Indigenous – the word the left stole

aborigines image

I’ve been mentioning this fraud for many years – here it is, all covered in one article. As you’ll see, ‘indigenous’, is cleverly used to assist the discrimination agenda being committed against the vast majority of Australians. 

Indigenous, the word the left Stole.

You’ll have likely heard, “the pen is mightier than the sword” – the notion and similar wording has been around a long time, but it was Edward Bulwer-Lytton in 1839 who put it together as we know it today.

On a battlefield, one would be happy for the enemy to have pens – no chance against a sword, but many, if not most of the more important fights have not occurred on battlefields, but rather, through the written or spoken word.

Words are often misused or not fully understood, and occasionally words will intentionally have their meaning changed. Changes usually occur due to the process of language evolving and sometimes because so many people use a word wrongly for so long, that it takes on the new meaning and tends to lose its original meaning.

This is seen in the common use these days of, ‘decimate’ – a word which actually means to reduce by 10% (Roman – kill one in ten), but through incorrect use over time has come to mean virtually the opposite, being used to describe circumstances where something has been wiped out, or essentially destroyed – such is where, ‘Devastate’, is properly used.

However it appears there are also times when words are, in a sense, stolen, and typically put to bad purpose. Such has certainly proven to be the case with the word, ‘indigenous’ – we’ll examine its real meaning shortly.

The misuse of, ‘indigenous’, has been done to create an exclusive club – not a club one may choose to join, pay to join, or even be invited to join, but a club into which one must be born. Is there anything more elitist – some would say racist?

This, ‘indigenous’, club has been created for the express purpose of entrenching rights and advantages not available to the, ‘non-indigenous’. These are simply racially based advantages achieved through convincing people to accept a special category for others who are portrayed as unique.

Words are never bad – it’s the people who use them and the use they make of them that’s diabolical. Those responsible for using, ‘indigenous’, to describe aboriginal Australians, have succeeded in creating two distinct classes of Australians. In essence, ‘Here First’ and ‘The Uninvited’.

This misuse assists the propaganda that Aborigines, by being exclusively, ‘indigenous’, are traditional owners of the land. Whereas non-Aborigines are non-Indigenous, and hence invaders, who stole everything, even the Children of the land.

This ugly propaganda reduces the significance of one’s birthplace and citizenship, when compared to those put on a pedestal because they are said to be, ‘indigenous’, and hence more special than all other Australians.

It’s appropriate to historically recognize that people occupied a place prior to any current group and that is certainly the case with aboriginal people in Australia.

However, it is utterly wrong, in every way, to separate Australians in order to give to one group, for eternity, that which will never be allowed to others. This is precisely what continues to be done with Australians of aboriginal descent to the detriment of those without aboriginal ancestry. The misuse of, ‘indigenous’, serves this divisive agenda.

Clearly it’s critical to understand what ‘indigenous’, really means – perhaps then the agenda starts to become clear. This word has arguably been redefined by the left to be used politically and socially to advance the cause for aboriginal Australians to have rights not available to other Australians.

The propaganda has been so successful that almost everyone thinks, ‘indigenous’, describes aborigines only, but that is completely untrue. In fact, it’s sustainable to argue that, ‘indigenous’, doesn’t refer to people at all, aboriginal or otherwise!

You see ‘indigenous’, relates especially to Flora (plants) and Fauna (animals), and describes those plants and animals that are originating naturally in a particular region, as opposed to introduced.

Even when extending indigenous to include people, of course, in Australia, people were not naturally occurring. Everyone who has an ancestry attached to Australia has so because their forebears came here – no one sprung up out of the ground. In reality, we are all immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, aboriginal people included.

In that most accurate sense, there is no such thing as a Human Being who is also an, ‘indigenous Australian’.

Accepting the word being applied to humans also means accepting reference to being born in a place. So if one uses, ‘indigenous’, in reference to humans, that’ll be anyone born in Australia, regardless of ancestry.

In defining, ‘indigenous’, there’s something of a link to, ‘Native’, which has historically been applied to non-white (coloured) people around the world. However it actually relates to local inhabitants and just as readily describes white people.

One might express that at the time of the First Fleet’s arrival in 1788, the only indigenous people were Aborigines, but that all changed with the first birth among the colonists.

Definitive conclusion: If, ‘indigenous’, is used in its usual form, then no human Australians are indigenous – in the expanded view, anyone born in Australia is indigenous – one could even refer to themselves as a, ‘Native Australian’.

Further, consider how, ‘indigenous’, is used to discriminate. One may become an Australian through citizenship, yet while no-one can ever become, ‘indigenous’, some are born, ‘indigenous’, through a tiny drop of aboriginal blood. With that birth, comes special treatment not available to anyone else.

