Oliver, citing Rainier: "[2] "Are you really doing Phd studies in this area?"

Nope. Undergrad. in psych. & economics, two masters in business and a PhD. Several academic and national awards. The PhD has nothing at all to do with law, treaties or aborigines. My interest is in how cultural antecedents influence knowledge discovery.

More relevant, I do have a sound knowledge [published] of the operation of civilisations [including, under occupation], and, clans (internationally), and, acculturation and, the development of science and technology in history (especially, East/West). Beyond that, I wish to stay anonymous."

I think this is an utter crock. While Oliver's ideas about 'clans' and such have been an interesting read, it's now clear that they are his own confabulations, rather than anything worthy of serious intellectual consideration.

If he has really published his idiosyncratic ideas internationally, why on earth would he want to remain anonymous in this forum?

Sounds like more loony bulldust to me.

Is Mise asks "Just visited the Taj Mahal. Entry Fees : Indian Citizen. R50/-. Non-Indian. R750/-. Is this racial discrimination?"

750 rupees is about $20.
50 rupees is $1.50

This is discrimination, but not racial. An Indian citizen can be any race or religion. In Australia we do not give citizens a financial advantage over non-citizens, which is good policy.

I guess the Indian authorities are suggesting citizens are the true owners of the Taj Mahal, or more likely, that international tourists are richer and worth fleecing a little bit.

Oliver, Mocking tone? naaah, just find it amazing that I'm citing 1st year anthrop/law, [ie, some really basic stuff] to someone who purports to know something about land law, politics and history in Australia.

I've got 2 honours students who would eat you alive, not because they are combative souls (or because I would want them to) but because they put the hard work and read primary research across a number of disciplines related to this very area of discussion. One of them just commented to me “Why do you bother” to which I have no answer. Which in turn raises a more interesting question – is this the only academic engagement you have with someone? OLO is good but it’s hardly a place for rigorous academic training.

As for me being a lawyer, never. They are an animal I find useful but invidious.

But I’ve been-there / done-that in terms of negotiator and oral historian.

To be honest I find your pseudo Keysian /Darwinian application to land law oblique and contrived.

As for you accolades, well I'm more of a practitioner than a 'traditional academic' so I don't put much weight on getting gongs. Nor do the majority of my peers whose own scholarly careers are internationally revered.

In a nutshell nothing you’ve provided me so far has inspired me. Sorry.

CJ, LOL! Watch out Keith Windshuttle!

Rainier,

I should hope your Oz history students WOULD eat me alive. I haven't even read Fatal Shores! I made no NO CLAIM to being an Australian History prof. After they have consumed me, trust there is room left for you. They would eat you alive too. You allegedly teach law/history and didn't know the Treaty of Waitangi was ratified in the 1970s. That's something. [A bit like a mechanic, whom doesn't know fuel injection has replaced carburettors in modern cars.]

Just in case you missed it:

http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/THE%20TREATY%20OF%20WAITANGI%20ACT%201975.htm

See, "1975" [leveraged from NZ's 1972 International Treaty obligations]. In the decade, I said it was [without even looking]. If being right is makes me a certain mediocre "101" shoe-in; then, where does that leave you, one who is wrong?

Darwin? Keynes? No., Quigley, Wells, McNeill and Toynbee. Then, hit the journals. Big picture histories, not evolution and economics.
Socio-biology, yes. Culture is a product of its ecology (Triandis).

One needs to read other [non-Australian] histories, patterns in 200-500 year chunks. What, you seemingly see as special, has happened before.

Rainier, country gal is correct, it is not just about money payments. Nauru's indigenous people had in coming out of their ears in 1960s. Gone. Spent. Little invested. Now, it is in as bad a state, as our aboriginals' stereotype. It's about change managing acculturation.

Land law wont help much in understanding managing acculturation under occupation. Land rights are are the smaller part of solution.

p.s. Trust your "internationally revered" colleagues, know the difference between a "clan" and a "nation". [Assume you mean "esteemed", not venerable?]

CJM,

My PhD is not in "Clan Kinship". Please check back. READ what I said. Clans were merely at the periphery of the scales, I developed. But, I have comprehensively read about clan/peasant groups.

Read, Hugh Baker, Daniel Little, Samuel Popkin and James Scott, and, on and on. Background. Then, log-on to a university database and type in "kinship" and "clan", you, will see more Bull Dust [your impression].

All,

[Here endth my last post, here.]

David, "In Australia we do not give citizens a financial advantage over non-citizens, which is good policy" I'm not aware of any situations based on citizenship but I have come across differing prices for local residents vs visitors. I don't remember just were it was but have seen it.

A visit to a hospital can also get rather expensive for a non resident for treatment that is covered under medicare for residents - maybe that is an equivalent.

R0bert

OLIVER ,
You said "landrights are a the smaller part of the solution".
You underestimate the value of land to Aboriginal People.
No Land plus No Treaty = No Peace for Australia.It's NOT rocket science .
This is because the younger Aboriginal People are acutely aware of their Disposession without Compensation, and the Government of Australia's racist attempt to re write history amongst other social insults, simply fuels ongoing Racism and anti social conduct.
The Governments prefer to take the option of things like mandatory sentencing and restriction of access to try to keep a lid on Aboriginal unrest.
As well we now have Howard's Indigenous Intelligence Unit [Ok if it's just to stop the violence in Aboriginal Society ]- ugly if it's the new 21st Century version of the Native Police .