Boaz,

Not that I have a hope in hell of shifting you from your “Christianising and Civilising” missionary perspective I would like to point out that while your comparison with Borneo people has some relevance, it's contextually inaccurate and stereotypical. Which Indigenous people are you speaking of and where?

You are clearly out of your depth in this field of knowledge but I doubt if you would concede this because it would require you to admit that the questions you ask are also devoid of any substantial understanding of the people and the issues.

You state “Do they realize that in so doing they are defacto recognizing the very power structure which they claim to resent?”

Have you ever read any of the vast amount of literature written by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who have succinctly put up their reasons on why legal and constitutional reform is required? The unresolved status of Indigenous people in law and Australian civil society requires major reform. What we do resent is the terra nullius in these legal and constitutional arrangements. You seem to swap and change your questions to suite your own lack of knowledge in this regard.

Nonetheless, I want to thank you for posting as your comments are wonderful examples (for all to see) of the ramblings that most missionaries, mercenaries and misfits (the 3 M’s) who infest and unnecessarily complicate the world of Indigenous people in this country. Just part of the problem, not the solution

from:

http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/indigenous.htm

"Specifically, in the fifteenth century, two Papal Bulls set the stage for European domination of the New World and Africa. Romanus Pontifex, issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal in 1452, declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories."

"Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to the King and Queen of Spain following the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the island he called Hispaniola, officially established Christian dominion over the New World. It called for the subjugation of the native inhabitants and their territories, and divided all newly discovered or yet-to-be discovered lands into two - giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe and Portugal over the other."

"The subsequent Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) re-divided the globe with the result that most Brazilians today speak Portuguese rather than Spanish, as in the rest of Latin America. The Papal Bulls have never been revoked, although indigenous representatives have asked the Vatican to consider doing so."

"These "doctrines of discovery" provided the basis for both the "law of nations" and subsequent international law. Thus, they allowed Christian nations to claim "unoccupied lands" (terra nullius), or lands belonging to "heathens" or "pagans". In many parts of the world, these concepts later gave rise to the situation of many Native peoples in the today - dependent nations or wards of the State, whose ownership of their land could be revoked - or "extinguished" -- at any time by the Government."

So, it is "international" law of the day.

Sapper, so what enables the many treaties (US,Canada,NZ) to have contemporary relevance in the legal advocacy of Indgienous peoples?

While I understand you are referencing property law as it evolved in specific nations and states (as a legal inevitability) it does not explain the evolution of differences jurisdictions and land tenure/governance within any given nation state.

Norfolk Island is a case in point

The wisest words so far have come from Redneck, who was right to say that Lorenzo's English was bastardised to the point of saying nothing. I like bastardised over diseased as when the father of English, Anglo-Saxon, is forgot, then nothing is clear. As Churchill - wiser than most on nearly every matter - put it, when having to choose between the Anglo-Saxon and the Romantic, take the Anglo-Saxon. Congratulations, Redneck, on being the first to point this out. The plain English which should be taught in schools is replaced by this turgid, lifeless, bollocks; any student of Classics who studies English in Form 6 would know this well.

To more pressing matters...

"The Indigenous in this country have a spirituality that has been in existance far longer than that of the Christians. Why is Christian Spirituality superior to Indigenous Spirituality?"

The Catholic church officially recognises that there is a whisper of Truth in Aboriginal spirituality, well, more that a whisper. "Rainbow Serpent Theology" is an example of this, which explains how Aboriginal spirituality could be thought of as the half-way point on a journey to a Christian understanding of the world. Aboriginal spirituality taps into one potent part of Christianity - Tradition - and thus to all the obligations that we have for one another (Loving One's Neighbour), especially in families, clans, and as a race. What it lacks, however, is a challenge to ethical standards. Aboriginal society, without the influence of a Christian idea of redeption and progression, would abide by its tradition of raping fourteen year-old girls, as a recent case in the Northern Territory shows. Tradition, or the well documented policy of Aborigines in the now-Sydney basin to remove the little fingers of all women, only when enfused by the living challenge to the Spirit of Christ, can reach a truer spirituality and goodness, otherwise it lives only by obstinant reference to the past. Thus, I feel that Aboriginal spirituality, unable to be renewed and to improve itself without a Christian sense of an objective moral standard to which one must aspire eternally, is lesser than a Christian one, though it is a potent part of a Christian one in its sense of interconnected responsabilities and ties, and the respect that these should foster. As a conservative, rural-loving monarchist who prefers his hymns on the organ rather than guitar, and his architecture Neo-Gothic rather than Modern, I know where they're coming from.

DFXK

Aboriginal Spirituality merely a half way point... I know a few Muslims who think Christianity a point in the development of the ideal religion.

How is it that 'Aboriginal spirituality taps into one potent part of Christianity -...' when Aboriginal Spirituality and christianity developed in utter isolation? An isolation of 40 odd thousand years.

Wouldn't your logic, given the time frame, dictate the opposite. Christianity taps into one potent part of Aboriginal Spirituality?

'What it lacks, however, is a challenge to ethical standards.'

That I cannot contest simply because I am no expert in Aboriginal culture and do not understand Aboriginal Spirituality in it's totality. I will however contest an inference contained in your expressed view. Development of moral standards is not and was not the exclusive preserve of the christian religions in the West.

As a liberal, mostly supportive of the constitutional status quo, who prefers the Greek Classics to the traditional Hebrew literature I too understand where from they are coming.

I prefer the Harp to both the Guitar and Organ, but that's more to do with an Irish heritage than any quest to be angelic.

:-)

Regards