Hi Paul,

I love the way OLO threads meander all over the place, touching on so many experiences. Fascinating ! I love it !

I worked down in South Auckland in the early seventies, at Otahuhu, in the fellmongery at Westfield Freezing Works. Most of the blokes were Maori and Polynesian, except some older pullers. If Westfield had kept going, I suppose all of the pullers would be Maori and Polynesian by now. Many fond memories ! Terrific blokes, from Tonga, Niue, all of the Cook Islands, Samoa. They were all really enjoyable to work with. Kapai.

Ah, but BTT: If the issue of 'Recognition' ever gets to a referendum, what would YOU, dear reader, say 'yes' to, if anything ? What do you think the final question may be and do you think it would be too strong, not strong enough or just about right ? Do we need a lot more symbolism, or are you one of those flies in the ointment who wants more practical measures to Close the Gap, and couldn't give a toss about symbolism ?

Joe

I don't agree that the Constitution should be modified to recognise the Aborigines as the first human inhabitants of Australia. It is a fact that they are the first human inhabitants of Australia whether the Constitution recognises that fact or not. A constitution sets out the basic laws of the land. The fact that the Aborigines are the first human inhabitants of Australia has no bearing on the basic laws of the land. A constitution applies to the laws which govern all citizens of Australia. To single out one group of citizens for special mention seems counter to the purposes of a constitution.

It's a symbolic gesture which does not better the lot of the Aborigines but could be a precedent for other symbolic additions to the Constitution of Australia.

Hi David,

But what about a treaty then ? Pre-contact, the land-holding groups were the clans, or local descent groups, the people of a particular totem, as I understand it. Amongst the Ngarrindjeri on the lower Murray Lakes in SA, about 140 clans differentiated themselves into about eight or ten dialect groups (usually at war with each other), and as a single, loose group were called by outsiders, perhaps people from further up the Murray, Ngarrindjeri.

It's a bit like being football fans: some like soccer for some reason, some like AFL, some like rugby, league or union. Usually, say, an AFL fan will support a particular team, for example, the Western Sydney Giants. Somebody else might support Adelaide City in the soccer. Somebody else might support the Rabbitos in RL, or Sydney University in RU. They are all part of the 'tribe' of football fans. [That still wouldn't stop them belting the hell out of each other on occasion, even supporters within the same code, or 'dialect group']. Cricket or lacrosse might leave them cold: supporters of those sports would be outsiders, from other 'tribes'.

Anyway, if a treaty was to be proposed, would it be with each of the land-holding groups ? Or with dialect groups ? Or 'tribes' ? Or confederations of 'tribes', say all the Western Desert groups, or all Nyoongah groups ? Or with 'all Indigenous people as one' ?

The Nyoongah around Perth are getting 320,000 hectares of Crown Land back, as well as - over time - $ 1.2 billion. Would a Treaty open up a new exciting time when people across the country could get all the unalienated Crown Land, that was once all theirs, back again ?

Is it possible that odd groups may occasionally quarrel over boundaries ? And who is in which 'clan', or even 'tribe' ? Can people be in more than one ? And who is to speak for whom ? Ah, so many opportunities !

What I'd give to be a lawyer these days ! In no time, I could buy my own Caribbean island.

Joe

david f,

I agree with you.

However with demographic change, the endless 'diversity-Australia-has-to-have', the activists can see the writing on the wall that says that the Asian migrants in particular will not be as mentally weak and susceptible to emotional blackmail as those young 'white' Skippies who have been drilled in White Guilt and Black Armband History in school.

So the rush is on to get the 'Gold Card of Entitlement and Compo in Perpetuity'. Ka-ching, the activists can practically hear the cash register now. So can the conga line of advocates, lawyers, bureaucrats, academics and talking heads who get their daily bread from the victim industry set up by that pompous, overbearing git Gough Whitlam.

Will the Victim Industry continue to be one of the largest industries in Australia? Successive Labor governments have made it so and all of those receiving Guvvy largesse courtesy of the long-suffering taxpayer do lower the unemployment numbers you know.

Problem is, how to get all of that invasion, secret whatever business (where the 'whatever' changes to suit), Rabbit Proof Fence, Stolen Generations and so on, all of the myth and factoids, shoved down everyone's gullets as well. It is necessary!

Suffer the impoverished taxpayer! Those young working Aussie couples will never be able to afford children. Not to worry, the 'Progressives' intend to ramp up immigration anyhow. -So get ready to pay even more. That's 'progressivism' for you.

Hi OTB,

Surely you're not suggesting that the Rabbit-Proof Fence story was made up ? A fable, a Chinese Whisper, built up and embroidered and modified and transformed over the decades since the childhood of one of the story-tellers ?

Yes, admittedly, there is no evidence for the Story, no newspaper stories, no journal entries, police or hotel records, Rabbit Department records, no references in memoirs (such as in Paul Hasluck's 'Mucking About'), in Mrs Mary Bennett's papers, or in the 1000-page evidence before the 1935 Moseley Royal Commission. But just because there is not a scrap of evidence, doesn't necessarily mean that it didn't happen, simply that there is no proof that it did.

I guiltily enjoyed pulling apart the Hindmarsh Island scam, thought-bubble by thought-bubble, although my wife was Ngarrindjeri and related to most of the participants on both sides, and it caused her a lot of distress to see the genuine Ngurunderi stories trashed by the scam. I wonder what the next Story will be ? It will be fascinating to analyse it, to examine the 'evidence' for it and any gaps in the story, i.e. what ought to be there but isn't, when it does appear.

Joe

Dear Joe,

The English government made treaties with the American Indians banning settlers west of the Allegheny Mountains. the Alleghenies roughly parallel the US east coast as the Great Diving Range roughly parallels the Australian east coast. When the US won the American Revolution it was open slather in Indian territory, and the Indians suffered. In any revolution, successful or unsuccessful, there are winners and losers. Most Indians had supported the English as they did not want their territory invaded. The United States has made many treaties with the Indians most of which have been broken. However, some of them have been kept. In some of those cases the Indians make big bucks by having casinos and other enterprises which may be illegal in the land around the Indian enclave.

Speaking of sports fans the following may be of interest:

In Modern English Usage by Fowler p. 547.

“The writers most of all addicted to it [sobriquets] are the sporting reporters; games and contests are exciting to take part in, interesting or even exciting also to watch, but essentially (i. e. as bare facts) dull to read about; insomuch that most intelligent people abandon such reading; the reporter conscious that his matter & his audience are both dull enough to require enlivening thinks that the needful fillip may be given if he calls fishing the gentle craft, a ball the pill or the leather, a captain the skipper, or a saddle the pigskin, & so makes his description a series of momentary puzzles that shall pleasantly titillate inactive minds.”

I find it a bit offputting when Australian politicians announce which athletic aggregation they support. Completely extraneous to the business of government.