Our very way of life is based on a lie. When white man first came to this land, they brought with them a legal system and social structure that was both alien and unknown. This continent's original inhabitants had an existing and longlasting sovereign system of land ownership that white people ignored. So instead of learning from those who came before, our Colonial forefathers imposed, through violent means, laws and governing bodies that did not belong. "Terra nullius" was the legal fiction that made all this possible.

Today, white man's law reigns. Yet it does so illegally.

I think aboriginals should have more say in their own country politically. Should there be a dual government type of arrangement? What is your suggestion?

It is a shame, when a culture is devastated - but the various aboriginal tribes were by no means a single people. Even today, their many languages are rapidly becoming extinct.

I lived in New Zealand for many years, where the Maori culture was much more a part of everyday life for most New Zealanders, with the language being far more commonplace.

This was possible because it was a single language - I don't really see how you can bring Aboriginal language into mainstream Australian culture, given that there are so many variations.

The point I'm getting at in a roundabout fashion, is that there was no uniform law over Australia. Whatever the situation, we are all here now and we have to get along.

Even if we wanted to, we couldn't go back to tribal laws that existed hundreds of years ago. How exactly would that relate to say... computer fraud?

It is tragic what has been lost, and tragic that a people were invaded. But it happened before any person alive today was born, and frankly, I don't think the old laws would have been any fairer. There would still be people suffering.

There are areas where our laws are unfair and they should to be changed. But you can't have one law for some, and one for others. What's more, you can't throw them out entirely.
I for one, prefer an inquisitorial legal system, as is used in Germany and Japan. But it's still western, and it sure as hell ain't tribal.

When laws only apply to some, it doesn't work. When it's attempted, the results are always horrendous. I seem to recall hearing of rapes in remote communities that were covered up using tribal laws.

If you delve into anyone's ancestry, you can be sure at some point, their people have been conquered by another. I'm not entirely sure of all my ancestry, but I know there's some Scottish in there and there's plenty of bloodshed and displacement there.

The past can't be rectified.

I'd rather see us focus on the problems in aboriginal communities today.

The legal system that came to this country with our forefathers was nothing like the bastardized version we have to suffer today under the ruling fascist regimes in power in the States and now the Commonwealth who are hell bent on making the existing quasi State republics legal and constitutionally valid by the referendum we are going to have.
The violent means mentioned was with the use of the gum used to murder and annihilate at will but at least today it is only through the uncontrolled violence by the revenue collecting policy Police who will continue to do the Governments bidding regardless of color or race.
Any person who is of aboriginal decent and who has been tricked into believing that they nust be enrolled on the electoral roll as an elector and willingly take part in voting at the elections is now deemed to consent to the system of government that is imposed on all of us whether we like it or not.
The problem is that most of these people cant read, write or even speak the English language.
We are all being scammed by the system that is controlled by the vile dishonest grubs in the legal profession and while the Govt promotes the grog as it has for the past twenty years and condones the use of drugs that the Police turn a blind eye to in the communities their land will continue to be stolen and then officially leased back to them as was suggested by our not so honest Premier in Queensland.

THE WHITE MANS LAW BROUGHT TO AUSTRALIA, was based on a lie.

Yep.. u got it Haralambos. In fact.. the law that our forefathers endured in England, was "illegally" imposed on them by the:

-Angles.
-Saxons.
-Vikings/Danes.
-Normans/French.

In the end.. they all blended, except for the remnants of the Celts found most purely in Wales.

So, I guess this means, Australias current legal system is.. a 'lie based on a lie'?

BUT WAIT.
Lets take just the Normans (Franks). Their system was also based on the imposed system of many Vikings who invaded them, and had it not been for Charles Martel in 732, it would have been an Islamic legal system imposed by Abul Rahman, the Emir of Umayyad Spain.

<<Charles could not afford to stand idly by while Frankish territories were threatened. He would have to face the Umayyad armies sooner or later, and his men were enraged by the utter devastation of the Aquitanians(by the Arabs) and wanted to fight.>>

CONCLUSION.

1/ Please stop being unrealistic, the battle for Aboriginal Australia was lost, and a new order imposed.
2/ Just as the English Celts, had to adapt to the ways and laws of their invaders, so must the indigenous Australians.
3/ Working with, rather than against an utterly superior force, is far better than working against.
4/ All the legal systems of all the world, are based on the outcome of battles. i.e.. force. They are then maintained by...force.

