Gosh, this has it all: white invasion, 'crypto-fascist', 'holocaust deniers', 'incestuous political and media elite', 'colonial wars', 'apartheid'.

It's like having your ear chewed off by some would-be-radical lefty in the student union bar all over again.

John Pilger AND the Sydney City Council!

Says it all really.

I like to invade Nelson bay at Easter every year and commit genocide on the fish. Later after a short holocaust and abuse of their rights I have some prawns and lobster.

If John can abuse the English language, why can't I?

Thanks John,
Love your work.

Thanks to Sydney Council for your final validation of a fact.

Being black in the country is always an awkward feeling,
especially when government finally acknowledge what we have always known...
Always was, is and will be black land.

Truth and justice,

I read the comments in response to this piece and I understand better what John Pilger is about. They are still colonials through and through. Greed. Selfishness. Nothing has changed. Sometimes I am ashamed to be Australian.

Shadyoasis

Me too. Some on OLO actually argue that Australia is a "white" country and whites are in danger of being becoming extinct. Go figure.

Honestly, you can see John rubbing his hands together with glee .. another opportunity to denigrate and lambast Australians ..yay!

Official - at last! The leftist ruled Sydney City Council has said it .. but to read John's account, you'd think 5M people of "Sydney" voted this, they didn't, it was a 7 - 2 vote, John, 9 people voted, 2 against. You can get a bigger turnup at any BBQ (that's an Australian social gathering John)

Such is John's shopping list of things he dislikes and must get into the article

"counters a cowardly movement of historical revision in which a collection of far-right politicians, journalists and minor academics claimed there was no invasion, no genocide, no Stolen Generation, no racism."

Ah John, Julia Gillard, PM, previously of the Socialist Alliance, of the Union movement, of the ALP Left faction declared when asked, "there was no invasion, Australia was settled"

One fact alone is all we need to show you're in a dreamworld ignoring the facts. Your obsession that everything bad in Australia, is the evil far-right, is embarrassing, for you.

Here's what happened at the meeting "Lord Mayor Clover Moore and several other councillors had wanted the word "colonisation" considered for the council's 2030 corporate plan, saying "invasion" was divisive.

But they eventually voted to retain the word after members of the city's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Advisory Panel threatened to quit"

You see, they were bullied into it, and I can't see how anyone would be proud of that .. but it is useful isn't it, being divisive? You have reacted exactly the way the council feared and used the word to demonise Australians, again.

From way over in Europe, you are disconnected with us, you see problems we do not, nor do we care about .. we have bigger problems than whether the Sydney City Council has had another stupid moment and painted itself into a corner by inviting every minority interest group into it's undertakings.

it's politics, stupid

Ammonite.

"Some on OLO actually argue that Australia is a "white" country" really! Perhaps you could show where. Or are you just making it up?

Talk about leaping from the vague to the ridiculous.

SM

Really?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12221&page=0#210788

Does the council exclude all people brought to Australia against their will (i.e. convicts) from the accusation of invasion? If not, perhaps they also claim that African Americans also invaded the USA.

If the council blame all the people who arrived during this period based on their racial origin (Caucasian Europeans) then this may be considered racist, no? If one was to claim that their was an asian invasion occurring during our generation (as some do) then this is considered a racist comment.

Is seems that people believe they can change the past by making racist comments, and seem to think that racist comments do not count if you are criticizing your own race.

P.S. The article itself does not even deserve comment, if Pilgers writing style degenerates any further his next article will consist solely of fart jokes.

Excellent article and Kudos to Mr Pilger for having the guts to tell it like it is - again.

Until we can come to terms with our past and this is a step in the right direction (Being from Sydney originally - this makes me proud!) - definitely - what hope is there for us to look to the future with pride. Children in Australia still suffering with
preventable diseases? It's mind-boggling.What the hell is wrong with our government and why is this the case? It's not enough to acknowledge the past - it's time something was done to get rid of problems like these. It's time that there was equity for all of this country's citizens - and certainly for the nation's First people's.
No more excuses - please!

Ammonite:

From your link, I did not see any direct claim that Australia was "white" so I read a few more posts (not all)

From the same poster in the same thread:

"So no, apart from the fact that it's impossible to go back to the old White Australia policy it's also, from my point of view undesirable"

While I don't agree with what he was saying the gist of his gripe seemed to be that only whites were labelled as bigots.

My point has nothing to do with racism, rather an irritation with the use of extreme language to over egg the point.

Yep, John.

I feel pretty much the same way about 1066 and William the Conqueror, coming over from France, just when the English had got their ruling act together. Opportunist Frog.

And what about the Jutes, Angles and Saxons who simply wandered over from Jutland and Germany, sat down and called the place "home". The nerve.

Just between you and me, to be perfectly honest, I wasn't that thrilled by the Romans either. Although they did at least have the courtesy to build some pretty decent roads. Many of which are still in use today, you know.

I know some Celts who are still pretty pissed off about the Belgae, too. Bunch of land-grabbing layabouts.

OK, so Australia was "invaded" too.

And...?

What an absolute load of garbage. Once again Pilger strikes out but lands no blows and more importantly, offers nothing of substance. It is so easy to criticise but where are some positive contributions in that article?

Yes, the situation of Aborigines in remote communities is dire and a national disgrace. However, from Pilger's argument doing nothing iss far more acceptable than doing something, such as the intervention. Notably Pilger didn't mention the catalyst for the intervention was the 'Little Children are Sacred'report. I've read that report and what it contained was nothing short of horrific. Seems Mr Pilger chooses to ignore it.

