From my understanding the justification for possession of Australian land was based on the notion that "it wasn't being used by anyone anyway". Which was partly true, as the indigenous population did not "use" the land in the way white European settlers intended to use it. The other issue encountered by white settlers was that even if some were well intentioned, and wished to enter into trade agreements with the indigenous population relating to use of land, there were no recognisable indigenous leadership to deal with. There were however, a range of strategies that could have been adopted, through diplomatic and respectful measures, to find solutions where both the indigenous and european settlers could have reached satisfactory arrangements. But instead, the europeans decided to label the local population as "unreasonable savages" who could not be engaged. This turned into violence and degredation of indigenous people, the consequences of which are still apparent today.

An interesting article, but full of too many questions, and not enough answers. There is no doubt that there has been severe change to the way of life of indigenous people since colonisation. However, consider in context that most peoples around the world have changed significantly during the same time period. Even if you look at the coloniser, England, it is hardly recognisable as the same country that sought to expand the Empire. So I argue that Australian Aboriginies (and other indigenous cultures) are not the only ones that have gone through vast change in the last 200-odd years. Europe itself has a long history of invasion and counter-invasion, resulting in the mingling of cultures and languages across and beyond the continent. It has also been subject to invasion and settlement of non-european peoples (most of whom have at some later point in history been driven out, but not before their cultural mark was left on the countries in question). So rather than the impact on Australian aboriginies being a result of the "evil" europeans, maybe its just the way of the world, part of the process of evolution. I'm not entirely convinced, but even a cursory study of world history both modern and ancient would suggest that this is the case.

I think the issue should be one of respect and inclusion. People collectively are affected by exclusion and denial as are individuals; we are social animals who need to be considered part of the pack. Poverty, violence, abuse and self-destruction are the predictable consequences of suffering such an injustice and then being ignored in your own country. I believe Aboriginal people need to regain their lost pride, so what can we do?

You don't hear the call for a Treaty much these days, but this is the start. This process would hope to go back to the point that "Terra Nullis" was enacted and redo this historical injustice. From this point, the Aboriginal people would reappear on the world stage, who were rubbed out by greedy British hands not so long ago. A Treaty may be symbolic, but our mind works by building models of the external world. And most of our pain and depression comes from the cognitive dissonance between our reality, and the reality.

The other movement I would like to see is the mainstreaming of Aboriginal culture. Not just suburb and street names, but real changes in our language and customs. We should be incredibly proud to assume more Aboriginal culture, it has a lot to offer. These people were drawing art while our ancestors were still hitting each other with rocks. While being nomadic helped, their 'family' style system of inter and intra tribal relations is revolutionary, and badly needed in our souless, materialistic, empty lives. We have so much to learn from Aboriginal culture, instead we have tried our best to destroy it. You would think we'd learnt something from the Conquistadors.

If we don't assume more Aboriginal customs, we are not Australian, but migrants we'll remain. And colonists, white settlers, usurpers and pillagers.

The English who colonised Australia were the descendants of people who had ,long since, been colonised over and over themselves. It is the history of the world.
I understand that before colonisation, the native tribes had their own territory and only their own territory, they were not free to intrude on the lands of other tribes without causing warfare.
This article is simply trying to glorify the 'black armband' history theory.
Look at what is happening now and for a long time in the past in Aboriginal communities.
The Aboriginal society is suffering from the depredations of their own. Yet the white 'tribe' still gets the blame.

mickijo,

way to completely over simplify a complex situation. By no means are the causes of the current problems afflicting aboriginal communities soley attributable to aboriginals.

There are many examples of whites getting in on the act as well. See the stories about white miners paying underaged aborginal girls for sex. Or the booze runners.

Hey here's an idea lets actually fix the problems. Make sure there are enough police, health professionals and so on. Don't include insane exemptions to the no booze rules (remember, if you're on land you can't drink, but if you go and stand in the river, go for it!). Don't dump 8000 people back onto welfare. Don't screw over the programmes that are actually working. Don't send those communities that are working and doing the right thing back to the bad old days.

Country Gal,
Was there a point you were trying to make in your post if so I'd like to hear it. Aboriginal people were the inhabitants of Australia at the time of English settlement they claimed the land under the pretence of the land not being occupied [a lie] the Mabo Decision followed by the Wik Decision corrected the situation partially but Howard has found a way around that by declaring a "state of emergency" in N.T.

Tories have no notion to help Aboriginals, merely to help themselves and their mining mates into land that would otherwise be protected land, they are so predictable.

White, black, yellow, red...does it really matter? If we go back to "the beginnings" (The book of Genesis) we see Adam and Eve in the Garden in the Tigris/Euphrates Rivers region. Probably they were dark haired and olive skinned (the colour of the region) as was Jesus later on. With the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) we see the peoples of one language spit up into many languages for their arrogance of trying to build a skyscraper into Heaven. It would be here at the Tower that the colours of peoples also came into being. For the white races to claim superiority is a bit much. The Creator is happy with all colours and languages and especially in the fact that we care about each other and help each other and all come to know His Saviour Jesus Christ. Born-again christians are in all cultures. Genesis is a great book to read. It even has giants, the product of Angels having sex with earth girls (Genesis 6:4 King James version). So much have we forgotten with our busy lives.

CountryGal wrote: "being a result of the "evil" Europeans, maybe it’s just the way of the world, part of the process of evolution"

Are you supporting this racism as 'just the way of the world' -part of the process of evolution?

Using your logic the Jewish holocaust was inevitable, even justified - because that’s how things work.

Rather lazy and it lets you off the hook thinks me.

Dispossession did not happen 200 years ago in one fell swoop. It happened incrementally and as recent as yesterday.

And to other posters, I’m astounded how badly read you all are -but stoically profess to have an intimately knowledge of ‘Australian’ history. LOL

You’ve got to start reading more broadly than newspapers and magazines. Really, there’s a whole world waiting for you to discover.

"CountryGal wrote: 'being a result of the "evil" Europeans, maybe it’s just the way of the world, part of the process of evolution'

Are you supporting this racism as 'just the way of the world' -part of the process of evolution?"

As Rainier knowa, this is classic social Darwinism, i.e. the ideology that Europeans used to rationalise their rape of the colonial world. Sorry, CG - it was immoral sophistry in the 19th century and it hasn't become any more ethical in the intervening period.

As Rainier and others point out, such thinking can justify any invasion of territory and dispossession of sovereign peoples - at least, from the perspective of the conquerors.

However, it doesn't make it right.

Here we go again with the same old self flagellation perceiving the Yanks as the root of all evil.China is not far from becoming the next world power.

Will the left in our society have the courage to suffer in the luxury of a Chinese totalitarian state that dominates the entire planet with no American democracy or freedom of thought?

It is not a matter of "White Supremacy" but a matter of a superior political/economic system that has made the Europeans the dominant force on the planet.An absolutely powerful China will not be as forgiving or understanding as a USA on a path of political introspection.Since WW2 the US could have dominated the entire planet,yet tried in most cases to premote democracy.

