Further to what Gary has written about the role of the Protector of Aborigines in South Australia in the nineteenth century: while I was typing up the nine thousand letters (between 1840 and 1912), time and time again, I said to myself,' 'Well, I don't think I would have done anything different myself.'

In fact, looking back, if, as it seems, the Protector was adhering to the pro-Aboriginal policies of the provincial (State) government, then I would have no quarrel with any of those policies. Sometimes the language used by the Protector was a bit abrupt, a bit impatient with some of the incessant demands made and innovative lurks perpetrated, but bureaucratic jargon was much less creative in those days. He got things done, and I wonder if those two factors are correlated.

Clearly, Aboriginal people are making use of the series of conferences to have their head, to put forward their wish-list of what they want from the rest of Australians. After fifty-odd years observing the Aboriginal political scene, I can't avoid the conclusion that Aboriginal 'leaders' are amazingly inept at both stating their aims to the Australian people (who must make their judgements in a referendum) and in controlling the more 'radical' wings of the Aboriginal movement.

But at least we know now what many - by no means all - Aboriginal people, especially wannabe 'leaders', DON'T want: they don't want equal rights, they want superior rights; they don't want reconciliation, they want domination; they don't want an end to discrimination, but a renewal of forms of Apartheid. Yes, sometimes the political naivete of Aboriginal leaders is breath-taking.

So many don't want understanding and togetherness: they want power - power with benefits, the eternal financial benefits from the Canberra money trees.

I'm forced to suspect that, in fact, what many Aboriginal 'leaders' and wannabes want is a permanent Indigenous mass-welfare society, a rentier society. They WANT a Gap, never to be Closed. They WANT discrimination, i.e. some permanent form of 'recognition through discrimination'.

Might this explain the hostility to celebration of Indigenous successes in higher education ?

[TBC]

What we really need is a thanksgiving day to all those immigrants who have made this nation great. We need to thank God and our forefathers who sacrificed so much to give everyone the roads, infractructure, hospitals and other services. The sooner we get over ' white guilt'. the better for all. We have already squandered billions on ruining many Indigeneous people. One old missionary told me about an old indigeneous elder who once commented that if the Government was to give us all welfare you may as well line us up and shoot us. How long are wwe going to allow activist and the idiotic united nations to continue to ruin the people.

[continued]

It's time to say that 'No, we are all Australians, we are all entitled to the same benefits, and we are all burdened with the same obligations to each other.'

If there ever is such a Referendum, and if there is an option to tick the box, 'To abolish all discriminatory legislation, for and against any group', then I'll tick it. Any other option seems tainted, in my frail and simple mind, with racism. Benefits should be awarded on the basis of need.

Having written that, I'll contradict myself slightly in suggesting that, as one way out of lifelong welfare, Indigenous units at universities and TAFE colleges should lift their game and go out of their way to publicise education in outer-suburban, rural and remote schools, with a view - eventually - to enrolling and supporting those students at TAFE and university. Otherwise, the Gap will keep Widening. Picking the low-hanging fruit, the Year 12 graduates, to enrol in higher education, has been the easy part,

Thanks, Gary.

Joe

Yes Gary, and here I find myself almost compelled to agree?

That said, a DNA test would allow a more conclusive test of ambit claims to be established? And perhaps exclude some of the wannabe participants, who purport to speak for the first Australians? Or get away with doing so on the grounds they feel Aboriginal?

In America, where a similar mixing of races has occurred, to claim any Indian Heritage whatsoever, one must at least pass a 25% test. Which is satisfied, it would seem, by at least one full blood Grandparent? or two half caste?

At some point we need to decide who can claim based on bloodlines and or Grandparents? And perhaps allow folk who can trace their Australian lineage, back through three successive generations of native born Australians?

Particularly if one or more of your forebears was transported here in chains, or arrived here as a bought and paid for, indentured servant? Which would eliminate any element of choice!

That said, a meeting between traditional elders and the Australian parliament, might be considered and arranged?

So we can understand what they really want? I'm sorry if that excludes loudmouth urban blacks, some with skin whiter than mine?

I think we have gone far too far with land rights and ambit claims by folks, often not belonging to the tribe they claim to be representing? Or the very first, first Australians, which by the way, would seem to be Tasmanian?
Alan B.

The Aboriginal elites and their renegade white supporters are now saying that recognition without a treaty and all the grabbing that goes with it will not be acceptable. Stiff cheese. All this nonsense in favour of 3% of the population does not deserve to get off the ground. No recognition plus nothing is the best way to go. The bipartisanship of politicians should be enough in itself to warn Australian voters off; since when have our politicians been the sort of people we should take notice of? I am looking forward to the great Australian silent majority putting the kybosh on this rubbish. The the 2013 recommendations were too much for even the Gillard government to stomach; this lot of demands will be even worse.

Before any talk of treaty, sovereignty or other measures is even considered, the very first thing that needs to be done is have a more definitive definition of " aboriginal".
As it is anyone with the slightest amount of aboriginal blood can claim benefits and perks,intended for those truly disadvantaged by birth.
In Canada, the treaty is with Status Indians who are Indians who can claim descent on their paternal side, not maternal which would rule out most aboriginal people here, who are descended from a " black" granny or great granny. In Canada there is no treaty with part Indian people or " Metis"
In the US the treaty is with registered members of Indian tribes, who must have a certain quotum of Indian blood, the amount decided by each tribe and sometimes as high as 50%.
And regardless of all this, the figures for unemployment, illiteracy, addiction, crime and poor health in these countries is no better than here, so,what exactly had a treaty achieved?