kartiya jim and aquarivs,

Thanks. Busy: Will come back. However,

kj: If the points you list were {poof!} to happen, what 3 or 4 things must the aboriginal clans do to complement?

Your point three seems contentious. Instead of having conflicting histories, why not drop Australia Day, after all, it has more to do with the invasion by the British Crown against an unsuspecting indigenous peoples [note plural] and to the misfortune of hapless convicts, who otherwise would have spent their days on hulk on the Thames. In lieu, we could have [1901] Federation Day.

Ownership of land by any people would be inconsistent with an animist tribal culture. Any treaty would need to be with the tribal spirits and human negotiators. T

Lee Yuan Yew chose English as a compulsory language to moderate Chinese and Malay centrism. Maybe, all Australians should be encouraged to learn one offshore language than that spoken at home. Perhaps, linguists could find the most representative language of the Aboriginal language group and that could be offered, but only compulsory to the appropriate stream, say languages. Having 50 different regional languages taught would be nightmare to administer.

Do you feel anomous towards today's Japanese because their great-grand parents bombed Darwin? I don't, as stated in an earlier post.

Regards.

Good to see you back, Oliver, but now you're off again, busy. I hope you have some busy-time to craft an answer to my question from 15 July:

"Oliver, you say:
"Elders have power in a clan community and community members will listen: But age-related patriarchs will wish to maintain its community’s cultural status quo, and, therefore, have a stake in perpetuating ecologically non-compliant systems. Instead, Elders need to accept reality, and promote the model of modernity, whilst preserving past legacies."

"Ecologically non-compliant systems"? Interesting. What is it you mean? How is such compliance or non-compliance determined?
Posted by Sir Vivor, Sunday, 15 July 2007 9:34:04 PM"

~?~

And I'm still curious about what you mean, by ecological non-compliance.

The Stickman and Oliver ,

Not wanting to cause division unnecessarily ,perhaps we should follow along the lines of the Kiwis and call our new public holiday an Australian version of "The Treaty of Waitangi Day ".

As far as I know most New Zealanders do not have a problem with this celebration of gold arm-band history,why should we?

Those white Kiwis rugby players and fans even roar their HAKA in ridgy didge MAORI- now that has to be unifying .

I realise that many older Australians may find the concept of a Treaty difficult to live with ,but it must surely happen for a modern Australia to be seen in the world as a country with a reasonable conclusion to it's colonising of Aboriginal Land and a determination to make Peace with with those that waved us away as we arrived .

Aquarivs,

"... main issue with multiculturalism is we have all these societies to caretaker instead of a single vibrant society exhibiting pride of accomplishment from family ties through pride of state and nation."

No all societies are equal to the task of integrating with other societies. Where kin altruisim, familialism and tribalism are less culturally evident, the poential of the achievement of cross-cultural harmony is threatened. Nor suggesting doing away with families or some affinity with culural heritage, but one cannot have an effective heterogenous nation-state in a globalising world more mutualism in the locus of said society.

Sir Visor,

Sorry, I might not have chosed my words well. I am saying that one must adopt bevaviours which comply to the Laws of Ecology as these are experienced in the here and now. The true nation state has existed for about two hundred years and we are now in a globalising world, our cultural practices [technology, sociology, ideology] must be fit for the present, not the past, not even the future, rather, now.

Kartiya Jim,

The Treaty of Waitagi is highly evident to affairs in NZ. The were issues with regards to the meaning of Queen Victoria's sovereinty lost in translation. As mentioned above, regading the ownership of land, a tribal treaty would need to incorporate the spirits of the land to enjoin all peoples to the land. That is enjoin the 3 or 4 waves of people [including 1788+] with the Land. Compensation and Ownership are outside this model.

Australia didn't colonise the Continent [and Tasmania and NZ], Britain did. There are historial accounts of indigineous Australians feeling sympathy for the mistreatment of the convicts by the Crown.

In finding common ground, a break with the Crown and an enjoining peoples, as a above? Relevant to post WWII non-British immigrants too.

If not three, can you come up with two ways indiginous peoples must change to achieve unity with wider Australia?

Oliver, re:

"I am saying that one must adopt bevaviours which comply to the Laws of Ecology as these are experienced in the here and now. The true nation state has existed for about two hundred years and we are now in a globalising world, our cultural practices [technology, sociology, ideology] must be fit for the present, not the past, not even the future, rather, now."

Can you kindly state these Laws of Ecology? I am not familiar with them as such.

And I have not seen the term "ecologically non-compliant" prior to your use of it. I assume that use of this term means that one Law or more has broken or ignored. I'm hoping you can explain.

jim

yep - now you are making more sense.. and I concur with whoever said we might have to change the date - I can see how Jan 26th would be potentially unhelpful going forward if the issue is to be resolved..

the concept of "invasion day" only exists as a reaction to the existence of Australia day anyway, so maybe an Australian republic (go the Ruddster!) can lose the Queen's birthday holiday forelock-tug in June and rename that Australia day? in the interests of not losing a holiday from the calendar, maybe Jan 26th can be renamed for what it is - national get on the piss and watch the cricket over a barbie day!