Hi Rainier, been a while since we had a chat. You were rather mean to quote a soundbite without including the next sentence "I am not entirely convinced...", as it puts the comment in a different light - ie I was just suggesting an alternative viewpoint rather than stating fact. I get your point about the Jews, although its a bit of a different scenario than invade and conquer. Its a bit more akin to the attempts of the native Kenyans (the name of the group escapes me at this hour) to rid the country of europeans, as the Jews were not native to Europe. I'm not trying to paint over what happened here either. There were some bloody shocking things happen, and these should be acknowledged at a minimum. What I WAS trying to do was to put it in context of world history, specifically that every country in the world has now been subject to the situation at some point in their history, and not everything can be blamed on Europeans (although in modern history they have tended to be the aggressors). This is not to moralise about it. The rationale inference to draw is that we can expect that it will happen again at sometime in the future (maybe even not too distant), and NONE of the current inhabitants will be overly impressed with the results, if they survive it.

I'm a bit dubious about this whole Terra Nullius thing. The concept seems to have been thrown up in the 1970s in the wake of indigenous agitation for land rights, in (for example) the Gove land rights case.

When Cook claimed the Australian east coast in 1770 he was "confident that it had never" been "seen or visited by any European before us, and .... in the name of His Majesty King George the Third [I] took possession of the whole eastern coast..." He didn't claim the west coast, as it had already been claimed by the Dutch. The unspoken assumption was that only a European could lay claim to the land. Prior occupation by Aborigines was ignored, only European claims counted.

I suspect it ultimately comes down to a question of firepower. Europeans mattered because they had the guns to enforce territorial claims. This attitude propelled the "scramble for Africa" as late as WW1. We surely have to leave this attitude behind.

This "Terra Nullius" thing is not merely a concept! It is a legal term which (please someone correct me here if I am wrong) but I think it can can still be found in British law today. The invasion and possession of land was considered to be lawful. Our British colonisers used Australian soil as a penitentiary system, they went to great lengths to demonstrate that their actions were in line with legal principles. Terrus Nullius was more than a mere policy it was a legal principle!

Speaking of "Terra Nullius" and history of the Australian continent prior to British settlement, I recently came across this bizarre piece of historical revisionism:

"Back in the 1420s, the expeditionary fleets of China’s Ming Dynasty reached Australian shores. For centuries, the Chinese sailed across vast seas and settled down in what they called “Southern Land” or today’s Australia. They brought Chinese culture to this land and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia’s economy, society, and its thriving pluralistic culture." - Chinese President Hu Jintao, during his address the Australian federal parliament in 2003

So, apparently the Chinese were here first and, therefore, have a claim over modern Australia. According to Hu Jintao, these mythical early Chinese settlers even deserve credit for modern Australia's economy and society! I wonder what indigenous Australians would say about chauvinistic China's laughably fallacious version of pre-European Australian history. After all, we all know how well the Chinese treat indigenous minorities in Tibet, East Turkistan etc.

A lot of rot written in many of these posts. There were certainly churchman involved in the mistreatment of aboriginals but to call them Christians is the same as calling todays church going abortionist Christians. By and large many missionaries sacrificed a lot in order to bring aboriginals better health and education. The black arm band of history does nothing to help abused aboriginal children. If it wasn't for missionaries we would not have fine men like Noel Pearson who seems to have a better understanding than anyone of indigeneous affairs.

Arjay,
How rude of you to stray from the subject, but since you asked "we lefties" despise China's totalitarianism as much as Howard's ultra right wing capitalism, now please stick to the subject of these displaced Australians.

WHITE SUPREMACY IS NOT BAD..... necessarily.

1/ 'Supremacy' does NOT signify 'superiority' in a qualitiative sense.

2/ Surpemacy may be a simple accident of history, just as much as 'black' supremacy in Africa is.

The predominance of a particular racial/ethnic group in the affairs of a country is without question 'supremacy'. They key point is how they treat non them.

UNFORTUNATELY... when a population is ethnically diverse, and no attempt is made to bring 'them' into joining 'us' in the development of a vibrant unified blended future, problems may well arise. Such as those of minority groups who might feel disenfranchized, discriminated against, marginalized etc.. but when subjected to astute analysis, often this turns out to be nothing more than grievance that 'their' particular cultural/political agenda is not 'supreme'.

This is clearly seen in the demonstrations in support of the PLO or.. to get the US/coalition out of Iraq.

So.. our response should be.

1/ NO GUILT. (for things beyond our direct control.)
2/ NO APOLOGY. (to people who simply wish to replace 'our' agenda with 'theirs')
3/ JOY in our nationhood.

None of this is suggesting that 'structural injustice' should not be addressed as far as practical. The situation of Indigenous people is in reality the only one which seems valid here.

This is a simple issue. Present Australia is the product of colonial conquest. Like it or not, that conquest brought us to where we are today. The Koori heritage has about as much a stake in deciding who should rule Australia as Boadiceas defeated Army had stake in deciding who should prevail in a Roman ruled England and the alien invasions which succeeded the Romans.

I find it too simplistic, this continual whining from some sections of the Koori community for some special arrangement or recognition.

Had the good old Brits not prevailed in colonizing Australia, Koori’s might have found their current circumstance far more adverse than they presently are.
Observation of post colonial Africa would suggest that Belgium, France and Germany were far more adverse a colonial master than Britain.

South America colonisation by Portugese and Spanish was a disgrace. China is currently treating Tibetians in a way which falls well short of the British practice.

East Timor an example of how well Koori’s might have faired had Indonesia’s hordes arrived here as colonists.

A Koori who expects special or distinctive treatment over other Australians because they are a “Koori” are making for the same demands as made by the KKK in the USA or the Serbs in Bosnia and my response to all those expectations is in the negative.

“Assimilation” (and not “multi-culturalism”) is the only natural human process, which actually and materially influences the cohesive demographics of population.

All the alternatives to Assimilation result in segregation, ethnic cleansing and separate development, as seen in the regimes of South Africa, Nazi Germany as as attempted by Serbs in the 1990's following the collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia.

Some Kooris might be happy to align their spiritual claims with racists and the butchers who tend to prevail in racist societies but I am with the followers of Dr Martin Luther King, who fought and still fight for the end of segregation and irrational separation of the races.

Oh and finally, resisting Assimilation is one certain way of ensuring cultural extinction.

Yeah Col's right again.

Anyone interested in googling "the origins of Terra Nullius' will discover that Australia was NOT claimed under this doctrine. In fact the use of the term Terra Nullius is a recent phenomeonon and just another case of an activist court "discovering" something new in established law.

Whether Europeans owe their supremacy to being "white" is difficult to say. In some ways you might argue this; Arabs (who are white) were first cab off the rank; then displaced by Portuguese and Spanish who were still whiter, then Dutch/French/British much whiter and last of all the Teuton Aryan Germans, almost the top of the Nordic tree.

More to the point (though I can't explain why it happened in Europe specifically) is that these nationalities became much more world-savvy than the rest. You can imagine the disadvantage the average Aborigine, sitting on his local 20 acres with only the rainbow serpent to guide him, would've been at when facing a bunch of blokes armed with the latest weapons who could sail 20,000 ks using a simple brass sextant as THEIR guide. We could waste all day arguing about moral supremacy; problem is that morality changes constantly while the history of scientific + technological advance does not.

