The proposal to "recognise" the Indigenous in our Constitution surely reeks of racism, defining Australians by race and delivering entitlements based on that.
The logical next step is to have our race listed on official records, our driving licences etc, that would obviously be most efficient in determining our "place" in the grand scheme of things.
If that doesn't begin to resemble Apartheidt then I don't know what does!
If we truly want an equal society then there can be NO place for such discrimination in our Constitution or laws.
The taking of Australia is history, immutable, and at the time was quite conventional, and even gentle compared to many other colonial invasions of that time, it's only TWO HUNDRED YEARS later that we've decided to reinterpret it as some sort of "crime".
To then seek to make some sort of amends for that "crime" is quite simply ludicrous, virtually akin to the Irish suing England, England suing the Italians for the Roman Invasion, see what I mean, where do you draw the line?
History is full of such examples, are we expected to "right the wrongs" of all of that? HOW? WHY?
My paternal ancestors were driven out of Friesland for their religious convictions, so under this mentality I should be allowed to sue the Dutch/German governments for discrimination and suffering, how far do you think I'd get?
Dump this divisive idea, get rid of Indig' Affairs and simply treat one and all as citizens of Australia with equality before the law and the same responsibilities, and NO race-based programs or payments,.
Then, and only then, can we claim true equality exists in Oz.

Hang on Bruce we haven't even heard the question yet, it all depends upon the language used in the proposed amendment.
If the question is framed in such a way as to recognise the contiuning occupation of the land by the Australoid races (plural) and asserts that they share equal rights under the law with the other settler groups then I can't see a problem with it.
Personally I'd rather see a bill of rights added to the constitution explicitly recognising the rights of all ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups.

There must be money in it.

The government itself has no money. It is all taxpayers' money and taken compulsorily from them.

However political parties are never backward in spreading some of those taxpayers' millions around where there is a chance of buying votes.

Government is there to serve the people not the other way around. Where the essentials such as sufficient hospital beds are not being met, or are being pruned back because government says there is not enough money, it is unconscionable and intolerable that any political party or government should be proposing as an 'initiative' something that is very likely to (read as 'will') result in more leaks from that bucket of taxpayers' money.

I am always worried about well meant gestures that have unforeseeable consequences. Recognition might seem innocuous but in the hands of clever lawyers can result in $bns of handouts based on rates. Similarly bills of rights are notorious for being a cash cow.

I'd support a Bill of Rights, but only if it contained NO reference to race or culture, or anything else that set divisions into law.
We as a nation are already suffering from the fruits of multiculturalism and our current government is doing it's level best to divide us even further, do you think this is accidental?
Both the parties see a divided Australia as a GOOD thing, it reduces the chances for any social movement that might reduce their grip on power, it's the old Roman program of "Divide and conquer(rule)", and it has WORKED!
So what is life is more fractious, stressful and unpleasant for the general population, THEY'VE got their exorbitant pensions for life and their gold passes, and THAT is what's important, isn't it?

Gday Bruce>>The taking of Australia is history, immutable, and at the time was quite conventional, and even gentle compared to many other colonial invasions of that time, it's only TWO HUNDRED YEARS later that we've decided to reinterpret it as some sort of "crime".<<

Just to clarify my position....I believe it was an invasion given the existing residents had a tenure that ran into tens of thousands of years and they did not agree to co habitation. .....but nature and history is about change.

Bruce what I find contradictory is the present situation where Caucasians feel threatened (invaded) by the radical Islamists that idiots allowed to emigrate to Australia.

If we feel threatened by Sharia law and the destruction of our society and beliefs today how did the poor Stone Age first Aussies feel when the Caucasians arrive with state of the art technology in their hands...they felt doomed.

I do not believe in any further major recompense for their loss but Aboriginal communities require positive government finical discrimination ongoing, it is good for the economy.

To be honest Sonnetc, I doubt that the Indig' had the gestalt to understand any such concepts, they were simple stone-age hunter-gatherers with little awareness beyond their immediate clan and mythology.
I also agree, importing divisive and potentially violent religious types is the height of insanity for Australia, one we're bound to regret in the long run, if not already.
AS for the situation with the Indig' today, it seems that it's expected that they be allowed to live in remote areas and follow their own laws but WE are expected to supply ALL the benefits of civilised urban life to their chosen homes, unlike all the non-indig' who must accept that remoteness means a lack of such things.
Unlike many here I HAVE been out to their camps and out-stations, I HAVE sat down with them and discussed it all, listened to them and explored ideas, and I suspect that many of those who claim to support them might get a nasty shock if they did the same, the city-based trendy lefties are a source of much humour and abuse out there, they are seen as a JOKE, but one that keeps interfering where they're not wanted, causing confusion and conflict and costing money that would be better spent elsewhere.
Since our various governments have been throwing literally BILLIONS at them for decades you'd expect that we would see some sort of improvement, wouldn't you? But there is none, so throwing even MORE money at it is hardly going to change that, "good money after bad" ring any bells?
I'm not arrogant enough to think I know the answer, I don't, but I do know that what is being done now is a total failure, we need another way, and urgently, we are allowing children to be treated in ways that would shame any other nation, and we're denying them education, health and a good life thereby, that has to change if we are to have any self-respect as a people, and the sooner the better IMO.

G'day Bruce,
Spot on !

Oh no, please no...

"Wenn ich Bill of Rights höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!"

The problem is that a Bill of Rights a) cannot enshrine all rights, b) must by definition choose between the rights of one part of the community over another, or even the rights of one individual over another, and c) will always be open to "interpretation".

This gives rise to that most parasitic of professions, the Human Rights Lawyer. Lower even than the accident-chasing, no-win-no-fee "compensation" lawyers, these folk live by sucking the blood of the gullible taxpayer, their fees turning on the niceties of one obscure phrase trumping another obscure phrase, while all the while claiming to defend the downtrodden.

I'm only sad that I don't have a daughter, so that I can forbid her from marrying one.

Pericles - Against the Bill of Rights? Paranoid such would favour the rights of one group over another? Have you read the American Bill of Rights?

I cannot fathom how anyone could be against having a bill of rights based loosely on the USA example.

In a nut shell: "The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States."

SOG,

They didn't feel doomed at all because they had no comprehension of European technology, nor any concept of invasion, nation or of society as it was understood by Europeans.
The concepts that they now have were introduced by Europeans and any Australian Aboriginals that don't like the European lifestyle are perfectly free to live a pre 1788 lifestyle but most Aboriginal hunters prefer the rifle or shotgun to the spear or the nulla-nulla.

Dear Bruce,

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/constitutional-reform-fact-sheet-recognising-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-people

On of the greatest benefits that Aboriginal people, particularly those of north Queensland, have got from European settlement is that the Torres Strait Islanders no longer consider them vermin to be killed on sight.
The Aboriginals had no answer to the superior technology of the Torres Strait people.

I assume that you have your tongue firmly in your cheek, ConservativeHippie.

>>Pericles - Against the Bill of Rights? Paranoid such would favour the rights of one group over another? Have you read the American Bill of Rights? I cannot fathom how anyone could be against having a bill of rights based loosely on the USA example.<<

Exactly. A bagful of weasel words, covered in the grease-laden chip-wrapper of lawyers' briefs.

G'day Bruce,

You're onto something there. Perhaps, before they begin their starry-eyed work with Indigenous organisations, city-based professionals should be required to spend a few days in an Indigenous community. Say, from Pay-day Thursday until the next Monday, over a standard weekend. What larks !

Jay,

"Personally I'd rather see a bill of rights added to the constitution explicitly recognising the rights of all ethnic, cultural and linguistic groups."

Would you care to re-think that ? Did you mean "standard human rights such as equal protection under the rule of law, with no discrimination in favour of anybody on ethnic or gender grounds" ?

'Rights of groups' ? Or 'no discrimination on ethnic, cultural or linguistic grounds, on the basis of the rule of law and equality of all before the law' ?

