It’s a grey area - that’s rich. But I think you are right. I’m white and know Aboriginal people I can say it to without any problem but other people may take offence so I wouldn’t say it now. The word does pop up in the media once in a while, particularly on the ABC and Blackfella Films present plenty of stuff there too.
In fact thinking about it the use of that whole phrase “blackfella and whitefella” is quite inclusive. Worked out OK for the Warumpi Band anyway.
You gotta be careful when starting a thread like this. It could boomerang on you.
Why would you willingly create a country where you have different laws depending on the race? Racial balkanization is so 19th century. Are there specific laws that you feel should apply only to blackfellas or whitefellas? What about the yellow fellas? Do they get their own laws too?
It’s not different laws depending on the race, its the ability for them to set their own laws inside their sovereign first nations. There is a big big difference.
The problem you’re ignoring is that there will almost certainly be non-aboriginals living on whatever land a treaty grants them, unless you’re planning on putting their land in the desert. So you have to address that in some way. Is it going to be tough shit for them, as fair payback for their ancestors stealing the land, or would you expect something different from this treaty?
Thats an area to be negotiated in detail. I don’t have all the answers, but its not an unsolvable problem.
I also read in the media the whitefella want a republic, how did that go at the last referendum ?
As for the land issue it’s already settled, there was ambit claim on every bit of crown load in Australia, they have as much land as they likely to get.
I fear it just might be.
And you think this is a fair and just outcome for them?
Actually, it is your choice to make. The whole point of a treat is that it is an agreement between two parties, voluntarily entered into by both.
That means both parties have a choice: to enter treaty or not.
I don’t think this is that great a problem. We’re not talking about Zimbabwe or Jerusalem or something.
Non-Aboriginals who own land in Aboriginal land grants or reservations or whatever you call them get to retain their land if they want and are now subject to the jurisdiction of tribal law, and some sort of constitutional protections.
People who don’t want to live in Aboriginal territory get compensated by the government at the market rate for their holdings and go somewhere else.
I am not sure if any of this is really necessary, just that if it’s what people want the problems are not insoluble.
Not impossible but I could see that being a difficult negotiation. I also have trouble believing anyone is going to get elected with a promise of such a land handover. But maybe I’m wrong. It would be an interesting story to follow if it does happen.
Sovereign means self ruling and thus exempt from the laws of Australia. What are the current Australian laws that need to be changed and why not change them democratically instead of carving up the country and giving it away?
There would have to have a strong racial component though. If they don’t at least restrict which race gets to live on Aboriginal land and/or who gets to vote and run in elections then it would be far too easy for white people to eventually outnumber Aboriginals. eta: Not as some plot, merely normal movement of people for jobs or whatever.
Northern Piper weighed in a bit. Regardless of what one side in a negotiation wants the other side has to agree or there’s no agreement. In this case this means what the majority of white Australians wants really does matter just as much as what Aboriginal groups want. Without that white support there will never be a treaty. It’s as simple as that.
Limiting possible options in negotiation is a method. It can increase the odds that no agreement is reached. What middle ground can both Aboriginals and white Australians both agree to? Maybe it’s a treaty. Maybe it’s not.
O.M.G. You used the black word :eek: