Well, some one had to be the first here. It was not an invasion fleet but a fleet of convict carriers accompanied by gaolers and some marines. Since no other European nation was interested in a settlement on the continent, the British flag extended the territory to what it is now thanks to the navigator Flinders who proved Australia to be an island continent. As for setting out to murder the Aboriginal first occupants, killing did take place as it did in all new lands such as those in Africa, the Americas and Asia. So what day shall we use to celebrate our nation ? Whatever day, be it the day the Commonwealth was declared or the first parliament was opened or the greatest day celebrated in Australia, the First Tuesday in November, the claptrap of invasion by the likes of Mick Dodson and the forever whinging Aboriginal do-gooders will continue. And it doesn't take a Pommy has been politician for the misguided centre group to tell us what to do.

Cheers,

Wubble You

Sorry, Andrew is a Queenslander by birth....it's the other crazy bloke in the West who was the Pommy ex When We ( when we were in Zimbabwe).

AUSTRALIA DAY

Please allow me to suggest that Australia Day should be the day Australia becomes a republic. My guess is that could be within the
next couple of years or so.

Now is the dream time. The time to create. Time for all of us, indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, to get together and draw- up a constitution for the new republic that we all feel comfortable with.

If we are comfortable with the constitution we will be comfortable with Australia Day.

Banjo Paterson

What about some of our historical OLO's giving consent to our Aboriginals, now famous as one of the oldest unchanged family societies in our world, having permanent representaion in our government.

With this blowing our bags on Monday how bloody good we are, with a part Abo' looking mostly like a whitie being lined up also with us whities, surely it is about time as with New Zealand and now Canada, we offered full bloods permanent representation in our Federal government.

Certainly something smart-arsed Pax Americana hasn't got around to either.

Now in my 88th year and glad that I originally left school at 12 during the Great Depression to drive a wagon team, might say without true permanent representation of the Great Southland's only dinkum families, might say I found little interest in us whities building ourselves up last Monday.

Wubble you, you are clearly not an historian. Britain was concerned that Spain, which controlled much of the Pacific (South America, Phillipines) would make a move on the East coast. France was also sniffing round and the First Fleet made it to Botany Bay only a day ahead of Bougainville.

I can't agree with Andrew Bartlett about a treaty and reconciliation - exactly what benefit would a treaty bring? And I am still waiting for someone to explain exactly what reconciliation is and what it will do. Making things right in indigenous Australia will take a long time and a lot of work, and it annoys me to have meaningless concepts like treaties and reconciliation trotted out as though they will immediately make things better. Even the Rudd apology did very little - a nice warm inner glow, but how have things actually improved since then?

If the ‘original inhabitants’ had done something to create a civilisation in the 30,000 or so years they had to raise themselves above the level of stone-age hunter gatherers, they may have been able to hang on to the country or, at worst, have it returned as with India.

As it is, the culture many of them are still trying to hold onto in unsustainable outback locations is well past its time, and nothing short of complete assimilation will do.

Australia Day, although an absolute farce due to the way successive governments have sold the country down the drain, has nothing to do with descendants of aborigines who don’t feel Australian because of some ancient culture which is dead and gone. Australia Day is about the white settlement of the country; not about 30,000 years in the Stone Age when there was no such place as Australia.

So, any calls for a change in the date are absolute nonsense.

As for Dodson being Australian of the Year, how ridiculous – the man spends most of his time rubbishing Australia and Australians. It was hypocritical of him to accept the award.

I am annoyed with Rudd, to say "no" to changing Australia Day. I thought it was a day to take pride in being Australian for ALL Australians, obviously not. I thought saying sorry was to reconcile with the indigenous people of this country and move forward as ONE, gee there is talk but no action. Does he realise Australia Day is celebrating a genocide and a day of mourning for the descendants who did actually survive? Yeah he knows, but does he care? No and its ignorance and people wonder why Aboriginal/Torres Strait people still have problems today - typical (that's Australian) you don’t see the Jewish people celebrating Hitler Day - but would there ever be??

Leigh - Just because the original inhabitants of this continent didn't build permanent buildings or domesticate cows that doesn't mean they didn't have a rich culture or civilisation. There is more to civilisation than chopping it down, digging it up or shooting it ie the continent isn't a quarry and white Australians need to learn sustainably with their landscape.

I am quite keen to keep a public holiday for Australia Day but even though some ancestors arrived with the First Fleet, 26th January is New South Wales establishment day a cause for celebration for New South Welshmen not the other 70% of Australians who live in other states.

This debate is great fun, but there is one thing that I just cannot understand. Many indigenous groups like to refer to the 26th of January as Invasion Day. The problem as I see it, is that if it is Invasion Day, doesn't that make them the defeated enemy? How inclusive is that?

As far a a republic is concerned, until those wanting change address the concerns of the majority who voted NO at the referendum, the result at the next one will be the same. How many realise that many Australians like the current system where all Federal parliamentarians, including all the committed republicans, at the start of each session, must swear or affirm that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty? The voters are then able to make a judgement, as to whether the politicians are being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth. Fortunately the requirement to make this oath is prescribed in Section 42 of the Constitution, and can only be removed by referendum.

I have for many years advocated that the only way a Republic will be achieved is by compromise, and the one I advocate is to include citizen initiated referendum at the same time. This would allow the people, voting in a referendum, to enact laws in the teeth of the opposition of the entire political and legal establishment. To ensure its correct interpretation, such a referendum might need to replace all the current High Court justices with a nominated panel. As the chances of anything like this being enacted are next to zero, I think a Republic is a very far off.

The best comment, by the way, on the republic was, in my opinion, given in 1993 by a Broken Hill miner in the early stages of the debate when Keating was PM and Hewson Opposition leader. He said:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson!"

Good article, Andrew Bartlett. I agree with Banjo Paterson that the most appropriate date for a new Australia Day will be the day that we eventually declare ourselves a republic.

wubble you: << Well, some one had to be the first here. >>

Somebody was, and it was the ancestors of our Aboriginal people, which is one reason why they aren't too happy about the current date. This is a conversation that Australians do need to have, although comments like those from wubble you and Leigh demonstrate Bartlett's point that it's unlikely to be a mature one - at least from some ignorant and/or bigoted Australians.

Leigh "So, any calls for a change in the date are absolute nonsense. "

Absolutely Agree....

I see the usual malcontents continue their absurd (and electorally margional) demands for their version of political correctness and disproportionate representation for those who claim to be "aboriginal".

So all we need to do is put it to a referendum and see who wins (again).

Then we can all decide if 26th January is a better date than the Queens Birthday (which is something not in the "British" holiday calendar) or Christmas Day.....

Of course, regardless the date the government decrees, it does not stop every real Australian, who values their ex-colonial heritage and institutions, from following that Aussie tradition of simply throwing a sicky and taking the day to celebrate what matters to them, instead of being brow beaten by a bunch of apologists into changing to the politically correct date.

And since I am self employed, it is me who says when I holiday.

So rest assured, anyone else, so inclined, is welcome to come around to my place for a snag and a cold one.

I might even burn an Andrew Bartlett effigy (providing its not "a day of total fire ban" - in which case we could drown it), just to set the mood.

I agree with Andrew Bartlett . Few , if any , white Australians [ I am one ] have any emotional attachment to 26 January . Most of those who object to changing the date are reacting negatively to Mick Dodson's comments , because they react negatively to any proposal made by an indigenous Australian . Others are following the old " ain 't broke , don't fix it " mantra . The best alternative date is the date when the Republic comes into effect .

Although 2.5% of the population calls it invasion day, I don't recall there being any military action at the time.

The 26th of Jan was when a step change was made in the history of this Island, and the process that eventually produced Australia began.

All the alternative dates suggested in the post were mostly beaurocratic changes which had practically zero effect on the population and were hardly even noticed at the time.

Similarily as the British monarchy or gov has no real control, the change to a republic is also purely symbolic.

If the date was to change why not just throw a dart at the calendar?

Candide,
I may well be wrong but I think it was La Perouse that entered Sydney Harbour about a day after the fleet relocated to there. He had talks with Phillip and left to explore Botany Bay. while there his party shot and killed an aboriginal and this began the first aminosity with the whites. La Perouse left but to the aboriginals they were the same as those in Sydney Harbour so bad relations started which Puillip tried his best to repair.

You are right about plenty of others interested to at least have a look around. The Poms were strong enough to hold it all. WA was only colonised because there were rumours that another power was going to set up there.(Russians I think)

Lets disregard Leigh who just loves killing people as long as it is not her, possibly she would be so happy to have the Indonesians come down and overtake us one night like the Aborigines were overtaken by the British, get out the tea cups Leigh and welcome with open arms the invaders, it could happen you know, from your point of view they would be most welcome.

I do agree with my namesake Banjo Paterson, lets wait until we become a Republic then set a date, I hope this is not too far in the future, the sooner we rid ourselves of the Monarchy, Australia will then become of age.

As our usual OLO extreme rightwing contributors, are against a change of date for Australia Day; Mick Dodson has obviously come up with with a positive suggestion.
My suggestion is the day when the Saxe Coburg family are no longer our
heads of state, is when Australia day should be.

For those of you that want Australia to become a republic, can you show any practical advantages? How would we be better off? Would our ecomomy improve? Would the health system and transport system suddenly improve? Would aboriginal health improve? Would traffic conjestion ease? Just what are the advantages?

We have a good workable system which is far better than others I could name. Some say they want a republic with a president elected by the people. In all sincerety, would you impose the USA system on us? The last 12 months have seen the biggest circus ever with the candidates preselection processes and then the election. Do you really want that every 3-4 years, not to even mention the expense.

Frankly any practical benifits elude me. Maybe those who seek change are simply bigotted against the British.

Anyhow, if New Zealand honoured the Maories with a permanent place in parliament with Canada now being ditto, what harm would it do for us also to be the same?

Seeing that the above has been discussed seriously in our universities without mentioning our natives as low-life similar to the what our troops called the Palestine Arabs during the two wars - no wonder we have so much terrorism.

Might just pay some of us to put ourselves in the same low-life mentality for a while, as was purported in the Sermon on the Mount.

Blessed are the Poor in Spirit, was certainly well portrayed, many believing it comes from the Greeks, as my OLO mates are proving, our Christian ancestors would never have been as thoughful and kindly.

Have Fun, BB, Buntine, WA.

Yes! we must have a Republic hopefully in the near future, the reason being that sons and daughters of Monarchs are elected purely by their birth right, this is completely wrong, they can be complete idiots as they often are, at least now they have become more open on whom they marry, not like Queen Victoria's time when cousins were marrying cousins to keep all the wealth and power in the family, having read many books on Royalty I really do believe these people think they are God chosen, so lets get on and have an elected Australian as head of state,
Let's change the date as well.

Good article. Interesting response from Rudd; yes let's have a conversation, just don't expect me to listen...
Personally, if it should be an historical date, perhaps June 28 would be most appropriate. That was the date (1919) that Billy Hughes -somewhat controversially- signed the treaty of Versailles on behalf of the 'sovereign nation' of Australia.
Or perhaps October 1. This was the date parliament ratified the treaty by which the international community recognised Oz as a sovereign nation.
Truth be known, I'm in favour of the republic idea. And it should be in August.
We're a bit short on Public Hols, at that time of year.

Indeed Grim.

In fact, I think that when Australia finally grows up and becomes a republic, the actual timing should take into account the surfeit of public holidays in the latter part of the year. Every true Aussie reveres a Long Weekend.

In Queensland particularly the waning months of each year are relatively devoid of officially sanctioned occasions for having a day off. All the more reason for us to become a republic, and abolish the silly and anachronistic States while we're at it.

So long as it occurs somewhere between July and November.

Changing Australia Day is completely pointless because the clan prospective is still in place. CJ Morgan is completely right in his own category. Let me explain. He made an interesting input, which I will now elaborate on, which I have already put on this site. And I quote! "With each new born persons, evolution adds one more degree to the human outcome." what this means is what happened yesterday is finished. 33.8% are brand new people and this is why through the thousands of posts I have made, this is why evolution plus time plus effort makes a new human being, and this co-insides with the number of people that are not identified as a new species which co-insides directly with each brand new born human as a classified individual.

Nature has given us the network of existence and biologically speaking, I will give you another quote from me and it says simply this, everything is going to fast for our biological bodies to keep up and this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt we need to reduce but most importantly of all there is a brand new name for mans progress in evolution, What is man's new name?

The percentage of people that kill themselves are not mad or crazy there just new human beings that the rest of the world does not understand.
This is why evolution is a constant. This is why I am here to show that the new point of mankind is here, but yet there is no name for us, if I may be so bold.
I will never give up on the human race because evolutions constant reminders that we are changing, technologically or otherwise. I can see why CJ has got the sh@ts with you all and even though I don't agree fully with what he says, it doesn't sound by any means with otherwise but the best intentions.

Continue:
I have never left this site, but in an overall situation, races are not ready to be together yet and there is compounding evidence of this wherever you look.

Being Scottish, we have had our share of invaders but what rings out as clarity and in our history we have never hurt any of you, but we have remained strong and our help for mankind in its best representation of humanity I'm sorry to say natures rules apply and the strongest and the fittest will survive and anything less is a floor and where we started from, governs our fuel for survival, and col you are right the leches of society should be put to the front line and this is why war undoubtedly is the only solution to take care of the human race as a potential winner for all concerned.

Cold but true! otherwise like I have said mankind will eat this planet alive.

Changing Australia Day will serve no positive purpose because the simple fact is technology or not we are all clans people and this is why I have said all go back to your corners and reserve and protect and save because other forces are at work for you all. I would love to elaborate more but I think when it comes down to chewing on a bag of chips, take each and every chip as something new.

Bottom line is, there are new humans here so my next big question is, these new breed of people are killing themselves, because they simply cant comprehend the 19th century. (An open mind is the key)

These people are new and here with us now. I have made close to a thousand posts here and have never directly offended anyone so those who use insults,
aren't we the poor cousins. Next question is how would you identify a new person in evolution if you met them in the streets.
In layman terms we all need to go back to our own countries because quite simply we are not ready to mix just yet.

Billie,

‘Civilisation’ is an advanced state of human society, with a high level of art, science and religion and government. It also refers to cities and high standards of hygiene and public services.

Don’t confuse civilisation with culture. There is no way that aborigines could ever called ‘civilised’.

Banjo “can you show any practical advantages?”

Exactly… made similar comment in response to a post by (I think) bushbred yesterday… re the Samoans not bothering to remove a sign regarding the previous British Colonial authority.

Bushbred “Anyhow, if New Zealand honoured the Maories with a permanent place in parliament with Canada now being ditto, what harm would it do for us also to be the same?”

Maybe because the Maori population rates as 14.6% the total population of New Zealand
http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/people/ethnic-composition-population.html

And First Nation, Metis and Inuit total 3.75% the population of Canada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada

whereas, Aboriginal population of Australia represents 1.15% of the total
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv7n4/v7n4_3price.pdf

So in short, Maoris are 13 times more populous than aboriginals and thus, 13 times more deserving of a place in parliament.

Although, personally, I find such “secured representation” a disgusting denial of the values idealized in the concept of “universal suffrage”

Leigh: << There is no way that aborigines could ever called ‘civilised’. >>

More ignorance from Leigh. Suggested reading:

Warner, W. Lloyd (1937) "A Black Civilization: a Social Study of an Australian tribe".

Leigh, Morgan et al,

From: The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English | Date: 2009 |
civ·i·li·za·tion

• n. the stage of human social development and organization that is considered most advanced.

; the process by which a society or place reaches this stage.
; the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area: the great books of Western civilization.
; the comfort and convenience of modern life, regarded as available only in towns and cities.

and

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

culture with a relatively high degree of elaboration and technical development. The term civilization also designates that complex of cultural elements that first appeared in human history between 8,000 and 6,000 years ago. At that time, on the basis of agriculture, stock-raising, and metallurgy, intensive occupational specialization began to appear in the river valleys of SW Asia. Writing appeared, as well as urban centers that accommodated administrators, traders, and other specialists. The specific characteristics of civilization are: food production (plant and animal).

ie. civilization is an advanced culture. Having a culture does not imply civilization.

Candide, I am a professional historian. My I erefer you to the debate of the 1950 to 1970 regarding the founding of Australia. 'The founding of Australia' by GEd Martin 1978. Convicts were settled in NSW for the dual purpose of finding some where to get rid of them from the UK as well as the possibility of NSW being a source of Naval Stores. Other European countries didn't come into it.
Cheers.

Col Rouge, not many thanks for your uneducated inhuman hardhearted opinion.

As one who has worked with and played country sport with the human beings you despise so much, must say as a historian, I believe your rightist attitude is not much different from the personalism which brought on extremist politics like Nazism.

Also as one who has gained Honours in the Humanities, one could certainly find plenty of educated people to back me up.

Must close by saying, Col Rouge, that it is not only you I've got my
sights on, but the bulk of my so-called Aussie mates as well.

From BB, Buntine, WA.

Col Rouge, you are a bit of nomad yourself, have you ever spent enough time in these various countries, to inform you of the respective countries history of being.
Not that many rightwing thinking people bother!

CJ Morgan,

I know anyone who disagrees with you is ‘ignorant’, and I have not read the book to which you refer. But I suggest that a modern dictionary will back up my version of what is a civilisation, as will common usage. I repeat: there is no way Australian aborigines could be classified as civilised, no matter what other qualities they have which you might admire. See Shadow Minister,too.

As the book you mention was written in 1937, I am unlikely to find it. But, knowing you and your political persuasion, I feel sure that you would read only what you wanted to read - i.e. whatever suits you. Whatever I read, I always look for an opposing view so that I can make up my own mind.

Good to see that your only insulting word was “ignorance”.

Bushbred,

We all know about your mature (very) history studies; there’s no need to mention it in every post because it means absolutely nothing. It explains why you are a brainwashed lefty, and that’s about all.

To call Col Rouge a “rightist” and liken his opinions to that of Nazis is the typically crude comment of an uneducated person who came to learning late in life, and believes whatever he is told by academics. You were probably better educated when you were driving bullocks.

The slavering after an education you didn’t have when you should have is shown in your “…plenty of educated people to back me up” nonsense. For somebody claiming to have studied in the area you say you have, you seem unaware of the ‘History Wars’ and the vast differences between your ‘educated’ people when it comes to reporting what they all claim to be facts.

Just try being yourself, instead being a poser.

I don't have a problem with January 26th as Australia Day. But then I am white, middle class, and quite content with my lot in life.
Because Australia Day is supposed to be about all of us - celebrating who we are, and the fact remains there are people out there who don't have much reason to celebrate. I think that Banjo summed it up
rather well in his post. We can still retain January 26th - if we
became a Republic on that day.

Then the date could perhaps be acceptable to everybody.

Just a thought.

Wubble you,
Being a professional historian, can you confirn or correct what I said in my post on page 3, in relation to La Perouse. And that other nations were interested in this country.

Be nice to get another opinion,I was speaking only from memory.

Foxy,
That was not me that made that comment. I am not convinced we need a republic.

Bushbred “not many thanks for your uneducated inhuman hardhearted opinion”

You are welcome to it, regardless of how pathetically judgmental you seem.

Regarding your opinion to my right of centre perspective, you are entitled to think what you want.

That is the difference between me and the “Nazis” who you scurrilously attermpt to associate me with.

The Nazis would give you a good kicking and send you of for some genteel reeducation.

Conversely, my values accept you are freely entitled to hold and express whatever views you want, regardless how moronic and half-witted they might be.

“Also as one who has gained Honours in the Humanities, one could certainly find plenty of educated people to back me up.”

For someone who has studied the "humanites" yet confuse my view with those of Nazis, I suggest you go and demand a refund.

So do I assume your "honours" are fropm one of those the cornflake box degrees or something you bought off the ‘net?

“Must close by saying, Col Rouge, that it is not only you I've got my
sights on, but the bulk of my so-called Aussie mates as well.”

That could be scary, except it is obvious, you are barely capable of firing blanks, let alone come up with real ammo.

Kipp “Col Rouge, you are a bit of nomad yourself, have you ever spent enough time in these various countries, to inform you of the respective countries history of being.”

I have lived 33 years in UK, 2 ½ years in USA and about 25 years in Australia. I have never claimed to have lived anywhere else, although I have travelled to a few places on both business and pleasure.

I have also made a habit of reading, fairly widely and believe we can only avoid future problems by learning from the events of history.

So I personally find "history" an extremely interesting area of study.

But I must admit, I fail to comprehend the point you are trying to make.

BANJO PATERSON IS NOT BANJO !

The proximity of the two pseudos is understandably creating confusion. We are two different persons with, apparently, opposing views on this particular subject.

Hopefully, it is possible to change one's pseudo. If so, Banjo Paterson will now mutate to Saltbush Bill. If not, please be aware that Banjo is not Banjo Paterson and vice versa.

Saltbush Bill, alias, Banjo Paterso

BANJO PATERSON IS NOT BANJO !

Apparently it is not so easy to change one's pseudo or nickname as it is called here. I have filled out the enquiry form on line and am now waiting for someone to either change my name to Saltbush Bill as previously advised, or tell me how I can do it myself (if possible).

In the meantime, I remain,

Yours faithfully,

Saltbush Bill, alias, Banjo Paterson

I’d rather our national day not have any association with war or colonisation (we’ve got more than enough of those already). My preference is to toss out the Queen’s Birthday (regardless of whether or not we become a republic) and make that Australia Day. If we ever become a republic, the date could then be timed for that day.

However, the national day and the republic are just part of the problem. National-symbolically speaking, Australia is the worst-dressed nation on earth – and needs a complete makeover.

The flag is ugly and obsequious. We live all our lives surrounded by vibrant light blue skies and green-blue oceans, creamy beige farmland, red-brown deserts and yellow sunlight. So why do we we have a flag comprising icky, depressing British-navy blue and bilious British postbox red?

The national colours are garish (courtesy of Kerry Packer, not the Australian people) – and clash with the ugly, obsequious flag. They resemble a colicky baby’s nappy, not the pride of a nation.

And that ghastly anthem … It’s so cringeworthy, I actually dread Australians winning gold medals. Perhaps that's the real reason so many athletes cry on the podium.

There must be a lot of Banjo's about, I am also Banjo Paterson, perhaps we are all related, I go under the name of ojnab, which is Banjo backwards.

Leigh on your last post, don't faint, but I do agree with you.

The aggressively ignorant Leigh asserted that "There is no way that aborigines could ever called ‘civilised’". I responded by providing a reference to a classic anthropological ethnography from way back in 1937 where someone did precisely that. One of Warner's points in choosing that title (and retaining it theough various revisions and reprints until 1969, shortly before his death) is that Yolngu societies were astonishingly complex in terms of kinship relations, law, cosmology and iconography - and therefore should not be simply dismissed as "stone age" or "primitive" proto-human "savages", the loss of whose territory, culture and indeed lives was, if not exactly desirable then inevitable.

The kind of 'Social Darwinism' against which Warner argues is still very much around today, and is evident in assimilationist ideologies that underlie the kinds of sentiments contained in comments by the many closet racists like Leigh who persist in denigrating Aboriginal people in forums such as this.

Leigh says he enjoys reading - I imagine that Warner's classic ethnography would be available on inter-library loan from any municipal library. It would certainly be on the shelves in any reputable university library - although Leigh seems to have something of an antipathy towards education and scholarship. If he could bring himself to get hold of that book, he would undoubtedly find it heavy going (I certainly did when I first read it), but if he persisted he would at the very least gain some idea of the sheer complexity of Aboriginal kinship and Law - that might cause him to rethink some of his ignorant prejudices towards Aborigines. That would, however, require an open mind.

<< ignorance
n.
The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.

lack of knowledge or education >>

Ojnab and Banjo Paterson,
My apoligies to others for going off topic, but will try to be brief.

Yes it does appear to be 3 of us. I chose the pen name about 3 years ago because of my admiration for Paterson and my love of his balleds. My small contribution to keeping his memory alive. I also like the musical instrument (don't play) and enjoy Bluegrass music. My location is Southern Tablelands NSW.

I am interested as to why you chose the pen name and your location (roughly) I also appears that I hold differing views on this subject than you two, but you never know we may agree on somethings in time.

Might say, Col Rouge, I had Marksman placed in my paybook after my first military rifle shoot way back in 1950.

And if you want to know where my Honour came from, it was receiving 93/100 in 1981, after a long study in Sri Lanka on what was known as the Tea Economy when the Brits brought Tamil troops from South India to clear the cherished Ceylonese hillsides murdering thousands of Jaynists (Buddhists) in the process.

You should know by now, my friend, that many country boys have a reputation just not only in sport, but of also marrying full-blood natives, the progeny still revealed as having physical capabilities much superior to whities.

Finally, Col Rouge, seems the way you talk, you haven't been around very much, or is it just that you were not born with the brain to analyse coherently.

From BB, Buntine, WA.

I don't think we can blame Kerry Packer for the green and gold. They were in use as our national sporting colours long before he was born. Certainly, there were other combinations - red, white and blue; blue and gold - but green and gold was there.

Bushbred “Might say, Col Rouge, I had Marksman placed in my paybook after my first military rifle shoot way back in 1950.”

So what, I played with guns when in USA… M16 included… did not do too bad for a beginner… but if you became a “Marksman” it would suggest, the “skill” needed was far from “scarce”.

“And if you want to know where my Honour came from, it was receiving 93/100 in 1981, after a long study in Sri Lanka”

Well I didn’t (want to know) but I suppose I will never get those few seconds back, wasted on reading your potted biography…

but you do remind me of something humorous, which I will share

She offered her honour,
I honoured her offer,
And all night long,
I was on ‘er and off ‘er.

“You should know by now, my friend, that many country boys have a reputation just not only in sport, but of also marrying full-blood natives, the progeny still revealed as having physical capabilities much superior to whities.”

Ah - if they were so "superior" why did they not found an "Empire on which the Sun never Set"?

and why, on earth, do you think I should care about your coupling choices?

I can assure you, the capabilities of the "fruits of my lions", are nothing for me to be ashamed of, not just in their physical capabilities but also their intellectual and attitudinal capabilities (to which, I note, you, pointedly, made no reference).

“Finally, Col Rouge, seems the way you talk, you haven't been around very much, or is it just that you were not born with the brain to analyse coherently.”

Think what you want of me, your opinion has the consequence of a defective tap dripping water,

And to fix that, the only thing needed is a 1 cent washer and we can get on with life, the previously constant dripping on and on and on …. having been properly silenced.

Like Leigh said “Just try being yourself, instead being a poser.”

Thanks, Col Rouge, but remember I'm nearly 88 -

and guess from the way you speak or write, you still need a lot of years to learn not only decency, but very much wisdom and understanding.

In fact, could feel a bit sorry for you, Col, especially about your attitude to our Aborigines.

As a matter of fact, I've written a series on WA called A Land in Need, and one of the main characters in Book One was a native called Yagan who has been called a hero by historians, but certainly not by writer characters like yourself.

Have Fun in your mental swamp,

BB, Buntine, WA.

The Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University
has backed the call by the 2009 Australian of the Year, Professor
Mick Dodson for a national debate over the meaning of and the
date for Australia Day.

He said:

"A national debate about Australia Day should be part of the
transition to a republic, which seems only a matter of time
for a majority of Australians, becoming a republic would be
a powerful symbol of independence and our maturity as a nation."

"The symbolism would have real meaning if at the same time we
showed a renewed respect for the history of dispossession by
adopting a new date for Australia Day that marked both the
shift to a republic and recognition of original ownership of
this land by the first Australians.

January 26th could remain a public holiday to mark the arrival
of the First Fleet and the history of white settlement
akin to Thanksgiving Day in the US."

