Referendum

[Seagles68]

A symptom of and a massive problem in our world really....I wonder if I blurt out another 2 or 3 arguments (taking me 5 mins or so) will you be as willing to so eloquently and comprehensively dispute them? And, more importantly, will others be more interested in those responses or will they simply be satisfied with the confirmation that someone else already thinks the same way they do?
Also, if I can add to the rebuttal, there's also the matter of the stolen generation. Which many alive (and voting) today were unwilling participants to and the ongoing trauma that this must have caused to individuals and communities is something that I doubt I will ever be able to understand (thankfully)

I'd be the last to say this is an easy situation to address and I'm sure people have many reasons they wouldn't support this proposition. I think @Brookie Bob 's post is a significant reason. Whilst we're still doing ok relative to say Argentina economically, there is a significant amount of non indigenous people doing it tough. Be it rental costs, mortgage and general cost of living issues. I can see how getting people engaged in this proposal might be tough.

When this proposal is voted down (as I expect it to be) I would still like to see greater emphasis placed indigenous history in the more "mainstream" commercial media. I suspect a huge chunk of the population know nothing about the Black Wars and various other conflicts including the numerous massacres perpetrated.

I understand there are those that just don't want to know and take John Howard's approach to not dwell on a "black armband" version history of the country. I went to school out in the western burbs in the 60's and 70's and I don't ever remember being taught anything about aboriginal history. In high school maybe some superficial version of Cook and the First Fleet. But in infants and primary school (a Govt school) I still had to sing God Save the Queen and say the Lords Prayer so I guess it's no surprise indigenous history was not high on the agenda.

Anyway, I'm just rambling now and getting irritated.

I spose I should just get back to worrying about how many of our rep players are going to get injured and missing from our 1st game in Vegas. cheers

 

[The '47ers]

I think I found my label the other day, a so called "soft no" voter.
I'm a country Qld lad born and bred, the type on here around Origin time that gets labelled a toothless inbred banjo plucking hillbilly. And there's possibly a grain of truth in there at times, but I digress.
I think those WA farm laws they had for a bit to do with "scaring" people on the land across the nation. Then you've got the land claims popping up everywhere, one in Nth Sydney too I believe that ruffled the well to do. Also you've got the hardcore "we want repatriation" "we want you to pay rent for our land" etc etc.
Albo's bumbled his way through from start to finish, the A4 piece of paper, the unanswered questions. You turn the news on and you've got Indigenous on the yes and indigenous on the no, so how the hell can we non-indeginous claim (as we always do) that we know what's best for them. What happens if yes wins and a topic comes up and the Voice panel say no and the government say yes?! Or vice versa. I've seen plenty of "mixed blood" front and centre on both sides, but what is an indigenous person these days? 100% blood, 80%, 40, 20?? Hell we've got people here milking it for all it's worth with government assistances etc etc and they're "whiter" than me. I know the Voice is supposedly an advisory panel to be consulated with on matters and my ramble is probably getting off track but in my "soft no" head it's all too much. Welcome to Country another example of WTF, roll ol Uncle out, pay him and get him off and everyone feels good about themselves. "Always was, always will be" umm yeah okay.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I've seen plenty of "mixed blood" front and centre on both sides, but what is an indigenous person these days? 100% blood, 80%, 40, 20?? Hell we've got people here milking it for all it's worth with government assistances etc etc and they're "whiter" than me. I

If nothing else comes out of this referendum hopefully at least it will have been a learning experience.

Referring to ‘mixed blood’ and people looking ‘too white to be Indigenous’ is highly offensive, and I accept many people would never even have thought about why that is the case (ie, probably not doing it to try to be offensive). So really recommend to folks who do think in those terms, make some enquiries about why it could be offensive! It’s not hard to find eg

Google: is it offensive to question someone's Aboriginality because they 'look too white'?

I actually asked ChaptGPT the question.

By the way I started this thread because I’m interested in learning more and I’d rather do it here, I hate watching news programs, typically just scan news headlines online each day on 1 or 2 sites. I’m interested in what we think, not in what Murdoch or even ABC bosses want us to be thinking about.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

"Imperialist powers" - sounds like very narrow, defined and targeted rhetoric to me.

