The truth of thye matter is that Australia is already divided on racial grounds---as are all other countries.

Try walking around many places in Australia inside of a brown skinned body and you will very quickly see how racistly divided we are.
There is an almost overwhelming wall of invisible prejudice out "there", or rather within all of us.
And the so called "aborigines" have to deal with it all of the time.

Such a wall of prejudice also operates in the USA re the African-American and the original native-American "Indians". The only good Indian is a dead Indian.

When I was a child and young person I never ever saw anything on TV or read anyhing in which a white man served or helped a person with "coloured" skin. "they" were always there to serve us and carry our baggage, both literally and metaphorically.
And to be killed off like flies or "barbarian savages" in their thousands if they dared to resist our "civilizing" misssion.
Of course "god" was on our side too to give "divine authority" to whatever we were doing.

A similar scenario is now being dramatised by us whitey's against the people of Iraq.
Bringing them "jesus" and "civilization" via shock and awe.

The white man rules OK.

You've got one thing right Selwyn, which is that "Everyone should read the Declaration before coming to a decision on it, as it is not a difficult document to read."

Sadly, your assessment of the Declaration and what it means is mostly nonsense, particularly your suggestion that it somehow seeks to 'divide the nation along racial lines.' Nor does it give the potential for our Parliament to be overridden on anything - no international Treaty does, let alone one like this which is non-binding.

The least you could do is link to the version of the Declaration which has actually been adopted - try this one http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/indigenous/declaration.htm. When people do read the proper document, if they are still tempted to believe any of Selwyn's alarmist nonsense, I suggest they take particular note of Article 46:

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States."

It is a pity that even basic efforts like this Declaration to get some recognition that Indigenous peoples should have rights, the same as the rest of us, get attacked. Of course, John Howard and Mal Brough have been running the same sorts of alarmist and knowingingly false misrepresentations about it, so one can't blame others for assuming some of their criticisms might be true.

How many generations does a settler have to settle in a place before he (or she) becomes "indigenous"?

Any law which seeks to "classify" or "catagorise" on the basis of race, colour, creed or ethnicity, regardless of how well intentioned its affirmative agenda sound, is a bad law and will become the source of civil dissent sooner than later.

Of course the UN is the ideal bodily for producing asinine declarations of rights, after all, they do not answer to any electorate of real people, indigenous or otherwise.

There is nothing like an election for a political candidate to try to play the "moral panic" card, especially if it is also the race card. If it applies to Aborigines, it is particularly popular with right-leaning "independents". Is he trying to "wedge" One Nation?

Thanks Andrew Bartlett for pointing out that Selwyn Johnston linked in his article to a 13-year-old draft of the Declaration, substantially different from the one which was adopted. In particular it doesn't call for restitution of lands taken from indigenous peoples (though it does urge "redress"), nor does it unequivocally assert the right of inidigenous peoples to traditional law.

It remains telling that the four countries voting against the adoption of the Declaration are those four countries founded as British colonial enterprises where the European immigrant population is the majority.

Johnston may still be correct in claiming that it is not in Australia's national interest to sign and ratify this treaty. Providing, of course, that by the national interest he is actually referring, as politicians often do, to the financial interests of large investors (of any nationality) with mates in Australian politics.

Since when do we do anything about UN declarations. We are signatory to the Universal Declaration of human rights, the refugee convention and protocol, the convention on the rights of the child, the convention against torture and other cruel and unusual treatment, the covennant of civil and political rights, the convention of the law of the sea.

And many others.

When we get refugees or a TAMPA situation they go in the bin.

The UNHRC has ruled against Australia on many occasions for breaches of all of the above and we just ignore it. One case that springs to mind is Roqia Bakhtiyari and her five children that the UN deemed had been illegally detained, tortured, deprived of the rights of the family and others and must be released and compensated.

The result? They stayed locked up and were then deported to the wrong country with no documents and dumped in the snow of Rawalipindi to rot or die. Do not ever tell anyone in Australia who follows and believes in human rights that we uphold UN decisions.

We will laugh with bitter laughter.

This is all very interesting, however since Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and then spread throughout the world it might be said that the only place to which H. sapiens is indigenous is Africa. Elsewhere in the world H. sapiens has arrived by migration. The question is do earlier waves of migration from the same source (although by different paths) have different rights? This is even more of a question in New Zealand where the Maori only narrowly (in comparitive terms) beat the Europeans to the place.

This article contains a number of inaccuracies on the Declaration. In particular:

1. It is not a treaty - it is a Declaration, which means that it sets out aspirational standards rather than binding legal obligations;
2. The article refers to the original 1994 version of the text, rather than the 2007 version which was adopted by the General Assembly. The original 1994 version was significantly amended between 1994-2006, prior to a revised version being adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in 2006. The version finally adopted by the General Assembly included some further changes to this 2006 text. The revised text addressed the concerns of the overwhelming majority of governments. It is misleading to refer to the earlier version of the Declaration in this context.
3. Protecting the human rights of Indigenous peoples is not simply 'a delicate internal issue': everyone is entitled to the full protection of human rights law. This protection has sadly been lacking for Indigenous peoples globally in nearly all circumstances, as demonstrated by the fact that Indigenous peoples are the most discriminated against and enjoy the lowest socio-economic outcomes in nearly every country in which they live. The Declaration provides guidance on how to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to overcome this lack of enjoyment of rights.
4. The Declaration does not 'introduce another level of laws'.The recognition of rights in the Declaration elaborates on existing human rights obligations. It has been recognised that the Declaration does not create new or special rights for Indigenous peoples.

PART 2 FOLLOWING

PART 2

5. The Declaration does not create 'the potential for the Parliament to be overridden or neutered': it is about including Indigenous peoples in a partnership on a basis of mutual respect. As Article 46 of the Declaration sets out, all the provisions of the Declaration are to be read in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith. Hardly a recipe for neutering Parliament!
6. It is false to claim that the Declaration could 'disadvantage already stressed groups such as women and children within Indigenous communities'. This is made clear in Articles 22 and 34. Article 22 states that 'indigenous women and children (shall) enjoy the full protection and guarantees against all forms of violence and discrimination' and Article 34 states that practice of customs must strictly be 'in accordance with international human rights standards'.

There are many other factual and legal errors in the article. For a thorough analysis of the Declaration see Chapter 4 of the Social Justice Report 2006 which is tabled in the federal Parliament and visit fact sheets at: www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/declaration/

Article 1 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The above declaration doesn’t add the caveat: this declaration doesn’t apply in PNG or Tierra del Fuego or Greece. The declaration is all-encompassing. Why is a further declaration needed? Has the UN run out of work?

After eliminating discrimination the UN now wants to oversee a recrudescence of that same human weakness — discrimination. Does the new UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People override The UN Declaration of Human Rights?

If ever there was a need for a Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People, the recent invasion of Aboriginal Communities in the Northern Territory demonstrates that need.

The actions of Howard and Brough illustrate the fact that Australia is already divided on racial lines....What they have imposed on Indigenous people in the N.T. under the guise of "saving the little Children' they wouldn't dare pull on a 'white'community without a national outcry.

What 'Rights' Aboriginal had before white colonisation should be restored if ever Australia is to become a true Democracy, observing at least Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights ,then it wouldn't be necessary to proopose another 'specific' one.

Selwyn Johnston is well known to Indigenous people in the seat of Leichhardt - a seat he contests and regularly fails to make any headway in.

Check out his sad website and read his sad policies. Its hillbilly heaven!

And so it seems that desperation calls and out pops the good old race card. Black bashing is an art form in NQ and if good old Selwyn can be accredited with anything its his ability to dog whistle redneck sentiment.

And you have to remember that it gets rather hot in the tropics and it effects everyone differently.

Just bare this in mind when reading anything SJ writes.

Banjo pickin, chicken lickin, tosser.

Rainier's quite right, of course. Selwyn Johnston is a far right ex-military type who sees himself as a politician in the North, having lost several elections abysmally. He probably hopes to pick up Lower House votes from the boofheads who vote for Hanson in the Senate.

Not that it'll do him any good. He's an idiot and everybody knows it (except for 6 - 8 percent, I reckon).

jimoctec said:

"There is nothing like an election for a political candidate to try to play the "moral panic" card, especially if it is also the race card."

