Like many on the Forum, I am aged over 65, and attended school in the 1960's, and for some, earlier than that. In my time the 'Brown People', the original inhabitants of Australia, were portrayed in books and at school, as a simple, primitive childlike people. The image of the true native was of a near naked savage living an existence of a hunter-gather somewhere in the wild interior of the continent.

I have now discovered that much of what I was taught about the Aboriginal people of pre European settlement days was based mostly on misinformation and/or racism. The sorts of myths tough then, and still perpetuating, and believed by many today include;

1. That there is only one, and there ever was, only one Aboriginal culture. Not true.

2. Aboriginal people were then, and are still today inherently passive and lazy. Not true.

3. Aboriginal people were nothing more than nomadic hunter-gatherers. Not true.

4. Australia was an untamed wilderness before European settlement. Not true.

The fact is, instead of being a simple, primitive childlike people before European settlement Aboriginal society had a high degree of sophistication and the people lived a rather complex existence. The false and sometimes racists narratives of the past are untrue, and we should understand what a remarkable people we now share this continent with.

What I learned from an article by Mike Frost, Head of Missiology at Morning College Sydney

Well we white have failed what you call brown people Paul
To many feed off the money we grant them
Sadly over half are Brown people
Culture? it has been fractured over the past 20 plus years, in truth even they no longer know much about how it was
ABC radio National, Author has written a book on behalf of these folk,
Told us traditionally, right across this country, *people blame, Captain Cook*, PERSONALLY, for rapes and murders
He Must have been a busy man
Education must be for every child, forced if it needs it
Health housing stop forgetting they are in the end, like America's native people, victims of our take over of their country

"Aboriginal society had a high degree of sophistication and the people lived a rather complex existence. "

Relative to a modern western society this is simply NOT true. Just to give an example, I live on a short street with a dozen houses. Within just these dozens homes we have: a doctor, a nurse, a builder, a plasterer, an insurance dealer, 4 retirees, an office worker, a full-time mum and these are just those that I know! The extreme division of labour in modern society naturally leads to a more complex society.
We also have many more societal structures at many different levels than aboriginals: eg- we have structured religions, businesses/companies, formal governments, government departments, organised defence forces, charities, clubs and organised sports, voluntary services (like lifesavers), etc.
Also, our economic system is extremely advanced compared to theirs. This system not only allow us to trade easily between each other across the country but as well across the entire world thus economically deeply linking our society to the rest of the world.

In short, modern Australian society is *vastly* more complex than pre-European times.

Additionally, our collective knowledge is immeasurably greater than that of the original inhabitants. Aboriginals never had writing so were severely limited in their ability to pass on knowledge through the generations. Also they lived quite locally and isolated so they couldn't disseminate knowledge easily across the continent (unlike today where I'm currently communicating with you over a vast distance). They also never established much in the way of maths and formal logic so they cannot describe in detail how the world around them works.

Yes, thinkabit. True. This thread is based on some academic's rewriting of history.

We're all equally intelligent. Every society on earth was a foraging one barely ten thousand years ago, i.e. hunting and gathering. Those societies developed relatively simple technologies. They were organised along strong clan/family lines, in jealously-guarded territories, with a common notion that all non-clan 'others' were not as human and could be exterminated without hesitation. So people spoke a vast multitude of languages, as they still do in many areas.

Such clan primitiveness is evident in my Scottish and Irish ancestors, with interminable wars between groups until barely a few hundred years ago. I was just watching a program about the savagery of clan warfare across Central Asia - nothing unique, of course. Such warfare in Africa and Polynesia and pre-contact America is well-known.

My bet is that, if thorough DNA tests were carried out in China, there would be a very common Y chromosome (male) distribution, but an extremely varied (female) mitochondrial DNA distribution, mirroring the ancient practice of exterminating males and forcibly marrying females. In fact, that's probably the distribution pattern amongst most Aboriginal groups here.

So intelligent people lived primitive lives everywhere, until extremely few areas, perhaps only four or five around the world, developed farming up to ten thousand years ago, probably after a long period of pastoralism and care for animals (most likely by the women of clans) for their milk, wool and hair. Hunter/gatherers resisted farming, and its spread across Europe from eastern Turkey/northern Iraq & Syria, took many thousands of years, more likely by the displacement of hunter/gatherers than any outright adoption of farming practices.

I hope this helps.

Joe

so even evolutionist don't believe some are evolved more than others. Always knew that theory was c ap.

" National Sorry Day", Sunday 26th. May, was bound to bring the virtue-signallers scurrying about. The SMH reiterated the same old same old about how we must "do our best for the most forgotten and disadvantaged people in our midst", completely ignoring the fact that we are constantly beaten about the head with these "forgotten" people. How could we ever forget!

They have been there, non-stop, since the days of Whitlam and 'Nugget' Coombes. When I say 'they' I am referring to people who are no better off than they were in the 70's despite the truckloads of money and benefits that have been showered on them ever since. The majority of people claiming indigenous heritage have knuckled down to life just like everyone else. They are not looking for special treatment, a 'voice' or a special kind of apartheid wall to cower behind while they do nothing.

The divisive aboriginal flag flying over most government and council buildings and state schools constantly reminds us of a deliberately divided society.

And despite the outstanding ability of aboriginal football players in national teams, some racist decided that an 'Aboriginal round' was needed.

It seems that we will never be free of this divisive, institutional racism

Dear Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

It's a subject worth debating.

Very few of us know all that much about our
First Nation's people. Most of us learned
what we were taught at school and accepted it.
Few of us ever come in contact with Aboriginal
people and today we absorb what's in the media.

However, today, there is material available
where we can read and learn and try to understand
things that were not available to us previously.

There are two books that I would highly recommend.

One is - "A Rightful Place: A Road Map to Recognition"
edited by Shireen Morris. It contains essays by people
like - Noel Pearson, Pat Dodson, Rachel Perkins, Stan
Grant, Rod Little, Jackie Higgins.

It tells us that this nation has unfinished business.
And asks whether after more than 2 centuries, can a
rightful place be found for Australia's original
people?

The editor - Shireen Morris is a lawyer and constitutional
reform fellow at the Cape York Institute and a researcher
at Monash University.

The other book worth mentioning is - "Dark Emu"
by author Bruce Pascoe. This book argues for a
re-consideration of the hunter-gatherer tag for
pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians and attempts to
rebut the colonial myths that have worked to justify
dispossession.

Both books should be available at your regional libraries
or for purchase at all good book-shops.

Both are worth a read.

Dear Foxy,

Welcome back !

So there would be Dreaming stories about farming ? cultivating, fencing, tool-making, harvesting, storing, perhaps exchanging ? Sorry, I don't know enough Dreaming stories to have ever come across a farming story. Perhaps someone can find one ?

I wonder why some people are so anxious to assert that Aboriginal people here were NOT foragers, hunter-gatherers, that they cultivated to earth and grew crops. Which crops ? Please don't say bloody kangaroo grass. So, why the reluctance to admit that people were foragers, like everybody was a few thousand years ago ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Thank You for the welcome back.

However my operation was re-scheduled to
late August. I was sent home due to high
blood pressure - (214-217). The surgeon
waited for it to go down. It didn't.
He said he couldn't perform the eye surgery
because of the risks involved.

So, here I am.

I'm due to see my cardiologist soon.

Back to the topic.

I watched Q&A last night. Jennifer Knox asked
for practical guidance as to how can a community
group from an overwhelmingly non-indigenous
community support the movement to have an
indigenous voice guaranteed in our constitution.
Professor Marcia Langton recommended contacting
various groups and leaders to come, speak, and
explain.

The more that we can learn, the more we will be able
to understand the issues involved. That's part of the
reason I recommended the two books earlier. We need
to hear from the voices of indigenous leaders.

Rebecca Jones on the program pointed out that -
Ken Wyatt, an indigenous Australian has been appointed
as Minister of Indigenous Australians. She asked -
does this mean that Scott Morrison is more open to
holding a referendum to implement an enshrined
indigenous voice to parliament within this term - or is he
going to hold on to the referendum as a bargaining
chip for another re-election in 2022?

Paul,

"The image of the true native was of a near naked savage living an existence of a hunter-gather somewhere in the wild interior of the continent

That's exactly what the tribal people that I spent time with in my late teens were like.
Unfortunately for the academics, but fortunately for them, they eventually adopted European ways and consequently had better food and, for the younger ones, a whole new world opened up.

Funnily, they didn't have any of the traditional red cloth for clothing and headbands.
They were not of a weaving tribe, the loom had never loomed.

Paul, "The fact is, instead of being a simple, primitive childlike people before European settlement Aboriginal society had a high degree of sophistication and the people lived a rather complex existence. The false and sometimes racists narratives of the past are untrue, and we should understand what a remarkable people we now share this continent with"

Come on now Paul. Do you really think wandering around the bush throwing rocks & sticks at things in an attempt to catch something to eat is a sophisticated way of life. Yes we do realise this is what you wish for the general population, if Greens can ever get into power.

Why don't you try it some time, & let us know how sophisticated it is, & how much you like it

There are a couple of questions raised; The first assertion by thinkabit is that Aboriginal society did not have a high degree of sophistication, and the people were not living a rather complex existence pre colonisation. This is based on a comparison with modern western society. The reasoning being that Aboriginal knowledge was no match for modern western societies collective knowledge which is immeasurably greater than that found in earlier Aboriginal society. The second assertion by Joe is there is some reluctance to accept that Aboriginal people were simply primitive hunter-gathers. Both these assertions are untrue.

In the book 'Dark Emu' by Bruce Pascoe, which Foxy mentioned, there is reference made that before colonisation Aboriginal people lived in villages with permanent buildings made of clay coated wood. These people baked bread, sowed cloth, created art galleries and maintained cemeteries. Aboriginal people also built dams, worked to alter the course of rivers. They also irrigated crops, used fire to tend and improve the land, and controlled burning was also used to regulate plants and animals. Early European explorers and settlers believed they had stumbled upon a gentleman's estate of gardens and farms.

The primitive culture myth was first described by James Cook, whose writing wrongfully described Aboriginal people as "weak, timid, cowardly and incurious". The acceptance of the Cook style narrative led many white Australians to believe Aboriginal people were a lazy good for nothing race looking for a free ride. The negative disposition justified many of the later evils that were perpetrated against Aboriginal people. As Bronwyn Carison Associate Professor of Indigenous Studies at the University of Wollongong concluded "(The) characterisation of Indigenous Australians as recipients of a 'free ride' and who are seen to be motivated to rort the public purse has its roots in an ignorance of indigenous experiences of dispossession, colonisation and ongoing colonial violence."

Not all are going to accept the above as the truism of Aboriginal experience. Many will stick with the wrongful Cook type narrative.

//Funnily, they didn't have any of the traditional red cloth for clothing and headbands//

Issy, are you still wearing the traditional wig and frock coat? If not why not, you trend setter you!

Hassy, thank you for your bog ignorance on the subject.

Many Australian indigenous are now almost indistinguishable from non-indigenous.
Particularly those who present on the ABC/SBS talk shows etc. Thus far I have not heard of cases seeking compensation for loss of pigment. Has Michael Jackson had any influence on this phenomenon ?

Paul would have liked to post a link here but did not
It is well worth the reading and in the SMH it tells us true out back law is being done by police and at the invitation of elders, who run the whole thing
For our first nations true out back folk our law is of no use

Paul 1405, but they were a near naked race living a relatively simple existence as hunter gatherers. Just as our remote ancestors were.
They were also a very violent society, where murder, mutilation, infanticide and canabalism were seen as normal.
In fact one of the cultural shocks I had to endure whilst living with remote traditional people was the everyday acceptance of violence, to a degree I had never experienced and which I still have problems accepting. And no,this is not some reaction to colonisation, my father in law grew up in an extremely remote, almost untouched tribe inthe far north west and his stories of how women and babies were brutalised were horrifying.
This is not to say they were not intelligent, simply they were so isolated from the rest of the world that they hadn’t evolved past the Stone Age. Certainly since settlement they have proved how smart and adaptive they are, especially when provided with the right motivation.

Paul,

While much of what you say is true and I support changes to constitution to remove racial discrimination in the constitution and grant recognition of the first peoples, I baulk at the attempts to insert new racially based privilege into the constitution.

The Uluru statement goes too far and attempts a form of entrenched apartheid.

For anyone interested in what the Uluru statement
is really all about the following two links explain:

http://www.1voiceuluru.org/the-statement

And -

http://www.1voiceuluru.org/what-happened-next

SM,

Can you cite any sections in the Constitution which maintain racial discrimination ?

As for recognition: five thousand organisations, Indigenous members in almost all Australian parliaments, a $ 33 billion annual expenditure, land councils, peak bodies, spokespeople in every field, flags, changing of place-names - how are Indigenous people NOT recognised ? I would support a Preamble to the Constitution, but since Indigenous people are Australians like all other Australians, with all the rights of Australians, we've gone about as far as we can go, or need to go, in that direction.

There is enormous work to be done in Indigenous communities to reduce violence (as Big Nana says), child neglect, sexual abuse, drug and grog addiction, misuse of publicly-provided housing and vehicles, etc., and cto generate genuine economic activity. These are tasks which intelligent people in communities, with the policy of self-determination, should be tackling themselves. Indigenous people are NOT children: they can and should resolve their own problems. The funding is surely there to do it.

So the big question is: why aren't they ? How much longer can that question be avoided ? How many more women and children have to die ?

Joe

I oppose aboriginal sovereignty over any part of the continent, so a treaty which presumes the existence separate sovereign states, is something I further oppose. This view extends to the silent majority of Australians, I believe, who will not be swayed.

Reconciliation, to me, is about ensuring aborigines take their place beside every other Australian and, through endeavor, share in what this country has to offer. The aim is to help them to develop that endeavor rather than sink into dependence.

Reconciliation is also about removing from the constitution anything which sets aborigines apart, such as any ability to make laws that apply only to them such as occurred in the NT. It's about removing divisions, not constructing them, no matter what some aborigines might prefer.

I don't care how anyone arrived to citizenship whether by boat, plane or land-bridge, we are one nation AFAIAC, and will stay that way.

I can't believe that we are still arguing about
righting a wrong in this day and age.

We've all
heard the same old arguments - of "give them an
inch and they'll take a mile" or that " we are
all Australians - and what's good for some should
be good for all".

The fact remains it's not good for all.

The Constitution is the founding document of our nation.
And it is the pre-eminent source of law. But it makes no
mention of our Indigenous people.

It was drafted at a time when Australia was considered
a land that belonged to no one before European
settlement and when our Indigenous people were
considered to be a "dying race not worthy of
citizenship or humanity."

Our Indigenous people were excluded from
discussions about the creation of a new nation to be
situated on their ancestral lands and waters.

Yet the nation's founding document does not mention
Australia's Indigenous people.

All that is being asked is that it should.

Two centuries
later we're still arguing about it?

Another important fact is that the Australian Constitution
also permits the Commonwealth Parliament to validly enact
laws that are racially discriminatory.

The Australian
Constitution currently contains no protections against
racial discrimination and the Parliament is capable
of suspending existing statutory protections. The protections
under the Racial Discrimination Act have been removed on
several occasions - each time it has involved Indigenous
issues.

To me it does not appear to be asking for too much to
correct history. The only way we can change the
Constitution is if a majority of voters in a majority of
states vote YES at a Referendum. I'm sure that the
majority of Australians would. The same as they did
for same sex marriage.

cont'd ...

I would like to add that the Australian Constitution
permits the Commonwealth Parliament to validly enact
laws that are racially discriminatory. Section 25
recognises that the states can disqualify people
on the basis of their race from voting.

Section 51 allows laws to be made based upon a
person's race.

We need to ask ourselves whether these provisions reflect
a modern Australia?

The following links are useful:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-33404898

And -

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-why-reform-constitution-needed

Dear Foxy,

By all means, have a referendum to get rid of those archaic and obscure (and more or less inoperable) clauses in the Constitution. Then we can move on.

I'm all for a Yes vote in any referendum, provided the proponents can persuade me that I should vote Yes.

Mention in a Preamble to the Constitution: yes, depending how it's worded.

But somebody mentioned a Treaty: what, a blank bit of paper that can be filled in later ? That binds all Australians ? No. Give us all something to vote for or against. How can anybody in their right mind approve a clauseless 'Treaty' ? And how can a 'Treaty' come AFTER everything has more or less been settled in terms of equal rights ?

Similarly a referendum on a 'Voice': Indigenous people all have voices, their own, and those of five thousand organisations, many parliamentarians, etc., etc., etc. Give me a reason, just one, why there should be a special right for one group of people against the rest.

There are very serious problems out in remote communities and elsewhere: when these are resolved by the people involved themselves, since they are intelligent people like anybody else, and the problems of violence, neglect, drug and grog abuse, etc., (with life expectancy often barely half the national average: short, violent AND boring, meaningless lives) have been mainly created and maintained by the people themselves, I'll wait until all of that has been cleared up before I lift a finger on any Referendum.

Joe

Foxy,
"The only way we can change the
Constitution is if a majority of voters in a majority of
states vote YES at a Referendum. I'm sure that the
majority of Australians would. The same as they did
for same sex marriage."

Now you are rewriting history;
There was no referendum on same sex marriage, the proponents thereof were terrified of a referendum, so we had an expensive opinion poll instead.

Dear Joe,

The Australian Government honoured Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people as the "oldest
continuing cultures in human history" in the
national apology to the Stolen Generations.
Yet the nation's founding document does not mention
Australia's Indigenous people.

