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 It is a better choice than many outdated and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.