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

.