On becoming an Australian citizen I gave my allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors - and so it shall remain.

Not only will I not break my commitment by voting for a republic, but I do actually prefer the potential and very theoretical tyranny of one dispassionate person in England who doesn't even have vested interests in the country, over the likely tyranny of dumb majorities who can easily be incited against minorities for small immediate gains. I feel safer this way.

«what we want is a single country and a single nation in which everybody, whoever they are and whatever their origin, has equal rights, duties, opportunities and privileges...»

Sorry sir, this is what YOU want - speak for yourself please.

Hi Rodney,

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission - which could be set up tomorrow - which confines itself to finding just that, the truth, no more and no less, the whole truth about every grievance issue - Yes !

So, for example, massacres: Why not investigation of, say, twenty suspected massacre sites, the most notorious and/or most likely to yield the clearest evidence one way or the other ? Yes !

'Stolen Generation': for those who dare, to present their files before a court. Yes !

'Stolen Wages': an examination of mission files and store accounts to see whether or not families back on the missions were being supplied with rations every day while their men were away working ? And whether or not they received standard wages ? Yes !

And everything else too, every gripe, every suspicion. Examine them all. Yes !

The truth has to be based on evidence, not on stories or Chinese-whispered oral accounts.

Perhaps such a Commission could be set up as a Court ?

One day, we will have genuine reconciliation, but only on the basis of the truth. I hope i live long enough.

Cheers,

Joe

Let’s NOT establish anything. Let's, instead, drop all this patronising and pandering - and spending huge sums of money - and by doing so, force people on the aboriginal gravy train to get off and start fending for themselves.

And, let's NOT listen to someone who thinks that “we probably need more non-British Australians in order to counterbalance the overwhelming weight of the nostalgic vote perpetuated by British Royal mania”. That is the most disloyal anti-Australian garbage to appear in these pages for some time”

If we must have som form of purely advisory council to parliament, it needs to be totally representative of all aboriginal people, including the most remote.
To avoid the nepotism and fixing of elections that happened with ATSIC, the only way to ensure this is to have one representative from each registered tribal group. Each adult can only nominate for one tribe, which is important given that these days many aboriginal people have genetic Input from multiple tribes. That person would have to demonstrate that they actually live in the area they wish to represent. So some one like Pat Dodson couldn’t represent his tribe in the West Kimberley because he hasn’t lived here for decades.
This 200 plus group could then nominate spokesmen to represent regional areas, one for each area, so you end up with a manageable number.
This way, people in the bush would have an equal say with people from the city, and there would no way rig this council with predominantly city people who are already in positions of power.
If people must insist on calling tribes nations then to be fair, each nation must be represented.

1. And how would the author define

"all our nation's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples"

The definitions are so loose that someone who is 15/16s white or has no Aboriginal blood at all considers themselves Aboriginal.

2. Also aren't the author's racially based ideas racist? pitting Australian against Australian?

3. Different Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders will have different ideas of the Commission's place and powers. Some will consider it a third House of Parliament with power to block House of Reps and Senate decisions.

Why? Will that change that history, however despicable, or further unite a fractured people!?
Or will it further embed professional victimhood (reverse apartheid) and a black armband view of history?
All while shifting blame for that same history to folk who weren't there or disagree emphatically with things done in their name, without their informed consent!
And or by distant preceding generations!
I prefer a truth and reconciliation commision, not unlike that great statesman Nelson Mandela advocated and introduced.
We need to come together forgive past ignorance on both sides or transported against their will, former generations.
And as part of formal reconciliation negotiate a treaty and formalize a new land act that incorporates individual native tile ownership and inheritance by individuals instead of this or that mob!
Alan B.

Alan B, It all sounds so simple doesn’t it?
Until you get down to the practicality of allocating individual areas of land and then it degenerates into actual blood shed. Multiple people claiming the best areas, denial of who is descended from who. Are adopted or step children elible etc?
Is the inheritance line paternal or maternal?
Problem is, most tribes have paternal line which makes all those descended from a white man somewhere in the past ineligible.
In the akimberley people are already at was over personal land rights, the worst is yet to come.

Hi Alan,

Maybe i didn't read the article properly, but if a Makarrata is just a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, i.;e. a body dedicated only to searching out the truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth, AND if is constituted as a Court, with disinterested judges perhaps from the High Court or the various state Supreme Courts, then I'm all for it.

As for your question, " .... will it further embed professional victimhood (reverse apartheid) and a black armband view of history?" that would depend on what the truth, reality, evidence, turns up - I don't think that it will as enthusiastically support the Black-Arm-Band Narrative as people may assume. I suspect that there would be enough surprises, welcome AND unwelcome, for everybody.

For example, massacres: apart from a handful - Coniston, Appin, Myall Creek, Daly River - there don't seem to have been much archaeological or forensic examination of reputed massacre sites. A thorough examination of, say, twenty, around the country may give us all a better idea of what did, and didn't happen. Currently, there seem to be no such investigations anywhere in Australia, apart from one near Mulan in WA, and that's gone awfully quiet. Some bones were found in a camp-fire there: so what do you do with the bones when you're sitting around a camp-fire eating barbecued chops ? Bones in a camp-fire ? Human or animal ? Ancient, historical or very recent ? Natural or unnatural death ? Club wounds or bullet or sabre wounds ? Dead quiet. Personally, I suspect that there were some massacres but far fewer, and smaller, than some of the more lurid stories.

Do we rely on evidence or on stories ? So much to learn and uncover, so many inconvenient truths. Let it rip.

But a Makarrata shouldn't be any more than that, a thorough Truth Recovery process, not some sort of representative body - we have many of those already and they're called parliaments and local/shire/municipal councils.

Joe

You had one of them once, it was called ATSIC, and you know where that finished, just ask Big Mama. What makes you think the next one will be any different. Just another gravy train for the powerful and stuff all for the rest.
I don't think so.

David

Any entity claiming "TRUTH" or that leftist totem "TRUTH-TELLING" is ignorant or deceptive - just like Ministries of "TRUTH" [1].

Racially selected people supporting their racially exclusive Commission are all about Racial and Political views and Biases.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four#Ministry_of_Truth

Before anything is done it needs to be determined who can identify as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5790985/Woman-19-spat-police-assaulted-paramedic-came-aid.html

Looking at the photos of her in the 1st photo I do not see an aboriginal, in the 2nd photo maybe slightly.

Far too many are claiming to be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander's, with Politicians and do gooders bending over backwards to appease them it can be an easy way to lots of benefits not available to ordinary Australians

Folks claiming to be aboriginal, need to pass a DNA test to establish their bona fides and claims!

Although mixed-race people may be entitled to a view and input?
At the end of the day, those able to establish their racial bona fides, via a DNA supporting test, ought have the final say in any negotiated treaty acceptable terms and any and all rights.

And at no time should the very first of the original Australians have their legitimate claims diminished, through the activities of later land annexing arrivals.
Or sh!te stirring urban activists, with a very different divisive agenda?

Even so, the first nations need to settle their differences and ambit claims, so they look less like a divided rabble fighting each other over the spoils of defeat!

We've seen enough of nepotism, embezzlement and corruption, by various parties and blame shifting as some inexcusable activities, are claimed as cultural norms? That few if any tribes or people would want to own or justify as it's all whitey's fault?

We need some sane folk nominated that are able to accept current realities and what is actually possible?
As a start of many small steps that start a trajectory toward a final fully integrated position with claims of persecution and interference that allows things like domestic violence and child sexualization/abuse to remain as cultural norms! Along with astronomical STD rates among Juveniles the highest anywhere in the "civilized" world!

Stop all such unacceptable behaviour/ outcomes/excusing it and focus on what you want to happen.
And needs a few more Senator Bonners to step forward and put the first people's interests first and foremost, from inside the tent!
Alan B.

I think I understand the author's proposal that we are all equal but some of us will be more equal than others?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

“I … prefer the … tyranny of one dispassionate person in England … over the … tyranny of dumb majorities …”. Don’t look now, Yuyutsu but, as regards the subject you mention, you’re part of the … majority - at least, for the time being !
.

Dear Loudmouth,

“One day, we will have genuine reconciliation, but only on the basis of the truth …”. That’s true, Loudmouth, … but truth is a subjective notion. There are as many truths as there are observers. There is only one reality.
.

Dear ttbn,

[“we probably need more non-British Australians in order to counterbalance the overwhelming weight of the nostalgic vote perpetuated by British Royal mania”. That is the most disloyal anti-Australian garbage to appear in these pages for some time”]. No it’s not, ttbn, it’s patriotic … from an Australian point of view, of course.
.

Dear Big Nana,

Thank you for your insights. I bow to your wisdom and experience and fully adhere to your comments.
.

Dear Plantagenet, Dear Philip S, Dear Alan B,

“How to define Aboriginal …?”. In 1983 the High Court of Australia defined an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander as "a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives".

See also, the UN definition of indigenous peoples :

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf

Yes, Alan B, Neville Bonnor was an admirable individual, a fearless man of conviction and principles, our first Queensland Aboriginal politician and a great example.

Naturally, I, probably like most of us here, share your concerns. Unfortunately, we do not all agree on how to set things right.
.

Dear JBowyer,

“I think I understand the author's proposal that we are all equal but some of us will be more equal than others?”.

You’re almost there, JBowyer, just a little more effort and you will have understood everything.

.

.

Dear Plantagenet,

Sorry, I omitted to reply to points 2 and 3 of your first post.

“2. Also aren't the author's racially based ideas racist? pitting Australian against Australian?”

As you do not indicate which ideas are “racially based”, I cannot comment on that. Are you suggesting that “Australian” is a race ?

The OED defines Australian as “A native or inhabitant of Australia, or a person of Australian descent”. Nothing to do with “race”.

Also, would you please explain why you think the author might be “pitting Australian against Australian ?”. Where do you see evidence of that ?

On the subject of “race” :

• “Far from having to ask whether culture is or is not a function of race,” Lévi-Strauss maintained, “we are discovering that race – or what is generally meant by this term – is one function among others of culture”

• In Robert Wald Sussman’s 2014 book “The Myth of Race: The Troubling Persistence of an Unscientific Idea” which appeared in Newsweek on 11 August, 2014, he says there is no such thing as race, so far as human beings are concerned (genetically speaking) :

http://europe.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123?rm=eu

“3. Different Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders will have different ideas of the Commission's place and powers. Some will consider it a third House of Parliament with power to block House of Reps and Senate decisions.”

The article clearly states :

“However, in view of the federal government's objection, the Makarrata Commission should not possess any legislative powers. It should have a purely consultative and advisory function. The source of its authority would be its legitimacy as a democratically elected organism, speaking on behalf of all our nation's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

Without the power to participate in the vote on any legislation, the Commission would not be able to “block House of Reps and Senate decisions”. That’s the way parliament works. The Prime minister has clearly stated his position on that.

It is not open to interpretation.

.

@Banjo Paterson

Where you say "[You] cannot comment on that."

You can do better than that.

Banjo Paterson,

Perhaps we have different definitions of loyalty.

We don't get many people wanting to escape from monarchies coming to Australia. You and this Rodney Crisp character should give consideration to the possibility that people you want imported to suppress our heritage might just want to come here because WE ARE a stable constitutional monarchy. They do know what we are, you know.

Hi BP,

You declare, " … but truth is a subjective notion. There are as many truths as there are observers. There is only one reality."

Perhaps you meant: " … but interpretation of the truth is a subjective, and often self-protective, process. There are as many interpretations of the truth as there are observers. There is only one reality."

So let's use the word 'reality', or 'the best approximations of reality', instead of 'truth'. Take, say, the case of massacre claims: surely the purpose of any investigation would be to establish 'realities' as much as possible, and then try to make the most accurate interpretations of what has been found at a particular site. Bones ? Yes. Human or animal ? Okay. Etc. And ALL of the revealed reality, not something selective or paranoid-suspicious about what might have been hidden, suppressed, by authorities. As full a picture as possible with ALL the available evidence. And if it's inconvenient for somebody, then so be it.

We can only build a common, future society on the basis of such realities, and some agreed interpretation of those realities. We would have to establish and define what a particular term, such as 'stolen generation', 'deaths in custody' or 'secret women's business' actually mean to their asserters, for example.

Take the 'stolen generation': does it include young women of a century ago going out to work on stations and farms ? Does it include children in desperate circumstances of neglect or abuse taken into care ? The child of a single mother who has died ? Does it include the suddenly-motherless mixed-ancestry children of white fathers who have had to put them into homes ? Does it include the children of women from patriarchal areas and their white partners who, in times of drought, have had to go their separate ways and have had to put their kids into the care of police or missionaries ? Or would the term be confined to cases, like Bruce Trevorrow's, in which children under, say, 14, have manifestly been taken from parents quite improperly ?

[TBC]

Do we need a Reconciliation Commission, you bet.

However we need it to reconcile most of the white working population to the fact that so much of our hard earned money goes to a bunch of noisy useless people, who want to live on settlements, mostly because there they are never expected to do any work to contribute to their support.

As always, there is some outside activists that believe they have a right to have a say, e.g. through their mixed-race children or egotist superiority?
A DNA test needs to be established that puts the self-appointed activists outside this particular tent!
Then hold a proper conference with a chair and three speakers for and three against.
With each speaker given reasonable time to support a position then if necessary mount a defence against any foreseeable rebuttal.
And with all that said and done in a calm dispassionate democratic manner, put the motion to a vote.
And as a process that all can accept as being fair and representative! Come away with a final position!
Which ideally would claim a percentage of positions in our parliaments as exclusively first Australian's!
And because they're created in the fire of heated debate, nominees able to enunciate an agreed position and establish individual inheritance lines, which as in many indigenous cultures are maternal!
And unless the various mobs speak as one people with one voice! Advocate for a bill of irrevocable rights!
Any real progress will move further away or be denied!
A nation divided against itself cannot stand!
Alan B.

[continued]

Or 'deaths in custody': do we take the current 28 % of all people in custody as the benchmark for an 'acceptable' level of Indigenous deaths in custody, i.e. 28 %, or the nation-wide proportion of those who are Indigenous, i.e. 3 % ? If the latter, we have to ask: what then should be an 'acceptable' rate if only 3 % of people in custody were Indigenous ? 3 % ? If 90 % were Indigenous, as in the Northern Territory, what then ? 3 % ? If, hypothetically, NOBODY in custody was Indigenous, what then ? 3 % ? I think I read something like this in Heller's 'Catch 22': 'I see everything twice !' Doctor holds up one finger. 'How many fingers ?' 'Two !'. Doctor holds up two fingers. 'How many now ?' 'Two !' By George, he does see everything twice.'

And while we're at it, this latest garbage about Indigenous people being treated as flora and fauna, under a 'Flora and Fauna Act'. Unbelievable rubbish. There was, I think, a Plants and Animals Act in WA (and maybe still is), and I suspect that, somewhere in that Act, mainly set up to protect endangered species of mammals, birds and fish, there are clauses about 'closed seasons' when native species were not to to be hunted or harvested or fished - with the exception that Indigenous people could do so for their own consumption. And that some half-wit has simply mis-read this Act. Oops, sorry, Linda :)

In SA's Game Act, dating from the 1890s, Aboriginal people were exempt from the 'closed season' restrictions - they could hunt and fish (and were provided with the means to do so, often for free) but only for their personal consumption. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like rights available to Indigenous people that were not extended to non-Indigenous people. More rights, not less but completely in accord with the explicit recognition, from about 1850 in SA, of Aboriginal people's land-use rights.

Critical analysis, a.k.a. deconstruction, Banjo.

Cheers,

Joe

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

You wrote :

« Where you say "[You] cannot comment on that." You can do better than that »

Please be assured that I am only too willing to do my best, but I need a little input from you for me to be able to try to meet your expectations.

You will recall that you made a very sweeping statement in your first post :

« Also aren't the author's racially based ideas racist? pitting Australian against Australian »

As the term “Australian” is not racist, you must be alluding to something else in the text of the article under discussion. I need to know exactly what it is you are alluding to in order to be able to comment on it.

Please advise.

.

.

Dear ttbn,

.

You wrote :

« Perhaps we have different definitions of loyalty »

I do not know why you raise the question of loyalty in our discussions. You did not say.

Nor did you say what your own definition of loyalty was. Personally, I am quite happy with the OED definition :

“the quality of being loyal” – “loyal” being defined as “giving or showing firm and constant support or allegiance to a person or institution”.

I can only presume you raise the question of loyalty in relation to the British Crown as our head of state. If so, as a third generation Australian born in this country (perhaps going back even further on my father’s side), unlike Yuyutsu, I have never been asked to swear loyalty to a foreign power such as the British Crown – even prior to 1984 when we were all British subjects. Have you ?

Hereditary monarchy is an institutionalised form of nepotism. I, personally, prefer a democratically elected head of state. I should also like to see Australia complete the tediously long process of emancipation it has undertaken for the past 120 years or so, and finally attain full adulthood.

That seems natural and healthy to me. It has nothing to do with disloyalty. I consider that we have largely paid our tribute to the British Crown over the years with all the wars we have fought, and the youth we have sacrificed, exclusively in its sole interest.

I left my family, friends and country when I was 24 years-old but remain steadfastly loyal to them. If I have to sacrifice my life for anybody one of these days, it would be for them, not for the British Crown.

What about you, ttbn ?

PS: btw, Rodney Crisp and Banjo Paterson are one and the same person.

.

I struggle to believe people actually think like this clown.
How divorced from reality are you Rodney? You are neurotic.

