Senator Hanson wants a new definition of ‘Aboriginal’

Senator Hanson says “people need to toughen up” over political correctness.

One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson has claimed that Australia doesn’t have a definition of what it means to be an Aboriginal person and that this raises issues about equality and freedom of speech.

In an interview with Andrew Bolt on Sky News on Monday, Senator Hanson claimed that the lack of an official definition meant almost anyone, including non-indigenous people, can claim to be Aboriginal – a label she believes carries certain social and political power.

“If you marry an Aboriginal you can be classified (as one), or if the community or the elders accept you into that community you can be defined as an Aboriginal,” she said.

Her comments follow an altercation with Noel Pearson in 2009, during which she claims he referred to her in a sexually degrading way, making references to her being ‘white’.

Senator Hanson, who is a strong advocate of free speech, is calling for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C of the Act makes it illegal to behave in way that is likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person because of their race or ethnicity.

Senator Hanson, along with other Coalition Senators, is pushing to have the words “offend” and “insult” removed from the Act.

She believes Australians have become too politically correct.

“I think that people need to toughen up a bit, we’ve all become so precious,” she said. “If I was going to come out with something extreme, like Noel Pearson has with regards to this, well then the people will judge us, the people will have their say, and I’ll be shut down by the public. I don’t need someone sitting in their office making their determination, I’ll let the people judge me before that.

“I've raised issues about equality over the years, whether you're Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal and I'll be asking the question 'what defines an Aboriginal?

“I think the whole lot needs to be opened up, a big debate on this and to say that you're humiliated or intimidated, where does it stop?” she said.

In the 1980s, changes to legislation on the definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stated: “An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he [or she] lives.”

What do you think? Have we become too politically correct? Does the current legislation compromise our freedom of speech? Would loosening the legislation allow more people to voice their opinions or would it simply cause more trouble?

Read more at theaustralian.com.au

Read more at news.com.au

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    Pass the Ductape
    30th Nov 2016
    10:34am
    Political correctness has killed the Aussie way of life as far as I'm concerned. We seem to be nothing but a big bunch of welfare dependent pussies (country people excepted - they seem to be the only real Aussies left, but there aren't enough of them to make a difference). Current legislation is so much bogged down in it's own BS, it's killing the will to speak out against that which needs to be spoken about! As for what might determine if someone is Aboriginal or not, I don't understand why we can't use plain common sense for this. A full blood Aborigine is certainly an Aboriginal; if they marry a white person then any issue becomes half Aboriginal and half white; and so on and so on. I think once the mix gets to say 75% white and 25% aboriginal, then you should not be able to class your self as an aboriginal; instead, you should only be able to claim that you have 25% aboriginal blood in your veins - and that should not entitle you to any special favours.
    jackie
    30th Nov 2016
    11:44am
    Ductape ....It shouldn't matter what percentage of Aboriginal descent anyone is. The fact is their relatives all suffered under Australia's past and many still do. Many were born into poverty and discrimination even when they have a small percentage of Aboriginal ancestry because they are still discriminated against today. Our indigenous people to be respected because they are the oldest surviving race on this planet. They weren't overpopulated when they were invaded and have never bred themselves out of control like many other races have done today. Hanson is all about Hanson. The more she opens her mouth the more she proves she is. She is worried the land that was stolen by her redneck friends may be compensated for money one day. They are guilty and are aware of what goes around comes around.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    1:10pm
    jackie - I took that oath in the twentieth Century - not the nineteenth... there simply has to be a sunset clause on all these affirmative action programs to 'equalise' people and 'compensate' for past wrong which none of us had a part in - since these programs do nothing of the sort, but merely disadvantage another social group into perpetuity.

    We've seen that with women and 'equal employment opportunity' - which rather than being a temporary and clearly defined measure to bring about Equality - has now become cast in stone to the detriment of everyone else.

    I resigned from the public service over the way AA was implemented, bulldozing over excellent officers to favour a social group, and having no sunset clause etc... instead of simple declaring all on a level playing field from Day Zero (as defined).

    Do we seriously want a never-ending continuation of band-aid attempts to rectify perceived wrongs of the past, when society was totally different, and continue to disadvantage other people in doing so?

    I think we've had and seen enough over the past forty years or so - and it's time for some to let go of the apron strings and stand on their own two feet, with dignity and pride, and EARN respect, and that includes ethnic groups, Indigenous people, and women.

    I have the utmost respect for Aboriginal elders with whom I've spoken, women and men, for their views and ideas and their caring about 'the kids' and young men and women and such - and it is sad that so many of those younger men and women go off the rails.

    If you want me to give you an answer why - I can't give it. Too complex.
    Not Amused
    30th Nov 2016
    1:49pm
    Dear Jackie
    If white people had not entered this country in comparatively large numbers someone else would have and perhaps in numbers so large the original inhabitants would have been completely subjugated and totally wiped out. What I would like to know is what aborigines want. Do they want to be a part of the wider Australian culture re education, health care and modern amenities, or do they want a treaty that returns land to them in the form of self-governed reservations so they can choose to continue a fully/partly traditional life-style with no white interference whatsoever in their customs and way of life? A similar situation occurred with American Indians. A treaty was agreed so they could choose to permanently live on reservations, integrate fully or partially into a western culture. There are almost no demonstrations and complaints from American Indians since their needs were clearly defined by them, and met. Given that Australia is now what it is, I would like aborigines to reach agreement on what it is they want and need as unique and valued people, so it can be done, once and for all. Hanson is merely saying that the present system of costly benefits is not helping aborigines often because they are being mis-represented by ineligible people taking advantage.
    jackie
    30th Nov 2016
    2:04pm
    TREBOR...Equal pay for women failed because of GREEDY business owners. Australia will continue to spiral downwards with such greedy, narrow-minded people like Hanson and her voters pretending they care for the country. The only thing I agree with her is to stop selling Australian land to China. Hers as well as rest of our politicians’ noncreative brains need to get ideas from places like the Netherlands instead targeting our poor without decent solutions for their plights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zfy_VOfpUzw
    marls
    30th Nov 2016
    2:09pm
    jackie
    dont ever tell me that my grand children are disadvantaged because they are aboriginal. i have aboriginal and non aboriginal grandchildren the only ones disadvantage are the non aboriginal. my daughter has two daughters from different fathers how do you think the non aboriginal one when she sees her sister receiving this and that for nothing, being entitle to this and that. its not a nice feeling, one did her hospitality course free, the other one did a stage makeup etc cost my daughter $2000 up front. my co-worker who is aboriginal every single one of her grandchildren in sydney have scholarships to the most exclusive school in sydney. one of my other abor grand daughter was also given a scholarship she chose not to take it. my grand son mother refused to pay all his school fees it got wiped out because he is abor. so do not tell me they are disadvantaged i could go on and on
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    3:14pm
    jackie - we've been over the 'wage gap' times countless - and it doesn't exist. You are correct in blaming business for the PAST disadvantage of women re equal pay etc - but there is now no job in this country where a woman is paid less than the mandated minimum for the job, with the exception of the rip-off merchants who exploit workers.... and they are illegal.
    No Fixed ABode
    30th Nov 2016
    8:05pm
    Jackie

    They may be one of the oldest tribes around, but they certainly didn't look after the land when they came here:

    - They ate all the megafauna and their eggs and made them extinct

    - They continued to burn down what was once temperate rainforest that used to cover the continent ove thousands of years, turning it into an environment that is now dry, horrid and useless: All so that they could catch the prey that they liked to eat by burning them out and creating large swathes of grassland on which they could breed

    Aboriginals are just like any other human, and they certainly didn't "Look after the land" Not in a good way, that is.
    jackie
    1st Dec 2016
    9:50am
    Marls....just because your part Aboriginal grandchildren have never suffered does not mean many others don't. Providing them with a FREE education is good. As a grandparent, I can't understand why you can't help your disadvantage white grandchildren. BTW there are plenty of government handouts for middle class Australians for children.
    jackie
    1st Dec 2016
    9:56am
    No Fixed ABode....They did look after this land very well....scientists are discovering their farming methods and land management were far too superior than ours.....Since white settlement there have been more animals and plant species made extinct....the original land owners had a spiritual connection with the land and environment....
    jackie
    1st Dec 2016
    12:30pm
    Not Amused....The Dutch, Portuguese, Phoenicians and whoever else that came before the poms always left. Only greedy, self-righteous British were stupid enough to destroy a pristine land and its habitat wherever they went. Australia got colonized with ball and chain thieves and prostitutes. Their descendants have the gall to be racist. Pauline Hanson has got Arab DNA. It says a lot about her female ancestors and her. Pauline Hanson is all in it only for the money.
    JAID
    2nd Dec 2016
    9:09am
    Trebor, your point about sunset clauses is excellent, if any measure deemed to necessarily not be scrupulously even-handed it should come with a sunset clause. If the work is not done it can always be re-legislated for another period.

