All right I'll try my best to answer that.
I make no such claim that - as you state above. An indigenous govt. is what any society wants. That is, a govt. arising from the people who occupy a definable piece of land, and a govt. that has the same culture and therefore the same biases that the people have. Therefore it is not OK for the baneuku to invade and oppress them as they are not indigenous to that land although they have the same basic culture. It rests on possession of the land first. Also it is not OK for 'an act of free choice' to give possession of the land to another culture because that would not be an indigenous govt.
No it isn't.
I answered your position about the baneuku; now you answer the question above this about the Queen.
Ferdie didn't make that claim. Read it again.
As I pointed out that's
Agreed. Melanesian in this case is the core culture.
You mention Anglo-Saxon and Celtic. What about British? Australia (a legal British enbreasty) was founded by the British. Australia was governed by the British until 1901. We were all British citizens until 1901. The Anglo-Saxons and Celts were united under the Crown as one nation. For centuries these people built an empire that was the epitome of culture and power. The Anglo-Saxon and the Celts each kept their own cultures as they saw fit. That is our cultural idenbreasty. It is inclusive of both unity and diversity under the Crown.
RodneyK
"To destroy a people you must first sever their roots." -Alexander Solzhenitsyn
