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

Daniel_21
I think we would all aspire to your first paragraph however I’m sure you are aware of the variables that influence the capacity for achieving this. It is easy to ignore that it was only 40 years ago that we allowed aboriginal people to vote. A long time to be considered a non-citizen! What is pervasive is that the stolen generation did happen and while many would insist on the ol 'chin up' and ‘get on with it’ it seems a tad optimistic if it is imagined for a second for us! I agree, we should say 'yes to accepting responsibility for *our* actions'.

There has been much wasted money. It was irresponsible distribution that seemed to be penance for our conscience rather than funded on initiatives that would have served to empower aboriginal people.

Integrating "Outback Aboriginals". Spending time in 'outback Australia' working and living among aboriginal people confirm many problems. However some of these communities function well and people are maintaining a lifestyle in 'outback Australia'. If it is sustainable, farmers too would like to able to stay on their land! The urban areas have just as many problems. Alcohol, no jobs, no home, no life.

What is 'westernising"? I'm sure they would like opportunities for a secure future - if the opportunities are there. Your comment 'if you take our dole, you take our ways’ seems like a ‘my way or the highway’ approach. It is actually their dole. What are our ways? Many people who are not aboriginal are on the dole - are they taking our ways?

Your references to Aboriginal law seem more like media propaganda. The law does not permit aboriginal women to be beaten and raped. Yes, there is rape and there are beatings, something that happens in all societies but it is not their law.

Culture is not static but it is hoped that aboriginal people can retain aspects of their culture while having the opportunities to create a sustainable life.

We often insist the victim should not act like a victim when he is continually being victimized!?

Now solutions!

I am not anti Aboriginal, not racist, not in any way.
I have friends and relatives who are Aboriginal, and as good as any one.
Time and again some among us look at the dreadful living conditions of SOME Aboriginals and take it for granted it must be the fault of the white man!
Looking at ramshackle houses without windows and doors ,not knowing they once not so long ago had been brand new.
Replacing other once new homes wrecked before their time even burnt down on purpose.
This morning walking in my nearest shopping center, but it could be 100 Australian rural towns, I will be insulted for be white.
Kids rushing by to shop lift will even claim my mum and dad did not wed.
Racism is evil in all its forms, and such racism in Aboriginal community's destroys those community's and getting a kid to school is hard but getting them to learn?
Hard love if that is what it takes and an understanding if All Australians are the same education and accountability are not a threat but a means to the end we all want , a better life for these people.
The fact is some great Aboriginal leaders have said just this, and those who look at this problem from a great distance without understanding harm these folk not help.

Rob513264,

Most of the convicts on the First Fleet were English, a considerable number were Irish but very few were Scots.
At least two were Negros and a small number were Italians.
There was a real racial mix. Just as there is now.

First chance they got many of the convicts became 'policemen' for the Establishment.

Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 2 June 2007 6:14:55
"Most of the convicts on the First Fleet were English, a considerable number were Irish but very few were Scots. At least two were Negros and a small number were Italians.There was a real racial mix. Just as there is now."

I said it was an 'ideological division' but because such divisions have no visible mark I was hinting at them by racial descriptions which 'typically' apply to people with those values.

I am sure that the English who were unfairly press-ganged into penal servitude despised the system just as much as did other races who were caught up in it. My gggrandfather was deported to 8 years hard labour for the crime of 'stealing a gentleman's handkerchief'.

"First chance they got many of the convicts became 'policemen' for the Establishment."

That is why a whole stratum of our culture has a particular 'Kellyesque' hatred for the police - they are viewed as traitors. People who have not only forgotten their roots and but become mercenaries in the maintenance of the privilege of the elite.

The most economically disadvantaged people in australian society are single-parents, not aborigines. That is a fact, check it. I've seen a group of people, only half of them on the dole or single-parent pension, turn a block of weeds into veggie gardens and orchard and build themselves houses out of fallen timber and stones while up the road somewhere an aboriginal community is chaos and disaster.
Sit-down money became get blasted and steal-a-car money.

citizen why is it so many refuse to see the truth as you do?
I truly fear such blindness is keeping the children in such homes victims forever.
No child deserves such parents or such a life.
Is out fear of being racist a tool to keep these people down?

Rob, last time I looked whites were a recognised ethnic group called 'Australians'. As far as I'm concerned 'Australians' continues to be a synonym for 'white Australians'.

We did not determine to call ourselves 'Aborigines' - but by dint of racist ideology and practice, white people have declared the right to name non white peoples and thus by default - declaring who white people were not.

