My understanding was that Mabo actually lost his case but a co applicant made some case law to wit
"Refreshingly, the "teacher notes" attached to the ABC Mabo web pages state a little known fact about the case. Justice Martin Moynihan of the Queensland Supreme Court, where the Eddie Mabo case was first heard, was highly critical of Mabo. Moynihan found that Mabo was "quite capable of tailoring his story to whatever shape he perceived would advance his cause in the particular forum". He stated, in "the saga of his claim to be the Aiet and traditional leader of the Murray Islanders . . . I was not impressed with the creditability (sic) of Eddie Mabo". Moynihan rejected Mabo's claim to land on Murray Island.
The one positive finding was made on a residential block claimed by Dave Passi. As to this block, the judge concluded the Passi lands "are held pursuant to . . . a group holding arrangement usually involv(ing) brothers and sisters . . . Such arrangements, which depend essentially upon acceptance by those affected, reflect an aspect of Murray Island social organisations for generations -- probably antedating European contact."

Mabo and others would have had squatters rights as exist in both Australian and English law. Which lands do I have ancestral rights to simply because my ancestors may have once lived on?

No it is all about one law for everyone was that not the cause of "One Nation" if you had read my comment you would have noted that when people are settled on land, even when not for several generations, in the absence of other claims it becomes theirs by occupation. This was particularly true for title going back to early European settlement where land could change hands in the pub with no official documentation. There was also the case in the UK a while ago where someone who had lived on parkland for twenty odd years was told he now owned the block, he commented that this did not seem fair as he had never bought it. In essence the issue of Terra Nulllius was an irrelevant side track

That does not answer my point

So how does that enable people of European ancestry who presumably had land "stolen" from them. I have a friend who is a quarter aboriginal but did not find out until prosperous middle age, what land should he claim? As it is his children are eligible for special scholarships which give them double the normal student allowance and they have never faced any hardship in their lives.

So how come his kids get aboriginal scholarships? And what is an aboriginal community, the definition is tautological. If a group of people get together and say we are aboriginal and we recognize each other does that make them aboriginal? And what happens when two or more groups claim the same land?

Well, you know the facts of the matter more than I do. I didn't say your mate wasn't Aboriginal, did I? I just said that recognition as Aboriginal is subject to a process. So, if you want to seek, with like minded friends, recognition of Aboriginality, then do so. Understand, however, that recognition of Aboriginality depends on community acceptance rather than crude measures like percentage of parentage.

In fact, you need to grasp that referring to Aboriginal heritage in terms of percentage or fractions is precisely the sort of thinking that drove the mechanism of the stolen generations in the first instance. 'Rabbit Proof Fence' illustrates this history in a tidy way.

It's worth noting that, as usual, the mere mention of Aboriginal people in public space brings grievance bearing people like you out of the woodwork. Talk about complain. What is your problem with Aboriginal people anyway?

This is the sort of gobbledegook that Andrew Bolt was writing about, two sister one aboriginal the other not despite the same parentage, what a nonsense

Oh noes. The Judge who convicted Bolt did so wrongly. First Mabo, now this. What are we to do about the Australian judiciary. It seems the only judges we can trust are Queenslanders.

Answer my question: why do you always pop your head up full of whinges every time someone mentions Aboriginal people?

My understanding is that the term Stolen Generation was been debunked by Windshuttle and the book was called the forgotten generation until just prior to publication. Interestingly not one case of compensation has ever been paid for being"stolen" the only compensation was to someone returned to a dysfunctional parent, this despite millions of dollars in legal fees which could have been better spent. But let us cut to the chase, who has actually benefited from Mabo except where mineral rights are involved?

I'd be interested to know what it was about Keith Windshuttle's arguments that you found so persuasive. Let me know how exactly he debunked the term 'Stolen Generation'. In your view.

I am disappointed that my red score is currently only 5.
Would it be offensive to anybody if I referred to a judge's assessment of a certain person involved in this case?

So questioning anyone who claims to belong to a particular groups as to what really is their ancestry is not now against the law? I earlier gave the example of a friend of many decades who found that he was a quarter aboriginal when in comfortable middle age. As he did not look aboriginal, even he himself did not know, there is no way he could have suffered any disadvantage from being aboriginal nor could his children who went to private schools. Why now should they receive "compensation"?

