I think Bolt pretty much epitomizes the worst face of the Australian media. And I think it's about time those of the invasion tribes stopped blaming the victims.

But we must all fight against over restriction of free speech. Therefore I support Bolt on this occasion. The issue is that important.

john

Bolt has pointed out that the Invasion tribes have mixed with the "victims" and the problem is that they identify with both, but then pick sides to their own advantage .. shopping for benefits has been the observation of many commentators on the same issue.

It's possible they may have even modified their lifestyles, to include such benefits, who knows, but it does leave them in the position of gaining benefits unavailable to other Australians, and then able to be offended by anyone pointing this out.

Barry Jones of the ALP made a similar observation, but of course, he's not the left's hated thorn. Michael Mansell similar comments. Bolt's mistake was to name individuals who thus were able to take personal affront .. for that, he was wrong.

Some people do not like this most unwelcome truth, so call him racist .. for disturbing their tranquility I presume.

So what do they do on Australia Day, cheer or moan, or both? Surely they benefit from both sides of their ancestor's cultures? Invaders and invaded, blended together into what? Hatred of one side or the other of their ancestry? I suggest the problems they see all around them, to be offended, are closer to home that they admit.

An interesting aside to the way you can look at these things, I saw an interview with a man from Kenya (where Obama's father is from) around the time Barrack Obama became the first black President of the USA, the man said, "if this had been in Kenya, he would have been their first white President"

...continued

"In human beings, it is simply not possible to delimit clearly defined races that reflect biologically differentiated and well-defined groupings. The reason is simple: different groups of people have constantly intermingled and interbred with one another during the entire course of history. This constant gene flow has prevented the human species from fragmenting in highly differentiated subspecies. Those characteristics that are differentiated among populations, such as skin colour, represent classic examples of the antagonism between gene flow and natural selection. As we saw in chapter 20, when selection is strong enough, as it is for dark coloration in tropical regions, populations can differentiate even in the presence of gene flow. However, even in cases such as this, gene flow will still ensure that populations are relatively homogeneous for genetic variation at other loci.

For this reason, relatively little of the variation in the human species represents differences between the described races. Indeed, one study calculated that only 8% of all genetic variation among humans could be accounted for as differences that exist among racial groups; in other words, the human racial categories do a very poor job in describing the vast majority of genetic variation that exists in humans. For this reason, most modern biologists reject human racial classifications as reflecting patterns of biological differentiation in the human species. This is a sound biological basis for dealing with each human being on his or her own merits and not as a member of a particular “race.”"

I may be skating on thin ice here, but there is a dilemma regarding racial vilification, for example, living in Kalgoorlie for many years, and visiting the City four to five times a year, I find myself being abused verbally by some indigenous Australians, the language used because I dared to look at them, was uncalled for and easily fell in to the realms of vilification, so is this a one sided part of the vilification laws,or are only the non indigenous subjected to the law of vilification? Your thoughts are of interest to me.
NSB

Amicus, you are missing the point. You state "Amanda, I don't know why anyone who comments on anything has to, for your benefit, supply definitions .. we all know what is going on we don't need to drown in the academic definition battles from 30 years ago.".

The thing is I don't think you do know what's going on. You don't need to define anything for my benefit but if you want to argue from an informed position you need to know that the definition of Aboriginality is not academic. It's official. It's been in every day use for decades. There's been a ton of reportage and comment and opinion about who is Aboriginal and who is not, but not much mention that there is a working definition.

It's such a shame that despite your claim that "we all know what's going on" actually there's a huge amount of ignorance. Discussing indigenous issues is like discussing sexism or homophobia thirty years ago.

A number of people had their racial identity attacked and fought back in the courts, as they were entitled to do. Bolt hasn't lost his freedom of speech. In fact he sprays his opinions in a blog, a column and on television. He just has to be more responsible with what he says.

Hi Amanda,

Bruce Ruxton: is that the much-decorated World War II veteran ?

Definitions are all very well, but so often they can be corrupted and distorted. Every aspect of the definition of 'Aboriginal' can be twisted or got around somehow.

Being 'accepted within the Aboriginal community' tends to get morphed into 'being verified by an Aboriginal organisation' which is not difficult, especially if one is good friends with anybody in the organisation. People in such powerful positions in organisations are conned every day into 'signing people in', and many organisations are funded on the basis of how many Aboriginal people use their services. Ergo .....

Historically, the legacy of discriminatory policy lingers for generations, and many, many people have been, as it were, confined to the Aboriginal realm by virtue of which parents raised them, i.e. usually their Aboriginal mother if the white father had shot through. Pale or dark, their siblings were Aboriginal. The only relations they knew were Aboriginal and the whites in the area would know them as Aboriginal. So it is no mystery if many Aboriginal people are paler than their white neighbours.

So it can become very difficult for people in organisations to say yes or no, this or that person is or isn't Aboriginal. They may face threats of legal action if they don't 'sign in' somebody, particularly if that person has powerful Aboriginal friends. It happens :)

Cheers,

Joe