And so it can be argued that White privilege is one of the many "side effects" of racist ideology and racism, the seeds of which were sown during early modern Europe, as a means to justify subjugation of non-white people across the globe.

This is an international phenomenon that the large majority of non-white people are fully aware of (i.e. conscious of), but which white people mostly (at least until recently), are completely unaware of. And this means you too.

What you want me and other people of colour to believe is a that racism does not exist, no longer exists, because you want to absolve your connections to this same privilege of whiteness via a theory that suggests white people are a variegated peoples.

Perhaps you want to be non-racist which is great but avoiding the history of racism simply by mystifying its origins is a joke! Pull the other one.

Citizen,and Belly say it as it is. There are poor whites too who do not turn their lives into drink sodden,drug sodden chaos. But how rare to to hear about it.
Makes far more sensationalism to write about the poor mistreated ,badly done by Aboriginal who has nothing to live for[except more money, more houses, more anything]
There are suburbs where ,given good housing, they trash the houses, trash the neighbours and trash their own kids and lives because they have never valued anything. And Mr Rudd will only make it worse by saying a stupid,"Sorry".
Past government policies have seen to that. Now there is hope with a man like Brough, that something will resurrect these children and give them something worthwhile to live for. We can only hope.

Mickjo, siad like a pure blooded white Australian!

Actually Rob what you said was:

"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."

which is demonstrably wrong and as I pointed out the majority of convicts were English and the charges were not trumped up at all.
You would do well to read up a bit on the convicts of the First Fleet and increase your knowledge to debating level at least.

There was no intention on the part of England to increase the Empire, merely a desire to get the local prison population down and a possibility of having a provisioning station for ships in the increasingly important (barely) Pacific region.
England, at the time, was quite happy for the French to lay claim to the greater part of what was considered a rather useless continent

As a “constitutionalist” it saddens me that people are going along with whatever they have been, so to say, brainwashed with rather then to see the true facts.

The 1967 con-job referendum to amend Subsection 51(xxvi) of the constitution was contrary to the legal advise previous federal Governments had, and hence aborted this, because of the severe harm it would have against Aboriginals.

Aboriginals were from onset in the constitution not to be regarded as some “coloured inferior race” but were held to be equal as any other Australian. The true meaning of Section 127 was not against Aboriginals but rather dealing with financial matters affecting the Colonies (now States).

While the Federal Government in 1908 had created the “WHITE ONLY” policy (legislation) and denied Aboriginals to vote, this was in fact in breach of Section 41 of the constitution. Hence, the way to go about it was not a referendum at all but to get rid of the unconstitutional legislation!

What no one seemed to understand, let alone comprehend, was that Subsection 51(xxvi) specifically had the automatically loss of “CITIZENSHIP” of any person of a “COLOURED RACE” subject to that special race legislation enacted within Subsection 51(xxvi) of the Constitution. Hence, constitutionally, since the 1967 con-job referendum Aboriginals no longer have “citizenship” and so neither “franchise”.
At the time of federation Aboriginals holding colonial franchise (citizenship) then voted in the first Federal election, proving that Section 41 of the constitution protected their equal rights. Now, they have been turned into an “inferior race” that no longer has this constitutional equality. Hence it was the “Aboriginal DOOMSDAY” as I have set out on my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com.

If we do not want to be racist we should altogether get rid of Subsection 51(xxvi) but unless and until this is done we are and remain to be “RACIST”. Also, as every colony supported this Constitution every State therefore is a “RACIST” State and cannot legislate contrary to it!
Also the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional as it is against the "general community" in regard of which there is no legislative powers!

Mr Gerrit - I just want to say thank you for that information and clarification. Great to 'learn' something!

Clem,

you are welcome.

I have concern that you stated;

QUOTE
It is easy to ignore that it was only 40 years ago that we allowed aboriginal people to vote. A long time to be considered a non-citizen!
END QUOTE

As it was up to the States to grand "citizenship" (which includes FRANCHISE) and a few-hundred Aboriginals then were granted this and so within section 41 of the Constitution were entitled and did so vote in the first federal election (even the Australian-Electoral-Commission finally now admits to on its website-after I had a long dispute with them about this also) then obviously Aboriginals were at least "constitutionally" entitled to vote since federation PROVIDED their Colony/State had granted them "citizenship"!
Hence the unconstitutional legislation in 1908 to rob Aboriginals of their right to vote could not be remedied with a referendum but simply was due to the incompetence of the High Court of Australia to struck down this unconstitutional-legislation. The 1967 con-job referendum rather then to provide "RIGHTS" within subsection 51(xxvi) had the horrific result that Aboriginals now are deemed not to be citizens at all! We merely need someone in power who wakes up to that and not a single Aboriginal will be entitled to vote!

