Anyone who even mentions Henry Reynolds, let alone quotes his bodgie figures, has to be viewed with deep suspicion.

There was no ‘genocide’ as in deliberate wiping out of aboriginals to fail to “recognise”. Some aboriginals were treated very badly by some white settlers, and most aboriginal tribes treated each other very, very badly, spending a great deal of their time killing each other in ‘turf wars’.

There is no “myth” about Australia day. It commemorates white settlement of a land now called Australia. “Invasion” is an emotional word totally inappropriate to the mores and standards of 200 plus years ago. And, as an enlightened nation, Britain treated the aborigines much better than any other colonisers of the time. There were specific instructions for them to do so.

Anyone who talks about the “invasion” of the NT last year to “further the destruction of our Indigenous people’s links to their land and culture…” has to be taking something pretty strong; unless, of course, this author equates protecting children from perverts, starvation and disease with genocide. This is more likely to be the case than is drug induced ranting because anyone who talks genocide in relation to British settlement and aborigines is a complete nutter.

This particular nutter now wants to mobilise a ‘huge’ 4% of the Australian population (most of whom are more interested in running the lives they have like the rest us than in rallying to ratbag causes) and their “millions of supporters”. What a load of mouth-frothing madness!

If John Passant is so concerned about this issue he should bang his head against the wall harder than he is now and finish his misery.

Leigh, you say "no genocide".

What is your *enlightened* interpretation of the mass killings of aboriginals in Tasmania to the point of extermination?

If you delve, there is indeed evidence to back up Henry Reynold's view of Australian history.
We have just got rid of a government that tried its damndest to rewrite our history as so much "nicer" than it really was.
We do indeed carry today the load of our genocidal past.

And - we, white Australians, are about to carry on that shameful tradition.
How many of us have shares in companies that are destroying in a few short years, land that was aboriginal land for 40,000 years?

How many greedy investors are thinking of the money that might flow from having international radioactive waste dumps on that land?

We, mindless Australians - preoccupied with our superannuation, our second car, our backyard barbecue - do we notice that the supposedly great bonanza of uranium mining would lead inevitably to other countries having dangerous nuclear reactors, and more nuclear weapons.

While we piously say "no nuclear power plants here" - Australian do not seem to recognise the hypocrisy of our position on uranium mining.

As to the health and environmental ill-effects of uranium mining - well, it's not our problem much - its only a few abos, isn't it?

Invasion Day, January 26th should give us an opportunity to reflect on our current situation, as top greenhouse gas polluters, and mindless energy consumers.
From the original owners of this land, we might learn some ways to respect this land, and work together to restore both the dignity of those original owners, and our precious fragile environment.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

I am pleased to see that there is still someone like Leigh who has the guts to stand up and put a counterpoint to the overwhelming, politically-correct garbage on this subject that pervades related discourse. I am also heartily sick of hearing "activists" like Passant, who by implication claim to be the legitimate voice of Australia's aboriginal population (which, by ABS statistics, comprises 1.93% of the Australian population) - using language more appropriate to Che Guevara, rather than the menial ravings of some biased social reformer from the backwoods “with his thumbnail dipped in tar”.

Whether Passant likes (or even knows) it, the history of this planet is written in the blood of nations that have been conquered aggressively by the armies of more powerful nations. Every hundred years or so, for the last two millennia, the countries of Europe and their national boundaries and the people who politically controlled them and the fate of their populations have changed drastically, under the force of arms. Without wishing to agree with it as a methodology, it nevertheless is the way of history.

It was a similar historical process by which Australia was founded. The only reason that Australia's history does not mirror the complication of Europe's is because of its geographical isolation and a smaller and more homogeneous population. That doesn't mean, because we can see it more clearly, that there is any obligation to "give it back".

I, personally, do not carry the slightest historical guilt for what came before me in the history of this country. However, it is a play to this historical guilt upon which the political opportunists rely in constructing their politically-correct "solutions" to their self-serving agendas. And they can be quite persuasive. It was just such a process that led to the political "stacking" of the High Court as a forerunner to that travesty of justice called ‘the Mabo Decision’ on Aboriginal land rights. I am a great believer in land rights for Aboriginals. They can have exactly the same rights that I do: get a job, work hard and buy it!

From the article “20,000 Aboriginal people fell defending their land in an ongoing war against the invaders.”

Yes, defeated by colonial acquisition. People die in “War”

The world of 200 years ago was then. This is now.

As a “protestant” (of sorts), I will never understand why Irishmen parade up and down celebrating
the battle of the Boyne, which saw the defence of the Protestant King of England’s sovereignty over a predominantly Catholic Ireland. It all happened a few years before the colonisation of Australia under the British flag.

That was then, this is now.

Grow up, pretending that Australia is some backwater continent where previous aboriginal settlers will eternally moan on about their ancestral dispossession is as pointless and irritating as celebrating the battle of the Boyne, ancient Britain’s complaining about the Saxon invasion or the French moaning on about their defeat at Agincourt or England protesting to the Court of Human Rights for repayment of Dane-geld from Denmark.

As for “Australia Day perpetuates our founding myths and enslaves our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. In the spirit of true reconciliation let’s abolish this celebration of genocide.”

Like I said, get over it, the “war of colonisation”, if that’s what you want to call it was a resounding victory for the “colonists”.

It is time for John Passant to accept the permanency of post colonial settlement and join mainstream Australia in the celebration of federation and thank his lucky stars Australia was colonised by the British. The alternative of say Dutch, Belgium, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German or (more pertinent of recent history) Japanese (1942) or late 20th century Indonesian, colonisation (if East Timor is any guide) would have produced a far harsher outcome for the indigenous native.

Darn it, Doc Holliday,

. . . you beat me to the draw !

From my understanding many of the Aboriginals were killed by other Aboriginals. Sure they were given guns by white people but it was the black finger that pulled the trigger. This was especially the case in Queensland. Its called tribal warfare.

The author said that "There is a shocking 17-year gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians." But since Europeans have arrived I would say Aboriginal life expectancy has risen by between 60 - 100%. Is this a bad thing?

Until his retirement Professor Colin Tatz was professor of politics at Sydney's Macquarie University, where he established one of only three academic centres in the world devoted to genocide studies. A South African political refugee, he found in Australia echoes of his own country. "People say to me," he said, "Surely, South Africa was an example of dreadful maniacal, premeditated racism where Australia was really a case of innocent ignorance.

The truth is there is a tremenduous similarity, both in ideology and notions of scientific racial theories: for example, the fuller the blood, the more primitive, the lighter the skin colour, the more salvageable. The reserves, the exploitative labour, the sexual exploitation of women, the separate health systems, the separate education, the ban on interracial marriage - all are the same."

In 1998, Professor Tatz published a monograph,"Genocide in Australia,"
in which he argued that, under international convention, Australia is guilty of at least two types of genocide:

"Firstly, the essentially private genocide, the physical killing, committed by settlers and rogue police officers in the nineteenth century, while the state, in the form of colonial authorities, stood silently by (for the most part); secondly, the twentieth century official state policy and practice of forcibly transferring children from one group to another with the express intention they cease being Aboriginal."

He quotes the Chief Protector in Western Australia, C.F. Gale: 'I would not hesitate for one moment to separate any half-caste from its Aboriginal mother, no matter how frantic her momentary grief might be at the time. They soon forget their offspring.'

"Very few Australians," wrote Tatz, ..."use the word genocide. Almost all historians of the Aboriginal experience - black or white - avoid it. They write about pacifying, killing, cleansing, excluding, exterminating, starving, poisoning, shooting, beheading, sterilising, exiling, removing - but avoid genocide."

Are they ignorant of genocide theory and practice? Or simply reluctant to taint "the land of fair go," "the lucky country," with so heinous a label?

Professor Tatz reminds Australians that, in acts of genocide, "There are three parties: the perpetrators, the victims, and the bystanders."

John 100,000 Japanese were killed in a instant just over 50 years ago. Should they hold a grude? Millions have have been killed in wars in the last hundred years. How should we balance that, against the selfloathing that you seem to want us to feel. There is now doubt bad things were done to "first" Australians? I think though it is you and many like you that have not got the right tidea about this.

Whenever somone talks like this I reminded of the Monty Python movie life of Brian. I mean "What have the Romans ever done for us".

CONT'D

When Sir Ronald Wilson, the former High Court judge who chaired the
"Bringing Them Home" inquiry, used the word "genocide," he was accused of "intemperate slander" and roundly abused by goernment politicians and the far-right commentators who dominate the Australian press. Like Professor Tatz and a few other bravehearts, he had broken white Australia's most enduring taboo.

Central to this is the suppression of Aboriginal population figures; for if historians were to reveal that large numbers of people inhabited the "empty land" at the time of white settlement, the deduction would have to be made that the genocide was on an even more appalling scale than had been previously assessed.

On the eve of the bicentenary of white settlement in 1988, a sensational "discovery" was made by the anthropologist Dr Peter White and Australia's most celebrated pre-historian, Professor D.J.Mulvaney.
They reported that the Aboriginal population in 1788 was 750,000, or three times the previous estimate. They concluded that more that 600,000 people had died in the years following white settlement. News of this was published on page sixteen of the Sydney Morning Herald under the byline of the paper's "Environment Writer."

The Mulvaney/White disclosure was supported by the news historiography of Henry Reynolds, Ross Fitzgerald, Noel Butlin and others, who literally wrote the Aboriginal story on the blank pages of Australia's history, until then a faintly heroic tale of the white man struggling against nature, of "national achievement" devoid of blacks, women and other complicating factors. With the Aborigines included, the narrative was completely different.

It was a story of theft, dispossession and warfare, of massacre and resistance. It was a story every bit as rapacious as those of the United States, Spanish America and colonial Africa and Asia. It was above all, a political story.

In breaking the silence, these historians incurred the wrath of an influential group of white supremacists, including Prime Minster
John Howard. Who holds the unique position of being the only leader of a white settler nation to refuse to apologise for the decimation of the original inhabitants.

Q&A

“Leigh, you say "no genocide".

What is your *enlightened* interpretation of the mass killings of aboriginals in Tasmania to the point of extermination?
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 24 January 2008 9:50:39 AM”

For your answer, look to Keith Windschuttle who properly researched the subject (unlike Henry Reynolds, who made it up as he went along) and proved that the so-called genocide in Tasmania never took place. It was all in Henry’s mind.

Never take any notice of writers who do not footnote their claims to references you can check for yourself.

Most historians are left wingers trying to make a name for themselves. There are so many of them vying for their own place in history that they cannot afford to let the truth get in the way of a good yarn.

Thanks Leigh, I have “looked" to Keith Windschuttle, but all I have ever seen (and continue to see) is a political ‘wag’ who is on the editorial board of Quadrant - he politicises aboriginal history issues.

Unfortunately, you do the same with your comment;

“Most historians are left wingers …”

You are intentionally (or unintentionally?) helping to turn Australian History into a pathetic game of ideology – this is wrong.

I can concur with the view that there are some people that are part of a group of populist conservatives waging a propaganda ‘war’ built around a cultural and political struggle – as you seem to be doing here, whether you realise it or not.

Everyone should do proper research before they blindly follow. To argue a point or adopt a stand, one should assess other points of view. In this regard, two other books are worth a read.

1. ‘The History Wars' by Stuart Macintyre and Anna Clark

2. 'Whitewash' by Robert Manne

A review can be found here,

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~abr/Oct03/Birch.htm

Leigh, we have to afford truth to get in the way of a good yarn.

Foxy, thanks for your input.

Australia Day? I for one am not at all sure about what we celebrate. A National holiday such as this is of course an opportunity for a long weekend, a barby or other social occasion. But what it actually celebrates is a bit up for grabs. We can look around and celebrate the emergence of a truly great nation, one of the best places to live in my opinion. We can put on black armbands and bewail the misery into which many black and white folk were plunged in early colonial times. What we really need is some leadership and imagination. If I had the ear of a politician I would be saying "come on Kevin" let's get any residue of guilt off our chest, let us pledge to extend all our great Australian values to all of our people, black and white. Let us work to preserve any precious vestiges of indigenous culture while at the same time extending all the benefits and privileges of our citizens to all black fellows as well. There needs to be challenge too as well as rhetoric. Ought remote communities, beyond the pale of law and economic opportunities, be supported when a lot of evidence says they have failed? Instead of the moralising by the author of this article we need some constructive thought. Advance Australia fair to all. But we have to translate grand statements into practical policy.

"I am a great believer in land rights for Aboriginals. They can have exactly the same rights that I do: get a job, work hard and buy it!"
And do you, Doc, support the right of your children to inherit the land you worked hard for, and bought?
How about the right of your government to declare the land you worked hard for and bought, was actually vacant land -despite all your protestations- and could therefore be legally sold by the government to anyone with the money, and pay you nothing?

The article is not worthy of comment, but why am I not surprised that the author is very familiar with the writings of Marx.

It is the Candberra journalists who have collective amnesia, not white Australians.

If white people had not settled Australia and turned it into one of the best and freest countries in the world, Australia today would look like an Antipodean verson of black Africa. Think of Arukun or Palm Island on a continental scale, and you get the idea.

Although, at least Arukun and Palm Island have a few white police to try to keep the drunken aborigines from screwing too many of their own kids, and killing too many of their own women. And at least the white police can stop the aborigines from reverting to the savagry we see in black Africa today where hundreds of thousands get murdered by machetes and "necklacing". Without white police, white welfare workers, and white medical services, 50% of aborigines would now have AIDS, just like in Africa.

Since some of the former members of ATSIC could probably teach Mugabe, Mobutu, and Idi Amin a thing or two about stealing everything from their own people, it hardly takes a Mensa to figure out that Australia would be just another series of mutually hostile failed black states where Kalashnikov carrying crazies extort money from white Western Aid agencies, who are in there to stop the blacks from starving to death.

In South Africa today, even little black female babies are being raped because of a belief among black men that screwing virgins cures AIDS. Is it wrong for me to conclude that these people are not real bright, and they need a bit of guidance from people who are a lot more intelligent and mature? Look at the way aborigines behave and make the same conclusion.

But if you are hung up on the concept that all races are equal, then I suppose that you always have to find creative ways to blame white people for everything that goes wrong with black people. The trouble is, that such a racist explanation just happens to make you as big a racist as I am.

Well, this is bringing the scorpions out from under the rocks, isn't it? On the one hand we having the genocide deniers (Leigh)and on the other, the "blood of nations" pragmatism of Doc Holliday. Sitting in the middle is ol' Col Rouge with his "so what?" indifference. And then along comes Redneck...and the little cabal of professional whites is complete.

Kenny, I feel no guilt about the genocide either, but only because I acknowledge it and condemn it. My ancestors were unsettlers but that was their crime, not mine. "Self-loathing"? Come off it mate, I'm loving life and I'm proud to have the values I hold. I've got my feet planted in the great progressive traditions of this country: I'm in the union, Jack's as good as his master (in fact, he'd be a bloody sight better off without him!), and I'll always stick up for the underdog against the arrogance of the superior man, of the swell, of the toff, of the white supremacist and the boss.

Bring on the Treaty, damn the genocide. The real Australia Day was December 4, 1854!

Apparently going by some of our Posts, forgetting is the same as being forgiven.

Pathetically juvenile really, very similar to the Roman idea of peace. As Tacitus wrote, peace to us Romans, is the quietness achieved when what is left of the enemy are slaughtered after battle.

Remember what happened to the Tasmanian Aborigines.

Not changed much - or have we?

Cheers - BB, WA.

Good question BB – it does raise many issues and would appreciate your thoughts.

I tend to agree with John Passant. However, compensation is sticky.

We can feel regret (and a representative government can say sorry) for past wrongdoings … but we all must move forward, as other countries and first nation peoples have. Ergo, why is Oz so backward?

For those of the ‘stolen generation’, if there has been real and substantive *damage* to their well-being as a result of their experience – then yes, some form of compensation would be appropriate.

The Catholic Church is not exonerated from paying compensation to those who it abused so why should not the government departments for their abusive policies?

However, compensation for the land … that is another issue and there are legal processes in place.

The stolen generation is perhaps a greater quandry than most consider it to be. Whilst many of those taken suffered personally, many seem to be relatively well-off economically-speaking (of course this is far from the be-all and end-all), and more notibly their children seem to be relatively high achievers. The option for many would have been to leave them on missions etc where their offspring would now be subjected to the degradations that the rest of the country is finally finding out about. Neither is good perhaps, but I know which I consider to be the better of two evils.

I too think that genocide is too strong a term to apply to our history. Genocide implies a set agenda to wipe out an entire cultural group. In truth, much of the killings were aimed at protecting the economic interests of squatters (ie protecting livestock) - this makes it murder, but not genocide. A huge number of the deaths were non-intentional - disease in particular wiped out entire populations. Again, whilst tragic, this is not genocide. We need to be very careful when attaching labels to acts, because the very process of doing so forever categorises the events, and diminishes the individual importance.

I found all the comments interesting and challenging as it should be in a Democratic country, but some how I feel that a lot of people have made their opinion based on the reports researchers, anthropologists,academics and such have made and who most definetly are or where non- Indigenous persons.
I just have one question. How many of you have had an Indigenous Australian person at your dinner table that you call friend?
You may just get an insight into the world of being Indigenous.

Clearly, Leigh's never actually read any of Henry Reynolds' numerous books on this subject. If he had, he'd know that Reynolds provides plenty of footnotes detailing his sources. Windschuttle's claim to fame is that he found minor errors in the footnotes of Reynolds and others, not with the substance of their arguments.

There is no doubt to any serious scholars of Australia history that there was a systematic and deliberate pattern of behaviour intrinsic to that history that would fit within current international definitions of "genocide". However, as many have pointed out, the worst of it occurred a long time ago and the Australian community has to move on.

That's why there should be a formal apology from the Australian government on behalf of the Australian nation - not just for the 'Stolen Generations' but for the entire history of expropriation, dispossession and, indeed, attempted genocide that enabled contemporary Australia to be established. And yes, there should be some kind of compensation fund set up in recognition of the almost complete non-participation of contemporary Aborigines in the real estate market in what used to be their land.

If the Australian government and people are big enough to bite the bullet and offer a real and sincere apology and suitable compensation, then we might be able to say one day that Aboriginal people are truly 'integrated' into an Australian society with which they are reconciled. I can't see any other way that such an outcome is possible.

A valid question ‘thethinker’ poses – and we may be surprised by the answer/s … if one was to do a proper survey with a proper sample size. But hey, this is only one thread on OLO.

Nevertheless, I can only speak for myself. Think what you may ‘thethinker’, but my daughter is, using your terms, an ‘Indigenous Australian’ and yes, she is my ‘friend’ too.

Having obtained her PhD a while back she now researches and lectures in indigenous studies – so she is also an academic.

We have had discussions on various issues, including the subject matter of this thread – sometimes over dinner and sometimes just sitting on a big rock looking at the sun as it rises over the water.

We both know what it means to be an ‘Indigenous Australian’, both in the past and in the present – what the future holds is uncertain but we hold hands in respect and in hope.

Q&A. How proud you must feel with 'our' little sister achieving such great things in her life. I am sure as her mother that you are good friends and you share lots of experiences together. A lot of 'assumptions,'comments etc may come from people who have not got the connections with Indigenous community and family and therefore there knowledge base may be fractioned. I am from the NT and I am Indigenous and yes I am presently studying Anthropology and as a mature age person I have lived through some of the things that people write about and I was suggesting maybe they need to talk to those who do have a past in the Indigenous context.

Another sister.

Col Rogue wrote:

"aboriginal settlers will eternally moan on about their ancestral dispossession is as pointless and irritating as celebrating the battle of the Boyne, ancient Britain’s complaining about the Saxon invasion or the French moaning on about their defeat at Agincourt or England protesting to the Court of Human Rights for repayment of Dane-geld from Denmark."

If this dispossession happened over the last 50 years wouldn't you consider this significant?

To make comparisons with the waring that occurred in European and British invasions may well serve your historical and moral perspective as these wars were largely resolved through the law and statehood.

No such application of international law has ever been engaged with here.

Or are you implying that Aboriginal people should not be accorded the same access to legal jurisprudence that others have enjoyed for eternity?

C'mon Col, I expect you to know your legal history better than most here and its pure laziness on your behalf to jump in with both eyes closed.

But perhaps you care more about being fashionable rather than factual?

“At the Tulloh property near the Grampians, Robinson [Chief Protector of Aborigines May 1841] ‘saw the corpse of a native on 3 sticks’, apparently used as bait to lure and kill emus. Tulloh told Robinson that he and eight other men had previously gone to the Grampians ‘in a quest of blacks’. They found a child, laid it near the fire ‘and roasted it or, to use his qualified expression, burnt it’. They also found a ‘fine little boy’, who bit one of the men who had abducted him. ‘The ruffian then kicked the child to death’. A week later, following yet another attack on a native camp near Mt Sturgeon, Robinson could only state the obvious: ‘ This would not be allowed in a civilised society’.” Citing the Journals of G.A. Robinson, May to August 1841, extracts of Manuscripts held in the Mitchell Library Sydney (Birch, 2003, p.157).

Rather than helping the parents of the stolen generations the children were taken and taught to be almost white. A servant class to be exploited. How about the sanctimonious posters read some of the reports such as the Bringing them home report.

AKA, good point about reading the report. However from my experience ignorance is a peculiar animal, it refuses to digest anything that may ask it to reconsider, learn and reflect.

When I encounter this animal I always think of those German soldiers who rebelled against Hitler and his genocidal ways. They were men and women of great courage and humanity. So too for many on the 'frontier' in this country who protested against the genocidal ways of 'early settlers'. They were few, but they were there.

Rainier “If this dispossession happened over the last 50 years wouldn't you consider this significant”

That is a purely hypothetical question to which the only answer is

It did not happen in the past 50 years.

You might find some satisfaction from debating "academic hypotheticals" but I am to immersed in the practical issues of "real life" to give time to your “fantasist indulgences”.

“No such application of international law has ever been engaged with here.”

Please enlighten us all to the “International Law” which governed
Battle of the Boyne,
Saxon invasion of Britain
The French defeat at Agincourt
England re Dane-geld paid to Denmark.

The world is a changing place.
The total environment which shapes peoples expectations is never “absolute”, where all laws would be applicable across all time.

Peoples expectations change but are subject to the time in which they live. The laws which govern us today differ from those of 100 years ago and, doubtless, to those of 100 years future.

My only expectation is all Australian laws will be applied blindly and evenly to every Australian, whether their ethnicity be aboriginal or otherwise.

I support the expectations expressed in Dr King's famous speech
“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

Anything other than that, be it aboriginal exceptions or “affirmative action”, is morally offensive and ultimately, as we saw in the NT, corrupting.

I suspect, it well serves your "historical and moral perspective" to rely upon a mythical fantasy of exceptions to be applied to "aboriginal" Australia.

We have all seen the result when such exceptions are allowed and that is why the previous federal government acted on the lawless and abusive settlements of the northern territory.

The first requirement of any community which believes it is competent to govern itself is to actually “govern” itself.

Those NT settlements prove, through the rape and abuse of their own children, that to “govern” is clearly beyond them.

Many of the comments on his article just prove John's point.

There are an awful lot of aborigines running around today whose sole means of support is the white Aussie taxpayer. So, if it was ever the intention of white people to commit "genocide" on aboriginals, we seen to have made a very poor job of it.

This article is just another example of anti white racism, and it equates to The Eternal Jew as an example of outrageous racist propaganda. The incredible thing about it is, is that those whose attitudes are reflexively anti racist are unable to see it.

They have been so conditioned to think that everything white people do is evil, and so conditioned to think that every foul deed done by non whites is excusable, (because they can always find a way to blame white people for it) that by some application of doublethink, they are unable to recognise a clearly racist article that attacks white people.

Condemning white Australians by grossly exagerating history in order to make that history conform to what some Gucci Socialist wishes it had been, is an act of racism.

Well put, redneck !

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Dear Redneck and Doc Halliday,

Man is a worm.
Job XXV,6

I can't believe that you don't know your country's history. You remind me of the "Quadrant" denialists.

Quadrant is a far-right magazine deployed in a manner not dissimilar to the way David Irving used his history texts to promote Holocaust denial. They reject the 'black armband view of history,' an expression coined by the Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey, who now appears to have disowned it.

'Black armband' historians, say the denialists, denigrate the heroic story of white Australia by the manufacture and exaggeration of evidence of Aboriginal suffering and resistance. Genocide simply did not happen, they say.

Australia is a country littered with war memorials to its Anzac soldiers who died in foreign wars. There was, until recently, not a single monument to those who fought and fell in defence of their country, Australia, during its white settlement in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The late Kevin Gilbert, the great Aboriginal
poet and playwright, once stood in the main street of a New South Wales country town, facing the cenotaph, and read aloud his poem
"Memorials."

Our history is carved
in the heart of the country
our milestone memorials
named Slaughterhouse Creek
the Coniston Massacre, Death
Gully and Durranurrijah
the place on the clifftops called
Massacre Leap
where the mouth of the valley
filled up with
our murdered dead bodies
the place where our blood flowed
the river ran red
all the way to the sea...

As the Aboriginal leader, Rob Riley said, "But it's simple...
Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own."

oooops sorry - my apologies for the typo - it should be:

Dear Redneck and Doc Holliday...

Get a life Foxy - and, preferably, one in the current time frame.

If you continue to command the tides of history to "go back", you will go down in future history as a Canute syncophant.

Foxy: "As the Aboriginal leader, Rob Riley said, 'But it's simple...
Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own.'"

Nice one, Foxy - I wasn't familiar with that point. Of course he's correct. It'd be an interesting exercise to poll those who deny Australia's past and continuing injustices towards Aboriginal people and see how many of them are opposed to Australia becoming its own nation, independent of colonial ties to Britain.

I'd put money on there being a significant correlation!

We tried giving back the country via ATSIC. The only problem was the real aboriginal people screamed for the whites to rescue them!

Thethinker,

Yes, we are proud. It has not been easy, especially when you consider we are not indigenous Australians ourselves. There are still issues, as there are with any family living in any society today. But with love, understanding and mutual respect, we know things (at least for our family) will work out ok.

We have 2 other daughters and a son (who are not indigenous) – one of which has graduated in both environmental science and anthropology. However, she also wants to do post-grad work in indigenous issues (she too thinks Oz is at the cross-roads).

You are right of course, assumptions and comments are made that are clearly inappropriate and wrong. We see it here in this thread and as we can observe, it is ugly. But what are we to do?

In our family discussions, we have found that in most cases (regarding indigenous or cultural issues) other people say the things they say because they are hurting deep within themselves. Other times … it is because of their ignorance and/or lack of knowing what is just.

This is why it is important, your message – people “need to talk to those who do have a past in the Indigenous context.” A bit of research does not go astray either. Problem is, most people don’t and the ones that scream the loudest are the ones that need the most understanding – this is tough.

I think a major problem our society has today is that a lot of people have lost respect – for all sorts of things; parents, fellow people, our environment, themselves, add to the list as you see fit.

All the best in your studies, you and yours are so important to our future – as all the generations are.

John Passant would have us weep and bewail the Australia of today.

Most of what is today world wide is built on bloodshed from the past. Australia's probably the least of all.

The celebration is not forgetting the crimes of the past, but celebrating the achievements that built a great nation.

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Pissant would do well to see that the glass is more than half full.

Democritus (or should that be hypocritus?)

People who hide behind a nickname should not childishly attack another through corrupting their last name. Calling John a Pissant is typical of the level of the intellect of the reactionaries in our society. It is the sort of bastardry the real Democritus would have railed against.

John is not weeping or bewailing, or urging us to do the same. He makes a valid point that our country was built on the genocide - a deliberately chosen and correct word I am sure - of Indigenous people.

I am pleased to see that Democritus recognises, like Marx, that the history of capitalism is written in blood. Marx however saw the possibility of a new world in which this barbarism did not occur.

Reconciliation with reparations for genocide is but one small step to address the barbarism of our past and present and heal ourselves. A nation that enslaves others can never itself be free.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss/Mz Foxy, the trouble is, I do know something about Australia's history and also about aboriginal culture, so I wonder where you got your information?

At the time of the First Fleet, Australia was not a nation or even an idea of a nation. The British never intended to wipe out the natives, they believed that they were creating a new nation that was an outpost of European civilisation in which the native people would be an integral part.

Confirmation of that occured within a week of the colony being founded, when Governer Phillip was seriously wounded by a spear thrown by an aboriginal man. When the governer's marines attemted to return fire, Governeor Phillip ordered his marines to lower their guns. He knew that the aboriginal man was frightened and that he did not know that the whites meant him no harm.

Hardly the actions of an official who was intent upon genocide.

What you have to understand, my dear Foxy, is that there are people who live in this country who despise white European civilisation, even though they choose to live in it. Most of them are still crying about the demise of Socialism.

They genuinely believe that the only way to prevent war is to destroy white nationalism because they sincerly believe that white nationalism is the primary reason for war. So, any excuse to kick the whites and portray them as oppressors is gleefully embraced.

I did not read "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History", but I did read the series of exchanges between Windshuttle and the black armband historians who he exposed as liars in "The Australian" newspaper.

My objective conclusion is that Windshuttle decisively beat his opponents in those exchanges, simply by dispassionately recounting facts and giving references. His opponents returned fire with emotionally charged arguments which denounced Windshuttle's character and denounced his fitness to be regarded as a credible historian.

It was obvious who was telling the truth.

Passy,

You are right it was childish, but some mods are just too tempting to pass up especially when they are so simple and so on target.

I have no issue with someone pointing to the errors of the past, but Australia day is a celebration of who we are, and while some of paths we have taken to get here are less than honourable, most have been forged in sweat and tears.

It is easy to look at the past with 20/20 hindsight and modern day morality and poke holes at what was done. Most of the atrocities were committed by a very tiny proportion of the population whose actions were unknown to the majority.

I also said that the world today is built on bloodshed, some of the worst of it was caused by socialists in their crusade against non believers. No Marxist state was ever maintained without purging the non conformists, and most have collapsed when they lost the stomach for brutality.

The term genocide has been so abused that John can be forgiven for his misuse of the word. Unless I am mistaken, no action was taken to exterminate an entire people. Having had grandparents on both sides in concentration camps I would love reparations for past injustices, but I also recognise that the generations of today that would have to pay, are not the ones that committed the crimes or even support them.

Help needs to be given to those suffering directly from the effects of recent stupidities, but reparations for distant crimes are both impractical and unreasonable.

Democritus

The childish misuse of John's last name was not on target.

There is much debate about what is genocide. It is not just Auschwitz-style concentration camps.

It includes for example stealing kids from their parents with the intention to eventually assimilate (ie destroy) Aborigines as Aborigines. The Bringing Them Home Report on the Stolen Generations clearly recognises the actions of the Australian State - actions which are still having consequences today - as genocide. But so too in my view (and John's) and the view of a range of historians and others was the establishment of the settler state in Australia itself an act of genocide.

These are issues that cannot be answered with glib and in some cases racist responses.

Dear Passy, Redneck and Doc Holliday,

Firstly to you Passy, Thanks for your input. You summed it up beautifully. The information is freely available for those that want to read it.

To you Redneck and Doc Holliday,

" It might help if we non-Aboriginal Australians imagined ourselves
dispossessed of the land we lived in for 50,000 years, and then imagined ourselves told that it had never been ours.

Imagine if ours was the oldest culture in the world and we were told that it was worthless. Imagine if we had resisted this settlement, suffered and died in the defence of our land, and then were told in history books that we had given it up without a fight.

Imagine if non-Aboriginal Australians had served their country in peace and war and were then ignored in history books. Imagine if our feats on the sporting field has inspired admiration and patriotism and yet did nothing to diminish prejudice.

Imagine if our spiritual life was denied and ridiculed. Imagine if we had suffered the injustice and then were blamed for it."
Extract from the speech by Mr Paul Keating,
Prime Minister of Australia,
Redfern Park, 10 Dec. 1993
at the launch of Australia's Celebration of the
International Year of the World's Indigenous People.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn tell us in the Preface, to his book, "The Gulag Archipelago," about an old Russian proverb that says,
"No, don't! Don't dig up the past!
Dwell on the past and you'll lose an eye."

But the proverb goes on to say: "Forget the past and you'll lose both eyes!"

FOxy, Redneck and Doc Holliday are well known here for their vision impairment. Thanks for trying to guide through the door of enlightment. However I think you'll find they are very very happy being blind and ignorant. "Who else could we be?" if not this they ask us! We tell them and then we realize they are also deaf.

Hey Rainier,

I suggest you read your 1st sentence again. Methinks it could be read the way you did not intend?

Foxy's cool.

Foxy,
”Australia is a country LITTERED with war memorials to its Anzac soldiers”
Now that speaks volumes doesn’t it !

It seems that a many of your sources are out of date:
- Aboriginal cultural studies are a very much part of modern schooling ( & media). [least-ways those Aboriginal cultures whom the ‘Gucci Socialists” have deemed suitable to represented their baby, the “Aboriginal nation”] and
- Aboriginal groups have more land under their authority that any other group of Australians .

There are real issues re Aboriginal health & education.
And govts of both persuasions, labor & liberal, have been addressing them –though not always effectively & not always to everyone’s liking.

Unfortunately much of what passes for Aboriginal advocacy in the popular media is merely the beatings of a minority of misfits & self-seekers . Most of whom wouldn’t be content in any society/culture black, white or brindle .

Interesting you should mention :Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.
For, it seems that a lot of the historians on the payroll of the politburo of the former Soviet Union have moved into jobs with “reconciliation “ groups in Aust – certainly the versions of history they’re pumping out have a distinct Soviet flavour…

Dear Horus,

I suggest that you read the "Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn and familiarise yourself with both the author and his work. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970.

He was arrested and spent eight years in labour camps and three years in exile. Finally in 1974 the Soviet Government revoked Solzhenitsyn's citizenship and deported him. He lived in Switzerland for about two years and then settled in the United States in 1976.

It wasn't until 1990 that his citizenship was restored.

The author was anti a totalitarian regime all of his life. His heroes
always express the triumph of dignity over tyranny and suffering.

You need to fully investigate things before making generalisations.
Because as the saying goes: "It's better to let people think you're a fool, than to speak and confirm it!"

Col, You remind of many I've met in the real world, gutless, pointless and pompous. Lashings of enlightment would not penetrate that thick skull of yours. You've spent a life time cultivating half a man and a quarter of a brain to go with it. All your pretentious word smithing is backed up by nothing much at all. Read some legal history, converse with legal historians man. Do something more than looking up the skirt of Margaret Thatcher every time you find yourself wanting. Not for us, but for you and your poor suffering family.

Foxy,
Wow ! that was a big air-swing …

I wasn’t suggesting Sol. was an employee of the politburo!

Though, I will say this ( and this might ruffle some hero-worshippers!) Old Sol himself, was a bit of misfit .He didn’t fit into the Soviets structure & he couldn’t fit into life in the West .And I seem to remember he ended espousing values that were not too dissimilar from some of the core Soviet values – though of course, bottled under a different label.
But that’s all beside the point…

How about the other scoring punches I landed –any response– or are you still too ruffled?

January 26 is the commemoration of James Cook landing at Botany Bay (or something) - anyway, the commemoration of the english arriving to settle in australia. IMO, the day should not be forgotten or erased from memory but should rather be sent to the back of the class. We have celebrated it enough already.

Rather choose another day and create it as our Reconciliation Day. For an appropriate and symbolic act of reconciliation towards Aust. aborigines not to have occurred by now is indicative of our highly conservative and paranoid worldviews. I have no history background or expertise, however i am a logical person. To believe that the English were (in general) benevolent towards aborigines is completely preposterous. Of course there were sympathisers, but for the majority it was war. Us or Them. No genocide? And i suppose Jesus walked on water too... For the record genocide is not just about systematic murder (which most certainly occurred) but also less obvious forms of racial elimination. Religion, alcohol, guns, changed land use, changed laws, slavery etc.

Why are so many Australians in denial? Why is it so hard to say "OK, that stuff happened. It was wrong. I feel bad for the Aust. Aboriginal peoples who it affected and still affects. I personally did not do it but that does not mean my ancestors did not. We share your grief."

Passy,

The childish and puerile use of the "racist" card shows that your arguments are intellectually bankrupt. Please show where my comments could be construed as racist other than disagreeing with your vapid PC view point.

The reason that Passant can be forgiven for misusing the term genocide is that because of its strong emotional response people have been quick to use it to elevate their cause from the mundane. This is similar to the tactic of using the epithet racist to tar anyone not agreeing with a particular view point and is the last resort of the scoundrel.

Genocide literally means the killing of a people. It has been so abused that I am expecting some day to hear of a genocidal bar fight.

However bad the stolen generation issue was, it was not genocide. Cultural corruption, child abuse, yes, but until you can show me the mass graves, genocide no.

That the stealing of a generation was wrong I agree, that an apology and some form of rectification need to be put in place, I also agree, but that Aus has nothing to celebrate, I strongly disagree.

Dear Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Foxy.

I am surprised that you would use Prime Minister Keating as an authority on aboriginal affairs, could I remind you that under Keating's august leadership, Australia's home loan rate reached an unprecedented 18% while the Aussie dollar dropped to $0.46 US? But I suppose if you are a totally incompetent leader you can always impress the gullible by pretending to be a Paragon of Virtue.

As to the delights of "50,000 year old aboriginal culture", could I remind you that this culture was hardly utopian for women and children? Even today, with white laws to give some protection to aboriginal women, these women are being murdered at a rate six times greater than for their white sisters? Could I also point out that the ghastly practice of punishing aborigianl women by plucking out an eye with a stick is still being practiced in "aboriginal" communities today? No wonder every aboriginal woman of any celebrity gave Rainier and his mates the flick and chose to marry a racist white man.

On the subject of aboriginal dispossession being a reason why aboriginal societies are so dysfunctional, could I also remind you that it is precisely those aboriginal communities which kept their traditional lands and who are still living within their own cultures in self imposed apartheid areas, which are the most dysfunctional? They are so dysfunctional, that we recently had to send the Australian Army in to restore order.

Australia is one of the most desireable countries in the world to live in today, because white English speaking people made it so. Attacking achievment and success in our people, while making excuses for every failed culture and finding spurious reasons to blame white people for everything, could only be the deliberations of an individual who has been thoroughly conditioned and house trained by their Socialist teachers.

Democritus

A couple of things. First my innocuous comment that some of the comments (note I say the, not your) on this blog are racist should not shock you. Re-read some of the other contributors.

Second, genocide does not just encompass mass graves, although those do exist if you look through the literature.

Third, the Bringing Them Home Report on the Stolen Generations (led by an ex-High Court judge - hardly a bastion of radicalism) analysed the legal and social meanings of genocide and concluded unequivocally that the Australian state was guilty of genocide in stealing Aboriginal children from their parents. No ifs, no buts. Pure and simple genocide.

Fourth there is considerable evidence that Western expansion - eg the establishment of Austraia - is of its very nature genocide. Driving indigenous people off their land and destroying their life and culture, their well being and their lives is genocide.

Genocide deniers exist all around the world unfortunately.

Rainier “Col, You remind of many I've met in the real world, gutless, pointless and pompous.”

So you know of some folk who you met in the “real world”?
When was that, on some special, supervised “outing”, to mix with “real people”?

Hold whatever opinion you like of me but since nothing in my (and most other peoples) life relies, in any way on your opinion, you can guess how much you matter and I care.

Your negative invective displays an inability to deal with the issues which confront your personal sense of righteousness, founded in arrogance and fostered by your seclusion from real-world issues, the price paid by any cloistered academic hermit.

As for “Do something more than looking up the skirt of Margaret Thatcher every time you find yourself wanting. Not for us, but for you and your poor suffering family”

Margaret Thatcher was a women who walked the “real world” as a political colossus and did what needed to be done. Because of her personal strength, she is a woman who many find a worthy inspiration. She was a woman who did not shy from the negativity of the ever whining malcontents and impotents. Your distain suggests you become acutely aware of your own inadequacies at the mention of her name.

As for my “family” oh we do not suffer, I cannot think where you would ever get that idea. My daughters are happy and enthusiastic in the lives they are making for themselves. I became engaged at Christmas to my lover of the past 6 years and we even received a Christmas gift from my ex-wife, when we met her and her boyfriend on Christmas day.

So where is the “suffering”?

I am buggered if I know. but then, living in this real world, I do not have the same opportunity for reflective consideration as you, in your remote academic tower.

I would suggest some “real world” experience would not go amiss rainier, then you might hold those from that “real world” with some regard, instead of just mouthing off your hollow judgmental sneering.

Dear Redneck,

Just so that you know - I am a female, and you may address me by the name that I'm logged in as - 'Foxy.' That's the appropriate, polite, and civilized thing to do. Also, labeling people you know nothing about is again stooping rather low. Attack their comments by all means, but don't get personal. That's not your entitlement on this forum. I don't make any assumptions about you, your political inclinations, your level of education, or your IQ.

But it is obvious that you don't know your country's history.
If you didn't like Paul Keating's speech, perhaps Malcolm Fraser may have more appeal to you... He said:

"It's an attitude of mind, it's an incapacity to understand the reality of what happened and, as I understand Aboriginal leaders .. and I'm sure in many ways my understanding is very imperfect-- a large part of healing, matters of the spirit, matters of the heart involves a recognition by the highest authorities in Australia that there were some terrible things done and we wish with all our heart, with all our strength that they had not been done and that an official apology on the part of the nation..."

To read the full content of what Malcolm Fraser has to say go to:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s167348.htm

Foxy,

I totally agree with you that posters should attack the opinions expressed by othwer posters, but not them personally.

You may, however, be able to explain to me an apparent inconsistency on the part of the bleeding lefties on the site.

From what they say, the British should not have come here uninvited in 1788.

But the current illegal immigrants are different; they should be able to come.

What is the difference? Please explain.

As far as Keating is concerned, causing an arrogant politician like him to be humbled is the essence of the Australian character. When a colleague of mine remarked "What a pity Keating was not dismissed by the Governor-General" I replied "But he was! He was Minister for Northern Australia (for three weeks) and was dismissed along with Whitlam and the rest of his cabinet on the 11th of November 1975. I have noted that no mention of his dismissal is permitted to appear on his wikipedia page.

From a philosophical point of view, feel that most of the Posts take the view that lessons from history are unimportant, which means that John Howard was correct in believing that the social science section of the Humanities should only mainly concentrate on what concerns our future wellbeing.

Looks like Rudd will be treating the past not much better, Julia Gillard not seemingly the consciously historical type, neither.

Furthermore, with our full reliance now on quarry economics and the resultant pitstock politics, an old feller like me wonders what the Aussie long term future really holds?

Cheers - BB, WA.

Dear plerdsus,

I can only speak on my own behalf, I can't speak or explain what other posters mean.

As Malcolm Fraser pointed out - the history of the past is in Government files or in the archives. He states quite clearly, "Look, what we were taught at school, what we understood of the past is not true..."

Adding, "I've seen the ordinances, I've seen the powers they've been given the protectors and the way those powers could be delegated down to a patrol officer level, and the powers were massive. They, in a sense, could dispose of Aboriginals in a way that nobody else in the whole community would have tolerated for one instant. For example,... there was a power to send, put it in inverted commas,"delinquent young Aboriginals" off to a place of detention without a trial, without any judgement, without any evidence, just if a policeman or a patrol officer says this man or woman is delinquent and needs to be put in a place of detention. That is absolute power over somebody..."

Malcolm Fraser was asked, "Has your stance cost you friendships?"
He replied, "Not so far." "It also makes some friendships and makes some friendships in the Liberal Party because people say that we're glad that a Liberal is saying these liberal things.

I mean, Menzies always emphasised that the Liberal Party was a liberal party. He specifically rejected conservatism as a force within the Liberal Party. Now, reading those particular Menzies speeches today, conservatism seems to be --well, the whole political spectrum has moved to the right...And I think social issues, human issues have become subsidiary to economic and financial issues...
Yet, people say to me, 'I didn't realise that was the reality, I didn't realise that that was happening--I'm glad you told me.'"

The sad reality is - some people don't want to know!

Poor redneck,
I know I am wasting my effort but I think you should do a bit more research.

You see the breakdown in Aboriginal communities is part of the whole genocide arguement.
Paternalism was introduced into these communities.

Before invasion men and women were equal, each had different roles and functions but equal.

Look to the early reports of the behaviour of settlers and you will see clearly that non-Indigenous sexual abuse of Indigenous children was endemic. The little children are sacred report noted that up to half of the perpetrators of child sex abuse in the NT communities was by non-Indigenous people.

Col 'Margaret' Rouge wrote:

"I would suggest some “real world” experience would not go amiss rainier, then you might hold those from that “real world” with some regard, instead of just mouthing off your hollow judgmental sneering."

Are you saying you don't love me anymore Col?

In one post Democritus says:

"I also said that the world today is built on bloodshed, some of the worst of it was caused by socialists in their crusade against non believers. No Marxist state was ever maintained without purging the non conformists, and most have collapsed when they lost the stomach for brutality."

I think Democritus is confusing Stalinism with Marxism. Stalinism represented the defeat of the Russian revolution. What Stalin set up was a form of capitalism in which the state became the collective embodiment of capital, exploiting the working class and expropriating the profit the workers made. For that reason some on the Left describe the Stalinist regimes as state capitalist.

The revolutions against the Stalinist regimes were fantastic, but they were political revolutions, not economic ones.

In my view the solution to the question of aboriginal sovereignty, because it may challenge the idea of private property, can only occur after a democratic and socialist working class revolution in Australia.

Passy.

Well that revolution is a long way off because the working class are just as dependent on private property as are the owners of the means of producing private property.

While old Karly Marx may have foreseen this as the solution he was speaking directly to an economic and political situation that was not as it is now.

The foundational premise of Aboriginal sovereignty is born out of legal not economic arguments.

In Marxist terms - How can the original owners of the means of production be included as part of the working classes?

The issue of reparation remains outstanding.

This country was never ceded by Aboriginal people, it was never settled on the basis of a declaration of conquering Aboriginal people - instead it was colonised on the basis of a legal myth of terra nullius.

The illegal acquisition of this country has not been dealt with in the national or international courts.

It is, and remains to be, the legal elephant in the court room anytime issues relating to Aboriginal people are addressed.

Cheers!

Here we go. The re-write of history begins.

'What Stalin set up was a form of capitalism in which the state became the collective embodiment of capital, exploiting the working class and expropriating the profit the workers made.'

What utter crap. Stalin set up the ultimate communist regime. It simply proved communism was and is an ideal that cannot work. It slaughtered millions became bankrupt and destroyed the environment. What a wonderful display of profit!

Why don't you lefties simply give it up and join the rest of us liberal democrats. You enjoy the benefits of our system yet hark after the impossible, excuse it's excesses and blame it's failure on our capitalism. If Stalin's system was capitalistic it would have worked just like other capitalistic totalitarian regimes. eg Soharto's Indonesia, Marco's Philipines.

Jez the lessons of a re-written history are worse than useless.

Passy,

'In my view the solution to the question of aboriginal sovereignty, because it may challenge the idea of private property, can only occur after a democratic and socialist working class revolution in Australia.'

I think you need to sit and listen to Indigenous Australia and see how they decide their own sovereignty. I think you are well meaning but don't seem to see the lesson of history here. We the non-indigenous Australians have been deciding for generations what solutions are best for Indigenous Australians and imposing our solutions.

If the Indigenous solution is one that involves communistic systems ... on current Aboriginal leadership thinking ... I'd be very much surprised, but if that's what was decided I'd support such an approach.
But the more pertinent question is: Would you support an Indigenous chosen approach which adopted capitalistic systems?

Dear Ms Foxy.

Malcolm Fraser has apparently gotten you teary eyed over some speech where he appeals to the highest ideals. Such Idealism really impresses young people, and Fraser knows it. But if I were you, I would develop a healthy scepticism towards people who preach and wag their fingers at others. Fraser got caught with his pants literaly down in a cheap hotel in New Orleans. If his wife can't trust him, you shouldn't either.

As well as an enthusistic supporter of aboriginal self deturmination, Fraser was also an enthusiastic supporter of Mugabe in Rhodesia. Fraser wanted black majority rule in Rhodesia, and he got it.

Rhodesia went from being the breadbasket of Africa to an Aid dependent basket case, which is what always happens when you give black people independence. "Democracy" in Africa means "one man, one vote, once." You may have noted the article in "The Australian" newspaper recently where a "Zimbabwe" governent official said it would be "a good thing" if 2 or 3 million "Zimbaweans" starved to death because "there are too many Zimbweans".

I used to be as anti racist as you are, but two things began to change my mind. The first was that black communities everywhere are totally dysfunctional, and the only reason that the trendies can give for this phenomonon is to always blame white people for it. If I have been brought up to instantly recognise racism, you can hardly condemn me for seeing it in articles which attack white people.

The article which we are commenting upon is a good example.

It is clearly racist itself, but you can not see it, can you? The author even accuses Australians of genocide, using the six new "definitions" of genocide that the UN has helpfully invented. Apparently, the UNHRC has authorised itself to redefine the English language to suit it's political agenda.

"Words mean exactly what I say they mean. No more, no less" ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

The second, was because I do enjoy reading history and the accusations of the Socialist left do not conform to what I have read.

Passy “What Stalin set up was a form of capitalism in which the state became the collective embodiment of capital,”

As Lenin said

“Communism is the goal of socialism”

And I can add

“Stalinism was the consequence of communism”

As Lenin found with the kulaks, you cannot suppress the natural ability of some to outperform others and rise above the lot of the masses.

As for “occur after a democratic and socialist working class revolution in Australia.”

Great line, oh a classic, gotta write that down somewhere and bring it out at dinner parties.

Don’t hold your breath Passy or you will die of suffocation.

Real life, most “Australians”, who came as migrants from UK and their offspring, came because the UK was looking too much like heading toward some form of “socialist working-class revolution” (as Marx had assumed 100 years before, hence he lived, died and is buried in London, not Moscow).
These days those folk would rather spend a day on the beach or firing up a BBQ than fighting, hand-to-hand to bring about a revolution of any sort.

And lets face it, aborigines are a tiny minority, who presently make more noise than their “proportional voice” deserves.

Anyway, an “aboriginal working-class revolution” would fail simply because I doubt you would ever find even a handful of “working-class” aboriginals.

Rainier “Are you saying you don't love me anymore Col?”

It is only your narcissistic self-image which allows you to delude yourself that I ever did, rainier.

“It is, and remains to be, the legal elephant in the court room anytime issues relating to Aboriginal people are addressed.”

Actually that elephant was released at federation, retrained and worked in a circus, performing acts to amuse the easily beguiled, until it died of old age and boredom.

“In Marxist terms”

Marx would say the precolonial “capitalist owners” of the land, aborigines, do not deserve reparation or compensation but should toil as equals alongside the "white" peasant masses.

Dear Redneck,

Thank you for being so open and honest in expressing your opinions.
And Thank you also for your quote from "Alice in Wonderland."
I however prefer the following quote:

"Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly."
Langston Hughes.

Malcolm Fraser did not make me "teary-eyed." I'm actually not that easily swayed, preferring arguments based on facts and logic. Although politics has dominated much of Malcolm Fraser's life, I've admired his humanitarian works towards a fairer, less racist world.

Of course he's made mistakes, it's not something to which even politicians are immune. But you have to admire the notable legislation passed during his leadership which included:

* the Social Services Amendment Act 1976 - increasing the
rate of child endowment
* the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976
giving Land Rights to Northern Territory Aboriginal people
* the Ombudsman Act 1976 establishing an office of Commonwealth
Ombudsman
* the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 establishing a court
of appeal to operate in areas of federal and territory law
* the Northern Territory (Self Government) Act 1978 establishing
a fully elected legislative assembly for the Northern
Territory powere in most respects equal to state powers
* the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980 provided
funding mechanism for Aboriginal enterprises, housing and
other services
* the Human Rights Commission Act 1981 and
* the Freedom of Information Act 1982 establishing a legally
enforceable right of access to the public for information held
by ministers and officials

In 1977 the government established SBS to provide multilingual radio
and television services... and the list goes on.

Malcolm Fraser has provided national leadership in the pursuit of human rights over a long period, including consistent support for reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and leadership in the fight against racism nationally and internationally.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. I tend to go on someone's overall track record - and the historic facts that are available through Government files and Archives.

Col Rouge says about my previous posting: “Stalinism was the consequence of communism. As for “occur after a democratic and socialist working class revolution in Australia. Great line, oh a classic, gotta write that down somewhere and bring it out at dinner parties. Don’t hold your breath Passy or you will die of suffocation."

Col is correct when he says that revolution is not about to occur, although a French left wing academic André Gorz wrote in January 68 that there would never be a revolution in France. In May 1968 10 million French workers went on strike, the President fled to West Germany and French capitalism seemed on the brink of being overthrown. The stalinised French Communist Party saved French capitalism because it feared workers more than it feared capitalism. What the PCF wanted was stalinsism, a form of state capitalism in which wage slavery continues.

Col says he will bring my classic comments out at dinner parties. That at least should increase the intellectual level of what I assume are boring gatherings of boring people with the same boring ideas.

The idea that Stalinism was a consequence of communism is wrong. Stalin wiped out every one of Lenin's inner circle and the Old Bolsheviks who led the revolution. These people clung to the dangerous idea of socialism from below, ie democracy and socialism. They stood in the way of Stalin's plans to rapidly industrialise the USSR (ie introduce state capitalism) at the expense of Russian and other workers.

Passy, nonetheless, we should be grateful that we have Col here to remind us of how sophisticated ignorance can be.

Its not a very complex state of mind.

On one hand lots of useless information - on the other a concrete set of draconian ideological priniciples to dig it up with.
(in other words, shovelling shite

Passy “That at least should increase the intellectual level of what I assume are boring gatherings of boring people with the same boring ideas.”

You will never get to know.

That’s the problem with lefties, they go nowhere, do nothing, because they are never invited. The only way they get to act is by violent revolution and murder.

As for “The idea that Stalinism was a consequence of communism is wrong.”

Tell that to the 30 million people who died in Stalins concentration camps

And as for

“Stalin wiped out every one of Lenin's inner circle and the Old Bolsheviks who led the revolution.”

But only after Lenin had brought the worst famine onto the proletariat of Russia resulting in 6 million dead on top of the mass murders and Siberian concentration camp deaths those “Good Ole Boys” (Stalin and Trotsky included) perpetrated in the name of the “glorious peoples bolshevik revolution”.

If Lenin’s supporters
“had clung to the dangerous idea of socialism from below, ie democracy and socialism.”

They would have unified under Kerensky and joined with the Mencheviks, instead of killing them.

but in keeping with Lenins philosophy that “A lie told often enough becomes the truth”, you are getting used to rewriting history Passy, just as Lenin would have done.

Of course I am sure you could mention how terrible was Stalin for his alliance with Germany (Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact) to carve up Poland whilst conveniently forgetting how Lenin sought Germanys help to smuggle him back into Russia to foment revolution to take Russia out of WWI.

France, well they are a wishy-washy bunch, with an exaggerated impression of their own importance and not much bottle.
That is why they were overrun in WWII and would have been overrun in WWI but for British support. However, having said that (exaggerated sense of self importance and not much bottle), I understand how you find empathy with them.

Rainier, still talking down from the ivory tower

I defer to your expertise in “shoveling shite” but surprised you’d get your academic soft hands dirty, probably book learned “shite shoveling

Thank you to all contributors!

I've just read the whole thing: good to see the frank/honest contributions.

I tend towards a mix of DocHolliday, Leigh, ColR, Easy Times, Country Girl, Horus, Democritis and perhaps CJMorgan & Redneck viewpoints!

For my part, I can't help thinking there's a real problem when we allow people to say they are Aboriginals and the Government will accept their unchallenged statement, and its that basis taht says under 2% are!

Claiming aboriginals are not equal when it comes to things like Abstudy, free vehicles and boats and a wealth of historic compensations; not least of which is two thirds of the NT in land rights, half of South Australia and ever increasing grants under the (non-Aboriginal, but Torres Straight)Mabo decision.

Countless billions over the years has been allotted to their welfare, much making little difference. Give a western house/good facilities, and its not unknown that it'll be substandard quite rapidly - because we expect them to be 'civilized' like the multicultural pot porri.

Look, if honest with ourselves, all of us and our forebares made errors of judgement. Get on with life TODAY, not dwell on historic wars/barbarism. You and I know that a few are the ratbags in society who seek the very last drop of blood/compensation and all that goes with it. Many others in times past had the heart to help and give their lives for Aboriginal welfare. Tens of thousands dished out private donations, sweat and tears to assist them. In return they are unfairly smeared, denegrated by Aboriginal leaders who trained in Libya, sought alignment with Canadian extreamists, or who sat on ATSIC/in Government Dept's for self-serving reasons.

So, let's keep the "Sorry" on the basis it was by SOME of the invaders, but that today we seek to assist and help, equally, all CITIZENS of Australia. Let's not talk of Aborigine and White, but of all being Aussies! Lets not burden the current/future Australia with the sins of the past.

Gee wiz 146, that was the most unoriginal post on this topic i have ever read. Only one thing was missing - you forgot to declare that you are not racist.

The Australian state does not treate all equally.

For example muslims are dragged before the courts on spurious terrorism charges, spat on and abused in the streets.

Life expectancy among aborginal men is 17 years lower than the life expectancy of non-indigenous men.

That to me is the figure par excellence which shows how unequally aboriginal people really are treated.

By way of contrast, we use the tax system to give away about $60 bn in grants each year - almost all of this goes to rich white people. Read Treasury's recent Tax Expenditures Statement for confirmation. $60 bn a year sure could do a lot to help our health, education and housing systems.

And we waste $20 bn on defence when again that could help employ more teachers and nurses and build great infrastructre in health, housing and education with some left over for transport (such as a national rail system).

And some of that wasted $80 bn could be used for compensation. Reparations for stealing Aboriginal children is an important part of the reconciliation and healing process - reconciliaiton with the indigenous population and the beginning of healing not just for indigenous people but for all of us.

Windschuttle may make give Col,redneck and the rest of the quadrant readers a warm feeling but I believe he is a fraud .

Aboriginal people certainly had inter tribal conflict after settlement but this was often a result of Aboriginals being dispossesed by white squatters and forced onto someone else's country.

Whites knew this would happen.

Alcohol ,disease and dispossession were a genocidal mix .

In my younger days I asked my old Station Head Stockman who had lived in Central and Northern Australia and was Head stockman for a famous pastoral family later in life, if he had killed any blacks - he said he hadn't but he had "buried Them".

In an interview I did a few years ago with a local, now deceased land owner , she said that her uncle who worked in Queensland around the start of the 20th century had come back to Victoria with stories of massacres of Aboriginal People but he had not participated .

In our area there is a story about one station that had the reputation for being a place that murders were committed in the 1800's.

Governments in Australia knew what was going on , they were complicit by not stopping what was going on.

If you were sitting with your friends at "home" and a band of wild white people galloped into your back yard you might try to defend your family .

Big mistake in the 19th century . If you touched your boomerang or club this allowed the squatters and their motley crews to open fire in "self defence".

Chief Protector G A Robinson's Victorian Diarys are a good read if you really want to know what life was like for Aboriginal people in Victoria when the invasion was in full swing . I D Clark of Monash University and others have reproduced his diaries.

They are the books that students should have access to and all fair minded Australians must read to counteract the garbage produced by Windschuttle and his white armband history re writers.

They will fail .

Passy “The Australian state does not treate all equally.”

“Muslim are dragged before the courts.”

Because their behaviour is suspect, not because they are muslims.

“Life expectancy among aborginal men is 17 years lower than the life expectancy of non-indigenous men.”

I have a heart condition. My brother has the same problem, so too my father. I expect to die because of it.

If you are of negro origin, you may well suffer sickle–cell anaemia, if you are Caucasian, you will not, unless someone in your past was negro.

Life expectancy of aboriginals may well be a direct function of their genetic makeup.

Government is not responsible for my genetic heart condition, genetically inherited sickle-cell anaemia or the genetic composition of aboriginals.

However, if that is insufficient to explain a shorter life expectancy, I might suggest the occurrence of excessive substance abuse, from an early age, being more prevalent among aboriginal men than non-aboriginal men, could well provide a similar mortality differential.

I see you believe we can function without a defence force. I heard Krudd declaring on radio this a.m. that whilst his government razor gang would look for cuts form every other function of government; “Defence”, because of its nature, was not going to be touched.

“And some of that wasted $80 bn could be used for compensation.”

Self-abuse does not qualify for “compensation” . What you are suggesting is a greed, for a bigger share from the public trough.

The sooner aboriginals and those who “claim” to be aboriginal give up this stupid quest for false reparations and decide to participate as every other Australian is expected to participate, in the processes of work for reward, instead of demanding “Institutionalised Cargo Cult” payments, the sooner they will feel some sense of self worth, self respect and no need for anyone to say sorry for anything

but that also assumes they actually want to feel good about themselves, when they seem to be crippled by their own "victim" mentality.

Col Rouge
103AD-2008
Died of organ failure in his chest
Some say it was his heart
Others say that this was impossible.

Col ,
You have a heart condition . Not Good.

I bet if someone through their actions made your condition worse you would be the first to go for compensation .

Or perhaps you would say it's all my fault and I'm not worthy of compensation .

Fat chance .

Rainier” Col Rouge
103AD-2008
Died of organ failure in his chest
Some say it was his heart
Others say that this was impossible.”

I see, the lowest of posts from the lowest of life forms, lower than that which produces algae blooms.

Like scum, he manages to float to the top, from where, in the ivory tower of academia, he tries to build his own crippled ego up by talking down to the rest of us.

Kartiya jim.” I bet if someone through their actions made your condition worse you would be the first to go for compensation .”

If you were a betting person, you would lose.

For me, I smoked for 25 years before having a heart attack, which aggravated my condition. The damage was my own,

As the old maxim goes - volenti non fit injuria

I always accept responsibility for my own actions Jim, I would recommend it to everyone else who wants to experience life to the full, the “victim mentality” will always cripple those who deploy it.

The federal government and the people who elect them did nothing to prejudice the health of aborigines. The substance and generational child abuse damage has been a self selected choice.

As the old maxim goes - volenti non fit injuri

i have a question that will become more relavent as time goes on ,
"after how much time living on a particular piece of dirt ,does some one become indiginous of that spot ?,will the ancestors of the colonising people of this country have the right to say they are indiginous also in lets say 40,000 years time? or when ?

Col Col Col,

Don't get me wrong, I really like you!

Your venomous diatribes,
Your spurious scientific claims about everything and everyone,
Your Readers Digest histiography,
All rolled out in a pretentious anglophilic drubblings.

You’re a scream!

I hope your heart condition gets better, no really, I hope it does.

PS. So how do you feel about being a descendent of Negro's? What would Margret think about this?

Boudjika asks: "after how much time living on a particular piece of dirt ,does some one become indiginous of that spot ?,will the ancestors of the colonising people of this country have the right to say they are indiginous also in lets say 40,000 years time? or when ?"

Actually in 40,000 years time nation states (a recent and historically fleeting development) will no longer exist and the idea of any loyalty to a particular country will be viewed as the historical anachronism it is already.

Nevertheless in the here and now the struggle for the recognition of human rights for the original inhabitants of this land is morally and politically appropriate - morally because it recognises the fact our present economic system is built on the bones of aboriginal people and politically because the struggle for recognition is at its heart anti-establishment, challenging all the shibboleths of the Coalition and Labor.

Rainier” I hope your heart condition gets better, no really, I hope it does.”

It will not but that does not bother me, I only made reference to it to illustrate its genetic origin and the fact that it is not a governmental responsibility.

“PS. So how do you feel about being a descendent of Negro's? What would Margret think about this?”

Oh you are talking about the rift valley origins.

I also have 2 Jewish great-great grandmothers, not that I think of myself as Jewish but at least the Jews have a real holocaust to complain about and not the make-believe one which the Australian indigenes have dreamed up.

Passy “loyalty to a particular country will be viewed as the historical anachronism it is already.”

And

“Nevertheless in the here and now the struggle for the recognition of human rights for the original inhabitants of this land is morally and politically appropriate”

I see what you mean, if you are claiming our current political system of allegiances is a “historical anachronism” then defending some mythical / historical special right of indigenes is a greater one.

What is certain is any claim, real or imagined of indigenes is “anachronistic” and when the current system becomes an historical anachronism, you will be able to say it deserves the same credence.

Until then what happens will be up to the people who live then. As we are at the moment, loyalty to a particular country does matter.

I am not sure if you are getting ahead of yourself or running behind yourself, either way it seems an ill-reasoned and ambiguous argument.

Oh and remember, in the endgame, to which you allude, the world of international socialism was crushed through its own corruption and incompetence, aided by the moral and economic superiority of the capitalist democratic system. I see no change to that, regardless of any loyalty to nationhood.

so i was born in this country ,that makes me indigenous to this land does'nt it ?

Yeah Sure Thing boudjika! You're Indigenous! Hooray!

If you have a map of Australia get it out, find an Aboriginal community you would like to live in and Hey Presto you're Indigenous!

You'll have lots in common with the locals, lots of shared history, health problems etcetera.

You might have to learn a new language(s), develop some new living skills but overall I'd say you'd handle it well.

You come across as intelligent, caring and politically aware about being black and poor in remote Australia. (this helps)

Let me know which community you choose, when you'll be travelling, and I'll send word about your arrival.

Now that the permit system is abolished you should have no problems entering any community in the Northern Territory.

PS. I hope you're not a paedophile are you?

For the record, I blame Col Rouge for attracting the intellectually challenged to OLO.

Rainier “Now that the permit system is abolished you should have no problems entering any community in the Northern Territory.

PS. I hope you're not a paedophile are you”

From the behaviour of some male members of the communities in the NT, one might be excused for thinking pedophilia was a community membership requirement.

Rainier “For the record, I blame Col Rouge for attracting the intellectually challenged to OLO”

Well rainier, when all is said and done, what you are saying is I attract people.

You on the other hand, have the personality and attitude which repels them.

I guess, compared to me, you have a lot to learn still about people but I have been saying that all along, every time I read one of your self-serving edicts.

John,

I have come to believe we need a huge monument to acknowledge those Aboriginal People that died from the destructive affects, in it's many forms, of the invasion of soldiers , convicts and settlers from 1788 onwards in Australia .

This symbolic monument may help Aboriginal People in their ongoing suffering and ideally can be created and erected during this present parliament.

Perhaps an Aboriginal flagged monument on the same scale of the flagged sculpture over Parliament House in Canberra could be put on a hill close to Canberra .

I think public subscription would be sucessfull for a National project like this .

One in each state and territory would also be something to aim for.

there are some people who were born on this land and have distant relatives from south east asia,i was born here ,and have distant relatives from europe ,are we both indigenous of this land ,those of us who are born here ?

Passy,

I apologise for my leave of absence from the forum, but to pick up where I left off, I see that the UN did decide to re define the term genocide to include acts that can kill the cultural identity of a people.

This would for the French include the invasion of American culture via Hollywood and other trivialisations.

Your later comments on the abuse of the aboriginals by the state based on the reduced life expectancy omits several other contributing factors.

Isolated communities (of all races) generally have lower life expectancy, due to the logistical difficulty in supplying services to the remote communities. This is compounded by the cultural differences that make many non aboriginal service providers feel out of place.

Thus to a large extent the difference in life expectancy is a consequence of maintaining their cultural identity. The same is experienced in the remote parts of Canada and Alaska where the issues of the stolen generation never occurred.

The current life expectancy of aboriginal people is still nearly double that of their early ancestors.

Boudjika asks who is indigenous? The Australian Bureau of Statistics website says:

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF INDIGENOUS?

In Australia the term Indigenous is used to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Therefore, officially Australia has two groups of Indigenous people. The information on this page largely comprises extracts from The Little Red, Yellow & Black and Green and Blue and White Book - a short guide to Indigenous Australia. These are indicated in quotation marks.

Aboriginal
"Aboriginal people are those whose traditional cultures and lands lie on the mainland and most of the islands, including Tasmania (in the south) and Fraser Island, Palm Island, Mornington Island, Groote Eylandt, Bathurst and Melville Islands (in the north).

"The modern Commonwealth definition of an Aboriginal person is social more than racial, in keeping with the change in Australian attitudes away from racialistic thinking about other peoples. An Aboriginal person is defined as a person who:
is a descendant of an Indigenous inhabitant of Australia,
identifies as an Aboriginal,
and is recognised as Aboriginal by members of the community in which she or he lives.

"Prior to European settlement there were many languages used by Australia's inhabitants. Each of these languages had its own word for 'person'. After 1770 words for 'person', such as Yolngu, Yapa, Koori, Murri, etc were used to refer to Aboriginal people only, excluding the newcomers. Many of these words are used today by English speakers to refer to Indigenous people from particular regions.

"The word 'Aborigine' is derived from the Latin term 'ab origine' which means 'from the beginning'. Some attempts have been made to find an Indigenous (non-English) generic term, acceptable to all Indigenous people, to replace 'Aborigine'. However there is no single word which is accepted by all Aboriginal peoples."

Democritus discusses life expectancy. It is true that life expectancy declines as one moves away from major population centres. However both the US and Canada have been able to reduce the gap in life expectancy in the last decade or so. If they can, why don't we?

my point is if you are born and live at a certain location ,there fore you are indigenous of that area ,are you not? ,simple question?if it isnt for some people too bad ,i was born here on australian soil ,i live on australian soil ,therefore that makes me indigenous of australia ,not aboriginal ,but indigenous i too was created from the dust of this land ,if some people cannot accept that reasoning ,thats not my problem :)

I see in my absence that the educated and informed contributors continue to try and reason with the wilfully ignorant contingent. It's interesting to see how the denialists attempt to justify their obdurate, essentially racist, positions by attempting to redefine the notion of genocide to suit their prejudices.

Col Rouge: "at least the Jews have a real holocaust to complain about and not the make-believe one which the Australian indigenes have dreamed up"

Stick to the bean-counting, Col. Besides being no expert on Australian history, you're exactly the sort of neo-colonial immigrant that is not needed here. We have too many racists and accountants already.

Democritus seems belatedly to have read the article upon which this discussion is based, in which the author clearly defines his use of the notion of 'genocide', i.e. in accordance with internationally accepted contemporary usage.

boudjika: "i was born here on australian soil ,i live on australian soil ,therefore that makes me indigenous of australia ,not aboriginal ,but indigenous i too was created from the dust of this land "

Boudjika seems to deliberately confuse "indigenous" with "native". In the Australian context, the former refers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people, while the latter refers to everybody who was born in Australia. The only dust in boudjika's creation is his/her propagation of bulldust.

I hope this helps to elucidate some of the discursive games that are still being played in the name of racism.

Boudjika,

The Tassie Blue Gum is indigenous to Tasmania. A friend planted one in suburban SA. A seed has germinated from it and is starting to grow. But neither are indigenous to SA suburbs. In fact, if I strain the analogy to another "blue" native, the Cootamundra wattle, I'd go so far as to say that it has become a feral pest plant outside of the area to which it is indigenous, in NSW. Sort of like some humans.

A number of my indigenous friends don't like the term "indigenous", because it's open to the sort of misinterpretation and lack of clarity that we are discussing. They are proud to be Aboriginal and regards the "indigenous" label as depriving them of their Aboriginality. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue because to me the terms are synonymous.

To be indigenous means that you are descended from people whose culture, language, economy and so on has developed its distinctive features in a defined locality, just as a Tassie Blue Gum has features distinctive from e. burdettiana.

Walk outside you house and count out 60 house bricks in a row. Each one is a thousand years. Look at the last fifth of the last brick. That's the relationship of we settler peoples to our indigenous countrymen and -women. The entire European history of this country is in that last fifth of the last brick.

For any of us descendents of settler peoples to claim that we are indigenous becuause we were born here diminishes and trivialises the just claims and struggles of indigenous Aussies.

CJ Morgan.. “I see in my absence . . . “

Yes I did notice that something filled the vacuum.

“you're exactly the sort of neo-colonial immigrant that is not needed here.”

That is not what the DFAT officer said when I applied for my residency visa or the migration officer at Sydney airport, my business clients, corporate and government nor my wide circle of friends since.

I guess you are just out of step. Then again, you are usually out of step, simply breathing and walking at the same time probably challenges your cognitive skills.

Please tell, did you migrate to Australia (ie did you have to prove your worth and character) or is your presence an accident of fate (left laying where your mother spat you out)?

Obviously, that is a rhetorical question. However, I would suspect your ancestry is of Scandinavian origin, that is, after all, where trolls come from.

Mike-servethepeople
“For any of us descendents of settler peoples to claim that we are indigenous becuause we were born here diminishes and trivialises the just claims and struggles of indigenous Aussies.”

I would disagree.

Our time here, aur contribution or otherwise, is not a matter of what our parents or grandparents did or did not do.

What matters is how and what we, not as migrants, the children of migrants or aborigines but as individuals do, irrespective of racial origins.

I support your right to disagree with that view but would note,

Racism is to distinguish between people based on race. I do not support racism and those aborigines who demand different treatment or rights to the non-aborigines born in Australia are pursuing a racist agenda.

I support the aspirations of DR ML King who considered race in the same context as I have expressed it.

Incidentally, what % of being “aboriginal” qualifies someone to claim “aboriginal status?

I do not know the answer but if there is a bucket of government money out there for the taking, I bet you anything, the majority of claimants will be genetically “aboriginal” only in “minority”.

Col Rouge: "I guess you are just out of step"

Oh, I don't know about that, old boy. It seems to me that your curmudgeonly opinions are more 'out of step' with others here at OLO than my somewhat more enlightened (not to mention better informed) ideas are. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective.

I note that as a human geneticist you still remain a good bean counter. However, it's good to see that your vituperous nature still seethes waspishly along, rendering you a legend in your own mind.

Sorry to hear about your cardiac problems. I had thought you were immune to such human frailties, given that the prerequisite to that particular disability is the possession of a heart.

Blimey, he's really purging himself now, its not unlike an exorcism.
Someone ask him a question about Thatcher before he falls over, clutching his chest, blue in the face

CJ Morgan “Sorry to hear about your cardiac problems.”

Please do not worry about it, I have lived with it for the past 18 years and will eventually die with it, if not from it.

My uncle suffered Parkinsons disease, as far as being blighted, I would not swap my state of being for his.

“I had thought you were immune to such human frailties, given that the prerequisite to that particular disability is the possession of a heart.”

The truth is, you know far less than your self aggrandizement “more enlightened (not to mention better informed) ideas” support but that comes as no surprise.

I balance and condition the feelings of my heart with the thought processes of my mind but can understand how, by contrast, your healthy heart would out run the functioning of such a feeble mind.

Oh rainier I see you are dribbling again, someone should provide you with a bib, preferably a plastic one with the built in gutter, then you could use the drool for finger painting.

Has this forum run it's course ??

Why not have a new "I can sling crap and personal insults better than you stupid and I can prove it !" article?

We can then leave out debate on the problems of the world for a session while we discuss each others health and parentage etc .

I agree with Katiya Jim.

Sorry, kartiya jim.

Well jump in anytime (have your lattes first) and take on what Col said about me and my people you 2 if you want some order. You'll soon discover that there are no Queensberry rules when brawling with a rusted on redneck. (Speaking from life experience)

The problem there rainier is that nothing really gets achieved for your cause apart from my above comment does it ?

There's no "knock outs" so any decisions on winners will be on points.

I seem to remember someone saying if your opposition makes you upset and angry and you show it; they may well consider they have already had a minor victory regardless of the stupidity of their arguments .

rainier "Well jump in anytime (have your lattes first) and take on what Col said about me and my people you 2 if you want some order. You'll soon discover that there are no Queensberry rules when brawling with a rusted on redneck. (Speaking from life experience)

is that using alot of words to suggest

"wahhhhhhh its his fault miss, he knocked me in the corridor and now I hate him"?

grow up rainier, if you were not so intent on giving it out, using words like "rusted on redneck", you might find I would not be so intent at whacking it back at you.

now,I suggest you go sit in the far corner, where you will be "Safe"

but before you go, the "me and my people" bit

It makes you sound really insecure.

For myself, I relate to being an individual, rather than seeking the support and power of the mob, which expressions like "my people" allude to.

"My people" are my friends and not from one particular ethnic community.

I am the one who wrote

"Racism is to distinguish between people based on race. I do not support racism and those aborigines who demand different treatment or rights to the non-aborigines born in Australia are pursuing a racist agenda.

I support the aspirations of DR ML King who considered race in the same context as I have expressed it."

I guess you have no argument to that but still cannot miss an opportunity to project your racist bigotry

Rusted on Col,

Have you ever wondered, just a little, why for example people might campaign for the return of stolen property, be it land, money, or even children?

The mere fact that these same people may be Aboriginal, white, Asian, or other does not mean that their claim is being predicated on the basis on their race. Indeed their claim is based on the original act of crime or negligence being

Herein lays your own ontological blindness and ignorance of not just your own racisms but of institutional racism.

Read you stupid comment again and try to fathom why it’s so full of contradictions, ignorance and the most virulent ideas of racism you purport to rail against.

C’mon, even an old dog like you can learn new things!

kartiya jim,

I have no need for amateur anthropologists, missionaries, mercenaries or misfits pontificating and declaring what I should say or do. You might have trained other blackfellas up to listen intently to your every word or wisdom. Jump in or bugger off mate. And what the hell would you know about our ‘cause’ anyway if you’ve never lived it

Col Rouge: "Racism is to distinguish between people based on race. I do not support racism..."

Could this be the same Col Rouge who only recently regaled us with his idiosyncratic theories about human genetics, asserting the superiority (of course) of those fortunate descendants of Anglo-Saxon genetic "stock"?

More to the point, does anybody believe Col's claims that he doesn't support racism?

Much that I'd like to think that Col has learnt something from his engagement with those who are better educated on this topic than he is, I think that his recent apparent enlightenment with respect to racism is more a case of disingenuous sophistry than any kind of real shift in attitude.

His comment to the effect that Australian Indigenous people "dreamed up" the documented genocidal history of Australia betrays his deeply ingrained racism, as does his classification of humans into "Cauacasian", "Negro" etc.

Surely this topic is starting to exhaust itself. On the one hand we've got Col Rouge, redneck and other genocide denyers, whose racist views are so entrenched that its impossible to contemplate them changing, and on the other, good people whose frustrations with the other mob are causing them to start having a go at each other. Just as a bit of a diversion, and to keep the anger focussed and positive, check out how closely the professional whites of today resemble their forebears in their genocidal mindsets here:
http://mike-servethepeople.blogspot.com
(Post: Black armband series 5)
Respect and regards to all except the racists!

Thanks Mike and CJ!

People are converging on Canberra from all around Australia for the openning of Parliament House on 12 February.

They will start at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy at Old Parliament House at 11.30 am and march to Parliament House for a rally at 1 pm.

The demands are to immdeiately review the NT intervention, stop the land grab, quarantine racism not welfare, restore the Racial Discrimination Act, and implement the UN declaration of the rights of Indigenous People.

So rainier, CJ Morgan and mike-servethepeople (I am always suspicious to the veracity of such “motivated” titles), three of you all having your little go.

Three to one. debating is a matter of a battle of intellect, get a couple of others to join your mob and we might be getting close to an even fight.

I will address this to you all, although it was originally directed to rainier and he has left it unanswered:

“Please enlighten us all to the “International Law” which governed
Battle of the Boyne,
Saxon invasion of Britain etc”

As for the invective which CJ and rainier are happy to banter, dearest Margaret said

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

She also said

“You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.”

The “saved generation” of aboriginal children, neglected and abandoned by their natural parents, are still being abandoned, raped and abused in aboriginal settlements today.

CJM, My reference to the superiority of the English was as colonizers, relative to the colonization of South America by the Spanish and Portuguese, Indo-China by the French, German and Belgium colonies in Africa (oh all Caucasian powers), the Japanese colonization of Manchuria in the 1930’s or more recently, the Indonesian colonization of East Timor or the Chinese colonization of Tibet.

I challenge you to name a more responsible colonial power, taken that no way, by the 21st century would Australia have not been colonized by someone and the original occupants required to share Australia with that colonizing authority.

The world is a changing place, the role of the hunter-gatherer was already obsolete 2000 years ago.

Oh CJM “betrays his deeply ingrained racism, as does his classification of humans into "Cauacasian", "Negro"”

Identifying people by their anthropological racial classification is not “racist”. That you choose to interpret it that way merely displays your small mindedness and limited, troll like, intellect.

Passy “People are converging on Canberra” more rentamob

In the hands of the ALP Government the apology has become a substitue for action. It's more like "We've said sorry. Now bugger off."

The fight for justice for Aboriginal people will have to continue after Rudd delivers the apology - which is but the smallest step on the road to reconciliation.

Withdraw the troops from the Northern Territory. Re-introduce land rights. Apply the Racial Discrimination Act. Take immediate action to cut the 17 year life expectancy gap. Negotiate with the communities.

It appears that Rusted-on- Col (Rusty) is running out of steam and now finds himself retrieving his previous excretions and throwing them around a frenzied state of confusion. Someone call the nurse!

The other sign that he’s lost the plot is that he starts citing the most imbecilic thinker of our time. Margaret Thatcher. It’s a clear indicator of when Rusty reaches the bottom of his very shallow intellectual pool.

Despite millions of scientists around the world (from hundreds of ethnic backgrounds) all agreeing without equivocation that race has no genetic basis – Rusty clings tightly to those old anthropological myths. Without them he is nothing (well less, less than he already is).

He provides no evidence that the English were better colonisers or the qualitative instrument he utilises to make this claim. He just makes this claim because that is what he believes. What Australian historian does he cite? Nobody, no-one, zilch!

It Rusty's world you need nothing more than good old rugged individualism sprinkled with the kind of anglophilic buffoonery that even Tory's in England have long abandoned.

Too common to be gentry, too proud to be working class!

In this bubble, Rusty Col is his own historian, anthropologist, pedicurist, scientist, zoologist, epidemiologist, poet, economist and pscho therapist. You name the discipline or profession and old Rusty knows it bettet than most- just ask him!.

What a guy!

According to Keith Windshuttle in to-days Australian we could be saying soory for past state labour governments. If this is true, suddenly saying soory ceases to be a problem.

col ,
I see no difference between fruit pickers that go from property to property, often camping and the hunter gathers of old .They eventually make it back to their home water-hole for important social and family reasons for a limited time .

They are flash hunter gatherers in my book.

I don't know why International Land and property law is such a problem to you.

No doubt the concept of Bill of Human Rights is a concern to you also .

Rainier said ,
"And what the hell would you know about our cause anyway ,if you have never lived it".

I don't have to live it to know what is going on concerning Aboriginal people .

There are plenty to tell me what's going on.

Since you "ask"??!
I am lucky enough to have blood from many different races including a touch of the tar brush from the West Indies.

I also have an Aboriginal family in Northern Australia who have seen many of the ills of present Aboriginal life in Australia made all to familiar to them and to me .

Thanks for the inquiry .

The rate of removal of Aboriginal children today is 50% higher than at the height of the Stolen Generations removals. We even use the same "they'll be better off" argument.

Are we by our present removal and invasion policies continuing the cycle of dispossession and genocide in the name of caring for kids?

The tragedy for Australians seeking personal pride in the achievement of their nation is their ignorance of a politically distinctive past of which there is much to be proud, and whose wonderfully subversive stories that shaped the national character are seldom told. In the silver and zinc mines of Broken Hill, New South Wales, the miners won the world's first thirty-five-hour week, half a century ahead of Europe and America. Long before most of the world, Australia had a minimum wage, child benefits, pensions and the vote for women.

By the 1960s, Australians could boast the most equitable spread of income in the world. The secret ballot was invented in Australia.

And in my life-time, Australia has been transformed from a second-class Anglo-Irish society to one of the most culturally diverse places on earth, and it happened peacefully. By most standards of cilisation, the transformation is a remarkable achievement.

Of course, the first Australians were never included. Their extraordinary cilisation and their oneness with an ancient land were never taught as a source of national pride. And their inclusion, still to be achieved, remains the nation's key to itself.

Saying sorry is a sign of maturity, of a willingness to face mistakes that caused suffering. It heals divisions between people, shows a deepening understanding of the life of a nation and reflects humility and honesty. The acknowledgement of guilt is not to be confused with personal guilt; rather it acknowledges a historical responsibility.
In the cse of indigenous Australians, many of whom lost family, culture and tribe, it helps to soothe the anger and frustration of those who feel affected.

It must be done - if we believe in justice, an egalitarian society, and a "Fair go" for all.

Onya, Foxy.

Beautiful post :)

Yes good post foxy, however I would also point out that our contribution to these extraordinary feats were considerable.

None of those feats would have been enabled without dispossessing / exploiting Aboriginal people (especially Labour. Indeed much of written Labour history of this country has not documented Aboriginal contributions to the development of early, middle or late 'civil society'. It was simply considered in the same fatalistic paradigm that exists today, ie ' our demise being inevitable'. It is not.

Don’t get me wrong. It is good that many do appreciate our connection to land but these expressions often tend to be a romantic admiration and thus exempt any critical analysis of the issues of legal, political and economic reparation. I have a deep connection to land now owned lock stock and barrel by rich pastoralists and miners.
No one can produce the receipts for the original purchase of this land.

Weeks and months from now many will be saying ‘Well we said sorry didn’t we” in response to the unfinished business.

I feel this apology should be the beginning, not the end of a longer and more genuine reparation process.

kartiya jim,

Yeah whatever, you're not unique in my world, join the que.

Dear Rainier,

Of course the apology should be only the beginning.

There is an enormous amount still to be done - as I wrote in my previous post, the first Australians must be included in our society.
That remains the nation's key to itself.

And I'm sure the current PM and his Government are well aware of this.
The apology is their entry - into a new era for us all.

Passy,

Your comment of "The rate of removal of Aboriginal children today is 50% higher than at the height of the Stolen Generations removals. We even use the same "they'll be better off" argument." Is such a terrible misrepresentation of reality.

The fact that DOCS is so understaffed, and that the federal gov has had to intervene because child abuse has become a sport in some communities is an indictment on the communities and not of the government.

It is this type of rhetoric which muddies the waters and puts child protection in the same basket as forced removal.

These communities suffered from a stolen generation due to the ill advised activities of previous governments, don't let another generation be lost due to the inactivity of this one.

Yes I can understand the under-staffed arguement, heard it hundreds of times before. It has "some" truth.

But the underlying causes of child abuse will not be addressed by throwing more DOCS staff at the problem.

and then this -

"an indictment on the communities and not of the government".

but hang on, whats this?

"ill advised activities of previous governments, don't let another generation be lost due to the inactivity of this one"

Go figure?

I see a new study says one in four young girls and one in seven young boys are sexually abused.

I suspect, but I have to admit I don't know, that these rates are higher than occur in aboriginal communities.

Where is the clamour for dealing with what is clearly a dysfunctional society in the same way the Howard Government did when it invaded the Northern Territory?

Let's imagine a response along the following lines from Rudd: To save the children in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney from abuse and neglect I am today announcing that we are sending in 3 thousand troops, ten thousand public servants and 500 doctors. We are imposing a curfew, mandating medical examinations for children, banning alcohol from the whole of the area and quarantining salaries so that only a small amount of money is available, and then only for food. Oh and by the way we are taking away all freehold land rights. We believe their is a clear link between home owenrship and child abuse in the Eastern suburbs.

Why doesn't this happen? Why does this sort of action only happen against aboriginal communities?

Passy,

Once again you are misrepresenting the facts. The report you are referring to included all threats or physical violence of a sexual nature. And if you are comparing that to the levels of child rape that are occurring in the aboriginal communities then you are either ignorant or being deliberately misleading.

If these levels of abuse were happening in the eastern suburbs, a very strong reaction would have occurred long ago with just about everyone's approval.

The counter side to your argument is that because they are aboriginal that the abuse is tolerable and should be accepted as "customary". I think not.

Dear Democritus

I took the reports from commercial TV news. Be that as it may, where are your figures to show that child abuse is more prevalent in Aboriginal communities than say in poor white communities?

I think we jump in too easily to accept that such actions are more prevalent in Aboriginal communities because it suits our stereotypes.
Show me your figures, Democritus.

I don't accept that traditional culture condoned child abuse.

Leaving all that aside, why is it that neither WA or Qld have followed the Howard Government's invasion model? Perhaps because saving children was a cover for dispossession? Perhaps because a forced paternalistic model doesn't work?

Rudd saying sorry today marks a new beginning. Now the urgent task of not only recognising the stolen generations, but also addressing dispossession and the life expectancy gap must begin.

I suggest instead of $31 bn in tax cuts (most of which goes to the comfortable) that Rudd use that money (and the money from future tax cuts) to fund recompense for disposession, the stolen generations and to build better indigenus health, education and housing services for our indigenous brothers and sisters.

On top of that the tax system gives $60 bn per year in welfare to the middle class and business. Put that money too into a fund for the future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Now is the time Kevin.

As I can find no documentation on the topic, I would like to ask Saintfletcher or any other informed person if they know when the last aboriginals were poisoned in Werribee - and how many were poisoned?
Petie

Passy,

The information I was relying on was the report by the ABC that levels of child abuse in aboriginal communities.

This is backed up by:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/bib/aboriginal.html

And by reams of other data. Look and you will find, or in your case "none is so blind as those that will not see"

The main reason that nothing was done for years is that cultural abuse was considered customary.

This is a case of modern values catching up with those communities. It may well result in the average life span increasing as a consequence.

The belief that we have always had cultural practices that are abusive of children is wrong and misguided.

I would be interested in how this conclusion is reached and especially any imperical data or anthropological study that is being relied on.

Without doubt alcohol fueled communities will give rise to child abuse. But this happens everywhere and statistics published by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on child abuse showed Victoria had the worse track record of abuse - far worse that the NT.

Rainer,

That abuse was acceptably customarily was an incorrect premise. That this has been realised now is one of the reasons that action is being taken.

All I was saying is that it was a perception of the state and federal governments, not a judgement on my part.

This abuse is a large part due to the lack of law enforcement by a goverment too afraid of causing offence.

Boollshit law is what it is called by Aboriginal people who witnessed abuse of all kinds in the name of custom and tradition.

I know it, seen it myself, had family being the target of it.

I for one believe this is not just a matter of law enforcement by state police but of a gradual breakdown of those customs and traditions that were foundational to the moral underpinnings of community and culture.

Culture is not just the expression of exotica and curio, but the very means by which people know they are part of a system of human knowledge and power that ensures the safety of children is paramount, and ubiquitous.

Cultural safety means no exposure to porn or grog or those influences that can alter the state of a child or an adult’s behaviour to think that immoral acts are 'acceptable' if not expected.

Allowing for and providing the means by which the capacity of Aboriginal communities to rebuild safe and responsible social and cultural norms will deliver longer term benefits. Much longer than anything police and law enforcement can offer.

The social, political and economic history that shaped the establishment of Aboriginal communities must be understood as integral to mapping a future.

This history is largely ignored. The genocide even less so.

That's a good post, rainier.

You say:

Allowing for and providing the means by which the capacity of Aboriginal communities to rebuild safe and responsible social and cultural norms will deliver longer term benefits. Much longer than anything police and law enforcement can offer.

How do you see we get there?

My thinking about this is unformed. I would suggest a treaty recognising prior sovereignty and ownership and some form of self determination, but I am not clear how that would work in practice.

Passy wrote "I would suggest a treaty recognising prior sovereignty and ownership and some form of self determination, but I am not clear how that would work in practice"

Yes I agree. Without resolving in law our status as Indigenous people we will endure much the same as before. The non recognition of our status coupled with a system of liberal democracy since federation has not delivered unto us the same rights or access to rights as others. These are institutional as well as political impediments and a reparations process should run parrallell alongside any such approach of restorative justice.

How would this work in practice? I think there would be a variety of responses and varied success across the broad and diverse economic, political and cultural demography of where Indigenous people live.

Many are already practicing some form self determination, but must often adhere to governance structures imposed on them as well - And this duality is creating many of the problems.

Governments insist on imposing managerialism and only supporting a decision making capacity firmly connected to and inside these structures.

However, legislating a framework for the realisation of a degree of political autonomy does not guarantee the achievement of conditions of self-determination and autonomy. Economic self sufficiency is key to developing political self suffiency. But for many remote community councils this is impossibility as they are already in a state of poverty.

Nonetheless this does not mean there should not be investment into developing and positioning 'community decision making' at the centre, not at the edges of community governance.

Instead, what we witness are managerial structures of corporate bodies deciding the terms of reference by which local decision making is circumscribed.

Government have for too long been "dependent" (even fixated) with governing Indigenous people and affairs.

It very hard to ween them off!

Rainier

You say:

"However, legislating a framework for the realisation of a degree of political autonomy does not guarantee the achievement of conditions of self-determination and autonomy. Economic self sufficiency is key to developing political self sufficiency. But for many remote community councils this is impossibility as they are already in a state of poverty.

"Nonetheless this does not mean there should not be investment into developing and positioning 'community decision making' at the centre, not at the edges of community governance."

I agree. But the problem of economic self sufficiency is not one that can be overcome overnight or even perhaps in one generation.

There's the rub. How to achieve that? Community decision making is at the core, but that doesn't of itself create economic self sufficiency.

And such self sufficiency must recognise the present economic arrangements and system, otherwise the poverty remains the same. But the problem then is, how to break out, how to create jobs, and education and health and housing all in the context of devolved decision making?

Passy, for many communities’ economic reparations is both historical and political. If economic prosperity and viability were simply measured against the current resources holdings there is not much hope at all of self determination being instrumental in decision making.

Aboriginal self determination as a political dimension of decision making will not be realized under a system of alien governance that was founded on dispossession.

This isn't rocket science but many like to throw this fundamental fact of history out with the bath water.

Reconciliation is not an act of benevolence, but an act of justice.

Consider for instance the Stolen Wages issue in many states where millions of dollars are locked up in trusts. Qld government's response was to pay an ex gracia payment of 2 and 4 thousand dollars, no where near what many were entitled to. There is not justice in this.

Many remote communities are land rich but resource poor. I don't for one moment think privatising all lands will solve economic problems. Communal lands are fundamental to Aboriginal identity and cultures.

Bear in mind that Native title did not deliver any real benefits. Indeed it is not property title at all.

A mix of reparations approaches (stolen generations, land and wages) along with a political will by governments will begin a real journey toward fixing many of the social problems that exist.

It’s interesting to note that many think these problems (created over many generations and decades and decades of overlapping federal and state laws and policies) will disappear overnight.

I find it ridiculous when silver bullet panacea's get trotted out every now and then and they are lapped up enthusiastically by the great unwashed (Left and Right). They just don't get it!

Thanks Rainier. I agree with your comments.

I also think in terms of justice that reconciliation is, as well as recognising past crimes and wrongs and providing some form of recompense, a process of liberation for all of us.

A treaty offers that opportunity. While NZ did it, Waitangi I suspect is not a good model because, as I understand it, the Maori want a more appropriate recognition of their ownership of the land.

Passy, check out the SG bill being reintroduced by Sen Andrew Bartlett here: http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2727&TABLE=BILLS

I don't think it will get up but will test both sides of parliament and this will give us a clearer understanding of the 'apology'.