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.