Loose control

Well over two centuries ago, the local indigenous population had loose control of this country. I say loose because there was no outside opposition. It is true that they occupied, and in a sense “possessedâ€, this country, but that is all. They were never called upon to defend it against external interference. There was no one to oppose local rule, so by default they were in control.

Those locals had themselves originally invaded and overrun a country ruled by large animals, and perhaps by another human population. Who gave them permission to enter and inhabit this country? No one, I guess. They simply arrived and took over. That is a fundamental strategy still used by people all over the world today. The invaders prevailed, so no more large animals, and no ongoing opposition from any other “tribeâ€. I have no doubt that climate change played a large part in this very long, slowly evolving story.

Eventually, they secured a kind of peaceful permanence. They lived in extreme isolation from other established human populations. A very long time passed, and the world changed dramatically. Then came the British.

The locals had no idea how to deal with these determined and well-equipped invaders. It had not happened before. A kind of war ensued, the invaders prevailed, and the locals were no longer the dominant force. They had lost their loose control. From then on, a new set of rules applied.

The way of life of those indigenous inhabitants could not continue as before. They had no real option but to assimilate, as quickly as possible, with the invaders. That was the reality then, and it remains the reality today. Those who think otherwise are being absurdly imaginative.

I think any successful invading force has a duty of care towards those it has overcome. Our ancestors should perhaps have assisted the original inhabitants more effectively. That did not happen in a practical way, probably because of the vastness of the land. Today, however, large amounts of money are spent on the welfare of their descendants. Is that wise, or fair to others?

Some of the locals did not want to assimilate, or were unable to. Some of their descendants now espouse the idea that they are a separate group, entitled to retain some form of separate control in this country. That absurd fiction has been carried down through many generations, even though each generation is steadily more mixed with European genes. I abhor statements that try to legitimise this attitude and give it recognition it does not deserve.

No one should try to split this country along racial lines. I especially dislike the display of “separate†flags. (I applaud Libby Mettam for her stated attitude on this issue.) The idea that things must always remain as they were is not true. We now live in a vastly different country, and we must accept that reality as we move forward.

In modern Australia, we have a democratically elected government. It is controlled by a majority of those we elect. It answers to the people and is subject to the Constitution. That government has overall control, unless we are invaded or overtaken by a stronger force. It establishes our boundaries, organises their defence, and makes the rules that guide everyday life. It controls all rights and privileges in this country. No other group should have this control, nor does.

The government should respond positively to any request that is fair and reasonable. However, it should not give in to strident demands from particular groups. A group seeking exclusive rights based on racial difference should never be given credence. That would be grossly unfair to others, and it would amount to outright negative racism. A recent referendum confirmed the public’s view on this matter.

The government’s task is to provide opportunity for everyone, not to favour one group because of racial variation. Any laws made to regulate society should be generic in nature.

Rules can only be made for those who are alive now, and for the way we live now and into the future. We can learn from the past, but that is all we should take from it. In a practical sense, we need concern ourselves only with those alive today. Only the last hundred years or so can be significant. There is no one currently living who had a controlling influence before that time.

So let us not dwell needlessly on the lives of our ancestors, whoever they were, nor allow racial variation to beget obscure privilege for some. Democratically decided rules should apply to everyone. Making different laws for different racial groups is something to be avoided, unless there is an ineludible physical or medical difference that must be addressed.

In our society, do we treat those descended from convicts as tainted? Would that not be hurtful, unfair, and divisive? Ancestry should not be significant. None of us should feel shame or responsibility for things done by our ancestors. Nor should anyone alive today carry on a feud based on ill-founded beliefs about past wrongs. What counts is behaving kindly towards each other now. Attitude should not depend on ancestry, unless you are Mrs Bucket.

We know that knowledge and infrastructure are passed down from generation to generation, but nothing else can be or should be. It seems that Albo, and others, are ignoring this fact. Have they lost their objectivity? Are they getting lost in a world of fiction? Are they being brainwashed by lobbyists?

Going forward, progress must be based on sound principles, not fanciful ideas. Those principles must exclude division along racial lines. Descendants of early inhabitants must accept that they are now the same as everyone else. They should see themselves as ordinary citizens, and all of us should stop referring to them as anything other than that. Going forward, they should merge with the rest of society without demur.