As Pericles notes, a bill of rights would be a lawyer's banquet.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

No Joe, just live on Jingili Terrace, or within 2 kilometres of the Zoo (NT Housing units in Parap) or within Coo-ee of any take-away alcohol shop in Darwin or Palmerston for say 2 months...then see how attitudes can change.

These 'aberrant originals' give decent Aboriginals a bad name. Most are in the cities and townships because of anti social behaviour in their own communities, and carry on in the same manner as before, but with more frequent access to grog...compounding the existing health problems such as renal disease, diabetes, mental illness etc brought on by long term diets of MCDonalds/Red Rooster/KFC, cans of tuna & One Minute Noodles going hand in hand with insufficient daily water intakes. (Read: Poor nutrition).

The former Administrator of the NT, Ted Egan had a wonderful plan which departed radically from the paternalistic model that seems to prevail amongst many academics and their political sponsors. The Bleeding Hearts won over yet again because it was "...not in tune with..." - the indigenous industry that bleeds its own people white.

If main stream academia, its politically charged arms, and the insidious basket weaving do gooder parasites who siphon off good money actually spent some time living in a community or "Long Grassing". Therefore not experiencing community living via an LCD screen in Redfern, they may actually see the nuts & bolts of what has to be done to address the Third World conditions in which some of our indigenous cousins exist.

There are some however who would not benefit if the entire GDP was directed to fund them, in other words a 'lost cause'.

Hi Albie,

Yeah, I recall an Aboriginal academic friend whose many brothers and sisters were what you might call, politely, tear-aways - he visited one on the Sunday after pay-day and looked in the fridge (a legitimate investigative technique); inside was a bottle of water and an old carrot.

Is bad health 'done to' Aboriginal people in those circumstances, or do they have the agency, the will, to do it to themselves ? How many Aboriginal people does it take to improve Aboriginal health ? It depends on whether Aboriginal people want to improve Aboriginal health. People surely have a rough idea of what is good food and what isn't, about how much damage grog and drugs can do, even on whether or not one should spend one's cash on card-games or on food for one's kids (boy, that's a hard one), or food for oneself (more likely).

Self-determination means, I have always assumed, that Aboriginal people deal with their own problems, instead of dependence, relying on an army of do-gooders to take up the slack. And 'slack' would be the operative word.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe, "Is bad health 'done to' Aboriginal people in those circumstances, or do they have the agency, the will, to do it to themselves?"

Such simple cheap initiatives as WHO's soap hand-washing campaign, if directed at young indigenous women and mothers could prevent many serious health problems. It is not that indigenous women do not use soap, eg for clothes washing, but it is not always a routine to wash their hands after changing their infant, before making meals and after washing clothes too for that matter (plenty of faecal matter encountered in that activity, a fact that the general population are unaware of as well).

Of course there is no taxpayers' $$ for social science and law professionals in the WHO campaign and improvements to health could affect planned-for eternal obligation and entitlement. Hmmm, perhaps that WHO program that has been conducted most successfully for indigenous in developing countries is a very bad idea after all.(sic)

Precisely Joe, self determination is going on in many communities. I have good friends from several East Arnhem Land communities I met serving in NORFORCE. Guys who are pushing the proverbial uphill, battling the negative influences of booze & ganja coming into their communities through the back door.

Quite often it is the FIFO workers smuggling contraband through the regional GA terminals onto islands and into communities .e.g. Christmas 2004, I worked on Tiwi Islands for one of the forestry/wood chipping operations. On Christmas Day after lunch, several of the company supervisors went to a local water hole where they met local girls, plying them with grog & ganja. Having observed this, I later reported those observations to the NT Police at Garden Point. As well to the Manager of the operation who was away in Tasmania at the time. As it was Christmas Day they must have thought it was ok to carry on like this regardless.

The company's response was to then summarily sack me, and arrange a Special Charter flight - arriving the next morning, to get me out of the equation.

I gave a short interview to ABC Radio Darwin the same day, which aired the next day and stirred up little interest. A detailed letter - with photographs, GPS references and times was forwarded to Marion Scrymgour, (an Indigenous Tiwi woman) & one the NT Ministers at the time. It was over a month later before I received the reply from her offices.

