There was a good deal of surprise among the Aboriginal people that over 90% of the Australian public voted to support them. This seems to relate to a failure to take into account the fact that White Australia consists of two, not only distinct, but usually antagonistic white tribes.

This division is rooted in our convict past and the hatred between the white men who worked in chains and the white men who stood over them with guns. To understand this division it is necessary to recognize that the ‘convicts’ were brought here mostly from the conquered lands of Ireland and Scotland and mostly on trumped up charges, as free labour (ie white slaves) for the English Crown to use to expand its Empire.

This division between these two tribes persists to this day in the two often antagonistic ideologies of ‘an exploited class’ and ‘an exploiting class’. The division is most obvious in attitudes to the Police, Judiciary and ‘the Rule of Law’ (surprise, surprise). It is the difference between ‘horse-racing’ and ‘dog-racing’, officers and enlisted men, and the fire still burns to this day in the conflict between Employer’s Associations and Worker’s Unions.

It is not such a great wonder if many of the white men whose forefathers were chained to slavery felt more sympathy for the black men who were also chained to slavery than they felt for the white tribe who enslaved them both.

The projection by the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Elite that its values were and are ‘white Australian values’ is an illusion formed in large part through the complicity of ‘our media’. In fact such power wielding WASP’s are quite few, the referendum showed that, but they do occupy the positions of power. Just because they are the powerful white men doesn’t mean they represent even most of the white men.

I would like to say to all Aboriginal Australians I am sure do not like White People to judge you by the colour of your skin – please don’t judge us by the colour of ours.

Rob, splitting white society in Australia into two groups is just too simplistic, even if you only target original immigrants. For starters you limit the groups to convicts vs soldiers/establishment, but ignore the 1000's of free british settlers from all sections of britain, some unassisted and some assisted migration. These made up huge proportion of the population by 1900.

Also the success of the different groups seems to be largely geographical. Eg where I came from in southern NSW, the WASP's looked down on those of Irish (mainly convict) descendant, as they went broke and sold up. Where I live now in Northern NSW, the business ownership went the other way, and most of the large and successful businesses are owned by very strongly Irish Catholic families. I'm talking people worth more than $5mill easily.

You are right about one thing though - there is definately still a divide between those of irish descent and those of english descent. I didnt realise just how strong until I married a man of irish catholic convict descent!

Yes, CG, very simplistic indeed and not backed up by any historical / ethnographic research. As for judging people by skin, well we Aborigines know all about the effects of that.

But in general terms I would have to agree that many whites with non-establishment heritage have been on our side. But they have also been the most vehement rednecks I have ever encountered. Indeed the same ‘class’ of people who came in support of Pauline Hanson (remember her?) Their downward envy, their racist mythology, etcetera. So you’re theory is unfounded Rob.

As for the referendum, it should be noted that there was a resounding NO vote in regional areas of Australia. Yes, many did vote to apparently give us formal equality in the constitution, but it did not remove racial discrimination from the constitution, which "is still there". Nor did it affect all indigenous people, confer citizenship, give us the vote, or allow the Commonwealth to make laws for Aboriginal people.
If the referendum asked Australians to repatriate an equitable share of the economic wealth that was stolen from us and our lands clearly the vote would have been a 90% NO vote.

This is what we Aboriginal people know as the fair go ethos you mob like to boast about all the time! LOL

Yes for Aborigines?

How about 'Yes' for Australians as a whole. 'Yes' to contributing to society. 'Yes' to accepting responsibility for your own actions, and 'Yes' to making it your OWN responsibility to be a successful person.

Equality would suggest we all do that. Not just some.

What about 'No' to adding $261 million to the already $3.3 billion of wasted taxpayer Aboriginal funding.
But 'Yes' to finding a viable solution that integrates Outback Aboriginals with western society.

Throwing money at Aboriginals because we feel guilty about the 'Stolen Generation' has done nothing for Aboriginals at all. Allowing Aboriginals to live in the Outback and by their own law has been the biggest set back yet.

I know the idea of 'Westernising' Aboriginals seems like some form of ethnic cleansing, but it is not westernising as much as it is providing all the opportunities possible for a secure future. We live in one country by a majority rule. That means if you take our dole, you take our ways.

There is no future for Aboriginal children brought up in the Outback under Aboriginal law. No Future for Aboriginal women that are allowed to be beaten and raped under Aboriginal custom. No future for the relationship between White Australians and Indiginous population, if we continue to tip toe around these issues for fear of insensitivity.

The sensitive havn't achieved anything since the hug was invented. How about we stop worrying about hurting feelings and start saving lives.

Country Gal, “Rob, splitting white society in Australia into two groups is just too simplistic”

Sorry I couldn’t manage a complete picture of the diversity of Australian culture over the last 200 odd years in less than 350 words.

My intention was to highlight a difference which is rarely even acknowledged to exist. Most of the terms I used were ‘in quotes’ because it is primarily an ideological division and such divisions have no visible signs. Because of this I have had to hint at it with an obvious trait that ‘most’ of those needing to be identified possess. Terms like ‘white collar’ and ‘blue collar’ could be quite useful here too although obviously now many low status workers wear white collars – none of these terms are definitions. These terms are used to hint at an ideological division everyone senses and which translates into quite a powerful social division, ie 'bosses' and 'workers'. On one side there are those who are not prepared to exploit others for their own benefit and on the other side there are those who are.

“You are right about one thing though - there is definately still a divide between those of irish descent and those of english descent. I didnt realise just how strong until I married a man of irish catholic convict descent!”

So everything is right or wrong depending on whether or not you have actually had personal experience of it?

Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 4:03:00 PM
“Yes, CG, very simplistic indeed and not backed up by any historical / ethnographic research.”

Aboriginal land rights weren't backed up by any ‘historical/ethnographic research’ when Arthur Phillip arrived either.

“As for judging people by skin, well we Aborigines know all about the effects of that.”

Good, so you won't be doing any of that then.

“I would have to agree that many whites with non-establishment heritage have been on our side. But they have also been the most vehement rednecks I have ever encountered.”

This raises one of the problems that Aboriginal people have been complaining about for ages. That is the tendency for white people to fail to recognize the existence and importance of different tribes and to regard all black people as one homogenous whole, presuming that they will have shared and compatible values, customs and practices.

Well the sock fits the other foot too – there has been a tendency for black people to see all white people as one homogenous whole and presume that we all have shared and compatible values, customs and practices – well we don’t. Some white men were brought here in chains, they had their lands taken, their languages suppressed, their women raped and their children slaughtered by exactly the same white tribe that did those things to your people.

Of course the division into 2 was simple, these classes also need to be broken down further into different ‘tribes’ with different values and customs. The people who supported you and the people who abused you were not the same people – how could they be? They had the same colour skin – they spoke the same language but they were from a different tribe.

“This is what we Aboriginal people know as the fair go ethos you mob like to boast about all the time! LOL”

‘you mob’ that wouldn’t be a division based on skin colour would it