    We only differ perhaps in regard to the quantity of work yet to be done.

    It seems to me that a lot of decision-making by government fails to be part of a system which not only establishes the mandate but sets goals, the measure of success and consequent actions where goals are met or otherwise. Witness the mass of legislation left to wither on the books sometimes a century past use-by-date.
    No Fixed ABode
    3rd Dec 2016
    7:09pm
    Jackie

    I said nothing about their farming practices - I particularly argued that they destroyed the forests and rendered the megafauna extinct, but you said nothing about those facts.

    It's simple - the people who came here with their Asian Timber Wolves simply exploited the rich, fat land for thousands of years until they made the environment barely liveable and then had to revert to saving what they had left...this isn't racism it's just typical HUMAN behaviour.
    Anonymous
    3rd Dec 2016
    7:46pm
    NFA - The Aboriginal people have been here a lot longer than the dingo.

    Your view of the extinction of the megafauna is one of many. The science is not settled.
    Jacqui
    30th Nov 2016
    10:57am
    Please will someone answer this question!
    Why was our Australian Tax Payers money given to the 'CLINTON FOUNDATION' in the US, under the disguise
    of a donation. What was the total sum of money? And what was the tax paying citizens money spent on?
    We all know that the 'Clinton Foundation' is a fraudulent enriching program for the Clinton Machine. I am appalled to read this news and well documented. I hope Pauline exposes
    this theft of our money by our government.
    Not Amused
    30th Nov 2016
    12:33pm
    The Clinton Foundation was given $$millions by our successive governments and there has to be a thorough investigation. It was "pay to play" money - government representatives who gave money to their foundation received Clinton attention in return. The Foundation is reputed to have diverted funds in various dubious ways to the Clinton election campaign. However, if you ask Julie Bishop for some real definitive answers, you would probably get the death stare. Our party politicians seem to think they are so far above the rest of us they no longer have to provide answers to our questions. That's why Pauline Hanson, if she can hold her team together, will eventually be more powerful than either of the two major parties, failures that they are.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    1:27pm
    What does this have to do with the topic?
    Not Amused
    30th Nov 2016
    1:51pm
    Barak cut a bit of slack dear.
    tendj
    30th Nov 2016
    2:58pm
    Was Clinton Aborigional as well
    particolor
    30th Nov 2016
    8:22pm
    Dunno about that ? But her Boomerang came back and bounced off her Bonce !! :-) :-)
    billyj
    30th Nov 2016
    11:15am
    I don't think it is being too politically correct to ask people to get their facts right or to be at least up-to-date before they make dogmatic statements (or any statements). Non-Aboriginal people have been telling Aboriginal people who and what they are since 1778. In that time there have been 65 (yes, 65) legal definitions of who is and is not Aboriginal. Of course, none of these were made by Aboriginal people themselves. I suppose it would be too much to expect Pauline Hanson to know this fact or to know that her claim that you can become an Aborigine by marrying one is ludicrous (but in her hands dangerous).
    And as for Ductape's counting of the percentage of "Aboriginal blood" that a person has, this outmoded thinking was dismissed as useless and pointless decades ago. It was also this kind of thinking that enabled Hitler to commit atrocities against Jewish people.
    Tom Tank
    30th Nov 2016
    11:31am
    Nicely put billyj.
    The likes of Pauine Hanson, Trump, Benardi, Abetz are all raising the spectre of Fascism and they keep banging on about "Political Correctness" when they themselves have their own form of that.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    1:16pm
    I rather thought that Ductape's view was diametrically opposed to the NAZI one - he's simply saying you're NOT a member of a group, whereas the NAZIs said you were.

    I always preferred Fat Hermann - who had a Jewish butler - and when challenged on that, replied - "I will decide who is a Jew here and who is not!" He kept his Jewish butler.....

    It seems that somehow the NAZI doctrine decided that anyone could be a Jew when it came to persecution (my German great-greats were Jews from Hamburg) - Ductie is saying the opposite... he's saying they should NOT be included for anything, including persecution, if they are not of a significant percentage.
    marls
    30th Nov 2016
    2:19pm
    check out definition of aboriginal you will find that if a person is accepted into an aboriginal community they are classified as aboriginal
    and in regards to their culture they are the only culture in the world that does not accept the non aboriginal side of their blood line that is why you can only be aboriginal and not part aboriginal. which is a disgrace and most are of mixed blood these days as my 3 aboriginal grand children and g/grand children they can never be only aboriginal as i am full italian, not to mention other blood lines that are in the other side of the abor family side. aborigines also cannot throw back to their orginal aboriginality, so if the other parent is islander the child will have the islander features if the other parent is eg sudanese the child will have the colour and features of the sudanese that is they they are white today. my grandchildren are whiter than i am
    Rae
    30th Nov 2016
    4:25pm
    Thanks marls. My great great grandparents were on the mission at Galar. The local elder has accepted I share blood kinship but I've never been sure.

    I hate the question about heritage as I can't answer it. I can't say yes or no on that question.

    My Nana had very definite beliefs about the natural world and used terms like fella tree etc but they denied aboriginality but then people did back then didn't they.

    I bet a lot of sixth and seventh generation do have aboriginal bloodlines without having a clue about it.

    Pauline has a way of opening cans of worms.

    To tell the truth I'm over the whole bigoted race/sex thing. It shouldn't matter. Either your a compassionate human that can empathise, respect others and feel love or your not.

    If invading Aliens suddenly arrived I'm sure race or sexuality would pale into insignificance.
    gumtree
    30th Nov 2016
    11:32am
    Bring back 'Kevin Bloody Wilson" and have a good laugh a teach other!
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    1:17pm
    G'day Mr Alan Bond,
    'Ow ya goin', bloke?
    Jeez, ya goda nice big house,
    Ay, mate, ya godda smoke?"
    particolor
    30th Nov 2016
    8:34pm
    "Livin next Door to Bondy " :-) :-)
    Ay Bondy !! Chuck us over a Snag from ya Barby will ya ? " :-) :-)
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    9:37pm
    Get the HMAS Melbourne on some kind of government loan,
    I dunno - I just said I wanted to fish for some yabbies...
    lasaboy
    30th Nov 2016
    11:57am
    well shit, it seems she does have some intelligence after all, my grandmother was Koori, but I do not consider myself one, although I have a great many ties to them and a need to know them, for they are family, but I have always refused to accept any government handouts, if I couldn't earn it myself I didn't want it, so on all the papers that asked I said no I was not of Aboriginal decent, but the ones who do are dividing Australia
    grounded
    30th Nov 2016
    12:14pm
    Excellent point Pauline. I know 'Aboriginals' who are white as the driven snow. How does that work?

    It is heartening to see that you will not succumb to the intimidation of racist commentators. Keep up the good work Pauline.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    1:29pm
    Why does skin colour matter so much to you?
    Not Amused
    30th Nov 2016
    2:20pm
    It's fun playing devil's advocate but it's boring.
    Charlie
    30th Nov 2016
    12:27pm
    Where I live, not a week goes by when I don't see, groups of aboriginals around the streets littering, shouting verbal abuse at each, then being moved on by police because they have decided to sleep on the ground in public recreational space.

    A number of them appear to be affected by alcohol and they go up to people asking for money. A soft drink bottle that gets passed around a number of their group must contain really great soft drink, or it is alcohol.

    This is not a small country town but a regional city.

    What is the point of having special communities for tending to the health and education of aboriginal groups if they are not learning the basics about how to conduct themselves in public. Is it their right to do as they please, because they are aboriginal.??
    Phillthy
    6th Dec 2016
    12:54pm
    must be from Kalgoorlie...there they do as they goddamn please.
    JAID
    6th Dec 2016
    1:17pm
    I must have just been lucky the cops weren't doing their rounds last time I had a quick snooze after a fat lunch in the park. Its unhealthy when the kids snatch my lemonade anyway.
    Franky
    30th Nov 2016
    12:31pm
    It's easy, the word "aboriginal" is one created by the old colonials and their legal system in order to disempower indigenous people. Indigenous is the correct word! Aboriginal means "not original", same as normal and abnormal. Today it shouldn't matter, we are all Australians in a country where over a quarter of the population is overseas borne. I agree with Pauline Hanson on this one. All this political correctness is not getting us anywhere. "Unity in diversity" should be our motto, just as it is in Indonesia. We are all human beings with the same colour blood.
    Rae
    30th Nov 2016
    4:32pm
    Agree Franky. The whole differentiation is racist.
    Old Man
    30th Nov 2016
    12:46pm
    I wonder why we are having this discussion because as far as I'm concerned, we are all Australians. The only reason a definition has been put in the spotlight is because the way descendants of the original inhabitants are treated. If all Australians are treated the same then there will be no need for any legal definition to be made. Those who are proud of their heritage can continue to claim that pride.