Anyway. That was then and this is now. Irene Watson has made her way and would prefer her fellow Aborigines went back to 1770. This is understandable. As it would immediately give the westernised Aboriginal academic a great deal of power,she knows that any successful attempt at keeping Aborigines in the "Indigenous Pond" makes her, de facto, a big fish. It's not surprising nor shocking, but the way of the world......push enough of your "own" people into the hole; stand atop their shoulders and shout "hey. Look at me. I'm a big wheel" Show's how well assimilated Irene really is. Cheers.

www.crikey.com.au 29/08/07.

Aboriginal assets to be seized, then rented back for profit

In moves seemingly impossible to reconcile with the protection of Aboriginal children on remote towns and communities in the Northern Territory, a document has come into the hands of Crikey that presages a federal government takeover of millions of dollars worth of assets owned by Aboriginal organisations.

. . . Mal Brough is taking from the poor to establish a government-controlled property trust, from which he will then rent back to the dispossessed.

Organisational assets above the value of $400,000 are to be compulsorily acquired by Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) and transferred to a new entity, the Indigenous Economic Development Trust (IEDT), and then rented back at commercial rates to the same organisations from which the asset has been taken from.

In some cases this will make those organisations commercially unviable, leading to financial collapse and loss of Aboriginal jobs. Every reason for Aboriginal organisations for acquiring property as part of engaging with capitalism has been thrown out in favour of a centrally controlled government bureaucracy.

This is not about Aboriginal land in places like Arnhem Land: assets will be compulsorily stripped from Aboriginal organisations owning land and property up and down the Stuart Highway—Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs—no matter how well run, no matter what the level of services provided, no matter what those assets are being used for.

The early targets appear to be urban-based Community Development Employment Programs (CDEP). In a letter to these CDEP projects in towns and cities up the Stuart Highway, IBA’s "national manager business funding", Kim McIlveen is keen to introduce "new products and services that your CDEP organisation might qualify for".

One of these "new products" is "establishing an Indigenous Economic Development Trust, through which assets will be leased to Aboriginal businesses".
. . .

The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR), in at least one instance, will be "resuming" an asset from an Aboriginal business which is being offered back for commercial rental to the very Aboriginal business from which it was compulsorily taken

crikey continued

Potentially, property and other commercial assets that are earning an income, and employing Aboriginal people, will be summarily resumed by a federal bureaucracy. At least one CDEP seems destined to relinquish the property it purchased, then lease it back from the IEDT.

And the amount of this Stuart Highway robbery could run into many millions of dollars if this principle is extended. In Darwin assets owned by Larrakia Nation and its business arm, along with the Aboriginal Development Foundation and Danila Dilba Health Service, face compulsory asset removal.

In Katherine the Jawoyn Association faces property losses as well as potential loss of assets in the tourist industry in the millions. Tennant Creek’s Julalikari Council owns low cost housing valued at more than $2 million as well as other properties.

In Alice Springs properties potentially being seized are owned by the Institute for Aboriginal Development, Tangentyere Council, Arrernte Council and Health Congress. Assets in all of these towns owned by the Northern and Central land councils could also face resumption by the feds.

John Howard visited the Aboriginal town of Ntaria (Hermannsburg) Tuesday this week.

"We have a simple aim," he told the locals, "and that is whilst respecting a special place of Indigenous people in the history and the life of this country, their future can only be as part of the mainstream of the Australian community.

"But unless they can get a share of the bounty of this great and prosperous country, their future will be bleak.

Billie ,

I hope you're wrong, and just when Indigenous people are starting to get[at their own pace] a handle on on "the Mainstream ".

Nine weeks after the Great Intervention ,Howard arrives and has told Aboriginal People "Their future Is Bleak" if they continue with their Aboriginal ways .This is social and cultural ignorance at it's dismal greatest. What can this stupid comment possibly achieve?

I reject this this view as wrong and a remnant of the worst of White Australia'stypical 19th and 20th Century Colonising thinking.

Indigenous People are smart and versatile.

They know it is possible for them to incorporate relatively painlessly, the best of their culture with the best of ours....but ONLY if THEY want to.

Ok Billie. Enough is really enough. I ran a govt department in Tennant Ck and know plenty about Julalikari. I was there when they (julalikari) were caught red-handed ripping off hundreds of alcoholic town-camp dwellers by placing them on bogus CDEP programes and then pocketing the dough, while the 'participants" wandered round in a drunken, metho-haze. I saw them handing out padded contracts to builders then pocketing the difference. I saw communities outside Tennant being mercilessly exploited by corrupt CDEP co-ordinators and, then, whistleblowers thrown to the wolves. Blokes like you (and Crikey) have absolutely NO idea what goes on. Taxi drivers selling cartons of beer for a hundred bucks on Dry Thursdays,these taxis belonging to julalikari Council Members relatives. Julalikari hotshots at the Memo club boasting about how much they were making from Travel allowances to go here, there and everywhere Wake up mate; this is LABOR country. Nothing; nothing at all, is on the level. The ALP or Crikey or Fairfax or the ABC; Labor stooges throwing misinformation as far as they can, and gullibles like you running with it. For example....

Tonight on ABC's PM programme (while driving home) I heard "If the reception JWH received in Darwin is any indication, he's in big trouble" followed by a raucous jeering bloke. Then another as he left a shopping centre."Get your hands off our territory you rodent". Pretty negative. alright. When we saw the same report on channel 9, there was ONE raucous idiot and ONE more outside, and hundreds cheering him, shaking his hand; even a young skateboard type HUGGING him. Get real man; forget these crikey "Lord Haw Haw" fools. Wait to SEE what happens, and try to stop becoming any more gullible than you already are. or are you being deliberately "gullible"?

Desdener said –
"Back in the 1420s, the expeditionary fleets of China’s Ming Dynasty reached Australian shores. For centuries, the Chinese sailed across vast seas and settled down in what they called “Southern Land” or today’s Australia. They brought Chinese culture to this land and lived harmoniously with the local people, contributing their proud share to Australia’s economy, society, and its thriving pluralistic culture." - Chinese President Hu Jintao, during his address the Australian federal parliament in 2003

the stuff you are quoting is actually fiction. It was written by a dodgey author who has no facts to back up his stories. Off the top of my head I think the book was called “how the Chinese discovered the world” I think in his second book he said that a Chinese fleet sailed up the Thames and gave the king of England a pair of underpants as a gift. None of it is true.

Aboriginals will, like any other person regardless of colour, or ethnicity, or culture, achieve or fail by the effort and ingenuity they bring to any endeavour as individuals, and collectively as an expression of community. However, for as long as they wish to be seen as victims, they will be seen and treated as such and exploited as weak and inattentive people are everywhere. Usually from with in and by their own. What we see in Aboriginal communities is a reflection of what is happening in the broader community that is Australia. One can not turn back the clock. Desiring to do so leads to disaster as such people are never prepared for the challenge that is change.

Punter, thanks for some insights into some fairly horrible problems .

What is the best way to help the alcoholics in these Communities without sending them hundreds of Kilometres away - to what ??

