"Bibliography. Genocide in Australia."
foxy,
Like most immigrants to australia I have read a lot of so-called history literature. I have read many versions & the challenge is always the contrast of the for & against accounts relating to the same incidents. To make it even more interesting there are the more realistic non-academic & either coloured in or watered down versions.
I would urge anyone to read about australian history especially when several versions are available. I have experienced the accuracy/inaccuracy of verbal history over 36 years where I was personally involved. It was astonishing to hear someone describe an incident in which I was the only eyewitness & yet the "Elder" who was nowhere even near the incident was credited with "knowing better" about the incident than I who was on the spot & took photos.
I can't even begin to imagine how distorted some of the claimed "Truths' in this much hyped up recorded "as told' history is. Does anyone really believe that anyone would accurately describe their misdeeds as detailed as those of others ?

I await tomorrow (Wednesday 13th) with baited breath! I think I just may be imagining things, but I am sure I can hear in the distance those memorable haunting strains of "Duelling Banjos"!

It would be interesting to conduct a survey of all the bed linen retailers across the country to determine how many white pillow-cases have been sold!

It is very disappointing to realise just how rampantly "red-necked" a section of Australia`s community really is ( and some of them migrants from other countries!) who simply fail to recognise the fact that the Aborogine was here long before "Whitey" and his muskets!

Now I know why we grow so much cotton here!

Dear individual,

David Irving denies the holocaust. There are a few who believe him. Some people believe the propaganda that Stalin 'liberated' the Baltic states. And there are those who also believe that the war in Iraq is about fighting 'terrorism'

Just as there are some who believe that Australia was uninhabited prior to the arrival of Captain James Cook.

Unquestionably, there are parties that have a vested interest in the denial of historic facts.

That's why it is important at all times to remain vigilant - and not allow historic facts to be hidden in government files and archives - but brought out in the open, discussed, - and as needed acted upon, - and the record set straight. As is now happening under the newly elected Government.

The measure of our society over history is our fidelity to our principles - of justice, a believe in an egalitarian society, and a
'Fair go' for all. We must remind our Government and our people to remain faithful to those principles or otherwise our society, like so many in the past, will be swept on the ash heap of history

Foxy writes:

People love Kathy Freeman, the Bangara Dance Theatre, but don't want anything to do with political organisations fighting for land rights.

Australians since before federation have been happy to support efforts to achieve land rights for Australians with prior occupancy rights.

Law for such dates back to 1066 AD defeat of Harold by William Duke of Normandy.

Australians however are NOT happy to support claims for creation of "special" land titles for land which require continued dependence upon racial tests.

Many activists, some who write here, very busily argue for ongoing racial testing dependencies which the majority of Australians do NOT support or want !

Australians generally all to well understanding any power obtained by Parliament can be abused by Parliament.

The States and the Commonwealth abused, and continue to abuse, with negligence from the High Court, the very clear desire of Australian people expressed in their role as Sovereign Power both at Federation, and again in 1967, to declare illegal ANY and ALL qualification of rights and or responsibilities of any Australian on grounds of race.

This approach does NOT prevent just compensation for previous denials of rights and or responsibilities on grounds of race.



.

Foxy “Today, no living Australian can claim innocence, Parliament has enacted the Native Title Amendment Act on behalf of the majority of this country, and that's the biggest single act of dispossession in our lifetime!”

I would note, the government acted according to law and with the interests of the entire population, not just the parochial needs of aboriginals.

Since that act actually redefined the parameters to land occupancy, your assertion to dispossession is false.

How can someone be dispossessed of that which they did not personally possess in the first place?

The point with the Native Titles Amendment Act is this

“Where an inconsistency between the native title and non-native title rights occurs, the non-native title rights prevail.”

That you consider that “dispossession” is your own opinion and “spin”.

I would suggest it is an example of why we have government, to adjudicate and legislate on matters where inconsistencies and potential conflicts exist.

Individual “I have read a lot of so-called history literature.”

The general opinion is history is written by the victors.

What I believe we see here is a history being re-written by the vanquished and endorsed by the appeasers and apologists.

It is no more honest or true, it is only opinion, interpretation and spin.

Ultimately the only thing which will work is when all the folk accept that we are one nation, with one set of laws being applied equally and blindly to all, without exception to ethnicity, culture or religion.

Cuphandle “Aborogine was here long before "Whitey" and his muskets!”

I have been here longer than any aboriginal under the age of 25.

Oh that someones great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddad might have fought the first fleet is mere anachronism.

We live our lives without claim to the merits of our forbearers and without responsibility for their shortcomings.

Aborigines here today, were not here when whitey came with his musket, unless they are over 200 years of age.

Foxy “justice, a believe in an egalitarian society, and a 'Fair go' for all.”

Is inconsistent with extending differential rights because someone is of aboriginal origin, whole or part.

Again, just to set the record straight ...

in 1837, a House of Commons Select Committee conducted an investigation into the conditions of native peoples in the British colonies.

Only one people was found to have been denied absolutely the right of prior ownership of their land: the Australian Aborigines.

The Select Committee's report was unequivocal. The first Australians had 'an incontrovertible right to their own soil, a plain and sacred right, however, which seems not to have been understood... The land has been taken from them without the assertion of any other title other than that of superior force.'

This was also the view of the British government. The Colonial office in London had created pastoral leases with one aim: to ensure that Aborigines would continue to have access to their land although it was leased to 'squatters.'

The policy was not meant as a source of enrichment for whites, but as
compensation to the Aborigines for the annexation and colonisation of their land. 'The pastoral lease policy was the high point of British humanitarian concern,' wrote the historian Henry Reynolds. 'The present Australian government is offering the Aborigines less than the British imperial authorities 150 years ago.'

The 'less' is epitomised by John Howard's Native Title Amendment Act of 1998, which watered down the 1993 law, wiped out the universal principle of Native Title in all but name and took away the common law rights that the judges said belonged to Aborigines; nothing like it has been passed by a modern parliament anywhere.

The beneficiaries were not small white farmers, frightened by government propaganda depicting a 'black tide' engulfing properties and lapping the family barbie, but some of the richest and most powerful companies and individuals in white Australia.

Potentially, 42 per cent of Australia could pass from leasehold to freehold land controlled by fewer than 20,000 people, including those with the most influential media and political connections.