the attached documentation from michael anderson, aka ghillar, on behalf of the sovereign rights of the traditional owners of the aboriginal lands, again highlights the problems of the invader governments in recognising our rights to our lands.
over the years there has been, and continues to be, attempts by governments to assimilate the sovereign aborigines in this land of australia. first, and still continuing through many name changes and costly refurbishments, came the push for reconciliation. identification of our identity as being here before the invaders was an easy pill to swallow but land rights, sovereignty, treaty(ies) and social justice was a barrier far to high for the governments to swallow.
reconciliation, the word, became a plaything of the pedants and the witty as it’s alleged meaning was totally lost in a verbiage of farce. who was to reconcile to who? was reconciliation but a ‘secret english’ word for assimilation and land loss? who ultimately would benefit from this most warped process?
then came respect, recognition and every other semantic nuance possible to argue but another path to assimilation. and still it goes on like a drunken oligarch spending for an impossible future.
from land rights we moved to native title and when that description alarmed them they moved to the infamous and puerile indigenous land use agreements. this ‘secret english title covered a multitude of sins and greed. whilst ostensibly recognising the ownership of aboriginal land they, the federal, state and territory governments then took that ownership away by forcing agreement upon the traditional owners that they could only ‘access’ their traditional lands for, mainly, cultural reasons.
now is the time for recognition says the leaders of the invader parliaments in the english constitution formulated by the federation of the invading state and territory governments. there was however a perceived problem; the aliens and the aborigines were not white! what to do, what a to do. make racist laws, of course.
michael and menzies ably explain the problem quite well. the 1967 referendum was seen as a great success in the fact that we aboriginal people were at last to become an integral part of the census. our numbers, seen once as a problem hence the racist constitution, were now to be counted apart from the flora and fauna.
though accepted by over 90% of the voters of australia the most important part, in my opinion, of the referendum equation was that the continued management of aboriginal affairs was to become an obligation of the succeeding federal governments and not the absolute racist states and territories.
of course it just did not happen except for a few rare cases over the succeeding years. until it came to john howard to use the federal powers given to them by the 1967 referendum against our people in the northern territory. and that social genocide act continues.
the racist british constitution, as i claim it to be, has now become the focus. there is now a call by abbott and brandis.for the racist parts of that constitution to be deleted thus freeing us of that historical racism but only now to face the probable racist bigotry that abbott and brandis see as free speech. steps, forward, back, etc.
discussion points about changes or inclusions into the preamble or in the body are downright spurious and mean even less. all the chat about respect, recognition and the other r words always ignore the most important. rights. our rights. to our existence, to our lands, to our culture, to our resources, to our humanity. why are these rights not part of the referendum?
i, and many, many others, already recognise that our mobs were here for at least 60 000 years. i, and many, many others, already recognise that we aborigines are the world’s oldest living culture. i, and many, many others already recognise that despite multiple attempts of genocide and assimilation, we are still here. so with all due respect, what’s to recognise.
respect as a catch-all phrase of assimilation is also trotted out for our consideration. respect? in this country? what an obscene joke. many a government wink here on this concept. kim beazley’s dad put paid to that ideal in his reply to bob menzies that is quoted in michael’s missive and i therefore leave the second last word to him for a historical understanding of that r word in this most xenophobic and racist country.
reconcile our rights, recognise our rights. respect our rights. put that in your constitution!
relative to the r words mentioned above, i have been informed today that there have been built in moree, a nsw country town, 50 underground cells. these are situated under the moree courthouse, the demolished police sergeant;s accommodation and the police station itself. that situation, if correct, will cover both risk and retribution.
can anyone clarify this matter for me please?
indigenous social justice association
Prix de l’Homme de Francais
(French Human Rights Medal 2013)
(m) 0450 651 063
(p) 02 9318 0947
1303/200 pitt street waterloo 2017
we live and work on the stolen lands of the gadigal people.
sovereignty treaty social justice