Hi there ALTRAV...

An interesting question, however, I cannot back up my opinions, with any substantiated facts or figures - I'll leave that to the various theoreticians to do that.

Empirically speaking, some individuals I've had to deal with, both as a Detective & in uniform, claiming Aboriginal heritage, I believed to be deceitful. I can't claim any expertise of indigenous folk. But I do contend I know a legitimate 'black fella' (a term they frequently employ themselves) when I've met with one.

While it's true, some have certain features, and complections that would pass as Europeans. But this tends to be more atypical than the rule. After a while, one does tend to recognise those who can legitimately claim to be of indigenous heritage. Police GO's & GI's stipulate how we must deal with individuals claiming to be Aboriginal. And the burden of proof lays with Police & the Crown to prove otherwise? Especially those in cellular confinement. Too many rules to share with you in this limited Site - but they are afforded some additional protections, above and beyond what others can expect?

Upon an arrest, police are required to employ a set of rules, called the 'Judges Rules,' which in my time were nine (9) in number. One you'll recognise; {'...you are not required to say anything, however, anything you do say, will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence against you in a Court of Law...'}. The Americans call it the 'Miranda.' Both are for the (legal) protection(s) of the accused person. Another 'Rule' - {The person arrested must be informed of the real reason for their arrest}.

Those of Aboriginal blood, are not only entitled to the protections enshrined in the nine (9) 'Judges Rules,' that apply to you & me; but a further ten (10) rules called the 'Anunga' (sic) Rules, that arose out of a High Court judgment, some Sixty years or so ago. I hope this goes in some small way in helping you with your inquiry ALTRAV?

Dear o sung wu,

It is an interesting topic. What makes someone Aboriginal.

Perhaps looking at what makes someone a Jew in the eyes of the State of Israel. To enjoy the embrace of the "Law of Return" which gives someone living overseas the right to become an Israeli citizen one needs only one grandparent to have identified as Jewish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return

This incidentally was the same test applied in Nazi Germany to decide if you were off to the ovens.

Now of course there are many blue-eyed blonde people living in and being accepted as Jews within Israel.

If you don't see a problem with the approach taken by Israel then what would prevent you extending the same criteria to a person's aboriginality?

Steely, Oh I see a problem alright.
Firstly, like the reasoning of the NZ govt, the matter of who you are is not the same as what religion you are.
The KIWI model says that if your parents are Kiwi, then it matters not where you are born, you are always Kiwi.
Now I agree with this but it must be seen as two things, one is a govt thing.
The other is a genetic thing and so, to that end if you're born in Australia, then you are Aussie.
But because your parents are both pure blood Kiwi, I'm sorry but genetically you are Kiwi.
So even though your passport will say you're Aussie, the NZ govt says you're not.
This is an on-going issue.
Now if we are talking about Jews, if I understand correctly, to be Jewish, is a religion, you can be born anywhere.
I'm not sure but I imagine the fact that Jews have so many special dispensations around the world, that their case is unique.
Steely again you choose one of the extraordinary examples or cases.
The example which best describes the correct answer is; because an aborigine is someone who has descended from a blood line going back for thousands of years, they can only be called an aborigine.
When two aborigines mate, their offspring will be, by definition and blood, an aborigine.
This is the terms of reference for any race, an unbroken lineage or bloodline.
On the other hand, and what is more prevalent today, is that because of the 'contamination' of the blacks bloodline by the insertion of Europeans on the Aussie landscape, we began seeing mixed blood offsprings.
These children, again by definition were not aborigine.
They simply were not because they were of mixed parentage, and so what they were was Australian.
Like anyone of mixed blood they could refer to themselves as an Aussie Abo or an Abo Aussie, but NOT aboriginal.
To put a more light hearted spin on it they were not aboriginal because they were no an 'original abo'? (pun intended).
continue.............

continue...........

Then we come across the case where, for example, a Frenchman and an Aussie have a kid, this would be classified as an Aussie, genetically, because one parent was Aussie and he was born in Australia.
If both parents happen to be, say French and the child is born in Australia, well his passport would say he was Aussie but in fact he is French, because he is a pure blood Frenchman.
I have heard wannabee black's suggest they 'feel' aboriginal, or they relate to the land as an an aboriginal.
Well good for them, but they are not aborigine and they are not genetically correct.
I see it as a test of several factors both parents X and X then offspring X.
One parent X the other Y the offspring born in Y then two out of three the offspring is Y.
And so on.
I hope this is clear enough for most.

Legally an "Aboriginal Australian" is recognised as
a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or a Torres
Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community
in which he (or she) lives.

Today about 3% of Australia's population has Aboriginal
heritage. And, Aboriginal Australians are still struggling
to retain their ancient culture and fight for recognition
and restitution from the Australian government.

The Victorian government is currently working towards
a first-of-its-kind treaty with its Aboriginal population
that would recognise Aboriginal Australians sovereignty.

What would we do without Dr. Google ?

When I was working in Indigenous Student Support at one university here in SA (albeit an insignificant uni in an insignificant state with very few Indigenous people), back in the days when very few Indigenous students were finishing Year 12 (VERY different now), one would get the occasional person who, one suspected, was not Indigenous. When asked, just as a matter of curiosity, who they might have been related to, they got dodgy (some people are lousy actors) and claimed to be from far away, usually from some obscure town in Tasmania or WA.

No worries, I'd say, since one could easily ring up a local Indigenous organisation - what, your mother or father or both ? Usually mother. Oh, what was her maiden name ? Um, she didn't really know, she was stolen generation. [So how did this person 'know' he/she was Indigenous ? I'm such a cruel bastard].

Or, if they hadn't planned well, from a local country town. Oh, my wife's auntie lived there, I'd say, did you ever know her or her kids, they might have even gone to school with you. No, I didn't live there, I left as a baby.

Okay, I'd say, just fill out this family tree and we'll take it from there. [Goodbye].

One bloke got into a more 'friendly' Indigenous program and later was their Aboriginal Scholar of the Year, and scored a plum job in Canberra in policy development, and then one back here in SA. Others I was a bit uncertain about. Usually Indigenous people are happy to let you know who they're related to, in case you know one of their rellies. So the equivocation was a give-away. With others, it's like playing some blind card game: do you have an ace of spades ? No. Do you have a six of diamonds ? No. Do you have ....

Joe