CJ Morgan “we're generally not talking about whether or not their parents were married.”

Would you like me to apologise for interpreting your application of English correctly, instead of interpreting it based on your own bastardized colloquialism?

“you're either Aboriginal or you're not.”

So since my daughter was born on Australian soil, I take it she is “aboriginal” ?

If not, how many generations of white settlement are we going to use to define “aboriginality”

If you wish to tell me the child of a aboriginal and first fleet settler who grew up and mated with an English soldier whose offspring then mated with a china man, their child then mated with a Maori the progeny of which coupled with a Scottish migrant is

100% aboriginal

“regressive genes” argues against you.

“Just because some egomaniacal prick latches on to a popular political label”

we could be talking about Lenin or Stalin, Brezhnev, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung as well as Hitler.

Regardless of the “political label” the results were the same except whilst Hitler outranked Lenin in the death count, Stalin eclipsed Hitler by a factor of three.

“very selective application of the notion of libertarianism to your own odious philosophies comes to mind”

How many “dead” are you going to claim stain the hands of “libertarianism”?

“our continual obsequious references to her with reference to Australian political discussions only underlines how little you understand your adopted country.”

Just to disappoint you, I have already contributed to the Australian gene pool and my daughters are, politically, exactly like me (not that I educated them that way, they reasoned it for themselves)

Like they say, strength through diversity. My contribution to Australian politics is as valid as yours even though mine is far better researched and reasoned. I rely less on the limp, emotional drivel and inferiority complex which permeates every post you make.

Although you have convinced me, through lack of reasoning and reliance on the purely emotive, you and rainier are “analytically” inferior and it has nothing to do with “race”.

RobP,

This is my point: rights to use land WERE recognised in law, if not in fact. The clause was still in pastoral leases in the late 1980s, less than fifteen years ago, perhaps until the late nineties; but, because every idiot thought that terra nullius was the law, they als othought thatthey had nothing to negotiate over, i.e. they had nothing to begin with - when actually they did. So, at least down here in SA, people negotiated away rights that they already had. So now, in 2008, Aboriginal people have to go through a comittee to travel on land which they used to have an unrestricted right to use, in law, until well into the nineties, barely ten years ago.

"My contribution to Australian politics is as valid as yours even though mine is far better researched and reasoned."

Col, Col Col, stop pulling yourself old son. You'll go blind! You wouldn't know critical analysis and academic research methods - even if it bit you on the bum.

As for your contribution to Australian politics - tell us just what it is?

Please note that the following cannot be counted as substantive contributions.

1. Writing bombastic comments here on OLO
2. Idolising an Ugly ex British Prime minister
3. Being a salesman and or bean counter.(or both)
4. Leaving Britain and pretending to be gentrified Australian.

Stick to the bean counting Col. You're not fooling anybody but yourself.

Have you been resident in Australia long enough to know what we mean when we refer to some whining immigrant as a "Pommie bastard"?

And your daughters could only be Aboriginal if you'd "mated" with an Aboriginal woman, but for some reason I doubt that's the case.

Loudmouth,

Fair enough. In a way, though, it could have been better that Aboriginals in the past did not exercise their land rights in law, as bigger forces would probably have legislated away their rights to the land anyway.

Not at all, it was clear from the 'Royal Commission into the Aborigines' in 1899 in SA that pastoral tenants were aware of, and did not seem to have worries about, the right of Aborigjnal people to come onto etc. the land that they had leased. And that Aboriginal people freely did just that. Only later, and I fear after 1972 to be more precise, people swallowed the convenient notion that the yhad no rights, that terra nullius was law, when it actually wasn't. What the hell were those shyster lawyers doing when they 'assisted' Aboriginal people in their negotiations over land rights ?