Referenda in Australia have always been a hard ask. According to Wikipedia, only 8 out of 44 have passed since Federation.
So let's not waste this chance.
I suggest there is another referendum on the drawing board that would do more to reconcile all Australians with their immediate neighbors, and do this where they live, than another reminder of the division between aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I am referring to a Constitutional recognition of local government. A Constitutional amendment would remove the legal cloud now hovering over Federal grants to local governments.
With direct funding of local governments, the emphasis will shift from the State to the region. And we live in regions, we live with our neighbors, and, mostly, we manage all right. When we need help, it's often in the form of funding.
Reconciliation starts on the street where we each live. Allow the locals to assume a position that will directly influence the structure and dynamics of their own communities, and as we work together, different views will be reconciled.
I think this is much more important than anything symbolic, and I worry about the odds of anything passing if we flirt with referenda overload.

"Our research suggests non-Aboriginal Australians consistently affirm a need for reconciliation that is not diminished by their differences of opinion about what forms it should take."

What rubbish. You were looking for it, and found it .. as in another article on OLO, this is confirmation bias.

Reconciliation is only talked about in terms of

1. Some aboriginals demand reconciliation and usually in the context of $ compensation .. to the rest of us, they appear to have zero interest in reconciliation beyond compensation.

2. Whitey has to do this and it's a one way street, as usual.

Did we ever get a big, "it's OK", or a "thank you", after the Rudd apology? Have they accepted it?

It was SUCH a big deal for years, but I suspect now that it was just a tool used by the left, supporting aboriginals only because it suited their cause, not any kind of principle.

When someone apologizes, the polite thing to do is to accept it, graciously, or it looks like it was always about the money.

Immediately after the apology, nothing. Most of us will never forget the treatment given to Brendan Nelson though.

I'm still waiting for all the aboriginals who turned their backs on him, political tools that they were, to apologize to him and the rest of us for what was a disgusting display of ungratefulness.

Do you wonder why most of us just don't care any more?

Without focus groups carefully grooming participants, without rigged loaded question polls, there is no interest in a referendum, except from the guilt driven victim industry.

Reconciliation is a hollow vessel. We have nothing to feel the need to reconcile and the aboriginals do not accept it anyway (without $), see above, Brendan Nelson .. that's exactly what we all expect will be the response to anything we do.

I don't think the aboriginal victim industry realize the damage that imagery did to their cause. (nor do they care)

What happened to Brendan Nelson?

What referendum? Heard nothing about this.

Is it time for some of the leading and quite noisy Indigenous people, like the Pearson chap, to consider 'reconciling' themselves to the altered situation Indigenous people find themselves in?

And then encouraging them to join the mainstream activities of education-jobs-homes-respect for the law?

I'm not sure what they will be doing in these desert/distant camps when their land is split up into private land titles and the rich scammers have come in to buy the land off the unsuspecting locals.

There will still be no work in these places, and no income to pay off a house.

What is there to 'reconcile' if Indigenous people are going to remain trapped in avoidable poverty?

TAR .. Just after PM Rudd gave his apology in 2008, to great response, Brendan was up to give his support to it. Rudd's press group, salted through the crowd outside parliament near a big screen setup for the event, all turned their backs on Brendan.

Then all the aboriginals did as well ..

So the political mileage was clearly far more important than the principle of the thing ..

What could have been a step forward, to better relations and towards becoming a more cohesive society, was trashed.

If Rudd's people alone had done it, it would have looked stupid, but all the aboriginals all saw the opportunity to humiliate a man, a good man, to make a political point and took it .. so much for "reconciliation" eh?

Every Australian saw that, and when you mention the Apology, that's what we remember ..

Much better that aboriginals adapt to their lot, and we adapt to helping them, rather than being constantly chided and abused and still expected to put up the money and tug the forelock to the perpetual victims.

I don't remember it Amicus. I do remember that happening to Howard. And I do recall nelson as education minister- a terrible outcome.

He probably deserved a turned back.

The Blue Cross,

"He probably deserved a turned back."

I disagree. I have no love for Dr. Nelson (nor most Liberals), but there's just no call for that sort of rudeness. Even if you don't like the man, you should still show a bit of civility and be gracious when he's offering an a apology.

TBC "He probably deserved a turned back."

Sure, that's your opinion, and a political one .. good for you, being able to separate the welfare of aboriginals from hatred of the Howard government or individuals in that government, keeping in mind as I'm sure you have, that they are representatives of Australians.

So I'm just as sure you have no problem with the rest of us turning our backs now on the aboriginals and the ALP left who care less about the state of things .. and like you, more about the politics of it.

Hatred by the left of the Howard government has blinded them to the plight of the aboriginals who need support, the highly politicized victim industry, like the author, do them absolutely no help at all and in fact the opposite.

2008 .. Rudd was PM, Howard was gone, Brendan Nelson was leader of the opposition .. seems the value of the Apology to you was diminished after Howard left .. pretty typical of the left I guess, no principles, just causes

As other posters have noted, the article is just pious nonsense.

The vast bulk of Australians don't give two straws about reconiliation. If they are ever cornered by the lunatics you find in this area, rather than provoke the lunatic over an issue that is of essentially no importance to them, they will mutter its a good idea and slide away.

This attitude is easy to maintain for the vast bulk of Australians do not see an indigenous person - or at least a recognisable, indigenous person - from one year's end to the next. This is because indigenous people are now only a tiny proportion of the population, and those that might be recognisably indigenous in the major cities wher most people live even smaller. I say recongisably, because I've seen people who, to me, look to be of European origin claim to be indigenous. They may well be for all I know, but they already seem reconciled.

In any case indigenous people have their apology, now its time to make their future as part of a broader Australian society, rather than wasting time with additional gestures such as a mention in the constitution. Time to move on.

Nelson was part of the Howard government, and cannot be removed from that connection. Those Australians who supported Howard, who he represented so well- so what?

The plight of some Indigenous people today is not deeply linked to Howard at all, in my view, thank you Amicus. They hardly had an elevated position in the world before Howard did they?

Whether his invasion was a political scam might be for those people whom it most effect on in the NT to determine but it certainly looked to be that from here.

Rudd-Gillard's continuation of it under Macklin looks just as dodgy.

I have a chum who works in the NT house rebuilding scheme. It pays 'whitie' very well and leaves hardly any money left for the houses. Never mind, that's always been the way, eh?

As for the 'value' of Rudd's apology, it was what it was, a quite remarkable public statement with no money value attached to it, as Rudd had always said and I am sure Howard would have been happy with, even though Howard would never had made an apology.

There really was no need for Nelson to enter the fray, since the nation's PM had apologised on behalf of all of us, including Nelson and indeed Howard.

Australia has always turned its back on Indigenous people, it's not new, it's not restricted to the Coalition or the ALP, it's ubiquitous, in fact.

Only a pretend historian would say otherwise.

There is no 'victim industry', only halfwit rightwhingers who see conspiracy everywhere.

Did we see Nelson offer his own apology during his time as a minister? Hardly, but he could have done that. So when he offered his version after Rudd, not that I recall this at all, it was just a piece of 'form', and hardly believable, so it's not a shock to be reminded that backs were turned.

I'd interpret that as a snub to the whole Coalition, not to Nelson personally, since he was just there as a tool of that crew, who had happily refused to apologise for so long.

Had any of your focus group ever met a real aboriginal, or had their contact been limited to urban, or worse, academic aboriginals?

Years of training have these urban types well schooled to play the heart strings of particularly the academic types among us, & boy doesn't it show.

Many of us are thoroughly sick of the more cunning members of the so called stolen generation, playing those strings all the way to the bank.

I wonder how much money the one who coined "the stolen generation" made from the phrase. I'll bet he didn't make any where near as much as the more cunning of those who were lucky enough to be pulled out of the tribal society, into the real world have made by being part of it.

Australia's Colonies signed up to the Commonwealth of Australia Act 1900, becoming States on 1 January, 1901. After a campaign led, amongst others, by legendary Aboriginal activist Oodgeroo Noonuccal, culminating in a referendum in 1967 which achieved overwhelming support, Aborigines came under the auspices of the Constitution of Australia. Subsequently, the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) severed all ties with the Westminster Parliament and the Queen in her capacity as the British Monarch, but not as the Australian Monarch. Unless Aborigines have superior force of arms, which is not the traditional way anyway, negotiations with the Crown to reconcile Aboriginal Sovereignty with the governance of the nation will occur appropriately under the terms of the Australian Constitution.