I've lived among Aboriginals all my life. Aboriginals are divided into two stratus, the blacks, 99%, and the wannabes 1%.

Have a guess which group this neurotic crap will be controlled by?

And here comes another “dogs breakfast fest” at the expense of the universal welfare budget.

So, Banjo Paterson AKA Rodney Crisp: you are defending your own beliefs! Not much use talking to you then.

You don't know why I raise the question of loyalty? Of course you don't. As Rodney Crisp, you don't know the meaning of the word.

One minute you are a third generation Australian, the next you say you left your “family, friends and country when I was 24 years-old”. You are very confused, Roddy boy.

Nobody in Australia would ever be required to “sacrifice” themselves for the British crown; nor anybody in Britain, either. You can't differentiate between tradition/harmless ceremony and ideology, you poor, simple Marxist dupe.

Hi Ttbn,

Anyhow, back to topic :)

A Truth and Justice Commission would throw up many, many surprises IF it paid attention to documentation, i.e. evidence - and for those who assert that much of what actually happened has been suppressed, prove it. Find the eviden. Hence my suggestion of multiple investigations of supposed massacre sites, and so on: evidence which confirms or contradicts contemporary assertions is surely what a Truth and Justice Commission (preferably of a panel of judges) is all about ?

Ttbn, you may find that the 'truth', reality, no matter how it is interpreted, is closer to your position than that of the dominant Narrative. 'Stolen Generation' ? Get the files, pretty much all Indigenous people would have one. Etc.

Cheers,

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

As often, your vision of the myriad examples of the inacceptable behaviour of many of our Aboriginal compatriots is inexhaustible and beyond compare.

I have no doubt that it’s all perfectly authentic and exists alongside a myriad of equally authentic examples of unsolicited abuse on the part of various, shall we say, well-intentioned public authorities.

I am sure you must be aware of some of those too.

As for truth, truth is not reality.

I see truth as information which has not been voluntarily deformed at the time of emission. Or, should I say, it is whatever version of reality, thought, ideas, qualia, dreams, or imagination, a particular individual is capable of experiencing and subsequently transmitting without voluntarily deforming it.

This, of course, does not exclude the involuntary deformation of information. The information that is emitted by somebody may be totally erroneous but perfectly truthful.

There are as many truths as there are observers and each one may be completely different from all the others, though each observer may be telling the truth from his or her particular perspective. I see truth as a perfectly subjective notion.

Our initial perspective may be false. We may incorrectly interpret what we perceive. Shock or prejudice may prevent us from correctly registering what we perceive. We may suffer a lapse of memory at the time of transmitting the information. We may not employ the correct expressions or be sufficiently precise in relaying the information. Our body language may be inconsistent with our oral expression, etc. All these and many other factors may possibly result in the involuntary deformation concerning the object of truth.

The star we claim to see may have disappeared from the heavens millions of years ago. That does not alter the fact that we are telling the truth in claiming to see it. The reality is different.

And unless there are other living species, which I ignore, capable of deliberately deforming the information they transmit regarding their perceptions and experiences I consider that truth is a concept that has no existence beyond humanity.

.

Hi BP,

My god, you write some rubbish. Of course 'truth' is not identical with reality, or with knowledge, and most certainly isn't consonant with assertions, paranoid rumours or 'stories'. But it does have something to do with evidence :)

I don't recall writing about " .... the unacceptable behaviour of many of our Aboriginal compatriots .... " Do you mean the citing of the proportion of prisoners who are Indigenous ? That they may have been pinged for "unacceptable behaviour", domestic violence, sexual abuse, burglaries, fraud, assault, car theft, etc. ? Even so, that citing says nothing about any 'unacceptable behaviour." Why the proportion of prisoners who are Indigenous is so high - 28 % compared to a national population share of 3 % - may well lead any analysis (i.e. de-construction) and conclusion in that direction, but I couldn't possibly comment.

Anyway, that would all come out in a thorough Truth and Justice/Reconciliation Commission, similar to the one that was held in South Africa. Bring it on ASAP, I'm getting old.

Cheers,

Joe

Ttbn

….I consider that truth is a concept that has no existence beyond humanity…

Quote last line BP post above.

There are two stream of libertarian-humanism…this clown is from the discredited stream you confuse as Marxist …

There is a rising libertarianism and more pernicious little brother to the above, called neoliberal-humanism. This is the torment of the Liberal Party currently.

Steven Pinker is the scribe responsible for the new Liberalisms humanist Bible, and sets out its many convictions in two main works, with smaller epistles which at first glance appear non-ideological, but do in fact relate.
Science is the new God from which all truth flows.

