This is an “Excerpt from Creation Conversations.”
All posts tagged Australian Aboriginals
The Labor Australian Federal Government is promoting a referendum for the establishment of what it calls “The Voice”. This Voice if passed would be put into the constitution and is based on what is called the Uluru Statement. This document may be downloaded at https://antar.org.au/resources/uluru-statement-of-the-heart/.
Personally, I am against recognizing this Voice and especially having such enshrined in the Australian Constitution. My reasons for opposing this are as follows.
The first paragraph of the Uluru Statements says; “Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.”
Now, if one accepts the theory of evolution this would probably be acceptable. However, for those who believe the Bible to be the Word of the Creator then it is not acceptable. Dr. Diane Eager says;
“The estimate that the earth is somewhere around six thousand years old comes from a combination of Biblical and secular history, but depends mostly on reading the early chapters of Genesis as real history. First of all you need to accept that six days means six real days as we know them now, and that means there is no vast period of millions of years before the appearance of man on the earth on Day 6, as Genesis records. If this is true, then the age of the earth corresponds with human history plus 5 days.
The Biblical text records that mankind’s history began with the creation of Adam and Eve and proceeded through the generations to Abraham as recorded in the genealogies (lines of descent) shown in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. In both of these genealogies the length of each lifespan is given, along with the number of years each generation overlapped the succeeding generation. When you add these figures up, you do get a figure of just over 2,000 years from the Creation to the birth of Abraham.
You need to take into account the fact that only whole years are given, and therefore each generation time will be plus or minus one year, and so for 10 generations you could be up to 20 years out, and that is the best the data is able to tell us. However, because of the long lifespans there are only 20 generations involved so this error will not skew the numbers greatly, and since the error is plus or minus one, any such errors will probably balance one another out.
From Abraham to Jesus there are also genealogies listed, but they no longer provide precise lifespans for many of the named people, or lifespan overlaps. Therefore, for this period we need to cross reference Biblical historical characters and events with secular history. There have been numerous attempts at this, but most come up with estimates of not much more than 2,000 years.
Now add to this the time from Jesus to the present, which is well documented as just over 2,000 years to this year of AD 2012, and, like most people who have tried it, you too will get an answer of around 6,000 years for creation to the present.” https://askjohnmackay.com/earths-age-where-does-the-age-for-the-earth-of-around-6000-years-come-from/
In the same article Daniel Durston writes;
“Over the centuries there have been numerous calculations by those who choose to use God’s Word as the starting point for their world view. In his thorough work, Dr Floyd Jones in Chronology of the Old Testament mentions over 30 chronologists and their attempt to find a biblical age of the earth. (Jones, Chronology, p66) From these 30 or so results, the youngest age for the earth was 5848 years and the oldest was 7513 years. The difference sometimes depending on whether they used the Septuagint or the Masoretic text.
Amongst these well known chronologists was Archbishop James Ussher, an often mocked but nonetheless brilliant 17th century theologian, ancient historian and Hebrew scholar with an expertise on Semitic languages. Ussher dated the Earth at around 6,000 years old by first establishing when King Nebuchadnezzar lived, then working his way backwards through the genealogies Ussher came up with the creation date of 4004 BC.
Independently, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), who formulated the laws of planetary motion, calculated a creation date of 3992 BC. Similarly one of the most famous scientists of all time, Sir Isaac Newton (1643–1727) who is lesser known for his deep interest and respect for the Bible, came up with a ‘chronology of antiquity’. Newton wrote much about biblical history and vigorously defended a creation date of about 4,000 BC. He also often attributed his scientific findings to his biblical worldview.”
Biblically the aboriginals have not been here in Australia 60,000 years! Well, someone will say religion has NOTHING to do with this issue. Well, that is not really true. The Uluru Statement says in its second paragraph that: “This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.”