First up is the requirement for a women's jurisdiction consistent with Aboriginal protocol. The international Courts are of no assistance because international law doesn't recognise a women's jurisdiction. The Constitution will need to be reformed to provide for a women's legislature to enable a women's jurisdiction, a simple task since there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equality between women and men, such that a referendum on the provision of a women's legislature, embedded in governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, presided over by a Council of Governors-General, accompanied by Courts of women's and men's jurisdiction, in the Aboriginal tradition would receive overwhelming support if conducted this weekend. The Queen can use her reserve power to reject a Referendum Bill on the provision of a women's legislature but to do so would invoke the ghost of Magna Carta and incite major political turmoil and a severe backlash against her reign. Alternatively, she can accept the extraordinary legacy of passing her sovereignty to senior citizens presiding over the first women's legislature of the modern era, which, in all probability, would be her preferred approach. Global recognition of a women's jurisdiction will occur once Australia takes the lead, consistent with the depth and extent of the Aboriginal tradition.

With a women's jurisdiction alongside the men's a genuine Treaty can be negotiated, the piece of paper often sought, after which all Australians can move forward together and lead the world in governance of global peace and sustainable prosperity in perpetuity. I know this because I've been working on it since the Black Power days of the 1970s when I used to stand outside the Builders Arms Hotel and look down Gertrude Street, Fitzroy at the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, which hosted the opening of the first Parliament of Australia in 1901, and considered the options. The way forward is perfectly clear and relatively free from obstruction.

* In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, do you agree to an amendment to the Constitution to enable equal rights between women and men?

1. The Constitution of Australia is a foundation legal document.

2. In order to preserve the integrity of law, recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution must accommodate recognition of customary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander foundation law, where such law can be found to exist.

3. Justice John von Doussain in the Federal Court recognised customary foundation law with the view he was "not satisfied on the evidence before this Court that the applicants have established on the balance of probabilities that restricted women's knowledge as revealed to Dr Fergie and Professor Saunders was not part of genuine Aboriginal tradition". [Chapman v Luminis Pty Ltd (No 5) (21 August 2001):400]

4. Customary foundation law enables governance by agreement between women's and men's legislative assemblies.

5. Recognition of customary foundation law in the Constitution rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.

6. A Cabinet of an equal number of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the Parliament and provides leadership.

7. Sovereignty transfers from the Crown to a Council of Governors-General comprising an equal number of senior women and men, with Royal assent.

8. The Courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions.

9. Customary foundation law and equal rights between women and men are one and the same.

10. A referendum question on equal rights between women and men in recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would receive overwhelming support since equal rights between women and men at law has received overwhelming support, other than foundation law where the opportunity has yet arisen, since the Constitution was enacted.

tbc .. "I'd interpret that as a snub to the whole Coalition" and to the Australians they represent .. you forget as many of the left constantly do, that people voted for the coalition, and still do.

That was my point, the disrespect was not just to Brendan Nelson, but to the Australians the ALP did not stand for, 49.1% if I remember correctly, hardly a landslide for the ALP.

"halfwit rightwhingers" nice .. is that all you've got? Ad hominems?

I guess that's our lot then, to have the left flame everyone they disagree with and not care about any substance, as long as they have hatred to keep them buoyed up, or is that "inflated" ..?

Thankfully the right care enough to intervene when necessary, and I see the ALP continued it .. must have been the "right" thing to do ..nes pa?

You're onto something, Amicus - is it to be yet more gesture and symbol, or genuine improvement and substance ?

It's amazing that it is the Left these days which is so content (generously on Blackfellas' behalf) with the puff and phiz of symbols. In my younger days, the Left had a lot more balls, and wits enough to see through the crap. But then again, it's a different Left these days.

And good luck, Whistler, with your re-run of Don Quixote's labours.

Cheers,

Joe

Discussion of this issue in Melbourne this Friday:

The RMIT Law Students’ Society is hosting a symposium on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition in the Australian constitution facilitated by Mr Jeff Waters, ABC Journalist and author of Gone for a Song.

Is recognition in the Constitution of Australia, reconciliation? Recognition? or just rhetoric?

Speakers on the the proposition will include

The Hon Adam Bandt MP, Federal member for Melbourne and Greens MP
Ms Jody Broun Co Chair of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples
Dora Banyasz Allens Arthur Robinson, Member of AAR’s Reconciliation Action Plan
Magistrate Ann Collins, Koori Court
Aunty Joan Vickery AO, Koori Court and Gunditjamara Elder
Munya Andrews, Indigenous Barrister

11th November, 2011. 5:30pm to 8:30pm, RMIT Graduate School of Business and Law Building 13 Corner of Russell and Victoria Streets Melbourne
Bookings: http://rmitlss.eventbrite.com/

I get it,

"I'm still waiting for all the aboriginals who turned their backs on him, political tools that they were, to apologize to him and the rest of us for what was a disgusting display of ungratefulness.

"Do you wonder why most of us just don't care any more?"

Amicus is channeling Brendan Nelson, still deeply hurt by turned backs that only Amicus/Nelson can recall ever happening, so marginal was the incident.

Why was Nelson 'apologising' in the first place? Was it a Coalition apology, or just a Liberal Party apology?

I've already pointed out that Rudd, as PM, had apologised for the nation, for all of us, even those Howard supporters who never-ever wanted any apology offered, and I'm pretty sure that was a CORE promise of Howard supported by the Party faithful.

Really Amicus, from your last post I thought you might have said something positive in your first post that I had missed, I see not.

Just a carping whinge about turned backs and spurned Howard supporters.

Now, how about addressing whistlers demands for a separate women's legislature?

"First up is the requirement for a women's jurisdiction", is this the Indigenous style reform you DO support Amicus, given your obvious deep and abiding concern for Indigenous peoples?

I think I've missed something... what on earth does bifurcating the legislature on gender lines have to do with Aboriginal reconciliation?

whistler,

The 1967 referendum did not mean that “Aborigines came under the auspices of the Constitution”. This is just another myth on the ever-growing list of myths re that referendum.

The 1967 referendum did two things: it gave the Commonwealth, rather than the states, the power to make laws regarding Aborigines; it removed the section under which they were not counted for the purposes of allocating seats in the House of Representatives and grants to the states. (Paradoxically, this section prevented states like Queensland, in which Aborigines did not have the vote, from getting more seats and states like Victoria, in which they did have the vote, from getting fewer.)

The 1967 referendum did not mean that Aborigines were counted for the first time in the census. The 1911 census recorded 19,939 Aborigines.

Nor did 1967 referendum make Aborigines citizens, something they had been since 1949 when all Australians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, became citizens, as opposed to British subjects that they had all been previously.

Nor did the 1967 referendum give Aborigines the right to vote, something they had in the nineteenth century in some colonies and which they kept in those states continuously at the state level and, if they had voted in 1901, continuously at the federal level. Federal voting rights were extended to all Aborigines in 1962.

Chris Curtis

Brendan Nelson, as leader of the Federal Coalition's parliamentary opposition, was doing the honorable thing backing up Rudd's apology, and thereby making the apology unanimous as far as the federal parliament was concerned, and thereby reinforcing the objective that the apology would be truly representative of the whole of the Australian non-indigenous populace. Brendan's mistake was to mention that the current generation was not responsible for the "stolen generation", that the intent of the relevant relocations had not been vindictive, but had rather been seen as being in the best interests of those relocated; and he also mistakenly (for many) mentioned that some of the "stolen" had fared well from their relocation.

He was in effect backing up the previous Howard govenment policy regarding potential compensation. I did not notice Rudd government representatives turning their backs, but only the indigenous contingent within the House, and some non-indigenous joining the same indigenous response on the lawn outside the House.

It should be noted that Howard's policy regarding an apology was not that of a majority of Australians, or even a majority of Lib/Nat voters, and thus was just another failing of the Howard government, as was his refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Howard didn't get the message until the 2007 election result, and probably still sticks to his original ill-advised attitude.