It is also notable that Bess Price, who lives in one of those affected communities, publicly supports the intervention. She was also famously denigrated by Larissa Behrendt for doing so. Behrendt is a city dwelling academic person of Aboriginal descent who wouldn't have a clue about the experiences of Bess Price. Despite that Behrendt felt she knew better than Bess what Aborigines in remote communities, especially women and children, need or want. Bit like Pilger really.

There is no argument against the fact many Aboriginal people live in abject poverty and suffer accordingly but so far nothing Pilger has done offers any sort of solution. Compared to people like Bess Price and Noel Pearson Mr Pilger is a sycophantic leftist who uses words to indiscriminately bludgeon rather than give any meaningful contribution.

Oh, and just because some idiotic local council decides to be have it's own version of history written into its unenforcable charter doesn't make it official. Although it does reinforce the stupidity of officialdom.

"Always was, is and will be black land" -2deadly

White people are all so racist, especially compared to every other race.

Pericles, If the Romans had Romanized England, the Brits would not have Anglicized this continent, would they?

Thanks John Pilger, but don’t hope of turning any stone-head. Thanks 2deadly and Shadyoasis and Lexy for your serious contribution to a subject to which I have given much thought for many years.

So far my opinion is that all of you have consulted diverse sources of information and, strangely, your conclusions are all valid.

What strikes me most is that we, the White, have supplanted Australia’s set of cultures, (Civilization), and we are no longer capable of looking at what happened but from the point of our status in the present artificial society.

What if, only once, we were to cast our clothes and attempt to survive like the Native did?

Wouldn’t then we feel the desolation the Native felt if we were barred from the source of sustenance? Forget he murdering and the maiming!

My ultimate question remains:

Does the wearing of a Uniform vested on us at entering school, aged only five, throw us into a social war that admits no piety and erases what moral sense might have been in us at birth?

My finding is yes and Shadyoasis has the closest of diagnosis.

Yes minotaur John Pilger has no ready pill, the solution being Democracy of which we talk a lot idly.

"Always was, is and will be white land"

what if a white person said that? It would be hailed as evidence of racism, yet if a black person says it, it's ok?

No it is not, it's an extremely racist expression of race superiority to make such a statement.

""Black" people are all so racist, especially compared to every other race." What if a white person said that .. you'd be calling in the government lawyers, funded by whitey, to persecute the perpetrators.

So ready to claim whites are racist, to the point of being completely racist themselves.

They are not and most of this is in your own tiny minds .. whites are a constant easy target, so much so that it seems ok to be racist against them, in the sure knowledge that in Australia, you can make any claim against whites and the progressive media will carry the message for you.

We are training an entire generation to cry victim, and point at whites as their persecutors, so no one need to get off their bums and work or nation build, because it is all whiteys fault anyway.

If whitey ever goes away, you will all have to pull your weight and pick up the slack, you do get that don't you .. someone has to pay the taxes, pull the heavy loads, and be the generous souls.

Not like any of these whiners will ever pull their weight or be a cohesive part of the community.

They band together in their hatred of whitey, whose society provides for them. So many people come here and are here already and just expect that some one provides, they hate the majority, the whites, but still have their hands extended.

Let's see you all forgo the benefits of the hated "white" society.

The expectation of entitlement is overwhelming in Australia.

Well that's OK with me. It was an invasion. Result, we won, they lost. Get over it, that's how it was.

So that's the end of it. For the aboriginal losers, no compensation, no land rights, to the victors go the spoils.

I really do feel sorry for the fair dinkum aboriginal who have to continually live down this kind of cr4p, written in their name, when they had nothing to do with it.

It'll be interesting in about 2020 what sort of an apology the new invaders will come up with. They'll have to apologise to the indigenous & to the first invaders.

For once we agree Pericles.England was invaded by the Vikings ,Romans and the Spanish.They too should send a letter of apology to us for killing our ancestors.Unlike New Zealand who had 20 warring tribes and some national identity our Aborigines had no concept of nation and also fought amongst themselves.Humans like Chimpanzees are murderous beings.It is probably in the genes.

Yes we murdered them and many tried to exterminate them and it was wrong but we are judging past generations by todays standards.Would the people of Indonesia have been kinder?eg like they treated West Papuans? Nomadic subsistance life is just as brutal if not more so than the early Colonial days of Australia.Let's not guild the lilly.

Admit the wrongs and move on.The plight of Aborigines will not change unless they too become part of mainstream Australia.This means developing a work ethic,discipline and contributing.

SERIOUSLY, why might anybody want to oppose using the word "invasion"!! It is the word that the invaded indigenous minority feel is acceptable, AND, those who still wanted to depose the invaded indigenous minority, tend to fancy themselves to be an invading majority, so ought to claim their victory in that, rather than mud puddling around trying to say they won their undeclared war, without saying so. What a part of the game always was, is in that white racists give their games away to black men, and black men know it, so are more careful about preventing racism among black brethren, since the racist gives the ultimate advantage to who they were hating. The invasion itself is a seperate issue from racially based discrimination . . . although it is difficult to disentagle the two issues. My point of view is as a person with ancestry from Britain, Germany, Greece, and indigenous to Australia, but with white skin, and a mind for black cultural outlooks, the clear winner of any invasion was always whomsoever could depose racism without falling into that pattern of self identification. What are any of us if not long oppressed and long invaded inside our own dreams.

We ought to place the whole question within the context of the whole planet and all the invasions of territory that have happened, and what we understand of why such events ever took place! And we are all capable of that contextualisation without dwelling in racial divisions.

