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!