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