Quite so. Fortunately, most North Queenslanders aren't quite as racist as old Selwyn, as his previous electoral efforts attest.

When I was a child I thought like a child. I thought the UN was a wonderful idea that could change the world. As an adult I now know diifferently. Can anyone tell me what the UN has done to make things better. Really better. I would like to see a HR declaration on the rights of girl children not to have their gentials mutilated. Is that too simple? The UH likes to pontificate endlesssly on meaningless babble about rights. I would also like to see a UN declaration of the Responsibilies of the worlds citizens.

father of night questions the usefulness of the UN. The UN presence in Timor has contributed mightily to the bottom line of Toyota by providing brand spanking new 4WD mobile roadblocks to all and sundry. They support the Dili realestate industry by paying whatever is asked for the very best accommodations and office space. This drives up values but businesses (not normal residents) are subsidised by the UN via a clever foil. Employment levels have risen because the UN staff require cooks, house cleaners, car cleaners and gardeners plus a multitude of office drones to relieve them of the boredom of completing self-generating, cost intensive projects. So they do help in their own little way.

Some people never grow up..

Sure the U.N is not perfect and an overhaul is long overdue.
When I was a child the League of Nations was the world's attempt to bring about world peace which failed, The birth of the United Nations rekindled the desire for peace amongst the peace loving people of the world after WW2 with Australia's Evatt playing a leading role. We need Statesmen like him to rise to the occasion once more instead of the sorry caricatures we have at present

If blame is to be apportioned,don't throw the baby out with the bath water but seek to work out why the UN is not as successful as it could be. It will continue to fall short of expectations whilst ever some countries selfishly use their powers of veto. Direct your venom in their direction.

Why didn't the UN just abbreviate the Declaration to:

"Article 1: Indigenous Peoples can do whatever they like, all the time."

The End.

Now that's easy to read.

Hmm,

I've read the transcripts of a lot of international treaties and UN Declarations over the last decade. The 1994 draft is definitely very poor, and I have to say the final draft is only slightly better. There is a big difference between redressing past injustices, helping to improve the standard of living, eliminating discrimination, and helping to restore a sense of cultural pride for an indigenous community, and practically bestowing upon them the status of a state within a state. Article 46.1 may appear to protect the "territorial integrity or political unity of a sovereign State." However, the Declaration's focus on autonomy, and its strong encouragement to indigenous communities to see themselves as a distinct cultural and political entity, who can nevertheless "(retain) their right to to participate fully, -if they so choose,- in the political social and cultural life of the State," really makes 46.1 seem like a token gesture.

Why is there no call to indigenous communities to 'seek assimilation into the mainstream culture of the state, in a spirit of openness and good-will, of their own, informed free will'? Some of the posters on this forum use the term "assimilation" as though it means "cholera." Migrant communities, such as the Chinese or Italian, in Australia have been able to find a healthy balance between assimilation and the maintenance of a strong cultural identity. This Declaration appears to encourage the divisive identity politics that Multiculturalism has encouraged in Australia and Europe over the last few decades.

Sage is correct to ask why the UNUDHR is not adequate. Indeed, Article 2 of the UNDRIP essentially says all there needs to be said "Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity." The UNDRIP appears to state that Indigenous people and communities have the same rights as everybody else, but then goes on to state that that they actually have more rights than everybody else.

Social Justice Commissioner should study up on how International Law evolves over time- Declarations, International Best Practice and the like develop, through precedent and a general international consensus, to become Customary Law or International Law. SJ rightly points out "that there is a regular line of progression from “in principle” to “persuasive” and finally to “authoritative”."

Finally, there's been a lot of focus on the idea that SJ is just an ignorant redneck trying to play the race card for misguided political purposes. But why would the enlightened Labor Government of New Zealand choose to veto the -revised- Declaration? Perhaps Rainier could suggest that the inbred Helen Clark likes to copulate with fluffy white farm animals...

It's no suprise it's only Australia, the USA, New Zealand and Canada who refused to sign.

They're virtually the only countries who would be affected by it!

In most other nations, the indigenous are the *majority*, so are already guaranteed all the rights they could want.