Whistler, I assume this womens' and mens' legislature idea comes from secret mens' and womens' business in indigenous culture, but the whole idea is so over the top, and is so far beyond the idea of recognition of the first peoples in the Constitution or the Preamble, that I am forced to assume that you have a very much more extensive agenda, and one which could therefore never come to fruition - for it smacks of independent sovereignty, governance, judiciary etc. This would be wholly un-Australian.

Why aren't we calling it the "Colonial Australian Constitution", and why don't the Aboriginals draw up their own "Indigenous Constitution", wherein after a suitably damning preamble they grudgingly acknowledge the invaders, despoilers, child-nappers and rapists in a magnanimous spirit of reconciliation with their luckless fate?
I cannot believe the effrontery of a referendum that condescends to "recognise" the inhabitants and custodians of this ancient land from time immemorial. The same supremacists who have and continue to patronise, ostracise and demean them. I'm not sure whether to praise aboriginals for their forbearance or harangue them for their acquiescence. They're too decimated/assimilated in numbers and wasted in spirit to offer viable resistence, but it seems to me they should be resisting the tyrant's "recognition" until the full horror of what has and continues to be perpetrated against them is understood by the whole population and a genuine apology is forthcoming.
Aboriginal identity has always been and remains a curse that drives many to self-destruction in a mainstream white supremacist culture where "other" ethnicities precede and the aboriginal comes last.
At the very least, indigenous representatives should refuse to recognise the invaders until the upstart Australian flag incorporates the Aboriginal flag in the left hand corner. A nice splash of colour!

Instead of just a symbolical reconciliation why don't all parties in Australia agree on a date for day 1 from whence all people are Australian with one set of responsibilities & rights for everyone, no exception. Moving on will prove far more beneficial than trying to turn back the clock in order to evade responsibility. To move on will bring far more satisfaction than forcing people to accept a hand-outs life forced onto them by ignorant do-gooders.

Plenty of comments running a number of ways; pseudonyms abound; no grouping or tendency seems to have a monopoly on discourtesy: it's a classic online debate. A few of the comments have focused on the research our article has reported, so I might respond to them specifically here.

Amicus, I respect your concerns about 'confirmation bias.' The purpose of this pilot study was to test whether the results from research into non-Aboriginal attitudes in Canada – a country with a history of colonial development and conflict similar to Australia's in important ways – would be likely to crop up in this country. That is, we were testing a hypothesis. We have worked very hard to confine the bias of our research — although we knew that there is a structural bias just in getting non-Aboriginal people to talk about Aboriginal reconciliation. In a sense, our research explores just what different people’s ideological assumptions about that topic might be.

Curmudgeon and Hasbeen, the views you express are very similar to what several participants in our focus groups (both the pilot groups in Australia and the more developed study in Canada) have said — although it is worth noting that the medium of online debate encourages greater self-assurance and certainty of opinion than the standard focus group setup. While you both seem more skeptical about reconciliation as a policy project than I am, so were some of the participants in this study. We are trying to represent their views fairly, too.

Skeptical, supportive, apathetic, or just profoundly uncertain: the participants in this study consistently made use of that key grammatical feature we describe, a version of ‘us and them.’ It assumes a division between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, sure — but we are especially interested in the way it seeks to unite the non- Indigenous population, and wants all of ‘us’ to work out what ‘we’ stand for in the reconciliation negotiation with ‘them.’

When is it that the 1788 invaders of this land, their descendants and those that subsequently were allowed to follow in their path, will admit that the people that were here before them, the so called ‘Aborigine”, had nothing whatsoever to do with the ink-dubbed piece of paper called Constitution?

What can an indefinable script riddled with imprecision and contradictions do but serve privilege and cause discord?

A Constitution, any Constitution cannot be other than a contract between Sovereign and Subjects designed for dictatorial administration and certainly not for a Democracy

Let’s consign it to the shredder before it’ll again sour our amalgamation with the Aborigine.

Tom Clark,

I'm not sure what purpose can be served by studying the "language" the "us" group utilises in discussing their thoughts on the "them" group, for surely the thought is what really counts, rather than the means of expressing it. Nonetheless, I am intrigued by your picking on the use of "us" and "them". How else could a person from a non "special" group be expected to convey their thoughts regarding a separate and distinct very "special" group? Keep saying non-indigenous and indigenous - bit overly formal and overblown wouldn't you say? We use us/them all the time - we/us Libs and they/those Lefties, our team and those cheaters, or we/us Greeks and they/them/those other so and so's, etc.

Anyhow, I think the biggest problem we all have with any proposed amendment to our (indigenous and non-indigenous alike) Australian Constitution is knowing and understanding what any proposed amendment is designed to achieve and whether we can be satisfied that the alleged objectives are worthwhile and would be realised by such proposed amendment(s), and without any substantial uncertainties or downside risks or unenvisaged unfortunate repercussions. Call it conservative or reactionary or fear of change, or just cautious.

The biggest problem we all face in the current context is that none of us (indigenous and non-indigenous alike, at this stage) has any real idea what our indigenous peoples (many tribes, groups etc - no offence intended) as a whole would be seeking in and by any amendment(s). The next problem is that any amendment should not cause any division or divisiveness, but preferrably the contrary, and should achieve a bonding of us all as Australians. However, there may well be some suspicion of a hidden agenda, an intent to incorporate "special consideration" provisions, whereby some are more Australian than others, or have rights to some special reserved entitlements. Highest in the hidden agenda realm is the almost constant reference to "indigenous sovereignty", or words/thoughts to that effect. What's this supposed to mean? A division of the country? Separate governance or laws, or what?
TBC>

Cont'd:

Reconciliation has support, but how far is it expected to go? I think most Australians would want an end to a them/us existence, and for all of we Australians to get on with the job of giving every one of the collective "us" a fair go. We seem to be so burdened with trying to rationalise reasonable compensation mechanisms for historical disadvantage that we are failing to get on with the job of making things right now.

With current immigration policies and realities we had better work something out fairly quickly, or we may well start to lose even more of a sound idea of just who and what we are anyway.

Tom I think you may have just lucked onto the "right" answer but for the wrong reason.

To get rid of the us & them problem, get rid of the them.

Eliminate from the language, & most definitely from any level of government, all reference to aboriginal, indigenous, or any other word relating to such people. Obviously you would have to close all the no name departments & projects.

Just think, the money saved could double welfare payments to all.

With just a little luck this should eliminate a damn awful industry that feeds of "them".

If we could get rid of the bureaucrats, academics, & fellow travelers who feed off "them" perhaps they could become people first, & no longer the welfare cases, research subjects, or curiosities they are currently.

Sure the people on Palm may have to pay their rent, or be fined for criminal damage, when they commit it, but why should they not.

The thing they require most is to be left alone, & allowed to grow up, just as we did in the 16Th century. I have the impression our forebears had a bit of a rough time doing that growing up, but at least they did not have an industry feeding off them, as they did it.

As Skeptic's post shows,White Australians first have to reconcile in their own minds their existence as a legitimate and living ethnic group.
How can anyone call themselves "Invader" yet claim to speak on behalf of their ethnic group?
BTW, on apologies, when do White Australians get their apology for Aboriginal crime? I was seriously assaulted once, abused and robbed/ burglarised multiple times by Aborigines in Fitzroy in 1996. Aboriginal criminals made our lives miserable living in that area at that time, as they do wherever they go.
I expect the typical response from the Anti Whites "Two wrongs make a right when it comes to Whites"

he so called ‘Aborigine”, had nothing whatsoever to do with the ink-dubbed piece of paper called Constitution?
Skeptik,
I know from personal experience that excessive efforts have been made to rectify this in just my short time. There were many before us over the past 200 years who went way out of their way to rectify this. Those who still aren't satisfied with those efforts should really stand up & tell us what we should do so no more time & effort & resource is going to no result.