    As a matter of interest, in the mid 70's one of the definitions of Aboriginality as required by the Aboriginal Loans Commission was "To be of aboriginal descent or to be living with an aboriginal community or to be married to an aboriginal person or to be accepted in the community as an aboriginal." As pointed out here, there have been lots of definitions over the years and I wonder why we need to do this.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    1:32pm
    We are all Australians, but the ancestors of some Australians had their land stolen and were murdered by the ancestors of other Australians.

    Do you care?
    Old Man
    30th Nov 2016
    2:00pm
    Really Barak can you honestly believe that there are any lands which, over history, have not been stolen from original owners? There are no original owners left alive, court cases have made decisions and life must go on. Do I care? Probably not.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    3:23pm
    Didn't think so.

    You really shouldn't be posting here.
    Old Man
    30th Nov 2016
    4:11pm
    And why should I not be posting here Barak? Is Australia not a free country where we are allowed to express an opinion? I care a lot for my fellow man (generic term that includes women) regardless of race, colour or creed. I just don't think that what happened hundreds of years ago has much bearing on today's world.
    Luchar
    30th Nov 2016
    5:11pm
    An excellent response,"Old Man".

    Unfortunately "Barak's" suggestion that "you really shouldn't be posting here" is typical of the Left's view of Democracy in Australia. Rather than participate in a sharing and consideration of opposing viewpoints, Barak's view is that if you don't agree with him, you should be shut down and have no right to voice an opposing view.

    Welcome to Left wing political debate Australia style!
    lasaboy
    30th Nov 2016
    5:26pm
    Barak you are under a misconception, Koori's never owned the land, they were custodians only, they looked after the land, the concept of owning land cane with the white man, and then those who think they are owed something follow that trend, the Koori elders of yesteryear would be horrified at what the people claiming they are Aboriginal have done
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    8:27pm
    Stupid generalisation.

    My comment about Old man not posting here was because he admitted he didn't care about Aboriginal people. Hatred and bigotry do not make for a rational position.
    Not Amused
    30th Nov 2016
    12:49pm
    Aboriginal descent shouldn't be hard to trace and establish. However, being a descendant of prisoner-of-war survivors, should I be compensated for their suffering? The aboriginal industry has had so much money thrown at it for more than 100 years someone did the sums, figuring that if we dropped all the "programmes" and simply gave $130,000 per annum to every person claiming aboriginality, the welfare budget would be massively less. I feel amused that aborigines are still banging on about being "invaded". Yes there were terrible occasions for many who suffered at the hands of newcomers to their land and we have all tried very, very hard to make up for that. But nothing placates them - and never will. I am further amused that aborigines haven't yet come to terms with the fact that if this country had not been "settled" by us mob, someone else would have and they might not have been as willing to habitually cringe and apologise and perpetually fork out as much money as we have.
    Luchar
    30th Nov 2016
    5:30pm
    Some invasion!!

    The only invading army in the history of the world which arrived on a foreign shore with only 20% of the invasion force bearing arms, 25% women and children, 45% in shackles and armed to the teeth with picks and shovels, a supply line some 12,000 kilometres long, and reinforcements 3 years away.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    9:41pm
    Should the German government pay me or compensate me for my ancestors leaving due to discrimination against Jews? Or the Irish who left after the Potato Famines and because the Anti-Irish Laws were too tough, or the Scots because the Laws against the Heeghlandt, not wearing of the kilt etc, were draconian and were a continuation of war by other means?

    Should the British and the German governments restore to me my sacred sites? What about my ancestral family seat at Tara, being as I'm descended from one of the sons of Niall of The Nine Hostages on the Irish side?
    Young Simmo
    30th Nov 2016
    12:53pm
    What it mean to be Aboriginal? 1000s of people that stay at home on full pay and let all the Back Packers have the work. Stop the 457 Visors and give the work to our Abo mates I say.
    OUCH !
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    1:02pm
    I see two sides of Aboriginal identification:-

    1) the focus is ALWAYS on the Indigenous component, even when that is obviously a small proportion of the total person.

    2) watching Murder in America - that OJ thing - there was an LA Black activist who might have passed for Middle Eastern or something - and he said - I'm not White, but I'm most emphatically Black in the eyes of the city (whatever)..

    It seems to me that Pauline Hanson is simply seeking to 'mainstream' Aboriginals - something which is a lot more complex than simply saying :- "You're now on the dole and no extras - no handouts for anything, no Sacred Sites, no Aboriginal-friendly jobs in National Parks, no Affirmative Action - go get a job" (as if)...

    30th Nov 2016
    1:34pm
    There is hate in this thread. And it's all coming from people who are not of Aboriginal descent.
    Young Simmo
    30th Nov 2016
    1:55pm
    Barak, maybe just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that, some people pay for their accommodation, & some don't, some people pay for their food,& some don't, some people pay for transport and medical and some don't.
    Who knows ?
    jackie
    30th Nov 2016
    2:16pm
    Barak ....I am not of Aboriginal descent and feel for them a lot. That is because I have educated myself through reading their pre-white settlement and post white settlement history. One thing no one can never deny is the very DNA they carry and pass down the gene pool. That is what proves their Aboriginality. BTW Miss Hanson and the likes are too stupid to acknowledge this because they only recognize race by skin colour. There are many naturally blonde aboriginals that don't have white blood too and don't bleach their hair like most white folk do.
    marls
    30th Nov 2016
    2:28pm
    barak
    you have no idea who is and who is not of aboriginal descent as i have numerous family members of aboriginal descent and have worked in the criminal justice system face to face meeting the needs of thousands of aboriginal people not everyone identifies as aboriginal. as as far as pauline hanson is concerned when she was released from jail it was a young aboriginal girl that she took into her home and gave her the support she needed, and there are many other stories similiar that pp have no idea about
    marls
    30th Nov 2016
    2:32pm
    jackie
    what you have missed is aborigines do not throw back to their own genes they have the weekest genes. they will take after the other parents background. all my aboriginal grandchildren take after the italian side of the family my aboriginal co-worker her two children take after their lsander fathers the other 3 take after the west indian side because they cannot throw back they lose their aboriginal colour and features that is why these days you cannot tell who is and who is not aboriginal
    marls
    30th Nov 2016
    2:35pm
    jackie
    you might be in for a shook you have no idea whether pauline hanson is or is not aboriginal not every aboriginal identifies as such
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    3:21pm
    Frankly - any of us of multiple generations here could have Aboriginal blood - I could have, but never seen it. I have no real idea who my great grandmother Lewis was in reality - but I do know my grandfather was dark-ish, and always put it down to his Jewish German heritage, one great grandmother came from Portsmouth - who knows? ... I'm so mixed I have no real idea, though mostly Irish/Scottish with maybe Chinese or Indian thrown in.. some sort of Indian according to my mother and not of the Asian kind, but who knows? I used to be called Ming at school....

    I plan to do a DNA test some time soon....
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    3:22pm
    No Aboriginal person I know is anywhere near as wilfully ignorant as Pauline.
    Old Man
    30th Nov 2016
    4:30pm
    How dare you Barak. Who gave you the right to judge people by their writing and then have the arrogance to assume a skin colour. That is a blatant racist comment.
    CindyLou
    30th Nov 2016
    8:33pm
    DNA tests useless Trebor, save your money.
    BTW my great g/m was aboriginal - have documents to prove and family history, but for many people there are no written records.

    There has been a history of denial in Australia, nobody years ago would identify due to societal pressures - many folk identified instead as being of Spanish, Maltese etc heritage - safer. It's called passing (passing yourself off as part of dominant society)
    Rae
    1st Dec 2016
    9:25am
    So true CindyLou. I tracked back as far as a property near Mudgee.

    It appears most Aboriginal people born on properties were recorded in the book with the animal birth records. Those books were lost over time.

    You can approach the Elders who will take a good look at you, consult with each other and make a call on whether they think you might "look" right but that is as good as it gets when there are no written records.

    My Mum was the first to go to school and only then to Year 5.
    jackie
    1st Dec 2016
    12:17pm
    maris...DNA tests do show Aboriginal genes...Pauline Hanson has none but she has Arabic genes...Her female convict ancestor must have done business with an Arab merchant. Ha ha
    CindyLou
    1st Dec 2016
    2:00pm
    To the best of my understanding, DNA testing is a bit hit n miss, especially when an individual has a 'mish mash' of ancestors going back many generations.