Lol, that is not a controversial term! I'm guessing you expect 'narrow rhetoric' from me but this is probably not the best example.
Imperialist powers typically conquer territory to add it to their empire or create a colony. The Roman Empire is a classical example, whereas the British Empire a more modern one. As we all know! The Commonwealth Games used to be the Empire Games etc etc

 

[The '47ers]

If nothing else comes out of this referendum hopefully at least it will have been a learning experience.

Referring to ‘mixed blood’ and people looking ‘too white to be Indigenous’ is highly offensive, and I accept many people would never even have thought about why that is the case (ie, probably not doing it to try to be offensive). So really recommend to folks who do think in those terms, make some enquiries about why it could be offensive! It’s not hard to find eg

Google: is it offensive to question someone's Aboriginality because they 'look too white'?

I actually asked ChaptGPT the question.

By the way I started this thread because I’m interested in learning more and I’d rather do it here, I hate watching news programs, typically just scan news headlines online each day on 1 or 2 sites. I’m interested in what we think, not in what Murdoch or even ABC bosses want us to be thinking about.

Apologies if it came out messy. Just a genuine question in regards to "what the classification" (again this probably sounds just as wrong).
But it is a legitimate question.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

No apology needed (to me anyway) I'd never thought much about that issue but when I did look into it I quickly realised.
As to questions about who might be eligible to go on the Voice or who gets special govt grants etc etc there apparently was a 3 part test decided as part of the Mabo case (I haven't read what it is) but so far as I can see it it should be fine for first Nations folks to decide who they are themselves. In fact that is one positive I can see from the Voice, it will be a chance, probably the first time, for First Nations people all over the country, including remote areas, to get together and work out their views on this and that.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

As to questions about who might be eligible to go on the Voice or who gets special govt grants etc etc there apparently was a 3 part test decided as part of the Mabo case (I haven't read what it is) but so far as I can see it it should be fine for first Nations folks to decide who they are themselves.

I think this should probably have read first nations communities. Otherwise it give the impression that individuals can simply claim heritage unquestioned and then start claiming perks and benefits (as is already frequently and falsely used to suggest any such things should be removed).

 

[Tragic Eagle]

I am undecided.

I'm disappointed with how divisive this has become and that some well educated people that I know have been aggressive enough to infer that a no vote is driven by racism. The aboriginal people themselves are divided over this issue and historically different tribes were during history at war with one another. Who is the voice really to be given to? Will it be unified voice or a voice that at least represents the majority of the aboriginal people? Where will that majority come from? Will they come from the tribes and elders of our remote Aboriginal communities where the most help is needed?

Is the purpose of this exercise sought as another form of further reconciliation or is it really a tool that will help to fix the existing problems?

It certainly won't change the awful mistakes our governments and bureaucrats made historically.

For mine the question really is - Do we really need to amend our constitution in order to fix the long standing problems that have existed? Or should it be as a result of the actions taken by our elected governments in concert with one another with a common goal to achieve the improvements and outcomes desperately needed. What are the sources of the current problems that exist and how can they be addressed effectively? It is complex to say the least. I agree that these issues require the consideration of Aboriginal views.

Is this referendum going to suffer the same fate as the 1967 referendum by not achieving not nearly as much as was hoped. Australians voted ‘yes’ because they thought that by voting ‘yes’, they were going to give Aboriginal Australians a better chance at a life within Australia, that they were going to be given the capacity to be able to live in Australia at a standard that wouldn’t make us ashamed. Well here we are.

There is already significant government funding for Aboriginal people, a lot of that money actually isn’t about spending to develop capacity and improving indigenous services, it’s about processes that relate to indigenous people. The funding to date is absorbed by poor decision making, fractured approaches between Federal and State Governments and Territories with heavy handed interventions that have not been successful as the social issues are complex.

Some aboriginal communities have become dysfunctional with atrocities being committed by aboriginal people upon aboriginal women and children.

I don't expect the majority of Australians have read the constitution nor understand what the impact of the proposed change will really be. I heard on the ABC this morning that experts have concluded that the proposed changes are not risky to the constitution - what on earth does that mean?

I am undecided and not impressed by the campaign.

