My grandmother’s mother was Irish, so I was told. If I’ve got the genealogical sum right, that makes me one-eighth Irish. If further proof is required, I have in my possession a green shirt and a green jumper. Also, if its relevant, my mum Elsie was referred to by some as Aunty Elsie. Though, on reflection, I think they might have been her nephews and nieces.
Anyway, this might become important. For as judges in the U.K. become woker and woker, reparations for Irish folk, badly done by, so they say, over hundreds of years by the English, might become a reality. Say, a modest, £10,000 per head for those able to trace their ancestry back to Cromwellian times. This might mean I would be eligible for one-eighth of £10,000 or £1,250 – not to be sneezed at. Of course, with money to be made you can expect Pádraigín impostors aplenty to be lining up. What to do? DNA testing of course.
A little prick on your finger at the local lab and Bob’s your uncle. But is this a racist thing to do? Shouldn’t people be trusted? Mum said I was part Irish and that surely should be good enough; and then, I forgot to mention, there’s my CD of the Irish group The Fureys on my shelf and, to boot, I’ve quaffed more than an occasional Guinness in my time.
Phew! Apparently, it’s alright. DNA testing is only racist if you’re trying to verify that a person has forbears of races which are of colour or black. Thus ex-Labor minister Gary Johns (The Burden of Culture) got into trouble for suggesting that self-identifying Aborigines might have to establish their biological bona fides in order to benefit from racially-determined benefits and preferment. On the other hand, checking a claim to have white Irish ancestry going back centuries is not racist in the least. I hope that’s clear. What, even if the person claiming is of colour? You got me there?!?
Keep tabs, and maybe archive, the following. Plenty of fauxboriginies on the graft in academia and the arts already.
Interesting times ahead.
https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/
I’ll be right there for my share of that £10K. 25% worth according to my DNA. If the Scots start paying put for the Highland clearances, that will be another 25%. Add another 8% for the Norwegian loss of the Orkneys.
Is there no end to these absurdities? Apparently not
oooohh.. I’m in if the Scots get a cut.
There’s a bit of colonialism in India I can also profit from.
DNA is a white supremist colonial imposition on humanity invented in Europe. Like imaginary numbers and Young’s modulus it has no relevance in the Indigenous science.
Those with white-skinned Irish ancestors mighn’t be claiming that their people had some sort of superior culture. I guess a Sorry Payment would go over well; but the Irish wouldn’t need “proud” plonked in front of any ‘tribal’ name.
I’ve never met anyone who wished to be Aboriginal.
If that makes a racist, so be it.
I’ve seen no indication of part payment if only part aboriginal. 1/32 gets the full payment, same as a full-blood, so far as I can figure.
So go for the full $10,000.
Now, I have UK West Country ancestry and there was a lot of my ancestors captured and sold into slavery in Ireland in the Middle Ages, so I’ll see your 10,000 and raise you!
This could become fun…
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that those who claim to be passionate about ‘social justice’ never get around to advocating for subjects beyond the comfort and protection of their own society.
I’m happy to be corrected, but I believe there’s a delicate history between Japan and Korea (pre-communism; but also Koreans in Japan itself), and Japan and China. No doubt others could be added to this list (How about African oppressors of fellow Africans?).
If you want to manipulate, coerce, dominate, or bully, you don’t choose a target that matches or exceeds your own strengths and abilities. You choose a victim you feel confidence you can succeed against.
This reparations business has nothing to do with the subjects identified as ‘oppressed’. They are simply tools to incrementally dismantle the machine. Once they are no longer of use, they’ll be discarded. Like women.
It’s a distraction to focus on the chosen ‘victims’ rather than the intention behind the process. The distraction is proving very successful.
I’ve got Irish and Huguenot and English.
I think my English bits should pay reparations to my Irish bits. The French can reparate my Huguenots bits, I’d like a chateau in the Loire valley thanks.
Same should go for all part aboriginals, pay your own reparations, after all it’s your great great grandpas who muddied the bloodlines, not mine.
