With all due respects to Mr. Hagen - and I have no doubt that I will be severely corrected and chastized for any error, I was always under the impression that Aboriginal land was never "owned" per se, but merely held in trust for the next generation?

Of course it was only when the English decided to make my country a somewhat large prison for their unwanted rejects that land in the country (now called Australia) became something to be bought and sold - and now even the rain that falls almost belongs to some multinational corporation.

I am no scholar. but in my very poor reading and understand of Australia, Australian Aboriginal peoples also "invaded" this country during the dream times and that there were people here already, who were fought, killed and overcome.

Even from current history, one only has to browse through the massive errors where religious "do gooders" and state placed warring tribes together and expected them to be peaceful, then punish offenders - and wonder why they rebel?

I ramble, but having said that, how can one really define what is now claimed as "My Land?"

Kekenidika... that post of yours was rich beyond measure..
you said you were 'rambling'...but you came forth with pearls of wisdom which might otherwise have taken a long time to unravel.

Well done ! :)

I think your point about those who were previously dispossessed (from the dream time stories) is the ABSOLUTE point which we all (Indigenous and White) need to grapple with, as they say the 'nettle' which can sting, but a good grip will reduce the pain....

I've long said to whoever will listen, especially Indigenous Aussies, as follows:

IF NOT BRITS, THEN OTHERS.
If it was not the Brits, it would have been the Portugese, or the French or the Germans or (God forbid) the Japanese slicing and dicing any inigenous person who stood in their way (as they did to my wifes people in Borneo !) Does anyone seriously think we would be talking about 'native title' here today if it was the Japanese ?

Pretty much every British background white Australian here is genetically made up of a mixture of the following:

Celt
Angle
Saxon
Vicking
French
Scottish
Irish

Each of these groups represents dispossession, invasion, and wars.

INEVITABLE.
So, the fact of Indigenous disspossesion by more powerful people is not something new, nor was it in any way avoidable as the flow of history progressed.

ASSIMILATION is the reality which occurred to all the above races, so today, you cannot tell the racial background of a white Englishman.
Its harder with extreme color difference.

2 CHOICES are available. Seek to assimilate, or differentiate racially, there is no room for 'racial' pride in Australia in my opinion, only 'human' pride.
If the choice is 'differentiate' then the obvious consequence must be faced. Possible racial tension "Them/Us" as populations increase.

That said, I still think there are ways of accomodating the Indigenous concept of 'land stewarship' with the European idea of 'ownership'.
While Stephen may say 'everyone knew who's land was who's' I've had enough to do with Indigneous tribes myself to know it ain't that simple :)

Boaz David,

There is no scientific evidence to support your declaration that

• Celt
• Angle
• Saxon
• Vicking
• French
• Scottish
• Irish

are genetically discreet human types or species. But you contend (in other posts) that you are an anthropologist? or was it a tour guide operator for exotic locations and people ? I forget. Anyways See: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

BTW: I may or may not respond to your other post. I’m quite willing to share knowledge and engage in informed discussion - but I don’t have the time to give online tutorials on the basics. C'mon, do some background research and then we can get down and discuss.

Hi Steve, Connection reports were introduced some years back and it became clear to me and others that these were tailor made for anthropologists willing to cut corners and comply with the administrative imperatives and interpretations of the NNTT.

Uncle Jim's word is good enough for me and my mob. No need for anthropological meddlings. This cartoon by Larson sez it all: http://www.uwm.edu/People/wash/larson.jpg

Stephen, very informative.

This is the 'history' ALL Australians need to be taught. These are the stories that need to be spoken.

Though why these conferences have to be held in that type of setting still amazes me.
I am thinking of all that water used to keep the grass green for a small group of people to wander around chasing a little white ball.

Rainier

We're lucky you aren't a religious fanatic! Wouldn't OLO burn!

Anthropologists, I mean't. Oops

This land,this Australia is and always was the land of the Aboriginal nation,those that dispute the fact are out of touch with reality,they can come up with many more political Crap to prove otherwise,and the answer will still be,the same the true and rightful owners are the Aboriginal owners,the Andrew Bolt believers,that this is not so,are just plain ignorant,and RACIST,and other RIGHTWING journalists,can come up with more crap,but they must be ignored,and must also be found guilty of false,untrue and unethical journalism,as they have no historical or any other reason to try and bolster their journalistic CRAP.This writer in an immigrant,like all the rest who came here in the last two hundred years,since colonisation by the british of Australia.

Dear Ranier

Crazy.. too much medication. The research shows that there are identifiable differences between Celts and [Anglo/Saxon/French/Viking] groups which all bear a strong similarity.

err.. so ? why even raise it ? Are you saying there is no difference between Aboriginal and Caucasian racially ? If yes.. good.. lets all intermarry and resolve the Indigenous 'problem' once and for all by becoming one people !

My point was clearly that there is no where and no one in this world who has not been either a victim or a perpetrator of dispossession or BOTH.

Scratching around for legal mumbo jumbo to try to resolve 'legally' issues of native title seem does not have much in the way of legs to me. The best approach is KICK us in the balls ! :) then we will listen, or..kick back a little harder than we were kicked. Nah.. there is no future in that. Even the suffragettes tried to use the 'talk and be patient' attitude, but it was only when they began bombing Parliament and attacking politicians that things 'speeded up' a bit.

I do support the idea of native control of as much land as can be realistically allocated that way, and sacred sites respected if they happen to be on 'owned' land.. and I'd even go so far as to suggest 'free access' to 'owned' land for Aboriginal people. Voila..problem solved :)

I'm not sure what Aboriginal people want..

-a subsistence hunter gatherer life ? (the old days)
-a better deal in the new nation ? ( they seem locked into perenial grieving about the old though)
-throw a truck load of money at them ? (wont do any good, unless dignity is restored first.)

If you cannot come up with a serious answer, I'll just accept that all you want to do is benefit as much as possible yourself, for yourself, from politicizing a serious issue for your benefit.

So..I'll put it in 'SHOUT' mode :)

WHAT...DO....YOU....WANT.. ?

Please have the balls to actually answer the question. A list form will do thanx. Tell us your 'demands'.

Boaz,

Your repeated requests are interesting in that you appear to be frustrated with me not providing you with silver bullet panaceas to problems that are inherently born out of the history of white racism and its contemporary [nebulous] manifestations.

“If you cannot come up with a serious answer, I'll just accept that all you want to do is benefit as much as possible yourself, for yourself, from politicizing a serious issue for your benefit.”

While I can understand this reductivist convention of discussion is how you would prefer discussion to proceed - it’s totally unproductive. I have better things to do than to be cross-examined for your sporting benefit.

Demands have been made by Indigenous leaders and communities for a long time. One of these demands has been for a treaty. But we should have consulted you about this it seems.

In your mind it seems our own lawyers and other professional and community people and leaders as well supporting non-Indigenous professional and ordinary citizens over the last 50 years of political activism and struggle were not abreast of what need to be demanded or acted upon. You display all the naïve traits of someone who has never actually supported Indigenous people or struggles beyond your claims to empathy which are in reality your own self congratulatory wankings.

Read the recommendations (239 of them) from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in Custody. Read the recommendations from the Stolen Generations report. Read the recommendations from hundreds of government funded investigations into (their failings) in Aboriginal affairs and you will find demands that I and others have repeatedly made.

Like others in this forum I find your hair splitting approach to discussion excruciatingly monotonous - so much so - that it’s pointless dialoguing with you about anything at all.

Go away pious old man -you jumped on the wrong bus a long time ago. But now you want me to tell you how this happened but I can’t. It was of your own doing.

Boaz-David

I think it admirable you provide the answer to your own question.
What do Indigenous people seek? The comment about...what was it now?... something about restoring dignity?

Like to expand and add other similar ideas to that admirable suggestion.

How exactly do you think Indigenous people would react to your effort in that regard?
Do you think Non-indigenous people could supply any inkling of an appropriate answer without initiating discussion and listening very carefully to what it is Indigenous people seek?

