Foxy, you wrote really well. We do not like to face up to the fact that Australia's Aboriginal people have poor third world living standards.

As to the original premise about Aboriginal law. It is buying into the simplistic notion that Aboriginal peoples are all the same because to non Aboriginal people 'they all look the same'. Australia was made up of many nations/clans with their own stories and laws.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is the idea that we have that Aboriginal people are supposed to live 'traditional lives' but denying that there are clans and tribes who 'traditionally' are adversaries being made to live together. Whenever I see a supposed 'leader' or 'elder' speak up I wonder for which clan they speak and I wonder if it is possible for other dissenting voices within a geographical area.

Aboriginal peoples also need to define for themselves what it means to be aboriginal and proud. Does it mean living 'traditionally' hunting kangaroo? Surely the way of living is not the sum total of all the aboriginal cultures. That is for tourists. Just like tourists like to see how my forefathers lived in historical times in my mother country. I do not need to live like that anymore to remain proud of my cultural origins or to see the merits, or ugliness, of old laws and societal expectations.

Most are smart enough to realize that all cultures are not equal. Cultures that offer young girls to uncles and have abhorent initiation practices are even considered barbaric by the earth worshipers who see no wrong in murdering the unborn. The only culture that is not barbaric is one based on the Word of God. An honest look at the bible and history reveals this. (this is not an invitation to quote numerous scriptures out of context). I have a number of indigenous friends who agree with me.

Hopefully the newly elected Government will begin the difficult job of working through issues that affect our First Nation's people - and will offer them the same basics that white Australia currently receives.

They can do no less. Simply saying 'sorry' is not enough.

As the Aboriginal leader Rob Riley said, "Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own."

runner>"An honest look at the bible and history reveals this. (this is not an invitation to quote numerous scriptures out of context)."

What other context is there than the genocide of the human race and other life forms in the flood? No matter which way you look at it, or the context, that is what happened. This is excluding real world murderous acts by God's sacred, chosen holy priests, such as the Inquisition.

"I have a number of indigenous friends who agree with me."

Anyone can be brainwashed. Indigineous folk are no exception.

Foxy,

"Unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own."

There never was a nationhood. There were nomadic clans. Perhaps, even having high-culture with regrads spiruality. They were associated with the Land, they were the Land, but they did not believe in owenership of the hand. Land was crossed as other now cross the Pacific Ocean. Who owns the Pacific Ocean or the Moon, where humans have been? We, the invaders, brought not only ourselves but the concept of "ownership".

As Boaz and I have both pointed out, peoples [including our ancestors] are invaded and there are winners and losers. It is counter as productive to push against the grain. I was for the zealots to counter Rome. The Vikings invading Norse-mandy and William invaded Hastings. Wessex circe eighth century did hold back invasion, but the British Isles eventually was unified.

Moreover, aborigines may not have been united. Three hundred thousand against eight hundred (?) in the First Fleet. The Celts gave the Julian Romans hell by placing speared-phallaxes, under the water, to sink there ships. I think it would have taken until about the time Hadrian for Rome to grab a toe hold.

What we can do is help the aboriginal [and other less fortunate] communities. As we can't go back to riding horses done George Street, Sydney, the nomadic life is in th past. It is the 21st century and whites, blacks and all the peoples of the must adjust to globalisation.

So, I repeat, we do need to help our fellow Australian but the Tardis is fiction.

NATIONHOOD? good grief.

In my limited experience, there is a place in Melbourne where 3 cultures converged.
I'ts found at Werribee Park Mansion. The Werribee river was the 'border' between 2 aboriginal groups. Then, the white settlers came in, and occupied part. One has to ask the question 'why' was the Werribee river the border between the 2 aboriginal groups?
Here is a map of tribal boundaries done by an anthroplogist.
http://samuseum.sa.gov.au/orig/tindale/boundaries/se_bottomleft.htm

Clearly there were many diverse groups, with defined borders.
Considering the Weribee river alone. 'Borders' between any people usually are a natural barrier to human movement.
My experience in tribal areas (Borneo) is that pre-westernization, they all lived in perpetual fear of attack and raiding party. (for heads, women, children for slaves)
I've met both those who lived through that time, seen the huge scars from machette attack, and met former slaves (now freed because of the Gospel "all people are created equal") and so on.

It is very difficult to speak of 'legality' in a tribal context apart from what is 'legal' or.. not 'taboo' within one tribe at a time.
Any external force or power which can rid them of that fear of attack, fear of spirits, is welcome. Sadly, Aside from the 'White Rajahs' of North Borneo, I know of no external power which did not exploit the indigenous people for colonial gain.

There is as much chance of 2 'nations' dwelling in peace in one place as their was for Abraham and Lot who's herdsmen fought over grazing rights. (Genesis 13)