I'm sure that no Australian would complain about an extra
Public Holiday. I know I wouldn't.

yep. In August.

CJ Morgan,

Anybody who knows what civilisation is would disagree with Warner’s idea of the condition. Civilised people do urinate and defecate in the same place they eat and sleep. They have sanitation systems, solid homes to live in and sleep in, and they don’t roam around all over the place: they stay in the cities they have built. (See the derivative of civilisation from Greek) They also trade, produce and enjoy the finer things of life.

I would obviously disagree with Warner on this subject, as would most people who actually understand such matters. The only thing you and I have ever agreed on is abortion and euthanasia.

You call me “uneducated, unaware (and) uniformed”. I disagree with you. You call me a racist. I disagree with you. And, your ‘responses’ have done absolutely nothing to change my mind. I will refrain from trying to match your insults in this, the last time I will take any notice of you.

Col Rouge,

Poor old Bushbred has to crow about his shooting ability too! At the age of 88, he should have come to terms with himself, and no longer be feeling the need to puff himself up in the sadly mistaken belief that doing mickey mouse degrees and trying to get people to look up to him just won’t work if he didn’t have what it takes in the first place.

How about the country boys marrying full-blooded natives? He doesn’t say that he married a full-blooded native, though. (Nothing wrong if he did). Just another throwaway line that makes him look more ridiculous and sad in his attempts to aggrandise himself.

BB certainly has problems, not the least of which is his lack of a humorous approach to life, such as yours.

Foxy,

The opinion of the academic to whom you refer is just that: an opinion – no worthier than your opinion or mine. You clearly agree with him, I disagree. The day should stay as is, or we should do without it altogether, so faricial has it become.

I meant do NOT defecate...., of course. Don't want you to waste a post on that, CJ.

Thanks Leigh, looks like you and ‘Rouge are still influenced by the same old dirty defamous attitude about our blacks we used at country school.

I don't know whether you both know it or not, but it is breaking the law.

Looks like the fun you reckon I need mixing with you, is the same as the rotten slang openly used by us in sport, even with so-called boongs in the teams.


But surely you pair have grown up since such words were openly used.

Further it is my belief that Online Opinion would be much better of without you both if you keep on the way you do.

In fact getting back to my Mickey Mouse degree, most universities do now support the belief that sometime in the future, our Aborigines will be allowed permanent positions in our Federal Parliament similar to New Zealand.

Further, seeing that it had been discussed and carried out fairly recently in Canada, we are hoping Barak Obama will be suggestung somethng about it.

Finally, although I could probably sue you over the way you have degraded all my years of study, but realising you haven’t received an adequate education needed for these days, I’ll forgive you.

Fact is, my own grandkids carry on nearly as bad.
Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA

I have a mate who refuses to give up his outside dunny; he agrees with Leigh that 'one does not sh!t where one lives'. The rest of my mates (and I) have inside toilets. A couple even have ensuites. How uncivilised is that?
Pigs on the other hand -at least free range ones, with ample space- are very fastidious. At least, they never defecate where they sleep...
As to the questionable civilisation (or civility) of -grey- nomads, I concur. Some're also a bloody nuisance on the highway.
Before the coming of whitefellas, the continent of Australia was home to over 500 separate nations of blackfellas; each with their own language, customs and traditions. These nations did produce and trade (witness treasured sea shells, as far west as Broken Hill). Of course, they also indulged in the highly civilised past time of warfare, much like the Europeans; although (not being 'civilised') they clearly weren't as good at it.
As to 'the finer things in life', I believe many anthropologists consider the blackfellas around Port Jackson in convict times had a higher standard of living than even the free whites. Less than 3-4 hours a day was spent building their rudimentary shelters and gathering food.
The bulk of their day was spent teaching and playing with their children, and socialising.
Sounds pretty fine, to me.
Why were the aboriginals not as technologically advanced as the Europeans? I suspect for much the same reason that the ancient Greeks did not develop steam engines, despite being familiar with the principles.
They had slaves.
If it ain't broke, why play around with it?
I particularly liked the second definition of “civilised”, supplied by wordweb online.
“Marked by refinement in taste and manners”.
What a pleasure, this discourse with so many civilised individuals.

Dear Leigh,

I'm afraid I disagree with your contention that all
opinions have the same value. Of course we're all entitled to an opinion, that goes without saying, but experts in the field
of a particular subject would be far more knowledgeable than
people who are not experts in that field. That was my reason
for quoting an expert on the subject in my previous post.

I'm somewhat disappointed in your strong stand against
our first Australians who you feel are "uncivilized."
Don't you watch TV? There's been plenty of programs showing
the white "feral" lifestyles.

I'm also Disappointed that you tend to label
people "leftist" (whatever that means?) people you don't really know, and seem to have a general disrespect for academic achievement. (No easy task to finish any tertiary institution, no matter what your age).

Did you not go to Uni? Is that it? Never mind - it's never too late, they do have a "mature-age" quota. Think of your sense of
achievement - once you actually complete a course. Perhaps then
you will no longer feel the resentment that you do at present.

I think that if we contemporary Australians are to live at ease
with ourselves, we need more education, more tolerance, and
greater understanding about our differencies.

BANJO PATERSON FOREVER

Our hosts at On Line Opinion have informed me it is not possible to mutate from Banjo Paterson to Saltbush Bill, as hoped.

Therefore, I remain, Banjo Paterson, forever.

Not to be confused with Banjo, ojnab or any other size, shape or form of the same person.

Yours sincerely,

BANJO OJNAB PATERSON

Banjo Paterson,
Thats a pity as it may get confusing at times, but i guess we can live with it. Saltbush Bill is a great alternative as he was one of Patersons great characters.

I would have sworn that others have changed their pen names.

Banjo's forever

Leigh although I have disagreed with you in the past, I do admire your persistence in what you feel is right, we all have that right, one of the Aims of the Secular Party which I am a member of is "To promote freedom of thought and expression" unfortunately it never quite works that way, we all seem to think we are right,

I am an Atheist and recently on a post even Atheists were not in harmony with each other, which really surprised me.

To all posts please let us not get hurt, if we all met face to face over lunch I am sure we would laugh our way through our differences instead of written posts which can be so abrasive at times.

Although the above is not on Changing Australia Day perhaps we should try to Change Ourselves instead

To Grim and Foxy-

After reading your notations, Mates, I feel like I've taken a breath of clean air.

Yep, Foxy I am one who has taken an adult education course, mainly because like many of us farm boys early in the Great Depression, I was pulled out of school at
the age of 12, to drive a wagon team carting wheat.

However, though I will get over it, both 'Rouge and Leigh have made me depressed, not so much for myself, but by their attitudes towards our blacks, attitudes which I thought we had overcome mostly through modern sport, which throughout the world has been making arrogant whities give coloureds the respect they truly deserve.

However, going by the recent performances of Leigh znd 'Rouge, it seems us Aussies have still got a lot to learn.

Praying I am not going too far, but some of us old studiholics have been thinking that with a coloured man now occupying the US throne, was hoping that as with New Zealand we might eventually have two or three well chosen Aborigines permanently occupying our Federal Government - but of course, not connected to any Party.

Furthermore, as Canada has recently given her natives part possession of Parliament, maybe it would give a reminder for Pax Americana to do the same for her Redskins.

With Heartfelt Thanks,
from BB, Buntine, WA

Busbred,

You can believe that Col and I should not be on OLO if you like, even though it clearly shows that you do not believe in freedom of speech. I, however, do believe in freedom of speech and, although I think that you are a waste of space, and a very self-opinionated old man, I am quite happy to share OLO with you. I am quite happy for you to write your nonsense, although I must admit to being bored silly by you self-promotion and arrogance.

You preach: “I don't know whether you both know it or not, but it is breaking the law.” What utter rubbish! Nothing Col Rouge and I have said is in breach of any law. Perhaps you should have done a law degree instead of your mickey mouse history degree.

Your belief that Australians would allow discriminatory conditions for aborigines entering shows how off your rocker you are. There have been aborigines in parliament; I don’t know if there are any now, but they have the same rights as the rest of us to nominate.

Your last rant is a beaut:

“Finally, although I could probably sue you over the way you have degraded all my years of study, but realising you haven’t received an adequate education needed for these days, I’ll forgive you.”

Once again, it’s a pity you didn’t go for law; you would then have known what rubbish that is. And, you know nothing of my education and you never will. We aren’t all braggarts, nor do we need your ‘forgiveness’.

Foxy,

1. Still disagree. ‘Experts’ have been proven wrong. Ethics is hardly a cut and dried science, either.
2. Your comment about white ‘ferals’ doesn’t make nomadic aborigines civilized.
3. But OK for me to be called a ‘rightist’ and worse.
4. I have nothing against academic achievement – just how it is used.
5. Irrelevant and none of your business. You seem to be an education snob.
6. You show little tolerance of other’s opinion’s – mine in this case.

Dear Leigh,

Of course experts have been proven wrong. But until they are,
often that's all society has to go on.

My comment about "white ferals" was merely trying to point
out that uncivilized behaviour was not just the domain of one
particular people.

I did not call you a rightist (and worse). I tend to stay away
from labeling people I don't know. To me labeling is a sign of
intellectual poverty.

I'm not an education snob at all. I'm a firm believer in '"more
education, less fear mongering, and, not least greater honesty
about the culture of racism that is so damaging us."