Assisting any effective effort by anyone that aids achieving those ends would show ... what... real balls?

Ranier
thanx for that 'age-ist' response.."go away old man".... I can think of quite a few phrases with with I could respond to that, but in the spirit of constructive dialogue, I'll resist.

Ive done some reading.
well, I warn you.. I can smell political intrigue from Cairns to Perth and if I get a wiff of it, I'll jump on it with my hobnail boots full force.

http://www.eniar.org/news/pdfs/restoringidentity.pdf

2 immediate observations.

1/ The POLICY of the government at the time, was to seek to assimilate HALF CASTES. i.e. those who have dual cultural identity.
They were as much WHITE as they were BLACK.

2/ From the document above, the recommendation is as follows:

Tribunal principles
5. State, territory and federal governments, in co-operation with the churches, establish a
tribunal to make full and just reparations for forcible removal policies based on the following
principles:
a) acknowledgement of the racist nature of forcible removal policies and the harm caused
b) self-determination of Indigenous peoples, including the stolen generations
c)access to redress for Indigenous peoples affected by forcible removal policies

Now.. I told you I can smell 'politics' a mile off and HERE it is....

Do you notice how 'Indigenous' is here referring to the HALF CASTES.... suddenly the 'white' side of their identity conveniently dissapears, and that my friend, is 'racism'.

I can envisage that many chidren were fathered by Whites, who then took no further interest in the offspring, and to that extent, I agree with the findings, except that point "a)" is absolutely pure undadulterated POLITICS. The stench is wreaking all over the forum here.

If we accept all those findings.. welllll lets see.. I should go back to England, and rip into the absentee landlords who drove my ancestors out of the Scottish highlands to feed more SHEEP ! and so on..and so on..and so on......

Oh.. don't forget our convicts.. who were FORCIBLY removed from England.

get my drift ?

Mr Hagan - As an indigenous Australian, I am deeply, may I repeat that, 'deeply offended' by your comment and acceptance that anyone who does not fit your criteria for 'indigenous' Australian ie of aboriginal lineage, is of 'non indigenous' background.

Yes, indigenous does mean 'originating in and naturally living, growing, or occuring in a region or country.' and Yes there is a newer addition to the meaning - indigenous people which means these are 'people who occupy a region at the time of its contact with colonial powers or the outside world' but I will not allow this or any PC meaning to dis-enfranchise or dispossess me.
I appreciate the common interpretation is accepted in tandem with the word 'people' ie 'indigenous people' but then my opinion is this is all double speak by the PC movement.

I will always be an indigenous australian and no one can take this away from me, even the PC. If I am not indigenous to Australia - where am I indigenous to?

Mr Hagan - If I am an INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIAN- to which country am I indigenous?

Mr Boaz,

I think where you make your big mistake is that you state there is a difference in humans called "Race". I know we use the term racist but that is an historical word based on disproven science.

What Ranier was correctly showing you is that we humans are all of one race (the human race). Why call it the human race if it weren't true?

That a person has a better tan than yours is of no importance at all, you belong to the same race as he does.

If you are saying that all have been invaded then you are right... and it is difficult to undo past wrongs... If you choose to use the "Dreamtime" as your basis for argument then that too is fine except the people who alledgedly did live in Australia prior to the aborigine were completely wiped out by the aborigine.

Therefore using our own understanding of land title law the aborigines owned the land. If the aboriginal used the term similar to 'land stewardship' or 'custodian of the land' that matters not.

I respect that you would agree with giving them vast tracts of land and that you would also agree to letting them have access to sacred sites even on private land so that too is very reasonable. I also believe we should respect and protect their sacred sites.

To undo the invasion history of England and Europe would be far too complex a task ... but when that aborigine (sorry forgot name) (Burnham Burnham perhaps?) claimed England in the name of Aborigines in the same way the Brits did here... the law we whiteys rely on suddenly didn't apply. Why? If Hitler had invaded England they would have been owned by the Germans...

So technically speaking "England was last invaded by an aborigine". There is nothing in the definitions that say an invasion has to be violent.

