Australia's aborigines

"Gunsy" you are pathetic. I always know a discussion has gone off when someone begins to use Hitler as a metaphor. You should be ashamed of yourself, you have tried to take something that was, for me, a nice experience/memory and turn it into a negative.
Does this mean you think all of Australia is Adolf and I am his dog? Maybe thats how you see all immigrants? Or are you confused as to how someone could migrate to a new country and be welcomed by those that live there? Your comment was neither logical nor was it relevant. Do us all a favour and dont waste our time with this Nazi garbage.

See "Godwin's law"...

"I always know a discussion has gone off when someone begins to use Hitler as a metaphor."

Why? You know you have very template thinking. Hitler as a metaphor is very widespread disscussion's method. I love it.))Try to use it once.))

"You should be ashamed of yourself, you have tried to take something that was, for me, a nice experience/memory and turn it into a negative."

I'm sorry man. You know, when you take Hitler's dog and start to tell him, that his owner was bad man, that his owner made a lot of orders to kill people and so on, so, you know, you should understand in this situation that a nice experience/memory of this dog can turn into a negative.)) But this stuff should not stop you if you want this dog be informed well.

"Does this mean you think all of Australia is Adolf and I am his dog?"

Of course not, man. You have very rich imagination. You are Adolf and good australians you have met, are dogs.

It was joke man, relax.))I didn't imply that you or any other people are dogs or Adolf. It's just crazy to think so.

with this Hitler's metaphor I just wanted to show you that there is another view on this whole situation. You met good people, and their ancestors just klled aborigens.

Thanks....Incidentally, on an unrelated matter, have you noticed how aboriginal's traditional art works are going up in price?..... not only in Australia, in Europe and USA too. The originals from 30 or 40 years ago, can cost thousands to buy now, so I am told. Limited prints can cost in the hundreds, although one can still buy some great works, cheaply. How much of it is due to inflation and how much to demand, I know not.

I admire their art. It is, to my mind, deep, especially, if one is familiar with their legends from 'dream time'.

I hope more of those stories make their way into Australian school system, as Maori legends have done in New Zealand.

Every culture has something to tell us.

Indica, European colonisation of Australia did not begin until 1788. Before that there were only very occasional sailors, rarely making landfall. The first confirmed European sighting of Australia was in 1606, before that, in the 16th century, Australia seems to have been unknown to Europeans. The population of Indigenous Australians reached its lowest point in the early 20th century. There were between 320 000 - 1 000 000 indigenous Australians at the time of colonisation, only 60 000 by 1920 rising to over 500 000 today. There were plenty of atrocities, especially on the wild frontiers, and those that were brought to law were inconsistently punished. The population decline however was mostly due to disease and the loss of traditional resources, rather than systematic extermination.

A substantial proportion of the Australian colonial population was of Irish ancestry, rather than British, which is why there is a much higher percentage of Catholics in Australia than in the UK. The current Australian population has large migrant communities from elsewhere in the world.

The first legislation on indigenous land rights was passed in 1976 (the article incorrectly states 1972). This was not addressing the concept of terra nullius.

Actually the real difference is that white south africans didnt want to work and enslaved the blacks so they could live like the country squires Thomas Jefferson imagined Americans could be. For white australians, the whole point of the white australia policy was to ensure that all white men had a job. Most white australians assumed that the aborigines would either die out as they inter bred or assimilate to the european civilisation they had bought, and i dont use civilisation as an ironic term.

Happyfish - so we don't allow other Africans to immigrate?

Clearly you haven't been to Sydney or Melbourne (recently).

Where's the sense in that?

The 23 million Australians of today bear little cultural relation to the 3.8 million people at the time of federation (much as the current US population bears little relation to that in 1776, or the South African population to that in 1652 or in 1837 - who of us would want to live like our ancestors, despite our appreciation of their noble words and deeds). Much of the current Australian population are recent migrants or the descendants of 20th century migrants. Those descended from the 19th century colonial migrants are no better off, on average, than the 20th century migrants and no more likely to be racist. I don't think the levels of xenophobia and racism in Australia are very much greater than anywhere else. The majority of people are not "fundamentally racist" irrespective of who their ancestors were and what they thought.

Australia's initial prosperity was based on a great boom in wool. As much as anything this success was assisted by convict labour. Yes, the occupation of squatters' runs resulted in unequal conflict with indigenous people over land, used by indigenous people for hunting, not for grazing or crops. Not surprisingly, there was also conflict over stock losses. The many atrocities against indigenous people were generally kept quiet because, however inconsistent the local application of the law, these were recognized as crimes and subject to harsh punishment, including hanging. The situation was not too different to that of the Khoikhoi people of the Cape (who were herders, dependent on grazing, rather than hunters) and there was no systematic program of extermination (i.e. genocide) such as in the Pampas and Patagonia of Argentina. The number of indigenous people in Australia now is similar to that at the time of colonization.