G'day Joe,

There is only one truth, and I think I have it; however, some other people disagree with me - and the truth.

.

Dear Alan B,

.

You wrote :

« A nation divided against itself cannot stand! »

Abraham Lincoln was advocating against slavery in the United States, in his bid for a seat in the Senate, when he made that famous speech in 1858 at the Republican State Convention in Springfield, Illinois.

What he actually said was :

« A house divided against itself cannot stand » - a concept familiar to Lincoln's audience as a statement by Jesus of Nazereth, recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke).

The deep division between north and south in the US at the time, on the question of slavery, was on a scale incomparable to our discussions here in Australia on the establishment of a Makarrata Commission to speak on behalf of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In modern democracies, social differences do not lead to social divisions, and even less to civil wars such as occurred in the US during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Democracy and diversity are no longer allowed to become antagonistic to such a large extent and on such a large scale.

That is why I am confident that a satisfactory solution will be forthcoming in the not too distant future in respect of the proposed establishment of a Makarrata Commission or similar organism.

.

@Banjo Paterson

Tah Roddy

Most of it sounds reasonable until:

"undertake to consult the democratically elected national organism of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and carefully consider its requests, proposals and comments on all and any matters concerning our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in a concerted effort of mutual agreement."

Which essentially gives the aboriginal council almost veto powers on all legislation.

Hi SM,

Of course. Even if a body of 'representatives' were to be confined to a large building in a small town for the duration of its existence, as long as it had access to the media, if any proposed piece of legislation would receive the collective eyebrow-raise of regret, that would be the end of it. Enlarging the powers of local council in relation to dog-licences ? You bet. The permissible size of oysters ? Sure. Everything would be fair game.
\
People have the power to elect their representatives to various councils and parliaments. If some people think that there isn't enough Indigenous representation, then they should run for parliament or whatever, or get behind someone who is.

One person, one vote. No special, let alone unassailable, representation for anybody.

Cheers,

Joe

But SM and Joe

Doesn't Australia need a privileged master race [1] selected on racial lines?

As this master race is officially "Black" racism never applies, not even a suspicion. Every Lefty Dropkick knows that, Aye Rodney?

Fortunately Turnbull is sensible enough not to buy Rodney's racist delusions.

[1] Holier than Thou, in Rodney's calculations
and consisting of a special 2.8% of Australians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians

Yuyutsu,
Good for you.
I have been away for some time but I had to come back. I have just sent a draft book off to the publishers and in it is a section exposing the "BS" around the Mabo decision. The man was a pedophile. The Mabo decision was an accident in law that changed the face of Australia for all the wrong reasons.
Information that I have received is that the 'greatnguru' Noel Person has decreed two goals for the indigenous populations (no matter what you blood count is) First is that all girls must have at least five babies before they are twenty (The government will support you well) so that in twenty or so years there will be enough indigenous voters to take over government

Yuyutsu,
(cont.)
The second part of his plan is that when they gain political power the words "traditional ownership" will mean "landlords" and rent will be charged on every edifice and land usage in the country. Your home will no longer be yours.
Watch this space.

BP, you stated

“The deep division between north and south in the US at the time, on the question of slavery, was on a scale incomparable to our discussions here in Australia on the establishment of a Makarrata Commission to speak on behalf of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

In modern democracies, social differences do not lead to social divisions, and even less to civil wars such as occurred in the US during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Democracy and diversity are no longer allowed to become antagonistic to such a large extent and on such a large scale.”

For your information, slavery was never a consideration, the entire premis of the war was in relation to taxes. Noting the inaccuracies stated above and your false assumptions, this obviously calls into question the accuracy and truth of your entire argument. Quoting a blatant false history in defence of your assumptions does nothing but call your “truth” into disrepute.

//Doesn't Australia need a privileged master race [1] selected on racial lines?//

As it turns out, no. We used to think that was the case until we repealed the White Australia policy and subsequently discovered that it wasn't actually necessary at all, and that brown people are just as capable as their melanin-deficient brothers (except at getting skin cancer. Us pale folk have 'em beat hands down in that area).

//It is with this in mind that I raise the possibility of accepting this idea: that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander compatriots establish a Makarrata Commission to participate in a process of agreement-making between our State and Federal governments, and the First Nations. In my view, it is important for its legitimacy that the Commission be constituted on a truly democratic basis, by the popular vote of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander compatriots, exclusively, with the election of a president, vice president and shadow government.