To my knowledge, the two supervisors involved were still working there over a year later.

OTB, the best thing they could do regarding health is to get rid of the scabby, diseased & underfed camp dogs that infest the majority of communities I have stayed at or seen. They live in far too close proximity and contribute to many of the ailments common in communities. The accumulated rubbish issue & 'sanitation' per se is another important one you mentioned.

I have had several apologists of varying skin colour tell me that the Aboriginal culture does not understand the concept of "non bio-degradable containers" & that before THE INVASION, that we/they used coolamons and food containers made of bark & wood etc which were discarded as they went walkabout from campsite to campsite. All of which sounded like a Cop Out.

The traditional way of life is so far divorced from most alive today, that it has to be seen to be believed.

Hi Onthebeach,

You've just initiated a whole new stream of professionals - 'hygiene officers', or 'health and hygiene communication and engagement officers' to give them a more important (i.e. longer) title - who could go around washing people's hands for them.

Or going through the motions, like the current batch of truancy officers who might 'recruit' one kid per year if they're working really hard. Perhaps their own kid. On full salary. And on community 'advice'.

Seriously - when I was living in one community, a nurse was appointed as regional health worker (in 1976, I think), a lovely Singaporean lady (Christ, did she cop some racism ?) and the older members of the Council wanted one of her duties to be to wash people's feet. She graciously declined, out of deference to self-determination.

Joe

Good Lord, Joe, I hope not! Did the WHO initiative ever result in that?

Still, in PC Oz it is possible, likely, as you say.

Nonetheless, hygiene is a priority and I agree with Albie Manton in Darwin on dogs etc.

My experience is from an interest in 4X4 and visits to remote areas. Now apparent in country towns that were previously clean, tidy and peaceful, but have changed. However I have been told by REA property managers that they see much the same in the 'burbs where police are always unwelcome (and property investors should never consider).

HI OTB,

I've always thought that self-determination meant a lot of work and responsibility, of people making their own decisions which usually included a lot of work and certainly responsibility. Living in a community taught me that people didn't see it quite that way.

But I grew up when many African countries were fighting for and achieving their independence, their right to self-determination. It obviously hasn't been a panacea, given the corruption so often of their leaders (Zuma isn't the first and certainly won't be the last).

I would still support genuine self-determination in Aboriginal 'communities', of course, but this raises thorny questions:

* If people in 'communities' don't want to work and take responsibility for all the tasks incumbent on self-determining populations, should those 'communities' be continuously funded to keep people in idleness, not to mention the substance abuse, violence and child abuse ?

* Why should publicly-funded housing be provided (for people on their own land: not the usual set-up in Australia) where there never will be any real jobs ?

* Why not offer very generous housing deals to people who move away and find work in neighbouring towns ? Where their kids can get a better education and learn about how people outside of 'communities' actually work for a living ? Like people did in the 'south' after the War ? Ergo, now nearly forty thousand Indigenous university graduates, two and three generations later ?

Or do we wait for another two or three generations ?

Joe

Joe,

You had me searching for the photos I have of abandoned almost new houses with a large set-up of solar power generation panels nearby. Gave up, the photos must be in packed boxes.

Keep up the good work.

On the other hand - to get back to topic - why not go the whole hog of symbolic fripperies ?

Unless all Australians want to be accused of racism, they should all agree to include in the Constitution:

* explicit recognition of Aboriginal prior land ownership, including all waterways and seas,

* the right to a council of elders, which can reach over the shoulders of all governments in Australia,

* separate representation in parliaments around the country - both houses,

* a Treaty (with each clan across Australia),

* the recognition that Aboriginal culture is the oldest, most unchanging and stagnant culture (i.e. cultures) in the world,

* a guarantee that Australia will have an Aboriginal prime minister, preferably a woman, preferably left-handed, within, say, twenty years,

* a recognition of ultimate Aboriginal sovereignty over all of Australia; and

* a recognition that all Australians should learn at least one Aboriginal language.

That's a start :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe I spent a lot of time in Melanesian & Polynesian communities, on both atolls, & larger islands. The public areas between houses were corralled or graveled, they were swept daily, & you would never find a bit of rubbish anywhere.

Those were communities. There was no funding. To get a school teacher, first they had to build a school, & suitable housing for the teacher & family.

The rubbish dumps I have found every aboriginal settlement to be, could never be called communities in any real sense. To be a community someone has to take charge, & turn that rubbish dump into a village, & then engender some pride.

The only way to help aboriginals in my opinion is to expunge the word from the language, & treat every citizen in exactly the same way. It will only be when they have no excuse to be bums that they will stop being bums. Handouts are always destructive to the receiver.

As for recognition, for what? The mere fact they were here before others is just an accident of geography. And lets not kid ourselves that the later arrivals did not shove the earlier arrivals out of the best territory, a practice we merely copied. They were lucky, & they had the chance to make something of themselves & the country. They didn't.

They are lucky we came along to give them a better & healthier life. That they don't take full advantage of this is no ones fault but their own.

Recognition, for what? I'm afraid I am not prepared to consider wandering around naked, throwing sticks at things, hoping to catch something to eat, is worth recognizing. To consider it a culture is taking a very long bow to the language.

Hi Hasbeen,

When I was typing up all of the Protector's letters, at least those from 1840 to 1913, it struck me that the meeting of a hunter-gatherer society and a modern society had some unexpected consequences: one arose out of the fact that, in hunter-gatherer economies, when there is no food, you starve and put up with it; while when there is plenty, you gorge. I guess we all did that, and for tens of thousands of years until the agricultural revolution ten thousand years ago.

So when suddenly these weird white people came over the horizon, with all their strange new things - and then offered ready-made flour, all you had to do was mix it with water and you got damper - people were instantly attracted to come in and see what was offering. Suddenly ready-made food, clothes, tobacco, quick ways of making fire, a host of novelties were available, and all they had to do was a bit of work for some farmer. Or, if they were a bit disinclined, sit and wait for rations every day. Beeeeauty !

One can see from the record that, right from the beginning, some availed themselves of all this new fishing gear, guns for hunting duck etc., and opportunities to get money for things like boots and hats and trousers; while others took what was offered and did less than ever for themselves. And decade after decade, one can see examples of one or the other approach.

As a friend has pointed out, in remote 'communities;, people say that all this packaging that stuff comes in is white fellas' stuff. So, if they make it, they should come and clean it up. Collecting rubbish wasn't something people ever had to do in traditional times, so why now ?

Fascinating logic. Drink Coke by the carton and if you get diabetes, a white fella's disease, it's up to them to come and fix you up.

Joe

Hey! C'mon fellas, enough of the logic, anyone would think that the 1967
Referendum to count the Aboriginals in with the rest of us should have signaled a new way of doing things and that the handout mentality would, after 57 years, be a thing of the past.

Hi Is Mise,

47. Don't you hate that ?

That was partly my point:

* that for many people, new circumstances throw up opportunities which may involve change and effort but are worth having a go at;


* while for some other people, new circumstances simply offer new bags of goodies, more handouts, preferably a lot more of the same stuff, and more reason to do less.

In relation to learning, I think Piaget called the first approach 'accommodation', and the second, ironically, 'assimilation'.

Joe

Yes Joe, I can see their problem.

They mostly never had cleaned up in their lives before white man, they had moved on following the game before they needed to in most situations.

I'm not sure that was the case with all coastal tribes, the huge shell middens perhaps indicate permanent settlement, although they may have been seasonal also.

It is a great pity that the fool Whitlam destroyed the relationships that had grown between some tribes & some pastoralists, with mutual advantage, allowing a steady development, where the aboriginals were highly regarded & valued.

M. Piaget is not one of my favourite authors!
I read and discussed a lot of his theories when my then wife was doing her Dip. Ed.