Jay, Individual and co,
I recently taught a course on Australian identity and the mainstream white, straight, male identity that lords it over every other ethnic and marginal group historically reserves its greatest detestation for the aboriginal. They seemed to have every right to feel justified in their loathing as even science and Darwinism were misapplied to support it. Thus also the Stolen Generation and assimilation policies were rationalised and we still don't have successful "integration" programs. Aboriginals continue to be the most detested Others in their own country--this is supported anecdotally by the amount of intolerance I encountered even among undergraduates.
There is no doubt that some criticism of aboriginal "outlands" is justified, but what goes on in some of these places is not evidence of the recalcitrant and recidivist nature of the hopeless abo, but the product of centuries of abuse, ostricism, segregation and projection of loathing that inspires self-loathing. I don't want to speculate on the possibility that aboriginals retain their nomadic sensibilities to some extent and don't fit into "civilised" culture. That may be so for some, but for most I'm inclined to think it's entirely due to their pariah status.
Only think how you would feel if you were part of a tiny minority and the object of disgust (tacit or otherwise) to the complacently reigning and miraculously successful others. We are social beings and it is difficult not to become the creature you are popularly perceived to be, while resenting and rebelling against it makes you yet more anti-social. Modern dysfunctional aboriginal communities are the outcome of centuries of dispossession and alienation, they're the dialectical product of positive reinforcement, or negative interpelation--loathing and self-loathing exacerbated. This process has given us the "aboriginal problem".
It's difficult not to despise the utter want of empathy and understanding of the complacent white racist, smug and safe and confident in his skin, while the aboriginal is reviled in his. At least the homosexual can stay in the closet, the aboriginal is outed at birth and an outcast in his own land.

Only think how you would feel if you were part of a tiny minority and the object of disgust (tacit or otherwise)
Squeers,
I am & have been for several decades on a daily basis. I am still trying to find a way of either myself being allowed to integrate & also for indigenous to integrate. I have not yet seen any sign that the indigenous are actually interested. This is not a fault or anything to point a finger at. It's human nature as much as exploitation is human nature. Personally I get tired of listening to the academic do-gooder rhetoric which, after all is the root of not finding a solution. Why would anyone including an Aborigine try to work his way through life when thanks to Academia one just has to call out discrimination valid or not. What or how can the rest of us find a solution when no-one tells what the solution is ? I have asked many times on this forum for indigenous Australians to tell us if they agree/disagree with continued immigration & if agree then which ethics group do they favour to emigrate to Australia. To-date, no answer.

Squeers,

It is an unfair and groundless portrayal to paint the typical white Australian as racist - most of them are not (no Jay, not even towards white people). The rednecks may be a vocal minority, but they are still a minority.

That's a fascinating thought-experiment, Squeers: sitting back in your office, cogitating on what can be derived from your premises about how it all might be. And getting all your third-hand information from Richard Broome ?

However: 'southern' Indigenous people have arguably had it far rougher than 'northern' people, who often have never left their own land for long periods, have not been as exploited or for as long, and in many cases now, have reasonable certainty about owning their land.

'Southern' people may know where their country is but rarely have any ownership of it. They are in the 'modern world', depend on it, work in it, live, love and have kids in it, who in turn will integrate their own lives and aspirations with the opportunities and constraints of the modern world. If anybody should feel despised, dispossessed, excluded yet not allowed autonomy, according to your lights, it must surely be 'southern' people ?

Yet they usually say no to all that: they are getting on with their lives, on the whole. Their university commencement rate in 2010 was close to two-thirds of that of Non-Indigenous, domestic students - Indigenous women's was better than 80 % - which, if we assume that more than a third of all Indigenous people are trapped in lifelong welfare, is surely not a bad effort. They have picked themselves up, after generations of vicious discrimination, and made 'modern' living their own, seizing opportunities, copping similar setbacks as other Australians. Most 'southern' Indigenous people are trying to make it on their own, they know and care little about the plethora of welfare programs and lifelong bureaucrats available to provide a cotton-wool existence, shielded for life from the modern world. And they are prevailing.

Nobody has to be a victim. I don't think they need any more of your thought-experiments to persuade them to cry into their beer and give up - with respect for your good intentions.

Yours unanonymously,

Joe

The Acolyte Rizla,

I'm doing nothing of the kind. Like you I like to think the rednecks and racists are a minority (though they're a large minority), but racism is insidious, systemic and unconscious as well as extroverted, and that is what the indigenous population has had to contend with (as well as the aggressive stuff and official policies of assimilation tantamount to genocide). The only way we are ever going to do justice to the issue is when we as a nation empathise with the lepers and acknowledge our responsibility for the deep-seated causes of their demeaned estate.
We should walk a mile in the other's shoes before we judge and condemn.
Individual, if you've struggled to fit in you ought to be able to empathise with aboriginals, whose struggle is futile. Is your pariah status as profound as theirs? I doubt it.
I'm only a part-time academic and doubt I'll ever be a fully-fledged one, and I'm certainly not a do-gooder! I'm just a doubting Thomas.

On my way out, Joe, but will consider your post later.

Interesting speaking to some Africans and Asians of varying colours who have moved to Regional Centres and have encountered some very unfriendly first people. You would hardly call them 'mainstream white, straight, male identity that lords it over every other ethnic and marginal group'.

In a church I am involved with we have Asians, Africans (White and black), Kiwis (white and black), Islanders, Aussies (white only). Everyone gets along harmoniously learning from each others cultures. Many other churches are similar. The aboriginals however must have their own church done blackfellas way (whatever that is). Know I wonder who the racist ones are?

Squeers, you say you are anti Racist, you even admit that you're anti White, my thesis is proven, anti Racist means anti White.
White people are never victims of "Racism", they're victimised daily by institutional Anti Racism, which is nothing more than a code for anti White.

Here we go again, "Rednecks".
So the self appointed spokespeople on all things racial once again want to deny a voice or political representation to an entire class of people.
I'll let you in on a little secret, Anti Whites are the only tiny hate filled minority in this country and you are viewed with utter contempt by normal White men and Women.

Jay,

ROFLMAO. Worst logic ever.

THIS is how to formulate a proper argument:

(1) If anti-racist is fully synonymous with anti-white as you claim it to be, it follows logically that racist is fully synonymous with white, unless the prefix 'anti' assumes different meanings.

(2) I have already stated I am anti-racist.

(3) I have also already stated that I am white.

(4) Hence, I am racist (from (1) and (3)).

Therefore: I simultaneously anti-racist and racist (from (2) and (4)).

This is a textbook reductio ad impossible, and it means that your premises are flawed.

Squeers one of the main complaint about aboriginals is about their bludging. Most ozzies don't like bludgers.

This must be increasing as do gooders & academics among some others are encouraging the trait of victimhood among far too much of the population.

Now I don't like bludging aboriginals, but I dislike them no more than bludging plumbers, bludging electricians, bludging public servants, or a big one, bludging dole bludgers.

Of course, in some instances people can belong to two groups of bludgers, so can be disliked in duplicate.

Still the most despised bludger in my book is the bludging academic. I'm sure you know the type. Research projects chosen not only for their likelihood to receive funding, but to take little effort, or time of the researcher.

Here's an interesting project for you. Why not research how much time the average academic spends actually earning the money they receive from the tax payer.

Should have no trouble getting a grant for such an interesting topic.

Then try a referendum on weather Ozzies want quite as many academics as we currently fund. Now that would be a referendum worth funding.

This poem by Oodgeroo Noonuccal is on a poster outside a cafe in Brunswick, I pass it every day on the way to work:

"I could tell you of heartbreak, hatred blind, I could tell you of crimes that shame mankind, Of brutal wrong and deeds malign, Of rape and murder, son of mine;
But I'll tell instead of brave and fine When lives of black and white entwine And men in brotherhood combine-- This I would tell you, son of mine." Son of Mine, 1960

Hasbeen, you're quite wrong:

"Why not research how much time the average academic spends actually earning the money they receive from the tax payer.

Should have no trouble getting a grant for such an interesting topic."

It wouldn't get past the Ethics Committee of any university: its members would know full well that you don't question how your bread is buttered :)

But it's still a great idea, if someone could get private funding, and carry out the research in secret, i.e. totally 'unethically'.

Joe

This is perhaps the most complex problem of our time, more than global warming, carbon taxes, oil, trade, the future of humanity....
The saving, rehabilitation and celebration of a unique and complex culture.

Why? Because it is in the "Australian" interest, because it is the right thing to do, because until a resolution is achieved there will remain a stain on our collective consciousness, and a stain on our history and our heritage as we go forward. The current problem of decline and disintegration is of relatively recent historical origin, and inaction or ineffective action can only be seen as exacerbation, or worse. Past errors and infamy cannot be undone; what is, is. But, current errors, inequality and disempowerment can, and must, be addressed, in the common interest, in the cause of humanity.

