What constitutes "white supremacy"?

Post Reply New Topic

I assume you're speaking from an "ideal world", rather than one where you have met the people involved or seen first hand how they lived? Could you please stop listening to those who, like yourself, have no experience of what those camps were like where these people lived, and speak to people from them.

Yes, it was not ideal to remove them from their "tribes", but the alternative was to leave them in a situation where they would likely have 10-20 year lower life expectancy, along with minmal work prospects, and the poor diets that went with where they lived.

Just because you appear to dislike western civilization does not mean that what they lived in was better. There was no "white culture was supreme" belief as you claim, it was more a case of western civilisation would give these people a better chance in life than they would otherwise have had (look at how many aboriginals in cities give up everything they have to move to the settlements compared to those in the settlements who move to towns for a better life).

People justify how they were abused all the time, that the terrible thing that was forced onto them was better than the alternative.




Do you think that perhaps that is what could have been worked on, having alternatives for aboriginal people within their own areas of better diets and work, rather than stealing generations of children away from their families while also leaving a lot behind?




Why do you you assume that I hate western civilization, or assumed that their tribes offered a better standard living than the Westerners? If there was no white culture was supreme, then how do you explain things like the White Australian police? Even if there is a logical flow that they thought they were offering a better chance rather than doing nothing, I can be pretty sure a lot better things could have been done.

A main person of the movement was someone called A.O. Neville, who was quoted saying: "Are we going to have one million blacks in the Commonwealth or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there were any Aborigines in Australia?" The general idea was that he was going to breed out the black from the aboriginals.

Being part of modern society - with its education, diet, lifestyle, etc. - is not "white". Viewing it as "white" is a post-colonial bias.

Unfortunately, many like to deceitfully judge peoples actions in the past on today's standards, and then attack the historic actions, and people involved as a result of not matching their personal, modern "standards".

The people at the time were doing what they believed, based on education and living standards of the time, was the best for those involved, with no malice intended and were trying to do the best they could to help. Unfortunately, this concept seems incomprehensible to a minority who see anything that does not coincide with what they would do if the situation was occurring today as being "wrong" or "evil".

. Yes obviously. Beach bums are darker skin . Olive skinned people’s, ?
Need a color palette for humans ? Pick any shade of flesh ,, quite sure there is big, Gradient that would apply.

Any cosmetic manufacturer needs

Loooolz

White pride is white supremacy.

Well, I was alive in the 1970s when this practice was going on, not only in Australia but also the US. Removing kids from their family was not considered acceptable. And in Australia, it was actually described as "forced" removal, so at least there were people then that did not agree with it--or why would you need force?

Yes, you are right in stating morality does change. But morality is a complex thing. People can agree with a separation policy in a national context, but they would also be horrified if it was their children. The reason native children could be separated was not because people cared for those children, but the belief in the inferiority of those people allowed them to act in such a way. Collectively, the non-Jewish Germans were very comfortable with persecuting Jewish Germans, but when those same Germans were trucked to concentration camps by liberating Allied troops, those same people were appalled, to put it mildly. Collectively, we are all capable of rationalizing brutality we cannot bear individually, and that has nothing to do with history.

And we are still fine with separating children from their families, if you need more proof this is not a historical issue. Separating children at the US border is supported by a remarkable number of people. So we are not talking about some distant past. Man's inhumanity to man is well documented. It is not something we grow out of. It is is so much easier when we can rationalize a group of people as being somehow less than we are.

And as astutely pointed out, there are other policy options than separating children, even biracial children, from families. If the goal is to give them communities that have good health and education outcomes, you can invest in health and education in those communities. Rich, white people do that all the time with success.

Removing children from their families is generally a tough issue.
In my culture, it's viewed as the last resort and even then it can cause public outrage.
In Northern cultures, it seems much more acceptable.
So, there are stories of Polish immigrants fighting Norway authorities over child custody. For both sides, some things are obvious, but they're not the same things.
It used to be considered normal to take children form unmarried mothers - Astrid Lindgren had her son removed on this basis. Now it's considered all wrong.
I can't tell how Australians view it but if two cultures of drastically different approach to the issue collide, conflict is inevitable.

When 30% of children turn out not to be related to the adult they're travelling with, it raises some concerns and is arguably another issue entirely.

Yes, that would have been a much better approach, though, not as easy.
Seeing the history of my post-socialist state, while socialism has done a lot of damage to local economy and various aspects of society, it also gave a lot of people a chance to get proper education and life chances they would be unable to afford in pre-WWII reality.

I wonder if we can combine the good aspects of both socialist and capitalist systems, for the ultimate goal of a better, more fair society.