However, in view of the federal government's objection, the Makarrata Commission should not possess any legislative powers. It should have a purely consultative and advisory function.//

Well, I don't see what's stopping them. We have freedom of association in this country, and anybody can offer advice to their elected representatives. If Indigenous Australians want to get together and form an organisation for the purpose of advising Parliamentarians, can't they go right ahead and do that? Am I missing something here? Why would they need the blessing of the Government?

.

Dear Shadow Minister, Dear Loudmouth,

.

Many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. I am sure you both know more about Aboriginal culture, frame of mind and behavioural patterns than I do. I am not surprised that they are vastly different from ours.

It all seems very logic to me. That is why our current procedure of simply forcing our culture on them has produced such mixed results – humanly, socially and financially. I think most of us would agree on that.

We have been employing basically the same method of assimilation for the past 230 years. Not because it has proven particularly efficient, but because we were convinced that our modern Western culture was far superior to theirs. Not only did we consider their traditional culture to be backward, uncivilised and not worth conserving, but even impossible to practice in today’s context, given the current state of the eco-system as a result of colonisation.

Forced assimilation has indubitably produced both positive and negative results. On the positive side, 2,190 Indigenous students graduated from university in 2015, nearly a third at post-graduate level. Two-thirds were women. 95+ % were enrolled in mainstream courses. I understand that graduate numbers are rising at a rate of about 5% p.a.

According to an Australian National University census in 2011, mixed marriages are on the rise: 56.5% of partnered Indigenous males had a non-Indigenous partner and 59.0% for Indigenous females. Also, the current, 45th Federal Parliament includes four indigenous parliamentarians - two senators and two members of the House of Representatives, one of whom, Ken Wyatt, was the first indigenous member of the House of Representatives, elected in 2010. He is also the first indigenous member of Parliament to hold a ministerial position as the Assistant Minister for Health (from 30 September 2015).

On the negative side, we are all aware of the havoc created by colonisation to the lifestyles of our First peoples and the eco-system which had been the source of their sustenance and well-being for over 60,000 years. The disruption this caused to their social structures has

.

(Continued)

.

.

(Continued)

.

... thrown much of their youth into prison, created dependence on drugs and alcohol, deprived large numbers of their autonomy and dignity and created widespread health problems. The disorientation and frustration this engendered has had a negative impact on the families where domestic violence has now become rife, to the extent that they no longer represent a safe haven for women and children. Self-sufficient for over 60,000 years, many of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are now largely dependent on federal welfare and assistance for their upkeep and survival.

The overall outcome is far from satisfactory humanly, socially and financially. We have obviously got something wrong, somewhere along the line.

The fact that our Indigenous peoples wish to play a more active role in the management of their own affairs is extremely positive. For the first time in history, a cross section of 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates from around Australia gathered together and adopted a series of measures they would like to see implemented.

We should seize this historic opportunity in order to associate them with the necessary reflection on the steps to be taken in order to improve the lives of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander compatriots.

This does not imply any change to our democracy, or to our parliamentary systems. The roles of the federal and state parliaments would remain intact. The only novelty would be that they would be obliged to :

« consult the democratically elected national organism of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and carefully consider its requests, proposals and comments on all and any matters concerning our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in a concerted effort of mutual agreement »

Failing the establishment of a “mutual agreement” on any matter, the parliaments would be free to take whatever steps they deemed appropriate in the general interest.

The “democratically elected national organism of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” would have no power to block or veto any legislation whatsoever. It would have a purely consultative and advisory function.

.

chrisgaff1000. For a long time , and for reasons which I will not reveal here, I have argued that while the Mado decision might have been right in his particular case, it should not have been applied to the Aboriginal poplation as a whole. The smart legal eagles and government of the day really dropped the ball.

David

.

Dear Galen ,

.

You wrote :

« … slavery was never a consideration, the entire premis of the war was in relation to taxes… »

Here is a reply from Wikipedia :

« The causes of secession [the American Civil War] were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

.

Dear Toni Lavis,

You wrote :

« We have freedom of association in this country, and anybody can offer advice to their elected representatives. If Indigenous Australians want to get together and form an organisation for the purpose of advising Parliamentarians, can't they go right ahead and do that? … Why would they need the blessing of the Government? »

Our Indigenous peoples want Constitutional recognition.

It is not the blessing of Government that is important, it is the blessing of the sovereign people through a national referendum to modify the Constitution that is important.

Also, while, as you say, “anybody can offer advice to their elected representatives”, the parliament, as a collective body, has no obligation to consult “anybody”, nor to “consider his or her requests, proposals and comments … in a concerted effort of mutual agreement”.