I'm a simple sort of bloke and I can spot a truth or two.

If this discussion and the paralled one on Lorenzo Veracini's thread had taken place 10 years ago, we'd be inundated by 'P. Hanson' types and their attitudes.

It should be great encouragement to all of us contributors that's not happening now and sensible discussion is taking place..

Has there been a substantial change in attitude across Australia?

It is interesting to speculate whether Stephen Hagan's article is yet another attempt by a professional aboriginal agitator (who's sole means of support is the Aussie taxpayer) to keep alive the profitable aboriginal grievance industry.

Black Africa had plenty of Mugabe's, Bokassa'a, Nyeriri's and Amin's who knew how to use black racism to further their own ends. Bashing the beastly whites has been used successfully before to keep the cash cow of black racism directed towards enriching black leaders, so why should aboriginal leaders differ in their approach?

After attending a conference on the evils of "Racism" at an "opulent" resort, Hagan has concluded that Australia belongs to a genetically distinct race. Apparently, Hagan includes himself in that genetically distinct race, although he appears to be a "yeller feller" from his photograph. It appears that aboriginal women are racists too. They obviously prefer white men as sexual partners and husbands rather than black men.

Still, one suspects that the indigenous people to whom his rant is directed will overlook Hagan's apparent racial impurity, as long as he keeps churning out the fiction that aboriginal people lived a hobbit like existence in Paradise before the white trash arrived and buggered up everything.

The conflicting land claims by sundry indigenous tribes, clans and families proves to me that who owned what land in pre colonial times was simply a measure of who's spearmen were standing on whichever hill at any point of time. Australia never belonged to "the aboriginees" because the concept of aboriginals as a singular identity was bestowed upon them by those dastardly whites. Prior to white settlement, "Australia' was not a nation nor even the idea of a nation, and competing aboriginal tribes regarded each with as much hostility as Australians and Lebs regard each other today.

Agree with your post David_BOAZ.

As I asserted on another thread recently, Assimilation is the only moral option. Separation leads to the worst of outcomes, history has proved such, from Aryan races to apartheid and divisions in every land on the globe.

Rainier – “are genetically discreet human types or species. “ I thought you smart, able to understand what DB was saying, because he did not claim that at all.

I guess you can either agree with DB or promote your alternative suggestion, that Kooris are a different “species” to us “white” folks.

The last time I heard that is was from a transcript of a speech by the grand Cyclops of Alabama and his view only held credence if he was simultaneously spitting out the residue of chewing tobacco along with his racist venom.

Australia is a conquered land. That’s some pampered off-spring have, in the last couple of decades taken up anthropology as a hobby and have then gone around in sack cloth and ashes apologising (when none was needed) for the supposed wrongs of the colonists on whose sweat said anthropologists were “educated” means nothing.

The rules of land ownership in Australia should be common to all men and women. No special groups. No “classes” based on genetic inheritance. If that were the rule we would be arguing about the Divine Right of Kings and the right of the lord of the manor to be first to bonk your wife on her wedding night.

It disgusts me the duplicity of the whole native title issue and what it implies. That is a class system based on ethnic origin where kooris are classed different to other people.
Only when everyone respects everyone else for their individuality will we evict discrimination from Australia. The respect needs to be applied to come from kooris (and for that matter, in a parallel debate Muslims) as much as it does to them.

Hi Keith.. Cynthia and Opinionated...

Gadaffi is 'Muamar Gadaffi' President of Libya, to whom Micheal Mansell (half cast Aboriginal activist from Tasmania) snuggled up to at one stage, for reasons I'm not 100% clear on, but it seemed that Gadaffi was very interested in those days with supporting any 'anti' Western movement in other countries. This is b4 the yanks bombed the blith out of him :) Now he is a 'changed man'...and has turned from those 'evil' ways :)

I don't advocate huge chunks of land being restored to indigenous title, but I would say 'substantial'. At least sufficient to allow something resembling a traditional life.

The Yorta Yorta are a tribe originating around the Murray River, northern Vic area. Do a search pls. Or check out the link I gave.