    From the region that my family came from there is an elder, whom I am related to who has worked very hard on collating records. This lady, in her 70s is well known, has helped people trying to track down records- find family and has, with others help, gathered records, photos, breastplates etc. Fascinating to walk on country and visit mission cemeteries were past generations are buried. I consider myself privileged to have spent time at these special places with this respected elder.
    Not Senile Yet!
    30th Nov 2016
    2:42pm
    There is No hate in her question!
    We should All be Classified as Australians....regardless of heritage!
    There should be no Aboriginal Austudy...or anthing else that separates us!
    If separate assistance/funding is required due to Disadvantage....then it should be an Allowance....and open to ALL DISADVANTAGED!
    Time to stop labelling by Separation/or Labelling.
    tendj
    30th Nov 2016
    3:02pm
    Agreed we are all Australians so what is good for one should be good for all
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    3:23pm
    We are all Australians, but the ancestors of some Australians had their land stolen and were murdered by the ancestors of other Australians.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    3:26pm
    That's what I said about Affirmative Action when I resigned from the PS - it should be on a needs basis not on the basis of some social group. A chick from Bellevue Hill who never missed a meal and had a private school education doesn't need affirmative action, but a poor White Boy from a poverty-stricken family surely does.

    Affirmative Action was always a failed policy in the way it was implemented - and remains so to this day, and its greatest 'outcome' has been massive social division and further impoverishment of the already impoverished.

    As regards Aboriginals - if it was such a wonderful policy - why are they still lagging in the PS and elsewhere so terribly much?

    'EEO' wording was PREFERENCE will be given to women, persons from a non English speaking background, and Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander. Still not too many Aboriginal department heads about... or even senior public servants....

    The real thrust of EEO (AA by another name) here was women, some ethnics, and a few token Blacks - and it is a failure in many ways.
    lasaboy
    30th Nov 2016
    5:32pm
    again Barak, they did not have their land stolen, because they did not own it, they were owned by it, if you have a Koori background check it out otherwise shut your tap
    No Fixed ABode
    30th Nov 2016
    7:04pm
    BARAK

    Yes, some aboriginals had their ancestors murdered by white people's ancestors.

    The descendants of those people, however, did not. They are not the people who did the killing. You are not one of the people being killed.

    Do you not see that this is not today's problem?
    Ikantu
    30th Nov 2016
    3:22pm
    Although I don't necessarily agree with Pauline Hanson, I do agree that there are medical processes that can determine Aboriginality (or ethnicity) that could be better used to identify those of Aboriginal descent. I do feel that a smaller percentage (25%?) of indigenous blood line should reduce the ability to be identified as Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander. Then, depending on the needs of the community we'll be better armed to provide support and assistance (eg. financial, emotional, health and education) to the real Aborigines & Torres Strait Islander people. I'm in favour of supporting the original inhabitants and addressing inequalities of those who have proven ancestral connections with the land but certainly not for those who only 'identify' as a partial connection.
    Pushkin2
    30th Nov 2016
    4:05pm
    If we tracked our DNA back far enough I'm sure we would all be surprised at the outcome. We are all Australian and that not defined by skin colour or belief. "Pure" white people do not exist, or at least exist because of modern medicine and avoidance from the sun. The rest of us are mongrels, interbreeding over the centuries have made us all what we are today. Indigenous people are different only in sense that they have lived without contact with other peoples of the world; complexion aside they are no different from the rest of us. Unfortunately when cultures and races clash the dominate dictate how the minority live, but it need not be so. Assimilation may be a dirty word, but ultimately given time that is what will eventually happen. Then the Pauline Hansen's of the world will not matter because we will all be indigenous.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    8:28pm
    Well - we are Indigenous - most of us were born here and have had a close association with the land for generations... well.. I don't know about all you lot - but I do, since the 1850's.

    Can't see how it is not MY land as well?
    JAID
    30th Nov 2016
    4:09pm
    Should it matter that anyone is anything? That is any race, sex, denomination, whatever?

    An amount of community generosity is afforded some sectors of society in an attempt to alleviate condition or vault barriers. A certain equality of opportunity is the aim. Sometimes that works sometimes it does not, sometimes it can even bring unwanted effect but it would be a blase society that did not make an attempt at bringing all to that equality of opportunity.

    Legal declarations are not right or immutable by virtue of being made. All australians, rather, all who live and contribute here own and are the business of government; in the interest of viable and creative relations we have an onus of respect for all other owners of our society. That extends widely to the variations. This is a matter of freedom of path, of speech and mind.

    Regardless of legal definition it is a truth that this nation has taken prior societies and the incoming into itself. Subsumed and grown by these irreversibly. It is also true that it has failed to come to a reasonable understanding and treatment of some of those societies. We need to continue to address that and focus harder on it; on building appreciation of and building the strengths of all the facets which make up the national whole.

    Some actions transcend useful latitude but speech should never be inhibited. It remains the clearest access we have to peoples thinking and can bring them the readiest reflection and valuing of their thinking. If I think green people are ugly, unitelligent and breed like rabbits it is better you know about that. You can choose to avoid me or you can sanction me socially and better you can help reflect the level of rationality and responsibilty that my comment shows that I carry in this particular regard to green people.

    "Correctness" is an advancing illness growing perhaps from good intentions but ruinous of the value of our learning to take responsibilty.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2016
    4:32pm
    I totally agree with Hanson. Some of the people appearing on TV who claim to be Aboriginal are white. And then you get the white folk who talk the aboriginal lingo. Quite offensive.
    I jacked up with this BS when a work colleague of mine was sponging on an aboriginal low interest rate loan when he was a heck of a lot whiter than most Australians and suffered no disadvantage of any kind.
    Whilst pollies are too scared to tell it as it is we will remain crippled and the do gooders who do nothing to fix problems will continue to throw fuel on the fire but never get an end to this.
    If it's broke fix it. If it ain't broke leave it alone. IT'S BROKE. Has been for a long long time and about time our elected representatives and the media ended the blame game and told Aboriginals (the real ones) to fix their own existence and get a life.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    8:20pm
    MICk - why is skin colour your defining characteristic of Aboriginality?
    MICK
    30th Nov 2016
    11:06pm
    Ever seen a white Aboriginal? I haven't.
    So are you now taking what clearly is and what is not an Aboriginal to task? Sounds like you may be a part of the problem Barak.
    Rae
    1st Dec 2016
    9:35am
    Mick there are plenty of "white' aboriginals. Some even have red hair. It doesn't matter.

    I get Pauline. The amount of money being thrown at the Aboriginal community is appalling when you consider the very poor outcomes.

    Noel Pearson brought up this very same thing.

    Sometimes welfare can be a huge disadvantage and continue to keep certain people as 'victims' because of all those siphoning off the money.

    The Aboriginal Industry is beginning to look like a vampire in charge of a blood bank.
    No Fixed ABode
    30th Nov 2016
    6:44pm
    The argument going on here is ridiculous, for the following reasons:

    1. I live here, I was born here, and none of my ancestors had anything to do with being awful to aborigines

    2.Regardless of this, those that did have ancestors who were bad to the natives are NOT RESPONSIBLE for the behaviour of their forebears

    3. My forebears (at around the same time that Australia was claimed for the British) were being kicked out of France. Considering that this was in the same time frame that aboriginals are troubled about, why can’t I get my ancestors land back?

    4.Their is a very strange dichotomy evident in aboriginal folk - either you want all the things that the Modern World brings (your phone, your TV, your booze, etc) or you want us to leave you alone and live on a reservation. If we are so bloody awful, why aren't you choosing the second option but, instead, villifying white people and everything about us?

    5. And - this is a biggie - why do we have to “apologise” for the “Stolen Generation” when (and this is the elephant in the room) we were actually saving many aboriginal children from the inherent incest that abounds in aboriginal society? Yes, abounds. The long history of this and such things as offering passing explorers sex with their wives is well documented. But, then, some history is just far too inconvenient, hey?
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    8:21pm
    Point 4 is ridiculous. And wilfully ignorant. And racist.
    JAID
    30th Nov 2016
    9:36pm
    No Fixed Abode,
    My take on your points.

    1.
    You were and almost all agree you have a right to stay. I would hope I could say the same about my ancestors but aboriginal australians have generally not been nicely treated. In not even having the right to vote until a half century ago you could be foregiven for surmising that they were considered second class citizens if not by everybody then by the general wider population.

