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.