@rpg,

Funny how stating an Indigenous view of land ownership is racist. But I guess you view land rights as racist anyway yes?

There were (and still are) many different 'nation' that your mob collectively label as Aboriginal peoples.

My nations still have culture, language and some land (only the fringes provided by native title).

Therefore, from my perspective (something you think we black mob should not have), this is black land. The Mabo and Wik decision confirm this. My mob (read: specific Nations) never signed a defeat treaty so there was no conciliatory defeat. In accordance with every other invaded nation throughout (including many European nations centuries ago), we will never concede defeat and will continue to resist.

That is only my opinion though.

2deadly makes the salient point that at the time of European colonisation there was not one united Aboriginal nation or people. There were, and still are, many different and diverse nations of people spread out across the continent. Acknowledging that defeats the treaty argument...there was no one united people to sign a treaty with.

Keep resisting 2deadly but it is futile...the war is over mate. What we should be working for is eliminating the entrenched poverty and third world conditions in so many of the remote communities. All Australians must be educated in the ancient history this land has and embrace its importance in overall human history. Australians must also be educated that this country was not settled peaceably and there was a frontier war that lasted for over 150 years. Let's not simplify it as European against Aboriginal though...the Native Police committed atrocities too...and often in the name of tribal revenge.

The diversity of people and nations meant there was often warfare between competing tribes. That division was exploited by Europeans in their relentless march to tame and take the country. So don't offer the treaty scenario without first noting that there was no united nation, and there still isn't, of Aboriginal people. You can't have a treaty with something that doesn't exist.

A minority of Indigenous people still face enormous problems generated mainly by the failed policies of the last forty years. These issues demand urgent remedies.

Yet people like Pilger prefer to dig up dead horses and kick them around the paddock. Yes, of course there was an invasion by any definition, and it's in the past, like so many other tragedies which have afflicted every group of people on earth. What is anybody supposed to do about it, apart from crying walrus-and-carpenter tears ?

Meanwhile, close to eighty thousand Indigenous people have enrolled at some time at university, a quarter of the entire Indigenous adult population - of those, eleven thousand are currently studying, and twenty six thousand have graduated. People are getting on with life, taking care of business.

Leave the sob-stories to hacks like Pilger and their overseas captive audiences: they can always find something else to dig up and sink the boot into.

Time for a new Left, a Left which tries to get involved, which is prepared to do the hard thinking to change the world for the better, instead of glorying in misery and in merely 'interpreting' the world. And certainly it is time for new paradigms in Indigenous affairs.

Joe Lane

I think Hasbeen comes closest to enunciating the dominant sentiment with respect to the invasion and colonisation of Australia by the Brits. Most people wouldn't put it quite so callously, but that is what their attitudes amount to, i.e. 'we won, they lost, they should just cop it sweet, get over it and assimilate where we let them'.

Personally, while I agree that 'invasion' is probably technically correct, I don't see any great value in a city council taking it upon itself to ensure that old sores are continually reopened. Atonement for past injustice is less important than preventing it in the present, in my opinion.

I'm not sure that we do, Arjay.

>>For once we agree Pericles.England was invaded by the Vikings ,Romans and the Spanish.They too should send a letter of apology to us for killing our ancestors.<<

I wasn't looking for an apology. It was just something that tended to happen back then. Quite a lot. Nothing to apologize for at all.

And when did the Spanish invade, by the way? I must have been asleep. Either that, or they were vewwy, vewwy quiet.

I'm not sure what to make of this, skeptic.

>>What strikes me most is that we, the White, have supplanted Australia’s set of cultures, (Civilization), and we are no longer capable of looking at what happened but from the point of our status in the present artificial society.<<

You seem to be suggesting that invading forces should behave like the "natives". Which is a bizarre thought indeed.

I'm pretty sure the Victorian Missionaries didn't think that way either, as they traipsed through darkest Africa, indoctrinating the gullible inhabitants with their fairy stories.

That was a sort of invasion too, wasn't it?

Why not pass a by-law forbidding Genocide within the city of Sydney?
Invasion or not, there has been no official end to hostilities arising from military action against Aboriginals, but as usual the "Left" either don't know or don't want to talk about it.

To the "I'm ashamed to be White" crowd, get over yourselves, this isn't about you.

To the "Whites are ALL Racists" haters, you'd only say that about White people, Anti Racism is just a code word for anti White.

To Ammonite, either learn to read or learn to quote people properly.
I didn't say that Whites were in danger of becoming extinct, I said that there is an ongoing program of Genocide against my race.

To everybody, especially Mr Pilger: Since when is "myth" a dirty word?
Mythology is a group survival strategy.
If you were told you could save your people from certain physical as well as spiritual destruction by perpetuating a Myth would you agree to carry that secret to your grave?
I would, no hesitation.
Exploding Myths is exactly what the Missionaries did in their program of Genocide against Aborigines.
Guess that's the sort of idea that Meathead Leftists can't really compute.

Pericles the Spanish got into Ireland,that's why they joke about the black Irish.

All we're arguing about is words. As Penny Wong pointed out on
"Q and A," last night. We should be talking not about our divisions and words but about what is going to happen from here on in. Words
and restoring history is important but so is the future. And that's something concrete that needs tackling - for future generations. Beginning with the eradication of preventable diseases like trachoma in Aboriginal children.

Since we are making a stand against "intellectual dishonesty" let’s have the full Monty, ay.

It is becoming increasing apparent that the official –and much funded version -- which posits peaceful Aborigines settling an uninhabited land is not accurate.