The story of our nation is incomplete because our
Constitution, described by the Australian Government
as the "birth certificate of our nation" is
silent on the histories of the people who inhabited this
continent before European settlement.

When the Constitution was being drafted Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people were excluded from the
discussions concerning the creation of a new nation to
be situated on the Ancestral Lands and Waters.

The Constitution ignores the presence of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander peoples prior to
European settlement.

It is time for the Australian Constitution to reflect the
Australian identity and recognise our Indigenous history.

The Australian Constitution also permits the Commonwealth
parliament to validly enact laws that are racially
discriminatory and contemplates disqualifying people
from voting on the basis of their race (Section 25).
Section 51 allows laws to be made based upon a person's
race.

During the Referendum process the nation will be called
to answer whether these provisions reflect a modern
Australia.

Before we can ask our Indigenous people to accept
responsibility for their actions today - we need to accept
responsibility for our own. We need to correct the
wrongs of the past and not pretend they did not
happen. Several centuries have passed.
It is time to act in order to be able to move forward.
The past will not be buried until we do this.
Because it still exists today - and does not reflect modern Australia.

Is Mise,

You need to read what I actually wrote not what you think
I wrote. Do not put your words into my mouth.

Foxy,

""The only way we can change the
Constitution is if a majority of voters in a majority of
states vote YES at a Referendum. I'm sure that the
majority of Australians would. The same as they did
for same sex marriage."

There, I read it again and you are saying
"...vote YES at a referendum...The same as they did for same sex marriage.

They did not vote at a referendum for same sex marriage.

You should analyse what you write before pushing the button.

Dear Foxy,

All societies in the world have always had continuing culture - what on earth would a discontinuous culture even look like ?

Do you mean the oldest 'unchanging' culture ? I don't see much positive about that: it may well mean 'a culture which doesn't learn anything in changing circumstances'. And of course, all societies do learn in changing circumstances, otherwise they rapidly disappear.

Of course, Aboriginal culture has always been changing: people may not have been aware of change but it must have been happening. Droughts would have meant people left their areas, perhaps for decades or even hundreds of years, and had to sort of re-invent dreaming stories when their descendants eventually went back.

So, just like every other culture in the world, Aboriginal culture has been continuous AND changing. The common traditional feature of forgetting makes continuity that much more difficult, even after just a few generations.

I wish people would think through what fatuous assertions imply instead of accepting them uncritically, perhaps out of fear of seeming racist. Don't let that BS get in your way :)

Love,

Joe

Is Mise,

The points I was making were:

1) In order to change
the Constitution voters would have to vote YES
in a Referendum.

2) I am sure that the majority of voters would
support this.

3) Just as they supported same
sex marriage.

In other words the support would be there as it was
for same sex marriage.

I did not mention that same sex marriage was a referendum.
Only that it was a requirement to change the Constitution.
And that the majority of voters would support it as they
did for same sex marriage.

I can't make it any clearer for you.

Dear Joe,

This is about correcting the history of the people
who inhabited this continent before European
settlement. It is time for the Australian
Constitution to reflect our Australian identity
and recognise our Indigenous history.

It is also time to remove the archaic racially
discriminatory laws to ensure equality of
treatment of all people regardless of race.

Until that is done this nation has unfinished business.

Foxy,

"2) I am sure that the majority of voters would
support this.

3) Just as they supported same
sex marriage."

There you go again, trying to change history or suffering from poor English usage.

The majority of voters didn't support same sex marriage, only a majority of those who responded to the voluntary opinion poll.

Issy, you continually try to split hairs to create an argument with Foxy, nothing is served by being so cantankerous.

Foxy thanks for the posts on this topic, they make for most interesting reading.

Yes Joe, there are many problems besetting indigenous peoples in all the lands where they are dominated by the European and his way of life. That is not to say we should not be doing our upmost to correct each and everyone of those injustices suffered by our first nation people. Even though the problems are many, and there is a long way still to travel, much is being done, and hopefully the day will come when indigenous people everywhere achieve true equality.

If fewer people didn't so opportunistically & unwarranted identify as indigenous then those "problems" wouldn't even exist !

Paul 14.05 Kim from Byron Bay.

If Aboriginals had any worth to the new colony, enslaving them would be a natural response to the colonists.

While Folau managed five thousand sympathetic votes for his persecution as a Christian, there were two hundred a fifty thousand votes in support of flying the aboriginal flag from the Sydney harbour bridge.

Sad really, our cultural heritage is considered inferior to the aboriginal cultural heritage.

Dan

Paul.

"Issy, you continually try to split hairs to create an argument with Foxy, nothing is served by being so cantankerous."

There is TRUTH to be served.

Hi Dan,

//If Aboriginals had any worth to the new colony, enslaving them would be a natural response//

Not sure if that would be the case, as a common treat with slaves is to a take them some distance from their homeland, in that way its difficult for them to turn rabbit and run. The British tried to "enslave" the Fijians to work the sugar plantations in Fiji. This failed, not because the Fijians were unable to work sugar, they simply just ran off. The British then imported "slaves" from India to do the work.

I fail to see the correlation between the Falou hate speech and passively flying the Aboriginal flag from the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

//Sad really, our cultural heritage is considered inferior to the aboriginal cultural heritage.//

By whom? I fully support the rights of Aboriginal people, but I have never thought that way. Australians have struggled with cultural identity in the past, and have at times tried to create something out of nothing, that's true.

Do white Australian actually have a culture apart from money ?

Foxy, a referendum to change be the constitution requires a majority vote in the majority of all the states and that is almost impossible to achieve. The ssm vote didn’t even get a majority vote, less than 50% of eligible voters said yes. And it wasn’t compulsory.
As far as changing the constitution goes to give everyone equal rights, if that happened, then aboriginal people would actually lose some of the benefits they get these days.
You have no idea of some of the extra money given to aboriginal people in regards educational and health support, in comparison with what white people living very remote get.
And where else does the government build public housing on private land, as happens in remote communities?
And who else gets royalties, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, without having to pay tax or declare to Centrelink?
No, aboriginal people already have more than equality. My children and grandchildren have access to services denied to me and far more choices in life than I ever had.

Is Mise,

Talking about truth?

We have been through this previously with same
sex marriage. I thought that we'd cleared that
up - that of course it was a given that it
was the total turnout - those who voted - that
were counted and you know full well that
YES respondents were 61.6%. The NO respondents
were 38.4%. 0.3% were unclear. And the total
turnout was 79.5%

Dear Big Nana,

All that is being asked is for the people of Australia
to take a stand on this issue. We won't know the
results until they do. However our Indigenous people
are asking for this step to be taken and I personally
can't see any reason that it should not be taken.

Foxy,

"2) I am sure that the majority of voters would
support this.

3) Just as they supported same
sex marriage."

The majority of voters didn't support same sex marriage, only a majority of those that responded to the opinion poll, that is the whole point.

Dear Foxy,

You assert that " ... our Indigenous people are asking for this step to be taken and I personally can't see any reason that it should not be taken."

Well, some Indigenous people are asking, but I suspect that the great majority don't care one way or the other, apart from the office-holders in the five thousand organisations around the country, andctheir relations.

Apart from that, it would be nice to know what we are all supposed to vote on down the track, as Ken Wyatt suggested. If we're talking about a 'Voice', surely Ken Wyatt's will go a long way as Minister ? And without any need to insert some special right for anybody into the Constitution, just maybe a Preamble - win -win !

Then we - all of us, since we're all equally entitled to a 'voice' in those processes - can get onto filling out what is meant by some of the other thought-bubbles: Treaty, Preamble to the Constitution, 'nation', whatever other bubble is thought up.

Love,

Joe

Is Mise,

The ones that did not respond don't count.
That is the point.

Foxy,

"2) I am sure that the majority of voters would
support this.

3) Just as they supported same
sex marriage."

"The ones that did not respond don't count.
That is the point."

Then why include them, or did you really mean that you meant only those voters who responded to the opinion poll?

Poor English usage.

Is Miserable good to see your bitterness is not just reserved for me
Ever given any thought to the chance you are far from as bright as you think?

Is Mise,

You are the one that's including them.
Not me.

Dear Joe,

The US, Canada, and New Zealand have all moved to
recognise their Indigenous people in their
respective constitutions. Australia is still
struggling to do so. Many Indigenous people
want a treat instead. The US government has more
than 350 treaties with Native Americans. Norway's
constitution recognises the country as as -
bi-cultural.

You mentioned the preamble.
The preamble is not part of the constitution and any
change would have no legal consequences.

Frankly, I am at a loss as to why anybody would object
to what is being asked. Reputable journalist -
Jeff McMullen sums things up rather well when he says:

" A glance at the constitution reveals the deep stain of
racism and discrimination. It is one of the few constituions
in the world today with negative race powers allowing
governments to make laws and policy that pointedly trample
the rights of Indigenous people."

What other indigenous people around the world are better looked after by the descendants of their conquerors than here in Australia ?

Individual,

Our constitution is one of the few constitutions
in the world today with negative race powers
allowing governments to make laws and policy
that pointedly trample the rights of Indigenous
people.

The Australian Constitution currently contains no
protections against racial discrimination and
the parliament is capable of suspending existing
statutory protections.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-reform-constitution-needed#reform1

Belly,

"Is Miserable good to see your bitterness is not just reserved for me
Ever given any thought to the chance you are far from as bright as you think?"

No.

Indigenous Australians should be treated the same as all other Australians.

What we want/need are one Australia and one people.

No special rights for any one group.

Is it not racist to have an Indigenous Football Team?

All other Australians are barred and selection is not only on ability but on race.

The only people to be recognized in the Constitution should be Australians, without any racist overtones.

Foxy,

You said,

"The only way we can change the
Constitution is if a majority of voters in a majority of
states vote YES at a Referendum. I'm sure that the
majority of Australians would. The same as they did
for same sex marriage.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 29 May 2019 11:21:29 AM"

I'll say again, the majority of Australians did not vote for same
sex marriage.

Bye the way, the Constitution could be changed if the majorities voted 'NO', it depends on how the question is phrased.

Is Mise,
Good to see I am not the only one that reminds foxy that she miss represents things occasionally.

Is Mise,

The majority who voted did!
The legislation has been passed
accordingly.

HenryL,

I don't misrepresent anything.
I state the facts. I can't be
held responsible for people's
comprehension skills (lack of).

Is Mise,

At present the Constitution does have racist
overtones. Therein lies the problem that needs
to be corrected. It is one of the few constitutions
in the world with negative powers allowing
governments to make laws and policy that pointedly
tramples the rights of Indigenous people.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/constitutional-reform-faqs-reform-constitution-needed#reform1
That link is merely a feel-good for academic idealists most of whom wouldn't last two days in an indigenous community after pension day !

Foxy,

Right, then let's have a referendum to get rid of those archaic clauses, especially the one about the power to make special laws for Indigenous people. i.e. NO special laws for any group - NO discrimination.

Thanks for that.

Joe

Dear Joe,

There's an old saying -

"If we can't see eye to eye
Lets try heart to heart."

Enjoy your evening.

"There's an old saying -

"If we can't see eye to eye
Lets try heart to heart."

Enjoy your evening"

In other words, "I'm stumped for an answer".

There's a petition on Change Org re the proposed Cook memorial'

Included in the anti blurb is this gem,

"James Cook was directly responsible for the European invasion and colonisation of Australia. It had a devastating impact on our indigenous people."

What piffle.

Is Mise,

I do have an answer - but all you
seem to know is piffle.

Foxy,
I recall you quoting a federal politician and not being able to verify the quote. One should ensure that the person being quoted actually said what is claimed he/she said. But according to you it is OK to misrepresent what someone has said. In this case it appears to be totally made up by you and is completely incorrect. You cannot even claim 'out of context'. I call that misrepresentation.

What other indigenous people around the world are better looked after by the descendants of their conquerors than here in Australia ?

Nothing ? Anyone ? Where's the Flak ? Surely I couldn't be that close to the mark ?

Just for you Indy, the indigenous Lapps of Norway and Sweden are better looked after than the indigenous people of Australia. can you show that they are not?

Paul1405,
Don't twist words again. I asked a question not put forward a query. Btw, how did the Lapps compare to the Aborigines when they were taken over & when was that ? Were the Lapps nomadic too? Did they have settlement communities & houses unlike the Aborigines ?
nb. This is a question to you, not a query !

Paul & Foxy,

Perhaps you're both right - if we complain and carp about something for long enough, it will reverse itself. In this case, with just a bit more complaining and carping, we can all go back to before 1788.

Yeah, that would be so good. That would show them.

OR we can recognise that what has happened in history has happened and can never un-happen. The Normans invaded England. Napoleon invaded Russia. The European powers colonised Africa. The British invaded Aotearoa. The US invaded Iraq. None of that can un-happen.

Twenty five million people now live in Australia. They're not going back to wherever they came from. Cities and roads and bridges can't be easily un-built. The past has happened and it can't be reversed even by prayer.

Joe

Foxy,

I don't think anyone here has a problem with removing the racial elements in the constitution or recognising the first peoples in the preamble, the difference is whether the indigenous peoples are given additional rights over and above the rest of the Australians based on their race.

Dear Joe and Shadow Minister,

All that is being asked is that Indigenous people be
officially recognised in our Constitution
and that the negative race
powers allowing governments to make laws and policy
that pointedly trample the rights of our Indigenous
people be removed from our Constitution.

I'm sure that the majority of Australians would want our
Indigenous people to be officially recognised.

The US, Canada, and New Zealand have all moved to
recognise their Indigenous people in their respective
constitutions.

Why is Australia still struggling?

Joe, you say we should go back to the past?
For our Indigenous people - they are being forced to live
in the past by not being recognised in our Constitution.
That needs to change so that they can move on along with
the rest of us. It is time the wrongs of the past were
fixed.

The so-called Racial elements in the Constitution mean nothing, any attempt to pass negative laws would be struck down by the High Court as there is only one race, the Human Race as regards human beings.

Are the English a race, the Scots, the Irish, the French, the Italians, the Indians, the Russians or the Americans?

Race is an illusion from past centuries and only the gullible will be drawn in by the current posturings of some parties that stand to gain from wanting Constitutional change.

There are groupings of peoples within the Human race but there is only one race.

The Australian Constitution can be changed
by referendum according to the rules set out
in section 128 of the Constitution.

A proposed change must be approved as a bill by
the federal parliament. It is then sent to the
Governor General in order for a writ to be issued
so a referendum can occur.

A referendum is a national ballot on a question to
change the Australian Constitution. In a referendum
the parliament asks each Australian on the
electoral role to vote. If a majority of people in
a majority of states and a majority of people across
the nation as a whole vote yes (called a double
majority) then the proposal to amend the Constitution
is agreed to.

Otherwise the Constitution remains unchanged.

Since 1906 when the first referendum was held Australia
has held 19 referendums in which 44 separate questions
to change the Australian Constitution have been put to
the people. Only 8 changes have been agreed to.

One of these was the 1967 referendum (in which 90.77%
of people voted yes) which gave the power to the
Commonwealth to make special laws for Indigenous
Australians.

How the Constitution is interpreted and has also changed
and evolved has all occurred under our existing
Constitution and has been brought about by High Court
decision.

A dislike of responsibility & an un-willingness to pull one's weight has nothing to do whatsoever with race !

And just how are you pulling your weight Indy? You asked "What other indigenous people around the world are better looked after by the descendants of their conquerors than here in Australia?" You got the answer, Lapps. You thought the answer was nobody, but I gave you the right answer.

Hi Foxy; Just picked up from my local library 'The Biggest Estate on Earth' by Bill Gammage, sub titled 'How Aborigines Made Australia'

but I gave you the right answer.
Paul1405,
No you didn't, you just used a cheap excuse !
We could say of any European group that has made an effort to integrate that its people are treated well. On top of it all, there's simply no comparison, in fact it's a wrong comparison.
The Celts, the Romans, the Vikings etc all have integrated, the majority of Aborigines haven't !
They never will because even those whiter than a European will forever keep tearing at the scab that is a convenient excuse for many to bleat victimisation !
Victimisation is easy to display when it plays so well into one's hand !

Dear Paul,

This is a fascinating subject.
I watched The Drum last night. They had
the author - Bruce Pascoe who wrote
"Dark Emu" as a guest. It was interesting
to hear what he had to say.

My husband has
just gone off to my bookshop (Readings) to pick up
"Dark Emu"and "A Rightful Place: A Road
Map to Recognition" edited by Shireen Morris,
for me. I'm looking forward to reading them
both.

I'm also thinking of doing a course of study on
this subject at Melbourne Uni. It's got my interested
in following things up. It may just be the challenge
I need in my life right now.

Paul,

Just where were the Indigenous villages, with houses and gardens/fields?

How about a reference to something on the web?

Dear Paul,

There's an interesting book by Paul Memmott -
"Gunyah, Goondie and Wurley: The Aboriginal
Architecture of Australia," that covers some
interesting facts about how our Indigenous
people lived. It's worth having a look at:

http://www.creativespirits.info/resources/books/gunyah-goondie-and-wurley

Dear Foxy,

Dark Emu is a great eyeopener. There are other early explorers and settlers/invaders who were quite effusive in their assessment of indigenous people in our area of South West Victoria saying they had superiour health, humour and intelligence to most European classes.

