Joe, you are correct in stating that Aboriginal people were classed as British citizens and were supposed to be treated equally under British law. In reality that never happened and Aboriginal people rarely allowed to testify at trials as they wouldn't swear upon the bible.

As to any rights to use land traditionally are you denying that settlers murdered Aborigines and took their land by force? Ever heard of the Frontier Wars? Are you saying that historians such as Reynolds, Bottoms, Johnson, McFarlane, Broome and Clements (to name but a few) are all wrong when they document the massacres and murders?

As to Aboriginal people who were privileged with leases you nominate a paltry figure of one hundred. I wonder how many of those lost their lands after the First World War when veterans were given free land, some if that had been farms that Aboriginal people had successfully run. Notably Aboriginal veterans were not given any land at all (told to bugger off basically).

When it came to the removal of children it did happen and the records clearly show that. In NSW it lead (in part) to the formation of the Australian Aboriginal Progressive Association in 1924. The law in NSW was changed in 1915 to give the Aboriginal Protection Board (a misnomer if ever there was one) the power to remove children and they did. Those removed, mostly young girls, were put into servitude and never paid what they were supposed be owed. No doubt you've seen the documentary 'Lousy Little Sixpence' and read Rosalind Kidd's research?

Finally, to claim there are 'make-believe atrocities' is to be in denial of the truth and offensive.

Not that many years ago many non-Indigenous Australians would have strongly denied the historical abuses that are now acknowledged about the colonisation of Australia.

Invasion day events, speeches and articles serve a wonderful purpose (though not so much for the Libs with Howardlike thinking neo-con thinking) to slowly educate Australia's population. This includes new Australians who would otherwise never hear anything than the mainstream, and often the racist mainstream, views on Australia and her Indigenous peoples.

This article implies that the author and supporters would rather we just don't talk about it - it upsets their enjoyment of the day for celebrating the invasion of Australia by the first fleet. Poor precious souls.

If the author and his acolytes would like to silence such dissent on Australia day, does that mean we are going to stop ANZAC day celebrations - I think not.

John Slater, and all the same old racist clowns on this site, simply prove Stan Grant's point that the Australian Dream was/is based on racism.

There are a number of issues with having January 26th as Australia Day. it is seen as the arrival of the First Fleet but they'd arrived in Botany Bay a week beforehand and come ashore. Therefore on that count the day is historically wrong. Some say it represents the annexation of the eastern seaboard as British territory but that too is wrong. The proclamation ceremony occurred on the 7th of February. If the day was called Sydney Day it would be far more historically accurate than the 26th of January. It certainly isn't Australia Day.

As it stands it has come to represent the violence, destruction of cultures and brutal land dispossession of Aboriginal people. It exposes as myth the notion Australia was peaceably settled. It stands as a reminder of the outright hostility and racism Aboriginal people faced and still face. In modern times Queensland Aboriginal people were 'ruled' by the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Act of 1965 and continued the Director's powers over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As part of that act District Officers had the power to 'manage' the property/possessions of Indigenous people. That domination continued until 1975. That is recent history.

In Tasmania there was a brutal war against Aboriginal people that saw the population almost completely destroyed. From around 7000 in 1806 by 1834 there were only a couple of hundred. In 1828 Martial Law was declared and there were bounties for capturing Aboriginal people. In reality was financially prudent to catch a few and kill the rest, particularly if wounded and troublesome.

Those a just a couple of examples that show what Australia Day has come to mean for many Aboriginal people. It is day to remember when hell on two legs and with a white face came to Australia.

I would say the aboriginal industry dream is far more racist than any other Australian dream. Thankfully it is only a dream as time and time again we see the industry stealing funds that should be used to lift their own people from poverty. To often, family grievances and jealousies and outright theft has prevented this.

runner, I know this site has become a closed shop for the close minded, with any rational views contrary to the gang, getting hounded out - but really is that all you can come up with?

Follow the money trail and you will see the vast majority of moneys for Indigenous peoples goes to non-Indigenous peoples. Somehow the non-Indigenous people think they are more entitled to the cash and so will deliver shoddy or dodgy services, overprices services, and sometimes just cook the books to make it look like they delivered when they did not. These scams have been going on for ages and always get worse with the Libs and their 'business mates'. This is why the Close the Gap push has seen health get worse under the Libs

Aka
with the regressives having hijacked the Liberals, things will get worse. Ideology is always more important to them than results. I agree their are many suckers wherever their is the public purse including whities. You however would be in total denial not to have witnessed brand new landcruisers being trashed, families having their pockets lined and corruption rife in many if not most aboriginal commuties. Tribal attitudes having always created a favour system similar to that of PNG.