What do I think about those who seek a 'voice'?
Those who call themselves 'first nations' are living in a false reality.
Constructed to make themselves feel better about something?
But it is a false reality, not based on fact and sound principles.
For example:
Many are more European than otherwise.
But they conveniently ignore that fact.
Their insistence that they are different is driving a wedge between us too.
And that is not good.
So they need to re-evaluate what they think is true.

Do I feel sorry for them? No.
Do I think I owe them anything? A thousand times No.
Do I think they already have parliamentary representation just as good as anyone else? Yes.
Do I think some of them are unhappy? Yes.
And why are they like that?
Because the false reality they have created for themselves causes confusion.
And in this case the parliament is not helping.
It is muddying the waters, energetically.

So let me help.
First and foremost, you are Australians.
Time to forget difference, and accept the reality that is multi-cultural Australia.
Time to become Australians in every way.
And stop banging on about ancestors.
We all had them.
Stretching back millions of years.
We are all the end result of endless fornication over that time.
Our ancestors all lived somewhere too.
But I don't own any land here, or in any other part of the world, simply because they once lived on it.

Ancestors can pass knowledge on to us, and also sometimes infrastructure.
But nothing else.
They are not alive.
They cannot do anything at all.
They cannot think or act, or influence how we live.
Only living persons can do that.

The living are the sole arbiters of our progress.
The steady application of sound principles is essential.
And there is no good to be had by letting imagination run riot.
And pretending all sorts of things exist when they don't.
You are here now, and alive and well.
That is all that matters.
So be thankful, and get on with life.
I know most of you do.

Hi Bezza

There is a generally accepted definition of aboriginal person as being someone who is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent; who identifies as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin; and who is accepted as such in the communities in which they live or have lived.

My understanding is that Voice members will not (or not necessarily) be elected but will be nominated by regional and local groups which are themselves recognised as authoritative representatives of their local community, and chosen by whatever means those organisations deem appropriate. If so, there will be no need to have a legal definition of aboriginality – each community will decide for itself who can participate and how they will be chosen.

This method may offend those who feel that political representative should be democratically elected; but it respects the decision-making processes of indigenous communities and avoids the problem you seem concerned about in defining who can be in the Voice and who can vote for them.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«Those who call themselves 'first nations' are living in a false reality.»

It is not the aboriginals who call themselves such - it is a form of abuse that some white people hurl at them, claiming that they too were afflicted by their own (the white people's) disease of nationalism. Aboriginals might have suffered all sorts of afflictions, but never that particular one, never a concept of "nation" like the white people have.

So:

«Constructed to make themselves feel better about something?»

Quite the opposite - constructed to lower their self-esteem, telling them that they are no better than and as sick as the white man.

«But it is a false reality, not based on fact and sound principles.»

I am glad you know and recognise it. Let them hear it too, that these accusations (of being a "nation") are false!

«Do I think they already have parliamentary representation just as good as anyone else? Yes.»

Like everyone else? Like who? What a joke!

«Time to become Australians in every way.»

Why should they stoop down?
Should they be drinking alcohol just because the white "Australians" brought it and are addicted to it?

«But I don't own any land here, or in any other part of the world, simply because they once lived on it.»

Yes, good to remember!

It seems that "Australians" think they have a right to determine who may live in this continent and who may not, only because their ancestors conquered this land - well, just as aboriginals have no such right, neither do they!

Hello Rhian, I have heard that definition previously.
It might suit in the case where you "tick a box" and that makes
everyone happy. However we now could be looking at cases that might be
in a court, perhaps the high court, and the argument is over land or
payment of millions of dollars and constitutional definitions will
be at crux of the matter.
Once side might argue that someone who is 1/64th aborigine should
only get 1/64th of the claim.
You think that won't come up ? You can bet on it.
Add a few more generations and they will be arguing about 1/512th !

When I post, I address my remarks to the original article, or to the trend of the comments thereafter.
I avoid addressing any other contributor directly.
To me, that would make it in to a debate, rather than an opinion column.
Were I to comment directly, I fear I would sometimes be obliged to point out the absurdity of some of the things said.
And that might be seen as an attack on that particular contributor.
And I like to play nicely.
Even though I am aware that some of the comments are absurd, discretion always wins the day.
And I curb my natural inclination to say so.

On a different tack...
I fail to see why someone who is predominantly European, but whose great great grand mother was part aboriginal, would, perhaps, be classed as aboriginal today.
We all have a bit of something from somewhere, but don't we all identify as Australian?
And isn't there an Australian culture here?
And social standards, backed up by laws in most instances?
So I agree that we should know for sure just who it is who is claiming aboriginality.
For a start, it must be someone whose ancestry is more than half aboriginal?

My thought for the day?
The splendid thing about those who contribute to opinions is that they are all valuable sources of material.
Even when they are a bit out of focus, their efforts are worthwhile.
Their 'wonky' ideas can trigger useful lines of thought, leading to a new avenue of discussion.
It is important that all ideas are seen as valuable.
And that all contributors feel they are included in this family of thinkers.
It can be a bit 'rough and tumble' sometimes, but it should retain, always, a friendly quality.
There needs to be an undercurrent of acceptance and concern for the opinions of others.
Even as you tear their argument to shreds? ^_^