“Generally speaking, I think them well disposed, and in point of capacity not inferior to Europeans ; of their usefulness there can be no doubt ; under judicious management I am of opinion they might be induced to attach themselves to settlers ; their tastes for occupation vary much in the same manner as white people's.”
Roadknight

But as the land theft accelerated and the inevitable clashes escalated attitudes changed.

Near us is Lake Condah or Budj Bim where many kilometers of eels sluices and traps were dug sustaining a large village with numerous stone huts. The Aboriginal Protector Robinson speaks of up to a thousand aborigines gathered during the height of the eeling season. Robertson writes of the extent of some of the works in place.

“From conversations I had with the natives it appears that this was a favourite spot. It was the home of several families. [blank] took me to several spots where he had resided and had worns or huts. He also took me to a very fine and large weir and went through, with several other of the natives, the process of taking eels and the particular spot where he himself stood and took them. I measured this weir with a tape, 200 feet; 5 feet high. It was turned back at each end and 2 or 3 holes in the middle was left for placing the eel pots as also one at each end. The eel pots are placed over the holes and the fisher stands behind the yere.roc or weir and lays hold of the small end of the arrabine or eel pot.

Cont..

Cont..

And when the eel makes its appearance he bites it on the head and puts it on the lingeer or small stick with a knob at the end, ... or, if near the bank, he throws them out. The fishing is carried on in the rainy season. Arrabine or eel pot made of bark or plaited rushes with a willow round mouth and having a small end to prevent the eel from rapidly getting away.”

“At the confluence of this creek with the marsh observed an immense piece of ground trenched and banked, resembling the work of civilised man but which on inspection I found to be the work of the Aboriginal natives, purposely constructed for catching eels. A specimen of art of the same extent I had not before seen and therefore required some time to inspect it, and which the absence of transport enabled me to do. These trenches are hundreds of yards in length. I measured at one place in one continuous trepple [triple] line for the distance of 500 yards. These treble watercourses led to other ramified and extensive trenches of a most tortuous form. An area of at least 15 acres [6 ha] was thus tracd over. The whole reminded me of the extensive circumvaliations of Chatham Lines, in miniature, at which works, at an early period of my life, I [had] been engaged under that veteran engineer Colonel De Arcy for seven years. These works must have been executed at great cost of labour to these rude people the only means of artificial power being the lever, the application and inventive of which force being necessity. This lever is a stick chisel, sharpened at one end, by which force they threw up clods of soil and thus formed the trenches, smoothing the water channel with their hands. The soil displaced went to form the embankment ... To me it was new and particularly interesting and evinced great perseverance and industry on the part of these Aborigines. This description of work is called by the natives cro.cup.per, i.e. Bennewongham [said so]. “

Foxy,

Do you want it both ways - that all discriminatory clauses should be expunged from the Constitution (I agree) AND Indigenous people should be given special mention in the Constitution ?

No particular group gets special mention in the Constitution (except in the clauses that we all want expunged). Nobody should get special mention in the body of the Constitution - surely that's discriminatory ?

As for that charlatan Pascoe - you can't be serious. Surely you're not that gullible ? Are there any Dreaming stories about farming ? Like all across Europe ?

Love always,

Joe

Steele,

It's called hunting and gathering ..... Nowadays, out on the sea, there are many fishing vessels. None of the crew would think of themselves as farmers.

Joe

Dear Steele,

I can't wait to begin reading Bruce Pascoe's
book, "Dark Emu." It looks to be a real eye-
opener as you point out. Also the recommendation
by Prof. Marcia Langton gives it credibility plus
the fact that it won both the Book of the Year
Award and the Indigenous Writer's Prize in the
2016 New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards.

Bruce Pascoe has a Bunurong, Tasmanian and Yuin
heritage. He's currently working on two films, a
novel and various other contributions to
Aboriginal writings in Australia.

My other book, " A Rightful Place: A Road Map
to Recognition" edited by Shireen Morris
with a foreword by Galarrwuy Yunupingu is a
collection of essays written by people like
Noel Pearson, Megan Davis, Jackie Huggins, Rod
Little, Damien Freeman, Nolan Hunter, Warren Mundine,
Stan Grant, who all have knowledge and experience to
share at a time of great importance to the
Australian nation when hopefully the people will
decide whether or not they will deal with the
relationship between Indigenous people and the
rest of us.

After more than two centuries, can a rightful place
be found for Australia's original peoples?

Dear Joe,

The effects of more than 200 years of dispossession,
racism, and discrimination have left many of our
Indigenous people with low levels of education,
an inability to gain meaningful employment, over
representation in the prison system and appalling
housing conditions.

Too many recommendations made for and by Indigenous
people over decades have never been acted on.

Instead, poorly designed policies made on their
behalf are funded and enacted.

Dear Loudmouth,

Nah mate, it is called aquaculture.

It might piss you off, might offend your sensibilities, might put your knickers in a proverbial knot, but this was a form of agriculture and William Buckley who lived among the Wathaurong for over 30 years speaks about the trade in smoked eels across Western Victoria.

The tribe at Mount william traded in greenstone axeheads. Part of their quarrying technique was to place a fire under a seam of greenstone for many days and then divert water through sluices water on to the superheated rock thus shattering it into workable axeheads. These they traded up into NSW.

Why is it so important to you to ignore the accounts of our early explorers and to regard indigenous people to be utterly and irredeemably primitive hunter gatherers?

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

More weighty and bewildering government reports
won't solve anything. Even if they make
governments feel like something is being done.

It is a sad reality that Australia is a very
long way from being reconciled. Indigenous people
in Australia continue to experience poorer
living conditions, shorter life expectancy, and
disadvantages in health, education, housing, and
employment.

Constitutional recognition would mean a great deal.
It could make possible a political voice, a
fairer relationship and a renewed appreciation of an
ancient culture. It could be the path to change.
Because what we've had to date has not worked.

Dear Steele,

Smoked eels are a favourite amongst Lithuanians.
Especially during "kucios" - Christmas Eve
Holy Supper - as one of the many "fish" dishes
served that evening.

Dear Foxy,

It is interesting that eels can not be eaten like sushi as the bloody is poisonous to humans which is why it is smoke to breakdown that particular protein. So when our indigenous brothers would bite them on the back of the neck when capturing them they had to spit out any resulting blood.

Here is a good clip of Bruce Pascoe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB1-oilD3IU

SteeleRedux: To call catching wild eels with traps an example of sophisticated agriculture is really pushing the boundaries of the meaning of the phrase. As Loudmouth points out, when trapping fish in the sea we don't usually call the fishermen farmers. So why should we call trapping eels in rivers anything but fishing?

Can you prove that they actually did anything other than just trap the eels that naturally swam in the rivers. Did they have any level of animal husbandry skills besides just trapping them?
eg: Did they manually feed the eels in anyway? If not, did they at least deliberately move the livestock from one place to another to manage their feeding?

Oh by-the-way: it was only ever very, very recently that anyone has successfully bred eels in captivity due to their complex life-cycle. From memory I think it was a South Australian company that first did it about 20+ years ago. This was after millions and millions of dollars spent by them and others and thousands of PhD level man-hours of research and testing on various attempts world-wide. No traditional aboriginal society was ever going to be able to achieve this with their primitive knowledge and technology.

The fact that there is so little evidence that Indigenous people farmed or built permanent dwellings rather proves that they were predominately hunter-gatherers.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

I just discovered this thread which I see you initiated almost a week ago. I read the 15 pages of animated discussion it has provoked, with interest.

Unfortunately, it’s a bit late for me to join in the discussion on the specific points that have been raised, though I should have liked to have done so.

Allow me, simply, at this late hour, to point to the two articles I wrote for OLO on the subject in hand, which, having just re-read them myself, appear to remain relevant :

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18533&page=0

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19767

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structures_built_by_animals

Foxy, you really shouldn’t make generalisations. When you say that aboriginal people live in poorer conditions, have worse education, health outcomes etc. exactly who are you talking about?
Did you know that nearly 40% of aboriginal people own their own homes? Many of them are on higher incomes than the average white family. Many, like my youngest son, have their own businesses.
We now have something like 50,000 indigenous university graduates, with nearly 20,000 currently enrolled. Joe would have the exact figures, I’m working from memory here.
The group who are so disadvantaged are the smaller percentage of those living remote, and who, like white people living remote, don’t have the access to many educational facilities. However, whilst remote white kids do quite well in educational outcomes, remote aboriginal kids don’t.
The cause of this is multi factored. And has very little to do with government and certainly won’t be affected by anything the activists do. People in remote communities have never heard of treaties or the Uluru statement or indigenous representation and nor would they be interested because none of those things will have the slightest effect on their lives.
The only thing that would change attitudes in remote communities would be to stop money flowing into them and that, finally, would get their attention and make people understand that they have to personally engage in their own existence and future.

"The only thing that would change attitudes in remote communities would be to stop money flowing into them and that, finally, would get their attention and make people understand that they have to personally engage in their own existence and future."

Never a balder truth spoken. How else will they be brought into the 21st century?

But we can't handle the truth and we'll just keep on doing what we're doing for another century, pouring money into a black-hole until the problem goes away. Yeah right.

Dear Steele,

Thank you for the link to Bruce Pascoe's
talk - at the State Library of Victoria.

I can still recall my days of working there in the AMPA
Library (Art, Music and Performing Arts) where I catalogued
their oral history collection. I loved the work. It was
fascinating and I learned so much.

Dear Big Nana,

No one is denying that there are Indigenous people who have
succeeded in life. But we should also not deny the facts
that for many - problems still exist.

My references to the effects of more than 200 years
of dispossession, racism, discrimination, and the fact
that this has left many of our Indigenous people with
low levels of education, an inability to gain meaningful
employment, over representation in the prison system,
and appalling housing conditions -
is not something I have made up.
These facts are given in government reports
and other sources.

I stated earlier that more weighty and bewildering
government reports will not assist reconciliation even is
they make governments feel like something is being done.
Too many recommendations made for and by Indigenous
people over decades have never been acted on. Instead
poorly designed policies made on their behalf are funded
and enacted.

But it's not all bleak. Empowered communities are all
working in different ways to tackle Indigenous
disadvantage. Hopefully with allowing them to have
control of their own lives instead of us telling them what
they should do - they may just succeed where we've failed.
But I don't have much faith in the system. Our record
has not been a good one. And the Indigenous people
according to the 2016 census make up only 3.3% of the
population. Not much influence politically.

Do any of us think that the Prime Minister of
Australia and our government will really secure
within the Australian Constitution the recognition and
protection of the full and complete rights to their
indigenous way of life in all its diversity - giving
them economic independence through the proper use of
their ancestral land and waters in all their abundance
and wealth?

Steele & Foxy,

1. No Dreaming stories about farming.

2. Aboriginal people now control a sizable area of Australia, some of it very productive - certainly down this way. Any agricultural enterprises on any of it ? Yes, there must be isolated efforts, but if Aboriginal people were generally farmers, even in just those favourable areas, then why aren't they getting back into agriculture ? Perhaps using the deep knowledge of their elders ?

3. Almost everywhere, from the time when white fellas set up Missions down to the post-1970 times when naive young left-wing white fellas settled in communities, pretty much the first thing they tried to do was to set up vegetable gardens. They almost invariably failed within a couple of years of futile effort, and with little or no involvement from the local Aboriginal people, except maybe a couple of women.

I remember older people at one community telling me about how, in the recent past, the Mission/settlement/community had fruit orchards, which had now died. My inner voice suggested, "Why not water the bloody things ?" Actually, there was a pear tree there, under the eaves of the machine shed, which accidentally got plenty of water every year, and seemed to have a good crop every year, which nobody noticed. Not even the kids.

But keep the myth alive, fellas !

Question: why is there this sudden insistence that Aboriginal people weren't hunter/gatherers ? Is it because some bright spark has suddenly twigged that land-use recognition is one thing, but that it may not (may not, I don't know the full land law involved) constitute recognition of land ownership. Well, Mabo has dealt with that issue in favour of Aboriginal groups. So why the reluctance ?

Joe

Dear thinkabit,

You write;

"To call catching wild eels with traps an example of sophisticated agriculture is really pushing the boundaries of the meaning of the phrase."

Why are you doing this? Where did I use the term 'sophisticated'?

Perhaps you have been doing some reading.
"This 6,600-year-old, highly sophisticated aquaculture system developed by the Gunditjmara people will be formally considered for a place on the Unesco world heritage list and, if successful, would become the first Australian site listed exclusively for its Aboriginal cultural value." The Guardian

It certainly was aquaculture and has been described as such in numerous scientific papers including Heather Builth's 2003 study. Various ponds were used for various growth stages of the eels and the nets designed to capture certain sizes and let smaller ones through. This trapping, separating and preserving meant the eels were a food source all year round and the processing by smoking of eels enabled their trade across West and central Victoria.

"Builth computer-modelled water levels and revealed that these stone features were constructed across the lava flow to form a complex system of artificial ponds to hold floodwaters and eels at different stages of growth. These holding ponds allowed eels to grow in a restricted and protected area and be available to the Gunditjmara for much of the year. Critically, increasing the availability of the eels centred on improving eel survival, given that the eels breed in the Coral Sea. Builth described this complex network of ponds as “aquaculture”."
http://theconversation.com/the-detective-work-behind-the-budj-bim-eel-traps-world-heritage-bid-71800

Why is this such a struggle for you?

Dear Loudmouth,

You write;

"Question: why is there this sudden insistence that Aboriginal people weren't hunter/gatherers ?"

It certainly isn't sudden as the early explorers certainly recognised farming techniques and operations were being utilised by Aboriginal people. However there was certainly a concerted effort to push this from sight and it fitted the narrative that was constructed around the wholesale dispossession that occurred.

People like Bruce Pascoe are at the forefront of revealing the accounts from the early explorers but modern archaeology is also painting a vastly different picture that the one we were presented with in school history books.

The question is why are you so invested in railing against both the early settler accounts and modern archaeology?

Foxy, you talk about the effects of dispossession, discrimination etc but somehow you are overlooking the fact that the people with the absolutely worst outcomes in health, education and welfare are those still living on land they never lost or had taken from them. They still have their language, their law and culture and access to all their traditional food. Their children were never removed.
So, how is it that colonisation has so disadvantaged these people that they cannot help themselves?

Big Nana, will you please just stop it, you're ruining the narrative.

Dear Big Nana,

You write;

"Foxy, you talk about the effects of dispossession, discrimination etc but somehow you are overlooking the fact that the people with the absolutely worst outcomes in health, education and welfare are those still living on land they never lost or had taken from them. They still have their language, their law and culture and access to all their traditional food. Their children were never removed."

How about you name a couple of decent sized communities which you deem fit that bill.

Dear Big Nana,

I don't know the answer to your question -
as I stated earlier, I am still
on my journey of discovery. Which I am
not finding easy.

I have barely touched on the complex issues involved
here. However, one thing is for sure - there is much
more to learn - including - from the "generalisations"
on both sides of this debate.

cont'd ...

Your naming decent sized communities that fit your
description would definitely help this discussion.
And make your argument more credible.

Okay, Steele, so if someone scratches their arse, it's obvious that they're the most sophisticated proctologists the world has ever known ?

Is that how you are supposed to gild every lily these days ?

Okay. Let idiocy have its head. Time will tell. Not much point otherwise trying to get anything across to you.

Okay, there was farming right across Australia, with vast storage silos made ingeniously out of branches (Aboriginal people were the first to build harvest storage silos).

Economic organisation was so complex that thousands of people were mobilised at any one time to dig paddocks nine miles long by up to nine miles wide, with digging sticks. In one 'tribe', people were organised in up to a hundred teams of a hundred diggers each, while other warriors patrolled the forty-odd miles of fencing to keep out animals keen to eat the kangaroo grass inside the fence rather than the kangaroo grass outside of it.

Entire 'tribes' were mobilised to cut the grass and thresh it; women were usually the carriers of the baskets of grass-seed; a good harvest could provide enough for five years. Much of it was traded as far from NSW as the Alice springs area, up around Mt Isa and down as far as the Swan Hill area.

Although there is no evidence found yet of such trade, obviously there was. Each major tribe had its equivalent of a minister of agricultural trade while those in western Victoria had ministers of Aquaculture, in addition to academies of aquacultural research. There is an unconfirmed report of salted eels being traded from western Victoria as far as Macassar.

Make it up as you go. Oh well, that's how Aboriginal 'knowledge' is constructed these days and believed by extremely non-racist white fellas. Why should you be any different ?

Dear Big Nana,

Linda Burney stated "Initiatives developed on
the ground by the people, for the people, have
a far greater likelihood of working. It's a
model for self-determination."

So to answer your earlier question - the reason
as to why certain communities fail - must be
because they have government programs that just
don't work.

The problem is that these well-funded programs
are difficult to implement locally because they are
not targeted to local conditions by local people.
Communities vary greatly across Australia from
community to community.

Also we need to question why governments shut down
successful programs that are run by Indigenous people
in their communities?

Programs such as - community
health. Language programs that include Elders passing
on language and culture. And creches and youth programs
in the Northern Territory.

The Mutitjulu community in NE WA - took their case to
court for the right to be active in their own community
and they won.

There are many successful Indigenous communities that
are run by Indigenous people - those in Bourke, Billard -
WA, Murdi Paaki, just to mention a few.

Noel Pearson points out - this should not be a case of
one side reinforcing victimhood and the other denying
victimhood. There are true deniers (Windschuttle)
and also defenders of their settler heritage (Blainey).

Noel Pearson tells us that any successful case must transcend
the natural political and cultural polarities of
Australian society and seek and seize political
bipartisanship.

This can only happen if Australians faced with a
Constitutional proposition are led by the better angels
of their nature.

Dear Loudmouth,

All I have done is quote from early explorer's records who were first hand witnesses to what structures were there when they first made their way over the land.

My other source is an archaeological study which featured on Catalyst and confirmed what those early explorers had seen by examining the physical evidence in front of them.

Why is this so damned hard for you to get your head around. I know it is challenging your long held beliefs but I'm sorry, if they do not have higher status to either the science nor the historical record.

Get over it mate. When faced with evident most normal people adjust their thinking, however you seem to be digging your heels in with almost fanatical determination. Why do you think that is so?

The explorer George Grey wrote of the Aboriginal settlements he found near the entrance to the Murchison River

"...two native villages or, as the men called them, towns. - the huts of which they were composed differed from those in southern districts, in being much larger, more strongly built, and very nicely plastered over the outside with clay, and clods of turf, so although now uninhabited, they were evidently intended for fixed places of residence. This again showed a marked difference between the habits of natives in this part of Australian and the south-western portions of the continent; for these superior huts, well-marked roads, deeply sunk wells, and extensive warran grounds, all spoke of a large and comparatively speaking, resident population."

http://www.wanowandthen.com/explorers.html (well down the page).

Is Mise,

To fill out your quote:

"1727 : Zeewick

"At about 7:30pm the Zeewick (commanded by Jan Steyns) struck Half Moon Reef off the Abrolhos Islands on its way to Batavia. Initially the seas were too rough to launch the longboats but when they had calmed somewhat a camp was set up on a nearby island (Gun Island).

"After the initial wreck 12 men set off for Batavia but are never seen again. Those that survived 9 long months on an island close to the wreck site built a boat from the remains of the ship and sailed to safety (although 6 more men died on the way north). The Zeewick was the last VOC ship to be lost on the West Australian coast. The wreck was discovered in 1952 and ten years later a cannon was raised and is now on display in Geraldton (Chapman Road.)

"These are just some of the known survivors of ship wrecks along the West Australian coast. Most of these happened on a stretch of coast between Geraldton and Shark Bay.

"In this area the Nanda people lived. The Nanda are unusual among all Aboriginal tribes. When British settlers arrived they found a tribe that was lighter skinned than other Aborigines, where blue eyes were found in the population, blonde hair in adults was much more common as was baldness. This tribe was also taller than was the norm and their language differed considerably from that of surrounding tribes. There was also a tradition of building more permanent dwellings and of re-planting food plants. The tribe was much less concerned with the 'hunter-gatherer' style of living that other Aboriginal tribes.

"George Grey wrote of the Aboriginal settlements he found near the entrance to the Murchison River: etc."

Make what you will of it.

// you are overlooking the fact that the people with the absolutely worst outcomes in health, education and welfare are those still living on land they never lost or had taken from them.//

Worse outcomes applies to ALL people living in remote communities, black and white. People living in the more affluent suburbs of Sydney have a life expectancy 10 years greater than those living in the western regions of the state. Could it be the air they breath, or the availability of health services.

"A shorter life and a greater chance of dying from cancer - that is the fate of regional Australians compared to their city counterparts." ABC News.

Quick get everyone out the bush and into the cities.

Obviously many of the elderly contributors who were brought up on 'The Dreamtime; Australian Aboriginal Myths in Paintings (1965)' by the Englishman Charlies Mountford and dutiful illustrated by the lovely white lady Ainsile Roberts, which was standard school text on Aboriginals in the 1960's. The well meaning Mountford and Roberts cast Aboriginal people as simple primitive child like folk, capable of only the most basic of tasks. This kind of fallacy convinced many children of the period, how backward Aboriginal people were, and obviously that myth has stayed with some of the 60's kids to this day.

This elderly contributor started school in 1939 so I missed the myths of which you speak, Paul, in my day there was virtually no mention of Aboriginal Australians in the curriculum, but we learned a lot about them (our teachers only used the curriculum as a guide), even to the extent of twice yearly visits to La Perouse.

Foxy, Steele, Paul,

Can you get it through your heads that Aboriginal people are as intelligent as anybody else in the world BUT - like ALL of our ancestors ten thousand years ago - their way of life, economic wherewithall, and technology were backward, primitive, savage, barbarian - just like the ways of our ancestors (and for Scotland and Ireland, my ancestral places, only a few hundred years ago).

What the Indigenous movement desperately needs is - not any more charlatans - but dedicated devil's advocates, people who have the Indigenous Cause tattooed on their hearts but who are prepared to examine every proposal - treaty, voice, nation, referendum, etc., etc. - and every 'brilliant' idea, like farming, cities, trading, roads, etc. - up to the light of thorough scrutiny. Anything else, I sometimes think, the brainless acceptance of every crap idea out of fear of being thought to be racist, is utter racism.

Dare to question. Dare to analyse. Dare to disagree. Out of love.

Best of luck,

Joe

Foxy,

Given that you are happy to remove race based discrimination in the constitution I would assume that you don't back the full implementation of the Uhluru declaration?

people who have the Indigenous Cause tattooed on their hearts
Loudmouth,
I totally agree but in reality, perpetually bleating victim is easier !

Joe,

Why bother to argue with the Three Stooges? You know nothing can 'get through their heads'. They are too stupid to know what fools they make of themselves when they argue you and Big Nana, who actually have experience of indigenous matters.

Dear Joe,

We are trying to learn and analyse and have open minds
about this subject. Hence the research on the topic.
And it is a fascinating one where much is being
discovered.

Dear Shadow Minister,

When I learn more about precisely all the details of
the Uluru statement I shall be able to speak in
more depth on the subject with you.

ttbn,

If you want to seriously contribute to this discussion may I
respectfully suggest that you leave out the name
calling and the insults. People are entitled to their
opinions and to express their findings on any subject.
That does not make them less intelligent than yourself
even if their views do not agree with yours.

A bit of civility would not go astray. Or alternatively
you're entitled not to read the comments and go to
another discussion if this one upsets you so much.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I've just come across the following link:

http://law.unimelb.edu.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0005/2791940/Uluru-Statement-from-the-Heart-Information-Booklet.pdf

The way things are explained here I don't see anything
to which I can object. But then I am not a lawyer.

Dear Foxy,

About the Uluru Statement:

So what shape and powers is a 'Voice' supposed to have ?

What is supposed to be in a Treaty ?

Apart from the archaic sections in the Constitution which haven't been applied for decades, if ever, what sections should be added to or subtracted from the Constitution ?

Since it will come up regardless, what is meant by 'nation' in practical terms ?

The Minister has suggested regional (and presumably State/Territory) assemblies as well as a national 'Voice': how big is this thing going to get ?

So far, not much more than thought-bubbles. It's up to Indigenous 'leaders', in lengthy consultation with Indigenous people around the country, to fill out these bubbles, in such forms that they are acceptable both to Indigenous people generally, and to the rest of us.

Maybe then we can join the dots between these wonderful ideas, and the violence, neglect, abuse, unemployment, poor education and suicides out in the shrinking remote communities. I'm buggered if I can so far.

Love,

Joe

I remember when Malcolm Fraser got behind the push for a Makarrata in 1979 and sent Jim Hagen and Lyall Munro Jr around Australia to canvas support. In Adelaide, they spruiked a Treaty and a Makarrata but there wasn't much enthusiasm for the idea. The meeting here broke up in some bafflement.

A Treaty is a contract, an agreement, usually before an interactive process along agreed lines. A Treaty AFTER the event could be, I suppose, a Peace Treaty ? If so, what might be the terms of such a Treaty ? Equal rights under Australian law ? Tick. Some form of mutually-agreed compensation and haggling about mutual harms and benefits over the last 130 years, although $ 33 billion a year may go some way towards fulfilling that condition. Tick.

A separate sovereign nation ? Like in South Africa under Apartheid ? That raises many questions: would all Indigenous people be required to live there, presumably up north somewhere ? Or would there be many 'nations' along clan or dialect or language lines ? Could Indigenous people still be citizens of Australia, entitled to all of its benefits ? Would people have to declare themselves to be EITHER Indigenous OR NON-Indigenous ?

I'm trying to fill out one of the thought-bubbles: please help me !

Joe

It was recently said by a commentator that, "There's always going to be immature jerks of deficient character to legitimise the grievance industry".

He also thinks that at some stage they would have to "put down the poison (they are taking) and stop waiting for the other person to die".

Not much chance of that with our Three Stooges; but that's their problem.

Just to deflate a few myths about the 1967 Referendum, to demonstrate that it wasn't some mighty struggle against vile, bitter foes of racial equality: I typed up the papers of ministers and department heads of Indigenous etc. Affairs at 1951, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1967 Conferences. They are available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info . on the Conferences Page. Colour-coded by State and Territory.

If you read them carefully (I should have indexed them, but bugger it), they show that all ministers, all governments, even Queensland (Bjelke-Petersen was the relevant Minister for much of that time) were in favour of bringing about pretty much all of the changes that were eventually touted in the 1967 Referendum. In other words, just to hold the Referendum was something of a fait accompli.

Some of the prior publicity about the Referendum - for example, demanding citizenship - was out of date by nearly twenty years. In 1967, people could vote everywhere across Australia too. In other words, the 1967 Referendum questions were either irrelevant (the right of State governments to make laws for Aboriginal people - powers which all State governments conceded should be passed over to the federal government) or effectively already in operation. The 1967 Referendum was more or less a one-horse race.

The next one may not be so easy.

law.unimelb.edu.au

My guess is that this is one of the flaws in the system.
How about asking real, everyday, down to Earth people instead of these "experts" ?

Dear Loudmouth,

Calling your website www.firstsources.info is a bit of a misnomer isn't it. I gave you some first sources and you have rejected them out of hand.

What you really needed to do was call it www.firstsourceswhichagreewithmyworldviewandtherestbedamned.info

Far closer to the truth one feels.

Dear Joe,

Why don't you read the links I've given?

They do answer the questions you're asking
especially the Information Booklet from the
Law Department of Melbourne University on the
Uluru Statement. It explains quite clearly.

Individual,

Try reading the information first and
then make judgements. It may clarify
things for you.

Thanks Steele. When you've put years into transcribing documents, as they are, no alterations, let me know.

And what documents are you referring to that I've rejected ?

Foxy,

When I tried the link re Uluru it didn't work.

The point of contention in the Uluru Statement. and what ultimately led to its rejection by the Turnbull Government, was the call for an Aboriginal voice to parliament. Turnbull simply pandered to the hard right of the Coalition and rejected the call with the lie that a voice to parliament would be a de facto third chamber of parliament, not true. Nothing of that sort was suggested, or implied in the Statement. The notion that a toothless feel good preamble added to the Constitution should be sufficient to "shut the wingers up" does not wash as well.

//It was recently said by a commentator// that commentator wasn't your rednecked mate Cory Banana by any chance. Then who was it? I'm interested.

ttbn, have you ever spent days living with 200 or 300 indigenous people, eating, speaking, sleeping, even washing with them. Listing to them speak endlessly in their native tongue, trying to follow their protocols etc, and greeting each and every one of them personally, at all hours of the day and night. All this, and being the one and only white fella there. All of my white rello's, on my wife's side stay away from such gatherings, I don't identify as Aboriginal, I suppose I could if I wanted to.

Referendums have a good chance of passing in Australia when there is bipartisan support.

Joe, 1979 you say, 40 years ago, maybe, just maybe, things have changed in 40 years, things move on, people move on, I know myself and my thinking has moved on in 40 years, how about you and some of the others on here? That thought bubble you speak of, it seems to be filled with lots of 1950's thinking, certainly by some on here. Lyall Munro, now there's a blast from the past. I remember Lyall in Redfern all them years back. Was a fiery customer the old Lyall back in those days.

Fox, just watched the DVD 'First Contact' again. Ray Martin is a bit plastic, but the content is good, if you haven't seen it, its worth a watch

//When I tried the link re Uluru it didn't work//

Issy, you've gotta be a lot closer to "civerlization", nah don't work out there in the mulga, try again when ya gets to the Big Smoke!

p/s Were you on top of the rock or under the rock when you tried?

1939, you do say. I got a prize at school, for being a bit of a bright student. 'The Illustrated History of Australia' open the fly leaf and there's a fab illustration of that noble Aussie gentleman Jimmy Cook planting the Union Jack in all its splendour in the dirt up north somewhere, that was day one of Aussie history. Not a savage in sight, that's the beginning of good old Aussie history for you, there were no pesky natives to bother us in those days! My prize was not actually history as such, but a sanitised version of history designed not to offend the sensibilities of white Australia at the time.

Is Mise,

Try Googling -

Law University of Melbourne Uluru Statement from the
Heart Information Booklet. It should come up and you
can click onto it.

Dear Paul,

I'll try to get a hold of the "First Contact"
DvD.
Thanks.

Foxy,

Recognition can easily be given in the preamble to the constitution. However, affording them racially based powers in the constitution is and always will unacceptable to a large number of people.

P.S.

The first peoples already have a constitutionally guaranteed voice. It is a vote just like everyone else.

Wasn't it equal Rights that everyone was bleating about over the years ? Now, there are excessive Rights & still the moaning continues !

Shadow Minister,

The preamble is not part of the Constitution and
any change would have no legal consequences.

Reputable journalist Jeff McMullen points out:

"A glance at the Constitution reveals the deep
stain of racism and discrimination. It is one
of the few Constitutions in the world today with
negative race powers allowing governments to make
laws and policy that pointedly trample the rights
of Indigenous people."

90% of surveyed Australians want Indigenous people
officially recognised. And this comes from a recent
survey released by the government funded Recognise
group.

Dear Paul,

I've found a copy of the dvd - "First contact"
which I'd forgotten I had.

I remember now,
the effect that not Ray Martin but the arrogant
David Oldfield had on me at the time the
documentary was first released.

He dominated the film by trying to assert his "cultural
superiority" and continued to denigrate Indigenous
cultures. He even made statements -" äboriginality
should have died out..." " Aboriginal culture
is not worth celebrating." "they've lived in the
stone-age longer than anyone else." And so on.

Sadly, he's not the only one with those sort of
attitudes.

Thankfully many people are starting to think
differently - the more they learn about our Indigenous people.
Myself included.

"The only thing that would change attitudes in remote communities would be to stop money flowing into them and that, finally, would get their attention and make people understand that they have to personally engage in their own existence and future."

Never a balder truth spoken. How else will they be brought into the 21st century?

But we can't handle the truth and we'll just keep on doing what we're doing for another century, pouring money into a black-hole until the problem goes away. Yeah right.

Indigenous recognition in our Con stitution
matters. and will need greater political will
to achieve. Initiatives developed on the
ground by the people for the people, have a
far greater likelihood of working. It is a model
for self-determination.

Government programs fail because Aboriginal
people's needs and communities vary greatly across
Australia and well-funded programs are difficult
to implement locally because they are not targeted
to local communities by local people. When they
are they do succeed such as the "Murdi Paaki"
system of 16 communities across Western WA, the
community of Billard in WA's Kimberley, in Bourke,
to mention just a few. Those communities work.
We can't keep doing what has not worked - and expect
different results.

Yes. Get them out of the 'living museums' of remote settlements, where they will never have a chance of a decent life. Indigenous policy hasn't changed since the apartheid regime of Whitlam and his mate Nugget Coombes.

The people who are always bleating about better lives for foreign 'refugees' are the same ones who want aborigines to continue living in dung heaps they know quite well will never change, no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Paul 1405, you are kidding aren’t you? To deny that the worst outcomes aren’t from those living very remote on their own land, in an unbroken line, without any loss of culture?
Have you ever looked at the figures for domestic violence in those Areas? For school attendance rates? For school completion rates? For kidney disease and rheumatic fever rates?
In fact, rheumatic fever is almost unheard of outside remote areas these days.
As for unemployment, take away CDP and unemployment in remote communities is about 95%.
Suicide rates are another area where remote aboriginal people lead the list, as well as child removals.
Yet none of these people can claim their terrible outcomes are due to dispossession, loss of culture, loss of language.
The aboriginal people with the best outcomes, the teachers, the doctors, the lawyers, those with their own businesses, those with good paying jobs, all come from families who integrated into mainstream Australia by accepting that along with their equal rights, they had also equal responsibilities for their lives and were expected to contribute to society.

Foxy,

"The preamble is not part of the Constitution and
any change would have no legal consequences."

That's the whole point, the Constitution should not discriminate between Australians.

It might be alright for football clubs to discriminate on 'race' but not for the Nation.

Can anyone tell me what the First Nation is, as mentioned in the Uluru Document?

Paul,

That made me laugh. Forty years ago, i was a Maoist, and had many of the views and hopes and aspirations that you seem to have now. I guess I've moved on a bit.

Back then, my wife and i were making Aboriginal Flags and sending them around the country. We made our first in 1972 for the Aboriginal embassy here in Adelaide, five of them, 3 ft by 5 ft - too long in normal weather, but up on the hill at North Adelaide in Winter, they flew magnificently. We'd been concerned earlier that every piss-ant group was knocking up 'its own flag', one only of each, full of spear-points and boomerangs and most Australian fauna and in all colours. Harold Thomas had drawn up a model Flag, the current one, simple to make, expressive, beautiful. We made maybe a hundred of them and sent them all over the country. I think the first one at the Canberra Embassy was one of ours. They had a wonky central disc, so if you saw one like that ..... We were factory-workers and knocked them up after we'd put the kids to bed.