I apologise if I've given you the wrong impression in my previous
post. I really have nothing against you at all. How could I have?
I don't know you. However what I do believe (and as I've said in
another thread) there is an etiquette for communicating online.
An informal "set of rules" for behaviour in computer based
conversations. We have to remember our manners, politeness rules.
And, if we all comply to these codes of conduct that will make
it all the more enjoyable for everyone.

We have to remember that individuals are reading our posts and it is
people at the other end of the technology to whom we're speaking, not
the PC screen.

All The Best,

Dear bushbred,

It is I who should be complimenting you, gentle Sir.

I've been reading all of your posts with great interest.
I'm most impressed with the civility you've throughout.
You've been absolutely inspiring!

Yours sounds like such an interesting life.
Having lived through the Great Depression. Driven a wagon team
carting wheat. Completed studies late in life. And much, much
more. All achievements to be proud of. What stories you must have
to tell. If you ever write a book, I for one would be very interested
in buying and reading it.

You have knowledge to share and pass on to us of the next generation.
We have so much to learn from people such as yourself, who can
actually capture so much history for us.

By the way I looked up "Yagan" on the web. I intend to read
about him. It sounds like a fascinating piece of history.
Thank You for attracting my attention to him.

Keep smiling,

"I also don’t see why a nation which has become independent from the country which colonised them would celebrate their national day on the anniversary of colonisation."

Andrew, the Australian nation, as we know it today, was not colonised by the British - it was created by them. Our very existence as a nation is the direct consequence of the establishment of British settler colonies upon the shores of this continent. Thus Australians are quite right to celebrate the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 as the starting point in the genesis of modern Australia.

Just because some minority groups do not identify with Australia's British heritage does not mean that we should stop celebrating the event which began the Australian nation-building process.

Foxy wrote: "I'm somewhat disappointed in your strong stand against our first Australians who you feel are "uncivilized."

The "First Australians"?

Sorry, Foxy, but "Australia" and "Australians" are European concepts.

Before British settlement this vast continent was not known as "Australia", nor did there exist a single people who could be described as "Australians". Rather this land was made up of more than 500 different clans, most of whom neither knew nor understood one another.

To suggest that some kind of unified, geographically-defined Aboriginal nation encompassing the entire Australian landmass existed on this continent prior to European settlement is patently false and, quite frankly, insulting.

ON CULTURE AND CIVILISATION

It seems to me that the epitome of culture and civilisation is to direct one's criticisms and hostility to different ideas, opinions and expressions rather than to their authors.

By the same token, courtesy and respect are attributes of cultured and civilised people. Nevertheless, notions such as courtesy and respect are totally irrelevant so far as ideas, opinions and expressions are concerned.

In a civilizsed world, the fact that one detests or even hates somebody's ideas, opinions and/or expressions does not imply that one should necessarily detest or hate the author of such ideas, opinions and/or expressions.

In my humble opinion, it would be an over-simplification to classify indigenous Australians' social organisation as primitive and that of non-indigenous Australians' as civilised. In many respects, the aborigines are less inclined to live a solitary existence than non-indigenous Australians. Perhaps it is due to the rudeness of their existence, but they appear to be more willing to exchange individual freedom for the security of uniform legal restrictions.

Rightly or wrongly, the principal distinction appears to me to be not so much of a cultural or civilisational nature but more the result of a lack of communication through geographical isolation for thousands of years having prevented the aborigines benefiting from the knowledge development of other communities around the world.

ON CULTURE AND CIVILISATION (CONTINUED)

I see the the aborigines as having suffered from a chronic deficit of knowledge and intellectual development but not so as regards their cultural and civilisational development. I do not consider that the differences between indigenous and non-indigenous cultures and civilisations are systematically to the advantage of the latter.

In addition, I would add that generalisations are like averages. They exist in theory but rarely if ever in practice. They tend to mask huge discrepancies or variables. Certain individual aborigines can be better educated, more highly cultured and civilised to a greater degree than certain non-indigenous Australians, and vice versa. It would no doubt be more judicious to refrain from generalising unless there is sound statistical evidence to back it up, and even then, it should be admitted that what may be true generally may be subject to many variables and exceptions.

In my personal experience, I have seen the shock of the two cultures as being to the detriment of the aborigines. In their natural environment, they appear to be far superior to non-indigenous Australians. On the other hand, I have witnessed many cases where they tend to degenerate into abject human beings when they evolve in a non-indigenous, urban environment.

For many aborigines, the transition from their natural environment to a knowledge based society that has developed over thousands of years is impossible to assimilate within a single lifetime.

If I were in that position, I doubt that I could do it myself.

You are quite right, Efranke, but you will find that most of the chatterers on OLO won't take a bit of notice of what you say. The most ill-informed - the 'first Australians' brigade - are the biggest offenders.

For 30,000 years, disparate groups of Stone-Age people, roamed an unknown and un-named continent. The theme of the original article by Andrew Bartlett was changing the date of Australia Day; but, as usual the bleeding hearts and know-alls got on their be-nice-to-aborigines band wagon, and changed the subject completely.

The bottom line is that Australia Day marks the date of white settlement, and nothing before the date has any relevance to the subject.

Foxy,

You will clearly stick to your guns, as will I. No need for further discussion.

Thanks Foxy, you and your kind inspire me too.

Just been watching Aussie Country Music on Foxtel.

Although I got on well with the Americans wile I was over there during my time of study, I feel they have too much of a swaggering suaveness about the way they put over their country music.

But my wife's little dog is just behind me waiting for her supper.

Unfotumately my wife died over two years ago, but I feel her spirit is still sort of still close to me.

Wishing I was a lot younger, for I feel there is so much for our OLO to achieve, especially as regards a decent future for our Aborigines.

Thanks for your company, Cobber,

Cheers, BB, WA.

Alright, this is at least 2 steps to the side, and one step backwards from the actual article about Aus. day, but what the hell.
What I find most "uncivilised" about whitefella culture is the concept of Orphanages.
I've only experienced a handful of blackfella nations, but in all of them every adult female was someone's aunty, and every adult male was someone's uncle.
There were no orphans, or the possibility of orphans.
What I would like to see, is whitefellas spending less time trying to figure out how to better patronise blackfellas, and more time considering what we can learn from them.
That would be civilised.

Dear Efranke,

I called our First Australians by that name because they were
the original inhabitants - they came to this land over 40,000
years ago -and that is the name they are given by all reputable historians and history texts. You may disagree with that - but you'd have to take on historical material to do it.

Also please re-read my previous posts - regarding 'Australia Day,'
perhaps then you'll understand what it is I'm saying.

Dear bushbred,

Just letting you know I'm actually a female. I chose the name
'Foxy' because of my red-hair (not my nature).

I'm thrilled that you're able to enjoy posting on this Forum again.
Because it's voices of reason that we need to hear.
Did I read on a previous post that you studied in America?
We lived and worked in the States for over 9 years.

Dear Grim,

I fully agree white and black should learn more about each other.
That would help towards our becoming more 'civilized.'
As Margaret Tucker wrote in her autobiography, "If Everyone Cared." :

"You can play a tune of sorts on the white keys of a piano;
you can play some sort of tune on the black keys; but for perfect
harmony, you must use both."

I got the point, it is a terrific one.

Andrew Bartlett continues to believe, despite the evidence that -Australian democracy and the generation of public dialogue congruent to democratic principles will of itself deliver some sort of epiphany to white Australians - about Aboriginal people. It’s never going to happen.

The nations' intellectual capacity is still in its early childhood - the anxiety levels about what constitutes Australian identity are much too high. Put them together and hey presto, welcome to Oztraya, a land of deep and meaningful nothingness purporting to be cultural oasis. Puleeze!

Such civilised dialogue about changing one day of the year is much too much to expect of the great unwashed.

Leave the bloody day where it is for another 100 years and maybe, just maybe, this nation will have grown up by then.

rainier "Such civilised dialogue about changing one day of the year is much too much to expect of the great unwashed.

Leave the bloody day where it is for another 100 years and maybe, just maybe, this nation will have grown up by then."

Oh yes the "great unwashed" who get to elect governments.... I love 'em, real people , living real lifes.... I can understand how you would feel alienated from them...

another 100 years... well it took just a couple of hundred years of European colonisation and federation to develop Australia in the face of nothing happening during twenty thousand years of aboriginal occupation.

So if it will take, as you say, another 100 years for the "great unwashed" to mature into adults...

I wonder how many more milleniums it will take for aboriginals to develop to the same adulthood?

“THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT AUSTRALIA DAY MARKS THE DATE OF WHITE SETTLEMENT AND NOTHING BEFORE THE DATE HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO THE SUBJECT … NO NEED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION

...

Though some may consider this to be an excellent argument in favour of the current Australia Day date, it is in fact what is known as a pre-emptory statement, “pre-emptory” meaning, according to my law dictionary: “Putting an end to all debate or action. Not allowing contradiction or refusal”.

It is quite a persuasive argument. Who, then, would dare raise the question regarding the other colours of the rainbow that make up our multicultural population, all those “New Australians” who arrived “after the date”?

Perhaps we should complete the above “pre-emptory statement” by not only excluding anybody who arrived before “the date”, but also, anybody who arrived after “the date”.

That way, there would be no doubt whatsoever as to who is Australian and who is not. Australia Day would clearly be established as the sole concern of white Australians. We could even call it “White Australia Day”.

