Secondly I want to ask ' individual' to please get yourself an education in austalian white/aboriginal history " henry reynolds" is a good place to start.
neillium,
I only just arrived home after two weeks holiday, hence my late reply. I am very serious about my statements on this forum. So, can you please do the same ? To bring up henry reynolds in this debate might be your idea of a joke, but it isn't mine. So you'd be well advised to get an education yourself.

So you'd be well advised to get an education yourself.
neillium,
perhaps get some real-life experience might be a better choice of words.

Some insight into the relationship of the invasion myth to the selection of 3 September as 'Battle for Australia Day', may be obtainable from a study of what was on the Commonwealth Parliament's legislative program at around that date in 1942.

It seems to me that there was a surprising focus upon constitutional matters, rather than upon a legislative program built around the requirements for facilitation of a war effort in as an as yet unresolved conflict in which invasion was thought to still be a real possibility.

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 provides a case in point. This Act, No. 56 of 1942, received the Royal Assent on 9 October 1942. Given the criticality of legislation impinging in any way upon the Constitution, it is to be expected that this legislation was being planned, drafted and debated in September 1942, if indeed not earlier.

Both the full title of the Act, and its Preamble, are indicative to me of there having been a very strong focus upon a very extensive legislative program over preceding months. Its being as Act to resolve doubts as to the validity of certain Commonwealth legislation, that is, then recent, or even only proposed, legislation that had ALREADY passed through the Parliament pushes the date by which the real threat of invasion had been seen to have faded even further back into 1942.

Could it be that the government in 1942 NEEDED a continuing invasion threat to justify an otherwise unjustifiably wide-ranging expansion of Commonwealth powers, an expansion that may well have been in some respects unconstitutional?

The proposed Commonwealth Powers Act, submitted to the States in a seeming attempt at circumvention of the Constitution in December 1942, by having the States refer powers to the Commonwealth, seemed more to be laying a framework for post-war reconstruction than providing for an ongoing war effort in a conflict the outcome of which was not yet then foreseeable.

The failed Commonwealth Powers Act was effectively the proposal submitted to the people in the Post War Reconstruction and Democratic Rights referendum of 1944.

In reply to Individual Tuesday, 19 August 2008"
I only just arrived home after two weeks holiday, hence my late reply. I am very serious about my statements on this forum. So, can you please do the same ? To bring up henry reynolds in this debate might be your idea of a joke, but it isn't mine. So you'd be well advised to get an education yourself."

Dear Individual, I would have thought that Prof Henry Reynolds several books upon the subject of early australian history are compulsory reading if one is to have any insight into our early settler history concerning contact with indigenous australians, as it's a fact that the truth has been omitted from the official history of the time by it's recognized authors. I must admit that it's been more than twenty years since I made a concerted effort to educate myself with early australian history, as I needed to know for myself why it is that this country's white population hate aboriginals so much yet live off their backs in every way possible, Doublespeak Double standards and now Double history... the white version.. and the real history, it seems ' what isn't written is how to find the truth in our white culture' Henry Reynolds has partly filled that gap for me. There are also a few indigenous autobiographies that may help paint a picture of ' on the otherside of white'.
I hope you enjoyed your holiday.
Cheer

Living off aboriginal's backs? By what stretch of the imagination do you draw that conclusion? The white population hates aborigines? No we dislike bludgers intensely, regardless of ethnicity.
As much as you might wish to espouse the wickedness of early white settlement, it would seem that were insufficient atrocities committed(shame upon the perpetrators) to completely annihilate the population which leads you to the obvious conclusion that the greater percentage of white setllers were of a benevolent, or at worst, an indifferent disposition to their(aboriginals) survival. Live and let live if you like.
Having said that, my European heritage predisposes me to discourage the efforts of any individual, black, white or otherwise, who seeks to impose his/her will over me without cause, using whatever means are necessary to do so. I daresay similar feelings existed from the time of settlement onwards. It doesn't mean I go looking for agro, but if it's brought to me there'll be snot, blood and tears, trust me. Why should early settlers be criticised for the same?
And still no word of a day off...

Neilium,
I can not help but feel dismay that many people have been led to believe that just because someone is educated & has an academic title they must be correct. I have seen several non-indigenous authors of history get sponsored by communities to write the "truth". No-one can say with certainty what the truth is as no-one alive today has witnessed those early days. What I can say though is that there are respected historians who'll create quite a %age of history if the money is right. One writer once pointed out how romantic the sunset was & when I pointed at all the rubbish along the beach she replied "I don't see it that way".'A video producer asked me if I knew any interesting indigenous characters & I replied that I didn't think that men whom I worked alongside with & performed the same tasks didn't really fall in the interesting category in my view. He replied "we can soon colour it in a bit"
When someone gets funded to present a particular view than it will most certainly be more biased than factual.