National anthem

@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287499) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287498) said:
@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287497) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287496) said:
Then I have my answer - 1/16th it is.

I do not require any further explanations on anything else regarding this subject. Thanks.

That is not the answer, the answer is the post of mine that you quoted saying you didn't have a relevant answer.

Then I am at odds with that answer - however you have given your answer and I do not require further clarification. Thanks.

lol. it is not my answer, that is the legal definition that is accepted Australia wide.

Still at odds with the answer. I would daresay accepted by the majority but not necessarily Australia wide.
 
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287501) said:
@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287499) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287498) said:
@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287497) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287496) said:
Then I have my answer - 1/16th it is.

I do not require any further explanations on anything else regarding this subject. Thanks.

That is not the answer, the answer is the post of mine that you quoted saying you didn't have a relevant answer.

Then I am at odds with that answer - however you have given your answer and I do not require further clarification. Thanks.

lol. it is not my answer, that is the legal definition that is accepted Australia wide.

Still at odds with the answer. I would daresay accepted by the majority but not necessarily Australia wide.

You may be at odds with it, but it is the answer.
 
@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287503) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287501) said:
@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287499) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287498) said:
@cochise said in [National anthem](/post/1287497) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287496) said:
Then I have my answer - 1/16th it is.

I do not require any further explanations on anything else regarding this subject. Thanks.

That is not the answer, the answer is the post of mine that you quoted saying you didn't have a relevant answer.

Then I am at odds with that answer - however you have given your answer and I do not require further clarification. Thanks.

lol. it is not my answer, that is the legal definition that is accepted Australia wide.

Still at odds with the answer. I would daresay accepted by the majority but not necessarily Australia wide.

You may be at odds with it, but it is the answer.

Thanks.
 
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287496) said:
Then I have my answer - 1/16th it is.

I do not require any further explanations on anything else regarding this subject. Thanks.


That may be the official recognition but cochises answer is far more what is accepted in the Indigenous community. Blood quota as a means of identification dates back to the early 1800s and continued through to the 1950s. It was only in the 60s and 70s that method was put in to question. The 3 part identification is more widely accepted but still has its problems. Not only do you have to have to have the ancestry but you also have to identify as Indigenous and be accepted by the community of your descendents. There is a lot of good papers on Aboriginalty - the one thing that always sticks out is that it is always a white authority that tries to identify Aboriginality. If you're interested have a read of this. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-identity-who-is-aboriginal.
 
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287471) said:
By the way, what constitutes an Aboriginal/Indigenous person?

How far do we go back - an Aboriginal marries a white immigrant - the child becomes 50% Aboriginal/indigenous, same happens again, the child becomes 25% and so on.

Surely, if you are less than 50% you become an Australian or does this go to infinity?

If this happens with an Irish person marrying an Australian - their offspring do not keep considering that they are Irish, they say they are Australian.

One rule for one, a different rule for the rest.

up to 1/16 is the rule I think
 
@hobbo1 said in [National anthem](/post/1287505) said:
Meh ...
They’d better leave Girt alone !

Absolutely leave Girt alone. Girt by sea is what has saved us in this pandemic.
 
@diedpretty said in [National anthem](/post/1287510) said:
@Russell said in [National anthem](/post/1287496) said:
Then I have my answer - 1/16th it is.

I do not require any further explanations on anything else regarding this subject. Thanks.


That may be the official recognition but cochises answer is far more what is accepted in the Indigenous community. Blood quota as a means of identification dates back to the early 1800s and continued through to the 1950s. It was only in the 60s and 70s that method was put in to question. The 3 part identification is more widely accepted but still has its problems. Not only do you have to have to have the ancestry but you also have to identify as Indigenous and be accepted by the community of your descendents. There is a lot of good papers on Aboriginalty - the one thing that always sticks out is that it is always a white authority that tries to identify Aboriginality. If you're interested have a read of this. https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/people/aboriginal-identity-who-is-aboriginal.

I will DP - thanks for the direction to it.
 
@mike said in [National anthem](/post/1287518) said:
@hobbo1 said in [National anthem](/post/1287505) said:
Meh ...
They’d better leave Girt alone !

Absolutely leave Girt alone. Girt by sea is what has saved us in this pandemic.

I wonder if we’ll hear anything from the 3 Tenors ?
 
@tig_prmz said in [National anthem](/post/1287517) said:
up to 1/16 is the rule I think

Having worked in an adjacent field, we were told a long time ago that the percentage doesn't count and it could be offensive to even ask. It was always some heritage, recognised by the community and self-identifies.
 
@Hangonaminute said in [National anthem](/post/1287526) said:
Would have been nice if ALL of US Australians got to vote on this change of OUR anthem.

You want to spend $100m to change one word?
 
@Hangonaminute said in [National anthem](/post/1287526) said:
Would have been nice if ALL of US Australians got to vote on this change of OUR anthem.

I am so glad that there wasn't a referendum for such a trivial change.
 
Good and sensible decision But cant see latrell now standing up enough proud and strong because the social justice brigade just move onto another subject that we all must adhere to
 
@Hangonaminute said in [National anthem](/post/1287526) said:
Would have been nice if ALL of US Australians got to vote on this change of OUR anthem.

This is exactly how Bob Hawke changed the anthem in the 80's.
 
Good to see Mundine still isn’t happy.
He said it makes no difference as the song is all about white supremacy ....
 
@cktiger said in [National anthem](/post/1287562) said:
Good to see Mundine still isn’t happy.
He said it makes no difference as the song is all about white supremacy ....

I'm sure plenty of indigenous folk look at Mundine the same way I look at Backdoor Benny.
 
@cktiger said in [National anthem](/post/1287562) said:
Good to see Mundine still isn’t happy.
He said it makes no difference as the song is all about white supremacy ....

I'm sure we are all waiting for him to get knocked out in his next mismatch and then disappear
 

Members online

Back
Top