Letters to the editor

My understanding is that in the 19th and 20th centuries, European countries were in a race to establish new territories. The British landed in Australia and claimed it for Britian.

So strong was their need to open the land for the mother country, when they encountered Aborigines, they either chose not to or didn't take time to acknowledge these First Peoples' culture, knowledge and connection to land.

They set about building a White Australia and in so doing disregarded and attempted to dismantle thousands of years of settlement. I wasn't there in those early days, but I am here now in a white privileged position. But at what cost to the First People.

Over decades working in the welfare industry, I have seen multiple short-term fixes rolled out by three-year short-term governments.

They may have been done with good intention. But they have also been designed to bring white style order as chosen by politicians and bureaucrats.

Change is complicated when the enforcer is also the rescuer. Here we are still with the Gap widening. Same old isn't working. Time to truly listen. Time to respect knowledge. Time to work in true partnership.

The Voice will have minimal impact on my daily life except that I will know our First People will have an entrenched voice that political whim can't ignore. I don't see any threat to me.

So many words have been written about the film Oppenheimer. Mostly words of praise, and I agree, it's a good film.

Apart from anything else, this film provides an opportunity to educate younger generations about how the modern world order developed, and how, in short, "power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Yet never once in all the commentary have I seen any acknowledgement that the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, arguably, the most devastating act of (state) terrorism ever committed.

While terrorism is a contested term, there is general agreement on its constituent elements: it involves violence inflicted on civilians, designed to intimidate a population, undertaken in pursuit of a political end.

We may defend the Japanese bombing on utilitarian grounds but let's call it for what it was.

The letters to the editor in the Advertiser last weekend included two which were heartfelt appeals to stop the shooting of Kangaroos.

At a heart level, I sort of agree. I have never been a shooter, and our back yard is like a zoo. All sorts of native birds turn up for a feed.

But I am immediately reminded of a letter in this paper several years ago, where the writer cried that as a result of hunting and dry weather, kangaroo numbers were "catastrophically low!"

Seeing with my own eyes the numbers of them around central Victoria, I immediately did some research. I found that no one knew exactly how many there were, obviously, but best estimates suggested there were about 44 million. Yes, that is millions.

Now, dry seasons in Australia are not a new thing, nor is "harvesting" the kangaroos. Aboriginal hunters have been here for tens of thousands of years, so we are told. And yet we have lots and lots and lots of 'roos.

This is because of their ability to rapidly increase the population in the good years. A female can have a joey in the pouch and an embryo in the womb at all times.

These days with millions of acres of crops on arable farms, there is a succession of good years. The kangaroo population is huge.

Shooting 'roos is not a thing I would chose to be involved with. But the supply is huge, and the argument against it does not hold water.

Have your say at addynews@austcommunitymedia.com.au