The later prosperity of Australia rested on mining (gold rushes and later industrial mining), property speculation, agriculture and manufacturing. It is harder to link this directly to conflict with Indigenous people.

White Australians and White Africans are similar in lots of ways. There is certainly a lot more overt, explicit and pervasive racism here where I am in South Africa than there is in Australia but perhaps it just takes different forms. Many black South Africans are also disparaging of other black Africans. Benevolence has nothing to do with it - look at the ratio of black and brown slaves to white VOC masters in the 17th century Cape of Good Hope - I doubt that they would have been so glib about it.

The difference is not simply that of Indigenous vs. colonizing populations but also the fact that White Australia entrenched racism at Federation in 1901 but moved away from this, particularly from the 1960s onwards. White South Africa entrenched racism at Union and built on this, especially after the 2nd world war, and persisted stubbornly until 1990.

Australia's immigration policy and intake does not distinguish between white South Africans and black South Africans. I don't see Aboriginal australians looking for guidance from middle class Africans, or anyone else for that matter.

So you are saying the local population did not develop diseases of their own? So they must have had very long life expectancies before the European settlers came.

Not necessarily. Until recent days, surviving child birth for both mother and child was a sometime thing. There are lots of ways to die besides disease.

There were places where this did happen. Indeed in most of Equitorial Africa, Whitte colonists were ravaged by Malaria, which is why rather than attempting to colonise and farmt eh land as they did in North America and Australia ( and consequently set up the things needed to develop economic development such as land rights, functioning and fair legal systems, representaive government etc.) the eueropena sin Africa largely limited their activities to trading outposts on the coasts to drain as much weatlth as possible from the lands. One of the explantions why some ex colonies are among the words richest nations and others the worlds poorest. Malaria.

The local population did develop diseases, and didn't have a long life expectancy. Life was nasty, short and brutish (as it was for most colonists - especially the convicts). The imbalance of population and isolation of Australia from Eurasia meant that there were far more and far worse diseases brought by the colonists (who had some immunity from long term exposure in the community). Not long after the colony was established in Port Jackson (Sydney) there was an epidemic that decimated the local population and numerous bodies were found around the colony and well beyond. Similarly disastrous epidemics occurred around each area colonized and then recurred periodically, with decreasing virulence, for decades. This sort of outcome would be the standard prediction of any epidemiologist for this situation.

You're a bit thick Rajahajamama; Zulus are from South Africa not Rhodesia. The majority tribe in Rhodesia - world-leading statesman Mugabe's - are Tshona.

ZImbabwe a Zulu name? Who's embarrassing themselves now?

In any case the Zulus are hardly the paragon of ethnic tolerance being every bit as fond of invasion and subjugation as the British. Let's not mention Robert Mugabe though shall we.

Minor correction; the name Zimbabwe is derived from the indigenous Shona language, not Zulu. (Zulu is spoken mainly in neighbouring South Africa.)
That said, you are right that the attitude of people like ZRhodesian throws the human race back a thousand years ago. As an indigenous black Zimbabwean myself, I do sympthise with the Aboriginal cause here in Australia. They have been sidelined for a long time, and then we have many people with ZRhodesian's mentality; trying to justify the unjustifiable. We can forget the injustices of the past and move on, but trying to justify it by saying the occupation of other people's lands was good is not on. No wonder why the Aborigines wanted to beat the hell out of the Prime Minister and Oppostion leader.

P.S. I'm not at all surprised you would respond to my arguments with drivel like that.

The name "Rhodesia" says all I need to know about you. How quaint: racist invaders to Africa defending racist invaders in Australia!

Careful, you don't want to start sounding like YOUR a racist. Just because people are white or don't have your anger based opinion, does'nt mean they all hate people of all nations world wide wherever they happen to live. Mate, your not going to live long with all the stress your giving yourself over perceived wrongs.

No anger here. I've come to a logical conclusion based on the facts at hand. If expressing that is "anger" for you, then so be it. Who said all white-Australians are racist? Throwing the racism card is rather cheap.

From what you write, your seem angry. You come across like you don't like any nationality other than whatever yours is. You appear to attack and insult people who don't agree with your opinion.If this is not the case, may I suggest you only write when calm. People will dismiss what you say if you appear to be saying it with anger. Your probably passionate about your subject, but appears as anger when you start insulting people.

Last time I checked the inhabitants of Australia pre-discovery were living in the stone-age. They weren't using the resources.

That said, it's not like the people of the Subcontinent (assumgin you're name is a reflection of your heritage) didn't build empires, so maybe I'd tone down the hypocrisy of calling others hypocrites.
Like has already been said: all our nations are built on the bones of that that went before and were conquered. That knowledge is also an advice to civilisations: don't stick around in the stone-age when the other guy is using gunpowder.

is this coming from the country where people buy skin whitening cream so that they appear whiter than their fellows because that is considered in some way to be better? Should i dare bring up harbajhan singh and monkey gate?? And that very few of these curry bashing attacks actually were that, they were in fact what most crimes are, spur of the moment decisions to rob someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. one of these 'victims' actaully set fire to himself in order and then claimed he had been attacked by racists, somthing the hytserical and childish india media swallowed hook line and sinker. As for empires, what does the average kashmiri think of beneveolent indian rule???