Picture the absurdity of accepting this nonsense. An Aboriginal/’indigenous’ child born yesterday, inherits a birthright that provides status, recognition and benefits beyond that allowed for your, ‘non-indigenous’, Australian child born the same day, or your Aussie Grandparents born eighty years ago.

Those, ‘indigenous’, only entitlements are wide ranging and include, land rights, special financial benefits and priority employment – now there is even a strong move to specifically note, ‘indigenous Australians’, in our Constitution.

The Australian Constitution currently has no mention of Australians by groups, racially or otherwise. Once, ‘indigenous’, is in the Constitution, the rights issues become irretrievably entrenched and more costly to we ‘non-indigenous’, Australians.  The uninvited, who occupy Aboriginal land – have no doubt, that’s how we’re seen.

I appreciate there are those who refer to Aborigines as, ‘indigenous’, to respectfully acknowledge their presence in Australia prior to civilization, but to do so is to fall for a very broad, well planned agenda to elevate Aborigines above all other Australians.

I do not support racial discrimination or the division of Australians into various classes. Embracing the current use of, ‘indigenous’, does precisely that. Currently we have Indigenous Australians (Aborigines), non-indigenous (but Australian born) and Non-Australian born, but citizens.

Sadly, more accurately using, ‘indigenous’, to describe Australian born, discriminates against Australian citizens born elsewhere. Given the divisive way in which indigenous has been used, maybe the best course might be to drop the term altogether.

Perhaps let it revert to, as it is often found in old dictionaries, as applying only to flora and fauna and just dispense with any relationship to people.

Otherwise, if you were born in Australia, start referring to yourself as, ‘indigenous’. After all, you’re as entitled to do that as much as any Australian.

I cannot overstate the socially destructive, divisive, discriminating and racist way in which, ‘indigenous’, is being used – I hope you will inform everyone you can as to how every non-Aboriginal in Australia is being dangerously undermined – their birth, their rights, their equality of citizenship – it’s a broad effective and long term agenda.

NOTE: Those who already know what I’ve explained in this article, but have stayed quiet about this matter, do so for reasons such as the following.

Don’t care – don’t think it is an issue for them. This lot fail to see the costly ramifications for all Australians, themselves included.

Support the agenda regardless of it being fraud. This lot likely also believe only Aborigines own Australia and the rest of us are something akin to squatters. BTW, this view ignores global history and is not rationally sustainable in any realistic context.

Won’t speak up for fear of being called racist. It’s a well founded fear, but the only thing racist here is the discrimination agenda that’s underway with the assistance of the dishonest use of the word, ‘indigenous’.



  1. Lena Hammond · · Reply

    Thank you David, for writing such an (as usual) intelligent and thought provoking article. It is so well researched and also logical that I can’t see anyone could argue against it.

    1. Thank you Lena – very much appreciate your analysis. It is entirely factual, but it will cause emotive irrational responses because nothing hurts like the truth. You are right, there is no way to sustain a logical argument against what I’ve written, but that won’t stop people trying. I’m disturbed so many people have accepted the dishonest use of, ‘indigenous’. I presume it is either because they don’t understand the agenda of which it is a part, or they subscribe to the agenda and support these acts of racial discrimination.

  2. Mike@UsneakydevilU · · Reply

    Here, here! Good read. As a Black-Independent in the USA, political correctness has hurt minorities more than it has helped.Blacks kill blacks by the hundreds and it’s ignored, one White man kill one Black and it stays in the news cycle 24/7, for 2 weeks.

    1. Thanks for reading Mike and for your points. It’s very useful for us to be able to compare our circumstances with related issues in other countries. Much appreciated.

  3. It is generally agreed that the dingo is not indigenous to Australia either genetically, archaeologically or morphologically – yet it arrived here coincident with the arrival of aboriginal man. The diversity of native fauna was greatly affected by the introduction of the dingo – dingoes almost drove the indigenous Tasmanian Tiger to extinction on the Australian mainland, which is why the Tasmanian Tiger is not called the Australian Tiger.

    Perhaps Oldfield’s explanation finally solves the riddle of why the term indigenous is readily widely applied to aboriginal man and not the humble dingo.

    With the obvious exception of Alan Jones AO, this guy seems to have an intellect that is sadly missing among our present day media and political commentators.

    1. Thank you Stuart for your very interesting comment and exceptionally kind words.

  4. TassieRooster · · Reply

    David, I couldn’t agree more. I am an 8th generation Aussie & am sick to death of being treated like a 2nd class citizen in my own country. I have always considered myself an indigenous Australian (despite having no Aboriginal ancestry). I have legitimate documentation which sets out my ancestry, which is more than many who have attached themselves to the public teat merely because of unsubstantiated ancestry can prove.

