It should be remembered that people identifying as 'indigenous' NOW - in the 21st Century - are no more indigenous than any other Australian born here.

We are all Australians: not first Australians and second Australians.

Joe: Taking the king's shilling was a slang term for joining (or being impressed into) the army. Later it became used in the same sense as 'he who pays the piper calls the tune', in other words if you get paid, you do what you're told.

As you note, taking or eating the king's salt has a similar meaning, and a longer history (remember that 'salary' come from the Latin word for salt.) From Wikipedia: The Book of Ezra (550 BC to 450 BC) associated accepting salt from a person with being in that person's service. In Ezra 4:14, the adversaries of Ezra and company, in their letter of complaint to Artaxerxes I of Persia explain their loyalty to the King. When translated, it is either stated literally as "because we have eaten the salt of the palace" or more figuratively as "because we have maintenance from the king".

Basically, the terms are about loyalty to you employer, which for soldiers was the sovereign. It doesn't necessarily imply ceding sovereignty of your land.

Of course, maybe you were just being devious: if you argue that taking the king's 'shilling' or 'salt' does mean ceding sovereignty, then it provides an argument for compensation for this 'because we have maintenance from the king', one sanctioned by the Bible no less.

Joe: 'To that extent, it's [The Constitution] a completely non-racial, non-racist, document already'.

Just to clarify: Clause 51 of the Constitution originally said: 'The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
clause (xxvi) the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws';

The 1967 Referendum deleted the words 'other than the aboriginal race in any State', so that clause (xxxvi) now says:
'the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'.

The clause is still 'racist' in that it still allows the Commonwealth to make laws on the basis of 'race' - it can still make 'special laws' for any race, for the Aboriginal race, the Chinese race, the European race etc.
(See discussion http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/38.%20Federal-State%20Issues/scope-and-limits-constitutional-power).

One of the reasons for the 1967 change was that Aboriginal people were at the mercy of individual state legislation, and the Commonwealth was powerless to prevent injustice, or inconsistencies between states (for example situations where Aboriginal children could be banned from state schools in one state, but allowed to attend in the neighbouring state).

Joe,

You asked me in this discussion
- "which end does one suck at again?"

And in a previous discussion you called me a
"lickspittle?"

What a change that is from "Dearest Foxy" and
"Love always Joe?"

But to answer your question as to "which end does
one suck at again?" I would suggest either one.
I'm sure you'd do well at both ends.

Hi Cossomby,

Would $ 30 billion p.a. be enough ?

So what if pretty much everybody in a group took the 'sovereign's salt', and did so all their lives ? i.e. relied on that 'sovereign's support rather than generated their own support ?

Ironically, at least in South Australia, any able-bodied Indigenous person was refused rations (at least officially) since they had the legal right to go out hunting, fishing and gathering, and were provided with boats, fishing gear and guns to do so. So, if anything, the 'sovereign' refused to give out 'salt' to precisely the most able.

The ration system may have had unpredicted effects: in traditional times, when a drought hit (and as we all know, they hit often), young children would die, old people, especially women, would die, the groups would scatter, perhaps for years, the women would be married off quickly to men in better-favoured, neighbouring groups, and land would be massively depopulated, perhaps for decades, until the group could return and slowly, with fewer women and (for a generation) a shorter child-bearing period (since women would not be giving birth during the long years of a drought), build up its numbers again.

BUT

With the ration system, especially during droughts, ALL members of a group would be assured of food; all the young men could come in; cultural activities could be carried out with much more regularity and continuity; no kids would die of starvation, nor old women. Probably, with a ration system, populations could stabilise, if not increase.

So one could say that the 'king's salt' maintained the Indigenous population through good times and bad. But don't expect anybody to say so.

Joe

.

Cossomby,

Oy. Then change those bits - OF COURSE ! Surely all this farting around for a decade has been about more than changing a couple of bits in the constitution ? Or are you complaining about the bits that were changed fifty years ago ? Yes, it's great fun flogging a dead horse, she won't get up now, this'll show him, kick me, would you, you bastard ?!

Anyway, if you're really interested in the deliberations between the federal and state governments in the lead-up to the 1967 Referendum, you could have a look at the Conference transcripts that are on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, on the 'Conferences' Page. I was surprised to notice how enthusiastic pretty much all state governments were to get shot of Indigenous affairs.

So, we inevitably come back to it: if there is to be a treaty that we have to vote on, what should be in it ?

Joe