First, there is this:
“The Bradshaw Paintings differ in style from and, by archaeological evidence, appear to predate the art work of the ancestors of the Australian Aboriginal tribes of the Kimberley region… Some scientists believe the figures were created by a race that populated the area long before the Aborigines migrated to Australia.”
http://www.australiaforeveryone.com.au/aborsites_bradshaw.htm

then, there’s this:
"Thorne has extracted and analysed parts of a single gene from Mungo Man. More stunning still, the researchers claim that what they discovered is that the man's DNA is unlike anything they have ever seen.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/01/01/2813404.htm

And, this:
“The multiregionalists argue that many of the Willandra Lakes people were ‘gracile’– slightly built, with the delicate facial features of modern humans, while the KOW Swamp people were ‘robust’ with tock skull bones, flat receding foreheads and prominent brow ridges. Thorne has argued that the differences testify to two waves of migration into Australia. The Kow Swamp and other robust people, from Cohuna in Victoria, Coobool Creek , Southern NSW, and Cossack, Western Australia, descended from Indonesian Homo erectus” [ p145]

Strangely enough, when some of these bones were put under the guardianship of the local aboriginals –they disappeared!

“Among the first remains held by Australian institutions to go back to an Aboriginal community were the precious Victorian Kow Swamp skeletons, returned to the Echuca Aboriginal Cooperative Society by the Museum of Victoria in 1990. The museum does not know the fate of the skeletons. ‘It is believed they were buried’ a spokesman said” [p206]
Source: The Bone Readers –Claudio Tuniz, Richard Gillespie & Cheryl Jones.

Now, I am sure that all those fair minded persons who were so offended by falsification of early white history will join with me in calling for a full investigation of the earlier invasion(s) ,which might well prove to be more bloody and more genocidal than the white “invasion”.

The "Bradshaws" are thought to be pictograms, when you have pictograms you have evidence of..uh-oh..White people,
If these images are as old as they think then the story can only lead in one direction.
BTW does that article mention the fact that at least one of these "up to 50,000 year old" paintings represents a boat with a keel, rudder and over twenty sailors?

Thanks Jay,

Ain't it funny that there is always one migaloo (non-Indigenous) who always brings up this argument when we talk about invasion.

In deep voice.... "Science says that present Aboriginal people destroyed the true original inhabitants."

Two white scientist fighting is great proof as is the bradshaw paintings apparently. How dare they name these artifacts after him. He found them but didn't paint them. Typical explorer behaviour.

Great dogma too, we must believe "science" cause it is never wrong. Well excuse me as I leave to chase the cane toads and Indian myna birds from my pool.

Please let a black person have the last word for a change...

;)

ps: QUEENSLANDER!!

Good on you, Lexi. Yes, there are so many crucial issues in Indigenous health, employment, education, housing and substance control - especially in the more remote parts of Australia where colonialism has had far less influence and where people are just as likely to be on their own land (I wonder if Mr Pilger ever points that out to his gullible readers).

Yes, Australia was invaded - welcome to the club. Are there any parts of the world which have never been invaded ? Some countries have been invaded countless times - Syria for example: the Egyptians, Hittites, Nabateans, Assyrians, Babylonians, maybe the Hebrews, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Mongols, Turks, French, and maybe others as well.

Never forget history, but don't let it drag you down. Get on with the practicalities of living in a complicated and not-particularly-just world. Most Indigenous people are doing just that, they are not victims crying powerlessly into their beer, giving Pilger and his readers the middle-class luxury of tut-tutting about the evils of the world.

Joe

2deadly.
I didn't say that, which means I didn't say it.
What happens is that White people arrive in a society, they colonise, they build up these way out, high tech civilisations then when they've reached a certain point the society becomes decadent whereupon they start fighting amongst themselves,interbreeding with the locals and then they disappear from the historical record.
It's the story of Aryans, the Egyptians, the Meso Americans, White Chinese etc.
So no, going on past precedent I don't for a minute think that "savage" Aboriginals "wiped out" a colony of meek White settlers, that's not the way Whites are wired.
You've no doubt read my earlier post on White Genocide, well it's not Aborigines or Africans or even the much maligned "Muslims" who are running this program of genocide against my race, it's more like a civil war.
So take some comfort in the fact that at some point your people will most likely be roaming the ruins of a vanished White society brandishing the remnants of our technology, just as your ancestors seem to have inherited the tools and customs of the "Bradshaw People".

Jay,

"White Chinese" ? My limited understanding of early Chinese history is that the ancestors of most Chinese, the Chins, were originally pastoralists and farmers in the belt south of Mongolia, relatively pale people, one would have thought, who aggressively invaded the areas of what is now China to the east and south, which were occupied at the time by darker people, against whom the Chins waged long wars of extermination and expulsion, in the first millenium before Christ. Hence, migrations south into Laos and Thailand and Burma by people who are arguably darker than most Chinese.

Ironically, Jay, you're playing the same game as Pilger is trying to play - whip up sympathy for a group on the phony grounds that it is being attacked and oppressed and is in danger of being exterminated. On the whole, us Whites must be the least likely group in the world to face genocide, so give it away.

Joe

Joe,
Should read "least like likely to succumb to a Genocide", there IS an ongoing program of Genocide against my people, the White people. It's undeniable, in fact it's a program spoken of in glowing terms by anti Whites, when Bill Clinton made that famous speech in Oregon about the wonderful possibilities for the future after White Americans were turned into a minority he received rapturous applause.
The fact that the people trying to wipe us out will never win is immaterial, they're trying and some of us are resisting.
They're using words and playing by a set of rules or laws, we do likewise, resist using words but never break the rules or break the law.
Nobody says there is a race problem in China and that that race problem will be solved by turning Chinese into a minority, only politicians in White countries say things like that.
The thought of Hu Jintao standing before some provincial Chinese audience and declaring that in order to survive his people must become a minority group is simply laughable.
Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for everbody.

