Col (last line) I hope you are wrong. I'll wait a few years before passing judgement on that one.

Col, as a fairly recent immigrant you should make more effort to assimilate into Australian culture. When Australians refer to someone as a bastard, we're generally not talking about whether or not their parents were married. Rather, we are referring colloquially to

"an unpleasant or despicable person or thing" (Concise Macquarie Dictionary).

Further, Aboriginality in Australia is a question of being of Aboriginal descent and being accepted as such by an Aboriginal community. "Percentages" of Aboriginal "blood" don't come into it - you're either Aboriginal or you're not. If you weren't so deliberately obtuse in your racist sophistry, you might be aware that this was the very issue that gave rise to the Stolen Generations, to whom the Prime Minister apologised yesterday. You may profess to have an interest in anthropology, but your understanding of the subject wouldn't earn you the barest pass in an introductory unit in any reputable university.

Your understanding of history is similarly flawed. Hitler was as much a socialist as John Howard was a liberal. Just because some egomaniacal prick latches on to a popular political label doesn't mean that they actually understand or support the ideology from which they attempt to glean credibility. Your very selective application of the notion of libertarianism to your own odious philosophies comes to mind - what's your take on recreational drug use again?

Lastly, Maggie Thatcher is about as attractive politically to most Australians as her beloved General Pinochet - i.e. totally irrelevant. Your continual obsequious references to her with reference to Australian political discussions only underlines how little you understand your adopted country.

Wouldn't you be happier in the Falklands or somewhere?

"A minority section of a society which demands the public apology of the majority of a society is the opposite of “leveling”. It is at best appeasement. The sort of action which panders to the worst characteristics of folk and ultimately fails to resolve the problem."

Col, you always pick out examples that best sell your case. Sure there is a minority out there that clamours for an apology and sure they are often self-serving. That's the bit on the surface. However, for everything on the surface, there's something else completely different going on underneath. There are many ordinary Aboriginals (the majority of them) who have been detrimentally affected by many of the actions of Western culture. These ordinary people, who never did any injustice to anyone else, are the real beneficiaries of Rudd's apology. And to that extent, I think the apology serves a real and useful purpose.

You have professed a liking for libertarianism. Taking this to its logical end, what's your view on the fact that the colonisation of Australia has led to the loss of hunting grounds and space to move for Aboriginals in their way of life. Once upon a time, they were at liberty to roam wherever they liked with a spear and hunt the local fauna. Since the advent of white man, however, they have been told that they can't go here and can't do that (at risk of once being shot or now of being locked up). Now I'm not expecting anyone to become like Aboriginals or talk down Western development, but the fact is that the way of life of Indigenous people has been irrevocably changed by force. It's a pretty hard thing to cop if that's all they have ever known.

Just on that last point, about hunter-gatherers not being allowed etc., no, the law in most if not all States was that, all pastoral leases had to contain the clause:

“ And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made. ”

So no terra nullius. It was not law. In law, people had far more rights than people realise even now. Of course, there were massacres. Of course the law was not observed. Of course, many of us are descended from brutal criminals. But it was the law. And what did that last phrase mea

Just on that last point, about hunter-gatherers not being allowed etc., no, the law in most if not all States was that, all pastoral leases had to contain the clause:

“ And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made. ”

So no terra nullius. It was not law. In law, people had far more rights than people realise even now. Of course, there were massacres. Of course the law was not observed. Of course, many of us are descended from brutal criminals. But it was the law. And what did that last phrase mean ?

Loudmouth,

The totality of Aboriginal experience between about 1770 and 2007 was what I was referring to when I said that they weren't/aren't allowed to do the things they once did. The State law you quoted shows that there were some enlightened individuals in power. As we all know, however, in the real world possession is nine-tenths of the law and the ones that can utilise "guns, germs and steel" have a formidable advantage.

In the last phrase I was trying to say that, for Aboriginals, the stresses involved in the sudden change in their way of life would have been painful and difficult to deal with. It's probably a big factor in why they took the path toward welfare dependency.