Helping Aborigines and Maoris help themselves

[Albion]

http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/world/eng/australia/au_nz_e.jpg

Australia and New Zealand were settled by Europeans who turned what they once saw as a hostile landscape into two prosperous countries.

But as we all know there were people there before the Europeans (unless any of these theories turn out to be proved correct that is: 1 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/564251), 2 (http://www.celticnz.co.nz/VikingNavigation.htm), 3 (http://www.celticnz.co.nz/AucklandAlignment1.htm)).
The native peoples were pushed aside and treated badly whilst Europeans took the land and put it to good use.
The European settlers probably made and still make better use of the land than Maori or especially Aborigines ever did or would have done, but in the process of creating Australia and New Zealand there has been created a group of broken peoples, the natives.

Today the natives of both nations subsist in many cases off the welfare payments made to them from the taxes of the working European-descendants of both nations.
Natives in both countries constitute an underclass and the governments have launch numerous failed attempts to integrate them into society, albeit a European-based one.

The problem with the natives doesn't look to be getting solved any time soon and you occasionally here Aborigines and Maoris harp on about how life was better for them before Europeans settled the two nations.

So what should we do to help them and help the European descendants of both nations? Set up Aboriginal and Maori nations.
I know what you're thinking - more failed states, but under the correct supervision and support it might work.

Aborigines constitute 517,000 of Australia's population, why not create a new country for them either in Arnhem land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnhem_Land) or the Tiwi Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiwi_Islands)?
New towns or a city or two could be created for some to live modern lifestyles since many have been brought up in such, whilst the interiors of the country could be open to the Aboriginal traditional nomadic lifestyle.
Such a nation could either be a dependent territory of Australia with separate immigration laws as the British overseas territories have or it could be a semi-independent nation such as the relationship the Federated States of Micronesia have with America.

The Maori constitute around 725,000 of the New Zealand population, a new country could be created for them in an area such as the Chatham Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Islands) and such a country again would have to be built up and created by the government of New Zealand and supported for quite a while until the Maori could come to support themselves.

Both proposals would mean Australia and New Zealand (apart from lands given up) would be free of natives since they'd be encouraged financially to settle in the new countries with offers of money and new homes.
That would leave Australia and New Zealand free to progress and the natives of both nations to have their own territories and a nation of their own where they could flourish or flounder according to their own efforts and where they could practice their traditional ways of life unhindered, leaving European-descendants in Australia and New Zealand to practice theirs.

Below are maps of the proposed areas which could become the new countries:

There are two proposals for the Aborigines - Arnhem land, an area the size of the Czech Republic which would have less than half the population or the Tiwi islands, a smaller area about the size of Slovenia, but again with barely a comparable population

For the Maori at the moment there is the Chatham areas as a proposal, about the size of Majorca in Spain. Another proposal would be to grant the Maori an area of North island.

http://germania.zoomshare.com/files/new_nations_oceania.PNG
Above: Areas in relation to Oceania.

http://germania.zoomshare.com/files/new_nations_world.PNG
Above: Areas in relation to the rest of the world.
For full sized world map click here. (http://germania.zoomshare.com/files/new_nations_world.PNG)

So what do you think, should this happen or is there any other ideas from anyone?

[Eldritch]

It's the terms "supervision" and especially "support" that I'm sceptical about. If they are interested in doing it in the first place, let's have them do it on their own.

[Equinox]

Theirs is not a petty nationalism, but rather a spiritual connection to certain areas of land.

It is never going to work.

[Motörhead Remember Me]

Stupid.


The European settlers probably made and still make better use of the land than Maori or especially Aborigines ever did or would have done
What makes you think so? Because they were not thinking that hard stones (diamonds) are more precious than living things? They were quite satisfied with how their life's were and took what they needed without inflicting that much damage to the nature. White's are irrigating and draining water from areas to areas which are supposed to be dry, thus creating new environmental disasters. Not to mention all goats, dromedars, toads, foxes e.t.c destroying the native plants and animals.
"Let's give it back..."
What makes you think that reservations are ok set up 2010?
Is it ok to let Europe be infested by foreigners forcing Europeans to live in reservations?

[Brynhild]

I voted for another proposal - no!

[Wyn]

It's the terms "supervision" and especially "support" that I'm sceptical about. If they are interested in doing it in the first place, let's have them do it on their own.

I agree. I definitely support the idea of separate states for Aborigines and Maoris in Australia and NZ. Both groups should have at least some territory that is theirs and theirs alone.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Just repeal all the race laws and allow people to self-organise and associate freely.

[Turkophagos]

European population is shrinking, bring Aussies and Zealanders back. That would solve the problem.