RACE .. is not a synonym for 'species'. It designates the difference in culture, language and certain minor physical characteristics such as skin color and head shape, size. (oriental/caucasion/negroid/semitic) but we are all Adam's children.

SPIRITUALITY.
I recognize that Aboriginal spirituality is a valid and viable cultural foundation. I proclaim Christ as Messiah, Lord, Saviour and Judge. I pass on that which was delivered to my own life, beginning with the Lord Jesus Himself :

Luke 24
[45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things.]

All men and women are called to God, through Christ. Aboriginal or otherwise. This does not mean aboriginal people cannot live a traditional lifestyle, but it would mean they do it with a new and etertnal foundation, as do my wifes tribe.

hmmm, interesting...

This matter of connection reports are an important part of the process for quantifying and qualifying a Native Title claim through the Federal Court. These evidentiary procedures provide certainty to both the courts and the claim group alike.

The business of Native Title has given rise to 'claim-jumpers' who are people that claim descendancy from a particular clan of people with no or little evidence to support their claim. That evidence is either in the form of oral history as told by more than one family, as well as the documented type.

I am puzzled as to whether this is an article in favour of credible evidentiary processes in advancing Native Title claims, or an attempt to intimidate other members of that clan group in order to reduce the likelihood of a challenge by way of press release.

This is an issue about certainty - certainty of who is and who is not what they claim to be. For in the Native Title business making certain claims and assertions can give rise to all manner of benefits and entitlements, especially if in a position with decision making powers to benefit ones self, ones family and of course those who'll vote according to the 'plan'. Issues such as pecuniary interest, undue influence, lack of process and adherence to authorised standards, all occurr within the business of Native Title where some benefit more than others simply because they know how to wheel, deal and decieve better than others.

There is need for greater certainty in order for claim groups to better manage their Native Title business. That certainty relates not only to descendancy but also to process and administration.

Native Title puts us in the realm of commercial dealings, but Native Title clam groups are NOT individuals at arms lenght making bargains like your Rupert Murdochs and Kerry Packers. They are collectives of family groups and if process and certainty are not in the equation then there will be no fairness or equity in dealings, its happened before and if not pulled up by process and procedure it will continue.

natives wandering over the land is no different to kangaroos hopping about.

neither group 'own' the land, they merely live off it.

Thank you Redneck for your contribution. Spot on. I think we could solve a lot of problems if we gave aborigines land title to a big chunk of land in the natural state which they so obviously prefer. (I say prefer because time and time again they complain about the blight of civilisation upon the landscape.) Give them a pile of money to start up and then leave them to it. Let them be a nation within their own right. Have their own economy. Pay their own social welfare payments, police themselves etc etc. I'm sure we'd be willing to trade with them - if they ever got that far to have something to offer. We could arrange it that whites need to apply for a visa to enter and vice versa. I'm sick to death of the whingeing of what we have done to them. I'm sick to death of the reverse racism. And I'm sick to death that no one can speak what is so blatantly the truth without being labeled racist. If I complain about certain behaviours exhibited by a black person than I am labelled racist - I detest the same behaviour in whites, so what is racist about that? I've run out of space - so more in the next posting.

I don't care if they were here first or second. They're not the first peoples displaced and they won't be the last. It's only that it has occured in 'recent' times. Just get over it and get on with it. Instead of waiting for someone else to fix the problem get on and take control of your own life. And stop bleating about how proud you are to be an aborigine. What's there to be proud of? Do I keep saying I'm proud to be white? I'll try that in the workplace tomorrow and just see how far it gets me with my politically correct government employer and my colleagues both black and white. Oh, and I just might roll up to Centrelink to see what payment is offered for something that might or might not have happened to an ancestor two hundred years ago. And then I might lobby the government to stop aborigines from using incitful language like 'invasion' etc. We're mostly just people who work hard for our living, also have problems to overcome, and few opportunities than aborigines. And by the way I say aborigine because that is the noun. Aborignal is an adjective. And 'indigenous' - well there's almost no such thing. Every people in every land have migrated there at some time in history. There can be only one spot on the earth (the origin of modern man) where people might just be able to claim they could be indigenous - if they can but prove their ancestors didn't migrate there sometime. Probably there isn't a person on the whole of the earth who can claim to be truly indigenous.