It's pretty easy for a nation to sign off on something that will have *no effect* on them!

This is all very interesting, however since people dispersed from the Tower of Babel and then spread throughout the world it might be said that the only place to which people are indigenous is Iraq. Elsewhere in the world people have arrived arrived by migration. If, as Reynard says, the Maoris only narrowly beat the Europeans to New Zealand, could we say the same about the Australian aborigines?

Spare us the religious crap, Mick V. According to most scientific experts, Aborigines first arrived in what is now Australia more than 40,000 years ago. Hardly narrowly beating the European invaders here, you'd have to agree!

CJ, you say, ‘spare us the religious crap’, but I was mainly having a dig at Raynard’s humanist creation story, one that we are continually force-fed. I just get a bit tired of it.

If you know of any firm evidence that the Australian Aborigines have been here for anything like 40,000 years, then let us know. The way the figure is thrown about, you’d think it was based on something solid. I suspect that they’ve been here no more than a few thousand years, and the few flaky dating methods that are used to say otherwise are but self-serving speculation.

You say, ‘most scientific experts’ believe that figure. Does that imply some don’t? Yet science is not done by democratic vote anyway, you’d have to agree.

Dear oh dear - Mick V's another biblical creationist, and he uses his belief in mythology to discredit in his own tiny mind the legitimacy of Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately for him, the vast weight of scientific evidence points to the antiquity of Aboriginal occupation of Australia - as I said, most experts agree on a figure of at least 40,000 years ago for the first arrival of ancestral Aborigines, but some estimates date back as far as 70,000 years. There are more technical references for these figures than you poke a stick at, but for Mick's benefit I'll start him off with the generalist Wikipedia articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating

However, I'm very doubtful that Mick is capable of understanding the science, given that his mind is hamstrung by his delusional faith.

Does it really matter whether it's been 4,000 or 40,000 years?

"Indigenous" means "native to", or "originating from".

So it doesn't even apply to Australian Aborigines, "Native" Americans, Maoris or virtually anybody else.

Almost every people on earth migrated from somewhere else at some point in history.

Grahame Walsh, the leading expert on the Bradshaws rock art claims that the Bradshaws (which are at least 17000 years old) were painted by a culture *predating* the "Indigenous" Australians.

So there was another group of people here *before* the "Indigenous" arrived!

One could claim that after 200+ years, Anglo-Celtic Australians are "Indigenous".

If you were born here, and your parents, and your grandparents, and your greatgrandparents, aren't you a "native"?
How many generations does it take?

And before you reply that Anglo-Celtics "obviously" descend from the British in a far away land:
The Aboriginals arrived from New Guinea.
The Native Americans from Asia.
And the Maori from Eastern Polynesia.

The only difference is the length of time.

‘Oh dear, another biblical creationist!’ CJ, are you concerned at the growth rate of creationists? It’s true, some people are beginning to question certain evolutionary assumptions before swallowing them whole or believing everything they read on Wikipedia.

Speaking of growth rates, has anyone ever stopped to consider the possible growth rate of a small group of migrants who multiplied over a continent for 40,000 years? Let’s do the maths (CJ Morgan, be warned, this might require some thinking rather than just reading Wikipedia).

Let’s start with a group of 20 people and a minimal (but realistic given the circumstances of our continent) annual growth rate of 0.28%. After 3500 years, they would arrive at around 300,000 people. This is similar to the number of Aborigines present in Australia at the time of European arrival.

Now let’s take the same 20 people with the same growth rate, and calculate the population after 40,000 years. The number is too ridiculous to imagine, bigger than most pocket calculators can handle.

On one hand, we say that the rock paintings at Kakadu, made by mixing ordinary ochre and water, are tens of thousands of years old, then we build protective rain covers over them so they won’t wash away in the next rainy season!

Can’t anyone stop and think? These painting have not been there more than a few hundred years (and sometimes we even know who painted them). But yes, saying they are many thousands of years old, does help to sell Aboriginal art T-shirts.

Please CJ, in saying this, I am not trying to denigrate Aboriginal art. And how does saying that the Aborigines have been here for only a few thousand years denigrate their culture or ingenuity? And how does insisting that they’ve been here ten times longer increase their legitimacy?