[Albion]

but rather a spiritual connection to certain areas of land.

It is never going to work.

Hmmm... Yes, I see now. I suppose its like the Serbs with Kosovo, its mainly populated by Albanians now but really belongs to the Serbs and they have a deep connection to it.
Well that would be a major problem with this scheme then, with that it might not work.


Stupid.

How so? I think little comments like that are stupid, but there you go.


What makes you think so? Because they were not thinking that hard stones (diamonds) are more precious than living things? They were quite satisfied with how their life's were and took what they needed without inflicting that much damage to the nature. White's are irrigating and draining water from areas to areas which are supposed to be dry, thus creating new environmental disasters. Not to mention all goats, dromedars, toads, foxes e.t.c destroying the native plants and animals.

Yes, whites have done a lot of damage, but you still have to admit it, since whites moved in Australia has gone from a land supporting very few to a land still with many large tracts of wilderness, nature and resources but now supports millions of people as opposed to thousands.


"Let's give it back..."
What makes you think that reservations are ok set up 2010?

If you read it through you would have seen that they are not reservations, but fully fledged nations. Ever heard of self-determination? What was that about Karelians in Russia and their lack of it, or what if Russia moved into Finland, would we not hear about the rights of people to posses nation-states then?


Is it ok to let Europe be infested by foreigners forcing Europeans to live in reservations?

No, but you need to work out the difference between opening the door to immigrants and those people invading.
Finns expanded from a small area around the SW coast of Finland further inland and northwards at the expense of the Sami, I'm sure they weren't too happy about it.

Invasions and settlements happen, Australia and NZ were settled - it happens. Of course the natives are going to oppose it, just as would European natives to Europe with settlements of people from outside of Europe.


I voted for another proposal - no!

Any particular reasons?


I agree. I definitely support the idea of separate states for Aborigines and Maoris in Australia and NZ. Both groups should have at least some territory that is theirs and theirs alone.

Well my primary reason behind this is because reservations don't work and the Aborigines and Maoris keep mixing into the white cities and with the people. This would give them a chance to make it on their own, but I'm not sure if they'd want it.


European population is shrinking, bring Aussies and Zealanders back. That would solve the problem.

Some would argue that's a rather Eurocentric view, I don't see why Australia and NZ should just be abandoned to become 3rd world countries if all whites left, either that or China and Indonesia would move in. Do we really want that?

[Brynhild]

European population is shrinking, bring Aussies and Zealanders back. That would solve the problem.

Over my dead effing body!

[Albion]

Over my dead effing body!

I agree, why would we want to abandon Australia and NZ to the natives who will do nothing with it but turn it into a place reminiscent of sub-sahran Africa?
How would you disperse Aussies and Kiwis over Europe anyway, by ancestry? Because many will have mixed origins, English, Scots, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Dutch, etc. The "Anglo-Celtic" one's could perhaps settled in the UK, but what about the "Italo-Anglo-Celts" or other combinations?

[Brynhild]

I agree, why would we want to abandon Australia and NZ to the natives who will do nothing with it but turn it into a place reminiscent of sub-sahran Africa?
How would you disperse Aussies and Kiwis over Europe anyway, by ancestry? Because many will have mixed origins, English, Scots, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Dutch, etc. The "Anglo-Celtic" one's could perhaps settled in the UK, but what about the "Italo-Anglo-Celts" or other combinations?

It's not what the natives would do to it that bothers me. They knew how to live off the land and be self-sufficient long before any of us came along. The natives who live away from mainstream society still know how to do so, because it's uninhabited by the rest of us who would die due to lack of knowledge of the area. To be honest, I wish overseas nations would stop talking shit about the Aborigines because they wouldn't know the first thing about who they are, their culture or their true plight - which is more complex than otherwise depicted.

Our Indonesian neighbours - primarily Moslem - have a population of more than 200 million and they would invade in a heartbeat. It's not the Chinese or other Asians we need to worry about.

[Albion]

It's not what the natives would do to it that bothers me. They knew how to live off the land and be self-sufficient long before any of us came along. The natives who live away from mainstream society still know how to do so, because it's uninhabited by the rest of us who would die due to lack of knowledge of the area.

Most people wouldn't survive, but not all of the "rest of us" are lacking in knowledge in that situation.


Our Indonesian neighbours - primarily Moslem - have a population of more than 200 million and they would invade in a heartbeat. It's not the Chinese or other Asians we need to worry about.

Yes, uniting the Sunda Islands into two large nations (Indonesia and Malaysia) was a dangerous thing, they were better divided along ethnic lines.

