Dear Big Nana,

What has confused me somewhat are the links that
I've read put out by institutions like the
Australian Museum, Creative Spirits, and others,
giving - "Indigenous - Australia -
timelines" from 1901 to the present, that clearly
show that our Indigenous people have been treated
"differently" to the rest of us. Therefore their request
to have this situation corrected does make
sense to me.

However, I accept the fact that both yourself and Joe
appear to know more about this subject than I do.
Therefore I am in no position to argue with either
of you.

Dear Joe,

No. Foxy does not leave discussions "in a huff".
She simply leaves when she doesn't see the point
in continuing. BTW: She doesn't believe in always
being right - on the contrary - she loves to learn
and be proven wrong. But as you've stated - evidence
is the key and it speaks volumes. Of course it
does depend on what evidence and by whom it is
being presented (or omitted - in certain cases).

I've stated in the past the moment a historian begins
to look critically at motivation, circumstances, context,
or any other considerations, the product becomes
unacceptable for one or another camp of readers.

As far as our discussions on these issues go - we have
found over time ourselves reluctant to modify our
judgements - and this can often lead to a complete
breakdown in communication.

I don't want this to happen, so I prefer to actually leave
this discussion (not in a huff) but with good thoughts.

Cheers.

Foxy, you are correct that until the 60s aboriginal people who were more than half caste came under the jurisdiction of the Anoriginal Protection Act, which was enacted in all states to protect the more traditional people from being exploited.
It only applied to full blood and half caste people and even they could gain exemption from the Act if they could prove they were educated and aware enough to protect themselves in areas like employment, housing etc.
Disregard much of what you read because much is emotive and wrong, for instance, it's not true aboriginal people were counted under the Flora and Fauna Act lol.
It's also not true aboriginal people werent legally allowed to move around the country, nor is it true they weren't allowed to marry white people.
However, since the 60s aboriginal people have lived under the same laws as everyone else, and in certain cases, get extra benefits not available to others.
As I have said in previous posts, I cannot see any area apart from land rights, that would be applicable to different laws.

Dear Big Nana,

There are links available on the web
giving the timeline histories of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people from 1901 to
1969, then from 1970 to 1999 then from 1999 to
the present. They are given by sources such as
Human Rights Commission, Australian Museum,
and others. It makes for interesting reading.

However, Thank You for your contributions to
this discussion. It is greatly appreciated.
And has encouraged me to delve even deeper into
this subject.

For me this one has now run its course.

Hi Big Nana,

I suspect that the goal of genuine reconciliation has been seen as too difficult, and in any case moving in the direction of integration (and/or the despised 'assimilation'). So the goals of 'Recognition' has been proposed, in essence for the last forty or fifty years, instead. But they inevitably trended towards separatism, separation, segregation and a resurrection of the carcass of Apartheid. Clearly, to put this into words, or even to think it all through until that inevitable conclusion, would have been intolerable for most Australians, even if many of the Indigenous elites and 'leadership' were - let's be honest - too naive to understand how evil such an end may be. So all of the huffing and puffing over ten years was reduced to a grandiose reiteration of the forms of organisation and consultation that have been around for fifty-odd years.

But the task of genuine reconciliation - based on truth, which in turn has to be based on evidence - is still there, a huge mountain to climb, a huge task to bring about. But social realities across the Indigenous population suggest that, on the one hand, in urban areas, work and education are embedding Indigenous people more and more securely in productive and comfortable lives; while, on the other hand, (and perhaps this is stereotyping outrageously) out in rural towns and isolated communities (and an urban population in outer suburbs), welfare and lifelong unemployment (and short lives at that) is more and more the rule. In other words, the Indigenous population, never all that united, not in sixty thousand years, is rapidly evolving towards two starkly different trajectories.

The urban working population is hardly likely to give it all away and go bush. But currently, the welfare-oriented population doesn't seem to want to tackle its problems, and they have the backing of the elites in this huge mistake. 'Self-determination' to this population means

[TBC]

[continued]

something very different to what it means for the working population: for a plethora of spurious reasons, they seem to believe that the outside world owes them, and what they need is more power to tell outsiders (i.e. mainly white fellas) what to do, on the principle that all problems have been caused by white fellas, and that therefore they themselves have no responsibility to find solutions, whitefellas do and always will. Of course, one assertion does not necessarily follow from the other, even if it were accurate, which I suggest it isn't, by any means.

Genuine self-determination can only begin to occur once the truth, the whole truth, has been explored by the Australian population. So clearly, some sort of Truth Commission is vital, based not on rumour, hearsay and assertion, but on evidence, corroboration and examination. I'm not optimistic about any of that happening soon, perhaps not in my lifetime. But sooner or later, it has to come about, if only to allow Australians to move forward towards a common future.

Love,

Joe

Foxy and Toni,

There are two major weakness with the "3rd chamber" request:

The first is that a separate chamber only for aboriginals is largely viewed as racial discrimination as of itself and, secondly, if the "3rd chamber" that the RC is asking for is not actually going to have a veto or any constitutional influence on legislation, then this "3rd chamber" has no place in the constitution and there are also other Aboriginal bodies that are established by parliament to provide this function.