Dear Shadow Minister,

I don't think anything productive will be achieved
in any further discussions with you.
I trust that you will find others who will happily
oblige you in further dialogue. I don't see the
point in continuing any further.

Cheers.

Shadow, showing your ignorance once more.

"In all the cases where treaties exist, they were negotiated to cease hostilities between the British colonists and the indigenous nations"

A load of cobblers!

The most famous indigenous/British treaty in our part of the world is 'The Treaty of Waitangi' 1840. The New Zealand (Maori) Wars took place between 1845 and 1872 at its peak in the 1860's over 18,000 British troops and Maori allies were pitted against many thousands of Maori warriors, probably four or five thousand, the war resulted in an eventual Government victory, the Government enforced the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863 and confiscated large areas of Maori land, something of a sore point today. Between 1807 and 1845 a period known as 'The Musket Wars' which peeked around 1832/33 although of concern to the British it had nothing to do with them, and they were not military involved. In fact it was the Official British Resident in NZ James Busby who assisted in the formation of the 'Declaration of Independence' setting up the British recognized (1836) United Tribes of New Zealand in 1835. The British motivation was its concern that France was increasing its influence in the region at that time. Following the 1840 treaty, the first signs of Maori discontent with the application of the treaty took place in 1845/46 with the 'Flagstaff War' led by chief Hone Heke (my partners famous ancestor).

Shadow, what hostilities took place in New Zealand between the British Crown and the indigenous Maori prior to the signing of 'The Treaty of Waitangi' 6th February 1840? It is my view that no such hostilities took place.

Foxy,

As I thought, you can't come up with a definitive reason for the treaty.

Paul,

You're right. The treaty enabled a tiny colonising force to declare British sovereignty over many large and well organised Maori Chieftains, and allowed them later to divide and conquer and slowly acquire most of their land.

Perhaps you could show where this treaty gives the Maoris any more rights than the Aboriginals have in Australia?

Dear SM,

I have come up with a definitive reason (several in fact)
for a treaty but I can't be held responsible for your lack of
comprehension skills and due to that we are unable to
have a useful dialogue.

Enjoy your day.

Dear Foxy,

Do you think I haven't been chewing over the issues of self-determination, treaty, community, etc. etc., for more than forty yeas now ? That I'm going to be persuaded by some half-baked rubbish, for example that in an article in today's Australian by Fred Chaney ? Unbelievable.

Back in 1973, when we were making Aboriginal Flags, we also set up a little journal, 'Black News', dedicated to self-determination; fourteen issues, around 1200 pages all-up, all from our own funds, until we ran out of them and I went fruit-picking. We went to live in a settlement in 1973 precisely to boost self-determination there, in our own strange ways. We learnt by doing if you like, the limits to that airy notion of self-determination.

The notion of a treaty was even further off in the realm of fantasy, even then. But I followed the doings of Nugget Coombs and Stewart Harris and Lorna Lippmann and others in their push for a treaty, and the great Bill Hagan and Lyall Munro Jr. in their promotion of a Makarrata in about 1980-1981. Nothing then was persuasive. But now, of course, many people have discovered the Joys of Treaty and its open-ended financial possibilities.

Clearly, now, in 2016-2017, recognition will not stop at a few nice words, nor at a Treaty, nor at the notion of a separate Black State within Australia. So 'recognition' and 'reconciliation' are antithetical: one means permanent separation (where, for God's sake ? who would go there from the cities ?) while the other will necessitate a long and mutually-interrogating struggle for common ground, i.e. eventual reconciliation.

I choose eventual reconciliation. But now we will have to get over this idiotic separatist hump in the road.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Of course I respect your expertise in this area.
You're the expert. I'm not.
All I have to go by is what I read.
A treaty makes sense to me. Like or not - there
it is:

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/why-treaty