    2.
    True, an ancestors guilt is not mine or yours and this is obvious where they clearly appropriated the space and bred children who also actually lived in it devoting themselves to it. Culture is another thing though, it needs breathing space. You and I need it and demand it in our own way. Aboriginals might have some wide open spaces here and there but they do have the heavy hand of government and the expectation of the wider community always lingering near. We are not a monoculture, there is no need for us to require that level of conformity in the community.

    3.
    Yes an understandable argument but like it or not occupation of and attendence to space invests a culture with something that our ancestors, in leaving, just do not maintain down through the ages. Setting aside that cultural argument, If we allowed the No.3 argument to play out there would be no end to the entitlements until world unity.

    4.
    We may not always be nice but we are not generally awful either. What you recognise is partisanship steeled by the sense that perceived entitlement has no other means at its disposal. Another impact of the tendancy to hem a people down to what a large proportion see as the appropriate behaviour of australians. That will change as, when there is no 'enemy' racism for want of a better term will not hold water in broader minority groups. The dominant australian paradigm is an easy target.

    5.
    I agree, we as individuals need not apologise if it is true we are as inclusive and responsible as we can be but the nation had quite a deal to apologise for. I have not heard the stories you have so cannot comment on the same. There has been recent, at least, child abuse, a disgrace that must stop but whether it is more or less prevalent than it is in the wider community or among the churches I have no idea so leave that for you to balance if you have facts.
    MICK
    30th Nov 2016
    11:08pm
    I thought that ALL white folk were the causes of Aboriginal unhappiness and poverty?
    TREBOR
    1st Dec 2016
    12:19am
    First - let's define culture

    Second - let's stack that 'culture' up against civilised standards

    We see this with Islamic, Islander and so forth culture - and quite often it seems that the 'culture' under consideration wishes to look at its positives and never at its negatives.

    Islanders, from my personal meeting, often refer to those who live on another island as cannibals.

    Islamic culture is tainted by the ratbags who run around offering to behead anyone who doesn't subscribe to their religion (not the approach of the majority of Muslims, BTW)..

    Surely we, as thinking and intelligent individuals - are entitled to take a long, hard look at a 'culture', and arrive at our own conclusions about it and its effects on those who are forced to be part of it?

    I doubt any Aboriginal woman would really want to be a vassal or a servant or live in poverty and despair and try to raise children to a decent standard, or any Aboriginal child want to be sexually and physically abused, and I would suspect most would be happy to prosper alongside 'white Australia' - if they could only find the way.

    What I see, mostly, is despair and a total lack of any meaningful 'horizon' that Aboriginals can approach.

    I understand this from my personal experience, coming down from a 'top gun' to near nothing virtually overnight... and how easy it is to just immerse oneself in mind-numbing things. Three years on a walking stick after being one of the best does that to you...

    It's very hard to get past those kinds of things, and when you are born into it, as a fellow human being with whom I sympathise, it is near impossible.
    JAID
    1st Dec 2016
    7:05am
    Trebor these thoughts contribute well but no-one should take the image as one describing a whole race or kind. Moslems or Islanders or aboriginal austalians come in all kinds...some pretty much like you or I, some anywhere else, some valuable to society and some a risk.

    It can be hard to rise through murk but we don't all wish to or need to rise to the same things.

    I have had the good fortune of working with aboriginals, some as in any community, have been exceptional human beings, certainly not fitting the mould of a city mover and shaker but intelligently seeking appropriate fit with what is around them. These bring millenia of largely isolated human thinking gently into play. A magic we don't hear at our loss.

    The breadth of this world view becomes unavailable as we focus on 'we and them'. Differences can become immaterial simply by focus on greater things.
    Oars
    30th Nov 2016
    7:00pm
    The mere fact that these folk want to be called Aboriginal rather than Australian, indicates that think they have special; rights over the rest of us. That is in itself discrimination. So they want to be special, discriminate, and yet don't mind putting their hand out for a flagon of Lyndemans at pay day. Or should I say dole day. Bah- they who talk racists are racist themselves.
    Anonymous
    30th Nov 2016
    8:22pm
    What an abusive, racist comment.
    TREBOR
    30th Nov 2016
    8:33pm
    I've known some really good Aboriginal people - I worked on the Eastern Suburbs Railway project many moons ago, and an entire gang was drawn from the local Aboriginals - many of them owned homes with mortgages and such, and were well educated and well spoken.

    It's very hard to generalise from the failings of some.... and we should never see the whole lot as being the worst in it... same as us from the other side.

    None of my ancestors oppressed a Black.... though my grandmother was around fifteen when Jimmy Governor was cutting a swathe through the white folk, and he wasn't far away... and she was pretty scared, so she said...
    TREBOR
    1st Dec 2016
    12:24am
    And that's nonsense, Barak - we need to discuss the issues here and not waste our time labeling others....

    Oars has a valid point... and what he/she is discussing is part of human nature.... and we will never approach the realities of prejudice and discrimination and disenfranchisement until we can look at the issues without emotion and on a truly equal basis, with due regard for ALL prejudice.

    Do I deserve to be verbally attacked by a Muslim because I am not 'one of them'? NO - it has happened, let me assure you.

    Do I deserve to be labeled 'racist' because I am White?

    NO!
    Anonymous
    1st Dec 2016
    11:24am
    Oars spoke of "these folk", and condemned a whole group. He/she didn't clarify "which" folk.

    Oars did the labelling, not me.
    Watto
    30th Nov 2016
    9:47pm
    Hey Barak Do you work for or receive any money from the Aboriginal Industry ?
    MICK
    30th Nov 2016
    11:09pm
    I was wondering that too.
    Probably just another do gooder who, as per like minded people, have dragged this country down for decades.
    TREBOR
    1st Dec 2016
    12:25am
    I humbly offer my expressed view above....
    Anonymous
    1st Dec 2016
    11:25am
    I am not the topic.
    JAID
    2nd Dec 2016
    11:48am
    One problem is that all are thrown into the one basket. We just happen to be focusing aboriginal australians while similar applies to all or many groups.

    If you can see the focus group as consisting a wide range of people from those where assistance to reach an equitable level of opportunity, happiness and comfort can have advantage not only to themselves along to those who need absolutely none of the same; from those who follow blindly to those who lead; those with unnecessary fears and those with just causes it would follow that respect and insight is essential and openness to wide ranging potential measures is vital to the country. (Long sentence that, but hang it.) If all who consider those were simply do-gooders, they would be useless but considering them is vital to our common wealth.

    The line between strengthening consideration and do-gooding is, I think simply whether one follows for no more than the popularity of a trend, or not. I know you were just putting a general point Mick loosely related to unthinking expectation and entitlement but I reckon that Barak has shown himself to be a thinker not a follower.

    1st Dec 2016
    6:41am
    We have become to politcal doctranated if we make a comment against people who are not White we are called racists but they say what they like against whites and that appears to be ok.people need to be not so thin skinned I worked with all nationalities in the early days and we called each other all sorts of names in fun and no one took effence things like wog dago midnight and many other similar words that to day are not acceptable. Come on people toughen up don't be such wimps
    Anonymous
    1st Dec 2016
    11:26am
    Fair Dinkum, you have a right to criticise individuals for unacceptable behaviour. You have no moral right to condemn a whole group based on what you perceive as the behaviour of some members of that group.
    4b2
    1st Dec 2016
    9:40am
    When the Ipswich bitch re-entered parliament she lowered the IQ of the entire country. Has she ever sais an honest word about any other race?
    She is as incorrect about this remark as she is about every other remark she has ever said. Her photoshoot on the Barrier Reef recently showing there was no coral issues was a total set up after the release of facts this week.
    Pauline and people like her are the treason for keeping Section 18c.
    She is a discussing representative of Australian Values.
    jackie
    1st Dec 2016
    12:27pm
    4b2...She went over to England hoping to settle there but obviously there wasn't a dollar to be made there for there....They don't think much of ball & chains there.
    4b2
    1st Dec 2016
    1:50pm
    Jackie, they rejected her as an undesirable!
    jackie
    1st Dec 2016
    12:11pm
    Not Amused....The Dutch, Portuguese, Phoenicians and whoever else that came before the poms always left. Only greedy, self-righteous British were stupid enough to destroy a pristine land and its habitat wherever they went. Australia got colonized with ball and chain thieves and prostitutes. Their descendants have the gall to be racist. Pauline Hanson has got Arab DNA. It says a lot about her female ancestors and her. Pauline Hanson is all in it only for the money.
    Boomah52
    2nd Dec 2016
    10:15am
    Human Being definition - living species so enamoured with their appearance they choose to breed in such numbers they are wiping out and threatening the existence of many other living things - blessed with the powers of thought and reason and an ability to determine an outcome they are failing miserably.
    Mandy
    2nd Dec 2016
    11:22am
    Jackie, much as we Australians love to claim it, the Australian Aborigine is not the oldest race on the planet. There are many African tribes that predate them by 100000 years or more.
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2016
    11:41am
    William Lanney claimed to be the last Aborigine, Truganini claimed to be the last of her people (Kurt von Stieglitz,Page 31, Six Pioneer Women of Tasmania, CWA Launceston 1956).
    Molly Mallett, in page 41 of her book "My Past - Their Future Stories from Cape Barren Island" (Blubber Head Press, 2001) commented that "they - our parents - never told us we were Aborigines" and had a saying that "What was in the past should be left in the past." On Page 46 of her book, Molly Mallett states that the only pieces of Aboriginal culture passed down were shell stringing, story telling and muttonbirding. These comments were totally supported by Annette Mansell in Tom Haydon's film "The Last Tasmanian" (Artis Productions 1978)
    Yet today one prominent Tasmanian Aborigine had his aboriginality concealed by his parents until he was ten, yet currently describes himself as 1/64th Aboriginal, (NIcholas Shakespeare "In Tasmania" P199, Vintage Books, 2005) yet is in a position where he can play a major role in determining aboriginality and therefore access to special taxpayer sourced funding for aborigines.
    Truganini claimed to be the last Aborigine, she has been totally overruled by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and the Tasmanian Government. How can this be sensible or reasonable?
    JAID
    2nd Dec 2016
    12:10pm
    Hello Max,