Agree with Lorraine, I wonder if in this age of litigation, the descendants of the Irish convicts could sue Her maj's Government for removing their anscestors from their home turf?
Wouldn't mind a few million. Tho' come to think of it, I would rather be an Aussie than a Mick so hold that litigation.
Perhaps I should repay THEM for the expenses incurred in shipping my GGdaddy out here.

BOAZ_David,

With interest, I read your post of Feb 13, 2006, which states “Micheal Mansell (half cast Aboriginal activist from Tasmania). How do you arrive at such an understanding that Michael Mansell is a half cast Aboriginal activist from Tasmanian? If your statement is correct, Mansell then has a clear native Title Mandate.

Both BOAZ_David and Toto have raised some interesting points here.

Someone correct me if I am not correct in what I say here, as I am either clarifying a few misconceptions - or muddying the waters a bit more....

Michael Mansell is, to my knowledge, what may be described as a 1/8 Aborigine/White - but as to his true Ancestral descent, I am not 100% certain, but that is but a moot point.

I do remember some time in the past, when one of our erstwhile Prime Ministers visited the nether region of Australia - Tasmania.

I also seem to remember him shouting abuse at the Prime Minister, but Australians of European extraction - "You white bastards, you have killed my ancestors....." Please excuse me if my recollection is not exactly literally word perfect, but that is the essence of what he said.

Now I myself, not being the most politically correct person, would have replied (with the usual well known Australian expletives) ......"Well how about that Michael, my good 1/8 Blue eyed, blond haired Aboriginal, so the white people killed off your ancestors did they....? By your reasoning, ..... then seven out of eight of your ancestors has killed off the other one?"

Can anyone remember the incident? My own memory is somewhat hazy of the actual incident, so I would appreciate someone either confirming my recollections - or debase them.

mickijo: Good Idea there to sic onto the litigation trail against good old Britain and grab a couple of million out of their overflowing coffers. The mere fact that you hit them up for compensation does not mean that you would have to relocate back to the land of zillions of four-leafed clovers, you could stay here and live off the fat of the land.

Keep in mind of course, that there is a rumoured movement to compensate the latest remaining survivors of slaves brought into America - or to compensate the countries they were kidnapped from.... (can you imagine where all that money would go to now...?)

Kekendika, I saw a programme where the descendants of slaves are trying to sue for their ancestors removal from their native land. Not sure who should sue whom, I also watched another programme where the descendants of slaves went back to Africa tracing their forbears and were horrified to find that Africans sold Africans for profit.
Poor old England , if all the convicts she transported, all the dominions she conquered were to sue, the lawyers would wax exceedingly fat.
But maybe she could prove that in the long run, most of the conquered countries and certainly most of the convicts turned out to be far better off through her early management than had she kept her mitts to herself .

Mickijo - Thanks for the info about who was suing whom... but knowing the American penchant for having the lawyers scrounging around for a way of life, they would probably end up suing themselves......

I was fairly familiar about who sold whom in the slave trade of course and what better way to get rid of some people, but to knock over a rival village or two of your fellow countrymen and sell them off to anyone who had the right price - and come to think of it before the British came along the main sales went to the Muslims - but hey, according to Islamic lore, the Kaffirs were not real people anyway (come to think of it anyone who is not a muslim is fair game to be enslaved and sold into slavery.

But then again one only has to look at how well Liberia (you can check the origins of Liberia through any Google or wikipedia search) and see just how well blacks treat other blacks, or Rwanda, or the Congo ... or even Uganda with good old “His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular.” (another good catholic turned muslim, given sanctuary in Saudi Arabia after killing of a few of his minions - but then again they were not real people anyway…… were they?