A very serious matter is changing our constitution and frankly the campaign has not been informative enough. The majority of people I have spoken to don't feel they understand the goals and benefits that will follow a "Yes" vote. If the outcome is in effect "No" it doesn't mean that a majority of Australians are racist. It doesn't mean that they accept that our Governments have done enough to date to address the very serious issues that exist within some of our remote aboriginal communities. It will be as a result of people not being satisfied that changing our constitution will really change outcomes. However there will be those within our communities that will label such an outcome as a form of racism. What to vote? Was this referendum really a good idea?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

A thought on the "land claims popping up everywhere" comment. The native title act has been around since 1993 and is still the main precedent by which indigenous groups will use for land claims (and most of which fail). I'm yet to see a good argument on why the voice would increase the number of successful claims. But, if anyone is worried about land claims; first of all...no one is coming for your house (maybe they are for someone like Gina....but I fully support that 😉 ). Looking at the bigger picture, if somehow we can reach a point of reconciliation, where we have come to terms with the errors of the past, closed the gap in living standards so that indigenous children actually have the same opportunity to succeed that we all claim exists etc.... Then doesn't that take the wind out of anyone's sails who is trying to get something from nothing? Doesn't it remove the fear that someone is coming for your job or house? If you can acknowledge that we have a problem that needs to be fixed, isn't it better to rip the band aid of now rather than letting the resentment build and fester (potentially into more figures like Lidia Thorpe - who does no one any help IMO)?

 

[Brookie Bob]

However, the country was founded on racism. The indigenous population weren't considered equals by the Brits, they were considered inferior savages and in need of refining and/or elimination.

And like most, if not all indigenous populations around the planet, the Australian indigenous population would go onto face the same fate. Be it dispossession of their homeland, death through disease like small pox (so many in the Sydney area died in the first year), death from fights with settlers or simply outright murder. The country is covered with sites where massacres took place.

These killings (and fights over land dispossession) were not a long time ago. They were ongoing coz it took some time to settle the whole country.

Australia was not founded on explicit racism. Implicit perhaps, but the whole project was not designed by Britain to sail to the farthest reaches of the globe to bring racial distress to Australia's indigenous people. That would be a lot of effort for no purpose.

Context (which is usually missed, and then judged by today's 'standards'): every technologically advanced nation on the globe from the 1500's to the 1800's (think, science, navigation, military, economic) was looking to expand, gain territorial advantages, trade, - and most importantly - get there before the other technologically advanced nations (competitors - let's call them all TAN's) did.

Every one of these TAN's thought that they were more enlightened than the peoples they conquered - and in terms of science and overall technology, they were. Morally, no - unfortunately.
Every country and people has a different idea of civilization and what it entails, it seems.

Interesting fact - Britain was the first country to outlaw slavery in the early 1800's, and policed the Atlantic with a fleet of ships to make this happen. If you're going to be conquered by a TAN, you could do worse (think Belgium in the Congo).

The tide of history was always going to put the indigenous people of Australia in the firing line at some point to be conquered by someone else.

Sure - we would all like to see a better outcome now for Australia's indigenous people. I hope it comes without historical 're-writes', cancel culture, and 'first amongst equals' thinking. The past should always be judged by context, and the mores and norms of that time.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Some aboriginal communities have become dysfunctional with atrocities being committed by aboriginal people upon aboriginal women and children.