So, any other problem...?

There are many more “pre-emptory statements” available, just waiting to blow to smithereens whatever subject may pop up on this forum. That is the intellectual sport we call “Verbal clay pigeon shooting”. Anyone can have a go.

JUST BECAUSE SOME MINORITY GROUPS DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH AUSTRALIA'S BRITISH HERITAGE DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE SHOULD STOP CELEBRATING THE EVENT WHICH BEGAN THE AUSTRALIAN NATION-BUILDING PROCESS

…

Not only should we preserve our British heritage but the heritage of all our ancestors, whoever they may be and whatever their origins and nationalities. I find it quite regrettable to be taking a half-hearted approach to our cultural heritage. We should be going all out for it with confidence and determination, adopting it with open arms, making it part of our lives and adding our best contribution before carrying it forward for future generations to enjoy and embellish in their turn.

Australia is our heritage. It is our nation. It is not British. It is not Aboriginal. It is not Italian. It is not Greek. It is not Chinese … It is Australian. It is time we recognized that and accepted it, all of it, without the slightest hesitation or discrimination.

The day we accept to become a fully independent nation, is the day Australia will come of age. On that day we should not turn our backs on anybody, irrespective of origin, date of arrival or any other consideration. We all have ancestors and all should be honoured equally.

If those who were not born in Australia wish to retain their own nationality, I can understand that and have absolutely no objection. As long as they contribute something positive to the country and respect the laws of the land, that is fine with me. They can stay as long as they like. It is not necessary to become Australian to fall in love with Australia.

I do not mind how many immigants come here, we are all human beings, but I do draw the line at being made to accept their traditions and do what they want you to do, I have a Japanese daughter in law, I have to bow down to the Japanese traditions, not the Australian, it is my identy that is lost, she will not change, Australia day or Anzac day mean nothing to her, we only have to look at security discrimination at airports, a cap must be removed but a Turban is ok to go through, in my opinion all immigrants if coming here to live must observe the set Australia Day, either unchanged or changed, and accept our way of life, or else return from whence you came. I am very much against accepting their traditions and cannot see why I have to, I am an Australian

While European history is one long list of bloody battles
the Aborigines past is far less warlike. There were about
500 different Aboriginal languages and dialects and as
many tribal groups.

They were nomadic hunters and food gatherers who travelled within
their tribal territory, taking enough food from the land to
survive.

They did not exhaust the natural resources as present day Australians
do.

"...I wonder how many more milleniums it will take for Aboriginals
to develop to the same adulthood?"

My goodness...perhaps the answer to that depends on how they will
be treated by us whitefellas - and what rights we allow them to have?
Afterall in the past they weren't even part of our Census (we counted
sheep - but not Aborigines). And it's only recently that they
won the right to vote. What about land rights? Given, then taken
away... poor wages, no equality of treatment or access to same rights
as the whites --- the list goes on, but hey don't feel bad -after all
we've "babied" them for years, and now expect miracles, and it's
"their" fault?

Today's problems revolve around such things as land ownership,
sharing in economic advancement, better educational opportunities,
provisions of a wider range of choices in employment (along with
the acquisition of skills), and political action.

Above all we need to achieve a greater understanding of Aboriginal life and of the problems that face Aborigines today. Such understanding is needed both by Aborigines and by other Australians.
Steps to counter misunderstanding and intolerance must come
through efforts by the schools and the mass media.

Foxy “Above all we need to achieve a greater understanding of Aboriginal life and of the problems that face Aborigines today.”

When aboriginals represent 1.15% of the population

I think it would be far more “expedient”

If Aboriginals achieved a greater understanding of mainstream Australian life,

Preferably, using some of the additional financial subsidies which they are already the beneficiaries of

of course, that is a pragmatist view,

something which it would seem, is rarely considered by those who seem to think we all have the time and inclination (among any number of other competing issues in our lives) to pander to the particular needs of a tiny minority.

arrh yes colonscopy, but there are intellectuals and there are academics and its clear that you are neither.

Col,

The size of the Aboriginal population is given as
2.4% as of June 2006, according to the ABS (Australian
Bureau of Statistics).

You said that you don't see the point, "...to pander
to the particular needs of a tiny minority."
You see your view as a 'pragmatist view.'

Don't we pander to other minority groups?
Our Indigenous population has never had equality in
this country - so giving them a 'fair go,' would not
come under the heading of 'pandering,' in my opinion.

The previous High Court judge Michael Kirby suggested in
an address he gave that Australians should remember the
concept of a 'fair go,' regarding minorities.

He said that Australia does not need constitutional reform to
introduce a statute of rights similar to laws introduced in
the UK. (You being a Brit. would appreciate that).

Justice Kirby stated:

"In a country of the 'Fair Go All Round,' injustice and
inequality among its citizens needs to be cured, promptly."
As a pragmatist you may not agree but as an Australian
citizen you should support the ethos of a 'Fair Go All Round,'
upon which this country was built.

@ OJNAB

My dear mirrored namesake,

I heartily sympathise with you. I often wonder what I did to my daughter for her to have chosen the type of man she married. If it is of any consolation to you, it has nothing to do with his nationality.

In my experience, there are many Australians, both male and female, who are happy to spend most of the day in bed whenever there is a public holiday. When you ask them what the holiday is for, they are often incapable of coming up with the right answer. None of those I have in mind are Japanese. Nor are they Sikhs. They are all dinky-die Australians.

I must say I have never seen too many Australians with caps on (apart from Lleyton Hewitt) but I guess you are right, it is probably better to go through customs with a turban on your head rather than a cap. Thanks for the tip.

Please allow me, in turn, to suggest that “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. As a matter of good manners I believe one should be courteous to one’s hosts in a foreign country and respect their customs and traditions. If your Japanese daughter in law does not respect this simple rule when she is in Australia, I can only suggest she is probably ill-mannered. However, there is absolutely no reason to believe all Japanese are ill-mannered. On the contrary, if anything, they are more often overly polite (at least in appearance).

As a good friend of mine once observed, they tend to prefix and suffix everything they say and do with many humble slurps.

Ojnab,
I do care about how many migrants are coming here and I think it should be cut to zero net. Big business pays much into the coffers of the major political parties so that high immigration continues.

In relation to your daughter-in-law, I would respect her wishes in their home but in mine she would be expected to respect our social ways. I certainly would not bow to Japanese, or other traditions, in my own home. I wonder if she will be sub-serviant to your son in the way most japanese wives are and would she tolerate your son having sex outside marriage the way many Japanese men do, its traditional. My guess is that she is simply cherry picking the traditions she wants.

We have a friend who is vegan and when visiting she only wants the veges we are having and nothing special. We, of course, do a wider variety than normal when she visits. When we visit her we eat exactly what she prepares.

We expect all migrants to obey and respect our laws and social standards. The problem is our weak politicians turn a blind eye to much and not enforce our laws, etc.

Our laws and social standards should apply to all. If caps have to be removed for security checks then so should turbans. There was some debate here a while ago about some being allowed to carry a traditional knife for cultural/religous reasons. I say our laws apply to all.

It does seem as though your Daughter-in-law is ill mannered. Much different to the Japanese I have encountered.

We're still on the thread about Australia Day, right?
Col Rouge, in my experience, blackfellas are at least as pragmatic as you are; probably more.
They do seem to be having very large families, these days...

ON DEMOCRACY AND MINORITIES

...

I have read or heard it said (I can not remember which), you judge a democracy by the way it treats its minorities.

That is surely an important indication. A country that ignores its minorities and their aspirations is lacking in the fundamentals that go to make up a democracy: social equality.

If we leave our minorities on the wayside of mainstream Australia because we cannot tolerate their differences, then I believe we are heading for trouble. An intolerant society is a non-democratic society and a non-democratic society is a stimulus for radicalism and revolt.

That is not the sort of Australia I would like to see evolve over the coming years. Of course we need to be pragmatic and not open the flood gates to immigrants during periods of economic difficulties.

But we should not discard our sense of values and turn a blind eye to the plight of the rest of humanity. We should do our part and help if we can.

We have not done too badly so far but there is still a fairly large margin for improvement. It will take another few years for Australia to become a republic and, no doubt, it will be a few more years after that before we elect a non-indigenous president.

...

ON DEMOCRACY AND MINORITIES (CONTINUED)

…

In my previous post, instead of “a non-indigenous president” please read “an indigenous president”.

It was not my intention to suggest that the first president of the republic may be an indigenous Australian.

Sorry, it was just a lapsus.

...

Dear Banjo Patterson,

I couldn't agree with you more. A country is judged by the way
it treats its minorities.

I've been reading all the posts on this thread and it's
evident there's a wide diversity of opinion. However, I still
feel that most Australians are willing to give others a 'fair go,'
and are more than willing to help those in need. Look at the
way everyone rallies in times of crisis.

Regarding Australia Day - let Australia decide. Let's have a vote
on it. Because ultimately that's going to happen anyway regarding
the question of the Republic (sometime down the road), include
Australia Day in that equation.

I personally don't have a problem with celebrating white settlement
of this country - it's part of our history. And as I said in my
previous post - Perhaps the day that we become a Republic could be
re-named to Australia Day. Anyway, one way or another - let the
country decide.