[Bridie]

Aborigines constitute 517,000 of Australia's population, why not create a new country for them either in Arnhem land or the Tiwi Islands?
Why not create a new country for the French in Iceland?

[Albion]

Why not create a new country for the French in Iceland?

Why not stop with the sarcasm.

[Bridie]

Why not stop with the sarcasm.I'm not being sarcastic. Why wouldn't you suggest creating a new country for the French in the relatively underpopulated Iceland? Their homeland is being over-run by North Africans and whatnot.

[Albion]

I'm not being sarcastic. Why wouldn't you suggest creating a new country for the French in the relatively underpopulated Iceland? Their homeland is being over-run by North Africans and whatnot.

Oh, sorry - my mistake. Well Iceland is underpopulated, especially if you compare it with say Ireland or GB (the latter being overpopulated).
But Iceland can't support many people.
Whereas the New World whites cover huge territories and are relatively homogeneous (in the sense that they haven't developed into 100s of new ethnicities yet but rather a hand full of larger ones), Europe is based around nation-states. French settlements in Iceland would upset the balance between this a bit and I don;t think the Icelanders would buy it.

The French should just get rid of the 3rd-wordlers there, Aborigines have a right to be in Australia, 3rd worlders don't have rights to be in France.
I believe during colonial times France and lesser-so; Spain wanted to colonize the shores of North Africa adjacent to them - the French Algeria and the Spanish in Northern Morocco.

[Bridie]

French settlements in Iceland would upset the balance between this a bit and I don;t think the Icelanders would buy it.Arnhem Landers and Tiwi Islanders probably wouldn't buy it either. Aboriginal Australians consist of 100s of different "countries", each with their own cultural identity and language. They're not all the same people.



Aborigines have a right to be in Australia,They have a right to live in their own ancestral lands within Australia and not be forcibly shifted into other people's.

Anyway, the answer I was hoping to get was that the French shouldn't be repopulated in Iceland because it's not their home. Pure and simple. The same goes for the bulk of indigenous Australians.

[Albion]

Arnhem Landers and Tiwi Islanders probably wouldn't buy it either.

Oh well.


Aboriginal Australians consist of 100s of different "countries", each with their own cultural identity and language. They're not all the same people.

Yes, I noticed. The Northern Aboriginal languages are lumped into a sprachbund so there must be vast differences between them.



They have a right to live in their own ancestral lands within Australia and not be forcibly shifted into other people's.

What about when they move into their non-ancestral lands such as areas of the East where most were killed? Should only the remaining tribes there be allowed into the nearby white towns or should all of them?


Anyway, the answer I was hoping to get was that the French shouldn't be repopulated in Iceland because it's not their home. Pure and simple. The same goes for the bulk of indigenous Australians.

Sure, your problem. I don;t see why we have so many sympathizers on here, its meant to be a Euro-preservationist board, not a multiculturalist-hug-an-Aborigine one.

[Bridie]

What about when they move into their non-ancestral lands such as areas of the East where most were killed? Should only the remaining tribes there be allowed into the nearby white towns or should all of them?Like everyone else, they have, and should have, the right to live wherever they please.



Sure, your problem. I don;t see why we have so many sympathizers on here, its meant to be a Euro-preservationist board, not a multiculturalist-hug-an-Aborigine one.If what sort of board this is supposed to be gets in the way of common sense, then there's a big problem here. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand. You're not Australian afterall, so it's not you that has to deal with the legacy left by British colonists.

[Albion]

Like everyone else, they have, and should have, the right to live wherever they please.

Does that apply to within Australia only?


If what sort of board this is supposed to be gets in the way of common sense, then there's a big problem here. Anyway, I don't expect you to understand. You're not Australian afterall, so it's not you that has to deal with the legacy left by British colonists.

That's you're own legacy of course, New Worlders never get it - you blame the British, French, Spanish for your problems, but who were those "British", "French" and "Spanish"? Your ancestors..
The British who did so much damage to Australia were the latter Aussies, the "British" who we see today are the one's who never went to Australia, the one's who stayed behind. :rolleyes:
Oh, and that argument is used a lot, expect to see it with Europeans aimed at Americans - "you don't live here, you don't understand Europe", same old lines, different places - its a common last-ditch sentence used on here a lot I've noticed.

[Brynhild]

Celtabria, here's another proposal.

How about addressing the problems in your own back yard, before concerning yourself with a far-flung part of the world where you don't even live? I have no time for armchair critics who live in their little ivory towers and see fit to dish out the dirt on what's wrong with everywhere else in the world, but fail to do anything about their own sorry mess.