I spent time in the NT and northern WA back in 1952 as an 18 year old and saw station Aboriginals at first hand and on the stations that I visited they seemed to be healthy and the stockmen were hard working blokes proud of who they were and what they did.
I also met genuine tribals and spent over a month with one mob in semi arid country, where incidentally I wouldn't have lasted more than a week on my own. I provided plenty of amusement with my trying to throw a spear and my attempts at the accurate throwing of a hunting boomerang were the stuff of legend.
I was the first European that some of them had been up close to, and they were wary at first but we soon became friends even though all communication was by signs and the few words that I picked up; a couple of the men spoke fairly good English so I wasn't cut off from having things explained to me and a bit of conversation, these blokes worked part time on a station but were having their annual walkabout.

Is Mise, beaut story of your younger days in NT/WA by the way. I was lucky to have had the opportunity of growing up in PNG - (Manus Island).

In recent years the ADF has wisely decided to go back to earlier philosophies and teach Survival Skills on the various lands of traditional peoples, with the local folk as our instructors. For about 2 months in early 2010, I learnt, and then taught survival skills to fellow soldiers in both the Reserve and Full Time Army.

I fully appreciate the issues the older indigenous folk have in competing with the computer age, & the younger ones gradually being pulled away from traditional lifestyles and into towns & cities with the loss of knowledge that goes with this. It is a humbling process using a digging stick to extract small yams when your daily nutritional intake is minimal.

Yes, some of our attempts at throwing spears resulted in great mirth when the video was played back.

The Constitution does not have within it the "Right to Life", so without that most basic premise, it is in my 'opinion' an anachronistic document, out of touch with the Australia of 2014.

Like the various state and territory legislation, which all harks back to pre-Federation, and the squabble over excises, levies, rail gauges and such. I also believe we should adopt uniform state laws, but still keep the state identities ( we couldn't forgo the State of Origin footy matches).

But already I hear the hue & cry from my learned friends, who would stand to lose $ in the process of making things easier from an administrative perspective.

Some interesting stories and experiences amongst you all I see.

I would say that what needs to be remembered is that the Oz Con is a racist document due to the race power that it still maintains. That is to say, it is well within the power of same to make specific laws for specific races.

So, for example, if it was wanted, a new law under this power could be made to say deport any unwanted Arab individuals to Naru or Manus Island.

The other thing that has to be remembered is that it was only in relatively recent times that the Original Australians were considered something other than an animal classified under state flora and fauna acts.

(and I note in the link that *Foxy* posted that it is merely said that "the Aboriginals were not included." The reality of course is that when you peel back the niceties of polite speech what you find is far more nefarious.

For example, and for those familiar with the military history, loyal and proud BlakFellas who fought in the Australian army against the Japs in Malaya discovered upon their return that their children had been stolen and given unto some filthy little pedophile church institution.

That along with the earlier out and out genocidal campaigns, the substance poison, the spreading of disease, the transference of children from one group to another, the knowing and wilful infliction of mental harm, and what we have now is a group of people who are dispirited.

So, instead of a dead wood, pencil fiddling, wig parasite picnic, why not do something real in terms of recognition?

So, what do I have in mind when I say something real?

Well, here again, when we look to the history there were some great BlakFella businesses in the past. The example of the stockmen, the hops growers and many others, but unfortunately, these were all taken away from them too.

Way back when land was being given away for "free" the only requirement was to improve the land, and there were plenty of BlakFellas who were keen, but the banks wouldn't back them in the same manner as they did for the whites so they did not get a start.

The atrocities committed against these people is so great that as much as we can do is make best efforts to provide the circumstances within which they will come to want to rehabilitate themselves.

Perhaps in that we can learn from the lessons of China (who well know how to deal with greedy land owners)in what truly makes a person want to get out of bed in the morning and "strike a blow."

..

Many years ago I was in one of the libraries and was reading some very old parliamentary debates. It was actually quite amusing as they were having a whinge because the BlakFellas (wanting no doubt to maintain the quality of their herds of cattle) were only sending the "less good" ones down to town for export.

..

So, being cogniscant of how well received the idea of giving the Indos a go here at cattle farming has been, why not recognise the BlakFellas in deed, and get them involved in their own stations as well?

..

