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