Such, is life.

Ahhh...you non-believers.
I dearly wish you would get into Gods Word and find out how things really are.
Here we had a vast continent with many squabbling tribal groups... all believing in rainbow serpent (satans presentation) and ancestoral spirits (satans thrashy little ones masquerading as dead relatives)...witchdoctors pointing the bone and cursing each other. The whole land mass was into the occult.
Why would God not want His Word out here to bring the love of Jesus Christ to the people?
What God wants He establishes.
The nation is founded with the Holy Bible in the hands of christian ministers.
Nothing illegal here in Australia gentlemen!
Its Gods Will!

"is continent's original inhabitants had an existing and longlasting sovereign system of land ownership that white people ignored." - H

Can you please elaborate with authoritative citations? My studies of North American clans who suggest that animist nomads would see themselves as part of the lands [inhabited bt spirits and perhaps deceased ancestors]. The concent of "ownership" of land comes for the settlemt of city-states like Ur in Sumer [6,000 BP] in the Middle Eastern to Western path of civilization.

Seventeenth century treaties with between parties in North America usually showed totem animals the land and the reconciling parties having a life-line drawn through and between them. The land was not "owned".

Also, as Boaz notes invasion is a fact of history. The Anglo-West has repelled the Russians, Germans and Japanese. The aboriginal folk would nould have had no chance. As I have said on other posts what is wrong with being a part of a significant state in the most powerful and democratic civilization in the History of History? Scores ethnicities recognise this and our new Australians become new friends.

Lastly many of the "gripes" should be against the old British Crown whom treated convicts worse than the indigenous peoples.

Indigenous people need to make a step away from being fringe dweellers and participant in twenty-first century Australia. They are welcome. It is up to them.

O.

"If there was a race between democratic nations to see who could best address the violation of the human rights (of its original people),
australia would be coming stone motherless last."
Professor Colin Tatz, Genocide Studies Centre, Sydney.

Australia is the only developed country on a World Health Organisation
'shame list' of countries where children are still blinded by trachoma. Impoverished Sri Lanka has beaten the disease, but not rich Australia.

Once in office, John Howard began to reverse the most significant gain made by the Aboriginal people. This was the Native Title Act, passed by Federal Parliament in 1993. Based on a landmark ruling by the Australian High Court the year before, the new law had removed from common law the fiction that Australia was uninhabited when Captain James Cook planted the Union Flag in 1770. Known as 'Terra
Nullius,' it was used for most of two centuries to justify the dispossession of the Indigenous population.

Unlike Australia's sheep, the Aborigines were not counted until the late sixties. "We occupied the land, but we were fauna," said Aboriginal lawyer Noel Pearson. When British nuclear scientists were given permission by Prime Minister Robert Menzies to test nuclear weapons on Aboriginal land at Maralinga in the 1950s, they used site maps marked 'Uninhabited.'

Patrick Connolly, who served with the Royal Air Force at Maralinga, was threatened with prosecution by the security services after he revealed that 'during the two-and-a-half years I was there, I would have seen 400 to 500 Aborigines in contaminated areas. Occasionally, we would bring them in for decontamination. Other times we just shooed them off like rabbits.'

Many white Australians care deeply about this Australian injustice.
There has been research showing that a clear majority want 'good relations' with the First Nation.

Of course, this is not enough. Only justice and a political will can end Australia's enduring disgrace.

CONT'D

The first step is a treaty, a native bill of rights that overrides the states and guarantees landrights and a proper share of resources.

Opposition to this is the denialists' political motivation; it is what their government friends fear; for it will mean regarding Aborigines as both equals and special.

At least twenty-seven other nation states have offered justice to their Indigenous peoples in treaty and other forms. 'Both Canada and the United States,' wrote Colin Tatz, 'have accorded 'first nation' status to Indians, recognising them as people who had prior occupation, sovereignty and governance, and have engaged them in true conversation about renegotiating treaties, compacts.'

While neighbouring New Zealand has enacted land and sea rights for the Maori people, in Australia the Howard Government had spent millions of dollars mounting technical arguments in the courts against the same land and sea rights.

Let us hope that the newly elected Government will finally rectify the situation - and get us removed from any further 'shame lists.'

Foxy,

Only a few would disagree the aborigines have been poorly treated and perhaps some form of affirmative action should continue. So were convicts and so WWI diggers [fooled] by The Crown.

I recall in school in 1960s the people of Nauru living lavishly of bird droppings. They were told to invest and educate themselves or in fifty years they would have nothing. Apart from Nauru House in Melbourne they ignored the situation. Look at their plight now.

If I have an eye disease and don't go to the doctor, is that the Government's fault? TAFE's Open Training and Education Network offers very low cost up to Certificate IV [Advanced Diploma] coures by correspondence. It's just a matter of filling in a form. I'd be happy for the Government to pay.

A [first] nation by sociological definition is a society which is diverse ethnically. The aboriginals clans were never a nation. There we clans as were the Scots, Angles and Vikings were two thousand years ago. It is "pretend" language.

“Today, white man's law reigns. Yet it does so illegally.”

Well it is here to stay and I would suggest you will find greater success in working with it than working against it.

The other point of note is Australian aboriginal society is one which did not prevail over colonial occupation.

Once you accept that fact, you will be better equipped to move forward with your life.

In white Australia, an enduring myth is the 'missing millions' of dollars that the Federal and State Governments 'pour' into 'Aboriginal welfare.' It is the stuff of political and bar-room received wisdom, the fuel of bigotry, and it is false.

A nationwide health review, disclosed, in 2007, that Aboriginal health care received 25 per cent less government funding per head of population than health care for the whites. For every dollar spent per head under the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, only twenty cents were spent, per head, on Aboriginal people.

It's part of the Australian psyche at some level. By believing that money has been spent and wasted, people move to the conclusion that conforms with what is in the backs of their minds: that the real reason is innate or genetic. More important, it allows white Australians to say it isn't their fault, it's the fault of Aboriginal people. A whole language of denigration backs this up - "They don't look after their kids, and if only they would wash themselves," and allows the majority population to distance itself from the truth that our first nation continues to be denied essential citizenship rights.

Basic services, housing, a decent access to education, a hope for the future. That's why we're last in the world, particularly when compared with New Zealand, Canada, and the US, which have comparable Indigenous populations and where there has been significant progress in the last generation.

In those countries, a baby born to Indigenous people has a life expectancy of only three to six years less than the rest of the population.

Here, the difference is eighteen to twenty years.

The question is what makes us different?

The Health Minister, has made an extra ordinary admission. "In my area of health, there is no evidence of any improvement whatsoever in the last decade ... the gap (between Aboriginal and white health) has actually widened."

Foxy, you wrote really well. We do not like to face up to the fact that Australia's Aboriginal people have poor third world living standards.

As to the original premise about Aboriginal law. It is buying into the simplistic notion that Aboriginal peoples are all the same because to non Aboriginal people 'they all look the same'. Australia was made up of many nations/clans with their own stories and laws.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the idea that we have that Aboriginal people are supposed to live 'traditional lives' but denying that there are clans and tribes who 'traditionally' are adversaries being made to live together. Whenever I see a supposed 'leader' or 'elder' speak up I wonder for which clan they speak and I wonder if it is possible for other dissenting voices within a geographical area.

Aboriginal peoples also need to define for themselves what it means to be aboriginal and proud. Does it mean living 'traditionally' hunting kangaroo? Surely the way of living is not the sum total of all the aboriginal cultures. That is for tourists. Just like tourists like to see how my forefathers lived in historical times in my mother country. I do not need to live like that anymore to remain proud of my cultural origins or to see the merits, or ugliness, of old laws and societal expectations.

Most are smart enough to realize that all cultures are not equal. Cultures that offer young girls to uncles and have abhorent initiation practices are even considered barbaric by the earth worshipers who see no wrong in murdering the unborn. The only culture that is not barbaric is one based on the Word of God. An honest look at the bible and history reveals this. (this is not an invitation to quote numerous scriptures out of context). I have a number of indigenous friends who agree with me.

Hopefully the newly elected Government will begin the difficult job of working through issues that affect our First Nation's people - and will offer them the same basics that white Australia currently receives.

They can do no less. Simply saying 'sorry' is not enough.

As the Aboriginal leader Rob Riley said, "Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own."

runner>"An honest look at the bible and history reveals this. (this is not an invitation to quote numerous scriptures out of context)."

What other context is there than the genocide of the human race and other life forms in the flood? No matter which way you look at it, or the context, that is what happened. This is excluding real world murderous acts by God's sacred, chosen holy priests, such as the Inquisition.

"I have a number of indigenous friends who agree with me."

Anyone can be brainwashed. Indigineous folk are no exception.

Foxy,

"Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own."

There never was a nationhood. There were nomadic clans. Perhaps, even having high-culture with regrads spiruality. They were associated with the Land, they were the Land, but they did not believe in owenership of the hand. Land was crossed as other now cross the Pacific Ocean. Who owns the Pacific Ocean or the Moon, where humans have been? We, the invaders, brought not only ourselves but the concept of "ownership".

As Boaz and I have both pointed out, peoples [including our ancestors] are invaded and there are winners and losers. It is counter as productive to push against the grain. I was for the zealots to counter Rome. The Vikings invading Norse-mandy and William invaded Hastings. Wessex circe eighth century did hold back invasion, but the British Isles eventually was unified.

Moreover, aborigines may not have been united. Three hundred thousand against eight hundred (?) in the First Fleet. The Celts gave the Julian Romans hell by placing speared-phallaxes, under the water, to sink there ships. I think it would have taken until about the time Hadrian for Rome to grab a toe hold.

What we can do is help the aboriginal [and other less fortunate] communities. As we can't go back to riding horses done George Street, Sydney, the nomadic life is in th past. It is the 21st century and whites, blacks and all the peoples of the must adjust to globalisation.

So, I repeat, we do need to help our fellow Australian but the Tardis is fiction.

NATIONHOOD? good grief.

In my limited experience, there is a place in Melbourne where 3 cultures converged.
I'ts found at Werribee Park Mansion. The Werribee river was the 'border' between 2 aboriginal groups. Then, the white settlers came in, and occupied part. One has to ask the question 'why' was the Werribee river the border between the 2 aboriginal groups?
Here is a map of tribal boundaries done by an anthroplogist.
http://samuseum.sa.gov.au/orig/tindale/boundaries/se_bottomleft.htm

Clearly there were many diverse groups, with defined borders.
Considering the Weribee river alone. 'Borders' between any people usually are a natural barrier to human movement.
My experience in tribal areas (Borneo) is that pre-westernization, they all lived in perpetual fear of attack and raiding party. (for heads, women, children for slaves)
I've met both those who lived through that time, seen the huge scars from machette attack, and met former slaves (now freed because of the Gospel "all people are created equal") and so on.

It is very difficult to speak of 'legality' in a tribal context apart from what is 'legal' or.. not 'taboo' within one tribe at a time.
Any external force or power which can rid them of that fear of attack, fear of spirits, is welcome. Sadly, Aside from the 'White Rajahs' of North Borneo, I know of no external power which did not exploit the indigenous people for colonial gain.

There is as much chance of 2 'nations' dwelling in peace in one place as their was for Abraham and Lot who's herdsmen fought over grazing rights. (Genesis 13)

"I know of no external power which did not exploit the indigenous people for colonial gain." - Boaz

Not only that above, in the sixteen century and there-abouts some the biggest profiteers from the slave trade were the chiefs of rival trbes kidnapping each others people. That is, when dealing with the West the Black Africans competed against each other to deliver human bounty to slaaver traders [Source: Tomas, H. (1997, The Slave Trade, The History of the Atlantic Slave rade 1440-1870] TV only shows one side of events.

Many Aborigines are caught in a vicious circle. Their low social and economic status traps them in older and poorer areas of cities or on the fringes of country towns.

Restricted educational opportunites and limited chances to acquire basic skills mean that many of the jobs available to most of them are poorly paid and unskilled. When jobs are scarce in the overall society, these people are the first to feel the pressure of unemployment. Only a few, in proportion to the great majority of Aborigines living in cities or in country towns have succeeded in escaping from this cycle.

Therefore today's problems revolve around such things as land ownership, sharing in economic advancement, better educational opportunities, provision of a wider range of choices in employment (along with the acquisition of skills), and political action.

One aspect of ethnic relations that requires serious consideration is the need to achieve a greater understanding of Aboriginal life and of the problems that face Aborigines today. Such understanding is needed both by Aborigines and by other Australians. Steps to counter misunderstanding and intolerance must come through efforts by the schools and the mass media.

The trend today should be toward self-determination and independence.
This does not mean that Aborigines should cut themselves off from Australian society. Rather, it implies that Aborigines should have opportunities to make decisions for themselves and be encouraged to develop their heritage.

Foxy,

I am a direct but distant descendant [IGI Index] from an historical Scottish family whom once owned the [via deed of Robert the Bruce] the Pentlands, after General Monk acting under Oliver Cromwell and in the aftermouth of the same the properties were lost: I see history has taken/quashed my claim and no doubt hundreds of that of unknown counsins around the world.

Likewise, Scotish clans survived without being the dominant culture. [Albeit James VI of Scotland was James I of England]. Their traditions now live as "traditions" to be respected. My family's land os gone. Scotland is not a power. Yet, the Scottish clan-based Diaspora live successful in all parts of the world. Same goes for the Irish and British really put the boot into them.

There are medical facilities, distance learning courses, sociologists, pychologists, jobs, and social welfare available, one needs to just seek these out, or, the Govenment needs promote these entities better.

White 1950s culture wouldn't stand the twenty-first century; how can a pre-agriculature class of clans? THese goos folk need to to the here and now. A Dr Phil momement -as I say- Don't dwell on the past or messianic vissions of the future. Participate into today's Australia, which many black ethnicities, whom cope

Dear Oliver,

The conscience of Australians has finally been awakened to the fact that Aborigines want to and will make decisions for themselves. Until recently, many Aboriginal aid schemes were run by 'whites' who adopted a paternal attitude to Aborigines, treating them like children and considering that only they knew what was best for Aborigines.

In frustration, many Aborigines took to drastic action, turned to ideas of revolution to help their people get a "fair go."

In the last five years, legal aid, land rights, education and health care for Aborigines have become the important issues for government Aboriginal Affairs departments.

Progress is being made at last in the Aborigines' fight for the chance to survive in today's Australia, and although much needs to be done, perhaps the outlook is more hopeful now than it has been in the past.

Anyway, Thank You for an interesting discussion. I'm going to move on because there's nothing more that I want to say.

Take care.

Foxy,

Thanks. See you on another post, I hope. Cheers.

All,

When the Yirrkala Reserve was claimed [1962] said claim was by the aboriginal people of Yirrkala, being members of the Balamumu, Narrkala, Gapiny and Miliwurrwurr people and Djapu, Mangalili, Madarrpa, Magarrwanalinirri, Gumaitj, Djamjarrpuynu, Marrakula, Galpu, Dhaluaya, Wangurri, Warramirri, Maymil, Rirritjinu tribes:

Given none held tenure of land, as understood by English Law, how can a specific ownshership be established, as known to modern systems?

Later,

"In his judgement, Mr Justice Blackburn held that the Yirrkala people did not have any legal title to this land. (The Crown case against the Yirrkala people's claim was that 'occupation had to be discriminated from conquest or cession). For good or ill we did conquer Australia. We occupied it. The native system was displaced . . . The colony of New South Wales was peopled only by native inhabitants who had no settled system of law. The anthropological evidence did not establish that there were private rights, or a system of land tenure, or an organised authority system. The most that could be said was that there was some form of occupation.' " - [Blackburn (1970) in Charlesworth 1984]

" The patrilineal descent group did, it is true, have a right to hold ceremonies on the land and to visit its sacred places. But that was the only kind of exclusive control involved in ownership of the land... 'there is so little resemblance between property, as our law, or what I know of any other law, understands that term, and the claims of the plaintiffs for their clans, that I must hold that these claims are not in the nature of proprietary interests'"

- [Blackburn (1970) in Charlesworth 1984]

The British would have negotiated a treaty had there been some resemblance of a law of tenure but these indigenous folk occupied but did not "legally" own the Land.

Dear Oliver,

I'm so glad that you brought up the 'Yirrkala - or The Gove land rights case.' Though they did not achieve the constitutional change sought, they were effective in making a way for the eventual recognition of Indigenous rights in Commonwealth Law.

Their persistent claim for constitutional change achieved the amendment of the Australian Constitution (S.51,S.127) in 1967, the Statutory acknowledgement of Aboriginal Land Rights by the Commonwealth in 1976, and the overturning of the obstacle of the doctrine of 'terra nullius' by the High Court in the Mabo Case in 1992.

A great result of their case was wider awareness of the just claim of the Yolngu, and of the problems of Indigenous people throughout Australia

Foxy and others,

The notion of 'terra nullius' was absurd even earlier cases distinguished between owned and occupied. I agree.

While different clans would have had / do have different traditions:

Dreaming seems significant. Some anthropologists hold that the clanspersons doe not own the Land, rather the Land owns them, especially if there have territorial [usually patrimonial] ancestors involved and one is were born to the Land.

By that definition, I am an indigenous Australian person, as my grand father was born in Australia (1873), may late father (1911) and me (1952). I have ancestoral links to Bendigo, Shepparton and inner Sydney. I was born at Newtown.

To a truly traditional believer of the Dreaming, I have ancestors and I am owned by the Sydney region and also have ancestoral Dreaming links to Victoria; yet, my ethnicity is Celtic & Norman-French.

Curious?

Sadly, my academic doesn't help people in need. One can only hope the Government does more.

Hi Steel.

Dual government could be a good way to go. But till then, there's much soul searching to be done. Indigenous Australians have suffered and continue to suffer. So before any talk about leadership, there should be acceptance of responsibility.

Response to "TurnRightThenLeft".

The past is still with us today. Inhumanity towards others can not and should not be forgotten. In another way, we owe it to ourselves. Should not the truth be spoken, no matter how barbaric?

Glad to see some of us are coming to grips with the quintessential aspects of Aboriginal life! (tick for Oliver :)

" The patrilineal descent group did, it is true, have a right to hold ceremonies on the land and to visit its sacred places."

Indeed!
Gen 13:18 "So Abram moved his tents and went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he built an altar to the LORD."

Gen 14:13 Now Abram was living near the great trees of Mamre the Amorite, a brother of Eshcol and Aner, all of whom were allied with Abram.

This sums up 'Aboriginal ownership' in a nutshell... Holy/Sacred places, loose alliances with other tribal groups.

It was "occupation" not 'ownership'.

There WAS 'Ownership'...but it was not Abrahams... yet, he still had 'sacred places' etc. Then...this:

23:17 So Ephron's field in Machpelah near Mamre—both the field and the cave in it, and all the trees within the borders of the field—was deeded.(To Abraham)

In this we can see both 'occupation/sacred sites/ownership' all intermingled and..not in conflict.

Oliver touched on a MOST significant point

"the Land owned THEM"...

AAAAH... getting close now.. consider how this mindset may effect the indigenous person who observes that the land (which owns HIM) is now owned/controlled by others... whites?

I can't speculate too far without evidence, but I can surely say it would have a serious impact on their outlook.

Bottom line,
1/ Anthropological investigation will greatly assist in unravelling the issues at stake.

2/ Spiritual renewal (Christian or otherwise) will replace the mindset which under the present circumstances is socially and culturally debilitating.

"Self determination" can never be more than within the context of the present legal system. (see what happened to Carthage when Rome allowed them 'self determination' even within strict borders after a final (Rome thought) military defeat.

Hi Foxy,

You are right. Its an absolute disgrace. Our Human Rights track record puts us up there with some of the worst attrocities commited. Without a Treaty, the First peoples of this land can not begin to heal. Denying what has happened does not allow mourning to take place. Furthermore, it maintains our shame.

Dear Haralambos,

Thank You for your kind words. As the famous journalist John Pilger wrote, "I have been writing about and filming the struggle of the Aboriginal people for more than thirty years, and I am still moved and shocked by the unresolved apartheid behind the postcard.

A universal breaking of silence is exemplified in the Aboriginal struggle. The reawakening among many Aborigines, in politics, the law and the arts especially, is the achievement of some of the most tenacious and courageous activists anywhere. They are Rennaisance men and women, who face one of the most intransigent and meanest political establishments. Sometimes, emerging from yet another meeting with nodding politicians, they lose heart; and, like so many of their young people, die by their own hand. Rob Riley, a courageous Indigenous Leader, was one who died this way.

Charlie Perkins, Australia's Martin Luther King, lived past the age of sixty, an amazing achievement for one whose people more often than not die in their thirties and forties. It was Charlie who led the 'freedom rides' of the sixties into Australia's equivalent of the American Deep South, chaining himself to the turnstiles of swimming pools that refused to admit black children.

They all belong to what the great American reporter Martha Gellhorn called, "an old and unending worldwide company, the men and women of conscience and struggle." Some are famous like Mandela, but most are little known in the West.

"They know, the whites know... the things that most clearly and distincively portray Australia to the world are Aboriginal things. They will say, 'We're happy to have your world-renowed Bangara Dance Theatre, but we don't want anything to do with political organisations fighting for land rights. And, by the way, you're not going to make us feel guilty, because it's got nothing to do with this generation.'

John Howard said that all the time... Today, no living Australian can claim innocence, because Parliament has enacted the Native Title Amendment Act on behalf of the majority of this country...