Having lived for some 30 odd years overseas, I have seen the attitude of many different peoples and to actually restrict the term racist to only how white people denigrate people of other colours is just plain ignorance – but then again what would I know - I am only a politically incorrect old bag of wind who is quite comfortable in how he thinks of himself and treats others as I would like to be treated myself, but then again maybe that is not politically correct either

Cultural differences are not traditional costumes or food, nor is it genetics. It is what software has been installed into the mind thorough education and experience.

. Anthropology, like all western science is a collection of perceptions of a detatched observer. Even "embedded" researchers report from their own cultural staus-quo.

"Wesern Culture", like it's science, is detatched from subject. Statistics tell more of the information gathering method than of the information itself. Sub atomic and astro-physics relys on "observations" which are really just the reactions of measuring machines, which give clarity to the nature of measurement, but not that which is measured.
This is the nature of "Western" culture, There is a psychological detatchment from subject which inhibits wholistic experience. The most profound example of this is the role of literacy in "Western" culture. Almost all of our education systems are based on reading, which is always the same one dimensional experience for whatever we are learning about - that is our eyes react to text which triggers associations and preconceptions in our minds as to the meaning of the text. More importantly text is by its nature a representation of reality, not reality itself. for example, whitefellas can read books about black fellas, even discuss all sorts of curly questions on forums like this. But until we shake a blackfella's hand, we know nothing. Wholistic education strategies, especially in oral cultures, has the direct holistic experience of reality as it's pedagogy.

Similarly with violence. The "Western" mind leaves that to the responsible authorities such as police, prisons and soldiers rather than taking personal responsibility for doing unpleasant things that are necessary for social harmony and survival, thus institionalising detatchment from reality and the power to intervene in it.

An interesting anthropological analysis
http://byggesbottomley.blogspot.com/

Dear Craig
thanx for that heartfelt post.
I’m unsure what you were getting at though.

Clearly you are concerned that I’m not ‘seeing’ something. Let me assure you, that I do see, and in regard to the case of mixed children, my own are mixed. They are part indigenous/part white.
They also tend to identify more today with ‘Asian’s rather than white aussies. Though my sons were extremely popular at school and did not experience any racism. (my daughter did experience it and is still scarred today)

If you’re worried that I don’t recognize the terrible damage done to some mixed children due to the policy of removal and assimilation, this is not quite the case. I cannot speak with any universal condemnation of the policy, because I’m sure it needs to be evaluated on the basis of the actual experience of each individual child. I think you would recognize that (to use your wonderful illustration of the mirrorball) there were many varying experiences of children.

I suspect that some stories of rejection and social ostracization surfaced such that the authorities felt it best to remove them, but erred in that they made it universal policy.

Please don’t blame ‘The Church’ for this, though I also guess that some of the larger institutionalized Churches with large bureaucracies must have had a hand in it.

So, let me ask you also...”What, do you want to happen” ? <- IMPORTANT.

Can you try to articulate this in a few sentences?

I believe for every story there is a headline, and then there is the more detailed content.
Lets have a go at codifying it, saying some specifics.

Is it ‘say sorry’ ? If yes, will they then say “We forgive you, now lets move on” ?

Claiming I feel ‘blackness’ will rub off is a bit rough, my children have slanty eyes and brownish skins.

Ranier.... at least Craig is grappling with the issue.....
I have no apology for pointing out the ‘whites’ say u need ‘money’ when clearly the Indigenous person wants ‘dignity’-same old paternalistic politics from the whites.

BOAZ_David, apologies for the tardiness of my reply but your response to my post was in another thread. A small speed bump in the road of communication but better late then never.

In hindsight, it is true, I could have explained more clearly. The terrible damage that you acknowledge in your response had little to do with mixed heritage. I used Rabbit Proof Fence as an example of forced removal but that was, by no means, the main thrust of my point.

It was that the Indigenous peoples of Australia have been severely maltreated and then blamed for the subsequent position that many find themselves in. Blood quantum is a controversial categorisation at best though Indigenous peoples around the world have, themselves, used it.

