Alt Rave,

Not too many Indigenous people in the 'south' are nomadic: after all, it's not genetic. They have been familiar with Western living for 150-200 years now. It's THEIR way of life too :) If you draw a line across Australia between farming and pastoral districts, maybe what you declare might be truer for 'northerners' but not 'southerners'.

South of that line, and around major towns in the north, you would find very much settled Indigenous people, including the great majority of the 54,000 university graduates. Call it what you like, they have by and large assimilated themselves over those five or six generations and wouldn't have any more idea of how to be nomadic than your ancestors or mine. And chances are that they wouldn't be getting any more assistance than you or me.

In fact, they ARE Australians, with Indigenous ancestry.

Yes, I agree, everybody should get benefits only on the basis of need. And those in dire need, like the poor little girl who is the subject of this thread, should get all the assistance that she is entitled to as an Australian citizen: her useless parents should have no more rights over her than any other Australian parents in similar circumstances. Does that mean that she should be taken into care ? I certainly hope so.

Joe

Loudmouth, I agree with you on the plight of the little girl and all those like her. I must pull you up on a point of clarification. I have discussed this point before, at length. The 54,000 university graduates you mention is a factual error. I refer only to 'real' or full blooded abo's, not the wannabees. The true definition of an abo of any race is that the mother and father must be pure bloods of that race. The true and total number of actual and real abo's by now would be less than the number you quote as being uni grads. So unless these uni grads are ALL pure blood abo's, this number is a serious overreach. I would go so far as to say that the total number of indigenous original inhabitants, ie; aborigines, would be way less than the 54,000 you quoted graduating uni. You are on the money with the rest of your post.

Alt Rave,

As to your definition of 'Aboriginal': 54,000 it is, until you're crowned Life Dictator. Until next year, when it may well go up to 58,000. If you don't like it, no problems, you can just kiss my hairy arse.

Joe

Loudmouth, I can't see the relevance of your response to my post. You cannot be seriously suggesting that the wannabees are to be considered, Australian Aborigines? (just thought I'd use the proper english speak so you won't mis-understand the Aussie white fellas slang). Why you insist on going against your own elders orders is beyond me. So your too embarrassed to call yourself an Australian with mixed heritage. Your attitude is very immature and petulant. All thinking mature men will see that you are attempting to promote a wrongful view, possibly for some personal and selfish agenda. I don't know, but I guarantee you, you are wrong. I and millions of Australians are sick and tired of people trying to mis-represent themselves simply for the purpose of personal gain in one way or another. I'll say it again. If you have any other race in your ancestry, then you are an Aussie. We are not discussing what you feel like or what you believe in. No one cares about those factors when classifying someones race. If you were born in Australia, you are an Aussie, end of story. Oh and to quote a self styled narcissistic wannabee; 'you can just kiss my hairy arse'!

Alt Rave,

I'm not Indigenous: strictly British as far as I know, from convicts from all five corners of the Isles, although there just might be some West Indian convict in there as well. Even if I were Indigenous, I wouldn't have much time for 'elders', so many blowhards and phonies - yes, indeed, including many wannabes and Johnny-come-latelies. But often with quite big beards, though.

As to your ignorant remarks about graduates (you can't believe there could be such things as Indigenous university graduates, do you ? No doubt, you'll make some racist crack about that), if anything, the numbers are conservative. People are re-identifying all the time, that's been going on since the first Census in which Indigenous people were counted as Indigenous, 1971. There are re- and de-identifying processes going on all the time.

Joe

//But often with quite big beards, though.//

Beards are where wisdom is stored, Joe. Haven't you seen Gandalf? Or Dumbledore?

"There was an old man with a beard,
A funny old man with a beard,
He had a big beard,
A great big old beard,
That amusing old man man with a beard."
- Ted Lear, 'The Even More Complete Book of Australian Verse' by John Clarke

//I'll say it again. If you have any other race in your ancestry, then you are an Aussie.//

Sorry, Captain Nuremberg Laws, but there's a massive gaping hole in that logic. There's quite good archaeological evidence to indicate that Aboriginals had contact with other races prior to British colonisation, and good evidence for interbreeding. That means there could well have been a significant proportion of the pre-settlement Aboriginals with 'any other race' in their ancestry, which by your 'logic' means that they were therefore not really Aboriginal, but in fact 'Aussie'. Prior to Australia being a thing. Yeah, sounds legit... [sarcasm]