Loudmouth: So would you support the call, so loud from activists, for through forensic investigations of massacre sites,

I doubt if it would do anything. It's a matter of Court Record. They were all great uncles involved, seven of them. There would have been eight except aunt Winnie came along that night. They only were Sentenced for killing the Chinese who were living with the Aboriginal Women. That's how Giru became to be settled. My Grandfather & Grandmother used to tell me stories of those days.

Actually in the Palmer River Gold Fields the local Aboriginal used to raid the Mines & take the Chinese. They would tie them to tree branches by their Topknots & butcher them later. Grain fed meat tastes better apparently. But I suppose we are not supposed to talk about aboriginals killing Whites or Chinese. It's only bad if it's the other way around.

OP2: You say most aborigines don't want the change... Where are you getting your facts?

Where did I say that?

OP2: Nice that you can whitewash the breeding out of the black systems

I whitewashed nothing. I said it can be done because they are essentially Caucasian Sub-race Australoid. The Aboriginal DNA will readily mix with Anglo-Saxon because of that. No so with the Amerindians & SE Asians.

The British didn't set out to do that on purpose, unlike the Spanish & Portuguese. However it's happening now. the more interbreeding the less aboriginal & the more white they become. Have a look at Manson, now there's a Ranga Scotsman if I ever saw one.
Cont

Cont
OP2: and fully inclusive Australia for us all...

I support a fully inclusive Australia but they have to come this way. I don't fancy sitting in the dirt around a log fire after a had day chasing Wallabies with a sharp stick.

OP2: Picking the worse case scenario and saying we did better than that is simply an infantile position to take.

No it's not.

Steelie: Let's instead look to our close neighbour New Zealand.

The Kiwi's were a lot further advanced civilization than our still in the Stone Age Aboriginals. Not only that they embraced an Advanced Society, for the time, immediately.

Steele says, "It depends on how inclusive you would like the day. Should our first peoples be included or not? Because when you use a term like 'we newcomers' it can't be anything but divisive."

Perhaps it is divisive, but is it unreasonable if the dispossession is formally acknowledged a on each anniversary (which it has been already by giving back under land-rights legislation)?

Furthermore, given that land-rights is enshrined in legislation, is it unreasonable for aborigines to oppose the newcomers' desire to celebrate their success in building a modern nation, on each anniversary of their coming? (I can't roll with your cherry-picking deflection on this point. The newcomers were of British decent and the later-comers came at their invitation for nation-building purposes. Your 22nd November proposal was better and not yet another swipe at your own culture. At what point will you acknowledge its successes, or is it ALL bad?).

A treaty is signed with a government or ruler when a country was invaded. A Treaty is recognised to live together in Peace after a war. The fact is there was no recognised Government or Ruler recognised by all aboriginals, and there was no war with the inhabitants. If aboriginals consider the British invaded before WW11 then they are now subject to the new occupiers as I have stated above. Anyone who massacred aboriginals or settlers were subject to the same justice of British law.

Hi Jayb,

You suggest that " .... I doubt if it would do anything..... " I guess it would allay any doubts that something occurred, and hopefully the manner and scale of the atrocity. Of course it's far too late to punish any murderers, but at least it may be possible to bring proper closure for the descendants of those murdered.

It's hard for me to judge, of course, since there were not really any massacres by Whites of Aboriginal people in South Australia. Battles yes (Rufus River, 1841, after a Black-on-White massacre); skirmishes after isolated killings, yes (Eyre Peninsula); hangings (two) after Black-on-White massacres (28, Coorong, 1840), yes; Black-on-Black massacres, yes (Mt Eba, 1872); but White-on-Black massacres, no.

But with 60,000 - 80,000 Aboriginal people killed in massacres in Queensland, according to Henry Reynolds, that would be a couple of thousand massacres, on average one for every twenty-mile-square, so surely they shouldn't be too hard to identify and thoroughly examine forensically. Aboriginal people, the descendants of those so brutally murdered, so many, deserve proper closure, after all. Without that closure, how can proper Reconciliation take place ?

Joe

Perhaps the British should have left the country in the Stone Age, or left it for France. That way we could have stayed in the lands of our ancestors and escaped all the whining and self-hatred we get every year from a loud mouthed minority of malcontents. I believe that the Brit's have pretty much recovered from their 1066 invasion.