."...represented the different Aboriginal nations." - Ranier

To the best of my knowledge there were no aboriginal nations. Perhaps, more like the Celts before, Caesar, "came", "saw" and "conquered". But, seemingly not as well organised as the Druits. In the Middle East, there were Graden Cultures, starting c. 15,000 BP. Maybe, these nomadic kin clanship would provide closer model. "Nation" is pushing it.

"Aboriginal" to mean indigenous is clear, and, used correctly. But, not, necessary the original human clans. When the ice age caused water levels to fall circa 60,000 BP, there were waves of migrations.

If memory serves, the first group arrived around 60,000 BP, latter, after 15,000 years, three sets (different DNA) of black invaders (now commonly also called aboriginals) and one set of whites.

The Ice Age and Richard Leakey's discovery of mass animal extinctions suggest humans FIRST arrived in Oz around 60,000 years BP. Mungo Man (Lake 3) is problematic, The skeleton suggests 32,000 years BP, the rock strata suggest 60,000 years BP. Mungo or no Mungo, at this time, 60,000 years BP seems the valid dating for the first arrival.

In sum, Ranier, I would question the term, "nation". Also, the original [human] Australians were invaded circa 45,000 years BP, by a black race, not only by a white race in 1788. It's in the DNA (Wells).

[p.s. Wells and the National Geographic Society are collecting DNA (male)from around the world to map the migration of Humankind.]

[p.p. The Celts and Britons seem have had there fair shair if invasions too. The Norman French, Battle of Hastings, were invaded via Norseman-dy, in 911.

Hopefully, the real "nation state" will settle things down a bit. Then, again we the Middle East situation, don't we?

."...represented the different Aboriginal nations." - Ranier

To the best of my knowledge there were no aboriginal nations. Perhaps, more like the Celts before, Caesar, "came", "saw" and "conquered". But, seemingly not as well organised as the Druits. In the Middle East, there were Graden Cultures, starting c. 15,000 BP. Maybe, these nomadic kin clanship would provide closer model. "Nation" is pushing it.

"Aboriginal" to mean indigenous is clear, and, used correctly. But, not, necessary the original human clans. When the ice age caused water levels to fall circa 60,000 BP, there were waves of migrations.

If memory serves, the first group arrived around 60,000 BP, latter, after 15,000 years, three sets (different DNA) of black invaders (now commonly also called aboriginals) and one set of whites.

The Ice Age and Richard Leakey's discovery of mass animal extinctions suggest humans FIRST arrived in Oz around 60,000 years BP. Mungo Man (Lake 3) is problematic, The skeleton suggests 32,000 years BP, the rock strata suggest 60,000 years BP. Mungo or no Mungo, at this time, 60,000 years BP seems the valid dating for the first arrival.

In sum, Ranier, I would question the term, "nation". Also, the original [human] Australians were invaded circa 45,000 years BP, by a black race, not only by a white race in 1788. It's in the DNA (Wells).

[p.s. Wells and the National Geographic Society are collecting DNA (male)from around the world to map the migration of Humankind.]

[p.p. The Celts and Britons seem have had there fair shair if invasions too. The Norman French, Battle of Hastings, were invaded via Norseman-dy, in 911.

Hopefully, the real "nation state" will settle things down a bit. Then, again we have the Middle East situation, don't we?

Rainer I 100% agree with you in relation to education and access.

Our Government provides Aboriginal children with disadvantaged schools and lawless rundown communities. This is an absolute disgrace, how can these children possibly compete?

Every person should have access to opportunity in an equally supportive, caring, learning and safe environment.

Our Government has a lot to answer to but there are also significant issues in Aboriginal communities that go beyond any action or lack of action of the white man.

thanks jolanda, more independent community controlled schools are needed. We fail or succesd on our own terms then!

Oliver, Aboriginal people in Australia have continued to argue that just as British sovereignty did not wipe away Aboriginal title, neither did it wipe away Aboriginal jurisdiction. This is the logic of the many Aboriginal proponents of a treaty or treaties between the modern Australian state and Aboriginal peoples.

The background arguments you put forward to support your hypothesis are not new to me, I read them in the 1970's and since then (with respect) my personal and professional understanding of these matters is informed by research thats a little more scholarly that national geography.

I say this not to beat my chest but to suggest to you that this topic of discussion is complex but nonetheless requires some foundational reading and study in law and anthropology.

If you are examining international law precedents look toward nations states such as Canada where treaties have recognised Aboriginal jurisdictions. See for example: http://www.delgamuukw.org/

If you don't believe me walk into any remote Aboriginal community and you'll soon understand jurisdiction.
We did not cede and conquoring of this nation has never been declared and those peaceful settlement ideas are just fiction.

Wolf writing in the middle of the eighteenth century Wolff argued that a nation "which inhabits a territory has not only ownership but also sovereignty over the lands and things which are in it.

Mabo did not address Aboriginal sovereignty. Native title is a common law creation.

So too is the word and title Aboriginal a creation. I don’t consider myself to be Aboriginal, I was born within a jurisdiction of custom and tradition and law that automatically bestowed upon me an identity that precedes Australian citizenship. No different to that which the Irish say of British citizenship.

As previously mentioned these are matters of international, not just domestic law.

Rainier's quite correct, of course. The use of the term 'nation' to refer to aggregations of Aboriginal tribal groups linked by law, kinship, language, territory and religion is well documented in the relevant reliable literature.

Back to the topic, I didn't observe explicitly above that I've also noticed that much of the more extreme anti-Aboriginal racism I've encountered over the years has emanated from European migrants, or migrants of European heritage (e.g. South Africans). I live in the bush, in an area where horticulture and market gardening predominate, and such sentiments are still quite openly expressed by some people, particularly first or second generation immigrants from Europe or former African colonies.

Also,

Col Rouge: "If it had not been for European colonialism there would have been Arab colonialism, or is what is happening in Darfur a myth?"

Er Col... the current wave of Islamist expansionism in Sudan, as in other parts of the world, is a direct consequence of the unhappy accident of the location of much of the world's oil reserves since the 1930s in Arab territory. The West's addiction to oil has literally fuelled contemporary Islamism's capacity to reach out into other areas. Until the discovery of oil, Arabs had coexisted and traded with contiguous nations and cultures for many centuries without apparently feeling the need to colonise them.

"I recall cannibalism was rife throughout many parts of Africa before 'European Colonialisation'."

Oh, you were there, were you?

I'm sure such a reliable eyewitness account would instantly resolve the debate that has raged in anthropological circles for years, as to whether cannibalism was ever as rife among tribal peoples as Europeans imagine the practice to have been, or indeed if it has ever existed at all as an acceptable cultural practice anywhere.