Jay,

I think the horse has well and truly bolted against your last comment, and that's fine with me. I'm happy to see more Asians and Africans - from all corners of Asia and Africa - and I don't even mind people coming here from anywhere else in the world either.

I don't think that Anglo-Australians (or more broadly, white Australians) will ever become a minority in Australia. America is a different prospect, since big chunks of it have been Hispanic since the seventeenth century, and the whites (or their ancestors) there made the choice of bringing millions of Africans to the country. Of course, a big proportion of the white population in America is already Italian, Greek, Arab, Jewish, Eastern European, and so on, anyway, so Anglo-Americans, or Anglo-Celtic-Americans (ACAs), are probably already in a minority.

But becoming a minority is not the same as genocide - in fact, a a slowly shrinking population may not be the same as genocide: the numbers of ACAs is probably stable or declining, and if they don't want to have enough kids to keep up their population, then that can hardly be equated with genocide.

In the medium- to long-run, inter-marriage will blur all of those boundaries in any case, which I think will be wonderful: what Darwin would call 'hybrid vigour' - children of inter-marriage tend to be more beautiful, haven't you noticed ?

Or - do you call that genocide too, Jay ?

Joe

Hi Joe,

Always glad to read your posts and your voice of reason.

One of the most fascinating aspects of our species is the extraordinary physical and cultural diversity of its members.
Yet this diversity is often a source of conflict and inequality
because human relationships are all too often shaped by the
differences rather than the similarities between groups. More's the
pity.

As a biological concept, the word "race," is almost meaningless. There is certainly no such thing as a "pure" race. Different populations have been interbreding for thousands of years, and a continuum of human types has resulted.

Various societies slice up this continuum in different ways, so that the same person might belong to one "race" in one society, but another "race," in a second society.

In Brazil, for example, the continuum from "black" to "white" is loosely divided into several socially recognized categories, such as "branco, cabra, moreno, mulato, and escuro." In South Africa, on the other hand, the same contimuum is divided by law into three rigid racial categories: white, coloured, and black. In the US, only two basic categories on this continuum are recognized - black and white - even though most "black" Americans actually have white ancestry. And although all Americans who are not black are never referred to as "nonblacks" all Americans who are not white are collectively referred to as "nonwhites."

In short, categories of race are a creation of the observer, not of nature.

Who brought up the subject of White Genocide?
Not me.
Nevertheless, I doesn't seem to matter how many times I post the same thing nobody understands it.
Anti Racism is a code word for Anti White.
All I get is the same cadre of White people waffling on about how White Genocide is not real because there's no such thing as race, or there are no "pure" White people..or no White people at all.
I'll accept an Indigenous person telling me I'm wrong or that they disagree with me,or that they see me as an invader or whatever... those are valid points of view.
Being White and being opposed to the existence of your own people and a future for White children is surely a sign of, at the minimum some perverse form of mental ,conditioning.
I've never heard a Black person say "Black people are a mongrel race and it's inevitable that we'll be bred out of existence and what's more that's going to be good for society".
The last conversation I had with an African was VERY interesting, he said that in his opinion White Australians do have a "culture", we're just brainwashed into thinking we don't.

So I'm actually more at ease around racially aware non White people than Genocidal Anti White psychos who want to stop White children from even being born.
I've never had a cross word with a non White over some faux pas in conversation, but just today I mortally "offended" a White PC fool by calling Adam Bandt an "inner city Hipster"....really, Lefties have thin skin and glass Jaws.
Joe and Lexi, be offended by what's been done to you to make you hate your own people, I could sit you down with one of my comrades and we could de program you in about an hour, that's all it takes to break the PC mindset
As I said, the "invasion" idea needs to be explored , there is more to it than Pilger's Marxist bleating and for REAL Whites and REAL Aborigines there might be something more to talk about

Hi Jay,
My comment was directed at SPQR so my mistake. I was commenting on SPQR's assertion that Modern Aboriginal people destroyed the 'theoretical' other Indigenous inhabitants as posited by Bradshaw's inference.
:)

That's OK 2 deadly.
I think the point here is that among Whites there is a perception that these academics paid to work on native title claims have a very narrow field of view which is colouring the way we see Aboriginal history.
The miners want to dig stuff up, they just need somone to throw some money at so that people like Lexi and Joe will feel all warm inside and won't ask too many questions about what they're doing, or won't make too much fuss if there's a cyanide spill or a release of radioactive water.

I don't claim to know a lot about the history of your people but I know a lot about the history of my people.
My people build up societies then disappear, your people seem to have sustained themselves over a very long timeline.
Why do I think the Bradshaws were White?
Because their culture is gone, only a few traces remain.

Dear Jay,

Again with the sweeping generalisations. "People like Lexi and Joe...
need to feel warm inside." Firstly you know nothing about "people like Lexi and Joe." Secondly this isn't about us and we have no "need to feel warm inside." You should ask Joe about his background - you might be surprised to know who Joe actually is. The same goes for me
and the work that I'm involved in. Re-read our posts and perhaps if you can just get past your own biases - you may begin to comprehend what is being said. Although I won't hold my breath. You compound your ignorance with the same mantra that you keep quoting in each of your posts. It's getting a bit tedious and makes any kind of discussion with you next to impossible. Like talking to a brick wall.
Pointless.

