Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

You're right. I am being obstinate and believing
what I read. I should do some more research on the
topic.

leoj,

Your last couple of posts surprised me.

They actually made sense.

I wish that you could post like that - with that kind of
standard, all of the time. I am impressed.

Dearest Foxy,

I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't believe what you read but everybody should 'suspend their belief' unless they have some back-up information to round it out. I suppose a sceptic would say that we shouldn't believe anything 100 %, and certainly not without any back-up, and for any objections to a 'truth' to be satisfactorily dealt with.

So we should stand back and subject any 'new', 'brilliant' idea to careful scrutiny - in fact, the more 'innovative' it seems to be, the more it should be scrutinised. Test it for common sense, weight up its problems and difficulties, its implications and consequences.

For example, the rather innocuous-sounding notion of a separate State: apart from the possibility that the great majority of 'ordinary' Indigenous people won't have a bar of it, many questions surely arise: where would it be ? Who would move there, if they haven't already ? Will Indigenous people be REQUIRED to go there ? How would you draw its boundaries so that it has an Indigenous majority ? Would non-Indigenous Australians have any say ? Sounds like pure apartheid to me :)

It gets even more ridiculous: although its advocates keep their cards, such as they are, close to their chests, it seems that possibly every Indigenous community, perhaps every Indigenous population regardless of where it lives, will be part of this separate State; i.e. an extremely multi-patch 'State'. i.e. an extremely multi-patch Apartheid 'State'.

Have any activists ever thought through this thought-bubble ? Readers of 'Catch-2' will recall Colonel Scheisskopf, moving his men around like pawns on a chess-board, dreaming of how to get them to march exactly in line (a very long, light beam bolted across their shoulders) etc. Have these scheisskopfs ever thought of any implications and consequences ?

Indigenous people can live wherever they like, now. If they haven't chosen to move to some small, outback settlement by now, they never will.

Love,

Joe

How are "They" going to keep the Peace within their own Nation?

My neighbour just came back from Aurukun. The main source of all the problems their is that there are four different tribes pushed into one location. These tribes hate one another. There are Five different languages, one for each Tribe & a Creole of each that they all understand. Aurukun is well known for the troubles with the Police & the Teaching Staff. There are Tribal fights almost every night.

Now some idiot suggest Australia set aside a large parcel of land & put all the Tribes in there. Can I have dibs in the Movie Rights. If they do get Sovereignty over their granted Parcel of Land, What happens then? Does Australia have to provide for them all the Facilities & Services they have access to now? Do they want to go back to their old Traditional Ways?

Foxy posted this;
1) A starting point of acknowledgement.

Yes a Treatey could acknowledge that Aboriginals were here before the coming of the Whiteman.

2) A process of negotiation.

A list of things to be negotiated about. What is on that List?

3) Outcomes in the form of rights, obligations and opportunities.

Theirs & ours (Ours for how long), but mostly in the form of "God helps those who help themselves" because, as a Sovereign Nation they are solely responsible for their own Welfare.
Cont.

Cont.
He then elaborates:

A treaty could provide among other things:

No. That is treating these people with disrespect & as children.

1) A symbolic recognition of Indigenous Sovereignty and prior occupation of this land.

They don't want a Symbolic recognition of Sovereignty, they want Sovereignty.

2) A redefinition and restructuring of the relationship between Indigenous people and wider Australia.

Yes, Normal Diplomatic Relations as granted to any Country.

3) Better protection of Indigenous rights.

Well that would be up to them, it's now their Country.

4) A basis for regional self-government.

How they do that would have nothing to do with Australia.

5) Guidelines for local or regional treaties.

Normal Diplomatic stuff.

6) Structures and systems for local and regional
decision-making processes.

That would be up to them. Australia must not interfere in a Sovereign Nations Internal Affairs.

Hi Jayb,

Curse the English language: does 'State' mean like South Australia or Victoria are States of Australia ? Or does it mean a separate country, like 'the states of Africa ?'

If it means the second, then much of that wish-list would be redundant.

Here's a very crucial question:

Would Australians rather vote

* for a completely separate nation, state, or country apart from the rest of Australia forever, and financing itself ?

* or for a separate state within Australia, spread across the whole of Australia in small pockets everywhere, and financed by other Australians ?

Obviously a completely separate country would have to be more or less in a single bloc, so where ? All of Arnhem Land ? All of the Tri-State territory in the Centre, west of Alice Springs ? The Kimberley (sorry, Big Nana) ?

Would any Indigenous people from elsewhere in Australia go there, wherever it is ? How would it be financed ? What sort of work would people who move there find ? Well, what sort of work would the locals find ? Whose country would everybody be on ? Forever ?

Although I suspect that that first option, of complete independence, might get more support than the second, I suggest that neither option is remotely viable. Clearly, no Indigenous people could be forced to go there, wherever it is, since as Australians, they have rights not to be pushed around the country like that. As well, most would have family and social relations, work, etc., which tie them to their current region.

But I suggest that all those 'radicals' and elites who are pushing the idea be respectfully asked to do it, to go out and live for, say, a short time, five years, ten years, before they try to force this on other Indigenous people.

Maybe there could be a raffle, with each 'radical' or elite supporter putting their name in a hat, someone else pulling the names out according to a list of 'communities': 'You go to Aurukun, you go to Wadeye, etc.'

Joe

Loudmouth: If it means the second, like 'the states of Africa?' then much of that wish-list would be redundant.

Too right it would.

Loudmouth: * for a completely separate nation, state, or country apart from the rest of Australia forever, and financing itself? * or for a separate state within Australia, spread across the whole of Australia in small pockets everywhere, and financed by other Australians?

It would have to be the first option, I think, otherwise they would have to get a Visa form Australia to travel from one pocket to another & back.

Loudmouth: Would any Indigenous people from elsewhere in Australia go there, Clearly,... no Indigenous people could be forced to go there,

They would have too, as they would no longer be Australian Citizens They would have Citizenship of what ever they would call their New Nation.

Loudmouth: How would it be financed? What sort of work would people who move there find? Well, what sort of work would the locals find?

That would no longer be Australia's Problem.

Loudmouth: all those 'radicals' and elites who are pushing the idea be respectfully asked to do it, to go out and live.

They would have to be the first to go. After-all, It's was their idea. Leading from the front & setting a good example. ;-)