Hi Jayb,

Clearly, no Indigenous person would be forced to renounce their Australian citizenship - or would that somehow be required ? I can't imagine too many Indigenous people signing up for that.

No, legally they are Australians, so they would have to be given the option of staying Australian citizens, or voluntarily renouncing their citizenship. That stipulation would have to be written into a Referendum question.

Perhaps that's why there would first have to be an Indigenous-only Referendum, so that we are all - and certainly Indigenous people - clear about what they eventually support. Then that can be taken to an Australian-wide Referendum, if it's at all necessary

I suspect that the great majority of Indigenous people would support a Declaration that "all Australians are entitled to the same range of rights, equally, within the single country of Australia, forever". Something like that.

Joe

Loudmouth: Clearly, no Indigenous person would be forced to renounce their Australian citizenship

In that case they would be required to abide with Australian Law & be entitled to what every other Australian gets or doesn't get. No Special Privileges.

Loudmouth: I suspect that the great majority of Indigenous people would support a Declaration that "all Australians are entitled to the same range of rights, equally, within the single country of Australia, forever".

Seems good. Maybe that should go into the Constitution. Of course, that means that no one would be entitled to Special Privileges, like taxi's to School, Free Medical & Dental, Low Interest Loans or Special Groups like ADSIC, etc,.

Loudmouth: Perhaps that's why there would first have to be an Indigenous-only Referendum,

Would that be seen as Racist? First you would have to get all the Tribes & Clans to agree on what they want. Like that's going to work. Say Cynically.

Hi Jayb,

On that last point: yes, that's what I'm getting at, that it would be up to each individual Indigenous person, to hell with 'tribes' or 'Clans' for the time being, to vote in an Indigenous referendum first, and then whatever they come up with, is put to the Australian people, ALL of the Australian people.

I suspect that most Indigenous people just want to get on with their lives, that they don't much know their 'Tribe' (or Tribes: my wife was related to at least three that she knew of) and certainly not their various 'Clans', and probably couldn't care less.

In any case, since they are not just Indigenous but Australians, they would enjoy all the benefits of Australian law, which says that in any vote or referendum, each individual votes according to their wishes, not according to any dictates of some jumped-up bunch of long-beards and black hats, or some Johnny-come-lately with a new Aboriginal name.

God, I'll be glad when this is all over, when we can all live as Australians, without fear or favour, no special deals, no discrimination - fully equal, no more and no less.

Joe

Dearest Foxy,

Continuing my last post to you, i.e.

"So the questions are: could Aboriginal clans be said to have had 'sovereignty' ? Did they surrender it, by living off a 'foreign' government for more than a century: did that constitute relinquishment of sovereignty, if it had existed ? If so, is it still a relevant concept in most of Australia ?"

I'm sure that, up in the 'North', most people would know not only their 'Tribe', and dialect group, but also their clan, and its traditional name, and its relationship to other clans. Not so, I suspect, in the 'South' where notions of clan and dialect group disappeared perhaps before 1900, given that they were no longer perceived as relevant, or were simply forgotten.

This is quite ironic, because what might have been called 'clans' before 1900, with their particular country, totems (ngatji), etc., have been converted into surnames to a large extent: certainly shorn of almost all of their traditional connotations, but still discernible, and each clan/surname quite distinct.

Actually, people know each other very much (and who they can and can't marry) according to their family name, perhaps being unaware that that denotes their clan name (if they knew it) and therefore their clan country.

It gets complicated because, of course, Aboriginal people are, through their lengthy and diverse ancestry, each related to many clans, even many dialect groups and 'tribes' and countries, and, as time passes, the knowledge of all that passes with it.

But much of this is becoming irrelevant to the majority of Indigenous people. The boundaries of 'tribes' have shifted as people 'shift', or move around regions. For example, the Ngarrindjeri boundary along the Murray didn't quite reach to Murray Bridge, but people right up the Murray to Renmark call themselves Ngarrindjeri, as if neighbouring groups, Ngangaruku, Ngawait, Ngaiawang, (all names forgotten now) along the Murray have been incorporated into that 'tribe'. And most people there now live in the towns.

So what's the total population out there now in remote communities ? Maybe a hundred thousand at most, maybe only

[TBC]

[continued]

fifty thousand (we'll see in a couple of weeks when the Census data comes out). Each community with its petty, little political power-play, the 'big men', and each deeply fearful of the disruptive potential of any blow-in from the cities.

Meanwhile, out there, in real life, what are the issues ? A Separate parliamentary representation ? a separate State ? I don't think so.

Love,

Joe