Thanks for sharing, I'm really glad that people have been willing to actually discuss the problems. There's plenty to unpack here, so I might pick out a few things that jump out at me when I get the time.
Let's start with the one above. I think there are three questions we need to ask ourselves. How did it get to this point, what is the best way to fix the problem and do we (the entire Australian people/government) even have any responsibility in fixing things.
How did it get to this point - There's a lot of history here - colonization, frontier wars, forcible relocation, stolen generation. Most of this history wasn't taught to me when I was in school 20 odd years ago. I thoroughly advise people to brush up on the history that is now easily accessible. But ultimately, we have communities that were forcibly severed from their old lives and traditions, placed in locations where little work was available and usually not to them. Then, after you've taken away peoples autonomy to live their old life we made alternatives through drugs and alcohol easily available. Then throw in the trauma of having your parents or children forcibly removed from you. Then hope all of this goes away or at least stays quite by giving people enough money that they do whatever it is that they want. Oh, and then throw in the distrust of the government that all this has added to. I'm all for arguments of personal responsibility but you can't to that without acknowledging the history behind how we got here.
How do we fix the problem - More money? To individuals without purpose, with resentment to the majority of the population and in remote locations where leaving means a total loss of community and staying means a future with no prospects other than government money. How about government intervention and integration.....um...yeah nah....I think we tried that one and it wasn't to good. So...how about asking the people most connected to the problem what they think the solutions are? It's taken a long time to figure this out but there are now plenty of great examples of this working at local levels. Programs run by indigenous people that their communities can trust (unlike the government) and listen to the concerns of the people with the problems. Why should this have a federal voice though if it already works well at a local level? Well for one, most of these programs are federally funded, so wouldn't it make sense to have a mechanism for local communities to discuss what has worked for them and then advise the people funding them what could work best in the future. I also believe that this more direct approach and the concept of an entirely indigenous body will help alleviate much of the distrust that comes when government programs and government recommendations are implemented to communities. Finally, how often do we hear that "aboriginal people must take responsibility for behaviors"? Well, isn't this exactly that? If it's implemented and it is a complete failure, isn't that then vindication that this is simply a personal responsibility problem and one that we as a nation did all we could for and it still couldn't get anywhere with?
Do we even have a responsibility to try? As I've already covered, there's a lot here that the nation of Australia got wrong (and that's without even mentioning pre federation days). If you look at the history, I think it's pretty clear cut. But I'll take it another step further. There's kids being born into these communities with very little hope for a good life. Even if you even make it through the early years of exposure to abuse, they are then likely left with the choice of disconnecting from your community and culture or continuing in an environment with very little prospects. We MUST CLOSE THE GAP if we are to believe we really are the Australian dream of a multicultural land where anyone can succeed. I'm sure almost everyone here on Silvertails has a part of their own ancestral culture that they hold with pride as a part of themselves and government intervention and integration is not the answer, just the stolen generation was never the answer. To sever the ties of people from their communities (be it through force or financial incentives) is deeply against the idea of a fair go for all.

 

[Brookie Bob]

@MuzztheEagle - I do like your post above, especially the personal responsibility part.

It does sound like a good model for remote / rural communities (think Tennant Creek, etc).

Integration - at some point, all people are expected to integrate with wider society. (This is different from 'forced integration').

How does the rule of Law apply without distinction or prejudice across Australia without having different sets of laws for indigenous versus non-indigenous people in the above scenario? And wouldn't that in and of itself be discriminatory?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

How does the rule of Law apply without distinction or prejudice across Australia without having different sets of laws for indigenous versus non-indigenous people in the above scenario? And wouldn't that in and of itself be discriminatory?

Probably a better question for one of our resident lawyers than me. But it's my understanding, and I believe it's been made fairly clear, that the voice will not have any impact on laws unless the government of the day decides to legislate one. And I genuinely can't imagine that happening, not just because it would be a nightmare to uphold in the state that is our current legal system but because doing so would likely violate the constitution (e.g. it's general vibe ;p) and wouldn't get past the high court. Hell, I'm about as far left as it comes, and I wouldn't want it to happen! Any government that took that on would be committing suicide IMO.
What is possible, is impacts to sentencing (outside of what already exists for mandatory) or the specifics of the sentence received. But, I don't mean, you're indigenous so you get a lighter sentence and do I think this actually already happens in some cases (as it does for people who can say they've had a hard life). What I mean is, we may see sentencing which takes into consideration the communities opinions on how best to break to continuous cycle, as detention is often not the best answer. Which is actually something I'd like to see much more of across all of society - but that's a another conversation.

 

[manly al]

If the Voice proposal was anything along the lines of an ASIC model , it would just not be worth even considering but this voice proposition can only have an advisory role on every legal and practical application that i have noticed .
Some scope no doubt to put a reasonable case[ or influence ] for government or general policy here and there but any organization or group or lobby entity can do that now , Again from indications, this is just intended to be a more streamlined and direct exercise to offer some worthwhile input and proposals .
That is not my interpretation but from what i have gleaned from fairly learned individuals .
Only alternative suggestion that i have noticed recently is to conduct another audit into Indigenous expenditure but has already been over 20 audits over the course of the previous federal government"s tenure and with no desirable outcomes or improvements so not sure how that is going to offer much constructive improvement going forward.
Also do not get the notion that it will be in the constitution for ever if it is in the very unlikely event voted in . Can just as easily be tacked onto a general election event anytime in the future as a referenda question to abolish it if it had served its purpose or not applicable any more and from a general consensus .
Think that there is going to be an address by a former High Court judge sometime today , won 't be watching it but will try to pick up a few snippets of it and largely in favor of the Voice apparently .
Certainly can understand some misgivings about the proposal , i still have some but then i look at alternatives which seem to only offer more of the same as opposed to what this measure may have some reasonable chance of delivering ..
Be curious to know what form Dutton 's regional or local voice proposals consist of but has gone a bit quite on the matter since he suggested it

 

[lsz]

I am undecided.