The revered figure of 40,000 years might also be 70,000, according to CJ Morgan and Wikipedia. That is, the first figure is 75% wrong if the second figure is correct. But don’t dare challenge CJ or most the ‘experts’ - they’re all in agreement!

Leaving aside for a moment Mick V's idiosyncratic understandings of population demographics and of archaeological dating methods, it's worth pointing out that the UN Declaration's working definition of Indigenous peoples is not dependent upon the relative antiquity of Indigenous peoples' ownership of their lands, but rather upon the invasion and colonisation of their land by non-Indigenous States in which the Indigenous peoples become incorporated but marginalised minorities:

"Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system."

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/PFII%202004%20WS.1%203%20Definition.doc

So I guess I'll have to concede that the length of Indigenous peoples' ownership of their territories - whether this extends to centuries or millennia or tens of millennia - is a red herring in the argument. The crux of the matter is that these are peoples whose Indigenous status is a marginalised one in the contemporary States that now claim sovereignty over Indigenous land.

The reason for the declaration is that Indigenous peoples have invariably suffered appallingly at the hands of the invaders, settlers and colonists as their rights and identities have been systematically assaulted by the contemporary States that were created in relatively recent history on previously Indigenous territory.

Of course, it's hardly surprising that contemporary States like Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada would vote against the declaration - given that they are the contemporary manifestations of the worst excesses of European imperialism as it impacted upon Indigenous peoples.

Mick V,

Re: colonization

As for what we were like before we met you, I no longer care. No periods of time over which my ancestors held sway, no documentation of complex civilizations, is any comfort to me.

Even if I really came from people who were living like monkeys in trees, it was better to be that than what happened to me, what I became after we met you and yours.

And what did you become after you met "us", Rainier?

A Christian. How tribal of you.

CJ Morgan: "It's hardly surprising that Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada would vote against the declaration - given that they are the contemporary manifestations of the *worst excesses* of European imperialism as it impacted upon Indigenous peoples."

Ahem (clearing throat)

Have you not heard of the Spanish?

I don't think there's a single indigenous person left in Chile, Argentina or Uruguay!

Shoka, I was born on a Christian mission/ reserve, not my or my parents choice. Also, I was not born a citizen of this nation but a ward of the state (as were my siblings and of course my parents and extended family.

No, I'm not looking for your sympathy, just pointing out the facts.

I could cite a plethora of readings that would provide you with more knowledge of these times, but i sense you are quite happy to wallow in an ignorance of Australian history - simply because it so connected to rationalising your own your bigotry.

I truly wish you were more inquisitive, deeper thinking and compassionate. But I guess you are still growing up emotionally and intellectually.

And no, I am not a Christian.

There are some truly mean spirited people out there with a selfish opinion as to who are the real owners of this continent.

High Court Legal argument determined that this Australia was not unoccupied land for the taking by British Colonists and true recognition was given to Aboriginal ownership which has been established since in numerous hearings under Land Rights Legislation which granted 'Native Title' to clans who could satisfy the court of continuing association of the areas they claimed.

Early settlers proceeded to claim tribal land after shooting the Indigenous owners or poisoning them with flour laced with strychnine until religious sects established sanctuaries where they set out with Missionary zeal to introduce them to Christianity
Government policies adopted various strategies designed to " breed Aboriginals out" and assimilate them into the broader community. The traumas now acknowledged because of the 'stolen generation' are a product of this cruel practice and further policies which segregated 'coloured' from 'Traditional' people served the assimilation policies by conceding 'rights' to coloured people and declaring Traditional Aborigines as 'Wards of the State", effectively dividing what unity was developing between them.

Coloured people generally assimilated into suburban life and a work ethic whilst Traditional Aboriginals became third class non-citizens confined to remote settlements under paternalistic protectionist policies which created a generation of welfare dependency that Noel Pearson is now attempting to reverse in his Cape York community.
or a cheap labour pool for pastoralists under a unique indenture system where wages were not regulated under awards

Native Title and Land Rights has served to reunite coloured people with their Traditional roots causing a renaissance of Aboriginal language art and culture.