How? No easy answer here. Such a diverse and complex culture is hard to pin down, and finding the best and most effective means to facilitate its expression, development and empowerment is accordingly complex. A plethora of disparate views prevail. A consensus and a compromise are essential and inevitable. The status quo is retrograde.

Too late for a treaty, no chance of a separate state, no homeland other than the whole of Oz. Compromise? Dedicated research and development of cultural heritage education, a series of dedicated reserve sites and exclusive territories set aside for cultural expression and maintenance of significant cultural heritage and environmental values, facilitation of dignity and pride of place.

Pollyanna, impractical, over-the-top, missing the point? You tell me.

Saltpeter,

It depends how you define 'culture', as something which is lived, or something which you can put in a book and store on a shelf, and maybe make a living from with tourists, who long to see how primitive the natives still really are and therefore always will be (or is that too much a swipe at the Left ? Sorry).

So much of all of our former cultural practices (Scottish, Welsh, Russian, Tamil, whatever) falls into disuse as technology moves on, and as social relations change, and as we come into contact with all manner of new, exciting and strange ways of doing things - sometimes easier ways of doing things. Once we have done that, we cannot ever again claim to be oblivious of an outside world, the absence (of knowledge) of which ensured so much of the viability of traditional culture. Once you know, you can't un-know.

The rapid adoption of new practices and cultural facets - steel axes for stone ones, tobacco, flour, tea, grog, money - bring about unforeseen transformations in attitudes to the efficacy of older traditional practices, which become less and less relevant and meaningful with each generation. Nobody needs anybody to be going around in white coats and a truck, forcing people to stop practising their culture (and language too): it happens, as even Tony Abbott would agree.

We used to go drinking in 'the Blackfellas' pub' in the early seventies and it struck me yesterday that any young person of twenty who was there then, is now an 'elder' of sixty. I didn't think the young people then knew or cared about much. But I guess they must have picked up a vast amount of traditional knowledge in the meantime :)

Joe

Joe,
You seem to have a fondness for distorting the crux of my comments on this issue and proclaiming yourself supreme authority and arbiter on all things aboriginal. This course I taught doesn't refer to Richard Broome at all and I formed my stated views above long before I went to university, at which time I never had so much as a junior pass as I left school under-age. I'm not recommending victim-hood and I admire anyone who can rise above disadvantage in a rigged system.
I'm only saying that all Australians should consider the long history of prejudice against Australian aboriginals particularly, who were written about in anthropolical texts and tomes on phrenology as "mongoloid" and the least evolved of human forms; they were paraded around European exhibitions as primitive novelties and their land was declared Terra Nullius. Much of this academic racism is comparatively recent and with all the other popular interpretations of negative publicity, much of the "sympathy" for aborigines "is" disingenuous hand-wringing, or patronising. I think Aborigines too need to be conversant with the facts of human psychology and the morbid effects of institutionalised discrimination.

Good onya for your motivational views on the southern aboriginal, but wait, there's a problem. The indigenous population within predominantly white culture does often misbehave and I don't know any whites who'd want aboriginals as next door neighbours, or even in the same street. So if they're all-good and getting on with it and indifferent to racism, why are they so commonly antisocial, felonious, drunk and disorderly? If we can't put it down to social causes, can we conclude that they really are just a degenerate race?

Jay,
I haven't said I'm not racist or anti white, nor am I a self-appointed spokesperson for anyone. I'm just opinionated and follow Oscar Wilde's premise that whatever is popular must be wrong. I like your poem. What do you think it means?

Hasbeen,
I agree mate that a shitload of money is wasted on "research".

Saltpetre,
good onya for not dismissing the topic in the simplistic terms many seem to prefer.

Hi Suqeers,

Thank you for replying so civilly :) What you say in your first paragraphs is true, but a bit non sequitur: whatever has happened to 'northern' people has happened a fortiori to 'southern' people. And let's face it, people in the 'south' lost their land a long time ago - so what were they supposed to do ? The generations of discriminatory policy affected them especially, deprived of their land as an adequate economic base, yet denied the rights to live in towns, offered a crap 'adapted curriculum' education (which the 'northern' people are now having to endure, I'll agree). It must have taken enormous determination for so many people to rise above those obstacles, but very many have done so.

I'm certainly not saying that all 'southern' people have been able to prevail over adversity. But the opportunities to do so are there and most of the people you refer to would have graduates amongst their kin these days. If universities could only leave DEEWR's Indigenous support funding alone, to do what it is supposed to, namely publicise, enthuse, recruit, prepare and support Indigenous students through their studies, instead of being siphoned off to the teaching of non-Indigenous students, then the huge tasks of opening up more opportunities - for 'northern' people too - can be properly tackled.

Yes, to get back to topic, down the track there should be some sort of referendum, but its timing should be the prerogative of Indigenous people - the people, not just their globe-trotting 'leaders', and when they are satisfied with the attitudes oftheir fellow-Australians.

Enough possum stirred for now :)

Joe

poem by Oodgeroo Noonuccal
Jay,
Warm'n fuzzy words indeed. Does that mean all Aborigines are like that ? Europeans had Einstein, doesn't mean though all europeans are like he was.
Reconciliation by whom with who ? If someone doesn't want the same things as another than what's the point of trying to work that out ? I have tried & have arrived at the end of my wisdom as to how I could help the indigenous. I can not help if I'm not told what's wanted. I can't reconcile with someone who doesn't want to reconcile. Maybe that's why we're not told what's desired in case we could oblige.

Rizla,
Nice try but, again, QED.
It's common to find an Anti-White White person, it's called treason, unfortunately our ethnic group has a very vocal , but very dangerous and often violent minority of such people.
The word "Racist' only applies to White people, it's actually the only context in which Anti Whites will use the Ethnic identifier "White" to describe us.
So, yeah, if you're against Racists you're against White people.
Now can you please identify the main "Racist"individuals and organisations in this country, give us some names of powerful, influential people who are openly "Racist".
Presumably you can find dozens of "Racist's" associations, there must be literally hundreds of "Pro Racism" rallies every year, there must be a group called "Unite for Racism" out there?

Will you and Squeers please give us some names, if you like I can fill pages with names of people who are on record using the code words "Anti Racist" as their cover story.
Here's a start:
Andrew Jakubowicz
Matt Henderson
Alex Gollan
Anthony Main
Don Oorst
Brian Stokes
Cara Munro

There's seven, now get back to me with the names of seven proud, identifiable and openly practicing "Racist" writers, bloggers or commentators.

Jay,

"Nice try but, again, QED."

No, you haven't proven anything, let alone that which was required to be proven. Therefore, your use of 'QED' is unfounded.

"It's common to find an Anti-White White person, it's called treason"

No, it isn't. Treason is a statutory offence, precisely defined in the the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

You'll note that there is nothing mentioned about hating whitey. Also, there hasn't been an Australian treason case in many years - if treasonous individuals were as prevalent as you claim, the courts would be clogged with treason cases. But they're not.

"The word "Racist' only applies to White people"

No, it doesn't. It applies to anybody guilty of racism, regardless of their skin colour.

"So, yeah, if you're against Racists you're against White people."

No, you're not. I'm opposed to racism and racists, but I have nothing against white people - so there is at least one exception which disproves your generalisation. Furthermore, if you're against White people you ARE racist. And if you're racist then you can't be anti-racist, and if you're not anti-racist then you're not anti-white, by your own reasoning.

Post Script:

"Will you and Squeers please give us some names, if you like I can fill pages with names of people who are on record using the code words "Anti Racist" as their cover story.
Here's a start:"

By your logic, the fact that these writers are anti-racist means that they are anti-white, which in the real world means that they are racist. So my list of 'seven proud, identifiable and openly practicing "Racist" writers, bloggers or commentators' is thus:
Andrew Jakubowicz
Matt Henderson
Alex Gollan
Anthony Main
Don Oorst
Brian Stokes
Cara Munro

Are you beginning to see the flaws in your logic yet?