So I wish you well on your long journey of discovery :)

Best wishes,

Joe

The first step in the right direction to solving this problem might be to drop the outdated nomenclature ‘aborigine’. After 230 years, no such person exists. It could be time to think about our ‘fellow Australians’ - then, perhaps, next time we see a tiny child in a disposable nappy of dubious cleanliness, face covered in snot and flies, wandering around what is really a camp in a desert, the Leftists responsible for that child’s shameful existence just might compare that little person with their own child, grandchild or great grandchild. I already make the comparison, as I’m sure many other decent, non-Left people do.

But, of course, the Left thrives on divide-and-conquer, otherness and identity politics, so it’s probably too much too much to hope for.

Another misconception about Aboriginal people is the majority are living in far flung remote communities in WA and the NT, not true. More than 68% live in NSW and Qld, with only 5% in Joe's SA. 81% of the Indigenous population live in cities or regional centres, those living in very remote locations account for around 12%.

Big Nanna, you seem to put forward the negatives of remote living, is that the full story. Claiming I was denying that some of the worst outcomes for Aboriginal people are for those living in remote communities, is untrue, I never said that. I was reading an article today, white men in remote communities are twice as likely to present with alcohol related health issues that the general population of males.

Joe with all those flags you were flying its a pity the Aboriginal population of SA was so small, there were hardly any to see them

Foxy,

The preamble is part of the constitution but has no legal effect. I strongly doubt that 90% intended for the full intent of the Uhluru Statement to be implemented.

Gosh, Paul, that was clever. Actually 6 - 6.2 %. There were plenty of people back then to see them, since even then, half of the Aboriginal population lived in Adelaide. But the purpose was to get it all over Australia. And across to New Zealand too. Well, all over the world actually.

Some of us have been saying for years that only a minority of the Indigenous population lived in remote communities. Glad you've caught up :)

Here are other stats you may like to broadcast amongst your many friends: there are now more than 60,000 Indigenous university graduates - maybe 65,000 by the end of this year. Currently, there are 20,000 Indigenous people enrolled at universities in standard degree-level and PG courses, and since 1990, around 120-140,000 Indigenous people have been to university. The great majority are enrolled in standard, non-discriminatory courses, about 17 % in PG courses. Two-thirds of the students are female. The vast majority are from urban backgrounds.

Here's another stat: Indigenous females are enrolling at a greater percentage of their population than NON-Indigenous Australian males. Another landmark stat :) .

Joe

SM,

Check out the following:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp12

It corrects your assumptions.

Is Mise,

All you have to do is Google for yourself the Uluru
Statement from the Heart Information Booklet given
by the Law Department of Melbourne University.
It explains the meaning of "First Nations."

Foxy,

It does confirm my assumption that there is little appetite for implementing the full Uhluru statement.

SM,

You know things sometimes can surprise us.
Just like it did the people who thought
same sex marriage
would not be legislated or that Tony Abbott would
still retain his seat in Warringah, or that Labor
would win the election, or that Donald Trump would
never be President, or that Peter Dutton would
get thrown out, the list goes on.

Predicting anything is risky at the best of times.

However, the recent surveys do indicate that Australians
do support the recognition of their Indigenous people.
Perhaps because countries like the US, Canada, and
New Zealand have all moved to recognise their
Indigenous people in their respective Constitutions -
people are beginning to see that there's really
nothing to fear in us doing it as well. Still I
guess - only time will tell.

I remember attending World Expo - years ago
and how impressed I was with the way the culture of
our Indigenous people was presented for world
consumption. It was so beautiful and inspiring.

I've lost count of the number of tradtional
stories that I've read to young children in my
Storytime sessions and school visits in my libraries.

I loved visiting our Museum here in Melbourne
and taking my grand-kids to listen to programs
especially designed for kids run by Indigenous
staff. And the kids joining in and getting to touch
the fur capes that the storytellers were wearing.

Perhaps, with the right leadership and support this
time things will get to happen. Perhaps we shall as
a country become truly one - by acknowledging our
past and listening to all our people. Not just a
select few.

The story of Aboriginal people in South Australia, post European settlement, is a rather sorry story is it not Joe. Then that's something you should broadcast amongst your many friends, ah! Joe. Is it on your web site?

Foxy,

I read it, and I stumble over First Nation.

Do the learned authors not know the meaning of 'Nation'?

If they think that, as they appear to, that Aboriginal Australians ever had, or constituted/constitute a nation then I consider their thinking to be seriously flawed.
Either they are deliberately twisting the English language or they got their degrees under false pretences.

Is Mise,

I see that the following words as far as
you're concerned are beyond your comprehension:

"Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes
were the first Sovereign Nations of the
Australian continent and its adjacent islands and
possessed it under our own laws and customs."

"This Sovereignty is a spiritual nation...
the ancestral tie ..."

A pity.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You wrote :

« Do the learned authors not know the meaning of 'Nation'? If they think that, as they appear to, that Aboriginal Australians ever had, or constituted/constitute a nation then I consider their thinking to be seriously flawed »

The OED defines “nation” as follows :

« A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory »

The Online Etymology Dictionary indicates :

« c. 1300, nacioun, "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language," from Old French nacion "birth, rank; descendants, relatives; country, homeland" (12c.) and directly from Latin nationem (nominative natio) "birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe," literally "that which has been born," from natus, past participle of nasci "be born" (Old Latin gnasci), from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

« The word is used in English in a broad sense, "a race of people an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family and speaking the same language," and also in the narrower sense, "a political society composed of a government and subjects or citizens and constituting a political unit; an organized community inhabiting a defined territory within which its sovereignty is exercised." »

The historian, Kevin Blackburn notes in his article : “Mapping Aboriginal Nations: The Use of the Nation Concept by Late Nineteenth Century Anthropologists in Australia” :

« From the late 18th century to the end of the 19th century, the word ‘nation’ underwent a change in meaning from a term describing cultural entities comprised of people of common descent, to the modern definition of a nation as a sovereign people. The political scientist Liah Greenfeld called this shift in the definition of the word nation a ‘semantic transformation’, in which ‘the meaning of the original concept is gradually obscured, and the new one emerges as conventional’ » :

http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p73361/pdf/ch0648.pdf

The terms “First nations” and “Aboriginal nations” should be understood in the original anthropological sense.

.

Issy,

You might try this word instead;

NITPICKING; engage in fussy or pedantic fault-finding.

Joe; The definition of a Maoist; Someone who makes flags?

Although I give credit to Mao Zedong and the struggle he and his followers engaged in post WWII in "freeing" China from oppression, I never though of Maoism as having any relevance in a country like Australia. Maoism seemed fitting for those poor third would countries wanting to free themselves from Western Imperialism at that time, nothing more than that.

The story of Aboriginal people in South Australia, post European settlement, is a rather sorry story
Paul1405,
Didn't you state previously that your background includes Maori ?

Banjo,

"The terms “First nations” and “Aboriginal nations” should be understood in the original anthropological sense."

Precisely.

Paul,

You haven't yet said where the Aboriginal villages were

There were no aboriginal 'nations'; the (maybe) first inhabitants of this continent were not even civilised, just as all nomadic people with no contact with civilisation were not civilised. There is nothing derogatory about that fact. Some people waffling on about 'nations' and 'civilisation' clearly don't have even a school dictionary in the house.

We need to stop stop obsessing about people who died out two centuries ago. Nobody wants to be blamed non-stop for what somebody they never knew might have done to other people they never new.

The merest idea of 'constitutionalising' one small (very small) section of the population is pure racism and apartheid.

You arrogant, paternalistic, condescending white bastards won't be happy until you are handing out rations of tobacco, flour, sugar and tea again.

Didn't you state previously that your background includes Maori ?

No Indy I never stated that. My son claims some "Aboriginality" based on some test his wife shouted him. Its my belief based on scientific information that there is no test that proves Aboriginality. The rednecks from One Nation, Hanson and Latham, have put that forward as policy. It sounds a bit like the Nazi's wanting proof of no Jewish ancestry before joining the SS. I assume One Nation wants proof of Aboriginality before also joining the SS, that's Social Security. Otherwise what is the point, unless of course you want a boomerang symbol stitched to their clothing for easy identification.

Paul,

SA history: Of course I do, all of it.

Maoism & Flags: not sure I see the direct connection - I didn't back then either. I didn't have any links to any Maoist mob, except maybe the Worker-Student Alliance (ha ! ha!) for a few months, but I was doing my own thing, and certainly trying to do my own thinking, (You should try it :)) particularly in relation to the Indigenous Cause. And looking for ways to foster positive and progressive solidarity amongst Indigenous people seemed to be a priority, hence the Flag.

I still have a few Little Red Books. But I had no time then for the piss-weak mob here, especially after the Ryan hanging. In that long evolution away from idiocy, it probably took the Tien An Men massacres for me to finally realise that M-L socialism in general, and Maoism etc. in particular, were bankrupt.

Meanwhile, sort of parallel, perspectives on Indigenous affairs have also evolved, hence - tadaa !

Joe

Hi Banjo,

Yes, a nation is a large group of people "speaking the same language", obviously with dialectal variations. There were anything from 300 to 500 languages spoken across Australia, and perhaps thousands of different dialects. Might this be relevant to the discussion about 'nations' ?

Joe

Back to the question of terminology.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples,
Indigenous, Aboriginal, Aborigine, Blackfella,
First Nations or First Australians. What is the
appropriate term?

These terms have come to take on different
meanings to different people, wrapped in the
history and politics of the time. But what is the
appropriate term?

There is not a unanimous view, but some are considered
more appropriate to use than others. It is therefore
helpful to understand why that is the case.

The link given below unpacks the terminology and
provides for us some guidance. However, ultimately it
is important to be respectful of the preferences of
individuals, families or communities and to allow them
to define what they are most comfortable with.

The term First Nations recognises Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people as the sovereign people of this
land. This term goes further than First Australians
as it recognises various language groups as separate
and unique sovereign nations.

It is also widely used to describe the First Peoples in
Canada and other countries around the globe.

Over recent years the use of this term has grown in
popularity. It is a better choice than many outdated and
offensive terms that are described in the link given below.

It was the term chosen in their Uluru Statement from the
Heart. It is only right to respect their choice.

" I am not an Aboriginal, or indeed Indigenous.
I am a First Nation's person. A Sovereign person from
this country."
Rosalie Kunoth-Monks, Anmatyerr woman from Central
Australia.

http://www.commonground.org.au/learn/aboriginal-or-indigenous

Foxy,

"The term First Nations recognises Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people as the sovereign people of this
land. This term goes further than First Australians
as it recognises various language groups as separate
and unique sovereign nations."

Sovereign Nations can have treaties with other Nations and it would not be long before a Sovereign Nation within the Sovereign Nation of Australia tore the latter apart.

How can the Torres Strait and Aboriginal people be considered the Sovereign People of this land when they are entirely different people?

Whatever new term is dreamed up, the feigned indignation crowd will find fault with it !

// but I was doing my own thing, and certainly trying to do my own thinking, (You should try it :)//

And exactly what should I be trying Joe, to act as conceited as you do on these matters. Is that something you acquired by banging away at a keyboard, while posting on your website.

Is Mise,

Why don't you contact the Hon. Ken Wyatt AM. MP
Minister for Indigenous Australians.

His electoral office is - Shop 10-12
Forrestfield Forum, 80 Hale Road, Forrestfield WA.
6058 (PO Box 325, Forrestfield. WA. 6058).
Telephone: (08) 9359-0322 and Fax: (08) 9359-0197.

Foxy,

For what reason?

I've already sent him my congratulations.

Is Mise,

To answer the question you've asked me.
He's the expert.

Dearest Foxy,

I look forward to the day when you can think for yourself instead of regurgitating files as if they're gospel :)

Love,

Joe

Paul,

Conceit has its place if there is ample reason for it. I don't think I've earnt a right to it yet though :)

Anyway, back to topic ....... Looking at the terrible stats on Indigenous youth suicides, especially in remote and regional areas, it's possible that the problem is so serious that it's having a negative impact on population growth, that on balance, this plus the less-reported infant, child and youth mortality generally is so great that it counteracts any increase in the birth rate.

So who is most responsible for ensuring children anywhere are protected, safe, well-fed, loved and cared-for ? Government agencies ? Or parents ? Are we allowed to ask that ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

I look forward to the day when your close-mindedness
will open up to look at all the variables being
presented and not just the ones that agree with you.

If we have a treaty, which Nation will it be with and will such Nation be a nation as defined in today's terms or in anthropological terms?

Is Mise,

Again, why don't you ask your questions of
people like the Hon. Ken Wyatt. Minister for
Indigenous Australians, or
Prof. Marcia Langton. She can be contacted at -

m.langton@unimelb.edu.au

I've already given you the details for Ken Wyatt.

Or alternatively do your own research on the topic.

cont'd ...

Here's a link to get you started:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination

Dear Foxy,

I think about the variables all the time, it keeps me awake at night, it does my head in.

Love anyway,

Joe

How can any nation have a treaty with a few of its own citizens? Or, if those people are going to be recognised as a separate nation, would they still be entitled to our welfare system, our education and health system? Or would they be treated the same way as other foreign nationals?
And how does this work when over 70% of indigenous people have non indigenous partners? One partner has rights and citizenship that the other doesn’t? Cousins are split on racial lines?
It’s already a morass, as I should know. Try applying for custody of a child when you are white and your grandchild is black and see if you can come out of the legal system with your sanity intact

We can't possibly consider everyone as equal when one group doesn't want to be equal !

Foxy,

This is a discussion; questions are asked in discussions, often just to find out if the others have a clue.

Is Mise,

I have provided links for you with answers.
Understanding them - is something you have to
try to do for yourself.

Dear Big Nana,

It was -

John Howard who said - Ä country doesn't make a treaty
with itself." And then he shut the Aboriginal
movement down completely. ATSIC had its problems
but it was a sound moral concept. There's been
plenty of crooked MPs but they don't shut down
parliament.

Still, despite Australia's troubled past on Indigenous
matters and fears from government and business on the
implications of a treaty - of financial compensation,
or of official recognition of sovereignty over land.
What is being asked - is a clear plan capable of
being adopted
by governments which will give empowerment to the
Aboriginal people.

From what I can gather - with Australia's Constitution
being difficult to change, what is needed is the
establishment of a National Representative body allowing
Indigenous people to make their own decisions on
matters affecting them, rather than have decisions forced
on them from Canberra.

A treaty would break the 200 year old cycle of
governments not negotiating with the Indigenous people.
It would provide a framework for how negotiations are
held on Indigenous issues such as welfare, employment,
education, health, and ownership.

It would say - we're no longer just going to do things
to them but that they're included and empowered.

Anyway the following link explains further:

http://australianstogether.org.au/discover/the-wound/the-lack-of-treaty/

So Foxy, how do you see this working? A group of aboriginal people make decisions that are going to affect other aboriginal people but not the non aboriginal people they are married to. In other words, you want apartheid.

Dear Big Nana,

Why don't you read the link I gave.

You'll see who it affects.

And no, apartheid is not being suggested.
The opposite in fact. Equality, respect,
and empowerment.

Hi Foxy,

It's my opinion a formal treaty as such would prove to be a bridge too far for the majority of Australians. Why I say this, is a treaty would require recognition of Indigenous sovereignty over the Continent, then in turn that Indigenous sovereignty would need to be ceded to the crown. Only in that way could the legitimacy of the Commonwealth of Australia be legally established.

That is exactly today's problem with the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand, among many other failures. The English version signed by a small minority of Chiefs did cede sovereignty of Aotearoa to the British Crown. However in the majority Maori worded version the Chiefs only cede governance to the Crown, and ultimate sovereignty remained in Maori hands, the British didn't see it that way. Following Maori insurrection in the 1860's the colonial government passed the New Zealand Settlements Act in 1863, the act allowed for the confiscation of some 3 million acres of Maori land, which in turn was sold off to white settlers.

And no, apartheid is not being suggested.
The opposite in fact. Equality, respect,
and empowerment.

Well, if that's going to be the eventual outcome I'm all for it. Free housing, low interest rates in fact all the support that the Indigenous receive would be most welcome for many normal Australians also.

Dear Big Nana,

Oh please. Apartheid? What part of the Uluru statement gives you any bloody licence to allege this is akin to apartheid?

You are either speaking out of ignorance or you are wilfully misdirecting. Whatever it is it is rubbish. Is New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi apartheid?

Enough with your victimhood.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« Yes, a nation is a large group of people "speaking the same language", obviously with dialectal variations. There were anything from 300 to 500 languages spoken across Australia, and perhaps thousands of different dialects. Might this be relevant to the discussion about 'nations' ? »

It seems you're not too far off the mark with your estimation, Joe.

The United Nations has declared 2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages (IY2019) “to raise awareness of the crucial role languages play in people’s daily lives”.

Common Grounds, the Aboriginal led organisation designed to inform wider Australia about First Australian peoples, indicates on its web site :

« The threat of language loss poses a serious risk to Australia’s cultural inheritance, and to the well-being of many First Nations people. In Australia, there are estimated to be 250 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, but only around 120 are still spoken. Of these languages approximately 90 per cent are endangered »

So, theoretically, there are still, at the moment, about 250 Aboriginal nations in Australia but, maybe, not for much longer.

.

Talk of apartheid is another red herring from those who really want to maintain the status quo as far as aboriginal affairs are concerned. My belief is those on the conservative side of politics, who claim that they are all for recognition in some form, are only willing to offer some feel good platitudes, providing none of that impacts on White Australia to any great degree. If my assertion is correct then other than flowery words in some preamble, or minor constitutional corrections there is not much Aboriginal Australia can expect.