Based upon my experience with the Islamic Indonesians of East Java

(strong backs who work damn hard and have only ever been most kind to me)

if we truly value and seek to preserve this ancient and unique culture, we must let them have something back of their own, and permit them to do things their own way, for their own benefit, by way say of a gradual roll out towards a form of limited autonomy.

Dream on, DreamOn.

Dream on,

What a pile of complete rubbish. Almost nothing you have written can be backed up by evidence, but keep dreaming.

Check out this web-site, if you dare: www.firstsources.info

Joe

Well, a bit of attention from some of the low life, knuckle headed trolls I see.

As for evidence, which of the facts exactly do you dispute *Joe LoudMouth?*

Do you perhaps dispute that there is a race power in the Oz Con? I could quote it in detail for you but it would perhaps be a bit difficult for you to understand, but quite real nonetheless.

As for quality evidence regarding "Original Australian" history, I would recommend a book entitled:

"For their own good"

written by a Phd student from the University of W.A. And if you are interested in reading about the Flora and Fauna Act, and the categorisation of the Original Australians down to 1/8's, you could try a Law Library or even the Aboriginal Affairs Law Library.

How often do we here the trolls cry, "they are not Aborigines, look how white they are?" Well, the reality is, is that was the governing law at the time. Only one generation past 1/8 did the relevant law recognise these people as people and members of the Australian community.

Still, we do not dig up the past purely for its own sakes, but rather to link it to present practice and failures.

..

Admit it Joe LoudMouth, you wouldn't know sh!t from clay would you as you are just a barely literate, common troll.

As an aboriginal from the London Tribe.
I think our people should sue the Vikings for killing and raping our peoples,The Italians from Rome,The Norman French for stealing from us,
More recently London has been invaded by Asian immigrants.
Seriously,
Nobody owns Australia whether their tribe has been here for ten years or ten thousand years.
Australia is Gods own country.

Steady on there, next someone will be holding up the mirror and alleging that the Aboriginals were racist and xenophobic for not welcoming settlers and diversity.

What about all of those new English restaurants, cod'n'chips, roasts and steamed pudding?

Anyhow where was the housing and Centrelink for those settlers? All together now, "Discrimination!!".

Your best shot, Dream On ?

In answer to your question: all of it.

Aboriginal people were treated like flora and fauna ? Prove it: give examples. Their rights to use the land as they always had was recognised - here in South Australia - by King George IV's 'Letters Patent' and in subsequent legislation - and is still the law.

In SA, and probably other States, Aboriginal people were exempted from the restrictions of the Game Act. Is that the sort of thing you meant ? i.e. it allowed people to hunt, shoot, fish and gather food as they always had done. Are you complaining about that ?

Assertions without evidence can be dismissed without any need for evidence. But if you have any evidence of anything you write, provide it and I will give your ignorance the time of day.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 26 September 2014 4:51:33 PM

" ... In answer to your question: all of it. ... "

Yeah, LoudMouth is quite apt isn't it? And I gather that you have a limited education and aren't capable of or perhaps have never even read the Oz Con:

PART V. - POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT

51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxvi.) The people of any race, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws:

You see Joe, people who know me are well aware that I do not make baseless assertions and clearly, as said, you are a fool.

..

Thereafter, Australia implemented its own version of the Genocide Prevention Act in the post WWII era but is quite clearly in breach. These crimes have no statute of limitations and responsible parties are going to be dealt with, mark my words.

..

As for the Indos being involved in cattle in the top end, I suggest you watch LandLine, as perhaps even with your inherent limitations you should at least be able to grasp that much.

For everyone else, I had a quick look at *Joe LoudMouth's* link and quote from one of its documents:

" ... the dominant paradigm, which is being taught around Australia, in schools and at universities, asserts that:

Aboriginal people were ‘herded’ onto Missions;
Aboriginal people were driven from their lands;
Countless children were stolen from their families.

So far, I have found no unambiguous evidence of any of this. ... "

..

What this is in principal is the Australian equivalent of a holocaust denier and I reckon the "back paddock" is the best place for your kind *Joe*

Thereafter you would do well to learn what forms of writing qualify as a tertiary level document and those that do not.