[Bridie]

Does that apply to within Australia only?Of course.


but who were those "British", "French" and "Spanish"? Your ancestors..That was my whole point.



Oh, and that argument is used a lot, expect to see it with Europeans aimed at Americans - "you don't live here, you don't understand Europe", same old lines, different places - its a common last-ditch sentence used on here a lot I've noticed.People shouldn't pretend to be experts on things they truly know nothing about. End of story.

[Albion]

Celtabria, here's another proposal.

How about addressing the problems in your own back yard, before concerning yourself with a far-flung part of the world where you don't even live? I have no time for armchair critics who live in their little ivory towers and see fit to dish out the dirt on what's wrong with everywhere else in the world, but fail to do anything about their own sorry mess.

Well, well - same argument different words:


Oh, and that argument is used a lot, expect to see it with Europeans aimed at Americans - "you don't live here, you don't understand Europe", same old lines, different places - its a common last-ditch sentence used on here a lot I've noticed.

And so by your logic I suppose that means you have no rights to state your views on issues regarding Europe and North America? Yes, that does sound silly doesn't it?

Of course I do things about the mess in my own back yard, I merely made a suggestion about yours, what usually happens is you discuss the merits or negatives of such a proposal, why don't you try that??

Here's an idea, how about you actually contribute to the thread for a change instead of being a troll who comments before thinking? I'm getting really sick of this to be honest, what is it with Aussies not being able to take any criticism on the chin?


People shouldn't pretend to be experts on things they truly know nothing about. End of story.

No, its not the end of the story though is it? Because I'm far from an expert, in fact don't you think that's the whole reason of posting it on a thread as opposed to a blog or website - to actually discuss it?

Anyway, back to the thread. I suppose if the Aborigines have attachments to certain areas of land it can't work anyway. I suppose the best solution would be to leave it how it is, it seems Aussies don't want to think about it or let anyone else even think about it anyway.
Forget it, little Aussies :rolleyes2: don't want to think about it or anyone else to and I don't see what else can be done about it and don't care any more. This thread was a waste of time. :coffee:

[Brynhild]

Well, well - same argument different words:
And so by your logic I suppose that means you have no rights to state your views on issues regarding Europe and North America? Yes, that does sound silly doesn't it?

Actually, I stay out of their affairs, as those nations are very different to mine. It's called minding one's business. History is a different matter.


]Of course I do things about the mess in my own back yard, I merely made a suggestion about yours, what usually happens is you discuss the merits or negatives of such a proposal, why don't you try that??

It didn't come across as a suggestion, more like a telling.




How about you construct a better retort? I gave my opinion, and because I disagree with your view, you resort to calling me a troll.

[QUOTE=Celtabria]No, its not the end of the story though is it? Because I'm far from an expert, in fact don't you think that's the whole reason of posting it on a thread as opposed to a blog or website - to actually discuss it?

You didn't wish to enter a dialogue, you gave your opinion.


Anyway, back to the thread. I suppose if the Aborigines have attachments to certain areas of land it can't work anyway. I suppose the best solution would be to leave it how it is, it seems Aussies don't want to think about it or let anyone else even think about it anyway.

And remarks like that reinforce what little you do know. But what would this troll even know about a land that my ancestors have lived on for nigh on 200 years? :rolleyes2:


Forget it, little Aussies :rolleyes2: don't want to think about it or anyone else to and I don't see what else can be done about it and don't care any more. This thread was a waste of time. :coffee:

And we've had quite our fill of foreigners telling us how we should do things. You would be the first to jack up, I'm willing to wager, if the shoe was on the other foot.

[Wyn]

I agree, why would we want to abandon Australia and NZ to the natives who will do nothing with it but turn it into a place reminiscent of sub-sahran Africa?

Nobody can be certain about what would happen if the natives had their own states. This doesn't impact the justness of such an idea either.


The "Anglo-Celtic" one's could perhaps settled in the UK

I think that's an unfavourable plan for both us and them (mostly us). We're crowded enough as it is, and the last thing we need is more people with a culture foreign to us (Australians and New Zealanders are not exactly Bedouin tribesmen, but they are foreigners to us in a cultural sense, and the UK isn't crying out for more of those). Think of the strain we're under as things are now - even more housing, doctor time, school place, and employment struggles? No way.

But I don't support a mass exodus of white AUSns/NZrs anyway, just independent territories for those who lived in the land prior to their arrival.

[Albion]

Actually, I stay out of their affairs, as those nations are very different to mine. It's called minding one's business. History is a different matter.

I'm sure you do.


It didn't come across as a suggestion, more like a telling.

Then accept my apologies.