    Plenty of people (particularly those of the Latte Left set) choose to believe that there are no real “exclusive benefits” available to Aboriginal Australians & such suggestions are basically urban myths made up by racists. Like you, I know of plenty of actual examples of this reverse-racism, but perhaps the best one to dispel the urban myth sayers is the little known example of IBA (Indigenous Business Australia) which is a wholly federal government funded organisation that arranges (amongst other things) home loan finance for Aboriginals & Torres Strait Islanders; they will lend up to 120% of the purchase price of properties! So, by virtue of a claimed ancestry, IBA lends under a criteria that no other responsible financial institution can lend under. You can imagine the default rate of these IBA home loans. Yet another example of our tax dollars being used to make us 2nd class citizens in our own country.

    1. Hi Phil. Thank you for your thoughts and the information re the IBA. I’d been aware of similar loans, but not that one – appreciate you pointing to it. For a time I worked advising the federal govt on Abstudy which of course was then a special scheme developed to fund a range of activities for Aborigines that were not available to other Australians, so I was an upfront witness to the rorts. Such were allowed through what the left would call,’social justice’, so the reality was a race based system that just gave money to Aborigines, and much of it taken illegitimately. Abstudy in theory improved access to education for Aborigines, however the actual result was just a scheme that provided vast amounts of increased welfare and therefore continued the mistake of funding Aborigines doing nothing, rather than advancing their prospects. Tens of $billions have been squandered on all manner of Aboriginal only schemes – I would put that the majority has been misdirected, mismanaged, misappropriated and very often, quite simply stolen.

  5. Adding to TassieRooster’s post. Sadly in NSW schools I’ve witnessed countless examples confirming his and Oldfield’s correct assertions:

    * partial aboriginal students possessing the very latest expensive technological gadgets that their non-aboriginal classmates cannot afford – often these partial aboriginals treat these gadgets as replaceable disposables
    * non-aboriginal students struggling to pay for costly school excursions while partial aboriginals have theirs completely paid for through entitlements
    * blue-eyed blonde aboriginals not attaining required HSC scores gaining entry into university courses on the basis of aboriginality
    * partial aboriginals flaunting school rules of student behaviour, knowing aboriginality can be used as a defence – particularly with the threat to staff of discrimination

    The list goes on. This does nothing for the cause of those professing to be genuine aboriginals.

    1. Thank you Stuart – I too am familiar with similar situations. Appreciate you highlighting these further examples of race-based discrimination.

  6. Bill Veris · · Reply

    This is a great article. David Oldfield is an intelligent man. Good writing style, not hard to understand and has a good vocabulary at the same time! 🙂

    1. Dear Bill, thank you for your kind words – much appreciated. David.

  7. Thank you, thank you, thank you and many more times thank you David for representing my views on the First Contact TV series just viewed on SBS. The fact that you had to take on a number of other people with opposing views and you did not cave in shows admirable courage. The women who ordered you out of her house showed very clearly that your question was one she could not answer so to save face she wanted to end the conversation and ordering you out of her house was her weak, insecure way of doing that. SBS has shamed themselves by presenting a biased program. Let’s hope that maybe some Aboriginal people watched the program and actually made a positive choice to clean their house and yard ie. take responsibility for living in a home which is not a breeding ground for germs.

    I would love for an economist to tell me how much $ Aboriginal people contribute to the Australian economy compared to how much $ they take from the Australian economy. I have been to Bourke, NSW and my white friends who lived there say there is a very strong belief in the Aboriginal community that “they are owed”. You strongly represented my views in the First Contact TV show and those views very, very rarely get heard on the Australian media – THANK YOU! As a great man once said – “We will never surrender!” – I hope you make that your life long motto on this issue.

    1. Thank you for your thoughts and kind words of encouragement. In regard to Aboriginal, give and take, so to speak, the last time I had any research done on this about 80% of Aboriginal people were on full welfare of some kind – a good proportion of those who weren’t, would be in government jobs, so sadly the answer to your question would seem to be there is a hugely disproportionate amount of what Aboriginal people cost, compared to what they contribute.

      1. Bill Veris · ·

        I am surprised that 80% of Aboriginals are on welfare and then you mentioned gov jobs too. I mean, I believe you, but where did you get this information from?

      2. Hi Bill. The information came from my researcher in 2011 during my radio broadcasting years. He had also been my Parliamentary researcher when I was in Parliament 1999-2007, so he knew where to look. It’s also worth noting that I was an Abstudy (Aboriginal Studies) advisor in the early days of the Howard Government and back then, 25% of all Aborigines were receiving study allowance by comparison to less than 3% of the non-aboriginal population. Abstudy was largely rorted as a form of unemployment benefits without being required to apply for jobs and in that, by having it seem that they were in training, it also reduced the true numbers of those unemployed – such looked better for the government, but of course it was just smoke and mirrors. The 80%+ figure represented, unemployment, sickness/disability, training and so on!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: