election 2023

Partly true about the Abo's (I spent alot of time in WA's Kimberlys and Goldfields late 80's to early 2000's), but look what went on with the Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Commission, billions poured in for little gain, but money being siphoned off by their own. Sound familiar?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11071533/Geoff-Clark-ex-ATSIC-chief-facing-2million-fraud-charges-threatens-senator-Jacinta-Price.html

Look at the way the media pile on to Senator Jacinta Price when she speaks about the real issues.

2022/2003 was talking to older Aboriginee about various claims etc.Fishing was the talk at the time and asked why aboriginees not claimed foreshore or quota/customary rights for fish. He claimed very few actually lived on or near the coast.The only tribal ones he could think of,off hand were tasmanians. Most went in land as more food readily avaliable. He had the coolest job ever.Driving a jigger down a disused line twice a week for maintaince.Spent most of his time trout fishing and shooting rabbits. Snowy Mountain area .Tumut to Gundagai 35k each way.Paid for by the railways just incase they reopened the line for the mill.

No I am not suggesting that at all and I quite like the definition "people of the land". 

But it is obvious that we are using different meanings for the word indigenous from that which is commonly accepted.  Being;

Wikipedia: Indigenous peoples are culturally distinct ethnic groups whose members are directly descended from the earliest known inhabitants

Worldbank: Indigenous Peoples are distinct social and cultural groups that share collective ancestral ties to the lands and natural resources where they live, occupy or from which they have been displaced.

UN:   those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived. The new arrivals later became dominant through conquest, occupation, settlement or other means.

I don't know why you think these definitions are new, or what you were taught at school. 

Its first known use was in 1640s when it was applied to cultures in the New World. Also sometimes used as a synonym for ‘native,’ ‘innate,’ ‘aborigine,’ ‘endemic,’ and ‘inborn.’ 

So, I don't think I am using a re-imaged version of the word, I don't consider a word first used in 1640 woke.

Either way, I would agree that we have different views on the meaning of the word indigenous. 


I have made up my mind. I was quite clear.  They have to be the first people to be indigenous. 

All indeginous populations throughout the world arrived from Africa.  Your interpretation would make no one indigenous. Stated again and this time emphasised in red. 

As long as you know the origin of that person's ancestors was elsewhere, they will never be indigenous. if they weren't the first people.

We know the ancestoral origin of Maori and we know they were the first people.  So indigenous. 

We don't know the ancestoral origin of the Australian Aboriginals, (except to say Africa), but we know they were the first people. So indigenous.

We know the ancestoral origin of Harrytom, his people were not the first people of New Zealand.  So not indigenous. 

Australian Aboriginals also made their way to the Australian continent via boat.   They were the first people of Australia same as Maori were the first people of New Zealand.

I don't see that the length of time a people were there once the culture is established makes them no less or more the indigenous people. 

New Zealander's, colloquially known as Kiwis.

These are the people associated with New Zealand, sharing a common history, culture, and language. 

Originally composed solely of the indigenous Maori, the ethnic makeup of the population has been dominated since the 19th century by New Zealanders of European descent, mainly of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestry, with smaller percentages of other European and Middle Eastern ancestries such as Greek, Turkish, Italian, Lebanese and other Arab, German, Dutch, Scandinavian, South Slavic and Jewish, with Western European groups predominating.

Indigenous New Zealander's (Maori) are subset of all New Zealander's.

Indigenous Australians (Australian Aboriginals) are a subset of Australian's. 

I have looked pretty hard, and I can't find any evidence, that the term indigenous has ever included people born in a nation without ancestorial ties to that nations first people.

Pretty sure when they are talking about decolonisation they only mean the ones after the Maori.

are Maori still being "colonised" 🙄🙄🙄.... Where they ever colonised!... I thought they were mostly helped , educated, given better health outcomes ( through missionary and inter tribal murdering elimination...) Given better food options, saved from themselves...

But nowadays we never hear the 90% good stuff the whiteman did for the Maori ... There's no money in that!