It’s heartening to see Australians rejecting identity politics.
The next step is to revamp citizenship and the civic virtues attached thereto.
There is a lot of Norse in the Irish and Welsh, so that’s a claim on Norway if you like.
Totally ridiculous to even think of such things, and fauxboriginals should butt out and leave the field to those who need it in remote and rural areas. In fact, it should not be a field at all, but an assessment based on need and not dependent on heritage at all.
There is no such thing as a colonial imprint either.
There is Viking in a lot of Yorkshire too.
Place names that end in ‘by’ indicate that Viking ‘invasion’.
For example, Bellerby, Melsonby, etc.
Don’t forget the convicts. Mine was a Sicilian sailor, so what was he worth?
… and who pays, England or Italy? Isn’t this fun?
I am creating inventory of all the appropriations made by aboriginals against my culture. Clothing for example, especially shoes, housing, education, Christianity – stolen from us and never acknowledged, vehicles, roads. All these things must be given up by those who seek to have me pay them for their “welcome to country”.
That non-material things such as emotional trauma can be quantified, but material benefits such as what you mention, cannot, tells us all we need to know about the intentions behind this type of tactic: That (as I wrote above), the subject (in this case, indigenous Australians) is merely a diversionary tool for the true intent: the undermining and eventual disintegration of any and all existing elements that have economic, social, or cultural value. By focusing on the subject (indigenous Australians), rather than the underlying intent, we are doing exactly what was planned: Watching the movement of the illusionist’s more visual hand, while the other hand is setting up the ‘magic.’
It is the ‘other hand’ we need to focus attention on; the one they don’t want us to see. This is old-fashioned sleight-of-hand, and most of us are still falling for it.
I come in with something like Megan’s ancestry: Scots and Irish with about 40% English. Reparations reduced by 40%?
I’m a bit amused, by the way, by the glib assumption that Irish Catholics are natural republicans. Is that why a generation of my ancestors included a Francis Joseph, a Charles Bernard and a Marie Therese? Good judgement too: things have been going downhill in that part of the world since the demise of the Habsburgs.
Oh yes Peter. ME TOO – the Irish potato famine made my gr grandparents leave.
Reparations AND a proportion of England’s GDP please.
Who belongs? (Is that the gist of this thread?)
If that matters, then we’re in a bad place.
We’re in the midst of a division of peoples.
If the yes vote gets up, then Australia is no longer a democracy and we will have a constitution underlining theose who do and don’t belong, those who do and don’t have a voice.
Those people without a claim to aboriginality, will henceforth not belong, and be told to pay rent, reparations and will always have doubts about their ownership of anything.
Their rights will be questioned or simply removed.
It’s a dark place we’re going, and I understand human nature and this will be used for revenge by those who feel that way.
How did it come to this? There has always been good intentions, in the majority, towards aboriginals but that has come to nothing.
Reconcilliation has come to nothing, it was always a one way street anyway.
Government spending, all the ministers in charge of ending poverty and “the gap” have failed, all of them, including the current who sees her way out by changing nothing for the good and everything for the bad and greedy. Ever shifting blame game.
The apology and everything else we have tried has ended up failing.
Why would this be any different and why would it not be worse?
No one has explained how the voice will change things for the better.
Yes “The Voice” (such an innocuous word) is a trojan horse, a diversionary tool to implement a radical agenda
One of my great grandmothers was Bavarian.
Never fear, Cats, I’m not about to don a pair of jackboots and march into the Soviet Unionionion … 🙂
On my mother’s side back to the greats and great-greats we have Irish from the Famine, on my father’s we have Scots and seafaring Swedes, probably back to the Vikings.
The spouse has a first-fleet convict, George the Forger who arrived on HMS Alexander in 1788, plus I have indigenous first cousins courtesy of my Aunty Audrey, a part Awabakal woman who married mum’s brother, Uncle Jack, and some Islanders descended from a cousin of theirs whose father was blackbird to Qld to work in the sugar industry back then.
This is a fair reflection of the Australia I was born in, in 1955. Lots in the mix, very little division.
