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.