First Aborigine elected to the House of Representatives.??

The first Aborigine to take a seat in the Senate?
You are kidding me right?
This guy is almost as white as I am..
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the involvement of indigenous people in Goverment.
Heck, it was their country we invaded after all,
but lets have a "real" Aborigine.
Not a 9% one like in the US..

"In 50 years' time historians and people will be analysing why Hasluck chose an indigenous candidate," he said in Perth on Sunday.

"What they'll discover is that they didn't choose an indigenous candidate because I was indigenous. They chose a person who they believed would represent the interests of everybody within Hasluck.

news.ninemsn.com.au...

reply to post by CynicalM

From what I saw on a recent Aljazeera documentary Aboriginals sorely need representation. The doccie showed how Aborigines in several communities were made out as child abusers, and the government forces were sent to the Northern Territories, and Aboriginals were deprived of their state jobs and financial autonomy.
It did a terrible injustice to decent Aboriginal people, who were stereotyped as child molestors, pedophiles and drunks.
There were Aboriginal people affected who looked almost white.
So if states could steal people's children and deprive them of their adult rights over their money no matter what their shade, then that majority government has deemed those people Aboriginals.
As such, even light or mixed Aboriginals are more than fit to fully represent Aboriginal rights.
After months of investigation only half a dozen people were charged with child abuse - less than the neighboring white communities.
The whole rigmarole stinks of conspiracy.

But this has become typical to undermine minorities globally.
- Accuse them of being imposters, not the true natives (in Australia, supposedly the Dravidians replaced the "truely native" negritos, in America the "mongoloid Indians" replaced Kennewick Man, blah, bs blah)
- Hide the white male rape and power over their women - stigmatize any mixed people from white society, and then regard them as unrepresentative when they stand up for indigenous rights, but deprive them otherwise.
- Accuse them of unproven abuse, find ways to isolate their plight, cut their income, increase control over them in red tape that leaves them too busy with trivialities to fight for land and social rights.
- As with gay people, stereotype them as child molestors, and cut them from main stream empathy.
So, Yes to Aboriginal representation - and if the Aboriginal community is happy with the person and regards them as bona fide, then white society should shut up.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman

Military sent to Aboriginal Communities!!!
australian-indigenous-peoples.suite101.com...

That started 2007, now - where are the results, where is the criminal proof to stereotype a whole community?

Religions don't ask for race, and indigenous beliefs are now like a religion, so even as a "white person" one can be adopted into a tribe.
How white must one be to speak for the "white community"?
It's just a search for "racial markers" to obscure guilt, and what the colonists did to the indigenous peoples.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by halfoldman]

Shocking - a whole community silenced on the pretext of removing "porn" and "alcohol" - Intervention was a lie!

On the pretext of massive, "epidemic child abuse" the Howard Australian government (2007) invades (possibly 45-72) Aboriginal communities, who live often without private cars and virtually cut-off from the UN and the World. Private camera teams require permits to enter Aboriginal communities.
The news to emerge is shocking.

Aboriginal communities have to take taxis at cost to town centres, where they wait in line outside buildings for social grants, with segregated inner toilets and aircon. The waiting lasts hours, or even days. New cards ban individual money, and they are forced to shop in one store. Other stores complain that their Aboriginal customers are robbed of choice.
Alcoholism remains unaffected. Often drunk Aboriginals outside the tribal dry zones get stuck without "taxi money" home to remote settlements.
No public transport, or upgrading of housing, just linking a community with "pornography and alcoholism".
Strangely, the globe is slow to respond. Apartheid South Africa in the 1980s had the highest living standards of black women in general of the black diaspora (including the US) - yet the lack of individual rights caused global outrage.
Yet, Australia gets away with this?
How ironic.
Please see clip:

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 29-8-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by CynicalM


I have to say I was indeed heartened when i saw the title of this thread. But then I read what you had to say and it got me angry. Then I clicked the link and have been forced to come to the same conclusion as you. Come on, he can't be more than like 1% aborigine. Not just lack of colour, where the hell is the bone structure? His skull would never survive being cracked over the head with a Darwin Stubby.

It is sad though that this far into the 21st century and this is the closest you've got to one in the House. I'd be ashamed for you if it wasn't for the fact that it was my government that sent you troublesome lot there in the first place.

reply to post by inkslug

Well, this is the program, an update on "Intervention".
www.youtube.com...

Why does "purity", or race even become an issue, with clips from the Klamath (in California) it doesn't even come up.

However, in the above clip all shades of Aboriginal people are affected.

reply to post by halfoldman


No need to get on your soap box. Don't blame me that your understanding of the English language is lacking. Read the words I wrote and save your preaching for the uneducated. If someone with black skin was 1% white would they be able to go round stating their non-aboriginal 'whiteness' without people questioning it. Think not. without it swinging both ways it's hypocrisy.

[edit on 29/8/10 by inkslug]

reply to post by inkslug

In the postmodern I guess people can choose identity.
If a person has Aboriginal ancestry, and they choose that identity, and it is regarded as bona fide - then why the hell should they not???
For centuries, during colonialism people were told to hide their admixture.
They were told to be ashamed of any black ancestry.
Mixed kids did not enjoy equal rights.
So for white society to try and form boundaries around ethnicity now is ridiculous.
It's up to the ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY - IT'S NOT YOUR COLONIAL CHOICE ANYMORE.

reply to post by halfoldman

HOWEVER, THAT BEING SAID.
There is a problematic opening for imposters.
Particularly where no clear lineage is presented, a number of people can lay claim to tribal, even chieftan identity.
Consider the whole argument in Tasmania between the Lia Puta and mainlaind (Palawa) decendants.
I think truely aboriginal people can lose out at the hand of imposters - who make sure to burn any DNA evidence.



[edit on 29-8-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by inkslug
reply to post by halfoldman

 

No need to get on your soap box. Don't blame me that your understanding of the English language is lacking. Read the words I wrote and save your preaching for the uneducated. If someone with black skin was 1% white would they be able to go round stating their non-aboriginal 'whiteness' without people questioning it. Think not. without it swinging both ways it's hypocrisy.

[edit on 29/8/10 by inkslug]

Well yes, they did.
Any light slave or black person did try to fit into "white" colonial society.
The historical reality we come from stigmatized blackness and praised whiteness.
So it was only from the 1970s that people became interested in their aboriginal heritage - before they tried to hide it.

Let us turn from Australia to modern day South Africa.
Here, the power points are very different.

reply to post by CynicalM


The first Aboriginal senator was Neville Bonner , from Queensland.

en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/15c33484768b.jpg[/atsimg]

Image c/- google



[edit on 29-8-2010 by radarloveguy]

I think that any group that wants to destroy DNA remains is fooling itself - as technology progresses the DNA in there might legitamize yourself or any descendants.
Why did somebody destroy the remains of Trugannini?

There is a growing conspiracy that true DNA evidence is destroyed.


[edit on 29-8-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by inkslug


Thanks for the reply..
I thought the same when I first read the headlines..
Bit of a shock to see this guy is nowhere near a fullblood.
It's a different issue but its a huge advantage in Australia to say you are part Aborigine. You get lots more welfare and grants etc.

Sadly, its the Aborigine leaders that in the past have taken all the money for themselves instead of helping their community.
Not all are bad, but enough to shed a bad light on the whole welfare issue.