Rizla,
Name the "Racists", all of those people I listed are "Anti Racist", they must be opposing someone?
Will you give us the names of local people who use the word "Racist" to describe themselves and their work?
Can you please identify the groups which publicly promote Racist theory and educate people on the subject of practical Racism?
Furthermore could you please identify active or retired ideological Racists who've been members of parliament, the Police and judiciary?
I won't bother asking you to identify people convicted of "Racism" as it's defined by the various state acts, the names would likely fit on one side of a post it note.
C'mon then, the "Racist Roll Of Shame" must be huge, given the money that goes into "Anti Racism" there surely must be an online database? of names

You know that poem "son of mine" set me to thinking.
Why don't we set up an institute like Yad Vashem in Israel to memorialise and study the Aboriginal genocide?
They remember the victims of the Shoah,identify and publicly name the villains of WW2 as well as those "Righteous among nations", gentiles who aided Jews in distress.
They also weed out impostors,frauds, fake atrocity stories and clear up misunderstandings or misinterpretation of events pertaining to the Shoah.
All we whites hear is how we came from overseas,supposedly atrocitied everyone and stole their land.
White kids also need to know about the good guys, the heroic Whites who showed courage and defended Aborigines, such as the Reverend John Green of Corranderk.

Jay,
you got my stamp of approval on that one.

Well what sort of example does talking about Myall Creek set for young White kids?
Shouldn't the focus be on the good guys, those who led exemplary lives?
What example do we want young white kids to follow?
We whites can't be collectively responsible for the atrocities and not be attributed a share in the goodwill with Aborigines that was developed by decent White people.
The argument that "We were different then" is untenable, the societies from which White colonials were drawn have had the same moral codes and mix of Teutonic, Greek and Roman law for close to 2,000 years.
We are no different to our ancestors, there are good White people and bad White people, I'd venture that the proportions of both mindsets in society have not changed significantly over time.

Jay,

When did white stop being a race? I must have missed that memo.

Rizla,
"The White Race" is an abstract, I don't deal in abstracts.
I speak about Ethnic White Australians, "my race",White people or just Whites.
The old interpretation of the term "The White Race has no currency in 21st century Australia, I've never heard anyone use it in conversation.
Multiculturalism has clearly defined who White Australians are, we're the descendants of the nation which formed under the immigration restriction act.
If you went back over my 18 months or so of posts here you'd see a pretty clear evolutionary path in my position on"The White Race", the above is where I'm at in november 2011.
Racial awareness is something that has to be awakened in White people since we're not ethnocentric by nature, so taking that into consideration the idea of one race is flawed from the start.
The obvious lack of ethnocentrism among my race also seems to make a mockery of the accusation that we have a "Racist Past", if Whites were ethnocentric I have no doubt there'd be no other group living in this country besides us.

Jay,

So if you're anti-White you're not racist?

Jay, not everything has always been that way - not too long ago, Irish were considered by the perfidious English not to be White, perhaps as late as the extension of the vote in the 1880s. And perhaps you've heard of the Black Scots ? In the US, Bohemians and Slovaks were not considered to be white in western mining towns a hundred years ago.

In the deliberations over Australia's White Australia policy, many quibbles were made about whether Italians or Maltese were admissible: Maltese were because Malta was part of the British Empire, but some authorities weren't so sure about Eyetalians. Or Greeks. They talked funny too. But some Syrians were accepted as long as they were Christian. So 'white' is a protean concept:)

Who knows, all of those 'part-Aboriginal' kids of these past generations, and the next - or at least their descendants - will be just as happy to call themselves 'white', whatever it may mean, as 'Aboriginal', in another hundred years. Maybe by then, everybody will be so mixed that nobody will be all that fussed what you call yourself.

In any case, Jay, check out ancestry.com You may find that you're already much more 'mixed' than you think. Enjoy it, embrace the exotic (and all your new relatives), expand your mind !

Joe

Hi again Jay,

You write: "Multiculturalism has clearly defined who White Australians are, we're the descendants of the nation which formed under the immigration restriction act."

So ...... Aboriginal people are white ? And the Chinese ? Where would much of Australia be without them ? Now you've got me confused.

But then you give me a good laugh when you write: "Racial awareness is something that has to be awakened in White people since we're not ethnocentric by nature ... "

When you/we take something so much for granted as ours and ours alone, such as the Flag or Advance Australia Fair, or the definition of 'Australian' (i.e. when you are ethnocentric), then yes, it comes as a shock when you have to share those facets of nationhood - that you've always had to share them, they have never been yours alone.

So it can be painful to have to define oneself consciously for the first time - what am I, who am I, as distinct from who else ? If I meet such-and-such a definition to be white, or to be Australian, then if others meet those criteria, are they white or Australian too ? How do you steer your definition around the blackberry bushes of an Aboriginal past and a very multinational present ?

Embrace the world, Jay. It means you no more harm than you do to it.

Joe

Yeah, like an indigenous aquaintant of mine who, when I said I wasn't going to see a performer because I thought he was too racist for my taste. She replied in surprise " Racist ? But, but he is black ?"

individual .. that says it all doesn't it.

That's what we all live with, the assumption all non aboriginals are racist, when in fact .. most people are racist to some degree.

Go to towns where gangs of aboriginal kids roam the streets .. see who the racists are.

Try going into areas of Redfern in Sydney, a friend lost her house in Redfern to the local aboriginal community, it ended up in a police no go zone. It has been gutted and is now just a brick shell.

Reconciliation, justice, she's still waiting for some.

The bottom line is there are racists on all sides of this, but if you dare state the obvious, that it's a lot of non whites who are also quite racist, you are deemed to be incorrect because it is politically unacceptable .. and of course, you run the risk of "offending" someone .. so now the community is silenced, we can't discuss what we want to discuss for fear of the ending up in court.

What a mess .. any kind of reconciliation means that non-aboriginals have a voice too.

The whole senseless nature of using the term racism is that most people do not dislike people of a different race because of that difference. Most people who attract race orientated negative remarks are the ones who act in an offensive manner, manner which is not unique to race but to human beings.
Race is always brought in to avert the true case of a dispute. I know many whom I dislike on the grounds of their mannerism & they are of all races, my own included.
i know many white people whom I call unsavoury names but they can't bleat racism because I'm white. If said the same about the same mannerism in a person of a different race to mine than that would conveniently be misconstrued as racism.
So, if you're a decent person & you're white then from my point you're a decent person. Were you for argument's sake a black person then you'd be a decent black person from my viewpoint. If I am seen as decent white person then a black person would say I was a decent white bloke. Is that racism ?

Rizla,
I'm still waiting, name the Racists please.

Joe,
We agree then? White Australians are an Ethnic group rather than a Race?
Since WW2 all attempts to unite "The White Race" have failed utterly, in fact the whole idea of "White Power" groups or "White Nationalism" that's the focus of Anti Racism is about 30 years out of date, most of it's apologists and adherents have either moved on or died.
The way of thinking in the "movement" actually started to change in the late 70's and since the turn of the century the "White Power" stream has pretty much dried up altogether, to the extent that anyone who pushes those views is treated with a great deal of suspicion and mistrust.
(at any rate it's now known that at least 90% of the North American "White Power" movement was a hoax,U.S or Soviet government intelligence operation or ADL sposored provocation)

Almost all of the pro White authors and broadcasters I listen to these days are talking about rejection of mainstream politics, regionalism,traditionalism and religious orthodoxy, in other words we simply "Live White" and promote White living by example, we don't try to convert, cajole or annoy people with our views.

Jay,

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: So if you're anti-White you're not racist?

Jay,
If you say something complimentary about a person of another race is that also racist ?
If that person doesn't get the gist of the compliment & turns around & abuses you with f ing white etc, is that racist ? If a white person & a person of another race are asked by a white publican to leave a pub & the non-white becomes abusive where does racism start then ?
Where does racism start when a white person goes to a bar after a day's work & asks if the bar stool is available & a non-white says no. Then the white grabs another bar stool but then the non-white says it's ok you can have this one (the one previously not available). Then the non-white says "so you don't want this bar stool because a black man was sitting on it ? Then the white says no because you said it wasn't available. Then the non-white says why do white people always cause so much trouble ? Meanwhile all his mates who hadn't worked in days are glaring at the white with utter distain. Where does racism start or end here ?