JoM

Really?

>>>Who brought up the subject of White Genocide?
Not me.<<<

Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 7 July 2011 10:02:08 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12221&page=0#211339

"What you're promoting is the greatest planned GeNOcide in the history of the world."
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 1:12:15 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12221&page=0#211339

"Just think about it, when, in the next months and years you're asked to pick a side, which will you choose?
Pro White, or pro White genocide?"
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 28 June 2011 9:04:44 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12221&page=0#211387

I have thoughtfully provided links to your full posts, in order to prevent claims of being taken 'out of context'.

Cheers m'dear

Thanks Lexi. I think JoM is trying to manufacture something which doesn't exist. His comment that

" ... The miners want to dig stuff up, they just need somone to throw some money at so that people like Lexi and Joe will feel all warm inside and won't ask too many questions about what they're doing, or won't make too much fuss if there's a cyanide spill or a release of radioactive water...."

has me baffled. [My first reaction was "WTF?"] I'm not sure what his dummy-spit has to do with white genocide.

For the record, my ancestry, as far as I can tell, is mainly Scots and Irish, with a bit of English thrown in. I'm proud to say that quite a few of my gt-gt-grandparents were convicts as well. My wife Maria was Indigenous and yes, we do have beautiful children.

Second-generation migrants from wherever tend to inter-marry with other Australians. I am comfortable that in a few generations, most young Australians will have ethnically-mixed ancestry and be able to bury this idiotic myth of 'racial purity' once and for all.

Joe

Ammonite.
Thanks for linking those posts, saves me some filibustering, which is handy because I've started work on a new house this week and I'm quite busy, good to see the home fires still burning.

Joe.
Fascinating genealogy, I'm sure.
Did you read the article about Manny Waks in the Age today?
It's interesting the way he's no longer observing Judaism but he's still regarded as a Jewish community leader, how he's got olive skin and brown eyes and some Jews have pale skin and green or blue eyes.
Seems that race isn't just skin colour, or genetics or nationality or belief, it's a combination of all those rolled into what we modern folk call an "identity".
Post modernists, such as your good self seem to have looped back to some odd version of 19th century Eugenics...when it suits you of course, you seem to have no official position on the subject beyond, "White people are a mongrel race" unless someone has pro White views.
I'm not pushing "racism" but ethnocentrism as the next logical evolutionary step beyond egalitarianism, if we weren't sure that race is real and it matters before then egalitarianism has put the issue beyond doubt.
You can cling to your illusion of formal equality but please stay out of the affairs of us "real fellas"...you know, "doesn't matter what ya colour, as long as you're a real fella, as long as you're a true fella"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFXRSnQU1rs

BTW I don't think I'm the only one "spitting the dummy' over the way archaeological and anthropological research is funded in this country and the uses to which it is being put.

Dang, pressed post too soon.
Sometimes music is the only thing that gets through to people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUvGDI0UqjQ
Ethnocentrism will save the world, unity among the races will only come from unity within the races.

Loudmouth

Thanks for your good and unfortunately, not so common, sense.

JoM

Thoroughly enjoyed outing you on your denial of claims of white genocide, but you are too easy a target, therefore, I shall leave you to your hobby horse - best of luck in 'purifying' the white race.

I wonder what role Marxism played in the Genocide of indigenous Australians?
I know this thread is mainly about the British military occupation but these issues are all connected.
Some of the people who were involved in the "welfare"of Aborigines in the late 19th and early 20th century must surely have been Marxists and it's utterly inconceivable that their principles did not affect
their work, Marxism twists ever fibre of an adherent's being.
I've already posted about the way Stalinist V.Gordon Childe's theories about the development of "civilisation" totally screwed up the study of Archaeology and antrhropology for decades, we see on this site ample evidence of his Marxist narrow mindedness still being passed off as "factual".

Reds the world over have a horrific record regarding Aboriginal and other minority groups, you might say genocide is their specialty.
I watched a documentary on the tribes of Kamchatka, the Marxists came and destroyed everything of cultural significance they could lay their hands on. They destroyed villages, kidnapped children, forbade religion, and they even went as far as breaking open graves and burning the remains.
Rinse and repeat for, Chechens, Uighurs, Hmong, Mongolians, Kyrgiz,Kazakhs,Uzbeks...and no doubt more that I'm not yet aware of.

100 million dead, Commies aren't cool.

Joe , appears we have a bit more in common !
On the " Invasion " ....it sure was and thanks to the Sydney Council for accepting it - we are growing up .
I think we are inching towards a Treaty .
However down here in Victoria the Baillieu led Liberal - National Parties in Power have now found that having to always welcome their bunch of Political Dinosaurs, old fuddy duddies and rednecks to meetings by reminding them of the "Invaded" Nation's name, too hard to stomach and have stopped necessarily opening Meetings with Native Title Recognition .
This is a step backward for Reconciliation -too stupid for words !

kartiya jim

I too live in the state of Victorian attitudes. Perhaps the Baillieu government could dispense with greetings altogether - saving much time and 'fair' to all.

Thanks Ammonite, the feeling's mutual. By the way, is an ammonite some form of marine life, or is an Ammonite a person from ammon ? Which is/was where, I wonder ?