Gawd Punter, i didn't know you had a doctorate in law as well as a diploma in BS.

And you're so humble too!

As for Col's unremarkable contribution, I'd rather read the words and ideas of a jurist than those of a door to door salesman.

Mabo and the now recognition of native title proceeded on the broader proposition that British law recognised pre-existing relationships to the land, subject to it being overridden by the introduced law. The fundamental myth that the introduction of these laws was based on was a non recognition of existing jurisdiction and occupation by Aboriginal people.

Countrygal, The tendency to paint history with the broad brush of inevitability may give some comfort to those who benefit from such nonsense but it’s clearly an illusion.

As someone once said:

'It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills.

John j- "Europeans mattered because they had the guns to enforce territorial claims." We surely have to leave this attitude behind."

Territorial dominance by the strongest is the law of nature on this planet. Nature is a strong girl. You try standing in the way of a sunami. Man has some control over nature with immunisations, and some modern inventions and weapons but it is a battle that is never won and we are not as much in control of the forces imbued by nature as we like to think. Even the flu bug constantly mutates in defiance of our attempts at control.

The sexual and territorial instinct are the two big survival instincts burned into the brains of every animal (including mankind) on this planet and history shows that mankind has always danced to natures dictates. Look at the way sex dominates mankind around the world. The never ending taking of other peoples countries(territories)by constant global warfare across time. By every race on the planet not just the Europeans.

As one post up there says even the Aboriginies didnt like other tribes of Aboriginies on their territories. We need a change of attitude in a practical sense,of understanding the forces we are dealing with and trying to think of practical measures to dampen down the natural territorial hostilities that exist in multi-tribal societies.

RAINIER; If you were an out of space David Attenborough sitting up in space watching mankind for a thousand years what reason would you give for the constant warfare by mankind taking other peoples land and territories by the strongest conquerors? Tell me, why is it so?

It would seem that territorial conquest has some huge benefit for the species of mankind. After all when the Romans and Ghankis Chan and the prophet Momhamed engaged in territorial conquest they risked their own lives on the battlefields to do it

Boazy: "WHITE SUPREMACY IS NOT BAD..... necessarily"

Sieg Heil! More grist for the KKK mill, eh Boazy?

" 'Supremacy' does NOT signify 'superiority' in a qualitiative sense."

Bulldust. Look it up in a dictionary.

Col Rouge: "resisting Assimilation is one certain way of ensuring cultural extinction"

More bulldust. The only reason that Indigenous people in Australia retain recognisable cultures is that they have managed to resist assimilation. I think you're confusing 'assimilation' with 'acculturation'.

sharkbrain: "Territorial dominance by the strongest is the law of nature on this planet".

Yup. Might is right. Humans are no different to other animals.

You must lead a very fearful life, constantly defending your territory against predators.

How interesting again the predominately NON-INDIGENOUS voices are here. Those that need to be heard are more often than not silenced by the loud self righteous debates of those with limited understanding of the real issues at hand.

To suggest that Indigenous Australians have less of a legitimate stake in reclaiming ancestral lands because of a european concept of time and progress speaks volumes of those making the claim. To ask that a 1000 generations of connection to the land should be set aside in order to appease those that would continue to force their standards on Indigenous communities. The age old concept of blaming the victim, insisting that Indigenous communities are their own worst enemies or that they are the power brokers that enslave their own communities stinks of the eurocentric view that created modern day Australia.

Years of cutbacks, neglect and broken promises have created the situations that are prevalent in SOME Indigenous communities. The high rate of suicides, a biased justice system that sees a blackman jailed in Fitzroy Crossing for a minor offence that would see a whiteman in Perth be fined for.

The discussions reflect the unbalanced, biased and self righteous policies. Perhaps if we applied Howards Great Plan to the rest of the Non-Indigenous population we might actually see more of a balanced discussion.

The sooner that Aboriginal Australians are given a decent education and thus have the chance to decide wheather they wish to live a tribal or semi-tribal existence or if they wish to have the same lifestyle as the rest of the citizenry the better.

Once educated they will vote with their feet and move into the general society as so many have done already.

Education is the answer to all the problems including those caused by the few in our socety who want to keep some Aboriginals in an anthropological time capsule for study or profit.

What surprises me, is that the likes of Col and Boaz seem to be still dragging their knuckles on the ground defending their territory .

Surely they can see, that at least in theory, that their bloodlines and history should have advanced them to the point they feel secure enough to say, that they and their families can happily live in a society where some people are different.

Damn , I just heard someone saying, "Fat Chance ! "

Billie, you post sounds both probable and depressing. Are these funds you speak of those apparently rorted by Brough according to recent newspaper reports (twice)?
As mentioned elsewhere this blog, Billie's account is rendered even more plausible by the cretinous and deliberate studied neglect from the Coalition forces since the rude shock of Wik and Mabo, particularly after gaining government in '96. As for attacks on the broadsheet press and media for these being pro-indigene, let's not forget that Fairfax ran a vilification campaign against ATSIC and ABC Lateline was responsible for the nasty rubbish that gave Brough his excuse and his opportunity, as to the NT.

Well Sharkbrain, I'm not David bloody Attenborough in space looking down at an ant farm of humans taking notes and measuring cause and effect.

I'm here on the ground dealing as much as I'm able to with the real world and trying to understand why people like you have the privilege to sit on the sidelines and give gratuitous commentary -- without any engagement or evidence based knowledge.

I can only assume (once again) that having an unquestionable opinion on Aboriginal people and affairs is a ubiquitous cultural heritage right of white Australian citizenship. Terra Nullius (prior to the Mabo ruling) did not mean we the Aboriginal people were invisible to white Australians. Indeed quite the contrary. We are very much central to the temporal and economic definitions of what white Australians say they are NOT and ARE (simultaneously) speaking.

1. You are not black. (refers to no: 5)
2. You are not in poverty (because you worked so hard and we didn’t)
3. You don’t get flogged by coppers (well, not for being white)
4. You are not inherently criminal (but reserve the right to refer to your convict heritage when it suites you)
5. You are not ‘primitive’ (refers to no:1)

But you ‘modern’ like our ‘exotic culture’
Love our ‘Cathy’ because she won some gold medals for white Australia national pride.
You love to Profit from our Art because this makes you feel ‘cultured and worldly’
And our land on which you walk was stolen fair and square without any compensation because we aren’t considered to be human being with the same common law rights as you or others.

Now does that cover it all? Probably doesn’t but it’s a start.

Therein ends lecture 1 in Aboriginal Studies 101.

CJ....

su·prem·a·cy /səˈprɛməsi, sʊ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suh-prem-uh-see, soo-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the state of being supreme.
2. supreme authority or power.

Like I said.. if ur going to act like a dill...don't so it so publically :)

annnnnd...of course you could not let common sense speak without trying to destroy it with your 'seig heil' thingy...

So...lets review.

1/ Supremacy= authority or power.. NOT "Superiority" in a qualitative sense CHECK.
2/ My statement is inclusive and non racist, yet you 'mischief' make with 'seig heil'.. CHECK...

yep..ur true to malicious form :)

Ranier.... you're still on your favorite bandwagon, and to the extent that what you say is 'true' "coppers bashing you cos ur black" I'm on the same page. But you should be arguing that with the appropriate people.. who is going to disagree with you here about that ? I sure wont.