By including this disposition in the preamble of the Constitution, the Parliament would have a moral obligation to honour it.

.

Sorry Banjo Paterson/Rodney

Sometimes I overly attack the person, rather than their positions, however specious.

Regards

Pete

BP,

Wikipedia? Really? I will give you a 2 out of 10 for that effort!

Please try this link, read it fully to grasp the truth re your unfactual grasp of our discussion, it’s not too long and well worth the read, ignore the first few paragraphs if you wish:

http//www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

Geoff

Hi Galen

As the Young Einstein would say

http//www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

is an incomplete link. You'll note it has not changed colour.

It needs an :

Guess where

How rude of me, Try this:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts

Thanks P

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

You wrote :

« Sorry … sometimes I overly attack the person, rather than their positions, however specious »

No harm done, plantagenet. We all have our problems and difficulties and sometimes we project them on others.

I’m sure you have many other qualities.

Some of us a so fine-tuned, we easily lose equilibrium.

.

Dear Galen,

.

Thanks for the link which, btw, should read as follows :

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/18/conversation-race-paul-craig-roberts/

I am aware of most of the facts and arguments mentioned in Paul Craig Roberts' article.

Unfortunately, I'm pressed for time right now and shall have to come back to you on this.

Things are not quite as straight forward as Roberts would have us believe.

Allow me to simply observe, for the time being, that his reputation is slightly tarnished by the fact that he has also written articles promoting theories that the 9/11 attacks and the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris were false flag operations.

It is not the first time Roberts makes dramatic revelations that important historical events were, in fact, covert operations and not what they are generally held to be.

.

.

Dear Galen,

.

A little more about Paul Craig Roberts' article.

First, I must acknowledge that Roberts, as you probably know, is a highly respected American economist who served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan. He was a proponent of supply side economics (lowering taxes and deregulation). Politically, he was a liberal conservative (centre-right). He later became a reputable economic journalist.

In his later years, he made a specialty of writing spectacular articles in which he reinterprets major historical events such as the 9/11, and Charlie Hebdo terrorist attacks, as well as this latest article on Secession and the American Civil War.

Roberts himself was from the Deep South, born and educated in Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, the home of the civil rights movement and Dr. Martin Luther King.

Roberts denies there was a civil war :

« There was no civil war. There was a War of Northern Aggression. A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government ».

That is a fairly astonishing statement, coming from an intellectual of the calibre of Roberts. The OED defines civil war as follows :

« a war between citizens of the same country » (nothing to do with “fighting for control of the government).

The authoritative American Merriam-Webster dictionary, defines it as :

« a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country » (again, nothing to do with “fighting for control of the government”).

Once we accept Roberts’ distorted vision of a civil war, we enter into his somewhat biased personal thought process and interpretation of events. His facts are absolutely impeccable. There is nothing wrong with them. It is his vision, analysis, evaluation and interpretation of the facts that are highly tendentious, especially his interpretation of the true, underlying motives of the various actors of the historic events that led to Secession and the American Civil War.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Roberts holds up as a major piece of evidence of his theories, Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural speech as president in 1861, in which he states :

« [though] I have not seen … a proposed amendment to the Constitution … that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held [understand: "presently held"] in service … I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable ».

Roberts sees this as proof that slavery could not possibly have been the cause of Secession because the new president declared he had no objection to the States keeping their slaves. He maintains that “slavery had nothing whatsoever to do with the war”.

He explains that the South left the Union :

« Because it was being economically exploited by the North, which, once the North gained the ability to outvote the Southern states, imposed tariffs that benefited the North at the expense of the South ».

While Roberts’ facts are exact, he fails to acknowledge that the South’s economic success was totally dependent on slave labour.

Also, Roberts does not mention the fact that South Carolina, the first State to vote in favour of secession, issued a document indicating the causes leading to its decision and another document inviting other seceding States to form "a Confederacy of Slaveholding States."

The first document, the declaration of causes, states that :

« A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the Common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction » :

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/south-carolina-declaration-of-causes-of-secession/

The following article by the American constitutionalist, Jonathan Turley, is also worth consulting :

http://www.historynet.com/secession

.

BP,
Thank you so much for responding with an in-depth analysis of Roberts views.

I believe he makes a number of strong arguments in favour of his views, however I also agree you have right to take leave of his beliefs.

Again, thanks for responding to my request, I will leave it at that.

Regards
Geoff (Galen)