Hi Rodney,

Re Marx: As a sort-of-ex-Marxist, that's what I've been trying to do for fifty years :) Pseudo-Marxists baulk at that step.

Sorry, I should have specified, when I suggested 'reputable' authorities, I meant Australian predominantly, and from roughly the present era. I really don't care what some Yank says, or some way-back hicks from yesteryear.

If anything, I'm a bit concerned that your Rousseauian perception is somewhat closer to the 'flora and fauna' notion than any colonial functionary who I've ever come across. At least in SA, the only place where I've got comprehensive information (as on my web-site: www.firstsources.info: thanks, Rodney) the Protector (the only employee of the 'Aborigines Department') (seriously (yes, the only), he is very much aware that people are people, that they should be encouraged to stay in their own country, that they were entitled to all the benefits of the ration system, but were inclined to abuse the free travel arrangements, etc. Etc..

80 % or more of all Indigenous people now live in towns and cities. Traditional 'culture' for many is a thing of a very distant past, when they think about it at all. That's reality. Around 0.4 % of the entire Indigenous population shifts (perhaps as a statistical artifice) to the cities each year, 2 % between Censuses, and perhaps the rate of migration is increasing. Remote hell-holes may be in a sort of death spiral. Join the dots. Apartheid is maybe not dead and buried just yet but it's in a pretty bad way.

Cheers,

Joe

.

Dear Joe,

.

You wrote :

« Re Marx: As a sort-of-ex-Marxist, that's what I've been trying to do for fifty years :) Pseudo-Marxists baulk at that step »

My impression is that Marx was an ideologue and a highly respectable person. Unless I am mistaken, I understand he never, personally, participated physically in any revolutionary activity of any sort. He even wrote of himself, when commenting the revolutionary works of his French son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, and the speeches of that other well-known French revolutionary, Jules Guesde: « If that’s marxisme, what is certain is that I, myself, am not marxiste ».

I am not either. I have no political allegiances and am not interested in party politics or politicians’ politics. The only aspect of politics I take an active interest in is the broader sense of the tenets and praxis of contemporary society. It has nothing to do with governance – so long as our democracy continues to function more or less as well as one could reasonably expect – though I have to admit that I definitely prefer a republic to our present constitutional monarchy.

I’m sure our dear Elizabeth is just as well-intentioned a person as Marx was, but, quite frankly, I could do without them both.

As for Australians depicting Aboriginal peoples as flora and fauna, it has been pointed out that our one cent, two cents, five cents, ten cents, twenty cents, $1 and $2 coins all represent Australian fauna, except that the $2 coin has the image of a blackfella on it. Most coins were minted in 1966, the year before Aboriginal peoples were counted as citizens in the national census.

You indicate :

« I really don't care what some Yank says … »

If what somebody says is true, then I care, whatever his nationality. In addition, I find Americans more sympathetic than the British. The British were our genitors but have never assumed their parental responsibilities despite all the sacrifices we have made in the defence of their interests.

America owes us nothing but, thank goodness, they protect us.

.

Rodney,

God, where to start ? "the $2 coin has the image of a blackfella on it": that's your best shot ?

Anyway, to get back to your topic: recompense. The Treaty and Sovereignty pushes are clearly geared towards permanent 'recompense', most likely through a recognition of nations and extended land title. They push towards a separate Indigenous State, independent except for continued financial support from Canberra.

The Black State Movement is nothing new: in SA, a retired accountant, Colonel Genders, promoted the idea back in the twenties, on the assumption that all 'full-bloods' and maybe other people of Indigenous descent would be 'persuaded' to move to it, presumably somewhere up in the North. The Movement recruited David Unaipon to spruik the idea amongst Aboriginal people, who unanimously rejected the idea. As a 'full-blood', he thought that he might be President of a separate State, as they called it an 'inviolate' state, from which unauthorised non-Indigenous people would be excluded. It was a ludicrous idea then, but hope springs eternal.

I'm probably guilty of a similar early rush of blood: my wife used to take Aboriginal Flags up to visiting artists, Roberta Flack, Nina Simone, B.B. King, etc., in her lunch-hour, and in 1972 took one to the motel where the Native Canadian singer Buffy Sainte-Marie was staying. She invited a group up to her rooms and one village idiot asked her what she thought of a separate Black State. She looked at him with kindness and pity and asked, "Well, whose country would you be on ? And who would leave their own country to go there ?" That sort of killed off the idea. But hope does indeed spring eternal.