You seem no different from the idiot talk-radio shock jocks, trying to build up a divide based on the actions of a few idiots that most Australians are ashamed of. Australia is trying to make a small amends for a shameful treatment, that was the norm around the world at the time. India still has a strong caste system, Sri Lanka has suffered a vicious civil war because 2 sides can't get along. There is one thing Australian's really can't stand. Whingers and Whiners.

@Mahmaharaja you are either getting carried away with your rhetoric or are stirring the pot.

It isn't quite so straight forward. The article in the constitution allowing the Federal Government to make "special laws for any race" have been used in the last 40 years for affirmative action favoring Indigenous Australians and for no other purpose. The change might ban "positive discrimination" which, arguably, is still sorely needed. For this reason that there is likely to be a lively debate on the referendum.

The constitutional changes have nothing to do with attacks on Indian students or Asian Australians. This handful of ugly incidents are due to a tiny minority of thugs and are abhorrent to the vast majority of Australians, including myself. Not all of these cases have a clear racial motive (youth thugism is a more general problem). There are few, if any countries that do not experience these xenophobic zealots. They do not reflect the views of the overwhelming majority.

Discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex or age are illegal in Australia and there are government agencies that assiduously apply these laws, such as the Australian Human Rights Commission - see here http://www.hreoc.gov.au/info_for_employers/law/index.html
As an Australian I'm proud of these institutions and like most Australians completely support the underlying ethos.

Sri Lanka's war was one of an elected government versus terrorists. Terrorists who murdered innocent civilians wherever they could find them, terrorists who invented the suicide bomb and extensively used child soldiers. Terrorists whose largest source of funding came from Australia. Terrorists who received diplomatic cover and apology from Australia's politicians of all hues, and terrorists who are still able to freely operate in Australia despite being banned as a terrorist organization in all EU nations, the USA, Canada, and India. Before you complain about Sri Lanka or "whingers and whiners" I suggest you take a long hard look at your own country, filled as it is with terrorists and their sympathisers, and cheap Aussie politicos looking for ethno-votes and funding.

In addition, Aborigines didn't take up arms and strap on suicide bombs, did they? And still they were wiped out as they sat there "unchanged for a thousand years". Shows a lot about your society.

And your personal attacks are really sad. A reflection of your level.

Someone is clearly bitter about a certain 4-0 test thrashing their team received recently. Or maybe it was Tendulkar's failure to reach his hundredth hundred?
Not everyone looks at things in terms of race or skin colour mate. Your assumption that it is a white-supremacist pulling all the strings is such nonsense you cannot seriously believe it. It seems you have more of a beef with Indian students being in the wrong place at the wrong time than any care for the real content of the article; Aboriginal rights.
Frankly, as an Australian uni student, I couldnt give a damn who I share a classroom with. Indian, Sri Lankan or Aboriginal - it doesn't matter to me. The thing you missed in your hour long hate fueled rant on Australians is something that is a core in our society and our national mindset. The idea of a fair go. Everyone deserves a fair go, and if they are willing to make the most of it and work hard, they have my (our) respect - regardless of race, colour, language or religion.

Wow dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. What Debito Arudou describes is sadly, mostly true, and this is coming from a Japanese person.

Sounds like you need to chill out and relax and let off your hate.

I do not complain about Sri Lanka, just your accusation that Australia is just full of racists. Terrorism comes in many forms. I do know that Sri Lanka suffered from more Suicide bombings that Israel has had to deal with, and has been largely ignored in the west. But when a government indiscriminately shells innocent Tamils, in the guise of attacking terrorists, and enforcing mass punishment, they become no better than the terrorists they are chasing, whether it be Israel (v Palestinians), Russia (v Checneya), Syria...

Australia need to constantly look at itself, as do all, which is why we are revisiting the wrongs in the Constitution. As for your claim about ethno votes, there is about 40,000 Tamils, in Australia (about 0.2% of voters) and would have little effect only 2 seats in parliament (of 150)...

I do not complain about Sri Lanka, just your accusation that Australia is just full of racists. Terrorism comes in many forms. I do know that Sri Lanka suffered from more Suicide bombings that Israel has had to deal with, and has been largely ignored in the west. But when a government indiscriminately shells innocent Tamils, in the guise of attacking terrorists, and enforcing mass punishment, they become no better than the terrorists they are chasing, whether it be Israel (v Palestinians), Russia (v Checneya), Syria...

Australia need to constantly look at itself, as do all, which is why we are revisiting the wrongs in the Constitution. As for your claim about ethno votes, there is about 40,000 Tamils, in Australia (about 0.2% of voters) and would have little effect only 2 seats in parliament (of 150)...