Like all reforms the conservatives label everything as a Marxist plot, and therefore it must be resisted. They are still smarting over the victory of the "Communists" on the gay marriage issue!

Foxy, can you please tell me in what areas aboriginal people don’t have equality of opportunity?
I can give you some examples where aboriginal people actually have access to more services and support than non indigenous people.
And exactly what do you envisage in this treaty? Some practical examples please.

SR

apartheid

- a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

A separate set of laws and privileges based on race is what the Uhluru declaration is calling for which means a somewhat less extreme version of apartheid.

New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi was essentially to separate the indigenous peoples from non indigenous with respect to land and cultural laws. The Afrikaans to English translation means "separateness" which strictly applies to the treaty.

Dear Foxy,

No offence but, despite the fact that you may be beautiful and highly intelligent, you sometimes come across like a first-year secondary student given her 'Project on the Aborigine', and relying on Professor Google. Sometimes i even wonder if you're actually in Australia at all :(

Equality, YES ! YES ! YES ! YES ! The problem is: do some Indigenous people want equality, or more than that, whatever that may mean ? Certainly, measures to bring people's levels of opportunity up to universal levels. But more than equality ? In practice, how can non-Indigenous people even go about supporting more equality for some people than they themselves have ?

In pretty much every parliament in Australia, there are Indigenous voices. There are five thousand Indigenous organisations with voices. Radio and TV stations and journals with voices. And of course, there are some seven hundred thousand Indigenous people with voices. So what is 'voice' actually code for ?

A treaty: what, a peace treaty, i.e. after the event ? What might be its terms ? After all, equality is a pretty good objective already ?

And what might be next ? A separate State, presumably up north, funded from
Canberra, but with no oversight from Canberra ? A demand that all non-Indigenous people leave Australia ? Except, of course, 'essential workers' ? Or permanent payments to all Indigenous people for being Indigenous people ? i.e. permanent rent-seeking at ever-higher levels ?

Certainly, Indigenous communities need help to clean up their appalling crime rates and raise the education levels of their next generations. But how would treaty, voice or sovereignty fix any of that up ?

No. Equality for all Australians, and no extra rights for any Australians.

Love,

Joe

To quote from Animal farm.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Dear Big Nana,

I've given so many links on this subject in this
discussion and I suspect that you have not read
any of them. There's also so much available
nowadays that you can research to learn more
about the Uluru Statement and what it involves and why.
Anyway, before I leave this discussion -
Here's one last attempt:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/do-we-have-apartheid-in-australia

Dear Joe,

I am flattered by your attention and attempts to make me see
things from your point of view. Thank You for caring.

Foxy,

Thanks for teaching us how to suck eggs, and put on our socks. What do you think some people have been doing all their bloody working lives ? Thinking about every day ? If they put their observations into a journal, it would run to thousands of pages, many stained with tears ?

And you refer such people as Big Nana to juvenile, second- and third-source, sites. I can't believe you're serious. A combination of - please excuse me - arrogance and ignorance.

Joe

Dear Joe,

In response to Big Nana's questions I referred
her to the links I gave to the Uluru Statement,
to Constitutional reform, to the Australian
Constitutional racist clauses, to apartheid
(which she brought up) and so on. You consider
these "juvenile-second and third sources sites."
And accuse me of arrogance and ignorance - whilst
all I am trying to do is learn?

I don't know what your problem is, nor do I need to
know. All I can say is - it looks like I've unwittingly
touched a nerve. Still, that's your problem not
mine.

What is the objection to all Australians being treated equally?

Hi Foxy, those that want to speak of apartheid should read your link to the 'Creative Spirits' web site. If they want to refute the claims made about apartheid as its presented, let them do so.

Joe, do you have a problem with the 'Creative Spirits' web site?

Foxy,

My comments on the creative spirits article:

Some of the characteristics of apartheid are:

Racial segregation. Groups are, or the entire population is, divided by skin colour. This can include separate designated areas to live, work or be (spatial segregation). Classifications might be used, such as White, Black and Coloured based on physical characteristics.

This applies in Australia. There are large areas locked off to Native title.

Less rights. The minority's political rights are reduced or removed completely.

In South Africa, the majority's political rights were reduced or removed such as is proposed by the Uhluru declaration

Opposition is suppressed. Regulations. Behaviour and communication of the minority group are regulated.

Here's where 18c come in.

Suppression. The government sets up elements to suppress aspects of the culture of the minority, for example in areas such as marriage, sexuality, jobs, wages or education.

Actually banning intermarriage works both ways.

Violence and destruction. The minority group experiences overt or covert violence or racism. Their property or lands are destroyed.

Again the majority was oppressed. statement above applies to the minority whites today.

Foxy & Paul,

My problem is that I find your comments half-baked, semi-informed, relying on second- and third-hand sources. I wish I didn't but there you go.

No, I don't think Creative Spirits is much better, it never gets into any subject deeply and it's basically uncritical of stances slanted a particular way.

There is far more going on, and far more complicated background stories than you seem to be aware of. Frankly, I don't know where to start any more.

Indigenous women in remote areas are 34 times more likely to suffer from (or to report) domestic violence than Australian women generally. Perhaps that means that they are 34 times more likely to be killed in DV situations ? I don't see you or Creative Spirits tackling that issue, except to come up with the half-witted notion that it's all due to colonisation and intergenerational trauma, the explanation du jour. What, more colonisation etc. than urban and southern people have experienced ?

More than the sixty thousand Indigenous university graduates have experienced ? One in every eight Indigenous adults is a university graduate; one in six women. In the cities, it's probably one in four women and one in eight men. According to press stories, of the eighty-odd Indigenous suicides so far this year, none of them have been university graduates. Perhaps you can explain that somehow, in terms of colonisation and intergenerational trauma.

Please try to learn, for god's sake, instead of swallowing someone else's pap.

Joe

PS Just one word of praise for Indigenous people's university participation would be positive ? No ? What, not separatist enough ? Not apartheid enough ?

I just got this from the Creative Spirits site.

" Origin of apartheid in Australia
In 1901 one of Australia's first acts as a nation was to introduce the so-called White Australia policy to exclude non-Europeans from Australia. Under the policy Melanesian slaves and their families were forcibly repatriated [1], severing centuries-old family and commercial links between Aboriginal Australians and Indonesia."

One wonders how the Melanesians came to be associated with Indonesians and how links had been 'centuries-old'.

The author/s is/are writing about 1901, recruitment from the Islands began in the 1860s.
http://www.qhatlas.com.au/content/sugar-slaves

In view of such sloppiness, I read no further.

Foxy & Paul,

If Apartheid is evil (as I 100 % believe it is/was), then separate development is most likely evil. Once upon a time, I thought it might be possible to set up a sort of network of autonomous Aboriginal communities with strong economies, maybe exchanging goods with each other- a sort of progressive Apartheid. Ah, Maoism ! No limits to its stupidities. Of course, that was a disastrous recipe for pure apartheid couched in terms of 'self-determination' out in the sticks. That eventually dawned on me in about 1976.

As Big Nana has tried to get through your heads, reality 'out there' is ghastly, Apartheid by another name. But on the other hand, as she tries to explain, most Indigenous people in the towns and cities are inter-marrying, which inherently means that couples are that much less likely to every go out , or return, to remote communities. They tend now to be born and bred urban.

I suspect you find that very disappointing - after all, cities belong to whites, the sticks belongs to Blacks. Civilization is white, tradition and culture is Black. Why aren't they content to stay in 'country' ? Ah, they've been brainwashed by assimilationism. Ty telling that to urban people.

The Indigenous population trend is towards the towns and cities. Indigenous success is vastly more likely in towns and cities. In 'communities', what is more likely is violence, abuse, neglect and early death. Yes, that's very difficult to square with colonisation and intergenerational trauma, but there you go.

But you put your finger on one reality: the choice for Indigenous people is between Apartheid (under the control of the Industry) or equality, integration, free choice and interacting (under their own individual control, i.e. self-determination). We all forget that, under South Africa's Apartheid policies, many people running their 'homelands' did very well: bureaucrats, functionaries, police and armed forces. They fought tooth and nail against equal rights, and for separatism.

And who fought for equality, and a rainbow society ? You've heard of Mandela ? Google him, Foxy.

So which side are you on?

Joe

Joe, it was you and Big Nanna who diverted the argument to the plight of the 12% of Aboriginal people living in remote communities. Your pompous condescending attitudes on the subject is pathetic. You might see yourself as some kind of self styled expert, well good for you! I suppose your "research" into the 5% of Aboriginals in SA makes you an expert on the other 95% as well, again good for you!

LOVE Paul1405.

Paul,

Do you believe that all Australian citizens should be treated as equals?

//Do you believe that all Australian citizens should be treated as equals?//

Yes Issy I do, and it must be more than just in name, it must include equality of opportunity for all. It is clear that many Australians, including Aboriginal Australians, have not been treated equally, and they have suffered because of it.

Admitting that mistakes were made in the past, acknowledge those mistakes, and take corrective action where possible is not a bad thing. Australia should not get totally hung up in this debate, but clearly a by-partisan approach, and good will from all sides will go a long way to put these issues to rest once and for all.

Dear Paul,

Shireen Morris tells us that:

The Uluru Statement from the Heart seeks to
resolve the fundamental moral problem that has
tormented our country since 1788: how do we
create a fairer relationship with the First
Nations of this land?

The problem was left unresolved in 1901:
Indigenous peoples were not represented in the
constitutional compact that made the Commonwealth.

It was not answered in 1967: the referendum empowered
parliament to make laws for Indigenous people, but it
did not empower Indigenous people with a fair say in
respect of those laws. It was not resolved in 1999:
the proposed symbolic preamble would have changed
nothing, and it failed at referendum.

Indigenous Australians have now formed a historic consensus.
They ask for constitutional recognition through a
First Nations voice in the Constitution. Not a racial
non-discrimination clause, which was opposed by politicians.
Not uncertain symbolism in the Constitution.

They ask only to be heard in decisions made about them.
A practical reform. Not a veto, but a voice.

There is a quintet of objections to the Uluru Statement:
1) The "equality"objection.
2) The "ïdentity politics"objection.
3) The "personal responsibility" objection.
4) The "all heart and no head" objection
5) The "secret, separatist" objection.

These objections share common threads. Each promotes
values of equality over division, unity over separation,
secure sovereignty over sovereign threats, responsibility
over passivity, and rationality over sentimentalism.

Each of these values is legitimate and important. With
respect to the Uluru Statement, however, the objections
are incorrectly applied.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

Shireen Morris says that properly understood,
the Uluru Statement from the Heart respects and
appreciates these principles - it does not
contradict them. It offers a way to recognise and
empower the First Nations of Australia to take
responsibility for their affairs, while
upholding the Constitution, respecting Crown
sovereignty and unifying the country.

She then goes on to deal with each of the objections
and explains each one in turn.

This is all available in the book, "A Rightful Place:
A Road Map to Recognition." And I would recommend it
to anyone wanting answers and explanations to any
objections that they may have.

Here's another link that may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-australias-greatest-moral-cha/10094924

Foxy,

I csuppose vthat'swhat an echo hamber looks like

Paulo,

" //Do you believe that all Australian citizens should be treated as equals?//

"Yes Issy I do, and it must be more than just in name, it must include equality of opportunity for all. It is clear that many Australians, including Aboriginal Australians, have not been treated equally, and they have suffered because of it.

"Admitting that mistakes were made in the past, acknowledge those mistakes, and take corrective action where possible is not a bad thing. Australia should not get totally hung up in this debate, but clearly a by-partisan approach, and good will from all sides will go a long way to put these issues to rest once and for all."

Yes, that's what Big Nana and I have been trying to get through to you: rectify the past, drive towards equality, and promote the best means to facilitate it. To a huge extent, much of that is up to Indigenous people themselves - which is my focus is on Indigenous university participation and the benefits that it promises.

But you both seem to believe that Indigenous people are too helpless to attempt that sort of effort, since you assume that effort is White while helplessness and hopelessness is Black. To repeat: since 1990, around 120,000 Indigenous people have been enrolled in university courses. And no, not bullshite courses but mainstream courses. Three-year and PG courses. They don't need your pity and sympathy.

Education liberates. Sympathy and commiseration lulls, dulls and stupefies. Your choice.

Joe

Talking to one of the relatives today (Great grand uncles side) and I asked him what he thought of the proposed treaty,

His exact words,

"Load of bloody bull, it won't help me pay off the mortgage".

He's a drover and works very hard, and has a lot of money invested in accommodation trucks, water wagons, horse floats, and other gear.

Joe, you can stop the nonsense, you don't know what we think, prating on about what you presume we think is rubbish. You take it upon yourself to make statements, then try to lecture us as if you and Big Nanna are the gurus of all things indigenous, YOU ARE NOT. The fact is we have not agreed or disagreed with your assertions. Just what does qualify you in the area of Aboriginal affairs? Your web site, some knowledge of the 5% of Indigenous located in SA. What pray tell?

Foxy, I didn’t ask to be referred to a web site. I’m quite capable of finding my own resources.
I’m asking for your opinion. What exactly would a treaty mean in practical terms? Give me some examples of what would change.
And please don’t tell me that aboriginal people would get some say in areas that affect them because if you do it would mean you have absolutely no idea of how indigenous affairs in this country are run. Even 40 years ago, when my husband was on the executive committee of Aboriginal Legal Service and an ATSIC representative for the Kimberley, aboriginal people were giving advice to government about what they wanted changed.
And how could you recommend anything that will see husbands and wives separated by racial laws or first cousins unable to access facilities equally because of race?
Anything that separates citizens is going to breed resentment and ill feeling, especially when family are involved

Big Nana,
Give me mixed race any day over academic background do-gooders !

Hi Pul,

I think you mean "prattle": I prattle, I don't prate.

I'm no expert on Indigenous affairs, I've never lived in a northern remote community for example: Big Nana has for nearly fifty years, so I'd defer to her expertise any time.

As for my web-site - www.firstsources.info - being confined to archives from South Australia, clearly you haven't ever checked it out (nor do you have to). There are thousands of pages on it relating to other States and the NT:

* . from NSW, numerous royal commission transcripts, reports on Aboriginal conditions, a report on southern missions;

* . from Victoria, a couple of royal commissions and a detailed report on Aboriginal conditions;

* . from the NT, Bleakley's 1929 detailed report on Aboriginal conditions;

* . from WA, the massive (1000-page) Moseley royal commission of 1934-35, and a couple of other royal commission transcripts (1905 and 1928), as well as material about the wonderful Camfield School in Albany;

* . from Queensland, transcripts of royal commissions on outrages around 1860, and Meston's report in the 1890s;

* . and of course, transcripts of national conferences ( including the ones you were complaining about), from 1931, 1937, 1951 and all through the sixties.

All on my web-site: www.firstsources.info

Or, of course, you can ignore it all. Your choice.

Cheers,

Joe

Excellent Joe. Yes I have visited your web site previously.

Although I must say it needs a bit of tweaking for easier navigation. But that requires time, and time is often something we are very poor in.

I think we are on the same page, but look at things a little differently at times. I don't believe we should be totally immersed in the wrongs of the past, but we should not completely ignore them either, where we can make a correction for the good, we should do so. The way to go is forward as a united people, not arguing, but agreeing on actions, in all areas of Aboriginal affairs for the common good. Lets call it multi tasking, you know tackling more than one thing at a time.

As for Chairman Mao, I don't think he ever met an Aboriginal, so lets leave him out of the equation.

On the treaty business, I said a couple of years back to you that I was ambivalent on the whole idea. That's based on what I know, and have discussed with many Maori people, some who are experts on their Treaty of Waitangi. It takes a lot more that a bit of paper.

Aps for the typo.

Dear Big Nana,

A First Nations voice in the Constitution
would guarantee Indigenous people a say, without
transfering power to the High Court or undermining
parliamentary supremacy. It presents a way of improving
Indigenous policy through early Indigenous engagement
rather than subsequent litigation.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would not
divide us by "race." There are already race clauses
in the Constitution that divide Australians. Ensuring
First Nations have a voice in their affairs would create-
a fairer relationship. It would prevent discrimination. It
would unify, not divide.

Constitutional recognition is not about the out-dated,
pseudo-scientific concept of "race." It is about
recognising the rightful place of the First Nations of
Australia - the Wik, the Yolngu, the Yorta Yorta and the
Anangu.

It is about acknowledging that there are peoples
in Australia whose pre-colonial heritage gives rise to
distinct rights and interests in their descendants (these
are already recognised in common law and legislation, such
as the "Native Title Act"); and those peoples should have
a say when parliament makes changes affecting their distinct
rights and interests.

Recognition of Indigenous rights is a reality the world over,
and it has nothing to do with "race." In some countries, the
Indigenous people are white. The Sami in Scandinavia have
blonde hair and blue eyes. There are Sami councils to advise
Scandinavian parliaments on Sami affairs, as well as
guarantees of equality before the law and clauses protecting
Sami culture and language in their Constitutions.

Recognition of Indigenous peoples does not
contradict equality before the law;
they are complimentary principles. Countries that
value equality should accordingly value their Indigenous
citizens and recognise the distinct rights and interests
which survived their dispossession.

Indeed, recognition of Indigenous rights is the hallmark of
a nation that has deeply considered the equality of its
diverse citizens.