    I can claim to know and have known a number of people with Tasmanian aboriginal blood. It is a wild guess but something like 75% are part of the wider community achieving at all levels with no apparent interest in their connection. Who could deny however that whether or not much has been handed down to those who do identify strongly racially (if not as you suggest culturally) that many have been strongly pigeonholed by the wider community, strongly enough to enforce a sub-culture. Some if not most of those I have known identifying or otherwise had parents and grandparents who felt obliged to hide their racial roots. That tells something about the pressure involved and where there is pressure of that magnitude sub-group bonding is a fairly expectable result.

    Funding is another matter, some may be necessary but it can seem an insensitve reaction by too tax-happy, disinterested politicians to popular causes. It would also not be news that many aboriginal thinkers find people unfavourably treated by but locked into reliance in this arms-distance benificence.

    This should not be about aboriginals but about how best to have all australians make excellent lives of their limited time. Various groups will value by varying enrichments.
    MD
    2nd Dec 2016
    2:23pm
    Well I've read some pompous and sanctimonious claptrap herein and if it were not for my want of a thick hide (as opposed to head) then I'd swear far too many of us are not talking off the top of our head and then name the worst of em. Not my place - so I'll leave it to individual interpretation.

    Some facts; Aboriginals represent 2.6% of the Aust population
    Estimated spend/cost per head (ex public purse) = $44K/ea
    The remainder, ie ~ 97% realize $19.5K/ea - a ratio of 2.25:1
    Source: C of A Indigenous Specific Expenditure Report 1968 - 2012.

    Question: At what point in time and at what price (regardless whether dollars, treaties, self determination or all combined) will Australians ALL accept the status quo and move forward - without the past baggage weighing us down and regardless of the purported perpetrator(s) - to seek a bright new future built on mutual trust and individual input.

    I'd suggest tis far easier to join the brotherhood and lament the (perceived) wrongs of another race and their; forebears, usurpers, colonialists or invaders than it is to stand and assert equality among peers, regardless of race, colour or creed.
    Anonymous
    2nd Dec 2016
    2:35pm
    MD - I wish I knew what your point was.
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2016
    2:47pm
    Here's my point: We have heard so much about the Mabo case, which has the following provision in the case of land:

    "Further, no native title is automatically recognised in law. The Aboriginal claimants have either to go to court, or possibly tribunals, and prove that they continually maintained their traditional association with the land they are claiming."

    Why does not the same principle apply to claims of aboriginality? If a family failed to recognise or claim aboriginality and identifed as Cape Barren Islanders for about a century, how can they now, when at least 4 generations removed from an Aboriginal ancestor, legitimately claim to be Aborigines?
    Anonymous
    2nd Dec 2016
    3:05pm
    Because they are.

    And the polite word is Aboriginal.
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2016
    3:45pm
    Barak, you say they are, Truganini said they are not. Read the diaries of Robinson and learn what Aboriginal mothers frequently did to their children fathered by their sealer slavemasters.

    Thank you for correcting my grammar, even though you are wrong. I referred to individuals as Aboriginal and correctly referred to a number of them in the plural form, which is Aborigines.

    Typically, and wisely, you do not comment on the requirements of the Mabo case.
    Anonymous
    2nd Dec 2016
    5:24pm
    I do know Truganini's story. The obvious point is that many of us now see things differently.

    Mabo is irrelevant.

    You are wrong about the grammar.How many Aboriginal people do you know?
    maxchugg
    2nd Dec 2016
    6:45pm
    No, the obvious point is that Truganini was definite in her claim that she was the last of her people. By what right do people overrule Truganini? Why, as Molly Mallett and Annette Mansell have made clear, was Aboriginal culture not passed down to the part-Aboriginal community?

    And why is Mabo irrelvant? If it was necessary to prove that traditional association with land was essential to obtain native title, why is it not also necessary to demonstrate continuous identification as an Aboriginal to qualify for benefits exclusive to Aborigines.

    Finally, if I am wrong about the grammar, so are writers on the Aboriginal Provisional Government and contributors to the "Indigenous Times" and "Koori Mail" who have used the term "Aborigines."
    Anonymous
    2nd Dec 2016
    7:19pm
    Max - we have different views. All of yours diminish the rights of Aboriginal people.
    JAID
    2nd Dec 2016
    7:43pm
    Truganini was one person Max. Any one person's statement believed or otherwise, even that of the or one of the last full bloods need not represent the sum of all possibities.

    Besides that, Truganini's thinking could have sustained some influence through her work with and sometime friendly relationship with Robinson. It seems to me that language is an important impounder of culture but surely it is not the only one, children with various levels of both contact and the blood line came out of Wybalena and today their decendants must number many thousands.

    It is completely another question as to whether and when any special funding may be necessary, beneficial or detrimental but the conception that no cultural threads have been handed down is totally incredible...regardless of any view held by Truganini.
    maxchugg
    3rd Dec 2016
    9:55am
    Jaid, I suggest that you watch Tom Haydon's film "The Last Tasmanian - A Story of Genocide" and hear Annette Mansell state that "It's just history. I don't know anything about it and I honestly don't think there's anybody alive who could tell you honestly and truthfully about the old Aboriginals. It's only history, what we've learned as you've learned."

    J.E. Calder provides an explanation of why Aboriginal culture was not passed on to children with a white father, as does George Augustus Robinson whose comments may be found on page 327 of the current edition of "Friendly Mission."

    J.E. Calder's book "Some Account of the Wars, Extirpation, Habits Of The Native Tribes of Tasmania" is essential reading, as is "Friendly Mission" despite its tedious detail and occasional self aggrandizement by Robinson.
    Anonymous
    3rd Dec 2016
    1:32pm
    max - when I researched Aboriginal issues at university, I was stunned at how many metres of library shelf space were taken up on that topic. There are hundreds, probably thousands of books out there.

    You seem to concentrate on a very small subset as your sources.
    maxchugg
    3rd Dec 2016
    3:27pm
    Barak, I concentrate on the best historical documents that I can find. I totally avoid the revisionists who form the majority of writers on this subject and appear to be well rewarded for their efforts.

    The "Bringing Them Home" report commenced with an announcement of what would be found. It contains details of how the government twice legislated to reduce the reliance of the Cape Barren Islanders on welfare, but failed totally. It is critical of the government for not recognizing people as Aboriginal, even though the CBI people did not identify as Aboriginal themselves, and leaves no room for doubt that the law was applied equally to everyone, irrespective of race.

    To argue that people who did not identify as Aborigines were targeted because of their Aboriginality is farcical. To make findings based on unchallenged verbal testimony which, it could be argued, had an objective of subsequently obtaining compensation is absurd.

    Read the Tasmanian section of the BTH report for yourself, then explain how there could be an outcome where the so-called stolen generation received $5 million in compensation.
    maxchugg
    5th Dec 2016
    8:52am
    Heemskerk999 This was listed as a free speech issue, and freedom of speech, provided that what is spoken is true, is my personal concern.