The thread, John Coochey, is about Eddie Mabo. Why are you dragging your poor friend into the discussion? Again. I don't even believe you've seen the film.

At last you have got something right! I have not seen the film because I do not base my views on TV drama

And you never let the facts get in the way of your prejudices either. Without seeing the film of Eddie Mabo's life, which puts all of his actions in context, then you simply just could not know what you are talking about. You do know the difference between informed opinion and hot air, don't you? The former has authority lacking in the latter. This is why no self respecting person takes either you or Bolt seriously.

Yes and no one should ever comment on Middle Eastern international relations without seeing "Exodus" nor US Mexican relations without seeing "The Alamo"

John,

I live in a tiny little town with a pretty aboriginal name. There is a local memorial swimming pool. But curiously there is no plaque to mark the day that black kids were actually allowed to swim in it. 1973. This bit of local history - that black kids were ever banned - is not remembered, not part of the memorial. Nor is there any memento at the local cinema, or the pub... never happened. See all is forgiven and forgotten. At least by us.

There is a local bloke who works as a gardener - he looks like David Gulpilil. I mentioned to my neighbour that there were few blacks working in town. "Yeah, we reckoned he was black but he won't admit it."

Where were your "friend's" parents, John that he did not know of his ancestry? Perhaps they didn't want to "admit it" either? Lots of those who could "get away with it", did. Or perhaps he had been "rescued" by our caring state and placed with a nice white family?

Well he's better off isn't he? Being one of us. Better off without his useless abo family wasn't he? Yep. A real friend.

Once again thank you for making my case! He did inherit the remains of a business from his loving white adopted parents which provided the deposit for a large house in a prestigious suburb. He met his birth mother from whom he had been removed because of her alcoholism did not particularly like her and the children who had not been removed have not fared well

Exactly John - much better off not being a boong isn't he? We did him a favour? Who needs to know about all that abo stuff when you've got a nice house and can get away from all that history and ancestry. Nice house, prestigious suburb, private schools - that's what counts isn't it?

Not for everyone John. Some people want to feel like they belong here, want to know who their parents are, where they come from, what they had taken from them. Some folks just want a nice respectable white sort of life and are more than happy to walk away - or be taken away from it all.

So the short answer to your question is that if your "friend" feels this way then no he is not Aboriginal in the sense of land rights legislation. He has no connection with his community, family or place.

I think it is a great pity if he and his kids are able to get government assistance when he obviously doesn't need it but chooses to adopt an Aboriginal identity when there's a quid in it. Some folks will do anything for a quid. Especially the folks that live in nice houses in prestigious suburbs.

So, without having seen the film of Eddie Mabo's life you're prepared to claim that it has no more veracity than the film 'Alamo' does in relation to Mexican history?

Once again I think you have made my point for me but I must say I find your racist position offensive even if it is that of the "noble savage".

Correct and neither am I going to see Happy Feat because a Green's candidate shows it proves that the Antarctic is being overfished.

Aw heck John I wouldn't want to offend you of all people with my "racist position" ... I have this awful habit of talking to my audience in their own ideas and words - even the unspoken ones. Strewth you even have a friend who has a bit of blackfella in him... but white enough for a mate eh?

Anyway I'm glad you are feeling vindicated John and that I am making your arguments for you ...others might not agree but we'll let history be the judge ...it always is. And, apparently unlike all the other judges in Australia, history always gets it right, eventually.

I do not normally reply to gibberish but I lost the thread of how Mabo somehow enabled the aboriginal use of a swimming pool decades earlier can someone run that past me again?

Sorry John - I thought you'd understand - what with having a "friend" with a black foot and all...

Quite simply my point is that discrimination and segregation was widely practiced in Australia right up until recent memory ... living memory John - at least in the memories of those subjected to it. There were - and indeed still are - very good reasons why one would not want to "admit" to being Aboriginal if one can get away with it.

But it appears that your "friend" is able to both fit into a prestigious suburb and yet decide he's an Aboriginal if there's a quid in it. Pity. That money is there for folks that need it.

Sorry if that was unclear.

Once again completely my point. Aboriginal welfare can and has slipped into the middle class welfare syndrome epitomized by the Whitlam era National Employment and Training Program designed for blue collar training which soon became a have for the middle class to get excessive scholarships to go to university. I have no problem with special grants for special needs providing it is not based on ancestry rather than the disadvantage that stemmed from that ancestry, but it should be on a needs basis.