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]