Now, there are two points to be made concerning this paragraph. One is the word “spiritual” and the other is the word “co-exists”. The word “spiritual” and the statement concerning being united with their ancestors one day indicates there is religious aspect involved here. Many secularists would tell Christians that religion has no place in politics and yet this Government is promoting this statement and pushing to have it put into the Australian Constitution. This present government is basically promoting paganism!
As to the aboriginal people’s “sovereignty” and their co-existing “with the sovereignty of the Crown” seems to indicate two nations rather than one nation! This view of two nation was accepted when the Aboriginal flag was given equal status with the Australian flag. Then they speak of “truth telling”. There is no historical truth to the fact that the aboriginal people ever had a flag or flags for each tribe before the 20th century https://www.pmc.gov.au/publications/australian-flags-booklet/part-3-other-official-flags-australia/flags-australias. Accepting another flag to fly alongside the national flag was the beginning of two nations on one land. This only promotes division!
The rest of the Uluru Statements says:
“How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.”
More about the Makarrata Commission may be found at https://www.absolutely-australia.com.au/indigenous-australia/what-is-the-makarrata-commission/.
This issue will NOT be settled even if the referendum is passed. Why do I say that? Because “…the Makarrata Commission remains committed to the pursuit of meaningful dialogue with Aboriginal communities Australia-wide. It appears that in addition to making significant progress towards healing within Aboriginal communities, it is also creating pathways towards true reconciliation on a national scale. The scope of Makarrata’s work is broad – investigating injustices suffered while finding practical solutions to remedy them – but its purpose is single-minded: to bring peace and healing to all Australians.” https://www.absolutely-australia.com.au/indigenous-australia/what-is-the-makarrata-commission/
This PURSUIT, PATHWAYS and INVESTIGATIONS OF INJUSTICES will NEVER, NEVER cease if The Voice referendum is passed this year or any other year for this push for division will sadly never cease.
Sadly, the answer is NOT more division caused by this VOICE but a recognition that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth; Acts 17:26.
‘Does the Aboriginal Industry not already have a “voice” to government? What exactly is the referendum’s agenda? Who is organising the “NO” campaign? Dave Pellowe explores these big questions with special guest Dr Gary Johns.’
The following is an email from https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/?
‘Anthony Albanese keeps telling us the Voice is a “modest” proposal.
“It’s just an advisory body,” he says, over and over.
Well, he must be praying Australians don’t get to hear this.
It’s from Marcia Langton, co-chair of the government’s “Indigenous Voice Co-Design Senior Advisory Group” – this is the mob who actually invented the Voice.
She was on ABC radio this week, trying to explain how it would work when “advising” parliament and executive government.
Keep in mind Langton wrote the mind-numbing, 272-page “co-design” report that Albanese says has all the detail you need on the Voice.
“Why would we restrict the Voice to representations that can’t be challenged in court?” she said.
Langton was asked if she thought it was a problem that if a democratic government made a decision without listening to the Voice, it “could be challenged in the High Court and potentially stopped from being implemented until the Voice had been heard”.
“That’s a possibility. And why wouldn’t we want that to be the case,” she said.
If the Voice is “completely gutted”, she said, “then the government can ignore all of the Voice’s decisions with impunity”.
The activists pushing the Voice insist that it won’t confer any special rights.
But can you take the government to the High Court of Australia if it doesn’t listen to what you want?
No bloody way!
But here we have the activist who designed the Voice to Parliament saying that if your democratically elected government makes a decision without “listening to the Voice”, they will wind up in court.
Maybe that’s why Albo said last year that it would be a “very brave government” that ignored the Voice?
Nope, there’s nothing “modest” about this massive overhaul of your Constitution.
The truth is that the dangerous and divisive Voice will exert a political – and legal – power unlike anything before seen in our nation.
They want you to think the Voice is just a feel-good “request”, a “modest” change to our nation’s founding document.
But that’s a lie.
This is way bigger than they are letting on.’
Australia’s Prime Minister ‘Albo wants you to think the dangerous and divisive ‘Voice’ is just a feel-good virtue-signal that will make inner-city activists feel better about themselves … but the truth is hiding in plain sight.
And now the cat is out of the bag… the ‘Voice to Parliament’ is a TROJAN HORSE that threatens our democracy and would VANDALISE our Constitution.
We can’t make it any clearer.
The evidence keeps piling in.
Greens leader Adam Bandt has just told the media he has received “guarantees on Sovereignty and funding to progress Treaty and Truth” from the Labor government.
In other words?
In exchange for Greens support of the Voice, Labor has promised to pursue a Treaty and give Indigenous Australians “Sovereignty” over land.
How would a Treaty work?
Well, New Zealand’s Treaty with the Māori means “the racial characteristics of each New Zealander influences who gets what say in managing national resources, making laws, and how laws should be applied,” according to the Institute of Public Affairs.
As a result, “New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements are unfair, undemocratic, and politically divisive”.
Do you want that in Australia?
If no, vote “NO” for the Voice, and make sure your family and friends do too.
It doesn’t stop there.
Back in 2021, Albo said, “part of having a Voice to Parliament is to inform the processes as well, about Makarrata, about truth-telling, about treaty.”
Again, this is another admission that the Voice is not just an advisory body with symbolic power.
Instead, it is the first step in a total redesign of our democracy and constitution to disadvantage the average non-Indigenous voter because of their race.
…and, of course, the whole Labor party is on board.
Albo’s Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, says the Voice will “establish a Makarrata Commission”, which will “have responsibility for Truth-telling and Treaty-making”.
Labor Senator Malarndirri McCarthy says her party “will deliver on a national process for Treaty-making and Truth-telling…and empower First Nations people in caring for land and water.”
Read between the lines here.
Labor Senator Pat Dodson has made similar points.
Recently he said that “to have a treaty, you have to have a voice, you have to have an entity, you have to have a group of people that have a standing or that … have credibility.”
The short point?
The Voice is just the first step.
Next will be a Treaty that will redistribute land, money and power to Indigenous activists.
Then it will be a Truth Telling Commission that will demonise Australia as a nation and indoctrinate our children.
You know what will be next … a change to the Aussie flag … another change to the anthem.
Or maybe compulsory welcome to country ceremonies before any public event?
The removal of every statue of Captain James Cook?
The list goes on…
Time to say ENOUGH.‘https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/first_the_voice_then_the_treaty_then_reparations?
This is an email received from the conservative ADVANCE.
‘Albo and the Labor party want you to think their referendum on the Voice to Parliament is just another woke virtue-signal.
They want you to think it’s merely a minor change to the Constitution … a “modest request”.
They want Australians believing that it’s nothing more than a small gesture to make our Indigenous brothers and sisters feel more included.
But it isn’t…
The Voice is a trojan horse the likes of which Australia has never seen…
The activists pushing for the Voice won’t tell you this, but Victoria has a version of it already legislated.
And right now, Melbourne’s mini-voice is demanding a “Black Parliament” – their words, not ours.
In 2019, Dan Andrews set up what became known as the First Peoples’ Assembly.
There to “represent Traditional Owners of Country and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Victoria”, it has an “Elders’ Voice”, its own constitution, runs its own Indigenous-only elections and meets in the Victorian Parliament.
Its priority is to negotiate a “treaty” with the Victorian Government.
Using $65 million of Victorian taxpayers’ money, it’s pushing changes to Victoria’s democracy that will see power shift away from ordinary Victorian voters.
Victoria’s “voice” is open about the fact that “nothing is off the table, so we need to think big and push hard.”1
There is no exaggeration here.
These are some of the “First Peoples’ Assembly” specific goals for the treaty2:
Establishing a permanent representative body with meaningful decision-making powers – a “Black Parliament” of sorts.
Having a number of seats in the Victorian Parliament that members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community vote for.
First Peoples oversight of the Victorian Government and public service for the benefit of First Peoples.
And the Andrews Government is backing them, saying in the announcement of the Treaty Framework3:
Treaty is a significant step towards transferring power and resources to First Peoples…
The Voice is not just about including our Indigenous brothers and sisters and giving them a say.
It’s about money and power, and changing our Constitution forever.
…and Albo is pretending it’s not a big deal.
The Voice to Parliament will divide us by race, it will threaten our democracy and – by looking at Melbourne’s mini-voice – we’re only just starting to see the real costs.’
All this will not bode well for the non-indigenous Australian citizen!
‘Major corporations including Telstra and Channel 10 have declared they will not celebrate January 26 as a national holiday.
Both organisations have advised staff they can choose to work on Australia Day and nominate another day of leave instead.
Network 10 created headlines earlier this week when they advised that Australia Day was “not a day to celebrate” for Indigenous Australians and staff were therefore free to celebrate the national day on a date of their own choosing.
An email sent to Network 10 editorial staff said: “We aim to create a safe place to work where cultural differences are appreciated, understood and respected. For our First Nations people, we as an organisation acknowledge that January 26 is not a day of celebration.
“We recognise that there has been a turbulent history, particularly around that date and the recognition of that date being Australia Day. We recognise that January 26 evokes different emotions for our employees across the business, and we are receptive to employees who do not feel comfortable taking this day as a public holiday.”
Meanwhile, a Telstra spokeswoman told the Daily Mail: “Our employees have the choice to work on Australia Day or take leave on another day.”
Other organisations to follow suit include Deloitte, KPMG and EY.
A KPMG spokeswoman said the company’s “cultural leave policy” meant that staff could celebrate Australia Day on a date that was “relevant to their culture” and “beliefs”.
Various local councils around Australia have boycotted Australia Day in recent years, arguing that it does not align with their values. But the move of corporations to boycott the national day is new.
January 26 is celebrated as Australia Day because it was on that day in 1788 that the First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove and Governor Arthur Phillip raised a Union Jack flag on Australian soil.
Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ditched a rule made by the Coalition government that forced councils to conduct citizenship ceremonies on Australia Day.
Councils are now free to hold citizenship ceremonies on any day in the week beginning January 23.’https://www.rebelnews.com/woke_companies_tell_staff_they_can_work_on_australia_day?
‘Recently, I sat down to interview an Aboriginal Elder from South Australia for the ExCandidates podcast, of which I am a host. Her name is Kerry White, a former nurse and diabetes educator from the Narungga people. The aim of the interview was to determine her views regarding the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
It was a fascinating interview because it completely deconstructed many fundamental aspects of the current ‘narrative’ surrounding the Aboriginal people.
I say ‘Aboriginal’ because even during the pre-interview phone call I had with Kerry, I made the mistake of using the term ‘Indigenous’.
With no hint of hesitation, Kerry quickly corrected my error and informed me that Aboriginal people prefer to be called Aborigines.
I asked her to expand on this during the interview.
Kerry explained that Indigenous were ‘…anyone native to Australia. Including flora and fauna. If you’re born in Australia, you’re Indigenous.’
‘The other term that they use for us is First Nations,’ Kerry went on to say. ‘First Nations – that’s Canadian. We are not Canadian. We are Aboriginal. We are from Australia and the Torres Strait.’
Why did we move away from the term Aborigines in the first place? Was it a fear of political correctness? Obviously, we were not listening to Elders such as Kerry White. Instead, we have chosen to listen to Woke activists, university lecturers, and inner city elites.
Kerry then went on to explain the divide between Aboriginal ‘mobs’ in rural/remote areas, compared to mobs in city areas.
‘When it comes to Aboriginal people, we have two separate lots,’ she began, educating us again. ‘We have a lot of Aboriginal mobs. Not tribes, not clans. Mobs. That’s an Aboriginal term. [The mobs] are divided into two. And that is rural and remote, and that is separate from the city-ites.’
