Yuyutsu,
Are you implying that the invasion of this country hasn't brought more positives than negatives to the then inhabitants ? Why were/are the invaders' commodities so coveted if they're all so bad ?
To be taken over is never a good thing in the beginning, it's the long term that counts more than anything.
The tribal inhabitants of this continent did to each other long before what the invaders did so, where is the difference ? Just look at the dreamtime stories, most involve a form of violence without the presence of some whitey.

Dear Individual,

"Are you implying that the invasion of this country hasn't brought more positives than negatives to the then inhabitants ?"

I was not implying that, but you raised a good question which I will contemplate on and try to work out the balance.

"Why were/are the invaders' commodities so coveted if they're all so bad ?"

You mean alcohol?

But I wasn't writing about that, I merely meant that calling all the people who happen to be present at a certain location a "nation" is ridiculous. That includes the invaded, but not only them. The convicts for example did not arrive by choice either - why should they and their guards identify with each other? That was just an example of course - why should anyone in fact identify with other people whom s/he doesn't even know or like?!

Yuyutsu,
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. Am I right in assuming that you mean that the Aborigines who call their particular land 'Aboriginal Nation' are in fact ridiculous ?
As far as alcohol is concerned it is a matter of usage/consumption.
There are countless incidents when alcohol has successfully prevented infection.
What is your stance on housing & health etc. Would you also say "You mean housing & health ?
As to why should anyone identify with other people whom they don't like do you mean the tribes they used to fight with but call their brothers & sisters when it furthers a cause ?

Dear Individual,

"Am I right in assuming that you mean that the Aborigines who call their particular land 'Aboriginal Nation' are in fact ridiculous ?"

-I think that identifying with any group so large that you don't even know the other members personally, is ridiculous. Nations included, as well as the 'Aboriginal Nation' comprising so many tribes who never even met each other over such a vast land.

"As far as alcohol is concerned it is a matter of usage/consumption.
There are countless incidents when alcohol has successfully prevented infection."

-When placed on a pad, yes. In any case, this is not how the aborigines historically have put it to use.

"What is your stance on housing & health etc. Would you also say "You mean housing & health ?"

-As I said, I need to carefully weigh the benefit against the costs. Living a western life-style has certain advantages, but also many negative side-effects. The aborigines may live longer now, but are they happier? Are their lives more fulfilled?

"As to why should anyone identify with other people whom they don't like do you mean the tribes they used to fight with but call their brothers & sisters when it furthers a cause ?"

-Not necessarily. If you don't like someone, then live and let live - why bother considering yourself and him/her to be part of one entity? But mainly here, I was referring to people who don't even know each other, then while they may not hate each other, how can they possibly like each other?

There are two undertones in this article that seem to contradict each other.

1) We should become a republic so the Asians will take us seriously

2) We should follow in the footsteps of the Americans

The first is a problem for me because it seems to be as infantile as hanging onto England while going out to play with the world. A republic purely for the sake of image is a bit petty, I reckon. It's like asking the big kids to let you play because you don't need your mummy anymore. Those Mahathir-like types who make fun of us for being a colonial outpost aren't going to take us any more seriously: they'll just find another reason to object to us. I'm not saying we can't engage with Asia; I'm suggesting that there has to be another way. Simply saying we're not British anymore doesn't mean we're now Asian, despite what some of our politicians (and educators) tell us. Asians (if we are to view the continent as a collective, which is problematic in itself) can see that we are the 'other' - different in many ways. We need to see it too, and find ways of engaging with Asia without imitating or pretending.

Where the second undertone comes into this is that, much as I hate to say it, the American approach was more mature. They didn't become a republic so they could be part of something else. They became a republic for complex reasons, but doing so allowed them to forge their own path in the world. They didn't jump overboard and board another ship - they jumped overboard and built their own ship.

Perhaps we don't have the population, the market share or the political conviction to do that, but it concerns me that we are being encouraged to become a republic simply so that we can follow another leader - one who, regardless of whether or not we maintain ties to England, seems at best ambivalent about us.

I'm not opposed to a republic, but I am concerned by the arguments for one.

head of state...
define.."state"...'an area..or community
forming part of a federal replublic'

'terror-tory..considerd..as an organised
POLITICAL community
under one govt..''

''a condition..of something[or personified..as someone]
at a ghiven state in time...

what im getrting at is we had 5 states
at federation..they became one state

hence states..voted themselves out of egsistance
as egsemplified under the first law...after the preamble

chapter 1/part 1
''legaslative power..of the commonwealth
shall be vested..in a federal parlement""

thats important
all the other state laws..[made by the state's]
contracted under the terms of federation..AFTER federration
are invalid...

further..all new legislation
'vested..in the federal parliemnt"

.."which shall con-sist of..the queen
a senate,and a house of representative's..and which will hereafter be called 'the parlement'..or the parlement of the commonwealth''

so who 'vested'[bestowed].statehood..
UPON THE COLONY*..LORDED OVER BY STATE govener generals

[the british govt..[the crown]..
[not the queen/king]..

the british state..[crown]..ratified it

then they ratified
the ';australia act'

we still got govener generals
sworn loyalty..to a foreign figure head
running armies/naveys..as their figure head

sworn loyal to the figure head and HER airs and succeses
or her hairs and suck/cessionisist,...heck..you fail to explain..what you want

no queen
no armed forces
will the neo president...have armed forces?
of course it will..and the us pres..serves the force well

forcing us into perpetual war
think on it

if it was simple
or true..they would proudly declare independance
it cant be *granted..by the master

we ourselves must declare it
and ratify it..not by crown[decree]....but by the decree of its people