However, objectors ignore the fact that historically the
Constitution has excluded Indigenous Australians from our
democracy. Before 1967 Indigenous Australians were excluded from
being counted in the census for the purposes of voting.

The Constitution also empowered laws and policies that
denied Indigenous many rights.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Big Nana,

Rights such as - voting rights, property rights,
equal wages, and asserted unequal protectionist controls.

A constitutional amendment ensuring Indigenous people
a voice in their affairs would not divide, it would unify.
It is a way to address inequality without empowering the
High Court.

Foxy,

Indigenous affairs were constitutionally a State matter until the 1967 Referendum: in the national conferences leading up to the Referendum (as on my web-site: www.firstsources.info ), all state governments (and the Feds under Hasluck) were quite relieved to be able to centralise them under the one federal government. Hence, although people were rigorously counted every year for many purposes, they could not be counted in the Federal Census until 1971.

But they certainly were counted, obtrusively so: in SA, the annual reports of the Protector (available on my web-site: www.firstsources.info ) record populations around the State annually. Removing this restriction imposed by the Constitution (and originally in reaction to WA and Qld's insistence on having representatives to account for the unknown Indigenous population out beyond 'civilization') was long overdue and all State governments knew it.

As for the vote, in almost (perhaps all ?) States and territories, Indigenous people could vote from about 1962. Again, long overdue. In fact, in SA, as the most enlightened State, any Indigenous person who had the State vote at the time of Federation, retained a right to a Federal vote. As well, Aboriginal women in SA had the vote from 1895, earlier than any women in other colonies/States, more than thirty years before British women between 21 and 30, and before French women.

So, in a sense, much of the hoo-ha about the 1967 Referendum was overblown: measures were already in place. But it needed the Australian people's agreement to change the Constitution: it already had the ready approval of all State governments.

Now there is still the clause about the Federal government's powers to make special laws about any 'race' - previous to 1967, these powers to make laws or Aboriginal people were State matters. Of course, this clause should be abolished. But it would cramp the room to manoeuvre of those who want special rights for Indigenous people.

No particular group is recognised in our Constitution, and that's how it should be. Indigenous people now have a Minister, and an Indigenous Minister at that. That's 'recognition' enough.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Joe,

The current system is not working. It does
not produce good results. The systemic
and structural failure of policy-making
is perpetuating disadvantage.

The Uluru Statement speaks to structural
disempowerment because it is a document about
constituional reform. The Constitution distributes
power. It can empower First Nations to take
responsibility, or it can disempower them, as it has
in the past.

A First Nations voice in the Constitution would enable
Indigenous people to take greater responsibility for
and leadership of their affairs.

To ensure change the system must be reformed to encourage,
and mandate responsibility.

Policies to address family violence, truancy, suicide
and alcohol abuse in Indigenous communities would
be improved with input from the people they are intended
to benefit. The success of the "Native Title Act" would
be greater if governments could better hear Indigenous
peoples' ideas to remove red tape and make their land
more commercially productive.

There's the old argument that there are already Indigenous
MPs in parliament - as though this is a substitute for
empowering First Nations with a voice in their affairs.

Those MPs, like any MPs, must represent their
constituencies, their electorates and their political
parties in all their ethnic diversity. Those MPs are not
representative of the First Nations of Australia.
They are representative of all Australians who voted for
them.

The difference is that parliament makes specific laws and
policies about Indigenous people. There is no native
title act for Lithuanian-Australians like myself,
or Greek-Australians, or Indian-Australians, et al,
because our ancestors were not dispossessed of land in
Australia. Nor has there been a Lithuanian-Australian,
Gree-Australian, or Indian-Australian, et al,
intervention.

When parliament makes laws and policies about the First
Nations of the Northern Territory, as they did with the
Northern Territory Intervention, the First Nations of
the Northern Territory should have a fair say. Whether
we agree or disagree that the Intervention was necessary,
there is consensus that it was poorly implemented,
without proper consultation, and not as effective as it
could have been. The Intervention failed to achieve
its aims.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

Had local First Nations been empowered to take
responsibility in its formulation, the Intervention
would not have been discriminatory. It would have been
better accepted by communities and more effective.

Those on the political left say the Intervention was
discriminatory paternalism; they tend to oppose
government intervention promoting responsibility.
The right say it was necessary. They tend to support
government intervention promoting responsibility.

The "radical centre" approach is to empower communities
to take responsibility themselves to take the lead
when it comes to intervening in and ultimately resolving
their own problems. Government cannot solve people's
problems.

To paraphrase Eleanor Roosevelt, government cannot do
anything for you that you are not willing to do yourself.

The First Nations of Australia have a right to take
responsibility. They should be empowered with a
constitutional voice in their affairs, so they can always
participate in decisions made about them. As a
champion of responsibility, you should support such a
reform.

Foxy,

I love these 'how else do you explain' arguments. There may be many other reasons why "The current system is not working." I presume you mean the child neglect, sexual abuse, domestic violence, anomie, lack of education, lifelong unemployment, poor health and derelict condition, in most remote communities ?

Could that have something to do with the behaviour of many of the people in those communities ? Basically, intelligent people seizing opportunities to do nothing with their lives, on the assumption that doing nothing is easier and therefore better than doing anything ? Like looking after your kids ? Getting them to school ? Looking after your elders ? Trying to stop or discourage violent behaviour ?

At least, that might be one other plausible 'explanation' ?

There are thousands of Indigenous organisations around the country. In remote communities, there may be no other bureaucrats or functionaries other than Indigenous people - no whitefellas, no police, certainly no missionaries. There is comparatively little 'colonisation' going on which the people there would reject, such as ATMs, air-conditioning, Toyotas, royalties and access to grog - although these days, there would be plenty of 'intergenerational trauma', mainly from the previous cycles of chronic problems which have been allowed to fester. Those organisations therefore have a free hand to make decisions and carry them out. Do they ?

For the life of me, I can't see how more 'voice' or a peace treaty can fix all that up. IF parents could be persuaded somehow to look after their kids, IF community councils and all of those organisations could be persuaded to do their jobs given that they have plenty of 'self-determination' to do so - even then, I can't see what these thought-bubbles have to do with day-to-day actual reality.

Can you join the dots for me, but without referring me to kids' web-sites ?

Joe

Foxy,

The first nations have the same representation and empowerment as the rest of us. What you are asking for is special racial discrimination.

Dear Joe,

Norway, Sweden and Finland have publicly funded Sami
councils which advise their governments on Sami
affairs. New Zealand has the publicly funded Maori
Council (and reserved Maori seats); and Canada has
publicly funded the Assembly of First Nations. All
these countries not only guarantee First Nations have
a voice, but also constitutionally recognise Indigenous
rights and interests.

Why do they accommodate their First Nations in
institutional and constitutional arrangements?

Because the First Nations of a colonised country are not
the same as any other lobby group. They are a group of
citizens descended from the original owners of the
land. They were dispossessed, and have rights and interests
arising from this history.

Responsible democracies put in place measures to manage
relationships between their Indiegnous people
and the nation state, to ensure Indigenous peoples
can participate fairly in the nation. Representative
arrangements are part of such measures.

Indiegnous Australians were denied a vote under the laws
of our parliament, they were denied equal wages for their
hard work, they were denied an equal reward for the guts
they showed in fighting for Australia in both world wars.

And while Indigenous affairs policies are more well
intentioned now, they are still not producing the
results they should.

The historic consensus achieved at Uluru shows
Indigenous Australians have guts, ambition, determination
and smarts. They have done the hard work to form a
unified position. They have asked for a voice in their
affairs.

As "The Australian's" legal affairs editor, wrote:

"Here's the harsh reality. Our forebears took this
country from the original inhabitants. We are not about to
give it back. So the least we can do is oblige ourselves to
listen when Indigenous people ask to be heard."

The Uluru Statement presents a way for the powerful
Australian majority, as represented by our democratic
parliament, to ensure that it treats the vulnerable
Indigenous minority as we would like to
have been treated, had history
and circumstance been reversed.

It's not asking much to hear Indigenous views when
parliament makes decisions about them. It is a modest and
moral request.

Dear Foxy,

Very well put indeed.

If government is silly enough to introduce racially based legislation
for aboriginal chamber or council or a treaty then they must have a sunset clause.
After 250 years with a small population there are a great many light
skinned aborigines. In another 250 years it will be hard to find a black aborigine.
The question is already being raised about if someone is aborigine.
I saw a form the other day where a white person got a benefit at 65
but an aborigine, or someone so claiming got the benefit at 50.

Now that is racism.

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

It is not beyond this great nation to make it happen.

Shadow Minster,

The Constitution confers upon parliament a soecial
power to racially discriminate. The Race Power was
inserted, according to the contitutional convention
debates, to control and exclude the "inferior"
and "coloured" peoples. Before 1967, the power
was never used. After 1967, it has been used in
relation to Indigenous Australians.

For example -

Section 25 acknowledges that racially discriminatory
laws are permitted under the Constitution.

White Australians have always been the predominant law-
makers in our parliament, and they don't enact laws that
racially discriminate against themselves. Their ancestors
have never been denied equality on the basis of "race"
under Australian law, so their empathy for
discrimination against Indigenous Australians may in some
cases be lacking.

Sorry, Foxy, are you claiming that there SHOULD be discriminatory legislation in relation to Indigenous people ? That the possibility of Apartheid against Indigenous people should remain open ?

Surely that needs to be debated by Australians, hopefully before they are asked to vote for or against a Referendum question which only goes to reinforce such a backward move ?

Joe

//I saw a form the other day where a white person got a benefit at 65
but an aborigine, or someone so claiming got the benefit at 50.
Now that is racism.//

Now what form was that Bazz?

Hi Foxy,

The inclusion of discriminatory racially motivated sections in the Australian Constitution may have been acceptable to the dear old white gentlemen of 1901, but the world has moved on and such rubbish now needs to be removed.

Joe, you are in agreement that racially motivated rubbish in the Constitution does need to be removed, are you not?

Hi Paul,

Of course, always. I got over my "Gee, maybe some aspects of Apartheid might be progressive" a long time ago.

The original intentions were a bit more complicated than that: WA and Queensland wanted to increase their rights to parliamentary representation in federal parliament (i.e. the lower house) by inflating the estimated numbers of Aboriginal people thought to still live 'beyond civilization'. Even in 1950, it was still being asserted that there were fifty thousand such people 'out there', out of our total population of seven million. In reality, the numbers were probably around twenty thousand. And those states also wanted to keep control of Indigenous affairs.

Anyway, the other states baulked at the first idea. So a compromise was found, that the states could keep control of Indigenous affairs. That's the basis of that Constitutional clause which was amended in the 1967 Referendum.

Of course it was racist. And thankfully, once that clause now specifying that the federal government can make special laws for any group of people has been amended, that will be a huge blow against any possible discrimination. So the Indigenous Industry needs to be careful what it wishes for.

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Dear Joe,

You asked about discriminatory legislation in
reference to Indigenous people? I assume you are
talking about "separatism."

Some people do contend the "Aboriginal political class"
seeks constitutional sovereignty because it will ultimately
lead to their sovereignty. They mean sovereignty in the
separatist sense and the claim is that this is their
agenda.

There is no secret separatist sovereignty agenda. This is
an attempt to whip up irrational fear.

The First Nations voice respects parliamentary and Crown
sovereignty and upholds the Constitution.

The Uluru majority consensus adopted an inclusive
understanding. This understanding of First Nations
sovereignty is cultural and spiritual. It coexists
peacefully with the sovereignty of Australian
governments and the Crown.

At Uluru the delegates adopted an inclusive approach.
They called for a First Nations voice within the
Constitution to enable their ancient, surviving, spiritual
sovereignty to better "shine through"in Australia's
constitutional arrangements.

This inclusive, spiritual notion of sovereignty is the
"radical centre"in the sovereignty debate. The Uluru
Statement found the noble compromise to which
constitutional recognition aspires.

Tony Abbott told parliament in 2013:
" Australia is a blessed country. Our climate, our
land, our people, our institutions rightly make us the
envy of the earth, except for one thing - we have
never fully made peace with the first Australians.
This is the stain on our soul that Prime Minster
Keating so movingly evoked at Redfern years ago...
we need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness
of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace
the future as a united people."

The Uluru Statement has given us a practical way to do this.

Dear Steele,

Thank You for your kind words.

Dear Paul,

So glad that you're not out of touch and get
it.

Foxy,

Just because you declare something, doesn't mean that it is so.

Your take on 'sovereignty' was - no offence - pure waffle. It's a term which can't avoid being linked to separation - separatism. That's what it means. How on earth you can deny this is flabbergasting.

And the Uluru Statement: practical ? I have a beautiful Bridge that you might like to buy. Can you honestly join the dots between the Statement and practicality, without drifting off towards separatism ? And ultimately, Apartheid ?

Very worrying.

Joe

.

We’re obviously dealing with a complex problem here.

I think it’s worth recalling that the British Crown and government caused the problem when they decided to claim ownership of Australia on the basis that the country was uninhabited – despite the fact that they were perfectly aware that it was inhabited by Aboriginal peoples.

Though the relation of cause and effect has never been clearly established, the arrival of the First fleet coincided with the decimation of a large majority of the Aboriginal inhabitants by diseases previously unknown to them.

Successive generations of Australians of European extraction contributed to their decimation by chasing them off their land and exploiting it to their own benefit. Any resistance was quashed in fierce battles and massacres.

Uprooted, deprived of their traditional lands and customs as well as many of their family and tribe members, the social structures of these primitive peoples were in complete turmoil. They were no longer capable of functioning in an orderly manner. The intricate bonds of law and order that kept them together and allowed them to live in peace and harmony broke down. Much of the accumulative knowledge of the elders was lost. The past was no longer present, and the educational system became impoverished and ineffective. In this context, survival by traditional means became difficult if not impossible. Many migrated to the urban areas of the new (State) colonies.

Mabo in 1992 provided too little too late but, at least, it was a step in the right direction. It did not give back ownership of traditional lands but it gave the first peoples limited use of it.

Since the early days of colonisation, successive state and federal governments have adopted a policy of integration and assimilation of our Aboriginal compatriots into the modern ("civilised") world. They can hardly be criticised for that. What they can and have been criticized for is applying that policy forcibly, against the will of the Aboriginal peoples themselves – capturing their young children like wild animals and placing them in ...

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

... orphanages, church missions and the more affluent foster homes of white families.

As Joe (Loudmouth) indicated on page 4 of this thread, the Australian government currently spends about A$33 billion a year on Aboriginal affairs. Some might consider that not only exorbitant but discriminatory compared to other Australians who are less well favoured.

However, if we look at it in the broader context, it is evident that we other Australians of European extraction have received the benefit of colonisation and, in particular, ownership of the country – free of cost – the traditional owners not having received the slightest compensation.

How much is Australia worth ? At today’s value, it is worth approximately 1,000 times more that the A$33 billion current annual expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. This A$33 trillion is composed of A$20 trillion of natural resources and A$13 trillion of household wealth (assets and debt).

Which means that it will take us at least 1,000 years to pay back to the traditional owners everything we have gained from confiscating their country. – and that does not take into account the fact that Australia is increasing in value every year.

We should also take into account the fact that we have not, in fact, been spending A$33 billion every year since we arrived here in 1788. For many years, it has probably been nothing like that figure. Even if we had been spending that much for the past 100 years (which I doubt) we would still have at least another 900 years to go before paying off the debt.

Believe it or not, Australia is rated the second richest country in the world (per adult), after Iceland. That’s, of course, no consolation to those who have difficulty making ends meet. What it does mean is that the injustice felt by some – due to more welfare benefits going to some rather than to others – is not so much a problem of discrimination as it is a problem of inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer :

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090516/10-countries-most-natural-resources.asp

http://www.ibisworld.com/industry-insider/media/3269/phil_march_2018.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

.

How much is Australia worth ? At today’s value, it is worth approximately 1,000 times more that the A$33 billion current annual expenditure on Aboriginal affairs.
Banjo Paterson,
Any figures/estimates what it's worth was in 1788 ?

Dear Joe,

There are people who contend that the "Äboriginal political
class" seeks constitutional recognition because it will
ultimately lead to their sovereignty. And by that they
mean "sovereignty" in the separatist sense. This is
simply spreading fear. And is not true.

The fact is those advocates who may have a separatist agenda
are in the minority, and they don't support constitutional
recognition.

Indigenous activists who desire separate state sovereignty
do not support constitutional recognition because of its
inclusive nature.

To genuine separatists, constitutional recognition is
problematically integrationist. That's why seven dissenting
sovereignty campaigners walked out of Uluru. Only seven.

The convention was heading in too pragmatic and inclusive
a direction for their separatist aims.

Constitutional conservatives support the proposal
for a First Nations voice precisely because it respects
parliamentary and Crown sovereignty and upholds
the Constitution.

Whereas the seven dissenters preferred a separatist
understanding of surviving Indigenous sovereignty, the
Uluru majority consensus however, adopted an inclusive understanding.
The Uluru Statement talks about First Nations sovereignty
as a " spiritual notion."

" The ancestral tie between the land, or "mother nature,"
and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born
therefrom, remain attached thereto,
and must one day return thither to be united
with our ancestors. This link is the
basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty.
It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with
the sovereignty of the Crown."

This understanding of First Nations sovereignty is cultural
and spiritual.

It coexists peacefully with the sovereignty of Australian
government and the Crown.

At Uluru the delegates adopted an inclusive approach. They
called for a First Nations voice within the Constitution to
enable their ancient, surviving, spiritual sovereignty to
as stated earlier - better "shine through"in Australia's
constitutional arrangements.

