Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Rugby and the British Empire
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gingergenius" data-source="post: 203110"><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The thing about the 'Stolen Generation' at the time is that it was in fact for the percieved benefit of the Aboriginals. <strong>The Aboriginals still cannot handle modern life in a large part and the 'Stolen Generation' was a government excercise to nip this problem at the bud</strong>, after all, despite what the bleeding hearts will tell you Aboriginal life both then and now is a circle of destruction almost. If the Australian government were not involved in a badly conceived effort to allow the Aboriginies to assimilate in society they would have simply done what the early colonists did in Tasmania.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">[/b]</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Hmmm, not too sure I agree with you on that one. The fact was that the kids who were taken were almost always half-casts because it was believed that the Aboriginals as a race were "dying off" and so it would be noble at lease to save those with some European blood because, as they saying was back then, "Aboriginal blood washes out" (that is, after a few generations of breeding with whites there'd be no sign of any Aboriginal traits left).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">But no, things aren't an aweful lot better at the moment for them... they've got all the necessary rights these days, but they do very much exist in the peripheral of Australian society. It's a complex problem, but one that successive governments haven't done an aweful lot to address.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong>Still, that doesn't make Australian's "racist", in fact it is widely percieved that Australia is a vastly more successful multicultural nation than Britain because we are more tolerable than the English as a society.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">[/b][/quote]</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Excuse me for blowing our own trumpet, but we've done a great job at being tolerant for immigrants. Fine, we haven't exactly embraced them all with open arms, but who has?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I said earlier in the topic England and France had a lot in common - immigration from accross the world being one of them. But in France, they've shoved all the Maghreb and West African immigrants out into suburban ghettoes, and there is a lot of institutional racism. I'm friends with a French woman whose husband was a Berber guy from Algeria, they live on the edge of the main bit of Paris. And it's ridiculous; all of the touristy areas are typically wealthy and old-skool Parisian, then the banlieues stretch for miles. I've seen policemen stopping and searching the only black guys in a crowd of people, and no one else. At leaast in England we've managed to integrate our immigrants so that no one is surprised to see a coloured face presenting a show on TV. The way that our cities are planned, with council estates bordering wealthier areas in an irregular way, means there's very little ghettoisation. Which is why French immigrants are trying to find money to move to England... people won't prevent them getting jobs and housing just because they're not white.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Anyway sanzar, I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether Australia's multicultural or not, because I've never been there. I heard there's a lot of Vietnamese and Lebanese.... but seriously, in England we don't have thousands of people living in what are effectively rubbish dumps (having seen a documentary on an Aboriginal town next to Uluru and others like it). Where's the evidence that Aussies are more tolerant?, cos that's far from the stereotype we've got...</span></p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="gingergenius, post: 203110"] [size=2] The thing about the 'Stolen Generation' at the time is that it was in fact for the percieved benefit of the Aboriginals. [b]The Aboriginals still cannot handle modern life in a large part and the 'Stolen Generation' was a government excercise to nip this problem at the bud[/b], after all, despite what the bleeding hearts will tell you Aboriginal life both then and now is a circle of destruction almost. If the Australian government were not involved in a badly conceived effort to allow the Aboriginies to assimilate in society they would have simply done what the early colonists did in Tasmania. [/b][/quote] Hmmm, not too sure I agree with you on that one. The fact was that the kids who were taken were almost always half-casts because it was believed that the Aboriginals as a race were "dying off" and so it would be noble at lease to save those with some European blood because, as they saying was back then, "Aboriginal blood washes out" (that is, after a few generations of breeding with whites there'd be no sign of any Aboriginal traits left). But no, things aren't an aweful lot better at the moment for them... they've got all the necessary rights these days, but they do very much exist in the peripheral of Australian society. It's a complex problem, but one that successive governments haven't done an aweful lot to address. [b] Still, that doesn't make Australian's "racist", in fact it is widely percieved that Australia is a vastly more successful multicultural nation than Britain because we are more tolerable than the English as a society.[/b] [/b][/quote] Excuse me for blowing our own trumpet, but we've done a great job at being tolerant for immigrants. Fine, we haven't exactly embraced them all with open arms, but who has? I said earlier in the topic England and France had a lot in common - immigration from accross the world being one of them. But in France, they've shoved all the Maghreb and West African immigrants out into suburban ghettoes, and there is a lot of institutional racism. I'm friends with a French woman whose husband was a Berber guy from Algeria, they live on the edge of the main bit of Paris. And it's ridiculous; all of the touristy areas are typically wealthy and old-skool Parisian, then the banlieues stretch for miles. I've seen policemen stopping and searching the only black guys in a crowd of people, and no one else. At leaast in England we've managed to integrate our immigrants so that no one is surprised to see a coloured face presenting a show on TV. The way that our cities are planned, with council estates bordering wealthier areas in an irregular way, means there's very little ghettoisation. Which is why French immigrants are trying to find money to move to England... people won't prevent them getting jobs and housing just because they're not white. Anyway sanzar, I'm not going to get into a discussion about whether Australia's multicultural or not, because I've never been there. I heard there's a lot of Vietnamese and Lebanese.... but seriously, in England we don't have thousands of people living in what are effectively rubbish dumps (having seen a documentary on an Aboriginal town next to Uluru and others like it). Where's the evidence that Aussies are more tolerant?, cos that's far from the stereotype we've got...[/size] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
Rugby and the British Empire
Top