I blame the High Court of Australia for this rot as it started this off when prohibiting, albeit unconstitutionally, in 1904 of the usage of the Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates, despite that it was made clear by the Framers of the Constitution that the constitution was to be interpreted using the Hansard records.
It was simply that those Framers of the Constitution after federation and elected/appointed then did an about face as to what they had argued previously and so refusing to allow the Hansard to be used prevented them being exposed of this about face.
The con-job 1967 was obtained by fraud and is a nullity!
I for one have no doubt that had the Aboriginals and other electors been appropriately advised of the severe consequences resulting of the amendment of Subsection 51xxvi) they would never have voted for it.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, that's an interesting legal take on the 67 ref.

It is clear now that this referendum had simply cleared the way for some form of Commonwealth involvement in an area which had hitherto been the sole, and would hereafter remain primarily, the responsibility of the states.

And Aboriginal people have been the meat in amorphos political sandwich ever since.

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, that's an interesting legal take on the 67 ref.

It is clear now that this referendum had simply cleared the way for some form of Commonwealth involvement in an area which had hitherto been the sole, and would hereafter remain primarily, the responsibility of the states.

And Aboriginal people have been the meat in this political sandwich ever since.

Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 3 June 2007 10:29:20 AM
“Rob, last time I looked whites were a recognised ethnic group called 'Australians'. As far as I'm concerned 'Australians' continues to be a synonym for 'white Australians'.”

It is exactly this judgement by skin colour that I was objecting to – I thought you said you weren't going to judge people by skin colour – your attitude is as racist as that of anybody else who judges people by the colour of their skin – black, white or otherwise.

“And so it can be argued that White privilege is one of the many "side effects" of racist ideology and racism”

Oh, the privileges of being ‘transported’ for slave labour and lashed – I wonder what’s for dessert – a hanging?

“What you want me and other people of colour to believe is a that racism does not exist”
That is just rubbish, of course racism exists – my father was a racist and you apparently are racist. Just because some people are guilty does not automatically mean that everyone is guilty.

“ you want to absolve your connections to this same privilege of whiteness via a theory that suggests white people are a variegated peoples.”

You are in fact buying into the WASP elite explanation – the white elite want ‘all whites’ to be blamed for the travesties of the past because it defrays blame from them. Partly by simple dilution – since there are a great many more struggling whites than there are powerful ones and partly by social demarcation. The elites rarely have to deal with aboriginal people, except those who have adopted the WASP elite value set or under special conditions where their safety is assured, and by this social separation they insure that black anger is taken out on whites who are not part of the elite.

Oh no, there was absolutely no difference between the white people who came here with guns and the white people who came here in chains. Pull the other one – its got chains on it.

Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 3 June 2007 3:00:32 PM

“which is demonstrably wrong and as I pointed out the majority of convicts were English and the charges were not trumped up at all.”

And as I pointed out it was a division of ideological class that I was highlighting – the references to race were only as ‘identifiers’ since ideology cannot be seen. And considering your criticism of my representation, pray tell how do you know, 200 years after the events, that the charges were not ‘trumped up’ – we seem to have a lot of difficulty determining even in the present day whether charges have been fabricated or not, eg the Guantanamo Bay detainees issue.

”You would do well to read up a bit on the convicts of the First Fleet”

The First Fleet was only a v small part of the convict intake.

”There was no intention on the part of England to increase the Empire”
Oh, yeah, right – England did not aspire to Empire – what planet are you from?

Rob, look around you and you will see thousands of whitefellas living in homes resting on stolen ground. You bought into it knowingly or unknowingly. But you appear to want to mystify this fact via a cock and bull story about poor whites being the same as poor blacks.

LOL

And it wasn't 200 years ago, it was during the last 219 years dispossession happened. In 1992 the High Courts declaration of Native title validated white theft of Aboriginal land more than if gave recognition of Aboriginal land rights.

Don't confuse class divisions with race divisions. which is what you appear to be very confused with?

Just remember that -

• When you are told about our national heritage or about "civilization," you are shown that people of your colour made it what it is.

• You can criticize the government and talk about how much you fear its policies and behaviour without being seen as a cultural outsider.

• If you declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, your race will lend you more credibility for either position than a person of colour will have. (which is exactly what you are trying to do here?)

• If you have low credibility as a leader you can be sure that your race is not the problem.

• If you should need to move, you can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which you can afford and in which you would want to live.

• You can avoid spending time with people whom you were trained (as a whitefella) to mistrust.

Over to you brother!