Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "‘All of us need to look long and hard’ at Indigenous Voice: Peta Credlin" video.

Brits didn't invade Australia. They settled here.
6
@GragoryBell89 "aboriginal people had a genocide committed against them for over 100 years " False. Yes, they were mistreated in some ways, including some being killed, but it didn't amount to genocide. "you're mad because they get a bit of help to try and catch up to you, " If the help was on the basis of the need to "catch up", then fair enough, and that should apply to all individuals who need to "catch up". But on the basis of that need, not their "race". Because that is, by definition, racist.
6
@Jakejackson1980 "These people ... have no political representation." Huh? That's factually false to the point of being ludicrous. First, they have the same political representation that we all have. Second, as pointed out in this video, with the last federal elections, there is actually a higher percentage of aborigines in parliament than there is in society.
4
Yes, we ought to do something special. Like stop being racist. But as a society, we stopped that long ago. If individuals still have need for some special help, then fair enough, but on the basis of need, not race. Many aborigines have done quite well.
4
@GragoryBell89 "you don't stop discrimination by not doing anything." If you're "not doing anything", then you're not discriminating, which means that you have stopped it. "if you discriminate against someone for a very long time" Like what? 100 years? Few if any of them have lived that long. "giving someone advantages in certain things isn't discrimination if you've already benefited from those advantages yourself." There are plenty of aborigines how have been university educated, have good, well paying jobs, have important positions in society, and so on. The others who are still in some undefined way still languishing could be helped on the basis of need, but it should not be on "race".
2
As long as there are people still pushing for it.
2
🤚
2
I'm not familiar with the laws of which you speak, but I understand that there are also fishing laws that all aborigines to do things non-aborigines can't do.
2
@vasilabyss6387 "It wasn't your land in the first place to “settle” in Australia." A rather silly comment, as settling, in this context, means to go somewhere that is not your place and set up residence there. "can Russia, China, or the USA “settle” on that “free land” you are calling it, and ship you back where you came from?" It was "free land". It no longer is. So no. "And you found a way to back up your claim by using brutal force against the indigenous people, right?" Wrong. "Between 1910 and 1970, government policies of assimilation led to between 10 and 33 percent of Aboriginal Australian children being forcibly removed from their homes. These “Stolen Generations”..." False. There was no "stolen generation". "you haven't used any force against the indigenous people, but your ancestors did,..." As far as I know, none of my ancestors did. My family goes back about five or six generations in Australia. "give them their dignity back, give them free housing, and jobs, give them high-ranking governmental positions" You get dignity by earning something, not by being given it. "So, that's what you're calling the invasion, settlement?" No, I'm denying that it was an invasion. "When did the UK change the meaning of the word invasion into settlement?" It didn't. When did you change the meaning of the word 'invasion'? Merriam-Webster: "to enter for conquest or plunder". Oxford: "An instance of invading a country or region with an armed force." Collins: "If there is an invasion of a country, a foreign army enters it by force." The UK did not enter this country by force, and not for conquest or plunder. "How many indigenous people around the world did you murder with your colonial “settlements?”" First, we are talking about Australia. Second, I didn't murder anybody. "Did you also “settle” in India and “borrowed” $45 trillion?" No, I did neither. According to the UK National Archives website, "The British were able to take control of India mainly because India was not united. The British signed treaties and made military and trading alliances with many of the independent states that made up India." That's just one line of the article, and I'm not claiming that's the whole story.
1
@vasilabyss6387 "You are talking like a true criminal. ... As I said, you are a criminal." And yet you point out no criminality at all. So you're just name-calling and insulting. And you also haven't even attempted to refute anything I said. Instead, you attack me. Contemptible.
1
@vasilabyss6387 "I can't insult you unless you let yourself be insulted." Nonsense. An insult is an insult regardless of what the object of the insult thinks. You're making excuses for being uncivil. "Lack of knowledge again can be a major insult against yourself." What lack of knowledge? Still no attempt to refute me. Presumably because you can't.
1
@GragoryBell89 "but we're looking at it at a population level. saying "oh some indigenous people succeeded here, why can't you?" isn't an argument ..." True. Which is why I didn't make that argument. My point was that those who are disadvantaged are not aborigines as a group, but some aborigines (as well as some non-aborigines). So providing special benefits to "aborigines" on the basis of race rather than need is the wrong approach (and racist). "When people were discriminated against on race in the past leading to huge disparities today, ..." While I won't deny that past discrimination might still be having some effect, I'd like to see evidence that past discrimination is "leading to huge disparities today". "the only real way you can start fixing these problems is with programs only those people can benefit from because everyone else ALREADY has benefited from them." Which is nonsense, as aborigines are not the only ones with disadvantage. Further, I believe that one of the reasons that many aborigines are not doing well is because governments have taught them (by their actions) that the government owes them support because of past discrimination. So why work had and try to succeed when you can get handouts from the government (and others)? That's not to say that they shouldn't be helped in some way, but you've got to be very careful about what those ways are. You know the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, but teaching him how to fish feeds him for a lifetime? It's that principle.
1
@patricksharp1063 I think you replied to the wrong person.
1
It was only some churches. And some other religions.
1
@GragoryBell89 "sir this is what a genocide is." Merriam Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" Note "group", not "individuals in a group". Oxford: "The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." Collins: "the deliberate murder of a whole community or race." So no, that is not what genocide is. "do you not think that being discriminated from 1788 until 1976 ... My mother would have been directly impacted by laws actively preventing her from voting in federal elections for example." That aborigines could not vote in federal elections until 1976 is a furphy. It's actually more complicated than that. With an act of federal parliament in 1902, aborigines could vote in federal elections as long as they already had the right to vote (in the colonies) before 1901. And they had that right everywhere except Queensland and Western Australia. In 1922, the Northern Territory was added to that list. In 1949, the right to vote in federal elections was extended to all aborigines (regardless of state/territory) if they'd served in the military. In WA in 1944 and the NT in 1957 the right to vote was extended to some aborigines. In 1962 all aborigines got the right to vote in federal elections, regardless of their right to vote in state or territory elections. However, WA and the NT gave them the right to vote in their elections soon after, and Queensland followed suit in 1965.
1