Shockadelic,

The emphatic statement was that the people on the First Fleet were 'White' it is not cherry picking to point out the historically accurate fact that two of the them were negro, nor, further, that they bred and multiplied and that there were other negroes who came to the early colony is attested by the area in which they lived being known as "Dixieland".

"Their descendants married other black newcomers, emancipated convicts, free settlers, aboriginal and (very often) their own cousins. By the middle of the nineteenth Century large numbers settled the area stretching from North Parramatta, Carlingford, Pennant Hills, the Field of Mars Common and the Fox Valley. Many of these people had distinctly African features, but were often publicity identified as aboriginal. This part of Sydney was known derisively as "Dixieland". Some descendants acquired property and respectability and inter-married with the other "old" families of the region (John Howard link). Others remained "fringe dwellers". At least one descendant was hanged (for a crime he didn't commit!), another was shot by police (Tom Conquit link). Many were associated with the timber trade, as sawyers, timber cutters etc. Towards the end of the 1850's the larger community broke up, some moving to settle the Clarence River region of NSW, others going to Sofala and Wattle Flat (for the gold rush) and a remnant group consolidating themselves along Pennant Hills Road and near Aiken Road, Pennant Hills. The latter was known within living memory as "Dixi Lane"."
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~johnrandall2/

and,
"Contrary to opinion that the First Fleet was made up entirely of Anglo-Celtic people is wrong. We know for instance that there were at least 15 West Indians and Negroes, there were Dutch, Portuguese, Swedes and one Indian from Bengal. Some Asians were included in the Fleet."
http://www.fellowshipfirstfleeters.org.au/storie6.html

Their descendants among us are now many and many of us have a chance of being one.

Have another bite at the cherry !

Is Mise, nothing like a bit of mythbusting LOL
Off topic but here are some of my favourite "anachronisms", they really stand out against backdrop of the Anti Racist narrative don't you think?:
http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/Garpman_bucket/Military%20pics/JapinNaziarmy.jpg
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/imgs/20090125/negro-wehrmacht.jpg
http://s242.photobucket.com/user/Adler69_photo/media/imps/Frankreich_Turkestani_in_der_Wehrmacht01.jpg.html
See also the stories of John Joseph and Rafaello Carbone, two not insignificant figures in the Eureka rebellion, then there's the tale of multicultural British army sent in 1915 to repel the Jihad in the Dardanelles.
So why do the anti Racists view colonisation in such a subjective fashion? We all know that Australia was multicultural from the start so why are Anglo Australians singled out?
The answer is obvious, Anti Racists (who are really just Anti White) cherry pick examples from history to suit their agenda and to illustrate their narrative fiction.

It doesn't sound to me like the "Negroes" were a significant part of early Sydney.

They were outsiders living *separately* on the outskirts.
Again showing the tendency of any people to want to live amongst their own kind.
NOBODY really wants "diversity", even the people you claim as examples of it.

They obviously didn't make much of a lasting impact.
I remember being astonished at how many "negroes" I saw when I first moved to Sydney in 1986: None.
And I lived in Epping, not too far from ye olde Dixieland.

Your type keep referring to a "myth" of an *exclusively* White history.
Nobody is saying it was 100% White.
We are saying it was *overwhelmingly* White (90% Australian-born White by the 1940s), and the few anomalies are just that, anomalies, of no significance.

I'm sure there's a few anomalies in every country in the world.
But there is also usually a dominant/majority ethnicity that gives the nation its character/identity.

In this land, it's White Australians.
It never was Africans or Asians.
You're the ones peddling a myth.

"there were at least 15 West Indians and Negroes [out of 1500 people: 1%. OMG!], there were Dutch [White], Portuguese [White], Swedes [White] and one Indian from Bengal [ONE!]. Some Asians were included in the Fleet."

Wow. About 1% weren't White.
Well, golly gee wilikers!
That certainly justifies an 80% non-White immigration policy today.

1788: 1%
2014: 80%
Sounds reasonable.

Sockadelic, you're just promoting a different narrative, the truth is shades of grey.
That's not the way you repel "those types" from a discussion.
The Anti Whites don't rely on facts to put their case, they use fiction as a learning toolkit which refers back to a semi fictional narrative which due to the lack of real documentation or concrete evidence is a sort of oral history relayed from one storyteller to another.See one set of beliefs doesn't trump another, your beliefs don't have any capacity to nullify those of an Anti Racist.
In real life, you can actually show "these types"evidence which contradicts their beliefs and they simply reject it saying "I don't believe you". What it boils down to are beliefs held by believers, a preference toward acceptance of shall we say the supernatural over the rational and demonstrably true statements of another person.
As a result of usually highly personal and subjective reasons Anti Racists simply don't want to believe that White people are by nature good and caring people, especially when it comes to the treatment of minorities in their midst,they cannot be convinced that the vast majority of Whites who volunteered to oversee Aboriginal groups did so for altruistic reasons. Whites overall were not "worse" in the two centuries past, looking at history objectively our ancestors were in many regards "better" than we are today but to a person indoctrinated with the doctrine of progress this view is completely unacceptable.
The origins of the cult of progress are well known so I won't labour the point but do you see where I'm going? The only difference is that people on your side are usually less dogmatic and a bit more flexible in their outlook than the other type who are more likely to react violently when challenged.

Shockadelic,

Well I'm glad that we cleared that up, when you say White you don't mean White but 'predominantly white'.
You list the Portuguese as 'White' but can you be sure?

By 1788 Goans were moving around the world and most of them still regard themselves as Portuguese rather than Indian.

Ever been to Blues Point in Sydney?
Named after a man of obvious African descent, Billy Blue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Blue

The point for all you White Supremacists is the number of Australians who have 'non-white' blood (I know that it's all red, but for the purpose of the exercise I'm sure you'll stretch a technical point}.

The number of descendants of just two of the First Fleet Negroes is estimated at 20,000.

Then there are all those that came later.

Try a 'Cherry Ripe'.