I'm disappointed with how divisive this has become and that some well educated people that I know have been aggressive enough to infer that a no vote is driven by racism. The aboriginal people themselves are divided over this issue and historically different tribes were during history at war with one another. Who is the voice really to be given to? Will it be unified voice or a voice that at least represents the majority of the aboriginal people? Where will that majority come from? Will they come from the tribes and elders of our remote Aboriginal communities where the most help is needed?

Is the purpose of this exercise sought as another form of further reconciliation or is it really a tool that will help to fix the existing problems?

It certainly won't change the awful mistakes our governments and bureaucrats made historically.

For mine the question really is - Do we really need to amend our constitution in order to fix the long standing problems that have existed? Or should it be as a result of the actions taken by our elected governments in concert with one another with a common goal to achieve the improvements and outcomes desperately needed. What are the sources of the current problems that exist and how can they be addressed effectively? It is complex to say the least. I agree that these issues require the consideration of Aboriginal views.

Is this referendum going to suffer the same fate as the 1967 referendum by not achieving not nearly as much as was hoped. Australians voted ‘yes’ because they thought that by voting ‘yes’, they were going to give Aboriginal Australians a better chance at a life within Australia, that they were going to be given the capacity to be able to live in Australia at a standard that wouldn’t make us ashamed. Well here we are.

There is already significant government funding for Aboriginal people, a lot of that money actually isn’t about spending to develop capacity and improving indigenous services, it’s about processes that relate to indigenous people. The funding to date is absorbed by poor decision making, fractured approaches between Federal and State Governments and Territories with heavy handed interventions that have not been successful as the social issues are complex.

Some aboriginal communities have become dysfunctional with atrocities being committed by aboriginal people upon aboriginal women and children.

I don't expect the majority of Australians have read the constitution nor understand what the impact of the proposed change will really be. I heard on the ABC this morning that experts have concluded that the proposed changes are not risky to the constitution - what on earth does that mean?

I am undecided and not impressed by the campaign.

A very serious matter is changing our constitution and frankly the campaign has not been informative enough. The majority of people I have spoken to don't feel they understand the goals and benefits that will follow a "Yes" vote. If the outcome is in effect "No" it doesn't mean that a majority of Australians are racist. It doesn't mean that they accept that our Governments have done enough to date to address the very serious issues that exist within some of our remote aboriginal communities. It will be as a result of people not being satisfied that changing our constitution will really change outcomes. However there will be those within our communities that will label such an outcome as a form of racism. What to vote? Was this referendum really a good idea?

The tough thing about the media is the need to show "both sides" when indigenous support for the voice is close to 80% indicating that there is not really that big of a divide

 

[Seagles68]

Australia was not founded on explicit racism. Implicit perhaps, but the whole project was not designed by Britain to sail to the farthest reaches of the globe to bring racial distress to Australia's indigenous people. That would be a lot of effort for no purpose.

Context (which is usually missed, and then judged by today's 'standards'): every technologically advanced nation on the globe from the 1500's to the 1800's (think, science, navigation, military, economic) was looking to expand, gain territorial advantages, trade, - and most importantly - get there before the other technologically advanced nations (competitors - let's call them all TAN's) did.

Every one of these TAN's thought that they were more enlightened than the peoples they conquered - and in terms of science and overall technology, they were. Morally, no - unfortunately.
Every country and people has a different idea of civilization and what it entails, it seems.

Interesting fact - Britain was the first country to outlaw slavery in the early 1800's, and policed the Atlantic with a fleet of ships to make this happen. If you're going to be conquered by a TAN, you could do worse (think Belgium in the Congo).

The tide of history was always going to put the indigenous people of Australia in the firing line at some point to be conquered by someone else.

Sure - we would all like to see a better outcome now for Australia's indigenous people. I hope it comes without historical 're-writes', cancel culture, and 'first amongst equals' thinking. The past should always be judged by context, and the mores and norms of that time.

