Would qualify, should as originally posted, read, wouldn't qualify.

And here I reiterate, many urban "blacks" wouldn't get past a 25% DNA test. It takes a little more than just feeling black to qualify.

It doesn't help to go on an abusive rage to try and intimidate a white audience into acceptance, when it is your own tribal forebears that reject on the grounds of, too white.

One day, several generations from now we will be one golden race with no tribal restrictions or claims. Just all Australians trying their best to tolerate each other as just one nation.

In which there will be no place for reverse apartheid!!

We are one and from many lands on earth we come! I am you are Australian.
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

( GOOD) ONYA!

Ben Pobjie in his book "Error Australis: The Reality Recap of
Australian History," reminds us that the decision to transport
convicts to New South Wales sent shockwaves through the
convict community who has always believed they had a firm social
contract with the government: they would commit minor
insignificant crimes , and the government would imprison them in
dank hellholes.

The prospect of being sent to the far end of the world to a
strange unknown land, was terrifying.

The powerful emotions generated were eloquently expressed in
the classic old song - "Botany Bay,":

Farewell to old England forever
Farewell to my rum coes as well
Farewell to the well-known Tim Bailey
Who used to teach me to spell
Singing two-ra-li-oo-ra-li addity
Singing bing bong dum doo dad fi-fey
Singing spinkly pom pinkly bom baddity
It's shyte down in Botany Bay

And just as the song predicted more than 700 convicts
found themselves bound for that mysterious far away land.

Of course not everyone on the First Fleet - named after the
fact that it was a fleet - was a convict.

In addition to some 775 convicts there were around 300
sailors, 250 Royal Marines, 15 officials and passengers and
50 wives and children of the marines.

Also on board the fleet were six horses, four cows, one bull,
44 sheep, 19 goats, 32 pigs, five rabbits, 18 turkeys, 29
geese, 35 ducks, 122 fowls, 87 chickens, assorted cats, and
the governor's greyhounds. Several of the pigs were thought
to be marines in disguise.

The book is worth a read if you can get a hold of it.
It's only by looking at where we've been that we can
understand who we
are, what we stand for, and why things work the way they do.
Or not.

Enjoy your day!

"Australia's first governor, Captain Arthur Phillip, could never have witnessed a welcome to country ceremony in 1788 because they did not exist at that time."

Charles Sturt, in the early years of Australia, travelled/explored through vast tracts of south-eastern and central Australia. He meticulously recorded his travels in his diaries. Not once, NOT ONCE, does he mention a welcome to country ceremony performed by any of the tribes he came across, even though, in many cases he had good relations with those tribes.

Its all made up. Just another way to separate fools from their money.

.

Dear David (the author),

.

You wrote :

« The definition of racism is treating people differently on the basis of race. The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist; Australians do not want to be treated differently according to race. They just want to be treated the same as everyone else, irrespective of race, ethnicity, religion or cultural origins. As George Orwell would have put it, no Australians should be more equal than others »
.

By that, you infer that the Voice referendum failed chiefly because of racial considerations and perhaps also due to differences in ethnicity, religion and culture. Race, of course, is a social construct based on the physical appearance of a person, whereas ethnicity refers to the cultural (language, religious, national, tribal) identity of a person.

Unfortunately, you offer no evidence or argument to back up that as the explanation for the failure of the Voice referendum. You simply state that “The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly anti-racist”. You could just as easily have said exactly the opposite: “The result of the Voice referendum demonstrated that Australians are profoundly racist” – no evidence or argument either way.

I guess you’re just counting on the fact that most people would never admit to the fact that (deep down inside) they are racist (to some extent) and take comfort in your explanation.

The fact is, our indigenous people were precisely that and the British crown colonised the land they had inhabited for over 65,000 years forcefully, not only without offering them the slightest compensation but slaying and enslaving many of them, treating them as a sub-human race.

That could certainly be interpreted as racism on the part of our British colonisers and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were responsible for planting the seeds of racism in the hearts of some of our indigenous compatriots as well.

Nobody is perfect and there is no easy explanation for any of it.

.

Thanks Foxy, another book worth reading is, Van Demien's land. It tells a story of a number of convicts who escaped from the hell hole that was Sara Island.

One of those convicts was my forbear Alexander Piece, who reportedly killed and ate his escapee companions, all starving while surrounded by food.

Eentually, he was taken in by an Aboriginal tribe where his services were in constant demand as many of the men were killed by white settlers.

He apparently sired a dozen or more Piccininnis, one of whom became my forbear.

The Pieman river was named thus because it became associated with the first white cannibal in Tasmania's history. Perhaps also the Savage River?

All faithfully recorded in court documents as Alexander was tried, convicted and hung.

All because he stole shoes to prevent his Irish kids from suffering winter chilblains.

Imagine being transported in chains halfway around the world and wrenched from your ancestral homeland for a petty crime of that nature. Others transported for stealing a loaf of bread when they were starving.

My half caste Grandmother told me many such stories and filled me with tribal law and custom.

She used a lot of white powder and always wore gloves when going out, as being a half caste back then was considered shameful in the white society in which we mingled.

Both my parents had Aboriginal forebears. I think I might be one eighth.

I never thought of myself as part aboriginal just a triple distilled Celt with both displaced Irish and Scottish forbears.
Alan B.

I was born here.
I am part of this country.
I belong here.
I don't need anyone telling me I am an intrusion.
And too many people live in the past.
We all have ancestors going back thousands upon thousands of years.
They all lived somewhere.

A few peoples were isolated on this island by climate change?
I don't see that as being a reason to claim some kind of superiority.
Especially as changes and improvements they made were very rudimentary.
And the fact is we are all here now.
We must use reason to plan a way of living together quietly and productively.

And none of us were alive over two hundred years ago.
We have no responsibility for anything, good or bad, which happened in those times.
The idea of claims against us, and compensation to be paid, is absurd.
Someone is trying to 'hoodwink' the majority of the people?
Trying to make them feel responsibility, and even guilt, where none can exist.
This can only be a ploy to achieve a doubtful end?

And just for the record.
The first settlers didn't need permission to settle here.
They just did, and it became a fact of life.
That was the way of the world back then.
And if you read the news, you will find it still is.
Only these days, it is far more destructive and bloody.

And I object to a second 'flag' I often see being shown in news items.
And I object to statements about 'custodians' of our country.
Governments are the ones who are in control of all we do.
The people collectively, through their government, are the custodians of the land.
And we don't need to be told that every day.