pierogi,I see you refer to my thoughts in one of your posts, I...

pierogi,
I see you refer to my thoughts in one of your posts, I figured I would post those thoughts in this thread for all to reference.
----------------------------------------------------------
I stopped reading this forum half way through because of 2 key points.

1. Aboriginal- original or earliest known

2. Bradshaw Paintings - http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/bradshaws/


I first heard about the Bradshaw Paintings when I was as a very young boy while watching The Bush Tucker Man 'Les Hiddins' back in the early 90's with my grandfather.

Les commented on how the "aboriginals" of the area said they didn't know who did the paintings as they were there before they arrived and that they vandalised and graffitied them as they considered then rubbish. These comments are recorded for all to reference in his videos. It is particularly concerning that given his Australian Military credentials and connections, these paintings are never used by the Australian Government to form any basis for distinguishing 'Aboriginality'. I guess playing the racial card is far more emotive and penetrating than scientific fact when the goal is to win votes.

These paintings depict a very African theme with the shapes of the people and the dress. They have since been dated at many thousands of years older than any 'aboriginal' painting. Given the detail, I would personally assume that these were painted by humans however, potentially mapping the DNA continues to be thrwarted by 'aboriginals' as they claim ownership over all old bones found in Australia and therefore the Australian people are not allowed to touch them. There was recently a court case hinged on this exact theme for a skeleton that was believed to be the oldest ever found in Australia. The courts gave it to the 'Aboriginals' to bury without any scientific investigation.

So we have some evidence that our Aboriginals are not really are aboriginals.

I am confused as to what the argument then is.

As for what we then do with our underprivileged and at-risk Australians, I believe that race colour religion shouldn't matter, it should all come come down to your Australian Citizenship and your financial status

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So still I remain confused as to how we call our currently labelled 'aboriginals' our 'Australian Aboriginals' when clearly they are not and clearly they were simply the the most recent race to be overthrown and displaced on this continent.

Should we begin DNA profiling to establish if we have any real Australian Aboriginal DNA among us, to which they would alone get the current benefits as they stand, with the currently named ?aboriginals' reduced to being treated like an everyday Australian who needs to meet certain disadvantage markers before our Australia Tax Payer funded Government will support them as an everyday Australian and hence create a more socially harmonising equality.

Or should we exponentially tax migrants more and more as time goes on and disseminate the proceeds down the line to those who have been in Australia for the longest. Effectively each generation of migrant is 'invading' Australia and benefitting from our establishment of the nation in years gone by. This is why our current 'aboriginals' get Native Title Fee for being custodians of the land until European Settlement. This would mean that the current custodians get a custodian fee as well. Seems fair the principle of equality