some of them may not want their legal privileges backed by historical narratives compromised by scientific findings; this is very common with native american tribes, for instance the lipan apaches in texas. additional science can only hurt their position with respect to the BIA.

no:

The (only recently created) legal privileges of native title are severely limited and can be effortlessly extinguished. These limited privileges are based on (belated) recognition of prior occupation, but irrespective of how long people were here before colonisation.

on the other side of the ledger, significant legal harms are imposed on predominantly Indigenous regions, including apartheid-style laws that are applied on the basis of race, and lower standards of basic services provided through dedicated streams again predicated on race.

there are reasons to believe that some groups with legal claims have no legitimate grounds and only point to fragmentary records of prior occupants that they can provide no evidence of connection with. perhaps if you can manage to think past the scary words you can recognize that some people exploit systems to their advantage.

what reasons, what legal claims, and most of all: what advantage do you imagine Indigenous Australian people might gain on the basis of the extent of their heritage?

the sustained deficit of public housing? the lack of safe drinking water? the big blue signs slandering entire communities as drunken perverts? the mass sackings to force people onto quarantined welfare? the draconian star-chamber powers granted to the ACC? the systemic theft of hard-won social infrastructure?

because all of these 'advantages' are granted to anyone living in predominantly Indigenous postcodes of the NT, regardless of how long you dare to admit their ancestors were here.

i agree those are tragic, but those are not the people i am talking about

lol, what even is this comment? It's not generalizing to a race, it's generalizing to a culture that happens to be synonymous with a race.

And yes, it's fine to generalize in this sense, sense it's the general opinion.

My source is growing up there. If you want something else, you can find it yourself while continuing to doubt me.

>My source is growing up there

Where did you grow up that simultaneously had a large Aboriginals and Native American population?

I never claimed such a thing. What a ridiculous takeaway.

>He's talking about the fact that Aboriginals, not unlike Native Americans...

They presumably asked for a source for both claims, your only provided one says you lived among them. Either you grew up among both populations or have provided no source for one of your claims.

You presumed wrong.

I don't see where that person specified which claim they wanted a source for, but I'll ask for a source for both claims.

I still have no idea if you grew up among Aboriginals or Native Americans, or what makes you so confident about the other race/culture's beliefs.

Just curious, but are you on the spectrum? Or an ESL speaker?

Context makes it clear which claim they were asking for.

In any case, I'm not providing a source. This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience. If you're still really unsure where I grew up, you can probably figure it out from my other comments.

Feel free to search for whatever you find sufficient to corroborate my claims, or continue to be skeptical (as you should). I don't mind either way.

Really? Replying to a request for sources with personal attacks?

No.

> This is a somewhat commonly known thing, and I was speaking from personal experience.

Which makes you Speaker for the Religuous Beliefs of the Bulk of Aboriginal Australians?

Yeah, right .. just keep digiging that hole deeper Kartiya.

Its not doing X to Y, its doing X to Z which is synonymous to Y is…a contradiction.

IF Z is a synonym for Y, doing X to Z is doing X to Y.

Trying to map natural language statements to formal logic doesn't work well, unless you make a ton of assumptions as you have here...and then it still doesn't work well.

Growing up where?

Australia? (big country) .. Western Desert (kind of specific) .. Redfern (very urban) .. etc.

Can you roughly indicate on a map?

There's a lot of different language groups and cultures, a lot of religuous beliefs, and a broad spread of skills both old and new.

https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high...

( FWiW I grew up in the Kimberley not far from the Mungalalu Truscott Airbase and am currently on Ballardong land )

So just so I understand, your source is growing up in one of the several hundred separate Aboriginal nations of Australia, most of whom have completely different languages and are dispersed across a vast nation as big as the continental United States and he speaks for all of them. Got it.

  Got it.

Do you though? I doubt it.

I just read your comments, and you seem to be saying your subjective experience amounts to evidence (for you, which is fine)

But the argument was that this was an emotionally charged topic and you displayed that while appearing to argue the opposite.

As a fellow Australian, I understand the over sensitivity, especially due to the Voice crap that's going on atm.

As for generalizing racially, I agree, it makes no sense. Which is why the voice thing sounds stupid to me.

I feel like there are two groups of indigenous peoples growing in Australia. What I call the 'technically aboriginals' and 'actual aboriginals' and I realize this might marginalize those with partial ancestry.

I often wonder if the voice is just being pushed by super liberal very light skinned aboriginals (that to me probably never suffered real discrimination) or outback dark skinned tribal bush aboriginals (that are discriminated against on site). I feel like the more bush you go, the more conservative you get...idk

No, I'm not talking about subjective experience at all.

ALL that happened was that I made a generalization, and other people wanted to contest it because, well, they could. It's not more complicated than that.

It's basically if I said most action movies have a car chase or gun fight, and someone wanted to die on the hill claiming that that generalization is inaccurate and not all action movies have to have a gun fight or car chase.

I agree though that the discrimination of aboriginals is politicized though, and it shouldn't be.

Based on my (very) subjective experience, a lot of the noise around the Voice + Invasion Day is being created by people with extremely tenuous links to indigenous heritage - which I think is maybe shifting away from what could be much more positive outcomes for truly marginalised Aboriginals.

Basically white people who - to their delight - realized they are "aboriginals".

> those who are offended simply want their culture respected

Even more so, in this case, considering my country's historical "handling" of ATSI culture, and the mobs in general.