Belly,

What you say about phony Blackfellas is depressingly true - people without any Aboriginal ancestry whatsoever, people who can spin a yarn and con some Aboriginal organisation into signing them up and 'confirming their Aboriginality', it's all gravy for them, after all. The tragedy of it all is that these people get good jobs and move up the ladder, while Aboriginal people are shut out.

I remember one guy up at Flinders Uni who tried to get admitted on the grounds that he was a Torres Strait Islander. It turned out his great-great-grandfather used to own most of the western half of Adelaide and big chunks of Darwin, etc., etc..

My wife Maria was in charge of an Indigenous support program and at one time, she asked one of her students, in conversation, who her family was, family connections, that sort of thing. Her cousin was Aboriginal, the student said. But are you, what families are you related to, Maria asked. The student got very stroppy and threatened to take her to court if she ever asked that again. So my wife knew she was a fraud, but she had Aboriginal friends - and her cousin - who stuck up for her, and the institution was too afraid to support Maria, so she had to let it go. That student graduated and is now in a very good position in Aboriginal education policy-making.

So many stories, too depressing :( Meanwhile, other Aboriginal people can't get a look-in, usually darker Aboriginal people. Corrupt academics and bureaucrats often seem to single out who to 'sponsor', who to pamper and promote, and often they choose these very people, with smart mouths on them, who then have a rapid rise up the hierarchy. I'm certainly not saying that it happens often, but often enough, too often. I know a guy here in a good position in Aboriginal affairs, a nice guy, but he admitted to me years ago that he had no Aboriginal ancestry, only Afghan. I'm not so sure he was right, but there you go.

Cheers, Bully, keep fighting :)

Joe

I still don't accept that Aboriginality, however one discerns it is an "advantage".
What do these "Light Skinned" people get that I don't?
Government assistance or a government job? Whoop de do.
The private sector is where the real money is and Aboriginality is still a liability due to the prejudices of most employers.
Are you folk saying that these "Light skinned" people are actually causing disadvantage among "real" Aborigines?

Dear Belly and Joe (Loudmouth),

This is about Andrew Bolt and the fact that as the judge
stated quite clearly - and I again quote:

"The reasons for the conclusion have to do with the
Manner in which the articles were written,
including that they contained errors of fact,
distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative
language..."

Bolt was on trial - and he got the verdict he deserved.
Stop making excuses - the man's past history is an
abomination - and should not be swept under the rug or
excused under any circumstances.

I am surprised at the vilification of Andrew Bolt going on here.
You should be careful, using the new interperatiuon of the act he now
may have grounds to sue those making such remarks.

I read some time back the writings that were the subject of the case.
I don't remember anything adverse he said about aboriginies.
I do remember that he got stuck into those who were pretending to be
more aboriginal that they really were.
The question I remember was at what percentage of aboriginality would
an application for a privilege fail ?

I think that is what the complainents were on about.
Errors between father and grandfather were not a matter of standing.

I saw this quote elsewhere and I think it makes a good point.

"So let’s say I call Andrew Bolt an arrogant, dishonest and irresponsible tosser who routinely bends the facts to suit his rhetorical purpose. I can say all that, and my only legal fear is defamation. I can also deride him as an arrogant man without running afoul of any extra laws.

But if I call him an arrogant white tosser, or an arrogant Dutch tosser then I have to worry not only about defamation but also about the Racial Discrimination Act. I can make aspersions about his gender, his occupation and his mental health and worry only about defamation. If I raise his ethnic identity and his race, then there is an extra legal worry.

The test will then be whether I am offending people, and whether I am expressing an opinion in good faith."

However the fact remains that he deliberately withheld facts in his article that contradicted his own opinion because he sought to make a mean-spirited and biassed misrepresentation to incite a particular dislike toward a specific group.

Like many like him, he simply wants to make a particular point and then works backward to contrive supporting evidence.

I think such pundits should not be classified as journalists and their articles hould be tagged with a warning that they are "for entertainment purposes only and not to be considered accurate reflections of fact".

Dear Bazz,

Come one - you can't be serious regarding Mr Bolt.

Vilifying Mr Bolt? A man who's famous for vilifying
others every time he writes his column.

He's brought everything upon himself. Setting up
people against each other is what he does best
and gets highly paid for it. However, this time
he's been pulled up for it. All this righteous
indignation in his case is mis-placed. Perhaps
he'll learn to clean up his act in future. and try
to stick to facts without and distortions. Although
I wouldn't hold my breath. After all he's never wrong,
and he'll use freedom of speech as his excuse for fiction
not fact.

Before you give Mr Bolt your sympathy - have a read
of the man's past history - you may actually learn
something from it:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/sorry-andrew-youve-bolted-headlong-into-racism-now/