    As someone else commented, I may not agree with what Barak, or anyone else has to say, but totally support his right to say it. Rebut him by all means, but use logic, not the old, faithful and now, sadly, ubiquitous ad hominem approach.
    billyj
    5th Dec 2016
    9:09am
    I don't understand some of the points that are being made about grammatical issues on this post (most have nothing to do with grammar) but the situation is both Aborigine/Aborigines and Aboriginal are legitimate terms. it is generally (but not universally) accepted that Aborigine is used as a noun (Truganini was an Aborigine) and Aboriginal is used as an adjective (Truganini was an Aboriginal person). For decades now it has been officially (and appropriately) accepted that when we write about Australia's Indigenous people we spell Aborigine and Aboriginal with a capital "A".
    maxchugg
    5th Dec 2016
    11:56am
    I think I do understand. The logic is that if you can find some minor fault in an argument then the argument must be wrong in its entirety.

    I understand the use of the capital "A" which I always use when referring to Aborigines. I do not use it when referring to a person who is 1/64th Aboriginal and in private conversation also use inverted commas around the word because I accept Truganini's ruling on who is, and who is not, Aboriginal.

    The Tasmanian Government also accepted Truganini's ruling and nominated 1876, the year Truganini died, as the cut-off point for Aboriginal heritage. A century later they are in the process of overruling Truganini.
    billyj
    5th Dec 2016
    2:23pm
    1/64th Aboriginal -- what would that be? Their little toe? Their right nostril? Ludicrous concept.
    maxchugg
    5th Dec 2016
    8:20pm
    Find the full story in Nicholas Shakespeare's book "In Tasmania", pages 196 - 200. The same person wrote a chapter in "Whitewash", a book written to rebut Windschuttle's "Fabrication of Aboriginal History."

    If you think that it is nonsensical for this person to claim Aboriginality when he is 63/64th white, read what he has to say in "Whitewash" which probably explains why Windschuttle's book is still in the shops, but "Whitewash" is out of print.
    billyj
    5th Dec 2016
    8:56pm
    It seems that my point has been missed again. What I think is nonsensical is for people to classify others according to the proportion of "blood" they have in them or according to some supposedly divisible
    "heritage". As I said in my initial post, it was precisely this sort of thinking' which Hitler used to discredit Jewish people and whether it was to include them or exclude them is immaterial. It is a type of thinking which I had (wrongly) assumed that well-read, reasonable and non-racist people had stopped using in their arguments decades ago.
    Anonymous
    5th Dec 2016
    9:02pm
    Likewise.

    The USA's One-drop rule, in fact, said that even one ancestor, at any point, of sub-Saharan-African ancestry ("one drop" of black blood) meant Negro.

    It is an archaic, Euro-central way of classifying humans.
    JAID
    5th Dec 2016
    9:16pm
    That is an easy position to sustain too billyj.

    We are all pretty close genetically, close enough that our capabilities form a generality which bridges race. It is imaterial if on average some are a few percent better in business or in IQ tests. Accordingly, this is not about race but condition. If a people see value in providing something in an attempt to raise certain conditions (in certain areas) to what is regarded as equitable or appropriate that is their business.

    With general commonality of capability there can be no validity in pointing fingers at particular races as the only valid criteria for specialised treatment relates to condition.

    It is fairly apparent that for convenience government has to some degree equated condition with race. If the fit is reasonable and convenience is actually achieved even if not the ideal approach it is hardly worth arguing. At the same time there is no call for the rest of us to envisage that intervention as primarily a matter of race.

    Race is visible, branding with it is to actively ignore potential, the differences and nuances that all individuals when respected in their own right can bring to society.
    maxchugg
    7th Dec 2016
    8:24am
    In Tasmania there is a group of people who denied their Aboriginality for a century, and identified as part Aboriginal (they even identified by way of a now politically incorrect term). But when Gough Whitlam announced special benefits for Aborigines around 1975, by an amazing coincidence around the same time, the Cape Barren Islanders became Aborigines.

    So we now have in Tasmania a group of people, many six generations removed from an Aboriginal ancestor, living in a white society as white men, yet qualify for a raft of benefits not available to anyone else, health, housing, legal aid, massive land grants, etc, etc.

    To take up the point raised by Jaid, the Nazis determined that people with one Jewish ancestor even a few generations back were Jewish and eligible for persecution. In Tasmania there are people with one Aboriginal ancestor a few generations back who are using that fact to claim Aboriginality and obtain special benefits and other privileges.

    A century after Truganini claimed to be the last of her race she has been overruled by a group of people who found an Aborigine in their family tree.
    Anonymous
    7th Dec 2016
    8:41am
    Max - your certainty bothers me.

    The more I learn about Aboriginal people, the less I realise I know.

    Broaden your outlook.
    maxchugg
    7th Dec 2016
    11:27am
    No, Barak, face facts.

    If my comments in the previous post, or any other, are factually incorrect, please correct me, I am quite willing to consider any alternative point of view, provided that it is based upon fact, not opinion.

    The lies that have been told to promote endless advantage for people with an Aboriginal ancestor are breathtaking. Risdon Cove, for example. the original records show that 3 - 5 people Aborigines were killed, that figure was multiplied to such a ridiculous extent that it became around 100, with the bodies sent to Sydney aboard the government ship "Ocean."

    How a small number of low grade soldiers could kill around 100 Aborigines with highly unreliable and inaccurate Brown Bess muskets and then deceive the Governor into believing that only 4 - 5 Aborigines died beggars belief. Thousands of lead balls, about 15 mm diameter and maybe one small projectile from a carronade must have landed on the site, yet subsequent archaeological expeditions have failed to find any of these projectiles.

    Later, in the "Examiner" of September 2003 Michael Mansell added to the Risdon Cove myth with a claim that there was another massacre at Georgetown, under the orders of Lt Paterson who was present and ordehis story and added another invented massacre of Aborigines which, he claimed, took place at Georgetown. where Colonel Patterson (sic) "a murderer and a racist" who "was not only at Georgetown when the killings began...but ordered the killings."("Examiner" September 2003).

    Mansell cited the Historical Records of Australia 3.1 pp 606/7 to confirm this massive revision of history. The source cited states that two soldiers, in the clearest possible case of self defence, opened fire upon a group of approximately 80 Aborigines who were attacking them, killing one and wounding another. Paterson was not present, did not order the killing, not killings, and, when learning of the incident, issued a warning that anyone who unnecessarily interfered with the natives would be liable to severe punishment.

    As for knowledge of the Tasmanian Aborigines, because they did not pass their culture down to their children of mixed race, what little that is known has been obtained from the writings of the early settlers.
    Anonymous
    7th Dec 2016
    12:11pm
    I repeat, your certainty bothers me.
    maxchugg
    7th Dec 2016
    5:52pm
    Barak, I'm also certain that the Earth is a sphere, not flat, and that it revolves around the Sun rather than vice versa. I am certain of these facts because I first was told about them, then found a mass of evidence to persuade me that they were correct and found nothing to contradict them.

    Take the bogus story of the Georgetown massacre for example. Do you deny me the right to be certain that there was no such incident when the story is totally demolished by the Historical Records of Australia which were cited as evidence to support the fanciful, opportunistic account that was presented?

    If you are so concerned about my certainty, why not raise valid objections?
    CG
    6th Dec 2016
    1:31pm
    I am from Aboriginal heritage and am fiercely proud of my culture. My grandmother, who married a "white" man and who subsequently left her with 6 children to raise on her own would be disappointed/distressed if she had read some of the comments on this article and remarks from politicians such as Pauline Hanson. Unfortunately my grandmother died at age 72 - very much a woman ahead of her time. I am Australian and consider myself and my family, friends and all those who live in this country to be extremely fortunate and give thanks each day that I am not living in a country where there is a war raging every day. It would benefit our society if all of us could be decent human beings.
    MD
    7th Dec 2016
    8:11am
    "It would benefit our society if all of us could be decent human beings".
    Yes indeed and that starts with you (as opposed to I); regardless of race, colour or creed and judging by a good many comments herein - every shade of grey in the spectrum.
    billyj
    7th Dec 2016
    8:34am
    I don't see the point of MD's comment but if people are going to be nit-picking about grammar (see above) the correct form is "as opposed to me", not "opposed to I".

    7th Dec 2016
    9:50am
    The simple fact is anyone with even a miniscule % of Aboriginal blood in them, can call themselves "Aboriginal", and thereby gain access to a vast range of entitlements, that are not available to any other racial group in Australia.

    This is where the basic unfairness of our current social setup resides. It is a policy that identifies and elevates one racial group above others.
    Yet, Aboriginals claim that White Europeans are racist!

    What is more important, is that these people are totally denying their own European racial heritage - which could 99.9% of their racial makeup!

