ALTRAV,

After European settlers arrived in 1788 thousands
of Aboriginals died from disease, colonists systematically
killed many others. At first contact, there were over
250,000 Aborigines in Australia. The massacres ended in 1920
leaving no more than 60,000.

The Constitution empowered laws and policies that denied
Indigenous people voting rights, property rights,
equal wages and asserted unequal protectionist controls.

Had the principle of equality been extended justly to
Indigenous peoples in the first place, Australia would not
now be grappling with Constitutional reform to ensure
Indigenous people receive a fairer go then they've had in the
past.

The political context exposes the hypocrisy - had a racial
non-discriminatory guarantee been supported by those who today
espouse "equality" Indigenous people might not now be asking
for a constitutional voice in their affairs.

Judging from your comments you firstly really need to
find out more accurately - the
history of our Indigenous people. Who they were and what they
did prior to colonial settlement. And why things changed
for them so drastically after the colonial settlement.

Still you're not alone in this. Many Australians are unfamiliar
as to what is being asked by the Indigenous today, and why.
Many don't even want to know. And that is what makes any change
difficult.

Australians have before us to guarantee mutual respect,
kindness and comity in the relationship between
the First Nations and the Australian government.

It's not asking much as I've stated in the past, to hear
Indigenous views when parliament makes decisions about them.
It is a modest and moral request. It is not beyond this
great nation to make it happen.

See you on another discussion.

Foxy,

Hmmm ..... the old 'Well, how do you explain .....' fallacy. There were many reasons why the Indigenous population may have seemed to decline from 250,000 to 60,000 - lack of immunity to diseases (TB could take people off in a month or two), grog, massacres, infanticide (common over most of Australia) and simple merging of people into the community. I'm always very sceptical about estimates of population off the top of people's heads.

Before the accession of British sovereignty, the population might have fluctuated between a quarter and half a million: at the onset of a drought, population in affected areas might decline substantially and keep declining until after the end of the drought; then take much longer to build up again. Before the next drought.

Of course, droughts had little effect on numbers of groups fortunate enough to be living along major rivers, but must have been devastating in areas where feed for animals was always precarious - i.e. most of Australia.

Paradoxically, the ration system - at least in South Australia, an insignificant state - meant that everybody was provided with food for the duration, including the able-bodied who couldn't find work. So people were more settled during droughts, not less, as before. That must have actually boosted the revision of song, dance and ritual. Of course, during droughts, people from 'way-out' came 'in' to ration depots; they weren't stupid.

Joe

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

G'day Joe _

By the sound of things we both did it pretty hard in those days, nevertheless, I wouldn't have traded those times for quids. As you say we trudged off to school on our own, no worries about some twisted bastard, molesting us in the process.

I would hasten to say growing up in the 1940s-50s though we never had the material things, it still was one of the best times of my life. The Chullora Drive-In was a regular haunt of ours back in the day. My first car was a Wolseley 1947 mod. 18/85 Horsepower, with twin SU Carbs. (standard). It would do 0 to 60mph in about 45 minutes, down a steep incline. It's best feature was a spacious back seat, very handy at the Chullora Drive-In! Cheers...Joe.

I surely MUST remain on Topic, sorry TTBN, my apologies.

AS Foxy has finished with this topic, my response will be in the form of a broadcast.
In dissecting Foxy's comments and submission, I find it necessary to give a baseline view on any objections to her propositions.
I believe that Aussies, in the main, do not side with Foxy's views because we do not believe we have caused the blacks any grief.
Whether it was at the time of settlement or through to and including today.
We are aware of the claims being made and their reasons for them, we just don't feel their claims are justified, for several reasons.
Firstly, we, the white man are NOT responsible for their plight, neither now nor in the past.
Secondly, we've been 'throwing' money at them for as long as we can remember, to no avail.
Thirdly, we do not trust the black fella's agenda with this push for self governance and all the reasons given.
Fourthly, and probably the most important point of all, is the idea that one group should get priority or beneficial treatment over ALL others is the ultimate slap in the face to the overwhelming majority who now 'own' Australia.
At the head of all this is a hugely misleading dogma that has been preached ad nauseum and is being pushed by virtue shaming people into submission.
People we have nothing to be ashamed of and we owe the blacks nothing.
Had they demonstrated that they were an advanced civilisation, and by our arrival we, destroyed their lifestyle and drove them back into the bush and back to a life of subsistence and homelessness, then I might be inclined to cede to some of their demands, but such is not the case, the opposite is in fact the case.
PS, just saw the news and guess who was being shown punching up a black woman in their 'living room'?
A drunken black guy, and they were under a tree in the park.
NO!
The blacks need to fix THEIR own internal problems, before anyone will take them seriously.
Till then, non-blacks must all stand firmly together.

ALTRAV,
But how to deal with the dumb Whites in the meantime ? The book reading ones ones who keep throwing fuel into the fire ?

Indy, your question is a pertinent and valid one, because one of the main problems I have found with people or debates today, is the clash of truth and fact.
I cannot believe the vast amount of conflicting and opposing books and documents or writings on a particular topic.
Why is it so hard to report the truth, not just the facts?
I fear it has to do with personal preference or a pre-concieved and long held, even if unfounded, view or belief about something.
This type of mind set refuses to accept anything which questions their long held beliefs.
What we must do is hold our ground and try to find truth in what they otherwise present/promote as fact.
Remember, truth and fact, are not always the same thing.