Kartiya Jim, thanks too. But I've been puzzling about welcomes to country ever since they came into vogue - country belonged to family groups, local descent groups, clans, whatever you like to call them, and not to entire, over-arching groups, 'tribes'. For example, amongst the Narrindjeri in the Lower Murray and Lakes, there were eight or nine dialect groups within the Ngarrindjeri, each group being recognised because it spoke the common language with different accents and/or used different words (for instance, 'ngori' or 'mangaraiperi' for 'pelican'); in turn, each dialect group comprised many family groups, clans if you like, and it was these clans who were the land-holders. So a welcome to country necessarily had to come from the smaller land-holding groups, the families or clans. Nowadays, in southern Australia, much of ther knowledge about clans has withered away as people abandoned, or were displaced from, their lands and hence, from their land-holding pracgtices and all of the cultural activities which went with them. The great majority of people would not be aware nowadays that they could, if they tracked back in history, trace their family land, their clan land, at least partly through their use of English surnames.

For example, hypothetically, suppose a family surname was Clinton - going way back into the early days, one could find that the first 'Clinton' was from, let's say, an area around Coburg and Preston, with clearly-defined boundaries from the 'Nixons' whose country extended east and south through Northcote, and from the lands of the 'Fords' to the west - i.e. the people who first took the names 'Clinton', 'Nixon', and 'Ford', perhaps from early European employers. So, to an extent, surnames are a very good clue for Aboriginal people as to who their ancestors of 150-170 years ago were, but also to where their land was/is.

[TBC]

[contd.]

So 'welcome to country' should actually be, and could be, far more nuanced than it is, if the people of the actual land, the very spot if you like, could trace their ancestry more diligently.

As to the appropriateness of entire groups claiming ownership of country - imagine if you owned your house in Sydney or Melbourne or Adelaide: this would not mean that you had some form of ownership over every house, al the property, in Sydney or Melbourne or Adelaide. In this sense, IN THIS SENSE, there was no such thing as Ngarrindjeri land, or Kamileroi land, or Wailbri land - the land-holding group - and the group for which it would be appropriate to offer a welcome to country - would be far more specific and localised.

Sorry for nit-picking, Kartiya Jim :)

Joe

Yep,don't think we have moved actual Clan ownership along that far down South Joe .
I guess we have to be partially satisfied at this point that there is a recognition of the Language Group that most of the Traditional [Clans] People belong to.

Thanks Jim, yes, I think it certainly was, pretty much everywhere: the land-holding group was what might be called the extended family, the clan, and people would have had claims as well on lands that their mother, and father's mother, and mother's mother, came from, depending on where they lived - on their father's country or their mother's. The point is, at least down this way, that even if people don't know it now, their family land can easily be traced back, ironically through their English-surname ancestors.

Yes, some families, even down the Murray, came from somewhere else, or their ancestors arrived in country from God-knows-where-else, so they might have to track back through their maternal family side. In many parts of south-eastern Australia and up into the Flinders, and elsewhere, ancestry was taken from the maternal as well as the paternal side, so this doesn't present any problems: people can track back through their mother's ancestors just as they can through paternal ancestry.

At least amongst the Ngarrindjeri, thanks to the Berndts' book 'A World That Was', pretty much everybody can trace their Aboriginal family back to country, specific country. My wife Maria for example, was a Sumner, and could trace her family back to her great-grandfather John, who was born on his country in about 1845-1848. He adopted the name Sumner when he was about fourteen from an employer at Goolwa. Sumner country ran from Lake Albert across the lower Narrung Peninsula to the Coorong, and its boundaries are very well-defined, a block of about ten km by fifteen. That is Sumner country. Sumners could also claim some weaker links to other country, through mothers and mother's mothers, and so on.

[TBC]

Loudmouth

Very interesting posts. Like Kartiya Jim, the best we can do is make a recognition in a very general sense - that in and of itself is acknowledgement of how much history and culture has been lost.

I would like more acknowledgement for people who come here from anywhere - the contribution made by people who have had to flee their home countries and now make substantive contributions to this country. Maybe something could be worked on on very formal occasions, such as change of government, when a new regime is sworn in. Would also make a difference to Australia Day ceremonies - maybe there is a way to make 26th January significant for indigenous folk rather than invasion, maybe there were celebrations among tribes at around that time of year. Take the date back. Christians have been co-opting significant dates for centuries, be a satisfactory reversal.

As for my moniker, an ammonite is an fossilised marine creature, in the shape of a spiral, therefore it is ancient and beautiful, or just an old fossil depending on your point of view. I hadn't made the connection to Ammon, but my great grandmother was Jewish, so double bonus.

Good with natural science, not so well read on anthropology.

[contd.]

So 'country' was quite specific, specifically owned by specific groups or extended families. They would have had little interest or claim on others' lands. So welcome to country could really be quite focussed.

On the other hand, people down this way (Adelaide) treat all of the land owned by all of the groups within a language group - the Kaurna, for example, whose country encompassed Adelaide - as if all Kaurna people had an undifferentiated claim on all Kaurna land, from Clare in the north down to Cape Jervis. I would seriously question that those areas were Kaurna, that Kaurna country ever extended that far, but there you are.

And perhaps characteristically, 'Kaurna' is a Ngarrindjeri word, meaning 'men': 'korni' meaning 'man', plural 'kornar'. The word was first recorded in about 1914, so it may be a bit unreliable.

So I've been puzzled for a long time about huge groups in very good country in NSW, like the Kamilaroi and Wiradjuri, whose country extended for hundreds of thousands of sq. km. Surely, they must be confederations of dialect groups, each with perhaps hundreds of clans ? The clan, for example, that was the land-holding group around, say, Dubbo (Kamilaroi country ?) would have controlled a very specific stretch of country - its family members would not have necessarily had any ownership, or rights, in other people's country, say around Warren or Nyngan. 'Country' was specific, not general.