This article,is a total mis representation of the issue, a right wing scare tactic that has its roots in anti Aboriginal racism.The recent actions of the Howard Government in passing legislation to acquire 5 year leases on Aboriginal communities should be sufficient proof that where Law and Order in Australia is concerned,there is and has been one set of rules for ALL Australians.They can do this to YOUR land too if they want to.

CJ, the mathematics used above is called geometric series. The process is good for modelling population growth, and it demonstrates how populations can compound very quickly. In more recent times, despite wars and famines, world population has been doubling every few decades.

"The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

That's a quotation of a 19th-century army general. The sentiment simply doesn't apply to the US today where, if anything, Indians and their culture are idealized. Ever hear of "American Indian Princess Syndrome"?

Indians (which is what they prefer to be called, not "Native Americans") are not equal in measurable outcomes to the mainstream, but they are in a lot better shape than Aborigines.

There are more Indians living both on and off reservations now than there were when the Spaniards first came to what became the US. Some of the Spanish horses went wild, enabling the photogenic horse culture of the plains to take root, creating generations of white guilt for having wiped out what Europe created.

There are more speakers of Lakota today than there were in the early 19th century. Many reservations out west have 4th of July pow-wows. Do any Aboriginal settlements have Australia Day corroborees?

Mick: I don't pretend to understand all of the science, and there is never a last word, but it seems according to the latest evidence that the founder population of Aborigines came to Sahul about 50K years ago: http://archaeology.about.com/od/humanorigins/a/australia_popul.htm

Some of the contributors here claim that the purity of indigenousness doesn't depend on length of tenure, and some resort to the antiquity of Aborigines. Which is it?

Also, you can't revive a dead language. Give me one example of assimilated part-Aborigines who have revived a dead language and make a living in that language. Sometimes you have to admit that something is history. It strikes me, from what I've read, that a lot of what is called "Aboriginal culture" is simply working class country Australian culture, and there's nothing especially Aboriginal about it. I refer specifically to the part-Aboriginals of QLD, NSW and Victoria, not to the Aborigines in the center of the country who do have some real-life experience with traditional Aboriginal culture.

Finally, this UN Declaration isn't going to make one iota of difference in the real lives of real Aborigines, so what's the fuss about?

You can't equate aboriginal family culture in south eastern Australia to country culture. The country folk know who has white lineage and who has aboriginal blood. In NSW until quite recently aboriginal children were removed from school if white parents complained about them being educated, so understandably until about 1985 families didn't talk about or seek out their aboriginal heritage. Even though there have been quite good financial incentives in recent years for aboriginals, families that have assimiliated into white Australia have not come forward to declare their aboriginality.

Of course Australia wouldn't sign a UN Declaration on Indigineous Rights, we are not so breathtakingly hypocritical as to sign that and whilst sending the army into the Northern Territory to strip the aborigines of their land, their assets, their jobs and move them into concentration camps on the edge of large towns. Camps as in the Boer and Vietnam war usages.

Shocka: "I don't think there's a single indigenous person left in Chile, Argentina or Uruguay!"

Well I suppose we'd better let the Alacaluf, Aymara, Chono, Diaguita, Fuegians, Mapuche, Patagon, Puelche, Rapanui, Selknam, Tehuelche, Yaghan of Chile know that they don't exist in Chile. However, I take your point with respect to Argentina and Uruguay, where the Spaniards were more successful in their genocide of the Indigenous peoples. Interestingly however, Chile was a signatory to the declaration.

Mick V, simple geometric series would be most inappropriate mathematical models to apply to hunter-gatherer populations like Aborigines, where ecological and cultural factors combined to restrict population growth to the carrying capacity of the environment for that subsistence strategy. Face it mate, you don't know what you're talking about.

lizz-the-yank: "Finally, this UN Declaration isn't going to make one iota of difference in the real lives of real Aborigines, so what's the fuss about?"

Indeed. Like most countries, Australia only observes and enacts those aspects of UN treaties and declarations that are politically palatable for whatever government is in power, as with respect to our obligations towards refugees, for example.

"It strikes me, from what I've read, that a lot of what is called "Aboriginal culture" is simply working class country Australian culture, and there's nothing especially Aboriginal about it."