Why is Albanese doing this to us?
A slight digression, for which I apologise, however, regarding the inVoice, if someone initiates the topic with me, my response is as follows:
Firstly, I do NOT engage with the issue on an emotional plane (‘fairness,’ making up for the past, etc.), because such a narrow focus is exactly what the Yes proponents want. It is not possible to win a debate with a person whose tool is emotion, by countering with logic. You might FEEL as though you gained a moral ascendancy, but it will be a pyrrhic victory. There is no disproving you are a callous racist, because in our opponents’ eyes, the initial accusation stands on its own, and requires no evidence either way. It’s a waste of time and energy debating a vague concept like ‘fairness.’
Instead, I specifically mention the phrase ‘regional and remote indigenous Australians’ and ask what positive, practical (‘measurable’ is an effective word here) outcomes might change in their lives if we all voted yes? I repeat the above phrase (‘regional and remote…’) as often as possible to emphasise the chasm between them and the urban indigenous.
If opportunity allows, I mention that indigenous people have had indigenous ‘leaders’ for many decades. I ponder how much measurable progress has been made under indigenous leadership on issues such as education, health, and crime-incarceration, and ask how continuing the same policies under the same leaders – albeit with new organisational and institutional names – will magically change the outcomes for those same regional and remote indigenous people who don’t have access to the same opportunities that their urban sisters and brothers have.
At no point do I get into the whole grievance for the past issue. I keep it focused on measurable outcomes, regional and remote indigenous individuals, and the need for change, rather than more of the same (which the inVoice is: Just bigger and more expensive).
The yes crowd want to keep it emotional. By discussing ‘fairness’ and ‘what about …’ we are doing EXACTLY what they want.
However, I will support this mighty football club.
Because he hates Australia.
I find it odd that the proponents of the Voice can ignore skin colour as ‘racist’, but will strenuously resist any objective measure of ancestry, such as DNA typing. The whole bloody population could be typed in one census round. After all, 90+% were. vaccinated within a year.
Because there is less risk and socially more reward in destroying, rather than building.
Popular culture ‘heroes’ of today take little, if any, risk, compared to the past. Leaving aside the usual music/film/TV/sporting idols, we used to reserve public admiration for individuals who performed some type of measurable achievement, accepting sometimes significant risk by doing so. Even relatively recently, I recall two young Aussies, who (separately) set solo around-the-world yachting records. Jessica Watson and, ummm, the bloke … Jesse something? Anyway, whatever you thought of them personally (and the media coverage), their achievements were commendable; deeds which the average person would rarely attempt (even if they did have the resources).
Now with the internet and social media, popular culture ‘heroes’ are YouTube content makers, gamers, and ‘influencers.’ I’m not putting down any of those individuals – they saw opportunity and went for it; good on them – but their achievements were accompanied by very little risk.
We’re not risk-takers now (and probably haven’t been for five or six decades, perhaps).
Therefore, to gain attention/self-esteem, you need to choose low-risk opportunities. What better low-risk, low-resource opportunity (with almost immediate reward (the approbation of peers and the mesozoic media) than helping to destroy what already exists? The kicker is that you get to chip away at the very systems that will protect you, and ensure there are few consequences to your destructive behaviour.
The reason no none of the ‘aboriginal’ contingent will agree to DNA typing is that at some point, someone else will have to decide exactly what proportion (!/4 to 1/256th) is culturally significant. Good luck with the ancient ancestor gimmick.
‘Because he hates Australia.’
Well, he is part Italian, Roger. Not a true Aussie, eh. Maybe suffered a bit of ‘racism’ back in the day.
Mighty strange that people would be disgusted to find slave traders in their family tree but are very happy to have Vikings.
Apparently murder, robbery, rape and the illiterate destruction of the few centres of knowledge in the dark ages is something to celebrate.
“What have the Romans ever done for us?” is a joke but not so much with Vikings. They gained far more from the people they preyed upon than they gave.
We really do live in the stupidest of times.
what jupes says Aug 14, 2023 1:08 PM