Could this explain the clear difference in message between Senators Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Lidia Thorpe, who grew up in Alice Springs and Melbourne respectively?
How will an Indigenous Voice to Parliament adequately represent the concerns of this divide?
Kerry went on to teach us another Aboriginal term – ‘tick-a-boxers’. These represented the people who claimed to be Aboriginal when it is clear they are not. Recent census data points to this.
Since the 1971 census, the number of people identifying as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has risen from 116,000 to over 800,000 – a 590 per cent increase. Even from 2016 to 2021, the national population increased by 8 per cent, but the Indigenous population increased by 23 per cent.
‘There should be some form of identification. Proof that these people claiming to be Aboriginal are actually Aboriginal,’ Kerry began, before recalling how almost twenty years ago, the government scrapped the need for someone to obtain proof that they were Aboriginal.
‘So, if you want to be Aboriginal, all you had to do is tick the box.’
Kerry pointed out that the word Indigenous is included in the official wording of the proposal – the ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament’. Therefore, one wonders, would simply ‘ticking a box’ to indicate you were Indigenous suffice to be recognised by the new body? What can of worms would that unleash?
It must be frustrating for an Elder like Kerry. How many times have true Aboriginal Elders been asked to comment or contribute to the debate on The Voice? According to Kerry, it is yet to happen for anyone in her community.
For Kerry, her feelings on the Voice to Parliament are clear.
‘It’s a no from me. I say no to The Voice. I don’t want it,’ she replied pointedly.
‘We, the Aboriginal people from rural and remote Australia do not want it.
‘A bit over two hundred years ago, they rounded Aboriginal people up and locked them on missions. So Aboriginal people were segregated from White society. Then we come forward to now – “The Voice” – and they’re segregating us again. They’re taking us back two hundred years.
‘You’re dividing the country again, it’s back to segregation. And frankly, it’s racist towards our White brothers and sisters that live in this land with us.’
Furthermore, Kerry makes the argument that Aborigines are already over-represented in Parliament, thus nullifying the need for a new body such as the Voice.
‘We have eleven Aboriginal members in Parliament, in the Upper and Lower house.’ Kerry begins. ‘That equates to 4.9 per cent representation, Aboriginal representation in Parliament. For 3.2 per cent of the population. With that, we actually have over-representation in Parliament. So why would we need a Voice? Unless they’re saying that our Parliamentary members are not doing their job.’
Does Kerry reflect the thoughts and feelings of all Aboriginal people? Should her statements and explanations concerning Aboriginal people be taken as gospel? Of course not. But that is the point. Can a ‘Voice’ to Parliament represent all the varying ‘voices’ of Aboriginal Australia?
More importantly, is the debate on the Voice taking the focus off the true needs of Aboriginal people? As a nurse, Kerry is well-versed in the issues facing Aboriginal people, especially in remote communities.
‘With Aboriginal people, it’s mostly linked to diabetes. We have a high rate of diabetes amongst Aboriginal people.’ Kerry explains.
‘Heart problems. That began to rise about fifteen years ago. They don’t have access to medical care out there. They don’t have health centres and doctors and all that. They don’t have it. They’ve got to travel sometimes 3-4 hours to get to a doctor, or medical treatment if something should happen out there.’
Kerry White joins Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, along with Senator Pauline Hanson of One Nation, in speaking out against the Voice to Parliament. Their message also stresses the need to unify the Nation, not to divide it along the lines of race. You would think that a study of history would compel anyone to agree.
We already have Parliaments at local, state, and federal levels that attempt to address all the ‘voices’ of society.
According to Kerry White, Senator Price, and surely many other Aboriginal people, this is the way it should remain.
For me, the lesson was that it is always best to go straight to the source, and avoid the mainstream ‘narrative’.’https://spectator.com.au/2022/12/what-i-learnt-from-an-aboriginal-elder/