    Calling yourself "Aboriginal" when you have a very substantial amount of White European blood in you is an act of hatred of all things White European.
    It is the forte of those who want to cause great division amongst all Australians.

    By denying any European heritage, by setting up an Aboriginal Flag, and by calling for an Aboriginal State, these people reveal that they are the greatest racists and xenophobes around. White Europeans have nothing on these people.

    What is most galling is that these people are the ones who benefit most from White European wealth, social benefits, grants - land & water & energy development - scientific advancements, and medical developments and our fabulous health system.

    If these people truly want to be 100% Aboriginal and be an independent, separate nation and racial group - then let go back to living in gunyahs, travel by foot, chase kangaroos and wallabies for food, don't take or use any white money - and most of all, don't utilise our White health system.

    Seems like no "Aboriginal" actually wants be "truly" Aboriginal - they want to cherry pick all the good parts of life in Australia, under a White European culture and enjoying all its fabulous scientific and cultural advances.

    The history of the Aboriginal race is one of no advancement in any field, in 40,000 years or more.
    They are Stone Age people who have never evolved in any manner or form in that time, right up to today. They still utilise Stone Age thought processes.
    billyj
    7th Dec 2016
    9:58am
    Here we go again with that ludicrous concept of defining people according to some so-called per cent of blood. I'm surprised that Aaron didn't begin with "I'm not a racist but...".
    Once again the sad (but dangerous") thing about comments like Aaron's is the inaccuracy of it all which begins with the very first sentence.
    Anonymous
    7th Dec 2016
    10:16am
    Aaron, nobody is "denying any European heritage".

    Now, start again.
    JAID
    7th Dec 2016
    1:38pm
    Aaron,
    Paragraph by paragraph.

    If the blood exists then surely it is a matter of personal identification and integrity. The nation asserts that it is its responisibility to proove lack of integrity in criminal matters. Knowing misrepresentation for gain would constitute that. If there have been some found other than innocent of this it must be a very small number as it isnt obvious on the radar.

    Yes, race has no place in this. It cannot be denied however that government has long seen it as its place to assist adjustments and limit obstacles to wellbeing, growth and equity.

    Calling yourself anything despite a percentage of blood doesnt have to equal hate. If I have a percentage of Irish blood, that makes me no less Australian. I could be proud of whatever I see worthy of pride, the Irish; the Australian, even especially fond of one without any detriment to either.

    Is there any evidence of denial of any portion of non-Aboriginal blood?...sounds a useless exercise in the face of DNA testing.

    While anybody can rally under any flag; corporations, societies, schools and community organisations do it all the time, if there is expression of hate based on race that is unsatisfactory no matter what colour one happens to be. There would be little doubt that there are racists in aboriginal ranks as I have no doubt there are in all or most societies. It would be both extravagant and laughable to suggest that is a general attribute. Especially in the face of past trials and tribulations which it is fair to see as either coming from the hands of the invaders or coming in unknown in parallel. These are things of the past but memory is passed down and it is a tribute to aboriginal worldliness and humanity that those memories have caused so little wider pain.

    'These' people are Australians, we all enjoy the fruits of our development.

    Some may prefer to travel by foot and hurl boomerangs after kangaroo. Few however have that opportunity within traditional hunting areas. There are those that are in between. Even as the last people came in from the desert late 70's and early 80's others were routinely spending time bush. While the land and bush craft seem essential to traditional culture no aboriginal should see it as either/or. Like any Australian they choose the course which best matches their comfort, knowlege and aspiration and they do that within a greatly limited sub-domain. If any Australian can live without affecting others in particular adverse ways what call have we to demand more?

    We all cherry pick what we find good. We are free.

    As a world we have grown by contact. Aboriginals had no significant contact, no seeding. Small numbers and a wide land without foes limited apparent necessity for growth of tools. But that does not mean that other areas were not in focus and just as we expect the liberty to lay our own course where it doesn't hurt others they choose their course. That was interrupted expectably a couple hundred years ago, sails get adjusted, we all have an opportunity to learn, adjust and benefit by the inclusion.
    Sophie
    7th Dec 2016
    5:13pm
    I haven't read most of the comments but I'm going only by the question asked...a definition of "Aboriginal"...a long time ago I talked to a few Aboriginal elders...an honour..they told me if a person has one drop of Aboriginal blood and can trace back their ancestors which land they came from etc. then they are Aboriginal to the Aboriginals..that's good enough for me..

    Is Pauline Hanson suggesting we adopt the old South African system of apartheid and drive a wedge within families? Now how does the government proceed with that if Hanson has her way???
    maxchugg
    8th Dec 2016
    9:06am
    Thea, in 2004 at least 167 Tasmanian FAMILIES were known to be descendants of Dolly Dalrymple, with others likely to also qualify in this respect.

    Add to this the number of others who have intermarried with these families in the intervening 12 years, then add in the other families who descend from other Aboriginal women and you wind up with practically all of Tasmanians having an Aboriginal ancestor.

    If you accept the views of the Aboriginal elders to whom you spoke, Tasmania has a population which must be almost 100% Aboriginal, so, obviously, should qualify for a much greater share of special funding for Aborigines than is currently the case.

    And if you think that Pauline Hanson is promoting apartheid, take a look at the aims of the Aboriginal Provisional Government.
    Anonymous
    8th Dec 2016
    11:47am
    Not one of the replies has directly addressed any of the points I raised.

    1. When I fill in many Govt forms, one of the things I am asked on a regular basis is, "do I identify as having Aboriginal or Islander heritage?"

    By ticking this box, this immediately identifies me as a "person of a disadvantaged group" and entitles me to vast range of entitlements that are not available to me as a White European.

    http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/questions-and-answers-about-aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-peoples

    This is Apartheid in its finest form. Many Aboriginals drive far better vehicles than me, live in better houses than me, and are paid far better than me. Where do I line up for my "disadvantaged white person" entitlement??

    2. If I want to travel to many inland areas of Australia, as a white European, I need to apply for a permit to enter "Aborigianl Lands". Once again, Apartheid in reverse.
    How many would be riding the outrage bus, if Australian cities required Aboriginals to apply for permits to allow them entry to the White peoples cities? (and I've never seen a city built by Aboriginal people yet!)

    3. I have yet to see the replies outline the huge scientific, cultural, societal and engineering advancements produced by any Aboriginal peoples or groups.
    They are merely always "users", and "takers", of the White European improvements to our everyday lives.

    The amount of taxpayers money poured into this constantly-demanding, 2.2% of Australias original population, is beyond belief.

    They provide nothing in return, except more demands for more compensation, more land to be "returned to them", and constant demands for any White European heritage to be dismissed, and replaced with "Aboriginal heritage".

    What I really would like to know, is who did the Aboriginals butcher and replace, when they arrived here? There must have been previous inhabitants of Australia? There has never been a totally unihabitated land on this Earth, at any time.

    Anyway - sorry, I have to run, I'm off to lodge my compensation and entitlement claims against the Vikings, the Huns, the Romans, the Normans - and about 50 other invading groups, that "stole my ancestors lands"!!

    I'm sure, once I prove I've been seriously disadvantaged by these foreign invaders, I'll be in line for constant and permanent, major compensation amounts, for my ancestors losses!
    Anonymous
    8th Dec 2016
    11:50am
    Your ignorance is fully on display in your third last paragraph.
    JAID
    8th Dec 2016
    1:29pm
    Item 2.

    Aaron, your government has seen fit to provide land to some; they vet people who enter. If my family were squatters and I worked what they passed down, I doubt I would be as generous as these groups have usually been. It is unlikely I would let large numbers trample over 'my' land and survey my lifestyle, leastwise without vetting. Most home owners and landowners are probably about as mean as I.

    Item 3 (3rd last para.)

    The common wisdom was that there no other human inhabitants prior to aboriginal migration up to and in the order of 50,000 years ago. A number of findings and researches have indicated people with different bodily features such as the red-headed people said to have existed in Queensland but to my knowledge all of these, even those inexplicable or those unlikely to be actually different, are understood to have been contemporaneous with Aboriginal occupation.

    That doesn't mean there were not others. Suggestions of other sub-species in South-East Asia during the time of the land bridge makes some migration reasonably possible. These however would have integrated died out or been removed long ago. So, if there is anything to be proud of for being the first at anything, some uncertainty must exist as to the supposed 'first Australians.' But how could that mattter? 50,000 years of occupation is an incredible period in modern human time. It would lead to a remarkable body of local knowledge and untold numbers of imaginings which to throw away or dismiss or simply to not have the opportunity to recognise would be an incredible loss to all Australians.

    Land grants are a small commitment to the carriage of what remains through whatever its inevitable change.


    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles