The term “First Nations” derives from twentieth-century American politics and has been transported to Australia, where it does not fit. Aboriginal clans, hordes and tribes, which in most cases were no more than extended families, never attained any status resembling nationhood either before 1788 or any time after. There were no First Nations on this land for 60,000 years, as the Uluru Statement asserts. This was confirmed in 1836 in the seminal judgment of William Burton of the New South Wales Supreme Court and has been repeated several times since by Australian judges, including the High Court’s Harry Gibbs, who said in 1979:

it is not possible to say … that the aboriginal people of Australia are organised as a “distinct political society separated from others”, or that they have been uniformly treated as a state … They have no legislative, executive or judicial organs by which sovereignty might be exercised. If such organs existed, they would have no powers, except such as the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, might confer upon them. The contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain.



“We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty”

Before the colonisation of Australia, Aboriginal people never had any sovereignty to surrender. “Sovereignty” is a term from international law, or what was called in the eighteenth century “the law of nations”. The two leading European authorities on international law at that time, Christian Wolff and Emmerich de Vattel, both argued that for a society to be a genuine nation it must have civil sovereignty over a territory and its people and, as a corollary, only nations could have genuine sovereignty.

Justice Burton’s 1836 judgment found the Aborigines did not have anything that amounted to what the British and other nations could regard as statehood or nationhood. He said they

had not attained at the first settlement to such a position in point of numbers and civilisation, and to such a form of government and laws, as to be entitled to be recognised as so many sovereign states governed by laws of their own.

In 2017, the Uluru Statement from the Heart defined the Voice as a proposal to change the Australian Constitution to give individual Aboriginal communities complete autonomy to advise the Australian government and parliament what they want. The government would not be compelled to accept these recommendations — the Parliament would retain its existing executive and legislative status — but the Referendum Council’s response to the Uluru Statement asserted there were some non-negotiable conditions if the Parliament was to properly respect the wishes of this new Constitutional authority. The Council said:

Any Voice to Parliament should be designed so that it could support and promote a treaty-making process. Any body must have authority from, be representative of, and have legitimacy in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Australia. It must represent communities in remote, rural and urban areas, and not be comprised of handpicked leaders. The body must be structured in a way that respects culture. Any body must also be supported by a sufficient and guaranteed budget, with access to its own independent secretariat, experts and lawyers. It was also suggested that the body could represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples internationally. A number of Dialogues said the body’s representation could be drawn from an Assembly of First Nations, which could be established through a series of treaties among nations.

In other words, the eventual goal of the Voice would be to make treaties between the Commonwealth and what it calls the First Nations. Its proponents don’t just want to keep their adopted title as “nations”, they want to become real nations. The Council’s report notes that the demand for treaties was a priority of the indigenous conventions leading up to the Uluru Statement of May 2017:

The pursuit of treaty and treaties was strongly supported across the Dialogues. Treaty was seen as a pathway to recognition of sovereignty and for achieving future meaningful reform for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government.

So, the actual objective of the Voice is that each individual clan or language group should be recognised as a First Nation and for the Commonwealth to make a treaty with each one, as if it were a separate state. As I record in The Break-up of Australia (Quadrant Books, 2016), Aboriginal activists now want statehood, self-government and an independent legal system for each self-identifying Aboriginal clan that gains native title. And they want the Australian taxpayer to fund it all.

This is obviously a program for a radical revision of the Australian federation — all of it in the interests of Aboriginal people, but with no thought about how it could possibly be in the interests of the rest of us.

Boris wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:14am:

The term “First Nations” derives from twentieth-century American politics and has been transported to Australia, where it does not fit. Aboriginal clans, hordes and tribes, which in most cases were no more than extended families, never attained any status resembling nationhood either before 1788 or any time after. There were no First Nations on this land for 60,000 years, as the Uluru Statement asserts. This was confirmed in 1836 in the seminal judgment of William Burton of the New South Wales Supreme Court and has been repeated several times since by Australian judges, including the High Court’s Harry Gibbs, who said in 1979: it is not possible to say … that the aboriginal people of Australia are organised as a “distinct political society separated from others”, or that they have been uniformly treated as a state … They have no legislative, executive or judicial organs by which sovereignty might be exercised. If such organs existed, they would have no powers, except such as the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, might confer upon them. The contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain. “We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty” Before the colonisation of Australia, Aboriginal people never had any sovereignty to surrender. “Sovereignty” is a term from international law, or what was called in the eighteenth century “the law of nations”. The two leading European authorities on international law at that time, Christian Wolff and Emmerich de Vattel, both argued that for a society to be a genuine nation it must have civil sovereignty over a territory and its people and, as a corollary, only nations could have genuine sovereignty. Justice Burton’s 1836 judgment found the Aborigines did not have anything that amounted to what the British and other nations could regard as statehood or nationhood. He said they had not attained at the first settlement to such a position in point of numbers and civilisation, and to such a form of government and laws, as to be entitled to be recognised as so many sovereign states governed by laws of their own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU77EBykmiY

There were no First Nations on this land for 60,000 years, as the Uluru Statement asserts. This was confirmed in 1836 in the seminal judgment of William Burton of the New South Wales Supreme Court and has been repeated several times since by Australian judges, including the High Court’s Harry Gibbs, who said in 1979:

it is not possible to say … that the aboriginal people of Australia are organised as a “distinct political society separated from others”, or that they have been uniformly treated as a state … They have no legislative, executive or judicial organs by which sovereignty might be exercised. If such organs existed, they would have no powers, except such as the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, might confer upon them. The contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain.

Aboriginal clans, hordes and tribes, which in most cases were no more than extended families, never attained any status resembling nationhood either before 1788 or any time after. There were no First Nations on this land for 60,000 years, as the Uluru Statement asserts.

Aboriginal activists now want statehood, self-government and an independent legal system for each self-identifying Aboriginal clan that gains native title. And they want the Australian taxpayer to fund it all.

This is obviously a program for a radical revision of the Australian federation — all of it in the interests of Aboriginal people, but with no thought about how it could possibly be in the interests of the rest of us.

The Voice will simply be another expensive broken promise that will make national identities of a handful of activists who will rise to power briefly within its ranks but who end up like their disappointing predecessors in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The only difference will be that, if they get the Constitutional recognition they demand, no government of the day will be able to do what the Howard government, with Labor Party support, did to ATSIC in 2005 and shut down their office. Instead, if the Yes vote wins, the Voice will be there forever, an expensive, permanent embarrassment for the nation and a permanent contagion on the Aboriginal body politic.

Boris wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:26am:

Aboriginal clans, hordes and tribes, which in most cases were no more than extended families, never attained any status resembling nationhood either before 1788 or any time after. There were no First Nations on this land for 60,000 years, as the Uluru Statement asserts.

You are a simpleton LOL!!!

Nobody will buy this manure


The Voice will simply be another expensive broken promise that will make national identities of a handful of activists who will rise to power briefly within its ranks but who end up like their disappointing predecessors in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The only difference will be that, if they get the Constitutional recognition they demand, no government of the day will be able to do what the Howard government, with Labor Party support, did to ATSIC in 2005 and shut down their office. Instead, if the Yes vote wins, the Voice will be there forever, an expensive, permanent embarrassment for the nation and a permanent contagion on the Aboriginal body politic.

Boris wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:51am:

Nobody will buy this manure The Voice will simply be another expensive broken promise that will make national identities of a handful of activists who will rise to power briefly within its ranks but who end up like their disappointing predecessors in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. The only difference will be that, if they get the Constitutional recognition they demand, no government of the day will be able to do what the Howard government, with Labor Party support, did to ATSIC in 2005 and shut down their office. Instead, if the Yes vote wins, the Voice will be there forever, an expensive, permanent embarrassment for the nation and a permanent contagion on the Aboriginal body politic.

Or you're just a racist old man?

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 11:16am:

Boris wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 11:14am: The term “First Nations” derives from twentieth-century American politics and has been transported to Australia, where it does not fit. Aboriginal clans, hordes and tribes, which in most cases were no more than extended families, never attained any status resembling nationhood either before 1788 or any time after. There were no First Nations on this land for 60,000 years, as the Uluru Statement asserts. This was confirmed in 1836 in the seminal judgment of William Burton of the New South Wales Supreme Court and has been repeated several times since by Australian judges, including the High Court’s Harry Gibbs, who said in 1979: it is not possible to say … that the aboriginal people of Australia are organised as a “distinct political society separated from others”, or that they have been uniformly treated as a state … They have no legislative, executive or judicial organs by which sovereignty might be exercised. If such organs existed, they would have no powers, except such as the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, might confer upon them. The contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain. “We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty” Before the colonisation of Australia, Aboriginal people never had any sovereignty to surrender. “Sovereignty” is a term from international law, or what was called in the eighteenth century “the law of nations”. The two leading European authorities on international law at that time, Christian Wolff and Emmerich de Vattel, both argued that for a society to be a genuine nation it must have civil sovereignty over a territory and its people and, as a corollary, only nations could have genuine sovereignty. Justice Burton’s 1836 judgment found the Aborigines did not have anything that amounted to what the British and other nations could regard as statehood or nationhood. He said they had not attained at the first settlement to such a position in point of numbers and civilisation, and to such a form of government and laws, as to be entitled to be recognised as so many sovereign states governed by laws of their own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU77EBykmiY

:D :D

Multimillionaire wailing boomers with guitars and drums is the answer!!! Yay!!
What next? Pippi 'how dare you" Longstockings from Sweden? Skolstrejk för första nationen???

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:05pm:

Multimillionaire wailing boomers with guitars and drums is the answer!!! Yay!!

It's not the answer it's a commentary

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:06pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:05pm: Multimillionaire wailing boomers with guitars and drums is the answer!!! Yay!! It's not the answer it's a commentary

Their commentary, your answer, ratty.

Skolstrejk för första nationen!!

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:10pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:06pm: Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:05pm: Multimillionaire wailing boomers with guitars and drums is the answer!!! Yay!! It's not the answer it's a commentary Their commentary, your answer, ratty. Skolstrejk för första nationen!!

You sad old man....

What defines nation?

Encyclopedic entry: —A nation is a territory where all the people
are led by the same government. The word “nation” can also refer
to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and,
often, language.

Australia's indigenes—according to this definition—were collectively
never a "nation".    They were just disparate groups of nomads.

Aborigines in the west of the continent had no idea of those in the
east, or in fact more than a couple of hundred kilometres in any
direction.  In 1788 there were up to 700 indigenous languages
spoken across Australia.

So the term 'first nations' is somewhat of a misnomer I think.

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:15pm:

What defines nation? Encyclopedic entry: —A nation is a territory where all the people are led by the same government. The word “nation” can also refer to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and, often, language. Australia's indigenes—according to this definition—were collectively never a "nation".    They were just disparate groups of nomads. Aborigines in the west of the continent had no idea of those in the east, or in fact more than a couple of hundred kilometres in any direction.  In 1788 there were up to 700 indigenous languages spoken across Australia. So the term 'first nations' is somewhat of a misnomer I think.

The word is used to mean a specific thing that eludes you.  that a peoples were in control of this continent and were displaced

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:16pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:15pm: What defines nation? Encyclopedic entry: —A nation is a territory where all the people are led by the same government. The word “nation” can also refer to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and, often, language. Australia's indigenes—according to this definition—were collectively never a "nation".    They were just disparate groups of nomads. Aborigines in the west of the continent had no idea of those in the east, or in fact more than a couple of hundred kilometres in any direction.  In 1788 there were up to 700 indigenous languages spoken across Australia. So the term 'first nations' is somewhat of a misnomer I think. The word is used to mean a specific thing that eludes you.  that a peoples were in control of this continent and were displaced

That's the thing - they were not in control of the continent. They inhabited and  roamed over bits of it as territorial clans and tribes, clashing with neighbouring clans. They were fragmented and unaware of each other beyond their own territory. They were sovereign like territorial species are 'sovereign' over their turf.  They had no treaties, no 'inter-nation' law or rules or anything like that. In the legal sense they had no instruments or means to express anything approaching sovereignty.
Nationhood came late even to Europeans. The Germans and Italians, for example, became sovereign nations only in the late 19th Century. Even the Greeks were not a nation until 1830.

What is appalling is that you ignore over 200 years of scientific research, Soren and Matty.  After it has been discovered Indigenous Australians had large trading networks that covered large sections of the continent, vast knowledge of the stars and traded things as disparate as ochre and stone implements and tools.  You still seem to think they were simple primitives who lives in bark huts and hunted Kangaroos!  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, we know now that Scandinavians were all drug addicts, who ate magic mushrooms at the drop of a hat and committed human sacrifices, don't we?  Why don't you go back to raiding the UK the way you used to?  You know, engaging in your age old pursuits like burning, raping and pillaging?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGrDHI0orKE

Frank wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 12:36pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:16pm: AusGeoff wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:15pm: What defines nation? Encyclopedic entry: —A nation is a territory where all the people are led by the same government. The word “nation” can also refer to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and, often, language. Australia's indigenes—according to this definition—were collectively never a "nation".    They were just disparate groups of nomads. Aborigines in the west of the continent had no idea of those in the east, or in fact more than a couple of hundred kilometres in any direction.  In 1788 there were up to 700 indigenous languages spoken across Australia. So the term 'first nations' is somewhat of a misnomer I think. The word is used to mean a specific thing that eludes you.  that a peoples were in control of this continent and were displaced That's the thing - they were not in control of the continent. They inhabited and  roamed over bits of it as territorial clans and tribes, clashing with neighbouring clans. They were fragmented and unaware of each other beyond their own territory. They were sovereign like territorial species are 'sovereign' over their turf.  They had no treaties, no 'inter-nation' law or rules or anything like that. In the legal sense they had no instruments or means to express anything approaching sovereignty. Nationhood came late even to Europeans. The Germans and Italians, for example, became sovereign nations only in the late 19th Century. Even the Greeks were not a nation until 1830.

\

Their society was different to ours, ergo invalid?

They were small tribal groups and had no nation or nations....... over a thousand dialects and languages to cover a million or so people.... maximum language group size about 300 - hardly a nation.

Anyway - times are different now and they must accept that or perish of their own accord.  they should sign a citizenship vow or have all citizenship rights removed.... same with everyone else....

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:36pm: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:16pm: AusGeoff wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:15pm: What defines nation? Encyclopedic entry: —A nation is a territory where all the people are led by the same government. The word “nation” can also refer to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and, often, language. Australia's indigenes—according to this definition—were collectively never a "nation".    They were just disparate groups of nomads. Aborigines in the west of the continent had no idea of those in the east, or in fact more than a couple of hundred kilometres in any direction.  In 1788 there were up to 700 indigenous languages spoken across Australia. So the term 'first nations' is somewhat of a misnomer I think. The word is used to mean a specific thing that eludes you.  that a peoples were in control of this continent and were displaced That's the thing - they were not in control of the continent. They inhabited and  roamed over bits of it as territorial clans and tribes, clashing with neighbouring clans. They were fragmented and unaware of each other beyond their own territory. They were sovereign like territorial species are 'sovereign' over their turf.  They had no treaties, no 'inter-nation' law or rules or anything like that. In the legal sense they had no instruments or means to express anything approaching sovereignty. Nationhood came late even to Europeans. The Germans and Italians, for example, became sovereign nations only in the late 19th Century. Even the Greeks were not a nation until 1830. \ Their society was different to ours, ergo invalid?

A society isn't a nation... so easy this......

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 2:26pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:36pm: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:16pm: AusGeoff wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 12:15pm: What defines nation? Encyclopedic entry: —A nation is a territory where all the people are led by the same government. The word “nation” can also refer to a group of people who share a history, traditions, culture and, often, language. Australia's indigenes—according to this definition—were collectively never a "nation".    They were just disparate groups of nomads. Aborigines in the west of the continent had no idea of those in the east, or in fact more than a couple of hundred kilometres in any direction.  In 1788 there were up to 700 indigenous languages spoken across Australia. So the term 'first nations' is somewhat of a misnomer I think. The word is used to mean a specific thing that eludes you.  that a peoples were in control of this continent and were displaced That's the thing - they were not in control of the continent. They inhabited and  roamed over bits of it as territorial clans and tribes, clashing with neighbouring clans. They were fragmented and unaware of each other beyond their own territory. They were sovereign like territorial species are 'sovereign' over their turf.  They had no treaties, no 'inter-nation' law or rules or anything like that. In the legal sense they had no instruments or means to express anything approaching sovereignty. Nationhood came late even to Europeans. The Germans and Italians, for example, became sovereign nations only in the late 19th Century. Even the Greeks were not a nation until 1830. \ Their society was different to ours, ergo invalid?

It takes a complete moron like you to draw that conclusion. A complete imbecillic moron divorced from all recognised tropes of human reasoning.  So it's just your usual run of the mill response.   As you were, mong.

So, the actual objective of the Voice is that each individual clan or language group should be recognised as a First Nation and for the Commonwealth to make a treaty with each one, as if it were a separate state.

Aboriginal activists now want statehood, self-government and an independent legal system for each self-identifying Aboriginal clan that gains native title. And they want the Australian taxpayer to fund it all.

Australian judges, including the High Court’s Harry Gibbs, who said in 1979:

it is not possible to say … that the aboriginal people of Australia are organised as a “distinct political society separated from others”, or that they have been uniformly treated as a state … They have no legislative, executive or judicial organs by which sovereignty might be exercised. If such organs existed, they would have no powers, except such as the law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, might confer upon them. The contention that there is in Australia an aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty, even of a limited kind, is quite impossible in law to maintain.

Before the colonisation of Australia, Aboriginal people never had any sovereignty to surrender. “Sovereignty” is a term from international law, or what was called in the eighteenth century “the law of nations”. The two leading European authorities on international law at that time, Christian Wolff and Emmerich de Vattel, both argued that for a society to be a genuine nation it must have civil sovereignty over a territory and its people and, as a corollary, only nations could have genuine sovereignty.

Justice Burton’s 1836 judgment found the Aborigines did not have anything that amounted to what the British and other nations could regard as statehood or nationhood. He said they

had not attained at the first settlement to such a position in point of numbers and civilisation, and to such a form of government and laws, as to be entitled to be recognised as so many sovereign states governed by laws of their own.

Boris wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:13pm:

So, the actual objective of the Voice is that each individual clan or language group should be recognised as a First Nation and for the Commonwealth to make a treaty with each one, as if it were a separate state.

Actually, that is what Racists believe, Matty, it isn't what Indigenous Australians believe.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:21pm:

Boris wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 10:13pm: So, the actual objective of the Voice is that each individual clan or language group should be recognised as a First Nation and for the Commonwealth to make a treaty with each one, as if it were a separate state. Actually, that is what Racists believe, Matty, it isn't what Indigenous Australians believe.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

So which of the 22 clans at that wrecked place in the NT do they make a 'treaty' with?  A treaty with a distinct group must have historical basis in that group being a group in the first place..... since the Aborigines were many disparate groups, they were never a nation with which to make a treaty.

Tsk, tsk ...

It's of interest to me that the alleged "first nations" people were so destructive
of the ecosystem of the continent—despite 21st century Aboriginals declaring
solemnly that they've always been "custodians" of the land, despite the purported
efforts of the invaders to destroy it.  And that they're a caring, sensitive people
in tune with nature.

Not necessarily the case apparently.

Humans likely killed most of Australia’s native megafauna some 45,000 years ago,
a new study suggests.  Animals including 450kg kangaroos, 2000kg wombats,
7m-long lizards, 180kg flightless birds, 130kg marsupial lions and car-sized tortoises
once roamed the Australian continent. Yet, shortly after the arrival of humans, more
than 85% of these animals went extinct, according to Dr Gifford Miller, a professor
at the University of Colorado Boulder, and co-author of the new study published in
'Nature Communications'.

Some scientists claim the animals died off due to climatic changes, when most of
the Australian landscape shifted to an arid environment. 

A study found that the demise of the megafauna in southwest Australia took place
from 45,000 to 43,100 years ago and was not linked to major changes in climate,
vegetation or biomass burning but is consistent with extinction being driven by
"imperceptible overkill" by humans, said palaeoecologist Dr Sander van der Kaars
from the Monash School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment.

But the final verdict is still elusive apparently.

The debate requires more field research on fossil sites, certainly ecological modelling
looks interesting, and proxies such as core samples of megafauna dung fall in this
category as well, but "against direct dates bracketing the age of fauna they don’t
amount to much", according to Michael Westaway, a Senior Research Fellow at Griffith University.

The frequent claim that Australian Aboriginal culture is the oldest continuous culture on Earth, measured at 50,000 years, is a curious one. First, it is incorrect. This title belongs to the San people, who have existed for at least 150,000 years in southern Africa. Second, it is curious that this claim is used as proof of the value of traditional Aboriginal culture. Curious indeed, since the claim, which is a claim of conservatism par excellence, is frequently made by those who themselves subscribe to a view that culture should be dynamic, embracing change, in other words progressive. The question arises of how this strange alliance between white political progressivism and indigenous cultural conservativism came to exist and how it continues.

The favourable view of indigenous peoples has been an old companion of progressive politics. It arose after the discovery of the New World, with ideas such as Rousseau’s “noble savage” fascinating the intelligentsia of his day. This fascination extended to the reading public, who developed an insatiable hunger for stories of the otherworldly virtues and vices of people untainted by civilisation, as found in, for example, Melville’s Typee and Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. These texts attracted readers not only by their descriptions of a people utterly unlike those in the Old World but also as means by which these authors placed their own civilisation in a new light. To this day, this hunger for the exotic continues, albeit under conditions of severe scarcity—those untainted by civilisation only exist in isolated pockets and the people once featured in those famous novels adopted modern lifestyles long ago.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 19^th, 2022 at 10:21pm:

Boris wrote on Jul 19th, 2022 at 10:13pm: So, the actual objective of the Voice is that each individual clan or language group should be recognised as a First Nation and for the Commonwealth to make a treaty with each one, as if it were a separate state. Actually, that is what Racists believe, Matty, it isn't what Indigenous Australians believe.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   ::) ::)

Ownership of Sydney Harbour’s historic Goat Island is about to be handed to the “wrong” Aboriginal people, many of whom come from western NSW and have no cultural connection to the area, ­descendants of the harbour’s original inhabitants say.

It would be culturally offensive for Goat Island, or Me-Mel, to be awarded to the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council “because it is controlled by foreigners”, said Ash Walker, a member of the La Perouse Aboriginal community.

“This is why the spokesperson featured in the announcement was MLALC deputy chair Yvonne Weldon, a Wiradjuri woman from Cowra in western NSW,” Mr Walker said.

Local Aboriginal land councils are statutory entities whose boundaries and membership are not linked to any traditional ­ownership.

“Being a member of an Aboriginal land council doesn’t mean that you speak for that country,” Mr Walker said.

“Cultural authority is derived from the connection of an Aboriginal person to their country, not from NSW government legislation. Think about it as if Australia were Europe.

“If land was stolen from the French, you wouldn’t give it back to the Polish.

“We aren’t all a homogenous Aboriginal group.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/sydney-harbours-goat-island-going-to-wrong-indigenous-people-say-descendants/news-story/ee9fe900c7cd9b4446f7c6c2415e6a46


Uh-oh.....

The short version of the Uluru Statement still emphasizes this claim, but tries to cover up its implications by redefining the concept of sovereignty and tying its meaning to the one fact that is in the Aborigines favour, that they were the first to own the land on the Australian continent. The claim says in full:

Sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom … This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.

There are three things wrong with this statement. First, sovereignty has never been a spiritual notion. It is not a sacred tradition but a recent invention. It is a European term, unknown to Aboriginal culture before 1788, and not adopted by any of the 200 or so different languages that the hunter-gatherers used in the nineteenth century. It was adopted from European political and legal theory in the twentieth century by university-educated, urban Aboriginal activists.

Second, sovereignty is not just about ownership of the land, as the Uluru statement says. Aboriginal activists and their academic supporters have argued that, because the High Court’s Mabo judgment recognised Aboriginal clans had their own laws that made them owners of their land, they therefore also had sovereignty over those territories. However, this wrongly assumes that small tracts of land ownership entail sovereignty. No Australian who owns a farm in the country or a quarter acre block in the suburbs thereby becomes the “sovereign” of that piece of territory. Aboriginal people are legally no more privileged. In modern nations, sovereignty belongs only to national governments, not because they are landowners but because they have the necessary political authority and power.

Third, sovereignty is an absolute notion, it cannot “co-exist” between or among sovereign powers. One of them must prevail. There can only be one national government. If there are more than one, then there must be more than one nation on that territory. Neither of these would have genuine sovereignty until a civil war or other contest for sole political power resolved who actually ruled the realm. You can call shared power, where it exists, some kind of political arrangement, but it could not be sovereignty.

Boris wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 9:41am:

The short version of the Uluru Statement still emphasizes this claim, but tries to cover up its implications by redefining the concept of sovereignty and tying its meaning to the one fact that is in the Aborigines favour, that they were the first to own the land on the Australian continent. The claim says in full: Sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom … This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. There are three things wrong with this statement. First, sovereignty has never been a spiritual notion. It is not a sacred tradition but a recent invention. It is a European term, unknown to Aboriginal culture before 1788, and not adopted by any of the 200 or so different languages that the hunter-gatherers used in the nineteenth century. It was adopted from European political and legal theory in the twentieth century by university-educated, urban Aboriginal activists. Second, sovereignty is not just about ownership of the land, as the Uluru statement says. Aboriginal activists and their academic supporters have argued that, because the High Court’s Mabo judgment recognised Aboriginal clans had their own laws that made them owners of their land, they therefore also had sovereignty over those territories. However, this wrongly assumes that small tracts of land ownership entail sovereignty. No Australian who owns a farm in the country or a quarter acre block in the suburbs thereby becomes the “sovereign” of that piece of territory. Aboriginal people are legally no more privileged. In modern nations, sovereignty belongs only to national governments, not because they are landowners but because they have the necessary political authority and power. Third, sovereignty is an absolute notion, it cannot “co-exist” between or among sovereign powers. One of them must prevail. There can only be one national government. If there are more than one, then there must be more than one nation on that territory. Neither of these would have genuine sovereignty until a civil war or other contest for sole political power resolved who actually ruled the realm. You can call shared power, where it exists, some kind of political arrangement, but it could not be sovereignty.

You appear to be an idiot.

Infanticide—the deliberate murder of new-born infants and young children—was practised widely, and perhaps ubiquitously, among Australian Aborigines before the coming of Europeans and the imposition of Western values, which, unlike the values of pre-contact Aborigines, regarded the deliberate killing of babies and small children as murder. How common was infanticide among pre-contact Aborigines? According to University of Michigan professor of anthropology Aram Yengoyan: “Infanticide was the primary means of population control. In theory, infanticide could have been as high as 40% to 50% of all births, and the population could have survived. In actuality infanticide rates were lower, and probably ranged from 15% to 30% of all births … Presently, infanticide is no longer practiced on missions and government stations. However, differential care (physical and affective) extended to infants could be interpreted as infanticide.” (Aram Yengoyan, “Biological and Demographic Components in Aboriginal Australian Socio-Economic Organization”, Oceania, Vol. 43 (2), December 1972, p. 88.)

Contemporary European observers of nomadic, tribal Aborigines were in apparent agreement that about 30 per cent of new-born Aboriginal children were routinely killed. According to Samuel Gason (1845–97), an early settler of the Flinders Ranges, writing of the Dieyerie tribe of the Cooper’s Creek area between South Australia and Queensland, “about thirty per cent are murdered by their mother at birth”. He gave as the reasons for this that “many” of the mothers married “very young, their first-born is considered immature, and not worth preserving”, and “because they do not wish to be at the trouble of rearing them, especially if weakly. Indeed, all sickly or deformed children are made away with, in fear of becoming a burden to the tribe.” (Cited in Robert Braugh Smyth, The Aboriginals of Victoria, Vol. I (London, 1878), pp. 51-52.)

Boris wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 11:42am:

Contemporary European observers of nomadic, tribal Aborigines were in apparent agreement that about 30 per cent of new-born Aboriginal children were routinely killed. According to Samuel Gason (1845–97), an early settler of the Flinders Ranges, writing of the Dieyerie tribe of the Cooper’s Creek area between South Australia and Queensland, “about thirty per cent are murdered by their mother at birth”. He gave as the reasons for this that “many” of the mothers married “very young, their first-born is considered immature, and not worth preserving”, and “because they do not wish to be at the trouble of rearing them, especially if weakly. Indeed, all sickly or deformed children are made away with, in fear of becoming a burden to the tribe.” (Cited in Robert Braugh Smyth, The Aboriginals of Victoria, Vol. I (London, 1878), pp. 51-52.)

You are an idiot

Recent child-abuse cases, from Central Australia and Queensland, included a seven-month baby taken out of her home and raped, and who needed surgery under general anaesthetic. A two-year-old girl left unattended while her mother drank, was sexually assaulted by a man and also needed surgery. A three-year-old was sexually assaulted by three men, and ten days later another man raped her twice, once using a mangrove stick

A six-year-old girl was followed to a waterhole and while playing there was anally raped while being drowned. A 10-year-old girl was tied to a tree and repeatedly raped. One health worker examined a 14-year-old girl ‘so raw from being raped – she had been abused since the age of three – that she screamed throughout her examination.’

Morgan Jabanardi Riley, 27, sexually assaulted a two-year-old at Tennant Creek in 2004, digitally penetrating her vagina and anus as she screamed in pain. He got 4.5 years non-parole, later increased to 6.5 years.

Gerhardt Max Inkamala, 21, in 2003 digitally penetrated a 7-month-old girl’s vagina, causing serious injury, at Hermannsburg. His sentence was increased after appeal from only five years to nine years, with non-parole of seven years.

These cases are in the minority which get to court, author Louis Nowra wrote. The Robertson report in 1999 estimated near 90% of rapes in the Indigenous communities went unreported.

The Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce (ACSAT) 2006, visited 29 NSW Aboriginal communities and child sexual assault was described as a ‘huge issue’ in every one of those communities. Aboriginal witnesses told the inquiry that the assaults on girls and boys were massive, epidemic, and a way of life. They were perpetrated by grandfathers, fathers, stepfathers, uncles, cousins and brothers, often important men, and including some non-Aboriginals.

Northern Territory community health, instanced these cases of violence:

“A woman is repeatedly evacuated from a remote community health centre to hospital with multiple fractures to the bones in her hands and burns to her vagina. On each of these occasions, her husband, in fits of jealous rage, has put burning sticks into her vagina and broken the bones in her fingers…

“A nurse is called out at midnight to attend to a woman who has been brutally bashed by her husband. She is six months pregnant with her first child. In a jealous, drunken rage, her husband accused her of talking to another man earlier in the evening. She is bleeding profusely from a head wound caused by a partial avulsion of her scalp. She has also sustained a partial tear to an earlobe. She is bleeding copiously from her vagina. Her husband has kicked her repeatedly in the abdomen. Her wounds are treated, she sustains a miscarriage and is evacuated by air ambulance to the nearest hospital that night.”

Boris wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 11:58am:

Recent child-abuse cases, from Central Australia and Queensland, included a seven-month baby taken out of her home and raped, and who needed surgery under general anaesthetic. A two-year-old girl left unattended while her mother drank, was sexually assaulted by a man and also needed surgery. A three-year-old was sexually assaulted by three men, and ten days later another man raped her twice, once using a mangrove stick A six-year-old girl was followed to a waterhole and while playing there was anally raped while being drowned. A 10-year-old girl was tied to a tree and repeatedly raped. One health worker examined a 14-year-old girl ‘so raw from being raped – she had been abused since the age of three – that she screamed throughout her examination.’ Morgan Jabanardi Riley, 27, sexually assaulted a two-year-old at Tennant Creek in 2004, digitally penetrating her vagina and anus as she screamed in pain. He got 4.5 years non-parole, later increased to 6.5 years. Gerhardt Max Inkamala, 21, in 2003 digitally penetrated a 7-month-old girl’s vagina, causing serious injury, at Hermannsburg. His sentence was increased after appeal from only five years to nine years, with non-parole of seven years. These cases are in the minority which get to court, author Louis Nowra wrote. The Robertson report in 1999 estimated near 90% of rapes in the Indigenous communities went unreported. The Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce (ACSAT) 2006, visited 29 NSW Aboriginal communities and child sexual assault was described as a ‘huge issue’ in every one of those communities. Aboriginal witnesses told the inquiry that the assaults on girls and boys were massive, epidemic, and a way of life. They were perpetrated by grandfathers, fathers, stepfathers, uncles, cousins and brothers, often important men, and including some non-Aboriginals.

Are you masturbating again?

https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/child-safety-research-conferences/resource/107ac7b7-07f4-404b-8ef0-2c503ca08451

Here is the actual (15 year old) report.  It talks about impacts of things like colonialism, as I have done

Most European observers noted that these killings were carried out without the slightest sense of guilt or sadness; they were necessary for the survival of the tribe. Apparently, most infants were killed by burying them alive. Rev. Frederick August Hagenauer (1829–1909), a Moravian missionary in Gippsland, stated that Aboriginal tribes would “bury new-born babes alive in the sand”, which was formerly “a common practice”. (Ibid.) But in many cases, the reality of what occurred was far worse. According to Peter Beveridge (1829–85), a Scottish-born grazier near Swan Hill, who arrived in 1845 and wrote a posthumously published (in 1889) work on the Aborigines, “Infanticide was often practiced, and meals were made by mothers of their own offspring. This practice is attributable to laziness principally; for if a mother has two children, one two years old and the other just born, she is sure to destroy the youngest.” (Ibid.) Similarly, William Edward Stanbridge (1817–94), a founder of Daylesford and a local council member there, gave a similar description of their infanticide customs: “New-born babes are killed by their parents, and eaten by them and their children. When such revolting occurrences take place, the previously-born child is unable to walk, and the opinion is that, by eating as much as possible of the roasted infant, it will possess the strength of both.” (Ibid.)

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:01pm:

Boris wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 11:58am: Recent child-abuse cases, from Central Australia and Queensland, included a seven-month baby taken out of her home and raped, and who needed surgery under general anaesthetic. A two-year-old girl left unattended while her mother drank, was sexually assaulted by a man and also needed surgery. A three-year-old was sexually assaulted by three men, and ten days later another man raped her twice, once using a mangrove stick A six-year-old girl was followed to a waterhole and while playing there was anally raped while being drowned. A 10-year-old girl was tied to a tree and repeatedly raped. One health worker examined a 14-year-old girl ‘so raw from being raped – she had been abused since the age of three – that she screamed throughout her examination.’ Morgan Jabanardi Riley, 27, sexually assaulted a two-year-old at Tennant Creek in 2004, digitally penetrating her vagina and anus as she screamed in pain. He got 4.5 years non-parole, later increased to 6.5 years. Gerhardt Max Inkamala, 21, in 2003 digitally penetrated a 7-month-old girl’s vagina, causing serious injury, at Hermannsburg. His sentence was increased after appeal from only five years to nine years, with non-parole of seven years. These cases are in the minority which get to court, author Louis Nowra wrote. The Robertson report in 1999 estimated near 90% of rapes in the Indigenous communities went unreported. The Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce (ACSAT) 2006, visited 29 NSW Aboriginal communities and child sexual assault was described as a ‘huge issue’ in every one of those communities. Aboriginal witnesses told the inquiry that the assaults on girls and boys were massive, epidemic, and a way of life. They were perpetrated by grandfathers, fathers, stepfathers, uncles, cousins and brothers, often important men, and including some non-Aboriginals. Are you masturbating again? https://www.publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/child-safety-research-conferences/resource/107ac7b7-07f4-404b-8ef0-2c503ca08451 Here is the actual (15 year old) report.  It talks about impacts of things like colonialism, as I have done

Then leave

It is not colonialism - it is culture

Boris wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:03pm:

Most European observers noted that these killings were carried out without the slightest sense of guilt or sadness; they were necessary for the survival of the tribe. Apparently, most infants were killed by burying them alive. Rev. Frederick August Hagenauer (1829–1909), a Moravian missionary in Gippsland, stated that Aboriginal tribes would “bury new-born babes alive in the sand”, which was formerly “a common practice”. (Ibid.) But in many cases, the reality of what occurred was far worse. According to Peter Beveridge (1829–85), a Scottish-born grazier near Swan Hill, who arrived in 1845 and wrote a posthumously published (in 1889) work on the Aborigines, “Infanticide was often practiced, and meals were made by mothers of their own offspring. This practice is attributable to laziness principally; for if a mother has two children, one two years old and the other just born, she is sure to destroy the youngest.” (Ibid.) Similarly, William Edward Stanbridge (1817–94), a founder of Daylesford and a local council member there, gave a similar description of their infanticide customs: “New-born babes are killed by their parents, and eaten by them and their children. When such revolting occurrences take place, the previously-born child is unable to walk, and the opinion is that, by eating as much as possible of the roasted infant, it will possess the strength of both.” (Ibid.)

So you're saying conditions made it necessary, not that they wanted to do it? How does that matter then?

Europeans have eaten each other to survive

Elderly people who could not keep pace with the younger members of the tribe on their nomadic wanderings in search of food were also killed. As James Dawson observed, “When old people become infirm, and unable to accompany the tribe in its wanderings, it is lawful and customary to kill them … When it has been decided to kill an aged member of the tribe, the relatives depute one of their number to carry out the decision. The victim is strangled with a grass rope, and the body, when cold, is buried in a large fire kindled in the neighbourhood … Very often the poor creatures intended to be strangled cry and beg for delay when they see the preparations made for their death, but all in vain. The resolution is always carried out.” (Dawson, op. cit., p. 62.)

Most contemporary observers, and recent demographers, have agreed that girls were murdered more often than boys. According to Rev. C.W. Schurmann (1815–93), writing in The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln in South Australia (1846), “From the greater number of male children reared one may infer that not so many of them are killed at birth as of the female sex. In extenuation of this horrible practice, the women allege that they cannot suckle and carry two babies at once” (p. 224). Similarly, William Wyatt J.P. (1804–56), in his Manners and Superstitions of the Adelaide and Encounter Bay Aboriginal Tribes (1879), noted that “female infants at birth are not infrequently put to death for the sake of the more valuable boys, who are still being suckled, though three or four years old, or even more” (p. 162). Anthropologists who have studied gender ratios among colonial-era Aborigines living in tribal conditions have concluded that there were probably about sixty-seven females for every 100 males, strongly suggesting that Aborigines killed far more girls than boys.

The two main reasons for the prevalence of Aboriginal infanticide are straightforward and clear. In their 50,000 years in Australia, Aborigines never planted crops to eat nor domesticated livestock as food. They were, and remained, nomadic hunter-gatherers. At all times, their population was therefore subject to an upper size limit dictated entirely by what a tribe could obtain by hunting and by foraging for eatable vegetation. No tribe could exceed in size the foods procurable by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle; not infrequently, the size of the tribe must be even lower than this figure, when poor weather conditions or natural disasters decreased the amount of food available. Excess mouths to feed could simply not be tolerated; their existence threatened the very existence of any tribe of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Infanticide, as well as the killing of the elderly, was the only way that Aboriginal tribes could cope with this upper population limit, as Yengoyan (above) suggests.

The second main reason for the prevalence of infanticide was that the mothers of small children, who were as nomadic as any other members of their tribe, could not carry more than two, or at most three, children, especially given that they also acted as beasts of burden, carrying most of their family’s possessions, as was set out in my previous article on the Aboriginal mistreatment of women. Nor could they suckle more than two or at most three infants, and often fewer, who regularly had no other source of nourishment.

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:05pm:

Boris wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:03pm: Most European observers noted that these killings were carried out without the slightest sense of guilt or sadness; they were necessary for the survival of the tribe. Apparently, most infants were killed by burying them alive. Rev. Frederick August Hagenauer (1829–1909), a Moravian missionary in Gippsland, stated that Aboriginal tribes would “bury new-born babes alive in the sand”, which was formerly “a common practice”. (Ibid.) But in many cases, the reality of what occurred was far worse. According to Peter Beveridge (1829–85), a Scottish-born grazier near Swan Hill, who arrived in 1845 and wrote a posthumously published (in 1889) work on the Aborigines, “Infanticide was often practiced, and meals were made by mothers of their own offspring. This practice is attributable to laziness principally; for if a mother has two children, one two years old and the other just born, she is sure to destroy the youngest.” (Ibid.) Similarly, William Edward Stanbridge (1817–94), a founder of Daylesford and a local council member there, gave a similar description of their infanticide customs: “New-born babes are killed by their parents, and eaten by them and their children. When such revolting occurrences take place, the previously-born child is unable to walk, and the opinion is that, by eating as much as possible of the roasted infant, it will possess the strength of both.” (Ibid.) So you're saying conditions made it necessary, not that they wanted to do it? How does that matter then? Europeans have eaten each other to survive

The murder of children does not matter?

Boris wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:10pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:05pm: Boris wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:03pm: Most European observers noted that these killings were carried out without the slightest sense of guilt or sadness; they were necessary for the survival of the tribe. Apparently, most infants were killed by burying them alive. Rev. Frederick August Hagenauer (1829–1909), a Moravian missionary in Gippsland, stated that Aboriginal tribes would “bury new-born babes alive in the sand”, which was formerly “a common practice”. (Ibid.) But in many cases, the reality of what occurred was far worse. According to Peter Beveridge (1829–85), a Scottish-born grazier near Swan Hill, who arrived in 1845 and wrote a posthumously published (in 1889) work on the Aborigines, “Infanticide was often practiced, and meals were made by mothers of their own offspring. This practice is attributable to laziness principally; for if a mother has two children, one two years old and the other just born, she is sure to destroy the youngest.” (Ibid.) Similarly, William Edward Stanbridge (1817–94), a founder of Daylesford and a local council member there, gave a similar description of their infanticide customs: “New-born babes are killed by their parents, and eaten by them and their children. When such revolting occurrences take place, the previously-born child is unable to walk, and the opinion is that, by eating as much as possible of the roasted infant, it will possess the strength of both.” (Ibid.) So you're saying conditions made it necessary, not that they wanted to do it? How does that matter then? Europeans have eaten each other to survive The murder of children does not matter?

Eating people is OK? yes, to save your own life if they were dead.

Boris wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:09pm:

Elderly people who could not keep pace with the younger members of the tribe on their nomadic wanderings in search of food were also killed. As James Dawson observed, “When old people become infirm, and unable to accompany the tribe in its wanderings, it is lawful and customary to kill them … When it has been decided to kill an aged member of the tribe, the relatives depute one of their number to carry out the decision. The victim is strangled with a grass rope, and the body, when cold, is buried in a large fire kindled in the neighbourhood … Very often the poor creatures intended to be strangled cry and beg for delay when they see the preparations made for their death, but all in vain. The resolution is always carried out.” (Dawson, op. cit., p. 62.) Most contemporary observers, and recent demographers, have agreed that girls were murdered more often than boys. According to Rev. C.W. Schurmann (1815–93), writing in The Aboriginal Tribes of Port Lincoln in South Australia (1846), “From the greater number of male children reared one may infer that not so many of them are killed at birth as of the female sex. In extenuation of this horrible practice, the women allege that they cannot suckle and carry two babies at once” (p. 224). Similarly, William Wyatt J.P. (1804–56), in his Manners and Superstitions of the Adelaide and Encounter Bay Aboriginal Tribes (1879), noted that “female infants at birth are not infrequently put to death for the sake of the more valuable boys, who are still being suckled, though three or four years old, or even more” (p. 162). Anthropologists who have studied gender ratios among colonial-era Aborigines living in tribal conditions have concluded that there were probably about sixty-seven females for every 100 males, strongly suggesting that Aborigines killed far more girls than boys. The two main reasons for the prevalence of Aboriginal infanticide are straightforward and clear. In their 50,000 years in Australia, Aborigines never planted crops to eat nor domesticated livestock as food. They were, and remained, nomadic hunter-gatherers. At all times, their population was therefore subject to an upper size limit dictated entirely by what a tribe could obtain by hunting and by foraging for eatable vegetation. No tribe could exceed in size the foods procurable by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle; not infrequently, the size of the tribe must be even lower than this figure, when poor weather conditions or natural disasters decreased the amount of food available. Excess mouths to feed could simply not be tolerated; their existence threatened the very existence of any tribe of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Infanticide, as well as the killing of the elderly, was the only way that Aboriginal tribes could cope with this upper population limit, as Yengoyan (above) suggests. The second main reason for the prevalence of infanticide was that the mothers of small children, who were as nomadic as any other members of their tribe, could not carry more than two, or at most three, children, especially given that they also acted as beasts of burden, carrying most of their family’s possessions, as was set out in my previous article on the Aboriginal mistreatment of women. Nor could they suckle more than two or at most three infants, and often fewer, who regularly had no other source of nourishment.

Sounds like the mad Lefty has reverted to this primitive tribal idea ... he hates 'old people' ...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:13pm:

Sounds like the mad Lefty has reverted to this primitive tribal idea ... he hates 'old people' ...

Sounds like you're one of those right wing people not getting the mental health care they need

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:25pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:13pm: Sounds like the mad Lefty has reverted to this primitive tribal idea ... he hates 'old people' ... Sounds like you're one of those right wing people not getting the mental health care they need

Even you can do better than that... I'm grinning like a Cheshire cat at that one..

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:27pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:13pm: Sounds like the mad Lefty has reverted to this primitive tribal idea ... he hates 'old people' ... Sounds like you're one of those right wing people not getting the mental health care they need Even you can do better than that... I'm grinning like a Cheshire cat at that one..

It's obvious from the ways you talk that you'd NEVER go and talk to someone about your twisted hateful feelings

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 12:29pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:27pm: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:25pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 12:13pm: Sounds like the mad Lefty has reverted to this primitive tribal idea ... he hates 'old people' ... Sounds like you're one of those right wing people not getting the mental health care they need Even you can do better than that... I'm grinning like a Cheshire cat at that one.. It's obvious from the ways you talk that you'd NEVER go and talk to someone about your twisted hateful feelings

Ooooh - such hyperbole from one so young..... got me grinning again... you're more fun than watching those overpaid sheilas trying to justify the 'wage gap' at a public hearing.

Just keep repeating it enough and you'll begin to believe it's all true, Lefty.... just convince yourself.... you can do it ....................

Anyway - there were no Nations in 1788... that is a term stolen from the North American Indians in an attempt to shoehorn small itinerant groups into the definition of some kind of sovereignty .... doesn't remotely fit here and bears no comparison.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 3:29pm:

Ooooh - such hyperbole from one so young..... got me grinning again... you're more fun than watching those overpaid sheilas trying to justify the 'wage gap' at a public hearing. Just keep repeating it enough and you'll begin to believe it's all true, Lefty.... just convince yourself.... you can do it ....................

Overpaid sheilas.  Your sad, miserable failed life is a joy to me.  I can only imagine you in a nursing home, shaking your fist at the sky that women and blacks have a voice now

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 3:31pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:29pm: Ooooh - such hyperbole from one so young..... got me grinning again... you're more fun than watching those overpaid sheilas trying to justify the 'wage gap' at a public hearing. Just keep repeating it enough and you'll begin to believe it's all true, Lefty.... just convince yourself.... you can do it .................... Overpaid sheilas.  Your sad, miserable failed life is a joy to me.  I can only imagine you in a nursing home, shaking your fist at the sky that women and blacks have a voice now

Well - who else is paid lovely high rate PS money to sit around and come up with fantasies about how women are underpaid?  You don't know much, do you?


Blacks don't have a voice any more than anyone else - and have no right to any more - women had the vote here since men voted that they get it .... way back - try to keep up with the times....

How much of a 'voice' do you reckon they should have, given that their 'plight' is all over the media every day...?? 

Name these underpaid women.................

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 3:39pm:

Well - who else is paid lovely high rate PS money to sit around and come up with fantasies about how women are underpaid?  You don't know much, do you?

Apparently you can't count, and imagine if one woman has a well paid job, they all do

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 3:40pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Well - who else is paid lovely high rate PS money to sit around and come up with fantasies about how women are underpaid?  You don't know much, do you? Apparently you can't count, and imagine if one woman has a well paid job, they all do

Nobody said that - you're the one trying to say that men are overpaid ..... you're the one who doesn't differentiate between different occupations and such...

Easy to count..... just look at the hours worked on average for men v women and calculate the average hourly rate of pay... and remember that many factors come into it - you claim to be in a well paid job... how about you sacrifice some for the girls?  You're an overpaid oppressive chauvinist, you know - you should be demanding that women are paid as much as you regardless of qualifications and work...

Nowhere in Australia is it legal for women or anyone else to be underpaid ..... wake up... how about you take a few hits for the girls?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 3:44pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:40pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Well - who else is paid lovely high rate PS money to sit around and come up with fantasies about how women are underpaid?  You don't know much, do you? Apparently you can't count, and imagine if one woman has a well paid job, they all do Nobody said that - you're the one trying to say that men are overpaid ..... you're the one who doesn't differentiate between different occupations and such... Easy to count..... just look at the hours worked on average for men v women and calculate the average hourly rate of pay... and remember that many factors come into it - you claim to be in a well paid job... how about you sacrifice some for the girls?  You're an overpaid oppressive chauvinist, you know - you should be demanding that women are paid as much as you regardless of qualifications and work... Nowhere in Australia is it legal for women or anyone else to be underpaid ..... wake up... how about you take a few hits for the girls?

It's interesting to note you are every possible brand of ignorant garbage  That takes skill

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 3:46pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:44pm: FutureTheLeftWant wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:40pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 3:39pm: Well - who else is paid lovely high rate PS money to sit around and come up with fantasies about how women are underpaid?  You don't know much, do you? Apparently you can't count, and imagine if one woman has a well paid job, they all do Nobody said that - you're the one trying to say that men are overpaid ..... you're the one who doesn't differentiate between different occupations and such... Easy to count..... just look at the hours worked on average for men v women and calculate the average hourly rate of pay... and remember that many factors come into it - you claim to be in a well paid job... how about you sacrifice some for the girls?  You're an overpaid oppressive chauvinist, you know - you should be demanding that women are paid as much as you regardless of qualifications and work... Nowhere in Australia is it legal for women or anyone else to be underpaid ..... wake up... how about you take a few hits for the girls? It's interesting to note you are every possible brand of ignorant garbage  That takes skill

Nothing ignorant about simple realities... you should try living in the real world for a change...

Here's your new flag to replace that idiotic red and black thing... fits better

https://c.tenor.com/U0D6jtPHPeEAAAAC/paz-white-flag.gif

Anyway - there were and are no First Nations...  sign the citizenship acceptance as an Australian or go without all the conveniences of citizenship... no problem - would help the budget not handing out the ready to many here who don't want to be Australians.... sort a few sheep from goats...

Sign here or pack your bags... no time here for strap-hangers and gold bricks...

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 4:02pm:

Anyway - there were and are no First Nations...  sign the citizenship acceptance as an Australian or go without all the conveniences of citizenship... no problem - would help the budget not handing out the ready to many here who don't want to be Australians.... sort a few sheep from goats... Sign here or pack your bags... no time here for strap-hangers and gold bricks...

It must be hard knowing no one will miss your BS when you pass....

Another thread so they can cry about aborigines? What was wrong with the last 200+ threads? ::)

Never were, never will be First Nations here.... just a myth desperately trying to get off the ground in the hands of fools... a sop to silly people's idea that everyone (except them of course) has robbed the Abos, and therefore it is somehow owed to them..

Always was No Nations Land - always will be!!

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 4:59pm:

Never were, never will be First Nations here.... just a myth desperately trying to get off the ground in the hands of fools... a sop to silly people's idea that everyone (except them of course) has robbed the Abos, and therefore it is somehow owed to them.. Always was No Nations Land - always will be!!

Why do you always argue from a point of complete ignorance?


nation
/ˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 4:59pm: Never were, never will be First Nations here.... just a myth desperately trying to get off the ground in the hands of fools... a sop to silly people's idea that everyone (except them of course) has robbed the Abos, and therefore it is somehow owed to them.. Always was No Nations Land - always will be!! Why do you always argue from a point of complete ignorance? nation /ˈneɪʃ(ə)n/ noun a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

None of which applies to troops of Aboriginal hunter gatherers divided by a thousand non-common languages.

Why do you always attempt to argue from a position of complete ignorance?  It it deliberate?  Or just sort of natural?

They weren't large bodies, they weren't descended commonly, they didn't have a common history or culture or language, and they wandered about in a semi-tribal area and had no connection with most other such groups.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 5:40pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 5:28pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 4:59pm: Never were, never will be First Nations here.... just a myth desperately trying to get off the ground in the hands of fools... a sop to silly people's idea that everyone (except them of course) has robbed the Abos, and therefore it is somehow owed to them.. Always was No Nations Land - always will be!! Why do you always argue from a point of complete ignorance? nation /ˈneɪʃ(ə)n/ noun a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. None of which applies to troops of Aboriginal hunter gatherers divided by a thousand non-common languages. Why do you always attempt to argue from a position of complete ignorance?  It it deliberate?  Or just sort of natural? They weren't large bodies, they weren't descended commonly, they didn't have a common history or culture or language, and they wandered about in a semi-tribal area and had no connection with most other such groups.

LOL. Yes it does.

descent
/dɪˈsɛnt/
noun

1.
an act of moving downwards, dropping, or falling.
"the plane had gone into a steep descent"

2.
the origin or background of a person in terms of family or nationality.
"the settlers were of Cornish descent"

I could copy and paste loads more definitions from different dictionaries if you like.

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 5:50pm:

I could copy and paste loads more definitions from different dictionaries if you like.

No need - your original proved my point..... there were no nations ... and no Nation.....

They didn't descend from a common ancestor any more than the rest of the human race did - when they first came over (transitioned) from Indo there were groups and successive waves... so no they are not of common descent other than a large and non-united body of human beings who did not even communicate with each other's groups.  Clearly their 1000 different lingos indicates they did not have common descent.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 5:51pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 5:50pm: I could copy and paste loads more definitions from different dictionaries if you like. No need - your original proved my point..... there were no nations ... and no Nation..... They didn't descend from a common ancestor any more than the rest of the human race did - when they first came over (transitioned) from Indo there were groups and successive waves... so no they are not of common descent other than a large and non-united body of human beings who did not even communicate with each other's groups.  Clearly their 1000 different lingos indicates they did not have common descent.

What a load of horseshit.

Proved you to be spouting from ignorance, once again, and you're too bone-headed to concede.

Seriously, there is no point with you. Zero, nada.

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 5:57pm:

Seriously, there is no point with you. Zero, nada.

And yet...

"a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. "

Not a single one of which list applies to Aborigines... simple - they were not a large body, they were not united, what there were did not compose a contiguous group, each group has its own history, culture and language, and they were spread out in penny packets across the landscape with no central government or anything remotely like it.

As I said - their 1000 odd lingos proves they had no common ancestry.

It's not hard......... your choice to read into that definition what is clearly not there is just that - your personal choice.... nothing more.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:31pm:

"a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. " Not a single one of which list applies to Aborigines... simple - they were not a large body, they were not united, what there were did not compose a contiguous group, each group has its own history, culture and language, and they were spread out in penny packets across the landscape with no central government or anything remotely like it. As I said - their 1000 odd lingos proves they had no common ancestry. It's not hard.........

Except for descent and culture.

Fail , old man.

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:33pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:31pm: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. " Not a single one of which list applies to Aborigines... simple - they were not a large body, they were not united, what there were did not compose a contiguous group, each group has its own history, culture and language, and they were spread out in penny packets across the landscape with no central government or anything remotely like it. As I said - their 1000 odd lingos proves they had no common ancestry. It's not hard......... Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man.

No common language = no common descent - each group has its own culture....

Supreme Pass for me... A++

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:33pm:

Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man.

Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again.

Can't help yourself? Bad habit.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:47pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again. Can't help yourself? Bad habit.

I said there was no point. I didn't say i didn't enjoy humiliating him for his ignorance.

Do you have similar issues in your real life asserting meaning to what others say to suit your own agenda? You certainly do on here.

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:49pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:47pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again. Can't help yourself? Bad habit. I said there was no point. I didn't say i didn't enjoy humiliating him for his ignorance. Do you have similar issues in your real life asserting meaning to what others say to suit your own agenda? You certainly do on here.

You simply refuse to see the reality of what you yourself posted... I can't do it all for you ... get your mind working...

United is the operative word - 22 clan groups etc in one town way up north are trying to kill one another..... now that's united!!

1000 lingos spread over groups with a max size of 300 or so - and that's clan groups - not groups all together in one place all the time - clearly indicates there was no common ancestry.  Even if there had been 40,000 years ago, it has long vanished..... doesn't exist....

Not my problem that you refuse to accept simple realities... you're not the only one - you're just the evening shift... you're not humiliating anyone but yourself with your silly non-reasoning.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:34pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:31pm: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. " Not a single one of which list applies to Aborigines... simple - they were not a large body, they were not united, what there were did not compose a contiguous group, each group has its own history, culture and language, and they were spread out in penny packets across the landscape with no central government or anything remotely like it. As I said - their 1000 odd lingos proves they had no common ancestry. It's not hard......... Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. No common language = no common descent - each group has its own culture.... Supreme Pass for me... A++

Sorry? You are aware f how many nations around the world are multi-lingual, yes?

And there is more commonality than not amongst First Australian people.

See what i mean about you always posting from a position of sheer ignorance?

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:49pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:47pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again. Can't help yourself? Bad habit. I said there was no point. I didn't say i didn't enjoy humiliating him for his ignorance.

More likely obsessed about venting.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:50pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:49pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:47pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again. Can't help yourself? Bad habit. I said there was no point. I didn't say i didn't enjoy humiliating him for his ignorance. Do you have similar issues in your real life asserting meaning to what others say to suit your own agenda? You certainly do on here. You simply refuse to see the reality of what you yourself posted... I can't do it all for you ... get your mind working...

What i posted proves that Aboriginals are a Nation.

It's not my fault you are still embarrassing yourself.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:52pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:49pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:47pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again. Can't help yourself? Bad habit. I said there was no point. I didn't say i didn't enjoy humiliating him for his ignorance. More likely obsessed about venting.

And you'd be as wrong about that as you consistently are about just about everything else.

But that's what happens when you assert your own meaning onto people to further your own agenda, as you a want to do.

Anyway, dinner time with the fam.

Please feel free to continue to talk about me while i'm gone now.

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:33pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:31pm: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. " Not a single one of which list applies to Aborigines... simple - they were not a large body, they were not united, what there were did not compose a contiguous group, each group has its own history, culture and language, and they were spread out in penny packets across the landscape with no central government or anything remotely like it. As I said - their 1000 odd lingos proves they had no common ancestry. It's not hard......... Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man.

Zif you had a clue, mothra.




Ownership of Sydney Harbour’s historic Goat Island is about to be handed to the “wrong” Aboriginal people, many of whom come from western NSW and have no cultural connection to the area, ­descendants of the harbour’s original inhabitants say.

It would be culturally offensive for Goat Island, or Me-Mel, to be awarded to the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council “because it is controlled by foreigners”, said Ash Walker, a member of the La Perouse Aboriginal community.


The 33-year-old Oxford ­University-educated strategy con­sultant and former lawyer said the MLALC was controlled by ­Aboriginal people who had come to Sydney from other areas of NSW and had no cultural connection to the land.

“This is why the spokesperson featured in the announcement was MLALC deputy chair Yvonne Weldon, a Wiradjuri woman from Cowra in western NSW,” Mr Walker said.

Local Aboriginal land councils are statutory entities whose boundaries and membership are not linked to any traditional ­ownership.

“Being a member of an Aboriginal land council doesn’t mean that you speak for that country,” Mr Walker said.

“Cultural authority is derived from the connection of an Aboriginal person to their country, not from NSW government legislation. Think about it as if Australia were Europe.

“If land was stolen from the French, you wouldn’t give it back to the Polish.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/sydney-harbours-goat-island-going-to-wrong-indigenous-people-say-descendants/news-story/ee9fe900c7cd9b4446f7c6c2415e6a46


Bloody foreigners, eh??

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:51pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:34pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:31pm: "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. " Not a single one of which list applies to Aborigines... simple - they were not a large body, they were not united, what there were did not compose a contiguous group, each group has its own history, culture and language, and they were spread out in penny packets across the landscape with no central government or anything remotely like it. As I said - their 1000 odd lingos proves they had no common ancestry. It's not hard......... Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. No common language = no common descent - each group has its own culture.... Supreme Pass for me... A++ Sorry? You are aware f how many nations around the world are multi-lingual, yes? And there is more commonality than not amongst First Australian people. See what i mean about you always posting from a position of sheer ignorance?

Strange attempt at a point there... so now you're saying that having 1000 lingos is a sign of unity? How about the utter lack of government or anything else? 

Sorry - no Nations..... so this  - errr .. commonality... they're black.... and then?  Using nice words doesn't make it so, evening shift... you'll need to prove that....

Persisting Lefty-style with attempted put-downs will avail you nothing, either... you are embarrassing yourself...  you two aren't related by any chance, are you?

mothra wrote on Jul 20^th, 2022 at 6:54pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:52pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:49pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:47pm: mothra wrote on Jul 20th, 2022 at 6:33pm: Except for descent and culture. Fail , old man. Last post you wrote him off, but you're back again. Can't help yourself? Bad habit. I said there was no point. I didn't say i didn't enjoy humiliating him for his ignorance. More likely obsessed about venting. And you'd be as wrong about that as you consistently are about just about everything else. But that's what happens when you assert your own meaning onto people to further your own agenda, as you a want to do.

Oblivious to the transparency of your motives, eh.

P.S.  you ARE WONT to do..... inclined... disposed ... WONT ..

That's one of my phrases - use it correctly.

adjective. If someone is wont to do something, they often or regularly do it. [written] Both have committed their indiscretions, as human beings are wont to do. Synonyms: accustomed, used, given, in the habit of More Synonyms of wont."

I'm-a learn-a you do da bloodeh Ainglish, capisce?  Bloodeh 'ard-a work!