Part II
Our early poets, writers and publishers defined us as a nation over our formulative years of the late 1800's and early 1900's. Our forefathers accepted and understood themselves and their Australianness. (That was confirmed and displayed to the world at Gallipoli and in France). They, while accepting a British heritage, rejected being British in favour of our uniquely Australian selves. Reading from those times clearly support this contention.

Today we'd be better off adopting a more inclusive definition of ourselves. That definition should not be solely in our forefathers terms, or solely British terms or solely Judeo Christian terms or solely Greek terms or solely indigenous terms, or solely in terms of our now great diversity. It would be wise and to ensure for 'a fair go' for any definition to be a composite of the proven parts and adaptations of all the individual components of our unique heritage.

Regard Keith Kennelly

David

You say that the native australian population fared better under British rule than they would have fared under others, (maybe Spanish, Portugese, French, German, Dutch, I wonder if they feel thankful for this good luck.

You should remember that we have a lot in common with the USA as both countries were taken over by europeans and resulted in the killing of most of the indiginous population.

You also say that we still have the right of free speech in Australia.
Maybe your article was wriiten before the new terrorism laws were passed.