How about you construct a better retort? I gave my opinion, and because I disagree with your view, you resort to calling me a troll.

I don't think so, you just told me where to go basically (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=304240&postcount=22) instead of discussing the matter. But I guess I don't have the rights to since I don't live there...


And remarks like that reinforce what little you do know. But what would this troll even know about a land that my ancestors have lived on for nigh on 200 years? :rolleyes2:

It doesn't mean you yourself have 200 years of knowledge though. My ancestors have lived in GB for a few thousand years, it doesn't mean I have a few thousand years of knowledge though. :rolleyes:
Sure, you'll know more about me about Australia so why not put the knowledge to good use? Only I can't say anything since I'm not an Aussie so I'm not allowed an opinion apparently.

[Albion]

Nobody can be certain about what would happen if the natives had their own states. This doesn't impact the justness of such an idea either.

No, but we can have a pretty good idea about what it would look like.



I think that's an unfavourable plan for both us and them (mostly us). We're crowded enough as it is, and the last thing we need is more people with a culture foreign to us (Australians and New Zealanders are not exactly Bedouin tribesmen, but they are foreigners to us in a cultural sense, and the UK isn't crying out for more of those). Think of the strain we're under as things are now - even more housing, doctor time, school place, and employment struggles? No way.

Yes, I wasn't advocating it myself.


But I don't support a mass exodus of white AUSns/NZrs anyway, just independent territories for those who lived in the land prior to their arrival.

That's what I've been trying to discuss in the thread, its futile though - non-Aussies are barred from having opinions it seems because Australia is perfect in every way.

[Wyn]

No, but we can have a pretty good idea about what it would look like.

I don't think we can.



How about addressing the problems in your own back yard, before concerning yourself with a far-flung part of the world where you don't even live?

This is a bit hypocritical really, sorry. You're commenting on the problems in his part of the world in response to him talking about yours.


I have no time for armchair critics who live in their little ivory towers and see fit to dish out the dirt on what's wrong with everywhere else in the world, but fail to do anything about their own sorry mess.

He does talk about Britain's problems, I've seen the posts! Not that he needs to to justify talking about a country. Come on...

[Bridie]

I think I'll sum it up on behalf of Bryn and myself, as well as most of Australia :

BUGGER OFF POMS.


;)


Have a nice day.

[Albion]

http://i3.ytimg.com/vi/C_S5cXbXe-4/0.jpg

[Sagjaz]

I'd only agree if the Aboriginals/Maoris don't get the less fruitful/industrialized lands, like the Bantu's did in South Africa during the Apartheid era. And unless policies prevent whites from entering the Aboriginal / Maori nations and vice-versa we cannot maintain these independent nations - in the end it'll just be as it was before their establishment - a mixed land no different from the rest of New Zealand or Australia. It would in my opinion be very bad to prevent or restrict immigration and emigration based on race. So I don't like the idea of these independent nations. It would only work if Australia and/or NZ had a extreme rightist government and implement some sort of Apartheid.

[Tomer]

I cannot speak for the Maori in NZ, but I can tell you know an Aboriginal nation would not last 5 minutes. Several Aboriginal communities already have in many way's been given self-governance, the only white presence in many of these communities are the Police officers who are forced to live in houses with barred doors. I worked for several months in the Gulf of Carpenteria in Queensland doing contracting work and building and upgrading homes for Aboriginal communities. All the communities I visited were akin to third world slums. Poverty, alcoholism, violence, rape and occasionally even murder happen constantly in these communities. The government spent millions trying to give these people a better life yet every house I entered was trashed. They seemed to have no respect for anything, including themselves.

Palm Island is another notorious Aboriginal community that in many ways has self rule. It has an extremely high level of theft, domestic violence, sexual assaults against children and alcoholism. Very few of the children attend school and almost all of the islanders are on welfare. Numerous Aboriginal and white liberal activists have tried to improve conditions for the people on the island, give them a good education and try and set up initiatives to get them jobs but to no avail.

I personally know several Aboriginal nationalists who want a separate nation away from whites but even they are perplexed as to how to go about it. A lot of city Aborigines despise country Aborigines and there still exists quite a lot of animosity and tension between certain tribes. Personally I think it would be nearly impossible to get something like an Aboriginal nation off the ground and even if it did happen, it would turn into anarchy and chaos in no time.

[Crn Volk]

I think at last count, Aboriginals were about 500,000 people, or 2.5% of the population of Australia. These are people who claim Aboriginal ancestry, and therefore many are of mixed heritage. Not sure how many pure Aboriginals there are left these days. In any case, they are widely dispersed and are in no position to govern themselves.