.Sigh, I’ve already dealt with that particular prejudice.

Sorry. I’m not a detail man when it comes to this blog commentating thang.

Incidentally would it be fair to say that, based on 12 ball-freezing hours in Milwaukee one Janauray, and an extensive study of US culture through the media and the internet, that Wisconsin is basically full of dour and primitive Wal-Mart herders in tribal orange hunting vests obsessed by some Green Bay Packer dreamtime? Maybe I’m missing some local nuances here?

You seem to have a notion of Aboriginality based on race or ethnicity that is not shared by Aboriginal people. The ATSIC definition of Aboriginality which seems to be generally accepted by Aboriginal people was that Aboriginality is determined by bloodline, that is does a person have an Aboriginal parent, are they part of an Aboriginal family. Your literally racist definition of Aboriginality is a construction of your own mind, not Aboriginal reality.

Another point that you seem misguided on is the matter of law, in particular sovereignty and land title which makes the Aboriginal situation radically different from migrant cultural groups. When joseph Banks and King George the third declared this land to be Terra Nullius, a place with no system of law or government they were wrong, a point noted by the high court in the Mabo case when it extinguished the legal fiction of Terra Nullius.

Within the lawful framework of Aboriginal government and land title, your prophecy ” A budding entrepreneur could build a Big Parliament along some road in the middle of nowhere to rival the Big Banana, Big Koala and Big Merino.” is exactly what happened and it is this big banana society that you and many others now percieve as normal and legitimate and insist should be the aspiration of the pre-existing sovereign society too. You seem not to realise that each and every Aboriginal person had a prosperous family estate from which they were disposessed by the illegal occupation of their lands. It is this disposession that is the direct cause of Aboriginal disadvantage today as well as a direct consequence of the invaders society possessing the prosperity of the land.

Sovereignty, self determination and land title are not just flavour of the month welfare strategies to improve the lot of the poor Aborigines. They are human rights and interests no less valid than the rights of Australian citizenship or land tenure.

And as for….” a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that Aboriginals favor parliamentary segregation.” If by “parliamentary segregation” you mean self determination I suggest you google Aboriginal self determination and you will find considerably more than a single shred of evidence.

Sigh. I’ve already dealt with that particular prejudice.

Oh, you’re doing the victimhood thing now are you?

Not uncharacteristic of conservatives who claim others are motivated by it to then appropriate it themselves – “help! I’m being monstered by elites!”…

The comments policy warns against repeated comments which have the intent or effect of turning a whole thread into a debate about one commenter’s opinion. We’ve heard a lot of yours, and since you’re not willing or able to debate without resorting to rhetorical tricks and disingenuous distortions, I think we’ve had enough of hearing about your opinion.

If you don’t like that, you can raise it with the Parliament of People from Arkansaw.

Our blog, our rules.

Where is the evidence that most of the 69% of indigenous Australians with non-indigenous partners as at 2001 were raped and coerced into those relationships? I think you are making that up.

I didn’t say “most”.

I’m a tad sick of people who twist others’ arguments in a way that completely lacks any good faith. Just lettin you know…

Sigh. I’ve already dealt with that particular prejudice.

I also agree that the RCC and all other religions should have their tax exempt status removed.

views are actually informed by those of my indigenous brother-in-law. Not all indigenous Australians favor segregation.

Gee, so some indigenous Australians are now voting with their loins in favour of integration with Arkansaw natives?

But he still hasn’t said how long he’s been in Australia.

There is no need for the state to be involved in representative bodies based on ethnicity or anything else for that matter.

I agree. Let’s stop the State indirectly subsiding religions through their tax-empt status for starters. Shit, taxing the Roman Catholic Church alone at the minimum corporate rate would fund decent broadband around Australia.

But since all Western democracies are riddled with subsidies and support rent-seeking activities for many vested interests and pressure groups, we might as well be hung for the odd black sheep as well as a myriad of fattened lambs.

And speaking of matters ovine, I’m wondering why someone apparently from Arkansaw (sic) knows about the Big Merino. I mean yes sure it’s big but not that big in the USA.

Where is the evidence that most of the 69% of indigenous Australians with non-indigenous partners as at 2001 were raped and coerced into those relationships? I think you are making that up.

I also note that you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to demonstrate that Aboriginals favor parliamentary segregation. Notwithstanding your protestations, they have clearly voted with their loins in favor of integration.

My views are actually informed by those of my indigenous brother-in-law. Not all indigenous Australians favor segregation.

6. The Committee emphasizes that, in accordance with the Declaration on Friendly Relations, none of the Committee’s actions shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and possessing a Government representing the whole people belonging to the territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. In the view of the Committee, international law has not recognized a general right of peoples unilaterally to declare secession from a State. In this respect, the Committee follows the views expressed in An Agenda for Peace (paras. 17 and following), namely, that a fragmentation of States may be detrimental to the protection of human rights, as well as to the preservation of peace and security. This does not, however, exclude the possibility of arrangements reached by free agreements of all parties concerned.

Your essentialist views on race are all of a piece with those of the 19th century Imperialists.

And your “satiric” commentary is actually very snide. I don’t see you parodying a parliament of “Anglo lawyers” in the same way as you’re taking shots at gay people and others.

Oh, and it’s not about victimhood either, by the way.

Try this on for size:

“In 2001, 69 per cent of couples with an Aboriginal partner were intermixed, according to the 2001 Australian census. This compares to 64 per cent in 1996, 51 per cent in 1991 and 46 per cent in 1986.” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/14/1029113955646.html

The demographic trends make your argument fanciful.

To those who push the exceptionalist barrow, why don’t we also have- among others- a:

-Gay Parliament
-Transgender Parliament
-Mentally Ill Parliament
-Tourette’s Syndrome sufferers Parliament

Who among us is not “unique” and in some way a “victim” and thus in need of “self determination”?

Australia could be known as the “land of many parliaments” in the same way that New Zealand is the “land of the long white cloud”. A budding entrepreneur could build a Big Parliament along some road in the middle of nowhere to rival the Big Banana, Big Koala and Big Merino. No one need ever feel victimised again and of course the taxpayer will cheerfully fund the whole thing.

and to use his formulation:
False.

The NAACP may have a very, very large number of members but it does NOT “represent” African-Americans: many organisations perform that role, each in their own ways; so do elected black members of Congress, members of State houses and elected city officials.

Let’s not hear this old-fashioned (and hazardous, IMHO) notion of a body being “the sole, legitimate representative body representing XXXX”. Even when Australia had ATSIC, did other Aboriginal lobby groups and welfare associations etc. wither away? I don’t think so. Did the AMA shut up about the health problems of indigenous Australians? No.