If you ever come to Australia and meet some Aboriginal people, you will quickly realise that their culture is quite distinct from that of the dominant Australian culture. It may not be the same as that which you have read about as "traditional" Aboriginal culture, but it is nonetheless distinctively Aboriginal. A bit like the way that contemporary Lakota reservation culture is not the same as "traditional" Lakota culture. All cultures change, particularly those that are subject to centuries of misguided and malign policies and marginalisation from the invader society.

The irony is that when Indigenous cultures survive, albeit in modified form, then they are often derided as being inauthentic - most often by members of the dominant culture.

Billie: you contradict yourself. First you say that "The country folk know who has white lineage and who has aboriginal blood." Then you say that "families that have assimiliated into white Australia have not come forward to declare their aboriginality." If country folk know who is white & who is aboriginal, then how could there have been assimilation to such an extent?

I'm confused.

CJ: "If you ever come to Australia and meet some Aboriginal people, you will quickly realise that their culture is quite distinct from that of the dominant Australian culture." Perhaps I should have been more specific: I don't mean full-blooded Aboriginals. I specifically mean part-Aboriginals.

Before we continue, please don't remind me that it's un-PC that the usage "part-Aboriginal" is un-PC. I know it is. I use it anyway because that is who I am talking about. Pretending that there is no difference between blackfellas and "mixedfellas" is ludicrous, and a lie.

From what I've read, the detribalization and loss of traditional culture with the part-Aboriginals is in no way analagous to differences between contemporary reservation culture with the pre-reservation culture.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.abc.com.au/missionvoices/

Click around this website, and pay especial attention to the "voices of the elders." Most of what they relate strikes me as simply rural poverty culture. What's so uniquely Aboriginal about extended families, hunting, fishing and tin shacks? Correct - it may be quite different from mainstream Australian culture. What I dispute is how much of it is Aboriginal. I think it's just the retention of rural patterns long after they had died out amongst the local white folks (to whom they were related).

continued---

Thanks Lizz for throwing in another date to consider concerning Australian colonisation. However even in your article, it’s clear that there is much debate (this is good) and wide discrepancies among those who claim to know.

Sorry for harping on, but I think there is good reason not to fall in line with the mantra that ‘the Aborigines arrived here 40,000 years ago.’

I was hoping to challenge people to think a bit. Maybe I can claim success as CJ, in his last comment, has even thrown in a bit of reasoning amongst his usual bluster.

Lizz suggests 50,000 years. This is a full 10,000 years in error of the normally stated figure. Can we even imagine the length of this error margin? 10,000 years is longer than all of recorded history!

Above I suggested, using a theoretical mathematical model of population growth, that the Aborigines may have been here for 3500 years after a 0.28% (pretty small) annual growth rate. Continuing at the same rate, such a population would attain America’s present population after roughly 6,000 years. After 10,000 years the model would reach thousands of billions.

While these figures are only theoretical, the point is clear, That is, populations left to themselves grow rapidly. And it is in line with observed population growth. It is a human tendency to multiply. People like having kids.

So the obvious question, if the Aborigines have been here for 40,000 years, where are all the people?

Thus, as CJ has suggested, there must have been limiting factors that kept growth rate low. In reality, these hardships must have kept the growth rate constantly zero or negative, that the whole population must have lived on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed 40,000 years. This scenario stretches credibility.

Or were they living for millennia at maximum population? For 300,000 people, if we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres habitable land area. It’s doubtful this is near maximum, even for a subsistence existence.

CJ: I agree that "all cultures change," and it's for that reason that land rights in the most developed parts of Australia are irrelevant to improving the lives of the (part)Aboriginals. I also agree that the policies of the gov't were "misguided and malign" but again, what's your goal? Browbeating present-day white Australians for policies they are not responsible for? What good does that do?

Focus on the future. If you really want to help Indigenous kids who drop out of school and who can't find a job, you'll stop singling them out and truckling to fake Indigenousness. I've seen too many pictures of plump, beige kids in white face paint pretending to be Aboriginal dancers to take this nonsense seriously. And I doubt they do, either, as they are all into hip-hop anyway.

Mick:

Here is another link to the study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tmpl=NoSidebarfile&db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=17496137&dopt=AbstractPlus

I am not making these claims: qualified geneticists are. Argue with them.