The SOLUTION is attitude change.. perhaps that can be acheived by 'black' you and 'white' me standing together outside a police station and raising this as an issue ?

BD,

Jesus told me to be patient with you so I am. He also told me that I shouldn't blame him for people like you.

Said something like 'God created man and now man is creating God'...

kinda sez it all really...

BD, I doubt that Mal Brough is acting to change attitudes, it's more like his acting entrench prejudices with the following actions

1. compulsory acquistion of aboriginal assets worth more than $400,000 like the Alice Springs Shopping Centre, the largest car dealership in Central Australia

2. Compulsorily acquire land in Darwin

3. Use surveys done by his mates in SE Qld that exclude large slabs of aboriginal population and include mining tenements and Gove Airport. Nabalco are impressed

4. pay aboriginal interpreters $100 per day to a maximum of $1500. The interpreters have to understand and explain the legal documents that must be understood by guardians to gain legal consent to perform medical checks on aboriginal children. The "volunteer" medical staff are paid $165 per medical examination

5. Fire all aboriginals from paying jobs so that they are on the dole so their wages can be garnisheered to protect their children from drink and pornography.

If you really are interested in getting children to attend school, do what the Red Cross does in Dandenong, provide breakfast for the children.

Boaz, you are short-changing us with your definition.

>>su·prem·a·cy...

1. the state of being supreme.
2. supreme authority or power.<<

According to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. The condition of being supreme in authority, rank or power; position of supreme or highest authority or power

2. Supreme position in achievement, character or estimation.

That second definition somewhat reduces the impact of your claim to injured innocence, does it not?

Especially when you add the word "white", to create "white supremacy" which, as you know, produces "white supremacist". Of which the OED states:

"A. sb. One who believes in the supremacy of one of the races or of either of the sexes or of any other social group

B adj. That is a supremacist. Orig. and freq. preceded by defining word: see also male supremacist s.v MALE sb 4. white supremacist s.v. WHITE a 11e"

Notice this: this is not an abstract "accident of history" as you originally claimed. It is, categorically a state of mind, an idea, a feeling, a judgment, held by an individual about themselves and about like-thinking individuals.

No amount of bluster, or fudging reality, or attempts to pervert the English language, can deflect the obvious charge against you of blatant racism.

>>Like I said.. if ur going to act like a dill...don't so it so publically :)<<

Now that is simply arrogant, isn't it?

>>...of course you could not let common sense speak without trying to destroy it with your 'seig heil' thingy.<<

Common sense, Boaz? You have no understanding of the term.

Hi there Pericles..

The word supremacy, has a positional meaning, while at the same time a allowing a qualitative, if USED in that way.

"Supriority" I suppose could be used with the same dual meaning, though I think the weight in that case is clearly on the qualitative rather than positional.

"I am superior to you" is a statement of quality but can mean rank.
"I am supreme over you" is about rank.

Nevertheless... let's NOT get bogged down in tight semantics and get BACK to the real issue, and nail down a meaning for the sake of THIS discussion hey ?

"Supremacy" in a power sense.

I maintain, that 'white' supremacy or BLACK supremacy or YELLOW supremacy in terms of that meaning, is not NECCESSARILY a bad thing.
There is 'Black' supremacy in South Africa now.. and in Zimbabwe...
Formerly in Zimbabwe it was 'White' supremacy.

In an ideal world, no mention or consideration of skin color should exist. UNfortunately, skin color is often connected to power relationships, pressure groups and so on.

When people organize themselves along 'skin color' lines for the:

-Benefit of 'their' group and
-Detriment of 'the other' group... then, no matter who is in charge is is BAD.

The point is, in a country where you have 90% 'white' people...you have by default 'White'Supremacy....and due to the small number of minority groups, there is little likelihood that legislation would be focused on the benefit of whites and the detriments of blacks or non whites.. EXCEPT... where those minority groups seek to exercise MORE than their democratic rights would reasonably allow.

If a group is calling for 'Prayer Rooms and Ablutions' for 'their' particular faith at secular Universities, they are going beyond their democratic rights and should be stopped.
If Christians asked for a chapel or specifically 'Christian' prayer room at a University, they are doing likewise and should be stopped.

It is not 'racist' white supremacy which stops either group from exceeding their valid rights, it is GOVERNMENT, which just happens to be predominantly white.

Boaz, all this wriggling around semantics is very reminiscent of the lengths to which you go to avoid the racist implications of your "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer" party - I'm sorry I can't recall the exact phrase you use, the connotations are simply so blatant, the only label that I recall accurately is this one.

Is it coincidence?

Is it simply an accident of history that you advocate both "Ein Reich" and "white supremacy"?

Can it be that you are so naive, or so wilfully blind to the effect these phrases have on others, that you simply "happened" on them both?

But even if we ignore this particular elephant in the room, what on earth is behind this twaddle?

>>If a group is calling for 'Prayer Rooms and Ablutions' for 'their' particular faith at secular Universities, they are going beyond their democratic rights and should be stopped.
If Christians asked for a chapel or specifically 'Christian' prayer room at a University, they are doing likewise and should be stopped<<

Why?

What possible harm can either of these do? If there is room, and the demand is there, and if people are as equable, tolerant and understanding of individual needs as they usually are, what on earth can you dream up as a reason to prevent it?

It is blind prohibitions like this, not the generosity of spirit that allows them, that create tensions.

>>It is not 'racist' white supremacy which stops either group from exceeding their valid rights, it is GOVERNMENT, which just happens to be predominantly white.<<

I have no idea what you consider "valid rights" Boaz, perhaps you could spend some time explaining this before you rush around banning perfectly harmless activities.

Boazy: "Like I said.. if ur going to act like a dill...don't so it so publically (sic)"

It might pay you to take heed of your own counsel, old boy. While it's amusing to watch you squirm in a semantic quagmire of your own making, your attempts to rationalise your defence of white supremacism are truly pathetic. And you wonder why you get compared to Mosely et al?

Try googling "white supremacy" and see what comes up. After a quite reasonable Wikipedia entry that says "White supremacy is a racist paradigm based on the assertion that white people are superior to other races", you'll find yourself presented with links to the 'Aryan Nation', 'Stormfront' etc etc.

You are indeed in good company, Boazy.

Sieg Heil!

Rainier “Col's unremarkable contribution, I'd rather read the words and ideas of a jurist than those of a door to door salesman.”

We note you bring with you the irrepressible cynicism common among those with a sense of self importance larger than their intellect.

Now maybe you will challenge my view rather than simply make enfeebled attacks on me.

As for Mabo, that was just the machinations of apologists, a socialist strategy bereft of real thought or quality judgement (quite typically socialist in that respect). But you have a vested interest in things like Mabo don’t you – that hardly means anything you say on the matter can ever be viewed as “objective”

AAA “How interesting again the predominately NON-INDIGENOUS voices are here.”