Clearly, you do not as yet understand.

The arrogance of clowns like DreamOn is breathtaking isn't it.

They have trotted off to some institution somewhere & had their little heads filled with a pile of lefty, academic, PC nonsense. Then they have the hide to not only think they have some idea of the truth, but sneer at their betters, who actually do know something.

Dream on, we put up with funding your little mutual admiration societies, but do be a little careful. Keep up the superiority rubbish & you just might find enough resistance to that, to make clowns like you actually earn a living.

Considering your obvious lack of knowledge & life skills, about the only useful activity for you would be cleaning the boots of real people. I wonder if you could manage that.

If that "dominant paradigm" has any legs you should be pleased to trot out the evidence in support.

It is very obvious from well documented reports concerning for example, the treatment of wards of the State, that if indigenous had been discriminated against by the State there are many more who could claim the same. What about the thousands of young mothers from the general population who had their babies stolen from them? Wasn't that forced adoption stealing children too? See here,

Forced Adoption
http://indymedia.org.au/2013/03/22/the-prime-minister%E2%80%99s-apology-to-victims-of-forced-adoption

Forgotten Australians
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/contributors/finally-we-forgotten-australians-are-believed-20091116-igm8.html

Write all of them into the Constitution? If not why not?

Dream on,

Oh dear, sometimes I feel sorry for Johnnie-come-latelies and their mouths.

My wife of 43 years was Indigenous. We've lived in Indigenous communities. We worked in Indigenous tertiary student support programs. Between us, we wrote maybe a dozen articles mainly on Indigenous tertiary student success.

I worked in factories and on farms but went to uni as a mature student. I have thirteen years of tertiary study, including two Masters.

I've typed up about eight thousand pages of documents, mainly from the nineteenth century, over the last fifteen years. Like you, when I started out I suspected that what I was reading and typing up was in some way fraudulent, written with an eye to the future. I realised very quickly that that was absurd. As I typed up more and more documents, naturally they criss-crossed, triangulated, and told the same basic story.

Which was:

* that no children were taken away without explicit cause, i.e. the kids were orphans, foundlings, etc. Amazingly few children were actually put into care in the nineteenth century, and I suspect that there was far less family disruption than people suppose these days.

* with one full-time employee in the 'Aborigines Department', the Protector, and usually only two or three whites on Missions, there is no evidence of people being herded onto Mission. By the 1890s, there were sixty ration depots all over the state (see web-site below); in the annual reports of the Protector, Missions contained barely 16-18 % of the state's known Aboriginal population - during the depression, it went up to 30 %.

* amazingly, there is no real evidence of any massacre of Aborigines by whites. If you know of any evidence, please share it.

* Equally amazingly, there is no evidence of Aboriginal people being driven off pastoral land. One pastoralist declared that he would, but was reminded of the clause in his lease which guaranteed Aboriginal people all their traditional use-rights. End of.

It's all on my web-site, summarised in an article there:

'Re-Thinking Aboriginal History'.

Check it all out, you might learn something.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Joe,

Among all the Aboriginals that I have met who were taken away from their families I have not met one who was not thankful that he/she had been removed to an environment where there was an opportunity for education and advancement.
One chap that I particularly remember was a Uni graduate, I met him at the sand mining protest at Middle Head beach (NSW Nth Coast) back in 1979 and he'd just come from a first time visit to his family and tribe in WA.
He told me that he was not popular as he had nothing in common with his kin, as all that they were interested in was drinking and fighting, neither of which activities interested him.
Eventually they ganged up on him one night and made a big mistake.
This bloke was a big man physically, over 6 ft tall and well built and an expert in martial arts.
He told me that he went through them like a packet of salts, not hurting them much but throwing them until they woke up to the fact that they were far outclassed as fighters.
He said that their attitudes changed and he became a man of respect but that the one visit had been enough, at least for a few years.

"He told me that he went through them like a packet of salts, not hurting them much but throwing them until they woke up to the fact that they were far outclassed as fighters"

He was very fortunate they had none of the favoured star picket nulla nullas or lumber available.