1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Because it's not "suddenly".  It happened hundreds of years ago.  The people who did it are long dead.  The people they did it to are long dead. 

 

I can't wait for the kerfuffle to be over in Ukraine, so I can go over and demand reparations for the turnip patches that my grandparents got pushed off around 1900.  And I don't understand why anyone would ask me for reparation money for stuff that happened in the USA when my grandparents were on their turnip patches a world away.  It's the same in Aus...  They're looking for free money.

 

 

Nobody is asking you to pay out anything.

 

So no repetitions should be paid for genocides in which all the perpetrators are dead?

 

4 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

It's always been about the money.

The Aboriginal elites will rake it in and the average bloke will get nothing.

Well that is why they slaughtered them all in the first place.

For money.

The bastards were stealing the sheep.

Just now, MalcolmB said:

Well that is why they slaughtered them all in the first place.

For money.

The bastards were stealing the sheep.

And it's the Poms who should be paying up. There weren't any Aussies involved in the alleged genocide.

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

And it's the Poms who should be paying up. There weren't any Aussies involved in the alleged genocide.

If we start paying out Australia the whole of the commonwealth will be lining up for similar. 
we can’t afford it. We need money for booze and drugs.

Another thread ruined by trolling.

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Another thread ruined by trolling.

 

Face / mirror interface required.

 

Mixed in with a large dash of self awareness.

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So no repetitions should be paid for genocides in which all the perpetrators are dead?

(asuming you meant 'reparations'. 'Repetitions' would be reprehensible)

How far back should these payments go? Biblical times?  Prehistoric? Just asking for a friend.

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nobody is asking you to pay out anything.

 

So no repetitions should be paid for genocides in which all the perpetrators are dead?

 

If not taxpayers, who, exactly, are they going to get the reparations from, and who, exactly, are they going to give it to?

 

 

 

All the unsuccessful cultures are extorting Western culture for cash and via liberal white guilt.

2 minutes ago, Mike_Hunt said:

All the unsuccessful cultures are extorting Western culture for cash and via liberal white guilt.

 

And the politicians will keep dangling that free money just out of reach so they'll win those votes.

 

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I wonder if they'll be having an inquiry into all the land stolen from Aboriginial tribes by other Aboriginal tribes in brutal, ongoing warefare over extended periods of time? 

 

Surely the descendants of the winning tribe should pay reparations to the descendants of the losing tribe?

 

No? No interest in that? Didn't think so...

 

 

Tasmania is part of Australia. The English killed off ALL of the native Tasmanians in 19th century. There are no descendants & just who could 'the winning tribe' (English) pay off? 

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Only a white fellah would consider this as viable argument.

 

What does my assumed race have to do with the statute of limitations?

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

More to the point

 

Why are they trying to apply today's Laws and interpretations, to something that happened 200 years ago ?
 

No different to the slave trade reparations, being howled about today.

 

All those that were present and directly effected, can parade their arses in Court, and explain why the should get compo.

 

Let's face it - it's just a reason for yet another handout. 

53 minutes ago, Emdog said:

There are no descendants & just who could 'the winning tribe' (English) pay off? 

 

I'm sure the Aboriginies would be happy to receive the payment in their place. 

 

We'd have to make sure none of them were descendants of tribes that killed or stole land/women from other Aboriginal tribes though. Since we are judging historical events by modern standards, we should also make sure none of them were descendants or the tribes that engaged in things like cannablism as well. 

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The subject is a genocide,  it is not someone getting punched in the nose.

 

But thanks for a perfect example of a dismissive false equivalence.

 

The subject is bringing up wrongdoings from centuries ago in order to seed hatred, resentment and division in modern day societies.

 

I'm not the least bit surprised you're a fan of such a tactic. 

Don't give them any money.

They will only spend it on more Grog.

2 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

I can’t see anyone asking for money above. 
You brought that up. 
They just want the truth acknowledged.

You sound like one of those Holocaust deniers.

 

It's already been acknowledged (and apologized) for profusely.

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Visit_Parliament/Art/Icons/Apology_to_Australias_Indigenous_Peoples

 

Now they want the cold hard cash. 💰

1 hour ago, Emdog said:

Tasmania is part of Australia. The English killed off ALL of the native Tasmanians in 19th century. There are no descendants & just who could 'the winning tribe' (English) pay off? 

 

Britannica claims the 2011 census shows 19,000 Tasmanians claiming to be aboriginal.

 

If the Brits hadn't invaded in previous centuries, they'd all be speaking Japanese.  Or Dutch.  Or French.  Or... Or...

 

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Britannica claims the 2011 census shows 19,000 Tasmanians claiming to be aboriginal.

 

If the Brits hadn't invaded in previous centuries, they'd all be speaking Japanese.  Or Dutch.  Or French.  Or... Or...

 

Thai

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Britannica claims the 2011 census shows 19,000 Tasmanians claiming to be aboriginal.

 

If the Brits hadn't invaded in previous centuries, they'd all be speaking Japanese.  Or Dutch.  Or French.  Or... Or...

 

Yes, if the Brits hadn’t have raped them Simone else would have.

They seem very ungrateful for it.

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, one would imagine so.

 

Compensation is generally due for victims of a crime, and paid by the criminals.  That cannot happen here- both are long dead.  If your great-great-great-great-great grandfather did something bad to my great-great-great-great-great grandfather, of course that should be acknowledged. But it doesn't mean that I get compensated for it by "someone", which usually means the government, which means all taxpayers. Even those whose families weren't even in the country at the time. 

 

The same situation pops up everywhere that natives demand "justice". It starts with wanting the historical record corrected, which is fine and good. But inevitably, it devolves into a demand for payment. 

Yes, sooner or later it involves monetary damages and it will never be enough to satisfy the descendants of the victims.  It will go on and on.

The offense doesn't necessarily have to be genocide.  In Hawaii, the issue is the overthrow of the monarchy.  

Yes, and everyone involved is dead now. I fail to see what is landmark about it.

Punishing later generations for the sins of their fathers is madness unless they are perpetuating the crimes

   

Just now, madone said:

Yes, and everyone involved is dead now.

That is why prosecuting for murder is pointless.

They are already dead.

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So no repetitions should be paid for genocides in which all the perpetrators are dead?

 

Correct.

It really is that simple. 

There has to be a line, whether you approve or not. 

How much to make this 'genocide' to go away? that is the question, right?

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

What does my assumed race have to do with the statute of limitations?

 

Do you know what a statute of limitations is?

33 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

That is why prosecuting for murder is pointless.

They are already dead.

 

Atonement... it's not just for the religious minded.

37 minutes ago, madone said:

Yes, and everyone involved is dead now. I fail to see what is landmark about it.

Punishing later generations for the sins of their fathers is madness unless they are perpetuating the crimes

   

 

...or white.

Dig them up and sue them

5 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

We sent all our criminals down there for 80 years.

What did they think was going to happen?
I think in Tasmania they pretty much killed the entire population.

They had a White Australia policy so of course they didn’t want black people there.

And still don’t.

 

 

 

 

No.  These days it is whingeing, smart a**ed poms they don't want.