Who makes up this stuff?
big Nana,
The Foxies of this brave new World !

Mr Opinionated,

No, sorry, just reminiscing. Thanks for letting me bring up all those wonderful memories, on a special day.

Big Nana, the notions of clan or tribe or 'nation' are pretty useless down this way: people have long forgotten what clan they may be related to - family, yes, and it's ironic how closely the clan names (as, for example, are set out in detail in Berndt & Berndt's 'A World That Was' for the Ngarrindjeri) correspond to people's modern-day surnames (and even that knowledge is fading as people inter-marry). But of course, people have also forgotten the essentials of what went with 'clan', i.e. the country that the clan controlled, the names of camping sites, etc.

And let's not even begin to go into whether people were patrilineal or matrilineal or bilineal, given the huge amount of inter-marriage etc. with non-Aboriginal people, and how they can properly trace their clan links.

So the rather nonsensical notion of 'nation' is even less appropriate if it is applied to something like clan-level of organisation. What seems to be happening is that entire language-groups are being called 'nations' for convenience, a level of organisation at which perhaps nobody ever had much authority: Ngarrindjeri, Narangga, Bangala, Barkindji, Wiradjuri, Bandjalang, Gunditjmara, etc. - 'clan' or family group, was the most salient level of everyday life. And still is.

And of course, each 'tribe' pushes out its boundaries in typical imperialist fashion: 'Ngarrindjeri' now extends up the Murray to the NSW border, when traditionally, it didn't even reach Murray Bridge, i.e. hundreds of kilometres down-stream. Even Kaurna country, i.e. around Adelaide, now is claimed to extend over other people's traditional territory in all directions.

So it's probably just another one of these whitefella brain-farts that somebody has borrowed and run with, no matter how it is irrelevant to most Aboriginal people. Sit back and enjoy the squabbles.

Joe

"Many of the guidelines don’t even make sense."

If they don't make sense it's because you're not seeing the bigger picture.

You need to instead focus on how these things DO make sense, not how they DON'T, only then will you see the bigger picture.

Western Nations politics (and national religion of political correctness) is this:
They play both the left and right against the middle;
Whilst the goalposts are continually shifted 2 steps to the left.

"When are you people going to see that the game is forcing people into new entrenched beliefs where they don't identify as national citizens anymore but identify with race and identity politics and social and political leanings.

- With the end result being 'we're all disunified and entrenched in our gang mentality thinking' and disagreements will need to be worked out and decided arbitrarily by courts and other third parties."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8862&page=0#287271

The bigger picture, 'the goal' is global agendas in support of forwarding global govern-ance;
Which itself is just a small step away from global govern-ment.
Why do you think we have 2030 agendas?
Obviously someone has a plan;
- And it's above all our pay-grades.

Only when you start to see the bigger picture will things make sense.

"For example, students are told not to use the word “tribe” because tribe is a western concept and not in keeping with indigenous understanding."
"don’t use any terminology that may suggest that any differences occur between types of aboriginal people."

(It's contradictory considering they actually say referring to their tribal name is more appropriate btw)

The bigger picture is that they don't want white nationalists identifying as Australian, and they don't want indigenous identifying as their tribes either, but they can use the issue divisively to create conflict, so they empower the minorities.

Really the end game is that we all identify as 'global citizens'; and succeed sovereignty to a higher global authority.

Where does the curriculum come from?
http://www.acara.edu.au/

And who guides them?
http://www.acara.edu.au/news-and-media/acara-update-archive/acara-update-archive-2018/acara-update-march-2018

"ACARA has been working with leaders of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Education 2030 project."

http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/

Dear Loudmouth,

What are you doing? trying to give us a lecture in Anthropology 101? Clan, patrilineal, matrilineal are not Aboriginal constructs. Why don't you add in moiety, Crow-Omaha, etc. These are all anthropological kinship terms, not Aboriginal linguistic and cultural definitions of traditional social organisation. Can you please come up with something a bit more original? Or are you content to let your paranoid delusion dominate you totally!

AC,

What do hotshots mean by

"don’t use any terminology that may suggest that any differences occur between types of aboriginal people" ?

Are Indigenous people just an undifferentiated mass ? Or do they come, as it were, in all shapes and sizes, like other people ?

Of course, like anybody else, Indigenous people may be urban, rural-town, remote or very remote. There are probably some at this moment who are out at sea (and certainly many currently in the air on their way to the US and Canada, the elite destination of choice).

They may be well-educated or poorly-educated. They may live in their own homes, or in public housing or (extremely few) traditional shelters. I'd estimate that 10-20 % of the indigenous population has been overseas, some people dozens of times, with a history going back to the 1790s. I'll bet that currently, there are choirs, dance groups, artists and sundry elites who are currently overseas.

Like other people, some Indigenous people are currently at university (around twenty thousand), some are in hospitals and some are in jails. It may come as a surprise to some posters (oh hello, Foxy, I didn't see you there) but Aboriginal people are human beings like the rest of us, with abilities, foibles, interests and problems like the rest of us. They're no better or worse than the rest of us. They are equal human beings, and thank god they have equal rights to the rest of us: no more and no less.

Joe

Loudmouth,
I've been meaning to ask, and you might be one of few on OLO who's answer I might consider.
I have always maintained, in the context of a liaison (or marriage) between an aborigine and a European, as is also confirmed by some blacks of note, the likes of Bropho and others, that the offspring of such a liaison is not an aborigine, but an Australian, with the caveat that one parent is aboriginal, but never-the-less they are first and foremost, and must go by the title of Australian.
Even the constitution, section 127, stated that "such an off-spring was in fact a 'half caste' and therefore was not an aborigine".
I have always maintained that if both parents are of a particular race then the off-spring is also clearly of the same race.
Anything else is something else.
Where they are born is a matter for immigration or more specifically to do with ones passport.
I use myself as point in case.
Both my parents were Italian, I was born in Australia.
I have been described by others, mostly media, and mostly abroad, as "an Australian born, Italian.......".
Which co-incidentally co-insides with my interpretation of the issue.
What's your take, or anyone's for that matter?