I could give several reasons for that but will suffice with one

It is because in australia the “NON-INDIGENOUS" PREDOMINATE.

kartiya jim “dragging their knuckles on the ground defending their territory “

If seeking a level playing field, free of preferences based on ethnic origin, colour, gender or religious fealty is "defending the territory", then I am proudly gguilty as claimed.

I have a belief that all people are equal. Giving particular preference (be it the old school tie, paternalism, feminism, affirmative action or special privilege based on ethnic origin) to any group is morally offensive to me.

Because something is right does not necessarily mean it is new.
But it does mean that old but true ideas give opportunity for small minded morons to claim the supporters of such historic truths do "drag their knuckles".

David BOAZ “Formerly in Zimbabwe it was 'White' supremacy.”

Not that I support or supported the Smith minority government of Southern Rhodesia but if you were to ask most of the blacks in Zimbabwe, they would say it was a better system than the “Mugabe Charnel House” system they currently suffer.

So Rainier and Jim, I look forward to something more substantial than your petty sniping and projectile vomiting (but I am not holding my breath anticipating you could ever aspire to anything more than that which you have already demonstrated).

Col Rouge: "As for Mabo, that was just the machinations of apologists..."

Wrong, Col. It was a successful claim of Indigenous property rights under Australian law .

Of course, the only reason those rights had to be asserted in Law was because they had been ignored or actively suppressed during the previous century or two of 'white supremacy'.

Col,
You say you could be guilty of "seeking a level playing field" and "I have a belief that all people are equal".

What I can't understand is that in the same breath you can then say that Affirmative Action "is morally offensive ".

I suspect you are having a lend of us .

Affirmative Action when offered, and Not imposed ,can help a group [Or individual] that may be disadvantaged and is to be encouraged be it in the family or community we live in .

The Liberals and Nationals taking away Aboriginal Land Rights without consultation in the Northern Territory is another nasty example of Howard and Brough's smug indifference to the belief that "All people are equal" .

CJ Morgan “Wrong, Col. It was a successful claim of Indigenous property rights under Australian law .”

Adjudicated by a bench stuffed with socialist apologists who were out of touch with the realities of life, motivated by their own misplaced sense of guilt or possibly anti-libertarian malevolence and with the complicity of socialist federal government who were looking for yet another grandiose scheme to squander tax payers money on, rather than represent the expectations of there electoral majorities.

Kartiya jim “Affirmative Action when offered, and Not imposed ,can help a group [Or individual] that may be disadvantaged and is to be encouraged be it in the family or community we live in .”

Nonsense. “Affirmative action”, in terms of level playing field is to tip the field in favour of those to be “affirmatively favoured”. It is a lie, a corruption of “fairness” and the sort of rubbish which breeds suspicion, contempt and community division.

I thought the reason Land and social management in the NT were retrieved by the Federal government was simple, the social fabric was rent and threadbare and evidently corrupt to the point that children’s lives and basic safety were at risk of being lost, to say nothing of a sense of anarchy and indifference by their drunken and drug hazed parents and the inability of the Labor controlled Territory government to execute its civic responsibilities with even a cursory impression of competence.

Regrettably, I hardly understand a meaning of “European supremacy”.

What I have read about, studied of and am experienced in is a simple English xenophobia and racism having been spread worldwide by pirates, bandits and other Irish, catholic separatists, of whom offspring had become a ruling class of a British Commonwealth round a globe – Australia is one of the latest acquires among lands grabbed as the US kicked out English crown two centuries ago.

Understandably, oppressed, discriminated “tolerated” others behave accordingly towards different the indigenous populous has been traditionally within.

And all whites receive a feed-back wherever it is possible as so-called “multiculturalism” that is a relatively-newly invented local definition for traditional apartheid and segregation of English colonists, supposed such a legitimacy to factually sustain.

That is, perhaps, a only positive outcome from “the policy of tolerance and multiculturalism”.

Col,

A level playing field is a great thing to aim for. I would dearly love to see everyone presented with the same opportunities to fulfil their potential.

However if you want to have a level playing field, then you have to ensure that everyone is starting from the same line. Realistically this is never going to happen, individual circumstances will always ensure that some are a little ahead of the line, or a little behind when the gun goes off.

However there are those in the community who aren't even on the track yet. These are the people who need society's help. Whether that comes in extra spaces for aboriginal students at TAFE or Uni (in order to encourage more aboriginals into the education system), or free english classes for new migrants (to ensure they can interact with the wider community), or drug rehabilitation programmes.

I'm not saying that we should molly coddle people, and lets be honest living on the dole is not exactly living on the Ritz (no matter how many "Evil Dole Bludger" stories ACA or TT run). I'm just saying we present them with the tools and the opportunities, what they do with them after that is their own responsibility.

Col Rouge: "Adjudicated by a bench stuffed with socialist apologists who were out of touch with the realities of life, motivated by their own misplaced sense of guilt or possibly anti-libertarian malevolence and with the complicity of socialist federal government who were looking for yet another grandiose scheme to squander tax payers money on, rather than represent the expectations of there electoral majorities."

While that was nice little spray that undoubtedly made Col feel better, it is little more than vacuous invective that simply reflects his political prejudices. So the Mabo decision by the High Court was a plot by the wicked "socialist" majority of judges, in cahoots with the "socialist" Keating government?

Only an unreconstructed Thatcherite could regard either the High Court of the early 90s or the Keating government as "socialist". No doubt Col regards Kevin Rudd as "socialist" too - with any luck when Rudd's elected PM later this year, Col will scuttle back off to the UK and live out his dotage muttering about the filthy socialists out in the colonies, and his beloved Maggie.

It's becoming apparent to me now why all the articles here are written from a green/left/politically correct stance.

And all the most rabid, vicious posts are from green/left/politically correct types, who immediately attack anyone who questions their dogma.

They're on a sinking ship and there's no more lifeboats.

You can hear the desperation, bitterness, arrogance, annoyance in every word they utter.

Right/conservative/liberal types posting here seem to think we can sensibly discuss issues like mature adults.

Then the green/lefties start foaming at the mouth and scratching at your eyes.
Like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist".

Impossible to either get a straight honest answer or in some cases even a post that addresses the issue supposedly being discussed.

Lots of name calling, contempt, belittling. Plenty of that.

As to "aboriginal sovereignty", this article's author seems to chase his tail, muttering about cannibals and frogs.

Well, there never was such a thing as "aboriginal sovereignty", and never will be.
Thank God! *Hundreds* of sovereigns? No thanks!

Aboriginals didn't have a warrior class.
If they'd believed in "territory" like the rest of the world, they'd have had warriors.

The Maoris did, and the Native Americans, and the Africans.
No warriors, no territory.

The concept of "common law" land rights arrived with the first fleet.
Odd that the land laws of the invader are now championed by the conquered (when it's in their interest).

Even without Terra nullius, the colonists could have claimed Australia under the common laws of "squatter's rights/adverse possession" and the "homestead principle".

The first says you can take another's land simply by occupying it, the second that unowned land (Aboriginals weren't *everywhere*) belongs to the first to make use of it.

So Aboriginals either had territory but lost it by occupation, or never owned it to begin with.

And sorry to burst your bubble, Rainier, but the invaders brought Jesus with them too.