Ok Rizla,
Quid pro quo.
The answer is in the affirmative, I've posted that many times before.
White people are never victims of Racism, that's not the way the world works, we are however victimised by Anti Racism, which is a code word for anti White.
But wait, there's more.
The enemies of White people overwhelmingly look like us but have no loyalty to us, every ethnic group has traitors and sell outs, it's just that the White groups have more than the usual quota.
From a purely practical point of view you could quote Jesus and his policy of "Turn the other cheek" toward one's personal enemies.
At the level of social interaction Whites can turn the other cheek to fractious and bothersome non Whites because their transgressions are of a personal nature, they are personal enemies, they don't directly threaten our way of life or our existence as a people.
We shouldn't however turn the other cheek to the enemies of our community,our nation, our Church or our ethnic group, that's where the line has to be drawn and we have to fight back.

Now can you pleeeeaaase give me the names of "Australia's most Racist".

Individual,
White people are never victims of Racism.
Let's assume your Pub scenario gets out of hand and the White guy gets bashed and glassed by the immigrants, it happens all the time.
Now following my line of thinking he'd be able to forgive his attackers, turn the other cheek as it's a personal matter but the fact that those immigrant hoodlums were in the country at all is the fault of anti Racists.
What I want other White people to understand is that anti Racists don't care if immigrants rape or kill us because they want all White countries and ONLY White countries to submit to assimilation.
Anti Racists are guilty of facilitating, promoting,condoning and concealing crimes against White people, notably the crime of Genocide but more typically the everyday assaults, robberies and rapes.
That prompted my call for an apology for the outrageous levels of Aboriginal (and immigrant)crime against Whites, I'm not asking for the Aborigines to apologise, (I've forgiven the Aboriginals who bashed and robbed me in '95-'96)
I want the anti Racist politicians and "Human rights" activists to admit responsiblity for these crimes and apologise to White Australians for their failure to protect us.

Now can you pleeeeaaase give me the names of "Australia's most Racist".
Jay,
we're only allocated 4 posts of 350 words. It wouldn't be fair to mention some & not others.

I must have taken many overdoses of grains of salt forgiving indigenous aggravators simply because I live in their land. The ones I don't forgive are the idiot do-gooders & politicians & law makers/enforcers who constantly pussy-foot with criminal elements. They won't let us retaliate but will not lift a finger to protect us either. They are the real criminals who foster criminal activity in Australia. Those who ganged up on Pauline Hanson & the likes. Those who gang up on people whose only interest is to keep Australia free of the crapheads that the Hanson condemners invite with open arms & shower them with our tax dollar.
Thanks Gough & your moron followers & their descendants.

I can't stand it any longer!
Jay, you are the perfect example of a white supremacist racist in that you're capable of feats of twisted logic to make your rationalisations pass. You think whites are being glassed by immigrants and countries like Australia are being "assimilated", and the poor whites are victims of "genocide"?
Do you have any evidence for these outrageous trends?
Because there's mountains of evidence for aboriginal massacres, the stolen generation and the assimilation policies that amount to attempted genocide. Australia is a colonised country with a history of segregation and assimilation and that's it! There's no tolerance for integration--all comers have to adapt to the Australian way, whatever the hell that is apart from glut and pull the ladder up!

Squeers,
In your opinion I'm a Racist, you're just saying that because I'm White, anti Racist is a code word for anti White.
"Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."

"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites."

"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"

"How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"

"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"

"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white."

"Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

Jay,
Anti-White is a code word for Anti-White Supremacist, who doesn't know that?

You are attempting to redefine genocide to push a genocidal agenda. That is the whole purpose of your argument. You're trying to put a friendly face on white supremacy. This is fact.

If anti-racist is anti-white. Then racist = white. Anyone with a dictionary will realise that is false. Go back to school.

racist

noun

1.

a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.

Anti-reality is Anti-Intellectual.

(everyone else please note he is arguing from a template connected to this group - BUGS http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/topic/where-did-you-post-the-mantra-today/page/122/) Consider his 'mantra' to be spam. They hope to establish tribunals to murder people.

In your opinion I'm a racist White supremacist, you're only saying that because I'm White, anti Racism is a code word for anti White.
International law prohibits the promotion of the crime of Genocide, there's no need to re-define anything, the Mantra has been designed to fit into that framework.
If there's a tribunal to be held it'll be under U.N jurisdiction,we're already petitioning the Russian government and some of the Asian administrations for support, don't worry, we're not savages, there'll be due process. Anti Racism, which is just a code word for Anti White comes from New York and London,the rest of the world doesn't care about Racism,as the U.S and U.K losing their grip on power we're just making sure we have the right people on side, it's called forward thinking.
Read the convention of the prevention of Genocide, it's purposely open ended and it's definition of the crime is very broad, anti Racists make whole careers out of denigrating White people, running down our institutions, traditions, religious practice, national identity, they constantly attack the way we look,speak, dress and how we raise our children.

You want massive Third world migration to White countries and only White countries, well would you care to put some percentages on the table?
What proportion of children born in Australia should be Whites?
How many White people should live in Australia, North America and Europe?

pumpkinpie,
anti-racist is not a code word for anti-white supremacist at all. anti racist is what the academic & religious dumbar$es are but think they're smart. they are in fact some of the dumbest people in our midst. where does that idiotic term white supremacist actually come from ? if whites really believed that there wouldn't be half as many sociological problems.
which group constantly fires up their followers to go against anything white (money & commodities excepted) ? not the whites !

pumpkinpie,
thanks for the link to Jay's revolting nonsense.

Anti-racism is not code for anti-white, or pro or anti any skin colour.
Anti-racists are not interested in preserving the purity of any race, all of which have nothing more than geographical and cultural distinctiveness. There's no scientific evidence of any qualitative difference and the idea is reprehensible. We live in a globalised world and there's no hope of unscrambling it. So far as I'm concerned the sooner we're all beige, and discrimination based on race becomes redundant, the better!

Squeers,
Excuses, excuses.
All you do is come up with excuses for the promotion of Genocide, you say you are anti Racist, what you are is anti White.
The world is not globalised.
China is still 99% Chinese, and this is fine with you.
India is still 99% Indian and this is fine with you.
Japan is still 99% Japanese and this is fine with you.
Nigeria is still 99% Nigerian and this is fine with you.

According to anti Racists White countries and ONLY White countries are expected to "Assimilate" with the Third world via uncontrolled immigration and open borders.
When White countries in the former Soviet bloc became "democratic" the first thing anti Racists asked was "When will they be ready for immigration?" but when Timor Leste became "democratic"....not a peep about immigration, even though dire poverty and deprivation is endemic in both regions of the world.
The goal of anti Racism is to replace all White populations with other Ethnic groups, under international law this is classed as genocide.
Anti Racists can only come up with excuses or try to cover up their Genocidal plans, White populations are "too old", we need to share what we "stole" from other groups, Whites need to be taught a lesson, Whites need to be punished for "Racism", the decline of White populations is "inevitable", we're a "Dying Race"....every day a new excuse.

Admit to what you are Squeers, you are anti White, Anti Racism is just a code word for anti White.

BTW,
Anti Racists clearly define which countries are White countries, they only demand "Assimilation" via massive Third world Migration in a select few countries.
Anti Racists believe that Africa is for Africans, Asia is for Asians but White countries are for everybody!
The complete replacement via "assimilation" of White populations and ONLY White populations is the whole premise of "Multiculturalism", yet if I object I'm branded a "Nazi" or a "White supremacist".

I want White people reading this thread to take note of the fact that Rizla and Squeers cannot name a single Australian "Pro Racist" activist, yet I can name, off the top of my head seven "Anti Racists" and have indicated that there are at the minimum hundreds and maybe thousands more.
The allegations of White "Racism" are blatantly false, so the whole "Anti Racist" platform including so called "Multiculturalism" is indefensible. This is why these people freak out and panic when they see B.U.G.S and the Mantra because it's directed solely at them and it aims to hold them accountable under international law what's more it would see them them flat footed and defenceless in front of a Genocide tribunal.
None of the anti Racist arguments in support of White Genocide would stand up in court, you can't defend yourself by saying "race isn't real" or "there are no White countries" if you've specifically identified and targeted White countries and only White countries for "assimilation".

Squeers, Pumpkinpie and Rizla say they are anti Racist, what they are is anti White, anti Racist is a code word for Anti White.

Jay,

"White people are never victims of Racism"

This is a sophism. If white people are victimised by anti-white people, then they are the victims of racism - it doesn't matter what the racists call themselves.