The First Nations have asked for the Constitution to be amended
to compel the parliament to hear Indigenous views before making
decisions about Indigenous rights and interests

cont'd ...

Dear Joe,

Such a reform would align with international best
practice in the pursuit of self-determination for
first peoples, helping to fulfil Australia's
obligations under the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples and other human rights
instruments.

It would be a constitutional innovation that is in
keeping with the culture of Australia's Constitution.

It would be a reform of which Australia would be proud,
knowing that, given the wrongdoing of the past, pausing
to hear First Nations' voices before making decisions
about them is the least that can be done.

Rachel Perkins captured the essence of what constitutional
recognition means for all Australians in her speech at
the first RECOGNISE gala dinner in 2014.

In her speech, she reflected on the story of her father,
Charlie, and the journey of the Freedom Riders. Rachel
argued that constitutional recognition was not about
white Australia recognising black Australia, but also
black Australia recognising white Australia, and creating
a shared future.

In her speech she said: "It is for you to share, and
acknowledging us in the Constitution will acknowledge
that as part of your heritage too. It's a two-way
mirror, we acknowledge you, you acknowledge us, we become
one. As we say in Arrernte country, onle land, one mob."

The simplicity of this message speaks of unity, not division.

It speaks to a yearning for unity that looks beyond the
division of contemporary identity politics to a mutual
recognition of common humanity and a shared future of
equal investment in our country.

It also speaks to finality and the idea that the journey
of reconciliation can end with "oneness."

Foxy,

There was an Aboriginal voice set up that collapsed due to corruption and incompetence. Why should we want a constitutionally mandated one?

Thank you BP for what is a truthful potted account of what has transpired since the British (Captain Cook) declared sovereignty over the Great South land, 22nd August 1770, all in the name of king and country. It was a convenient mistake by the British to declare the land "terra nullius" and therefore ripe for occupation.

Joe, as for sovereignty, it does not necessarily have to lead to separatism for the Indigenous population. That is something that has no popular support within the community. I would agree with Foxy, that assertion on your part is erroneous. Much of the opposition to recognition is based on fear, and the separatism argument plays on those fears.

Now Joe, what is your bottom line on this subject, is it do nothing, or is it do something? if it is to be recognition, what form should that recognition take?

Foxy, the 1967 referendum had nothing to do with voting rights. Many aboriginal people had those rights for decades before then. In S.A.aboriginal women were the second women in the world to get the vote, behind New Zealand.
As for aboriginal people having a say on issues that involve them, what issues would those be, that don’t also involve non indigenous people? The only single area that pertains to indigenous people only is land rights and those are already covered in state laws after decades of consultation with indigenous land councils.
I’m trying to imagine what on earth could relate to one group only, apart from that one issue. Unless you are advocating separate laws for indigenous people, separate responsibilities for indigenous people, separate rights for indigenous people?
Racial discrimination is illegal in this country so are you suggesting we get rid of those laws as well?
And you still havent answered my question about separating family members by race. How would it make sense for husband and wife to live by different rules? Cousins? Because first cousins can belong to different races so special rules would divide them by race. And yes it is about race. Indigenous people are a different race to others. Different anatomy, different DNA, different appearance. All the semantics in the world won’t change that.

Dear Big Nana,

I know that you objected to my referring you to links
because you said you were quite capable of looking
them up yourself. I knew that but I referred to the
links in response to the questions that you were asking
me. You obviously did not look anything up for yourself
as you are still asking me the same questions.

You also obviously do not understand what the Uluru
Statement is all about. Therefore I again respectfully suggest
that you do your own research on the subject. It may
clarify things for you as to what the Uluru Statement
aspires. It is not about any division.

Shadow, can you expand on that with some more detail, rather that a broad statement without supportive evidence.

Hi Bajo,

Sorry, nobody has ever claimed that Australia was uninhabited. When Justice Blackburn used the term "terra nullius", thats not what it meant: it referred to land which didn't have a recognizable system of land ownership - land use, yes, of course, but not land ownership. I would be grateful if you could find any other reference to the term "terra nullius" before the Mabo decision in 1992.

Consequently, the British recognized the right of all Indigenous people to use the land as they always had done (in accordance with the British practice of recognizing all hitherto land relationship systems), and this was spelt out to colonial governments in a directive from the Colonial Office in London in 1849-1850. Those rights were promptly written into every pastoral lease in SA (and presumably in all other colonies) so that all pastoral leases here had to be re-negotiated and re-issued in mid-1850.

But it makes a nice straw man to set fire to, doesn't it ?

Joe

Foxy,

"The First Nations have asked for the Constitution to be amended
to compel the parliament to hear Indigenous views before making
decisions about Indigenous rights and interests"

Excellent, provided the same consideration is given to all other groups in Australia.

Hi Paul,

" .... what is your bottom line on this subject, is it do nothing, or is it do something?"

I don't really know what you mean by 'nothing' - in relation to sovereignty/separatism (yes, Foxy, I DO think one implies the other) ? Then my answer is 'nothing'. There are far more urgent issues to resolve - hopefully trending towards full, actual, working equality - that idle fantasies.

If you mean in relation to child neglect and abuse, violence, lack of education, unemployment, ill-health, suicide and violent deaths, then of course something has to be done, urgently, mainly by the communities (i.e. the bodies with 'self-determination') and families (i.e. those with actual responsibilities towards, you know, ummm ... kids). Until people come to understand that self-determination doesn't just mean telling whitefellas what to do for them, but the actual hard work of doing what humans everywhere else assume they have to do.

Which is why I keep banging on about education, particularly higher education - I'm sorry if it gets up your nose so painfully. Whether Aboriginal people stay in hole-in-the-wall remote communities or move off into the towns and cities, they will need much the same range and level of skills as anybody else already there.

Are they intelligent human beings ? I think so. Can they do what other human beings can do all around the world ? I think so. Do they need pity for their helplessness from kind whites ? No, I don't think so: that's been the killer over the last fifty years. Are they helpless ? I don't think so, even if they seem to be so. Will they take on their human responsibilities ? I don't know, but I hope so, in my lifetime.

As for IHE, there will be around 100,000 Indigenous university graduates before 2027, eight years away; overwhelmingly in the cities, two-thirds women, mostly happily working and inter-marrying, and most likely staying in the cities. Do they owe anything to people in remote communities ? No.

Joe

Paul,

In relation to SM's post: ATSIC. If you don't know anything about its level of corruption and incompetence, then just ask :)

Of course, ATSIC wasn't the first or only corrupt Indigenous organisation. Most of its predecessors (an apt word) - no, pretty much all of them, were almost equally corrupt and incompetent. Nor did ATSIC have much support from Indigenous people: I recall that some SA ATSIC reps got voted in on twenty votes.

Currently, the Indigenous Industry is almost totally controlled by a corrupt and incompetent dictatorship of elites, cronies and their relations. It is not the friend of Indigenous people, on the whole. I'm vicious and spiteful enough to wish it a just demise.

Joe

Foxy,

On the Uluru Statement: as Big Nana knows far better than (with respect) you do, it is piss and wind. Please try to analyse such declarations. The last thing Indigenous people need these days is yet more bullshite and thought-bubbles.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I am merely responding to Big Nana's posts in
this discussion. To me it appears that she"
from her comments - appears to
know little about what the Uluru Statement
actually entails. It is not about division.

My information comes from the mouths of
people like Noel Pearson, Warren Mundine,
Stan Grant, Megan Davis, Red Little, Jackie
Huggins, Damien Freeman,
Nolan Hunter, and Galarrway Yunupingu.

If you think they are all spouting "BS" - then
there's nothing more for me to say.
I shan't waste any more of my, or your time.

Dear Loudmouth,

You write of Foxy;

"On the Uluru Statement: as Big Nana knows far better than (with respect) you do"

Absolute rubbish. Just look at the posts of each of them. Please show me one single instance that Big Nana showed a greater knowledge, understanding or appreciation of the Uluru statement than Foxy.

Piss and wind indeed.

Foxy,

Thank you for not wasting any more of my time.

Joe

Hi Joe, no the demise of ATSIC was well publicised and I did read of its fall from grace extensively at the time, just thought SM might have had some fresh stuff, since he didn't actually name anything, maybe he wasn't thinking of ATSIC. There are those that maintain ATSIC was made a scapegoat for government failures to address problems correctly. But that's another John Dory.

Again you go off on that worthwhile tangent of aboriginal health, education etc etc, but its not what the discussion is about. Is it impossible to tackle the "sovereignty" issue and the "recognition" issue at the same time as those other very serious issues are being addressed?

//Currently, the Indigenous Industry is almost totally controlled by a corrupt and incompetent dictatorship of elites, cronies and their relations. It is not the friend of Indigenous people, on the whole. I'm vicious and spiteful enough to wish it a just demise.//

Who are these corrupt individuals? It? Do you mean the "Indigenous industry" as you call it as a whole, or just certain individuals.

Paul

"Is it impossible to tackle the "sovereignty" issue and the "recognition" issue at the same time as those other very serious issues are being addressed?"

Sure seems to be: I suspect the Industry is corrupt enough to use all those crises to flog any and all governments, and incompetent enough not to have a clue what to do about them even if they wanted to. Which would be the end of their bread and butter. Fortunately for them, there's no chance of that soon.

The Industry as a whole: its entire corrupt, Mafia-type, patron/client criminality, structure. Power is its raison d'etre, not necessarily money like an archetypical Mafia but power, mainly power over a defenceless and utterly dependent Indigenous clientele, and power over the in-between/go-between/middle-men bureaucracy, their links up to the higher echelons of government. There are a few decent, honest individuals, but I wouldn't want to 'taint' them by naming them.

Joe

.

Dear Individual,

.

You ask:

« Any figures/estimates what it's [Australia’s] worth was in 1788 ? »

That’s an interesting question, Individual, and despite all my efforts, I’m afraid I can’t think of an intelligent answer.

What comes to my mind are further questions :

1. What was it worth to the Aboriginal peoples who had been living there for over 60,000 years ?

2. What was it worth to the British Crown and government as a location for the establishment of a convict colony, as well as a strategic outpost for quick access to the oriental trade route ?

The replies that come to my mind to those two questions are :

1. For the Aboriginal peoples, in 1788, Australia was beyond value. It was everything they had, their life source, their whole world, the only world they knew.

2. For the British, it was worth no more than the loss of the first fleet. They could have just as easily decided to establish the colony in South Africa – which had also been seriously considered – but had chosen Australia on the firm recommendation of Joseph Banks, the botanist who had accompanied Cook on the Endeavour in 1770.

The British don’t seem to have placed a very high value at all on Australia in 1788. In their initial secret instructions to Cook for the 1770 voyage, they had specified that he should offer “the Natives, if there be any … presents of such Trifles as they may Value inviting them to Traffick …”

That’s about the best I can do Individual.

.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote:

« Sorry, nobody has ever claimed that Australia was uninhabited. When Justice Blackburn used the term "terra nullius", thats not what it meant: it referred to land which didn't have a recognizable system of land ownership - land use, yes, of course, but not land ownership. I would be grateful if you could find any other reference to the term "terra nullius" before the Mabo decision in 1992 »
.

You don’t need to apologise, Joe. You’re quite right. I’m the one who should apologise for my sloppy language. The British did not claim that Australia was uninhabited. They claimed it was inhabited by primitive peoples who used the land without “labouring” it which, under British law, meant that it was “terra nullius” (nobody’s land).

The problem with that, of course, was that they were not in the UK and British law did not apply. They were on Aboriginal territory (Australia) and Aboriginal law applied – as was finally confirmed by the High Court of Australia in the Mabo case in 1992 when it declared that “terra nullius” should not have been applied to Australia.
.

In answer to your request for references to "terra nullius" before 1992, I found this on Wikipedia :

« Court cases in 1977, 1979, and 1982 – brought by or on behalf of Aboriginal activists – challenged Australian sovereignty on the grounds that terra nullius had been improperly applied, therefore Aboriginal sovereignty should still be regarded as being intact. The courts rejected these cases, but the Australian High Court left the door open for a reassessment of whether the continent should be considered "settled" or "conquered". Later, on 1 February 2014, the traditional owners of land on Badu Island received freehold title to 10,000 hectare in an act of the Queensland Government » (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius).

.

Banjo,

You should ask "What was the value of Eastern Australia?"

Britain didn't claim the whole country, the West was considered French territory.

Paul,

"Lieutenant James Cook, captain of HMB Endeavour, claimed the eastern portion of the Australian continent for the British Crown in 1770, naming it New South Wales.

In his journal, he wrote: ‘so far as we know [it] doth not produce any one thing that can become an Article in trade to invite Europeans to fix a settlement upon it’."

There, that should set you right.
Many people make the same mistake and think that Cook claimed the whole of Australia.
http://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/cook-claims-australia

Banjo,

You're touching on a different matter - what in law is termed "res nullius", 'a thing or space without government'. None of all this is peculiarly British, it's standard international law. Of course, there was nothing like a single government across Australia before 1788 (in fact, not until 1901), since land was traditionally possessed and used on a clan basis, and there were perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 clans. The question therefore becomes: did clans have systems of government or administration ? If so, were there 5,000 to 10,000 systems of government across Australia ?

That's a bit unfair: many clans grouped together, often very uneasily, under the guidance of elders from the clan, especially in terms of their dialects of a sort-of-common language. There does not seem to have been any higher or over-arching system of government than that. So perhaps there might have been one or two thousand of these hypothetically possible entities. Whether they actually existed may need some better analysis than I can offer.

The clan or extended families ran their own internal affairs like families do, but there seems to have been very little to run above that level, except elders coming together to decide who had killed person A - B, C, D, or E, since it was believed that no death of able-bodied people, especially males, could have been natural.

That's about it for 'government'. Idyllic, in one sense; but somewhat limiting over sixty thousand years.

As for the term, "terra nullius" being used in the 1970s and 1980s-by whom ? The courts, or by Indigenous people themselves ? God - what am I saying ? That the term "terra nullius" was primarily, if not the invention of, then the vehicle or myth promoted by, Indigenous people themselves?

You mentioned Badu. Yes, people on the TS Islands farmed the land, cleared it, cultivated it, dug it, planted it, weeded it, built up irrigation works on it, marked its boundaries with rocks, markers often going out into the sea to mark sea-bedrights as well. In other words, they owned the land in British Law.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

Bruce Pascoe writes in his book, "Dark Emu" :

" Arguing over whether the Aboriginal economy
was a hunter-gatherer system or one of burgeoning
agriculture is not the central issue.

The crucial point is that we have never discussed
it as a nation. The belief that Aboriginal people
were "mere"hunter-gatherers has been used as a
political tool to justify dispossession.

Every Land Rights application hinges on the idea
that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
did nothing more than collect available resources,
and therefore had no managed interaction with the
land; that is, the Indigenous population did not
own or use the land.

If we look at the evidence presented to us by the
explorers, and explain to our children that
Aboriginal people DID build houses, DID build dams,
DID sow, irrigate, and till the land, DID alter
the course of rivers, DID sew their clothes, and
DID construct a system of pan-continental government
that generated peace and prosperity, it is likely
we will admire and love our land all the more.

Admiration and love are not sufficient in themselves,
but they are the foundation of a more productive
interaction with the continent.

Behaving as if the First Peoples were mere wanderers
across the soil and knew nothing about how to grow
and care for food resources is a piece of managerial
pig-headedness..."

The author explains further in great detail. It makes for
an interesting and informative read. Pascoe puts forward a
compelling argument for a reconsideration of the
hunter-gatherer label for pre-colonial Aboriginal
Australians. The evidence insists that Aboriginal people
right across the continent were using domesticated plants,
sowing, harvesting, irrigating and storing - behaviours
inconsistent with the hunter-gatherer tag.

The book is worth a read.

Foxy,

So they would have Dreaming stories about farming then ?

And the earliest contacts would have noticed evidence of farming, with the elders being immense stores of knowledge about farming techniques ? Including the first contacts with groups barely a hundred years ago in the Kimberley ? People would have readily taken up opportunities to farm on Missions across the country since the very beginning ?

People everywhere would still be yearning to farm rather than go out hunting ?

Interesting to know.

Joe

The still common assumption is that Aboriginal
Australians in 1788 were simple hunter-gatherers
who relied on chance for survival and moulded
their lives to the country where they lived.

Historian Bill Gammage has driven the last nail
into the coffin of this notion. Gammage argues,
the First Australians worked a complex system of
land management with fire- their biggest ally,
and driven on the life cycle of plants and the
natural flow of water to ensure plentiful wild
life and plant foods throughout the year.
They managed, he says, the biggest estate on
earth.

The publishers of his book say it re-writes the history
of the continent.

It's a big claim. But not to big. Gammage says,
"When I look at the subject, I think, that's right.
When I think it's my claim, I think people might
regard me as a mug liar. But I believe the book
will lead to a re-think of what Aboriginals did."

There's more at:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-first-farmers-20110930-111gv.html

Bill Gammage - "The Biggest Estateon Earth: How Aborigines
Made Australia."

Explodes the myth that pre-settlement Australia was an
untamed wilderness revealing the complex country-wide
systems of land management used by Aboriginal people.

http://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/history/The-Biggest-Estate-on-Earth-Bill-Gammage-9781743311325

cont'd ...

My apologies. I made a typo in the first
link I gave. Here it is again:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-first-farmers-20110930-1l1gv.html