craigB says to DB "..Indigenous begins with an upper case 'I'. Many Aboriginal people do not recognise white sovereignty and prefer any reference to Aboriginal Australia to have a capital signifier."

I agree some follow this convention. Many don't, as it's not a signifier of much more than Aboriginal. It is more of a weasel word to insert into bureaucratese to establish a polite group think where there was no group before. I think it is erroneous, to pretend it is a good idea. I feel it insults and obscures Aboriginal backgrounds far too much.

There was no nation state before the English colonised. There were long trade/communication routes, but with perhaps 1m people of different appearance and different customs speaking just a few of 260-odd languages, there was certainly no national consciousness so much as local, internecine and cooperative engagement over resources and territory, lifetime attachment to a very specific part of a much bigger landscape and a widespread fear of the sea.

Tasmania has been cut off for 12,000 years and the inhabitants weren’t sea-faring so communication with the mainland through a huge language and geographic barrier was no doubt practically non-existent.

To lump Torres Strait Islanders who are aboriginal, but not Aboriginal, as Indigenous obscures particular backgrounds again from a respectful, less ‘single-package’ view.

Finally, by claiming some people don’t observe "white sovereignty” are you suggesting that Aboriginal friends you cite are racist? Warren Mundine will be President of the ALP shortly (if not already) and he might not agree that Aboriginal people are natural bigots or as one-eyed as you make out. Most Aboriginal people today are Anglo-Irish-Aboriginal in their heritage, so should they just simply beat themselves up in an act of historical retaliation?

Blame and Shame is a game we can all keep playing like a broken record but it teaches us little about anything good. Do we want real progress after brave activism and truthful criticism of our history? Surely, it is in the real lives of real individuals we’ll find it, not in rhetoric invented to obscure truth and complexity once again.

Ro stated, “It is more of a weasel word to insert into bureaucratese to establish a polite group think where there was no group before”.

Well in fact there was a/is group thinking before that utilised a lower case 'a' as in 'aborigine', part of the fauna and flora.

One only needs to look at the no-name effigy of an 'aborigine' on the 2 dollar coin to realise that constructions of Aboriginality were created for mostly white use and a signification of proprietary over a 'people'.

As for sovereignty and nationhood, may i suggest you familiarise yourself with some of the scholarship and theory surrounding international laws and treaty making with Indigenous peoples.

I don't have the room to give you a quick tutorial here. What I can say is that the illegal acquisitions of this country (in reference to international precedents in law that go back 500 years and more) have never been truly considered in law here or internationally.

This does not mean native dominion was not recognised, albeit outlawed by decree. For example a proclamation made by Sir Richard Bourke Governor General and Governor in Chief of the Territory of New South Wales, written on the 26th August 1835 stating that no-one (in NSW) is able to take possession of vacant lands of the crown under the pretence of a treaty with the 'Aboriginal Natives'.

Ro, I'm assuming of course that you are interested in becoming more knowledgeable about these matters. But if this is just a case of you wanting to vent your spleen over 'aborigines' and anyone else (i.e., Craig) that recognises these errors in the ‘conventions’ of thinking about Indigenous people and history- don't let me hold you back, you've got plenty of back up and company here in OLO. Don't hold back, let it rip mate, I've heard it all before.

Ro, I am still trying to decipher how a small, seemingly innocent comment can instigate a tirade of barely comprehensible vitriol. I did not present anything that could be even vaguely interpreted as blame or shame.

“ Finally, by claiming some people don’t observe "white sovereignty” are you suggesting that Aboriginal friends you cite are racist?” You are drawing a long bow, indeed, to play the race card but it is a typical and transparent ploy. Terra Nullius, as a doctrine, was overturned by the High Court and the ramifications of that are still to be played out. Do you blame any Indigenous peoples for being critical of a sovereignty that its own laws find suspect? Common sense tells us that the sovereignty over this country is not going to change but that does not mean that there are not basic flaws in its foundation. As far as I am aware there are no laws forbidding Indigenous peoples believing that the land was, and is, theirs. If you find an inherent racism in that concept then you do not have a point, you have a problem.

As far as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are concerned, I always use that distinction whenever appropriate.

The comment that I put forward to BD was one politely offered to me by an Aboriginal person quite a while ago. It was offered without vitriol or an editorial on their history. Forgive me if I take her word above yours.

My post was not about rhetoric, it was about courtesy. You turned it into a post about racism, barely concealed anger and, in your own words, the “blame and shame” show. That you are passionate about the issue is obvious and laudable but you do not do Indigenous / non-Indigenous relations any favours by countering courtesy with anger

tubley, appreciate your thoughtful postings - both here and on other threads.

I'm not nearly as certain as you seem to be though about the following statement - "Africa was always destined to destroy itself but white people certainly helped!" I agree entirely with the second part of the statement but must query the first part.

From my previous understanding, and reinforced recently by Bashir's article and watching "Guns, Germs and Steel" on SBS, I would argue that Africa, before colonialization, was a stable and self-sustaining civilization. It had already been in existence for countless generations and, if not for the introduction by whites of totally inappropriate farming methods and indiscriminate land clearing, would in all probability have continued to evolve and adapt slowly to survive indefinitely. Like all indigenous populations, the Africans knew how to live simply and harmoniously within their natural environment. Their lifestyle of course was frugal and harsh, but they knew how to survive. They knew how to keep diseases like malaria in check.

I realize there's no turning back the clock. And so of course does Bashir. I do think we need to acknowledge though that the West is not the fount of all wisdom and that others have learnt the key to survival far more successfully than we ever will. Recognizing the strengths of hunter-gatherer civilizations is no more a romantic notion than the dreamworld fantasy promoted by some on this thread that global capitalism is the solution for places like Africa.

Not meaning to have a go at you, tubley. Most of this is really directed more towards some of my earlier critics. But I certainly don't agree with your statement that Africa was always going to self-destruct.

"Yes you are right, white people have a lot to answer for."

Umm, before you rush off on too many guilt trips Tubley, perhaps you should read history.

If we look at Africa, all was not nice and sweet and romantic. The Bantu, who now dominate, did that by virtually wiping out the Pygmies and the San. Still today Pygmies are held in virtual slave like conditions, as discussions proceed whether they are really human. The Bantu in fact, have no better history then the Europeans, its just that the boot is now on the other foot

Hey craigB there was no vitriol nor anger intended but tone is difficult to convey. Apologies for making the criticism incomprehensible though :) We are debating and I called the use of the word 'indigenous' with a capital, rhetoric and i think it is. You were referring to courtesy, I was illustrating another side of that coin.

The racism comment refers to your original statement "white sovereignty" rather than say, early "English" sovereignty. There's little colour about the concept of national sovereignty except a designation makes it so. Divisive terms like this, I think, interfere with the point of sovereignty and unnecessarily force some people to live in constant conflict with our past. "Male sovereignty" would be similar in a way.

By all means take another's words before mine - you don't know me - but our respective historical grasp has little to do with our skins. I don't like calling people or regimes black/white in the context of this specific debate because it seems angry, plays the man not the ball, and is a intellectual cul-de-sac when it is probably an historical cultural clash you are really referring to.

For my own part, I'm keen to see that what are left of our primarily pama-nyungan languages here do not disappear entirely. They were/are, as a world group, unique linguistically and yet very different from each other. They and the non-pama-nyungan type up north reveal an interesting (not necessarily better, no) way to categorise the observed world and, I think, they sound good too.

As far as things having to be played out in the future, that is the nature of history, that's not ominous or anything it's called social progress. Nullius was a relic of common law and it and other things are taking a while to get over but is that a reason for not getting over them?

Anyway, I may not convince you that 'white sovereignty' is an angry term and capital I 'indigenous' is in the end silly sophistry rather than courteous but all this is off-topic, probably better reserved for another space or place. cheers.