My question is, if less than 1% ancestry allows someone …

Comment on Ted Egan: Forget splitting hairs, counting drops of blood. by Ros Ross.

My question is, if less than 1% ancestry allows someone to call themselves Aboriginal, or whatever politically correct term is allowed, then what stops people from using the same system to call themselves African, Asian, European, Anglo or indeed by nationality?
Should we divvy up Anglos into there different tribal and cultural groups sourced in their many colonisations? For example, Celts, Britons, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings, Normans etc?
We could also then factor into African, Asian and European the tens of thousands of different tribal origins.
How, may I ask, would that contribute to a modern, cohesive society?
Why bother being Australians if we are defined by whichever part of our ancestry we select?

Ros Ross Also Commented

Ted Egan: Forget splitting hairs, counting drops of blood.
@ Trevor Shiell: The problem with the concept of land ownership is that it still exists in places like Fiji because the culture is less developed, i.e. still tribal in many respects.
Every single human culture in our history had such concepts but most grew out of such tribalism.
Just because some cultures evolved slowly and still retain tribal and undemocratic traditions, which entitle some to privileges, does not mean it is a good idea.
The fact is, if we sifted through our ancestry every human on the planet could make such claims somewhere but would that be a good idea? I think not.
Someone who calls themselves Fijian in the 21st century is very different to someone who called themselves Fijian in 2100BC.
Surely what is important in a modern, enlightened world is our democratic rights and not our tribal rights?


Recent Comments by Ros Ross

Pilger’s polemic fails Australia and Aborigines
@ Tom: So racism is alive and well in Australia? Really? We have the highest and fastest intermarriage rate of any nation for immigrants and an even higher rate for intermarriage with Australians who have Aboriginal ancestry.
Racists do not intermarry. Any study of truly racist cultures reveals that, whether the racism is African, Indian, European, Asian or whatever.
Australia is the least racist country on the planet and you make yourself look foolish claiming that having Aboriginal ancestry means you are treated as subhuman.
Aborigines were English subjects from 1788, then, when we all became Australian citizens in 1949 and were no longer subjects, so were they. Aboriginal women in South Australia, along with other females, were amongst the first in the world to get the vote.
None of that is subhuman. Australians with Aboriginal Ancestry, large or small, 100% or less than 1%, the latter being not even Aboriginal although some claim it makes them so, have EXACTLY the same rights as every other Australian and indeed, get more rights and benefits.
Superhuman maybe, subhuman, NEVER.


Pilger’s polemic fails Australia and Aborigines
Pilger is like a lot of ex-Australians, suffering from distorted perspective, general ignorance and huge levels of unconscious guilt.
He has not lived in Australia for more than half a century and he has been British for decades.
He is not Australian anymore and his generally objective journalistic approach, has been subsumed by an irrational approach to the land of his birth now that he is getting older, nearing death and knowing he will never return.
His polemics on the Aboriginal situation in Australia are an absolute disgrace to Aboriginal peoples, to Australia and to journalism.
To be fair, journalism is pretty much gutter press these days so Pilger has joined the majority on this count.


Museums: First Nations demand to speak for themselves
The biggest problems with the use of the term First Nations are:
1. If a small group of Australians are first because of some ancestry, large or often minimally small, then everyone else is second and that is undemocratic and racist.
2. The many different peoples living here in 1788, descended from different waves of migration, without a common language, generally at war with each other, constituted tribes and often barely that given the numbers of some groups, and nothing close to any sort of nations. Because of the roughly 300 different groups there would have had to be 300 nations.
3. Nation is a modern, western concept with no relevance to Aboriginal cultures. Indeed, neither Germany or Italy were nations until the 19th century so quite how there could have been one Aboriginal nation, or many, in 1788 is the question. There could not be and there was not.
4. There is no Aboriginal “we”. There never was and today, with so much intermixing, the original 300 or so groups are now in the thousands because of varying differentials of intermixing, i.e. Asian, Anglo, European, or a mix, ranging from half to 1/32nd and less.
5. Aboriginal communities find it almost impossible to reach any sort of “we” consensus so quite how the roughly 600,000 Australians with Aboriginal ancestry could morphs into the realms of impossible. Someone living in urban Sydney, with a part Aboriginal great-great grandparent, descended from largely Anglo-European ancestors, living middle class lives for generations, has nothing in common with someone who is half Aboriginal, from a different tribe, living in Broome, WA.
Someone living in a remote community in SA has nothing in common with someone living in a remote community in FNQ, beyond living in a remote community, because each are descended from different groups, tribes, peoples who were called Aboriginal by the British, in a unified labelling which reflected no reality.
Australia’s history belongs to all Australians and that includes any history from the different Aboriginal peoples.
Living in a modern democracy we are all equal as citizens and all equally custodians of this land, of our history and of our nation.
It is the worst kind of racism to try to pretend that human history in all of its many variations can be divided into separate groups.


Be Sociable, Share!

A new way to support our journalism

We do not have a paywall. If you support our independent journalism you can make a financial contribution by clicking the red button below. This will help us cover expenses and sustain the news service we’ve been providing since 1994, in a locally owned and operated medium.

Erwin Chlanda, Editor