"What I want other White people to understand is that anti Racists don't care if immigrants rape or kill us"

This another sophism. The fact that anti-Racists don't care if immigrants make their home here doesn't translate to them condoning criminal actions by anybody. A crime is a crime, regardless of the perpetrator's skin colour, and should be dealt with by the full force of the law.

"they want all White countries and ONLY White countries to submit to assimilation"

Yet another sophism. Frankly, I don't care what happens in other countries. I live here. Japan and Taiwan and Cote d'Ivoire and Yemen and Belgium and Peru and Liechtenstein and everyone else can do whatever they damn well want with regards to immigration policy - it isn't my place, or anybody else's (no, not even yours, Jay), to impose their personal values on the sovereignty of a nation that they are not a citizen of.

TBC

Continued

"In your opinion I'm a racist White supremacist, you're only saying that because I'm White, anti Racism is a code word for anti White."

Boy, you sure do love your sophism, don't you? Nobody is accusing you of being a racial supremacist on the basis of your skin colour - after all, they don't accuse everybody else who is white of being a racial supremacist, do they? The basis for their accusation is your behaviour, and nothing more. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. Similarly, if it walks like a racial supremacist, talks like a racial supremacist and fails to employ logic like a racial supremacist, it's a fair bet that you're dealing with a racial supremacist.

"All you do is come up with excuses for the promotion of Genocide"

How many sophism is this now? I've lost count. Squeers has not once promoted genocide, or attempted to excuse it in any way - but I'll accept that you're not just a lying little cvnt if you can show me an example of him doing so.

"I want White people reading this thread to take note of the fact that Rizla and Squeers cannot name a single Australian "Pro Racist" activist"

Do you, in fact, have any arguments which are not sophisms? I gave you a list of seven people who you personally identified as being anti-white. The fact that you are the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who accepts your unique redefinition of racist which makes anti-whites non-racist doesn't actually make anti-whits non-racist. Anybody who is anti-white is racist*, and all the sophistry in the world can't change that fact.

* Unless they're also anti-everyone else, in which case the correct term is 'misanthrope'. I have no personal objections to being labelled as a misanthrope, but I object strongly to any implication that I am racist. I am an equal-opportunity hater.

This thread has really gotten off-track. This is meant to be about Indigenous Reconciliation, not Jay's personal play-pen, not racism or anti-racism.

What to reconcile, who should be held responsible, and what form might reconciliation take? This is a serious business.

Are we talking about a mere piece of paper, a few words saying you were here first, goodonyamate, tap on the shoulder, sorry we've been a bit rough on you in the past and we'll try to do better in the future? This might be a good place to start, but there's a lot more involved. There has been damage, and unfortunately there continues to be damage, and this has to be rectified in the best way possible.

There has been some attempt at restitution, saying sorry, acknowledgment of former group territories, some land rights recognised, and some housing and welfare assistance - but all of this seems to have fallen well short of the mark. Many indigenous people still remain in a greatly underpriveleged situation, and many more would have to feel a degree of animosity and sense of loss.

Some may suggest that education, enterprise and employment opportunities would go a long way towards resolving physical needs over time, but I don't see how this will resolve an inherent sense of loss - of unique identity, of pride of place, of true independence and recognition. I feel there is a psychological factor to be resolved in this - no offence meant, and no inference of any mental infirmity or disability, but rather a psychological need which is not fully satisfied by mere capital security, by business as usual. Many races have particular physical and emotional or psychological needs, specific dietary needs, and specific cultural needs, without which they can not thrive or be content. I feel some of this may be at play in segments of our indigenous population, and if so, means has to be found to satisfy it.

This is a diverse culture, and means must be enabled for its full expression, or any reconciliation may well be a failure.

Saltpetre,
I was participating in the discussion, it was Squeers who derailed it with anti White comments, when someone denigrates my ethnic group I respond, as would any normal person.
Saying that all living White people are somehow responsible for the deeds of their ancestors and are still causing Aboriginal disadvantage by imposing heteronormative standards is both untrue and prejudicial against White Australians.
Do White racists control the media and education system? I think you'll find every politician,broadcaster and educator in the country is an avowed anti Racist,if "heteronormative " standards are being forced upon minorities it's happening under an anti Racist system.
Xenophilia and Anti Racism, (which as I've demonstrated is a code word for anti White) go hand in hand, they're the dominant themes in the so called "Human rights" milieu, which is a minority point of view but one with wealthy, well connected backers.
White Xenophobia and Racism is not proven, there are no openly "Racist" public figures, no "Unite FOR Racism" rallies, no ad campaigns, no posters on bus shelters, no "Australians For Racism" websites..etc ...etc.

I'm all for reconciliation between the White Australian nation(s) and the Indigenous Nations, I support the formation of autocephalous ethno-nationalist and traditionalist groups on both sides.
I support the idea of cutting out the Feds, Reds and anti Racists from the reconciliation process and agree with the proposition that White people need to take personal responsibility for reconciling with Aboriginals.

Jay,

Great rebuttal, champ (sarcasm).

"Saying that all living White people are somehow responsible for the deeds of their ancestors and are still causing Aboriginal disadvantage by imposing heteronormative standards is both untrue and prejudicial against White Australians."

Dude, do you even know what you're talking about any more?

http://bit.ly/tB7RZC

"White Xenophobia and Racism is not proven, there are no openly "Racist" public figures, no "Unite FOR Racism" rallies, no ad campaigns, no posters on bus shelters, no "Australians For Racism" websites..etc ...etc."

Just like pedophilia and heroin addiction are unproven, right Jay? Because there are no openly pedophilic/heroin-addicted public figures, no "Unite to Legalise Smack" or "Unite for Kiddy-Fiddling" rallies, no ad campaigns, no posters on bus shelters, no "Australians for Diacetylmorphine" or "AMBLA (Australian Man-Boy Love Association)" websites.. etc ...etc.

Just because a behaviour is unpopular and offensive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just that usually, its practitioners have enough good sense to keep it away from public exposure.

Rizla,
Name the Racists or butt out.
There are Pedophile advocacy groups such as NAMBLA in White countries.
There are countless advocacy services for the rights of drug users and many besides who advocate the unrestricted availability of hard drugs.
There have been politicians, academics and media figures who've had to come clean on all sorts of things they've tried to keep secret.
Not one public figure has come out and said "I'm a Racist and I'm proud".

I can't think of a relevant, recent example of someone getting into trouble for "Racism" in this country, but here's an example of what happened to a teacher who upset Jewish people at one of the "Occupy' Rallies in the U.S.

http://vimeo.com/30857269

David Duke & Patricia McAllister discuss her comments and her treatment by her employers:
http://www.davidduke.com/mp3/daviddukeandpatriciamcallisterinterview.mp3

I just read Rizla's post again, LOL.
So true "Racists" don't talk about their ideology?
What, are we back to the Nazi "Mind Meld" theory are we?
Seriously, one of the stories out of WW2 was that senior NSDAP party officials and SS officers had telepathic powers and could issue extermination orders non verbally.

The other explanation is that the bulk of politicians, journalists and teachers are really xenophiles and true believers in Anti Racism or that they are selected for their positions on the understanding that they will propagate those ideas in public in exchange for career advancement and prestige.

To get this discussion back on track - after all, the subject is not going to go away - I recommend this article by my friend Gary Johns:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/welcome-to-country-where-education-counts/story-fn8v83qk-1226204061282

Like me, Dr Johns is very suspicious of symbolism over substance - I guess, whenever each of us hears some glowing story about yet another symbol of reconciliation, peace, love, sweetness and light, we wait for the other shoe to fall, something which substantially takes Indigenous people back a few steps, even though many Indigenous 'leaders' would have been put on even more committees and flown over to even more international conferences in Hawai'i and Geneva about reconciliation, love, peace etc.

As Dr Johns points out, Indigenous people are part of the real world, overwhelmingly in towns and cities, confronting the same dilemmas of life as other Australians. Education is as relevant and valid for Indigenous people as for anybody else: whether people want to hold onto cultural practices, or delve deeply into their own anthropology, is up to them.

It is significant that, over the past five or six years, as Indigenous university students have moved massively away from Indigenous-focussed courses, enrolment numbers have, year after year, hit record levels. Make what you like of that.

Joe