- as I believe Hunter's did- then these issues may be raised and discussed, as they were.

Ok Hunter, please, give us the benefit of your experience, why is that nothing changes?