Those nasty white supremacists with their golden rule!
How dare they claim to love their neighbour, then take his land!

But you believe in forgiving sins, don't you?
Not by the sounds of your bitter festering hatred.

SHOCKA... keep it up :) I feel some kindred spirit with your posts.

Just on the point of 'forgiveness' and Ranier, and Aboriginal land.

Yes.. they were displaced, mostly by White people...some of whom brought Jesus and the Gospel among other things.

While the basically secular and self interested government made policy decisions primarily in the economic interests of their supporters.. the Church has a mixed track record in its dealings with Indigenous people. We can neither 'write off' or.. 'applaud' the efforts of Missions.. some were good..some were bad.

I do know one thing.. Cherbourg town was established as a result of cruel self interested GOVERNMENT policy to remove pesky Aboriginals from around 47 different tribal areas, but Cherbourg MISSION was established by the Anglican Church, to bring Christ to those displaced aboriginals.

The mission was not perfect, it was a child of its time, but today, the happiest people in Cherbourg are the aboriginals who confess Christ as Savior. (based on the observations and experience of those who have visited them, and felt the warmth, love and passion for Christ among them)

When it comes to some aspects of white/black relations.. there are some things which can never be fixed, only forgiven. Other things (such as unpaid wages) CAN be fixed..and should be...only then should the withholding of them be forgiven.

In the end.. we are all victims of history, but the future will be as bright as we make it "together".

Yeah, make sex-not fight.............

so anyway, do they still point the bone?

Perhaps, yes - or Adult Shops are being forbidden in your area?

Shocka ,

No Aboriginal Warriors?? You are having a lend of us again .

What a shame you missed living at Parramatta in the early years of Australia's white settlement.

Most white Aussis know very little about our Indigenous people and their ancient or modern history.

This is to be expected .

Howard certainly won't go into detail about it in his new history syllabus.

kartiya jim, please present some *verifiable evidence* for a warrior class among Aboriginals.

The implements used *as* weapons against colonists were mostly *hunting tools* like boomerangs and spears.

Throwing a spear at somebody does not make you a "warrior".

As conflict exists within all societies, some non-hunting weapons and protective shields may have existed for hand-to-hand combat or self-defence.

The existence of some people possessing such hunting tools or personal weapons does not constitute a "warrior class".

Warriors are a *specific social class* whose job is to protect territory from invasion by other tribes.

Maoris had them. Native Americans had them. Africans had them.

If you don't believe in "territory" though, you don't need "warriors" (though you may still have violence within your society and therefore some weapons).

Simply living *nomadically* within a certain area doesn't mean you think of it as "territory".
If they'd believed in "territory", they would have had a warrior class.

And if they did, there wouldn't have just been *occasional* scuffles with colonists using hunting tools either.

The tribes would have formed a *military alliance* to drive out the "invaders".
This didn't happen.

Warrior classes would already have existed *before* colonisation too, not simply develop in reaction to it, and therefore evidence of inter-tribal warfare should also *predate* colonisation.
Is there evidence of these pre-colonial wars?

It's a month later, kartiya jim, and we're still waiting for that "evidence"?

Shocka,

Aboriginals didn't need "warrior Classes " - they combined when necessary to attempt to drive out invaders .

Read about the Kalkadoons in Qld .

Why do you think there are so many languages in Australia?

These don't arrive and are maintained by accident - they take effort and respect from neighbours to maintain .

Most Australians know very little about Aboriginal People - this is unfortunate as they try to fit them into a more familiar old world mould ,when their lives were governed by the Australian Environment .

What Jupiter might do a bull is restricted to, as ancient slogan tells.

Day-by-day discriminative factual oppression of non-Anglos in Australia is a matter of “tradition” as, for instance, in Africa whites are rightful land-owners, according to the UK-lead chorus of the Anglos.

"Aboriginals didn't need "warrior Classes""

So, you're admitting they didn't have them.
If so, that means they didn't have "territory".

Every other people in the history of the world that has believed in territory has had warriors.

The "more familiar old world mould" applied to the Sambal, Dani, Sioux, Marathas, Mongols, Scythians, Zulu, Aztecs, Chekavar, Nihang, Haida, Vikings, Samurai, Celts, Spartans, Maasai, Cossacks, Yanomami, Caribs, Tuareg, Rajputs, Pashtuns, Maori, Goths, Kshatriya, Jurchen, you name it.

Not old world.
*All* world.

Checklist:
Territory, tick.
Warriors to protect it, tick.

Did none of these peoples live in harmony with their environment?
Did none of them trade or intermarry with neighbours?

Of course they did, but they also fought wars.
With warriors.

The Kalkadoon?

Yes, trot out the *one and only* example of a warlike Aboriginal tribe.

Guess what happened at Battle Mountain?
They *lost*!

If a tribe loses the war defending their territory, guess what?
It's *no longer* their territory.
It's the victor's.

"Native title" absurdly states that despite the Kalkadoon losing the war, apparently the territory is *still theirs*!!

No people in the history of the world would accept this absurdity.
You lose the war, you lose your territory.
Full stop.

Conan the Barbarian would commit hari-kari before accepting native title.

"I spit on your native title" says Conan, as his sword slices through his belly.
"I die with honour!"

"Native title" absurdly states that despite the Kalkadoon losing the war, apparently the territory is *still theirs*!!

No people in the history of the world would accept this absurdity.” – absurdity?

It is a logic of still existing British feudal mentality well sustaining so-called “democratic independent jurisdiction” in Australia.

michael k,
Unless there's a Treaty like the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand ,[mid 1800's] ,it's still Aboriginal land , never conceded !!. .

Its not rocket science .

Your unfortunate attitude [for Australia ] is typical ignorant, white supremacist .

Was Genghis Khan a white supremacist?
Shaka Zulu?
Montezuma?

Territorial ownership by conquest isn't a "white" concept.

Treaties were common in European colonies.
Why didn't this happen in Australia?

Because it was *impossible*.

There was no *central authority*, just hundreds of scattered nomadic tribes with different languages.
Even today, we couldn't get a consensus.

A treaty is law.
You create laws to create outcomes.
You don't create laws just to make people *feel better*.

The truth hurts.
I'm a bitch.
Tough luck.

A treaty will not alter the fact it's the *colonial* culture which controls the government, economy, law, etc.

A treaty won't change events that have already occurred, or affect people already deceased.

What do you want?

Reserved seats in parliament?
A little against the egalitarian grain, eh?

Self-government?
Within the same geographical territory or separate?

A separate nation could just be invaded *again*!
(By Indonesia)

A nation within a nation would create confusion, not clarification, over *whose* laws apply to *which* Aboriginals.

We've already seen the fiasco of ATSIC.
Do you really think *hundreds* of tribes could sustain a functional government that would provide a *better outcome* (not feel good symbolism) than the existing system?

Reparations and compensation?
For events that happened hundreds of years before you were born?

How *much* money is enough?
A billion? A trillion?

A billion trillion zillion?

*Who* gets paid, how is it *distributed*?

Is it a singular payment, or continuous like a royalty (no pun intended)?

If singular, then only Aboriginals alive *today* will benefit, not those living 50, 500 or 5000 years from now.