Hey Bob - there are some good reads on here the last couple of days. I agree that context and history is important and I wouldn't say that British settlement was solely based on racism. However, they new what they were doing given they were experts in the slave trade (as others were). Cook had reported back after his 1770 visit, that there were only black natives on the east coast. And whether it was simply a state of mind at the time, they (and other Europeans) considered themselves superior to such people. If X considers Y an inferior race, to me that's racism. They didn't come back here with soldiers and convicts because they thought the indigenous population were equals and would simply invite them in for tea.

And yes, why they did abolish slavery (eventually) that doesn't mean they weren't racists. The US also abolished slavery and I would say it became the bastion of race equality. Just as Terra Nullius was used as an excuse to take ownership of the land here, there were "scientific reasons" found to justify their racism post slavery.

I feel I should note here that I'm not one of these self hating white Australians that some people like to suggest people like myself are when we discuss this kind of thing. Am I happy I live in this country? Absolutely. Do I want to live anywhere else? Absolutely not. Do I think it's the greatest country in the World? Of course not. There's no such place in my mind.

We have many "issues" just like other countries but we are certainly a lot better off than some. For now. But for me, history is important. And I don't just feel this way about Australian aboriginals. Indigenous people across the world have been shat on over history. And I guess somewhat hypercritically, it bothers me mostly post the Enlightenment period coz we supposedly all became more civilised. And yet all that happened was technology made it easier to take land from people in the name of expansion and yes, racism.

Anyway, I'm sure there are history scholars out there that can correct a lot of what I'm going on about. Bottom line for me though is that we don't need to feel guilty or responsible for Europeans colonising this land but we damn well should acknowledge that the way it was done was pretty brutal. And a lot of that brutality was race based. Again, the majority of settlers weren't sitting down with indigenous people and saying - so, how about those Sea Eagles.

The consequence of dismantling a culture, of murdering untold numbers of people, of taking their home and forcing them on to reserves, of legislating racist policies is not something that can be reversed by simply telling indigenous people, it's about time you just accepted things and integrated. As I mentioned yesterday, I have no idea if this proposal will lead to significant change for the chronic "problems" that exist for indigenous people but I certainly think it's worth giving it a chance.

 

[Seagles68]

Probably a better question for one of our resident lawyers than me. But it's my understanding, and I believe it's been made fairly clear, that the voice will not have any impact on laws unless the government of the day decides to legislate one. And I genuinely can't imagine that happening, not just because it would be a nightmare to uphold in the state that is our current legal system but because doing so would likely violate the constitution (e.g. it's general vibe ;p) and wouldn't get past the high court. Hell, I'm about as far left as it comes, and I wouldn't want it to happen! Any government that took that on would be committing suicide IMO.
What is possible, is impacts to sentencing (outside of what already exists for mandatory) or the specifics of the sentence received. But, I don't mean, you're indigenous so you get a lighter sentence and do I think this actually already happens in some cases (as it does for people who can say they've had a hard life). What I mean is, we may see sentencing which takes into consideration the communities opinions on how best to break to continuous cycle, as detention is often not the best answer. Which is actually something I'd like to see much more of across all of society - but that's a another conversation.

I have an interest in Native American history and the Navajo Nation have had their own tribal system in place for some time. It seems to work for them. Just for possible interest as I'm not suggesting it is easily adopted.

Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law: A Tradition of Tribal Self-Governance

ais.arizona.edu

 

[The '47ers]

I have an interest in Native American history and the Navajo Nation have had their own tribal system in place for some time. It seems to work for them. Just for possible interest as I'm not suggesting it is easily adopted.

Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law: A Tradition of Tribal Self-Governance

ais.arizona.edu

Tribal punishment, customary law & payback

Aboriginal tribal law is often seen as harsh and brutal, but it ensured order and discipline. Payback is the most known form of customary law. Payback is still practiced, conflicting with white law.

www.creativespirits.info

 

[Seagles68]

Tribal punishment, customary law & payback

Aboriginal tribal law is often seen as harsh and brutal, but it ensured order and discipline. Payback is the most known form of customary law. Payback is still practiced, conflicting with white law.

www.creativespirits.info

Yeah, I was wondering how this and the more formalised Native American system could work in practice. We're probably a long way off that though.

I forgot to mention earlier that I did have a laugh at your "toothless inbred banjo plucking hillbilly" call.

Go Manly

Have a good one!

 

[The '47ers]

I forgot to mention earlier that I did have a laugh at your "toothless inbred banjo plucking hillbilly" call.

Go Manly

Have a good one!

I find it easier to get in first so people know what they're dealing with 🤭😂