<<The Welcome to Country address is a symbol of respect and understanding. >>

Two points need making in response to this. Firstly, “respect” is earned and cannot be demanded or mandated. Political Correctness has become the means by which “some” are trying to demand or mandate respect from “others”.

Secondly, in relation to this statement, an outcome of greater public knowledge (not spin) of the issues faced by our indigenous communities and peoples will “produce” that understanding. No amount of “Symbolic Understanding” will create it.

It is increasingly hard to develop an understanding or respect for indigenous issues when those who are indigenous (by any definition) and those who seek to represent them, cannot agree on anything!

It is self evident to much of the Australian public, that the indigenous communities do not agree amongst themselves, nor do they agree with some policies, some politicians, academia, much of the media, many Human Rights activists, the UNHRC and many of the so called educated urban elites who also claim to represent the same heritage. It is these entities that are the direct casual factors of the lack of respect and understanding which prevails.

You and your ilk “are THE problem”.

In addition to this we have other HR activists who grant a higher priority to those refugees who wish to get here, over those who are already indigenous refugees in our own country.

This whole sorry mess is an absolute festering disgrace to all Australians.

Malcolm, I find it incredible that as a media specialist, you can create yet another article so totally focused upon symptoms and absolutely no reference to “probable causes”. Sadly this makes you part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I think the Australian public has developed a greater understanding and genuine compassion for our indigenous peoples than all the “Aboriginal Industry” players put together.

Just by creating the illusion that “Welcome to Country” somehow creates respect is tokenism gone mad. If anyone is to be labeled “tokenistic” it is those running around with the “stickers”, and that dear Sir, includes you.

I belong to an organization which frequently employs local elders to give the welcome to country. It grates with me as the speech is given in a language the elder does not speak, and the original speech was written by a Wadjilla anthropologist. The only one I have heard one which had any meaning was given on the spur of the moment (the official elder didn't turn up) by an aboriginal woman who was not in her country. She at least spoke from her heart. The speech was in English so the hearers could understand it.

It also offends me greatly to see a statue honoring pioneers in Western Australia defaced by a plaque demanding respect for the original inhabitants of the area who greeted the pioneers, not with a welcome to country, but with a flight of spears which killed and wounded three of them. This of course, WAS the traditional welcome to country!

I too rather detest the writer's obvious Toryism but it worries me when I read some of these posts. They are blatantly racist and make no apologies for their racism.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/racism-still-a-problem-portolesi-20110527-1f786.html

I have no idea who this Minister is but the report makes startling reading.

Dear Csteele

'You both project a real bitterness and anger'

Just because someone does not agree with your point of view does not make one bitter or anger.

Aka you write

'So your demand to be thanked for the doctors is ill informed. (I am sure you can find the list on the web).

No it was a suggestion from me. It is the aboriginal industry that makes all the demands. Mine was a suggestion. Open your eyes.

I'm glad this has finally been broken. I've never done it, because I've felt that there has been many things wrong with doing so, and nothing right. And recently I've been vindicated.
I know, and have worked with, many aboriginal people, and have always been perplexed by some of the things they've said about their history, such as, that they've been in Australia for all time, or from the beginning. This is not true, on at least two levels. If they thinkthey've been here forever, then do they think they have evolved separately to the rest of humanity? Or do they just think that they came here a long time ago?
And how long ago? It depends on which aboriginal person you're talking to, and your definition of indigenous. It's on the public record that the aboriginal people of Tasmania are not genetically linked to the aboriginal people of mainland Australia. This is because they are two different peoples, who came at different times to Australia. The mainlanders arrived after the Tasmanians, exterminating them as they went, and pushed those they didn't exterminate south.
What has not made it onto the public record yet, but is known to researchers, is that this has happened 7 times in Australia's pre-European history. That is, those who claim to be indigenous in Australia are invaders like the Europeans, who displaced the peoples they found here before them. The only differences are that they have not kept a record of having done so, whilst the Europeans have.
The UN defines indigenous as, either, those who were the first inhabitants of a land, or those who were the occupiers of a land when Europeans arrived. The two groups who claim to be indigenous Austalians satisfy the second definition, but not the first. When they own up to their past, I'll respect them.

Hi Loudmouth, your idea about signs around the country, letting travellers know when they are entering or leaving a tribal area, has a flaw (even if we deal with only the invaders immediately before the Europeans). The borders between tribal groups were frequently moving, because those tribes were frequently at war with oneanother over territory. Aboriginal friends have confirmed at least that part of their history to me, although left a lot else out.
I remember years ago seeing a report that estimated that there were 27 wars going on between aboriginal tribes when the English landed in Australia to colonise it. Maybe the signs should say that a paticular war was going on when the English arrived as travellers pass a spot?