Forced removal was not, ever, confined to a blood quantum ratio. The treatment of communities and land denial created dysfunctional mixed communities that paid the price for European interference. Children were removed because Europeans would not allow their kinship, language and community conventions to be practiced. They, in effect, shouldered the blame for the crime of being subjugated.

"Is it ‘say sorry’ ? If yes, will they then say “We forgive you, now lets move on” ?" To most of the Indigenous peoples that I have talked to, yes, it is as easy as that. Many want nothing more than the recognition of the pain that continues to this day. Others were angry, and it would be hard to deny the right of someone who has never known family to have a seething ache.

However, it would be an indictment on all of us if 'sorry' was an end of it in our minds and actions. To be truly sorry is a concept that far exceeds a simple word. You, if your faith is as true as you would have us believe, would know that more than most… {continued}

I am sorry, BOAZ_David but the mixed heritage of your children have no place in this discussion, that I can see. It does not give you immediate ascension to a familiarity on a topic of corrupted communities or generations of people with no terms of reference or sense of self. Sometimes, and I am as guilty as any, the position of privilege that comes from simply being white echos from our perspectives.

What do I want to happen? Confusion is as close as I get to a conclusion on that, unfortunately. I am afraid any answer will lie in minds much greater than mine though I have long since discarded my cultural opinions as fact and begun questioning what it is I thought I knew.

History does not give me an optimistic outlook on man's humanity to man. In truth, this is my country too and giving it back would also be taking it away from a different generation in a different time. Both physically and spiritually this is my home though I doubt an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander would understand that in me any more than we can truly understand it in them. The future, in whatever form it takes, needs to be one where acknowledgment is elevated to a much higher plane than rhetoric. 'Sorry' is indeed a word whose meaning can only be defined by actions.

This probably didn't answer your questions but I gave it a go and who doesn't like to hear themselves talk once in a while?

Cheers

My understanding is that there was not one , but around 800 different language groups of indigenous Australian people.
Humans being humans, they wouldnt have just agreed on boundaries forever and ever.
Small scale disputes would have occured and been settled with battles and compensations.
Aboriginal history pre-European times was comunicated verbally often through stories and dances. Unfortunately, a great deal has been lost and altered. Its not fashionable to practice cannibalism so this can be ommitted to suit. Its no big deal, didnt people do this in PNG until not so long ago?
I'm certain even my European ancestors did so at some time.
My rello's didnt come here by choice (mostly) and if I go to England or Ireland I dont expect native title, or to be a custodian of the land.
Wouldnt it be nice if we were all the same...

Dear Craig and Omnipotent....

yes.. I agree

My wifes language does not have a word for 'thankyou' its an 'action'.
- you 'do' something for them. Thats why I'm very skeptical about the 'sorry' thing. I'd need to know what cultural process 'sorry' is for each of the various effected tribes.

http://www.newhope.bc.ca/97-12-21.htm <-See this please.

I'm glad Craig that you are honest enough to admit it all seems confusing. Which way... etc..

I think it depends a lot on what Indigenous people really want, and how far they are prepared to accomodate the current surroundings they dwell in.

There would be many examples of injustice which could be addressed I'm sure. One example is the reservation which was established near Melbourne, which was later just closed down. The people would have gravitated to little ghettos around the City.

It depends on whether they wish to persue a lifestyle like ours, or like their old one. This must first be determined.

If they want to live traditionally, then why not ? Does that mean land must be returned ? or.. simply made accessable ? I prefer the latter. Many of the skills are probably lost for traditional life, so they may prefer to try to catch up with us. There is no reason why they cannot, as my wifes people have already done so and there is no racial or intellectual reason to prohibit it either.

Shane, the aboriginal I spoke to, clearly and passionately said it was the connection to the land and culture that he longed for. Waterways destroyed etc... so, I've not yet determined exactly how he sees the solution in practical terms.

If you have contact yourself, please take the time to ask or.. to ask via a trusted indigenous intermediary, because often the color of our skin dictates the particular 'answer' we are given :)

Ultimately, self esteem and dignity boils down to "being" what you know you are. We should facilitate this as far as possible.