Foxy “The size of the Aboriginal population is given as 2.4%”

I used a number which came from a study by Monash University,
Either way and not bothering to split hairs… the difference between your number and mine is both “insignificant” and “immaterial”, a bit like the contribution to GDP of the aboriginal community.

“Our Indigenous population has never had equality in this country”

Oh I agree,

That is the problem, they are the beneficiaries of entitlements from the common purse far in excess of those available to other Australians.

Kirby had a vested interest in one “minority group”, which might well have skewed his perception.

“"In a country of the 'Fair Go All Round,' injustice and inequality among its citizens needs to be cured, promptly."

Like I said before “they are the beneficiaries of entitlements from the common purse far in excess of those available to other Australians”

Hardly “Fair” and definitely not “All Round”

(Doubtless Kirby would have disagreed with me but what should one expect from the name sake of a vacuum cleaner?)

Grim “Col Rouge, in my experience, blackfellas are at least as pragmatic as you are; probably more.”
Then they should understand why they should be treated the same as everyone else, ie without added benefits.

Banjo “social equality.”

Margaret Thatcher observed (now repeating more frequently than I would wish)

“"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty."”

indigenous president… let he or she stand on the strength of their own merit.

But when that day comes, I trust we will have all moved on from the point where he or she was elected because they were “indigenous”.

And how many generations of fore-bearers does one have to have born in Australia before one qualifies as “indigenous”?

I need to know so I can explain to my grandchildren why they are not entitled to some of the handouts being thrown at some minorities in the community, by the "Commonwealth".

Col Rouge, I feel even more sure now that you could easily be part of not only the Master Race, but better still, the Klu Klux Klan.

Keep on having fun, Col.

Not sorry I can't be with you, Cobber.

Cheers, BB, Buntine, WA.

PS. Still call Buntine my home town, but because it was mostly only a bush railway town, only pleasant romantic memories remain.

"That is the problem, they are the beneficiaries of entitlements from the common purse far in excess of those available to other Australians."

Oh?

Can you name at least 1?

rainier "Can you name at least 1?"

Yes

I came across this while surfing the web.

Enjoy:

"Yes...I am the liberal-progressives worst nightmare.
I am an American.
I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family,
not some liberal governmental functionary, be it
Democratic or Republican.
I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way.
I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer, it
makes you a smart American.
I think being a minority does not make you noble or
victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.
I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac,
do it in English.

My heroes are John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Maggie Thatcher,
and whoever cancelled Jerry Springer.
I believe if you don't like the way things are here,
go back to where you came from and change your own
country! This is AMERICA.

If you were born here and don't like it you are free
to move to any Socialist country that will have you.
...I am proud to be an AMERICAN!"

I love this guy!

HI FOXY !
…
It was nice meeting you. I enjoyed your company on this debate.

We may not have succeeded in changing the course of history but at least we pointed in the direction we thought it should go.

And I am glad to see we were not alone. Many others walked beside us.

Our good companion, Col Rouge, played an active role in helping us formulate our ideas and opinions. His personal contribution was an excellent example of the added value of a minority point of view in a democratic society.

“Now Isaac was a squatter man, and Jacob was his son,
And when the boy grew up, you see, he wearied of the run.
You know the way that boys grow up – there’s some that stick at home;
But any boy that’s worth his salt will roll his swag and roam.”

Take care …

@ COL ROUGE
…

"When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty.” (Margaret Thatcher)

I presume the “iron lady” was referring to the government of the Soviet Union. In any event, it seems to me that if “the law” of the country were unjust, a dictatorial government (such as that of the Soviet Union) would pose a threat to liberty irrespective of whether the matter in hand related to “equality before the law” or not.

I think you will agree that Margaret Thatcher was a pragmatist. She probably would have said exactly the opposite if it had better served her purpose. She is known for numerous outlandish statements.

She had a tough job breaking the stranglehold the syndicates had on the British economy at the time. They were choking it to death.

A right wing conservative, she implemented liberal economic policies. Baroness Thatcher was a firm believer in God and the royalty. She survived an IRA bomb attack and joined forces with Ronald Reagan in (successfully) defending western democracy against Soviet communism.

She said (in one of her more inspired moments):

“Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where
there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.”

She is a truly remarkable lady but, I dare to suggest, within her historical context in the UK.

Dear Banjo Patterson,

Thank you so much for your kind words.

I too have enjoyed this discussion with you and
others on this thread, and I have learned a great
deal from it.

Hopefully we'll continue to meet and learn from each
other. Your style of posting is truly inspiring.

All The Best,

Bushbred “Col Rouge. . . part of not only the Master Race, but better still, the Klu Klux Klan.”

Why?

Nothing I have said aligns with KKK or being a member of some “master race”, quite the opposite.

If you can muster the attention span to read all of my individual or collective posts, you will see

where the KKK demand to preserve the differences between people based on their ethnicity or religion (KKK did not like Jews or Catholics any more than the “master race” did)

What I have posted supports the notion that people should be treated all as equal and we should stop treating some section of the population of Australia differently, because they happen to be of a particular ethnicity.

That is the OPPOSITE of KKK and master race thinking.

So you are WRONG YET AGAIN

Banjo Paterson “His personal contribution was an excellent example of the added value of a minority point of view in a democratic society”

Oh I agree Banjo, I have always believed a democracy like Australia, is made of 22 million minorities, each of one.

Margaret Thatcher held and expressed similar views and I agree she was a pragmatist and the life of high politics, her chosen sphere of excellence, would be far better for more of them and fewer of the wishy-washy emotional theorists and guilt ridden cripples of the left.

“other than equality before the law “ - “I presume the “iron lady” was referring to the government of the Soviet Union. “

No. She was referring to the very risks from a future UK labour party government (whose manifesto, at that time, was more left wing than the Italian communists).

Banjo, I do hold Margaret Thatcher in great esteem. That is in part due to living through the chaotic slide, toward the abyss, of UK in the years before she came into her Prime Ministership.

Most of us need to believe in our leaders.

I still believe and share in the core values which were the foundation of Margaret Thatcher’s pragmatism and always will.

If you loved hisorical Flash in the Pan, Magaret Thatcher Col, could say you are not much of a historical philosopher.

Only a few cheers,

BB, Buntine, WA.

Bushbred “if you loved hisorical Flash in the Pan, Magaret Thatcher Col, could say you are not much of a historical philosopher.”

You are entitled to your narrow and misguided view bushbred.
You are entitled to express it publically

But as you do enjoy expressing publically

Think on this

If it were not for people like Margaret Thatcher, who had the vison, stoicism, fortitude and courage to stand up against the forces of Soviet oppression.

You might find, expressing your personal view and if that view was contrary to the official government view, it would see you spending your days in a re-education / concentration camp somewhere.
[
Bushbred, of yourself, I find nothing is worse than an inconsequential non-achiever who uses the freedom of speech, the results from the leadership of achievers, to continually carp on and criticize those same leaders of the democratic nations who erased the specter of communist oppression.

what a tosser

Foxy,

When I saw your post, I thought to myself... ho-hum, another bleeding heart white leftie who knows nothing of real history but trots out the same old tired line about Aboriginals having exclusive rights to some real estate that he neither invented nor developed.

That puerile line of thought would be similar to me restricting the use of hospitals, schools, universities, roads, highways, public transport, water, gas and electricity utilities etc. to European Australians only or at the very least, charging a toll to "others".

Further, I can assure you the term "Australian" was not used by the pre-1788-peoples-in-resident in the times before British settlement. Thus it would be wrong to label the Aborigines the "First Australians" given that, as I said earlier, "Australia" and "Australians" are European concepts and the nation and people we now know as "Australia" and "Australians" did not exist prior to the arrival of the British.

Col Rouge,

"I wonder how many more milleniums it will take for aboriginals to develop to the same adulthood?

Col, you simply do not understand.

The pre-1788 people now collectively known as "Australian Aborigines" were the pinnacle of human development, the pristine paragons of virtue, intelligence, kindness and wisdom. We, Australians of British and European descent, are mere children - intellectually, culturally and spiritually - compared to these enlightened, God-like beings. Only an ignorant racist redneck would not concede that the achievements of Western civilisation pale in comparison to those of the Australian Aborigine.

Only until you accept this incontrovertible truth will you be on the path to true understanding.

Efranke "Only an ignorant racist redneck would not concede that the achievements of Western civilisation pale in comparison to those of the Australian Aborigine.

Only until you accept this incontrovertible truth will you be on the path to true understanding."

I suspect you might be being sarcastic :-)

"redneck" reference might be because you translated my logon.

However, in the unlikely event you are not being sarcastic, I would have to observe

The incontrovertible truth is, aboriginal innovators did not need to find a cure for smallpox, diptheria, polio and many other diseases because, before the white man came, they were not exposed to such risks.

That belies the reality that

If the British had not colonised Australia when it did and recognising the development of ship building technology among many other cultures combined with the natural inquisitiveness of mankind; sooner or later, someone else would have introduced, diptheria, polio and many other diseases to test the innovative resources of aboriginals. The other point isthe people of those other inquisitive, boat building cultures may have been far less benevolent than British colonists, if the Indonesian colonial expedition into East Timor is any guide.

Bearing in mind the proximity of Indonesia and the ability of Indonesians to build boats, their colonial aspirations could well have prevailed in the absence of the British colonialisation.

I see no aboriginal equivalents of Stonehenge, no aboriginal books to challenge the writings of Darwin, Voltaire and the like.