Of course, the new thought-bubble presupposes that such a State would be financed forever from outside, by the [non-Indigenous State] taxpayer. Perhaps that could be made clear in any Referendum question.

But as Noel Pearson has pointed out,

[TBC]

[continued]

, how would that be different to the current welfare-dependent situation for remote and work-less 'communities' ? How would that solve the dreadful problems that they already face ? Yes, certainly, Sovereignty would mean many appointments as Ministers, ambassadors, bureaucrats etc., with much more committee membership for the elites, many overseas conferences, etc. They would do pretty well out of it.

But quite possibly, if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then self-interested intentions may lead to something even worse for the majority of Indigenous people.

Currently, thirty billion goes annually into Indigenous affairs. Many Australians may baulk at the notion of paying this forever, although you are free, Rodney, to make voluntary payments for your aboriginal compatriots. They may even put you on a committee - if you could find some Indigenous ancestry somewhere, somehow, they might even make you the Ambassador to France :)

Joe

.

Dear Joe,

.

You ask :

« God, where to start ? "the $2 coin has the image of a blackfella on it": that's your best shot ? »

I didn’t do an exhaustive study of the topic you raised, Joe. I just happened to come across that example of the “blackfella” among fauna images on all Australian coins minted in 1966. I figured the Royal Australian Mint in Canberraa corresponded to your request for an indication of a “reputable Australian who has described Aboriginal people as flora and fauna”. The mint is, of course, a listed entity within the national Treasury.

If you want more examples perhaps you might like to contact Stuart Banner at the UCLA Law School. He might be happy to direct you to the source of those previous examples I indicated of Australians depicting Aboriginal peoples as “a race which forms the link between men and monkeys”. Prof. Banner can be contacted at the following e-mail address :

banner@law.ucla.edu

You then write :

« Anyway, to get back to your topic: recompense. The Treaty and Sovereignty pushes are clearly geared towards permanent 'recompense', most likely through a recognition of nations and extended land title. They push towards a separate Indigenous State, independent except for continued financial support from Canberra »

I think you mean “compensation”, not “recompense. In my open letter, I suggest we establish “a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or similar document, to the effect that as Australian citizens we constitute a single nation even though we come from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds”. As we are not at war with our Aboriginal compatriots, I don’t think a “treaty”, per se, is appropriate.

I also acknowledge, in my open letter, that “not surprisingly, the key issue with tribal elders is the question of sovereignty but, alas, it is totally unrealistic to imagine that the 250 independent aboriginal nations at the time of colonisation could possibly survive in today’s aggressive world of thermonuclear weapons and technological warfare. It is not in Australia’s best interests and it ...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

... is certainly not in their own people’s best interests for aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ sovereignty to be reinstated to its pre-colonisation status”.

But, I add :

“It is, however, in everybody’s best interests that we facilitate matters and do whatever we possibly can to assist those of our indigenous peoples who, of their own free will, wish to maintain their traditional cultures and life-styles, and remain as autonomous as possible in remote and very remote areas”.

Finally, you note :

« Currently, thirty billion goes annually into Indigenous affairs. Many Australians may baulk at the notion of paying this forever, although you are free, Rodney, to make voluntary payments for your aboriginal compatriots »

Though I live in France I pay some tax in Australia, part of which goes into the indigenous affairs budget. However, you will recall that I wrote in my open letter :

« As it was the British who colonised our country under the auspices of the Crown, they bear the prime responsibility for the deep-rooted injustices caused to our indigenous peoples by colonisation. But history records that the same ill-treatment, and worse, was inflicted on them by successive generations of Australians. It is clear that our two governments and the Crown are jointly and severally responsible for all this and owe them compensation »

It would be a matter for the British to decide what the contribution of the Crown should be in the overall compensation package which, I suggest, should take the form of a foundation created in the interest of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, controlled by its three trustees: the Crown, the British government and the Australian government.

Naturally, in an operation of this nature, the statutes of the foundation, its financial endowment, mission, management, etc., would all have to be negotiated and agreed upon by the three trustees.

For the Australian taxpayer, the operation should be financially neutral, the five-year federal indigenous budget estimates and projections remaining unchanged ($30+ billion), our contribution to the foundation being provided from existing budget funds.

.