NAIDOC Week is being celebrated around Melbourne and
all the major cities. There's so much going on.
From photographic exhibitions, dreamtime stories,
all libraries are joining in the activities. So much to see
and do. It makes me proud that so much is being achknowledged
and shared.

The following link brought so much joy:

http://abc.net.au/news/2023-07-02/black-excellence-indigenous-leaders-honoured-at-naidoc-ball-2023/102550988

Yes, Foxy we voted for Gays to marry, and we got transmen having babies and trans women in women's sport and persons identifying as non-gender. There is subsequent flow on to other hidden Woke behavior.

Josephus,

By allowing same-sex couples to marry we took a
major step towards full equality for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender people. We made
significant progress towards treating people as equal
citizens.

Many Australians celebrated the strength, resilience and
diversity of LGBTIQ communities. These Australians
believed that the recognition of marriage equality was
an issue of equity and was an important step towards
improving the mental health of LGBTIQ people.

We as a nation need to be proud to celebrate diversity and
to stand up[ for equality in our community. It is for that
reason that many of us continue to advocate for
non-discriminatory communities, systems, policies, and
institutions because we know discrimination can lead to mental
health conditions and suicide.

Marriage equality is not the end of the journey for many,
and therefore people are going to keep advocating for
change - just as the 1st People of our nation are now trying
to invite us all to do.

Of course you are against supporting them as well.

No surprises there. Just shame and disgust!

SR,

You keep claiming that I misrepresented Blainey even though you've already conceded that I didn't misrepresent Blainey ( "my argument would appear to be with Blainey rather than you on this score."). Consistency in thought requires consistency in logic. Oh well.....

In the meantime, what we have is the usual aboriginal apologists trying to convince us (or convince themselves) that aboriginal society was a utopia of peace because they think that they can show it wasn't quite as violent as WW1 Europe. Imagine a world where the annual death toll (year on year, decade on decade, century on century) just from warfare was on a par with that of Europe in 1914-18 and then imagine the warped thinking that such a society was a utopia of peace. That's the garden path the aboriginal apologists lead themselves.

Meanwhile, the perpetually clueless Paul asserts " mhaze can't produce is any evidence of battles involving large numbers of Aboriginals, which resulted in high numbers of deaths.". I offer the genocide against the Southern Arrente tribe in Central Australia where the entire tribe, other than a few hunters who were away at the time, were ambushed and utterly wiped out including women and children. Those who didn't die in the initial attack, including toddlers, had their limbs broken and were left to die 'naturally'. The perpetrators were the Matuntara people. The death toll was between 80 and 100. There's an interesting story of how the survives then launched a 12 year clandestine campaign to murder the leaders of the ambush.

Were Paul to read Blainey (giggle) he'd find many such stories of massacre, pitched battles and revenge attacks.

It was a highly misogynistic, militaristic and genocidal society. Only those who've fallen for the 'Noble Savage' myth think otherwise. Of course, those same apologists rely on the fact that there is no written account from the aboriginal side of these massacres as evidence tat they didn't occur, using the totally illiteracy of the race as a virtue, or excuse. Its as though the extinction of the dinosaurs never existed because no eye-witness accounts survive.

Paul made a wholly fictitious claim that aboriginal life expectancy exceeded that of poorer Europeans by 20-30 years at the time of settlement. To try to justify his fabricated claim he compares two entirely different things - life expectancy at birth and maximum age. That is quite apart from Paul's utter misunderstanding about how age at death is determined.

Its true that European life expectancy at birth around 1800 was under 40. But its also true that many Europeans lived into their 70's just as some aboriginals lived into the 70s. But aboriginal life expectancy at birth was below 30 as was the case for all stone age societies. For a start, we have good evidence that infant mortality (including rampant infanticide) in aboriginal society was in the range of 40% to 60%. Even if every person who got to age 5 lived into their 70's, life expectancy wouldn't have exceeded 35. But they didn't. We know that maternal death rates were high especially since many young girls fell pregnant in their early teens. That is why so many tribes had a male-to-female population rate that approached 2 to 1, which in turn explains why there was so much warfare over women. (see how it all fits together Paul?).

Paul won't understand so I won't go into too much detail. But the evidence is that in 1800, life expectancy at birth for poorer Europeans was around 38 and for aboriginals was around 29

Yes, I agree with Foxy when she wrote " It is for that reason that many of us continue to advocate for non-discriminatory communities, systems, policies, and institutions".

So let's all show our virtue and love of non-discriminatory policies by voting to establish a body that discriminates against all Australia's other than one favoured race. Because nothing fights discrimination like having racial biased policies. <sarc off>