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!