Discrimination, bullying and harrassment is illegal under the Racial Discrimination Act. CATCH IS that you have to prove that what happened was directly because of your race, as an individual, before they will even look at your complaints and generally the person/s accused don't confess and they turn it on you and your people as a group. The word racism has been so abused that it has been white washed.

This is the attitude of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

"You should note that it is not enough that a person is unhappy with the treatment that they have received and that he or she has a disability, or is of a particular age, race or sex. You would need to be able to show a connection between that treatment and your age, race, sex or disability."

How does a person show a connection with their race before the investigation takes place?

There is no law that says that says general harrassment, bullying and victimisation borne from malice, prejudice and spite is against the Law and should be investigated – regardless of race!

It appears to be Law by omission.

Not everybody is protected

"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." -- Ranier

My post was not to argue against aboriginal title. Actually, I support these claims, where attachment to a given area can be proven.

That said, genetically, there was a "first" wave. A gap. Three plus other black waves. Then, the whites. It follows, the first wave had title, and, the other later black and white waves were "all" invaders. This is not 1970s [Ranier] data, rather twenty-first century research into the routes of global genome patterns.

Historian, Caroll Quigley, identified 23 major civilizations, and, Toynee made similarly. There are ebbs and flows of human popluations and expansions and declines. My personal view is West III is pretty much bounded by Elizabeth I (c.1600) and Victoria (d.1901). We now are in interregnum [could last 200 years], with the US playing/trying to be the centre state of West IV.

Likewise, The Judiac Wars (c.66-133 CE) demonstrated a play by the Jews to take advantage of the decline of Greece. They did so, when Roman was at its height and were quashed.

As noted, Norman French, whom invaded England (1066), were also invaded by the Vikings in 911. Of course, I could go on and on. It is the History of History. Not Social Darwinism. More, to do with managing the relationship between Episte and Techne. Aboriginal clans missed out on this stage (wont say development, because that is value-laden).

/cont.

How do you explain title that survived conquests since 1606 in Britian?

Law is not informed by Darwinian social thoery as you appear to suggest, but also conveniently disqualify from your thesis.

The fundamental question is - "If Aboriginal sovereignty was exercised before and after the arrival of the British how then was it lost, and when? "

Your successionist theory fails to explain this but then leap frogs to notions of "history of history".

Is not the question i have asked both legal and historically relevant?

Precedent in law is always based on historical notations of law.

The high courts of Australia have never ruled on this directly. Indeed they have avoided the question at least 4 times.

Terra nullius was the legal myth that Mabo overturned.

According to you legal logic native title should not exist - but it does.

Herein, we have Conquest and disenfranchisement, which begs the question of compensation. In an enlightened age, it would seem fair to me, that the conquered be compensated in some way. But, we need to deal with issue of, who were the first arrivals? Perhaps, its only in the last 5-8 years, we know, through DNA testing (Spencer Wells).

Also, does a depreciation schedule need to be applied, so compensation wanes, as the melded society progresses across three or four future generations?

Does Italy (Rome) owe Greece compensation for its conquests? Do the Barbarians, whom brought down the Western Roman Empire, c. 476 (Gibbon), owe compensation to the Italy? Perhaps, they do?

It is naive to believe that were not inter-clan ways would have changed migration patterns in Oz 45,000 BP (second arrival) - 1788 (white arrival). Herein, there would be inter-clan claims lost to History.

-- How and when is the debt extinguished?

CJ Morgan,

A clan is more closed than a nation. Clans tend to have close genetic ties, exhibit familialism, and, often, patrimonialism. In North America, the Sioux clan (not nation)is too homogeneous to mirror the ethnically and culturally diverse US.

I'm of Scotish stock, true of my ancestors too, before, the tenth century, with clanish reminants into the Middle Ages.

Clans will tend to be insular and exhibit strong "Kin Altruism" (socio-biology term), which is self explanatory. Despite, clans sharing the systems you correctly identify with nations, clans are not nations. Perhaps, a conquered clan would see themselves a sub-culture, apart, rather, than than a sub-culture "within".

China, is problematic, it is a country, which exhibits many of traits of a clan. Historically, Germany and Japan, have similar leanings.

Conversely, I posit, had Britain conquered France, or, Spain, England; it is likely the populations would have melded (By-Product Mutualism)like the godheads of Greece, Roman and Egypt.

Philip, also, "came", "saw" and "conquered". The question is, "how does one manage a "just" conquest?

Rainer you said before that more independent community controlled schools are needed for Aboriginal people as that way they then fail or succeed on their own terms!

I cant help but wonder what you actually mean. Do you mean separating all Aboriginal children and teaching them a different curriculum or no formal curriculum at all?

I believe that if the elders asked the young people of today the majority will say that they want to live the Western Way as in reality it is a good life. Kids are not stupid. For sure they will want to all keep ties with their past history and roots but I really don't think that they want to stay there full time - not with so many other things going on.

Will the Aboriginal children be asked what they want to do and will these schools prepare them for the academic competition that they will have to participate in to get access to University placement and compete in this world. Or will there be total seperation.

I am concerned. I would dearly love to see Aboriginal children move forward in greater numbers and be more competitive. I do believe that there are attitudes that are holding them down on all sides. I am interested in your thoughts.

Why the lurch away from the thread? why the debate that refuses to face the facts?
Let me tell you the truth our country streets are full of 15 year old criminals.
Some of them far too many are Aboridginal kids, some can not read or write and do not want to.
Some are full blown racists and do not know it.
Most have no hope and do not care.
Rideing on their backs are fleas both black and white who if not makeing a liveing out of them are at least stopping change.
No visit to a dirty and unhealthy home ,built brand new for them less that ten years ago , does not break my heart.
How long would it take to clean a home and mow the lawn?
How can our ancestors be held guilty because its not done?
Why is child neglect higher there?
Child sexual abuse?
Accounability is not a racist word.
Education is not evil.
Our duty is to fix this problem now.