If continuous, *how long* must it go on?
200 years? 1000? 40,000? Forever?

It's easy to just shout "treaty", but the devil is in the detail.
And I don't think *everybody* is ever going to agree on "the detail".

If you want education, healthcare, jobs, etc, then argue for *that*, not some magic piece of paper.

If you want to maintain traditions, this is a liberal society.
You don't need a treaty to have a corroboree or play a didgeridoo.
You can do that *right now*!

Corroboree tonight! 7pm.
BYO didgeridoo!
No treaties required!

It is impossible to legitimise white suprememacy nobody can defend the indefenceable those of you who try are merely bigoted racists.

kartiya jim - it is not my attitude.

It is an attitude of those calling to cast votes for them on 24th.

On the other hand, how do you offer re-sharping Europe, for instance, on a basis of a "Moomba case"?

And you know a meaning of "Moomba" in an original language, perhaps.

Michaelk,
Apologies , missed a line .

Shocka appears to ignore the basis of international property law ie, historic possession .

If he flogs stuff off someone, it doesn't make it his .

Henry Reynold's, The Law of the Land is a great read to help understand what has happened in Australia and elsewhere.

kartiya jim, if you're going to refer to property law and possession, you should know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

I already addressed this in my first post:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6277&page=0#92914

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

You've heard of squatter's flats? Here's why they can.

Adverse possession is a common law property right.
You may possess the property of another simply by *occupying* it exclusively for a sufficient length of time.
Is 200 years long enough?

"Adverse possession" is the formal name for Genghis Khan's approach to property acquisition.
And it applied in Australia too, even if the British weren't quite as brutal as Genghis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession
"Possession of a thing for *long enough* can become ownership.
In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an *end* the owner's right to recover possession of a thing."

Possession, even if obtained wrongfully, is *itself* a property right.
I have a VCR, I took it from your home.
It's mine *unless and until* you can prove you have a *better right* to possession than I do.

Considering Aboriginals were nomadic, warriorless, and didn't "use" the land in any way other than exploiting what nature put there, your claim to "possession" is inferior to the white settlers who built permanent towns, roads, railways and farms, and have done so for 200 years.

You may have *once* been the rightful owners of this land, but that right has expired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

The Homestead Principle says you can own land simply by being the first to make use of it.
Aboriginals weren't *everywhere*, so anywhere they *weren't* was up for grabs.

You lose the "warrior" argument, so you cough up "treaty".
When I address the complexity of the treaty issue, you *ignore* it, and cough up "property law" (which I'd already addressed before).

I seems you know nothing of any of the concepts you refer to.
Your comments are based on emotional blackmail, not facts or law.

Spank me, Father Jim.

Teach me a lesson. Ow!
Put me in my place. Ow!
Wipe the smirk off my face. Ow!

Don't hold back. Give it to me.
That's right. Spank my pale white arse.

I've been a naughty, naughty white boy.

OW!

Shocka , wrong again!!

The average English Lord hunts grouse once a year in his back paddock and moves around the rest of his property for the rest of the year shooting rabbits here and pheasants there!

Try and tell him you're moving into his back paddock for keeps and see how you go.

You are still showing an abyssmal understanding of Aboriginal Traditional Culture .

They don't need a piece of paper for their hunting and land rights .

If you have a look at the map of Australian Languages you will realise who really are the rightfull owners .

"Shocka, wrong again!!"

No, Father Jim, *you* are wrong again.

I can set up my caravan and vegie patch in Lord Toffleton's paddock tomorrow.

It's up to Lord Toffleton to get me evicted.

If he *fails* to do so within a reasonable length of time, the paddock will remain in my "possession".
If I "possess" it long enough, I can even claim "ownership".
Right again, Shocka!!

"You are still showing an abysmal understanding of Aboriginal Traditional Culture."

I don't need to understand Basque culture to live in Spain either.
Only Spanish culture.
(Bitch!)

Universal concepts like "warrior", "territory" or "property" transcend time and place.
The Chinese built the Great Wall to protect their territory from invasion by warriors, not rabbits.

"They don't need a piece of paper."

Didn't I just say that?!

Then *why* do you want one?
And could you actually address the numerous thorny issues I raised about this.

"If you have a look at the map of Australian Languages you will realise who really are the rightful owners".

You mean the *original* owners.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/pathways.asp
Look at that map and you'll see why a treaty was *impossible* in 1788 or any time thereafter.

"Ownership" is not an eternal right. It is conditional.
It can expire.
And it has.
First by either never having or losing "possession", and then losing "ownership" through the loss of "possession" over an extensive period of time.

The British invaded and conquered Australia (Ask *them* for an apology).
The land has new owners.
End of story.
(And no matter how much you spank me, I'm not going to feel guilty for sins I didn't commit.)

Could you answer MichaelK's question: "How do you offer re-sharping Europe on a basis of a Moomba case?"

I presume he means reshaping Europe on the basis of a "Mabo"-like case.

You argue about "historical possession".
So, who exactly is the "rightful owner" of Budapest, Hungary?

The Celts?
Romans?
Huns?
Mongols?
Turks?

Magyars, the ancestors of today's Hungarians, originally came from western Siberia!

Who are the "indigenous" people with "traditional" rights to Budapest?
Who "owns" Budapest?

Please explain.

Shocka,

You won't give back a square inch ,we know that.

It is almost as though some people without the ability to create consensus on Aboriginal Land Rights , are then forced to defend from a position of fear.

However, we are going to the moon these days and have plenty to eat and drink, if we are white selfish landowners with Howard's luxury of "choice" . Even capital gain -that's handy .

We can be more generous .

The church in the 1800's abolished slavery; [you would have loved the early South ] their ethical position on Land Rights today is to be commended .

The previous Pope's speech in Alice Springs told them to keep their languages and culture intact as they adjust .

He apologised for the sins of the Church done to Indigenous People the world over hundreds of years .

I suspect you consider this speech to be the result of some kind of unreported mental aberration. It wasn't.

It is what I call World Class Leadership and it is very scarce in Australia.

That's right, Father Jim.

Don't admit you're wrong about "warriors".
Don't admit you're wrong about "property possession".

Avoid answering the treaty question.
Avoid answering the Budapest question.

Typical.

Did you take debating lessons from FrankGol?

"We can be more generous."

Yes, we must be more generous.
Those poor pathetic coloured people just can't get by without white man's helping hand.
Breaks my heart to know they'll never get anywhere without the help of their superiors.
Sad. So very, very sad.
(Wipes tear from cheek as dramatic music swells.)

"You would have loved the early South"

You are disgusting!

Another mixed-up ruse of the "white guilt" brigade: lump in black American slaves with black Australian natives (as if there's any connection).

Aboriginals have more historical similarity to Native Americans than Black Americans, but since when has fact interfered with your fantasies.

Typical reaction of the "politically correct" though:
If you can't win the debate, start with the character assassination.

"Nazi! Nutcase! Numbskull!"
(Now be *ever so clever* and copy and paste that back at me.
Wow, so original!)

I think you're the one "forced to defend from a position of fear".
Fear that your arguments are a sham.