But the beauty of it is that there are far more records around that people think: people can track back their ancestry in many, if not most, cases, if they know where to look. Missionaries' journals are goldmines of information, and at least down this way, the missionary had to keep records of births, deaths, marriages and other records, over long periods of time. Ration stations had to keep accurate records, and those records would very likely show up who consistently came to certain places every month for rations, i.e. on their own country. Stationrecords, policerecords, hospitalrecords - there's a hugeamount of informationaround. It just needs a bit of detective work :)

Note to self, wait before posting.

:D at you Loudmouth.

Enc.some great examples from the Ouyen District Football League Resultsin 1946 that brought in local site names.
This Mallee area in Western Victoria still has some amazing places and unique Australian Native Footy Club names that carry a native identy - it seems that the both Explorers and Surveyors liked the way they rolled off both black and white tongues .
Should be more of it !
Just a few from the area :
- Kiamal (4th),
- Ouyen (premiers),
- Patchewollock,
- Tempy (3rd),
- Tiega
- Walpeup.
Gorya,

The Link , http://footypedia.isgreat.org/00001276.htm Cheers, jim .

So Australia was "Invaded"

That was 200 years ago....

Pilger, I suggest you get over it.

Australia today is Australia today, the "invaders", like the Romans, Saxons, Angles and Normans did in the UK

they settled this land and have farmed this land and have done so for the past 200+ years.

and in so doing have justified their "invasion" of this land

so like I said before, get over it... crying in your beer over past invasions seems to be the product of some Celtic gene, the Irish go on about the same sort of irrelevance.

Obviously they have too few real problems in their lives to worry about.

One thing... if it had not been the British who "invaded" Australia, the outcome for the "defenders" might have been alot more brutal and lethal that there would be no one left to complain about it.

Fair go Col ,
The masses were politically powerless then - not so now, even for those pesky upstart Natives .
Invasion Title is slowly becoming irrelevant Col and about time too .
Beware the haunting click of the boomerangs - at last they are getting louder .

It is such a familiar story to some, isn't it Col.

>>Australia today is Australia today, the "invaders", like the Romans, Saxons, Angles and Normans did in the UK<<

The Saxons continued their resistance to the Norman invasion right up to the Hundred Years War and the early fifteenth century. After all, the Normans had brought with them an new language, as well as a new ruling class, and confiscated land left right and centre. Hardly surprising that non-Normans were miffed.

There are, I am sure, many other examples of the slow assimilation of the locals into the new way of life introduced by the invaders. As ever, it will happen eventually, and some folk will resent it longer than others.

Hi Pericles,

More than that: around eighty percent of Indigenous people have non-Indigenous partners, an expression of being able to associate with and fall in love with and live with whoever one likes in a relatively free society. I know one family of about ten people, all but one of whom married or is living with a non-Indigenous partner, and most of their kids are too.

After all, if a group forms only 2-3 % of a population, then 97-98 % of their work-mates, colleagues, social friends may come from other groups, so that shouldn't be any surprise. One interesting fact though is that a high proportion of the partners of Indigenous people are not white Anglo or white either - Maltese, Fijian (Indian and Indigenous), Greek, 'Afghan', Swedish, Vietnamese, German, Thai, Italian, Chinese, Indonesian, you name it. And they have very beautiful kids too.

People shouldn't forget history (of course, they have to learn and re-learn it first, that's the hard part) but they shouldn't let it hold them back. Scottish Australians shouldn't forget the Clearances, or Irish Australians the prolongation of the 1840s Famine by the English, but they also are getting on with living, taking care of business :)

Joe

Bloody hell ! This still going !?
Yes, John Pilger is an "Arm-Chair Expert", he certainly is !
But Joe, re. “around 'eighty percent' of Indigenous people have non-Indigenous partners” ?
My estimation is 18% "max".
With most liaisons being “very temporary” and with “very few” marriages.
Plenty of kids. But Mum and Dad "didn't marry".
Though most ( married ) high profile and successful Aboriginal are married to non-indig ( mainly Anglo-Aussies )
Most of these marriages eventually fail.
Joe, I've covered all this stuff on www.whitc.info

Arthur Bell.

Hi Arthur,

Good to hear from you :) I'll stick by my statement that up to 80 % of Indigenous people are marrying, or partnering, non-Indigenous people, but modify it by saying that it would apply to urban people on the one hand, and working people on the other. For Indigenous people who are working, and especially if they have trade and/or professional qualifications, the inter-marriage rate would be closer to 90 % or even 95 %.

Amongst my in-laws, for example, only 20 % would have selected Indigenous partners. Amongst their cousins, off the top of my head, the inter-marriage rate would be similar, except for the cousins who stayed on the mission - even then, some have chosen non-Indigenous partners. In a relatively free society, that's how it works - people choose from amongst those who they work or associate with. Even the lifelong-unemployed seem to choose a high proportion of non-Indigenous drop-kicks as partners - to their detriment, but there you go.

Actually, this has been going on for much longer than people would think - inter-marriage, I mean, not just the odd fling or liaison. Marriages between Aboriginal men and non-Aboriginal women were not unknown back in the nineteenth century, and certainly liaisons the other way have been very common. And I think there would have been many liaisons which involved deep love and affection, they weren't all predatory. Our forty three years were certainly marked from beginning to end by passionate love and attachment, a sense of common cause, so I wouldn't begrudge anybody else a similar experience.

Joe Lane