[1] We can help children in aboriginal communities by addressing situations like in the below link. If the police wont act charge or sack the police involved:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23645392-601,00.html

[2] What form can a treat take? To be true to tradition both parties make peace with the land and totem aninals, with nothing to do with money. Aid, however, need to be given to the poorer people in our society, aboriginal and others too. The first address ingineous culture and the latter all underclasses.

As with all primitive cultures, those who wish to preserve them want to pick and choose which parts of the culture should be preserved. For instance people like the idea of nomadic aboriginals wandering around the country, but if their culture included female genital mutilation like some cultures have in the past, they would stamp that part out.

It's stupid to try to maintain an ancient culture and protect it from the realities of the modern world. People do it though, so the tourists can say how quaint and fascinating those poor people are, it would be a shame to expose them to the riches of western civilisation.

"It's stupid to try to maintain an ancient culture and protect it from the realities of the modern world."

Over two nation-states must face the twenty-first century and globalisation. It is here. It is fact. White Australia has had to change generationally. Read Hugh Mackay.

We can still respect "past traditions" and Australia is wealth enough to help all its poor.

"Over two HUNDRED nation-states must face the twenty-first century and globalisation." [SEE ABOVE]

Stephen Hagan,

If you are reading this post: What is your background in culural-anthropology? You appear to an academic background in business studies. Although, being of Scotish descent, I could not speak authoratively, on Celtic Lore, just because I several degrees in other disciplines. My only connection is a bloodline.

After reading this post, I am still trying to understand. What laws Haralambos believes is a lie by his statement. "White man's law reigns. Yet it does so illegally." Please identify what laws you believe give true justice and are superior to our present system of justice?

State the code of law that is not based in lies and injustice!

Haralambos.. a treaty will not really do much.

It will simply confirm in writing the status quo.
Treaties are made between victors and their defeated victims. Or.. they can be made between people who fear they may become a victim....

In any case, while you are on the treaty thing, you may wish to also campaign for a treaty between the English and my Scottish forbears, over the land they dispossessed us of.... (Like Oliver, who's ancestors had the same experience)

Rather than have a treaty and maintain separateness.. why not simply consider yourselves 'Austalian' and adjust to the new reality of life.

You don't by any chance consider Aboriginal culture 'superior' to European culture do you ? :) because that would be a very 'racist' thing to feel.

I don't consider our culture 'superior' but in this day and age it sure is the only viable one. Still, we can and should learn much from Indigenous culture, and absorb the good..and reject the bad.

How about it? be an 'Aussie' (irrespective of ethnicity)

Our system of Government and laws were beased on the will of the people. That is why we vote to elect governments to represent the majority of the people's will.

However in NSW the will of the people seems to be violated by a current Dictator ("I know what is good for the people"). He at the present plans to sell off the electrical power industry for 99 years.

Governments under Westminster enforce laws that the will of the poeple theoritically endorce by their representatives. Westminster Governments are not based on the single will of the President, Dictator or Elders. That is why the Church Heirarchy or a Leading Political Philosopher cannot Govern a democratic State such power has been diversified to the people. Under our Westminster Governors and Monarchy they constitutionally represent the will of the people by ratifying laws formulated by Governments representing the majority will of the people.

Any other system of law demonstrating mercy and justice must be educated logically to convince the majority of the population of its superiority and balance. Then representatives elected to formulate the will of the people.

Let us hear of these superior, true and just laws. Otherwise the proposition is merely a racial winge.

Philo,

I think we can learn from the Ancient Greeks and develop a system to ostacize Ieema, from his party. He is afterall a temporary employee of yours'. As a democracy we can do better.

According to psychologists what can happen with he construct "power distance" is the more powerful one becomes, the greater the urge to decrease the power between oneself and my powerful people, say world leaders, yet, if you are state leader one will try to increase the gap between onself and the people/voters: e.g., the ANZAC bridge and the ALP rank and file over privatisation [Thatcherism/Reaganism].

The ability to ostracize a leader mid-office would ensure we keep a close reign on them.

On your point, but off the thread topic. Please excuse.

"Our system of Government and laws were beased on the will of the people. That is why we vote to elect governments to represent the majority of the people's will." - Philo

Couldn't agree more. Catch is, we need more democracy. Citizens referenda and the ability to remove a Leader or Minister from office not necessarily the Party. Of course, sensible checks and baances would need to be put in place.

Change would be hard as leglisators are there for themselves not us.