|
[This question was asked of Steve, but that's never stopped me from butting in
before ..] >> Do you consider the invasion as something right or
>> moral? Invasions may be good or bad, depending on the situation. Remember that an
invasion generally is about a region changing from one government to
another. Change of government may happen from an election, a coup, a civil war,
or an invasion. Each of these is, in itself, neutral. Whether it is good or bad
depends on whether the new government represses the population more or less
than the previous one, and whether the other forms of repression are greater or
less under the new government. The problem with invasion is looting - that is, it frequently involves theft
from private individuals as well. Governments loot their citizens anyway, so it
really depends on how much the looting changed as a result of the invasion. The 18th century invasion of Australia by Europeans was pretty much neutral in
the short to medium term. The Europeans gradually replaced a system based on
force and exploitation with .. one based on force and exploitation. Over time things got better, and people have far more choice now than they
would have if the Aborigines had been left to their own devices. Anyone who
thinks that, after spending 40,000 years eating witchetty grubs and finger
painting on the walls, that they would have made a technological great leap
forward between 1788 and 2005 is misguided. So the problem was not the invasion itself but the looting - the theft of land
that it resulted in. This was wrong, and it was immoral. But it was perpetrated before I was born, by people I will never meet, and
perpetrated before they were born, and on people they will never meet. I have
no responsibility for it. And if they were disadvantaged by it, then life now
must be worse than it was in 1781 - and I don't see a lot of Aborigines
choosing an 1781 life style over their existing ones. The very nature of choice
is that people choose the things they prefer - the better option. If they are
not choosing the 1781 lifestyle, the life style they have now is better. Hence
they are not worse off due to the invasion - they are better off. And even if you don't accept that argument, it's little late to think about
compensation. I didn't inherit my home from a wealthy squatter who made their
living subdividing properties stolen from the Aboriginal squatters before
him. I bought my home, took a huge financial risk, and struggled to pay the
mortgage. If you think I owe compensation to the Aborigines for the 800 square meters of
land I own, then fine. I'll pay compensation to any Aboriginal authority you
choose. Provided: - That everyone agrees that this is the last and final compensation, and
they all agree to stop whining after this.
- I pay the value of 800 square meters of land based on a 1788 price - no
access to running water, no roads, sewage, electricity, gas or other
infrastructure (with a 150 year waiting time for connection) and 6 months
travel from the nearest hospital (which is more likely to kill you than save
you). Lets have an auction right now: how much would people be willing to pay
for that?
- That from the compensation we subtract all the money that I have ever
paid in tax, which has gone towards Aboriginal welfare groups.
Clearly this is a negative amount - ie your Aboriginal authority will have to
pay me. Goody - justice at last. As a good will gesture I am willing to forgive the many thousands of dollars
they owe me if they will just shut up about it right now! And frankly as
time goes on I am less inclined to give the debt. But I will stop whining when other people stop whining at me (and taking my
money).
| 