Regarding your linear projection of Aboriginal population: it makes no sense! I have read that they may have experienced population booms and busts, as all human societies do.

You are ignoring both genetic evidence and archaeology, so I conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.

I read an interesting article in The Australian today; see

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/stories/ind/eur,

"A small group in Wales, GB, which claims to represent the "indigenous Celtic culture" has launched a class action lawsuit against the governments of Germany, Norway and Sweden for its invasions during the 4th-7th Centuries AD and 1066, respectively. Seeking damages of over a billion dollars, the group is seeking compensation for the genocide of a people and culture claimed to be about 10,000 years old, plus the murder of their monarch, Arthur. A spokesperson for the Norwegian Government was quoted as saying, "They are entitled to their views, but we content that what they perceive to be 'truth' may not be the same for everybody else. We perceive the 'truth' of the matter differently." An unnamed official in the German government was quoted as saying "Fec% Off!"

"In a related story, a man on a street corner in Cairo, Egypt, reportedly claimed he represented the indigenous Egyptian race, dating back to before the construction of the pyramid, and was complaining that his people were discriminated against under a 'Moor-centric' dominant culture. The man has since disappeared."

"And no, I am not a Christian."

Then Rainier can you please explain these comments:

"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."
3 September 2007 5:35:31 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6277

"I'm a big fan of God and JC, its their fan clubs I don't like."
24 May 2007 9:19:06 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5878

"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." - MATTHEW 6:1
17 December 2006 9:45:11 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5153

Sorry I was confused.
You clearly despise Jesus.

BTW, I'm not a Scientologist.

Lizz,

Thanks for the link. If you accuse me of going against the flow of popular opinion, I’ll happily stand guilty there.

But since you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, I’d better say something to defend myself.

You state, “I am not making these claims: qualified geneticists are. Argue with them.” Okay, happy to.

But first, you said the mathematical model didn’t make sense. Yet your term ‘linear’ displays a poor understanding for what was being said (perhaps this could be excused if you are not mathematically inclined). I argued that population growth is precisely non-linear. A linear growth increases by a steady amount each year. Populations generally increase (or occasionally decrease) by a percentage each year. This is markedly different. It is the difference between adding and multiplying.

You’re main criticism was that I’m ignoring the genetic evidence and archaeology. Archaeologists generally use radiometric or carbon dating methods, which also are reliant upon mathematical models projected into the past. I could just as easily say (just as you did) that their arguments are in bad faith because they ignore evidence found in population growth statistics.

The arguments that the Aborigines may have experienced population booms and busts, is simply a rationalisation to get around what the population growth figures are obviously saying. Is there any evidence for these booms and busts? Just scratch the surface a little, you’ll find there is not.

In the end, I think the population growth models are reliable as they match up with what we have experienced with real figures of population growth in recent times.

You have to make a choice based on which mathematical models you think are more reliable, contain more reliable assumptions, and induce less unfounded rationalisations to explain the anomalies.

You are correct when you said earlier that there is never a last word. That is, not unless someone invents a time machine to go back and see what really happened.

Mick V
The major variable in respect to Aboriginal population growth or decline was very definitely the capacity of the environment to sustain growth for hunter gatherers. Bear in mind that their capacity to develop agriculture was limited. Aboriginals were totally dependent on the natural flora and fauna for subsistence as there were no beasts of burden nor crops capable of farming. They followed their food source which kept them on seasonal 'walkabout'
Clans would have spread throughout areas of abundance and numbers limited in desert areas where populations had to be nomadic to follow food and water source.
They intelligently adapted to nature's gifts and discovered means of making fire and understanding aerodynamics to create boomerangs and woomeras to extend their spear throwing.
Australian Aboriginals were able to survive in the harsh Australian environment where ignorant colonials perished.

shoka you boof head, i also cite Karl Marx, Noam Chomsky and others,
you can do this when you read books, try it some time. it works.
& stop typing with one hand mate!

"Boof head, stop typing with one hand mate!"

Rainier, I didn't think it possible, but you've reached a new low.

I bet there are people on "your" side who wish you'd just shut up!
You're *not* helping!