[continued]

In the early days, authorities were often confused when encountering a person by one name in one place, and by another name in another place. One Ngarrindjeri girl, born about 1855 and known as Agnes, lived with one bloke until he drowned, lived with another bloke until he was accidentally shot, moved to another place and changed her name to Mary and married another bloke, divorced him and lived with another bloke - and took different names each time. Maddening for authorities, but fascinating for historians, I suppose !

I wonder what sort of mentality it takes to think that people are no more than their names, and therefore, if they have an 'English' name, they must be 'English'. Weird.

Back to topic: there is a terrific letter in today's Australian, from Anthony Dillon at the Australian Catholic University, Strathfield:

"The quest for recognition assumes Aborigines have different needs to the rest:

"Driving the treaty agenda is an us-and-them mentality. This is underpinned by the questionable belief that the needs of Aboriginal people are fundamentally different from those of non-Aboriginal people. If this popular, though unsubstantiated belief was true, then requests for an elected Indigenous consultative body would be sensible. However, their needs are not fundamentally different.

"Before we have further discussion on constitutional recognition, treaties and elected bodies, let's have a public recognition that the needs of Aborigines are a good education, job opportunities, fresh food, clean water, and safe , clean living environments."

Spot-on: when will Indigenous 'leaders' ever get real ?

Cheers,

Joe

It can confidently be expected that as soon as the rug is lifted on corruption in the 'Aboriginal Industry' (and it IS an industry that is said to directly consume over $30 billions per annum from the trough of taxpayer dollars and an un-estimated amount indirectly and at cost to private industry), that there will be political interests like the Greens and others who apparently must benefit from this corruption, who step up immediately to first, divert and block public discussion and where that fails, wield s18c through the brutish Human Rights Commission.

As if by magic, Paul1405 has dutifully obliged on behalf of the NSW Greens 'Eastern Bloc' and with stories of (often from!) hand puppet 'T' to put all to sleep, but importantly, to hijack the thread. He is not the only usual suspect. Next the '-isms' insults and other BS. But anything, anything at all to block any truth telling where it really matters and for balance.

How can the federal Parliament possibly be considering a 'Treaty' where there may be doubt about the aboriginality of those involved and where whistleblowers, independent inquiries, its own federal agencies and the ANAO have continually reported on corruption and wastage of public money and assets, but these matters remain unresolved and continue to be swept under the carpet?

If the 'Treaty' is about anything at all it is about a grab for the billions of taxpayer dollars and for the indigenous bodies and individuals involved to pull down a curtain of secrecy to escape even the mildest scrutiny and accountability.

Dissent
KERRYN PHOLI - Silencing Dissent Inside the Aboriginal Industry
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/12/silencing-dissent-inside-the-aboriginal-industry/

Allegations of corruption
The Net is rife with allegations that will remain allegations (that will never go away) while the threat of s18c exists. However the federal Parliament already has reports it has not resolved.

What "recognition" for so-called "aboriginals" who do not recognise themselves?

If you belonged to some conquered people and believed yourself to be living under a cruel occupation, if you truly felt that humiliation, surely you wouldn't encourage others to address you by a name taken from the oppressor's culture, surely you would feel hurt and insulted if they do so.

If I were a Maori child in the 1950's then I would carry the stripes on my legs with pride.

But alas, those spineless people are not ashamed to name themselves and their children "Agnes" or "Mary", thus they do not deserve to be treated any different to other Agneses and Marys.

People who identify themselves as ‘Aboriginal’ range from dark-skinned, broad-nosed to blond-haired, blue-eyed people.
Aboriginal people define Originality not by skin colour but by relationships.
Light-skinned Aboriginal people often face challenges on their Aboriginal identity because of stereotyping.
• a ‘full-blood’ as a person who had no white blood,
• a ‘half-caste’ as someone with one white parent,
• a ‘squadron’ or ‘quarter-caste’ as someone with an Aboriginal grandfather or grandmother,
• a ‘octoroon’ as someone whose great-grandfather or great-grandmother was Aboriginal.

These “one-dimensional models of Aboriginality” [41] pervaded literature of that time. Today these words are considered offensive and racist. In fact, racism lies just beneath the surface and it “bubbles out” when Aboriginal identity is discussed [40].
Use of these terms stopped in the 1960s. Instead, authorities tried to find alternate definitions of Aboriginal identity, which, however, were still influenced by colonial thinking. Since legislation for Indigenous people was a state matter, each state found its own definition for ‘Aboriginal’. Examples [1]:
• Western Australia: a person with more than a quarter of Aboriginal blood.
• Victoria: any person of Aboriginal descent.
The Commonwealth Parliament defined an Aboriginal person as “a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia”, a definition which was still in use in the early 1990s [2].

Personally I think that before any decisions are made about anything, the question of aboriginality has to be settled.

I disagree with you on this one Joe. I believe that someone with a small amount of aboriginal blood, who has been raised in a totally European lifestyle, with a white parent, even if the other part has some aboriginal blood, should not be legally classed as aboriginal for the right to benefits. They can call themselves what they want but for all legal matters, including ticking forms, they should be identified with their majority blood and culture. Because genetically and culturally they are white.

Should they be raised in a more traditional aboriginal community away from European life then that's different, but that situation can apply to even white kids who have been born and raised into aboriginal communities due to their parents working there for decades. Culturally these people would be more aboriginal than white, regardless of
DNA.

The reasons for this are threefold. Firstly, children raised in an urban society with access to the same amenities as everyone else, are not disadvantaged, especially if they don't look aboriginal, because they can't even claim racism as an issue. The end result of this is vast amounts of funding is diverted away from the areas it is most needed.

The second reason is that including that specific group in data regarding health, education, housing, employment etc totally distorts the true picture of what is happening with the aboriginal people who do live remote and are disadvantaged.

And thirdly, the huge numbers of those fairskinned urban aboriginal people gives them an unfair advantage in issues that require a vote, especially on issues that affect the more traditional people, and whose lifestyle and culture is totally unfamiliar to these urban representatives.

As I said, I have no issue with people identifying as aboriginal and certainly would hope they take pride in their portion of aboriginal heritage and celebrate that along with their other heritage but for legal purposes, no

doog,

You are wise to give that widespread and systemic corruption in the aboriginal industry a wide berth. Lash that tarp down, eh?

Concerning claims of aboriginal birthright, why would proof be more rigorous for possession of undersize and female mud crabs than for changing the Constitution of Australia or for deciding (and not being fully accountable for) the expenditure of millions of dollars compulsorily taken as taxes from the Aussie workers, many young who are trying to get a start in life?

Those mud crabs, scroll down to the Appo family,
http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/news/2006/aust20mar06.html