Iron Bridge is a town in England where the first iron bridge in the world was built yet I see no development of smelted metal work within the artifacts of aboriginal life, despite an abundance of iron.

The diggery-doo makes music but how long a shadow does it cast across the inspiration which saw Mozart write "The Magic Flute" or how western cultures produces the modern metal flute itself or the organ which Bach wrote for?

Aboriginal cave paintings might be considered culturally significant but so too is the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel and I suppose too Jackson Pollacks "blue poles", which Whitlam spent a fortune on.

Sorry to interrupt the redneck racist circle-jerk, but I don't suppose any of you clowns are aware of the Aboriginal cultural practices by which the Australian bush was managed sustainably for millennia - you know, stuff that enabled them to live in the Australian environment without being barbecued in expensively flammable houses, cars etc?

Or that northern Australia had been visited regularly by "boat-building" Indonesian traders for centuries prior to the British invasion?

Silly question - you obviously know squat about Aboriginal culture and history, and spout your racist bile from a position of ignorance.

CJMoron in centuries past is not the world of today or the last century... when Indonesia wanted to annex East Timor, they did not use friendly fishermen. Prior to them.. without the prior British colonisation do you think for one minute the Japanese, would have found any ehtical dilemna in colonising Australia and if their efforts in Mainland China and Manchuria are any indicator, do you for one minute believe the Japanese colonists would have been more benevolent than the British?

"racist bile from a position of ignorance."

I spouted no racist bile... I spouted equality, regardless of ethnicity or religion or anything else

If anything those who demand and support "affirmative action" and different (favourable) treatment for those who happen to be aborigine are as racist as the KKK

if I throw a stick... I wonder if CJRover will run and catch it.... if so... there must be a handy cliff to throw it over... go for it boy

What fascinates me is how anyone can actually take pride in the fact that his great great great great.... grandfather MAY -possibly, conceivably- have shared the same culture as someone really clever; like Archimedes, or Pythagoras or Plato; or the guy who decided lumping really big rocks on top of one another was a really clever thing to do...
I find it hard to believe Col Rouge, or EFranke or Leigh earned the right to be born white and self righteous. What did you do, Col? Did you stand up before God, the day before you were born, and offer to beat him at arm wrestling?
"Here's the thing, God. If I win 2 out of 3, I get to be born white..."
Efranke, just ask yourself this: If your family had owned a property for generations; if your family identified themselves with that property (family crest, marks on a map, etc) and suddenly someone came along and said: "by order of King Ballybumbum, under the sight of the great flying spaghetti monster, this land is now mine, so bugger off."
How would you feel about that?

Grim “What fascinates me is how anyone can actually take pride ….”
“find it hard to believe Col Rouge, or EFranke or Leigh earned the right to be born white and self righteous”

Nothing self righteous about it.

The point

I take no personal pride or responsibility for the successes of my ancestors nor my children.

I was recording the fact of their achievement and noting no such achievement in the history of aborigines.

And whilst I make no personal claim to being better than anyone else on the face of the planet nor do I believe the achievements of my ancestors is anything I should feel ashamed of either.

“What did you do, Col? Did you stand up before God, the day before you were born, and offer to beat him at arm wrestling”

I had no choice in the matter. I wear the colour of my skin not as a token of honour nor a badge of shame but as a matter of fact.

I personally discriminate based on the colour of ones blood.. and the last time I looked we were all “red”

So Grim, rather than trying to play the race card (in a very inept and clumsy manner) why don’t you go play in the middle of a freeway and present your facile arguments to a Mac truck travelling at you at 100 kph.

Of course the Grim's were famous for their fairy stories… maybe that’s the link to the one who chooses such a logon name..… a modern day fairy anguishing over his sexuality / inadequacy.

Col the racist Troll: << Nothing self righteous about it. >>

Yeah, right.

FYI - the characters to whom the fairy tales are attributed were the Brothers Grimm. And they're Mack trucks, as opposed to what you undoubtedly eat with such friends as you have. And an apostrophe doesn't denote a plural. And "advise" is a verb, while "advice" is its noun form.

Ignorant, vituperous goose.

Col Rouge,

Yes, I was having a sarcastic dig at those on these forums who cling to and propagate the asinine and, ultimately, dangerous Rousseaun "Noble Savage" fantasy.

And, hilariously, CJ Morgan responded right on cue.

CJ Morgan,

Being the veritable expert that you are on all things pertaining to Aboriginal culture and history, I can only assume that you are fully cognisant of the fact that the various tribes know collectively known as the Aborigines were responsible for killing off something in the vicinity of 85 percent of the continent’s megafauna prior to the first European ever setting foot on these shores. Far from co-existing in perfect harmony with their natural environment, the various tribes know collectively known as the Aborigines did what all human populations all around the world have tended to do - shape and exploit the natural environment for their own benefit. The pre-1788 peoples' extensive use of fire for their own ends had the effect of radically modifying the ecology of large swaths of this continent, leading to mass extinctions and irrevocable environmental changes.

Even if we accept that the various tribes know collectively known as the Aborigines were wise and caring custodians of the land rather than simply far less adept at harnessing and exploiting natural resources compared to Europeans, it still doesn't change the fact that today's Aborigines seem to prefer the European way of life over that of their forebears. Today's Aborigines could easily return to the more sustainable, Stone Age-like hunter-gatherer existence of their ancestors if they so wished. After all, there is still plenty of land available for them. However, for some reason, they - along with nearly everybody else on this planet - seem to prefer the lifestyle provided by European civilisation, even though, according to yourself, the lifestyle of their ancestors was far more sustainable and thus superior. I even see Aboriginals living in the same flammable houses and driving the same flammable cars that you so loathe!

If the Aboriginal lifestyle and culture is so self-evidently superior, then why aren't Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals alike itching to free themselves from the bonds of European civilisation and embrace the hunter-gatherer way of life? Why aren't you?

"So Grim, rather than trying to play the race card (in a very inept and clumsy manner) why don’t you go play in the middle of a freeway and present your facile arguments to a Mac truck travelling at you at 100 kph."
Of course, it's always incredibly hard to refute an argument as erudite and well reasoned as this. Despite my inept and clumsy manner -not to mention my ambiguous sexuality (?)- I would humbly dare point out a small flaw in the great and wise Col's logic.
"I take no personal pride or responsibility for the successes of my ancestors nor my children."
"nor my children"? Why ever not? Howsoever...,
You then go on to say:
"I was recording the fact of their achievement and noting no such achievement in the history of aborigines."
So, although you take no pride or responsibility for the successes of your ancestors, you clearly feel aboriginals should feel shame in the lack of achievement of their ancestors.
No double standards there.
I'm closing now, so I guess I should conform to protocol, and resort to personal abuse.
Let me think. Oh, I know.
You disagree with me, so obviously you're a lesbian.
What's Col short for, Colline?
Nyah, Nyah Nyah.

Grim "Nyah, Nyah Nyah."

how mature of you...

you sad little scrote...

when folk like you start to post, I realise we are not talking about having found the bottom of the barrel,

we are talking about the scum which collects in th edark space underneath the barrel

So, run away now, go play with your fairy friends..

Oh dear, Col, you really are immune to the subtleties of irony, aren't you?
"Sad little scrote"?
I'll have you know I'm 7'4" tall, and my wrists still drag on the ground even after I have stood up.
Does this make me eligible to have an opinion, on 'online opinion'?

Grim "I'll have you know I'm 7'4" tall, and my wrists still drag on the ground even after I have stood up.
Does this make me eligible to have an opinion, on 'online opinion'?"

YEs I can imagine the erists and knuckles dragging along the ground... good picture

If you need to see yourself in that light and it helps maintain the stability of your medicinal regime, then who am I to comment...

excepting....

you actually sound and describe yourself as a beringei primate with arrested intellectual development...

but no worries, you are still allowed to post here... even if you are treating us to a new low in reasoning skill.

This -apparently- is an example of a mature contribution to an intellectual discussion.

"So Grim, rather than trying to play the race card (in a very inept and clumsy manner) why don’t you go play in the middle of a freeway and present your facile arguments to a Mac truck travelling at you at 100 kph."

This is another -allegedly- mature contribution:

"Of course the Grim's were famous for their fairy stories… maybe that’s the link to the one who chooses such a logon name..… a modern day fairy anguishing over his sexuality / inadequacy."

My name, by the way, is Peter Grimley. What's yours Red?
A couple more "mature" contributions:

"you sad little scrote..."

"when folk like you start to post, I realise we are not talking about having found the bottom of the barrel,"

"we are talking about the scum which collects in th edark space underneath the barrel"

"So, run away now, go play with your fairy friends.."

Unlike Col Rouge, I have always tried to address the argument, rather than the person making the argument.
So, in order to make it abundantly clear I was was having our dear friend (sarcasm) on when I replied in kind, I clearly prefaced these tongue in cheek remarks with:

"I'm closing now, so I guess I should conform to protocol, and resort to personal abuse."

Now surely I couldn't make it any more clear that I wasn't being serious in lowering myself to Col's level.
He didn't get it.
To make it absolutely plain it was tongue in cheek:

"Let me think. Oh, I know.
You disagree with me, so obviously you're a lesbian.
What's Col short for, Colline?"

And then I ended with a quote from Peanuts, which could not possibly be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 10.
"Nyah, Nyah Nyah."
Col took it seriously.