Just who is "aboriginal"?

Is it time we actually faced this question? 

In Downunder it is sufficient to claim you are "aboriginal" on a form and have someone else who is also "aboriginal" to accept you as such. There is no need to provide any information about your forebears. It is assumed you are telling the truth.

In a neighbouring state there are demands for the leader of the opposition in the state parliament to apologise, do another back flip and support a "treaty" with "aboriginal" peoples or resign. 

Fair enough? Perhaps not. The first back flip came about after the failure of the referendum and on seeing the state's proposals. In other words the opposition has decided to leave the matter well alone until people change their minds and more work is done. 

Of course this is not good enough for those who are demanding a "treaty".  They are demanding the apology. One man in particular is demanding an apology and getting a good deal of publicity as he does so. He is being described as "an elder" and a "leader".  Really?

I went searching for some information. Ah, yes! He does apparently have an "aboriginal" ancestor. One of his great-great grandfather's is documented as being one but this gentleman from the past was also a collaborator rather than a victim of any sort of white supremacy. Still, it seems that this is enough.  Our present "victim" is able to ignore all his well documented Scots ancestry and claim his one-sixteenth "aboriginal" heritage makes him an elder and a leader.

Does it? He seems to be making his living by being "aboriginal". He has been part of a "first people's assembly" and was very active during the lead up to the referendum. What is more is the government of the day appears to listen to him - and people like him.

Is this a good thing though? How can a man with just one-sixteenth heritage really know so much more when compared with my friend M... or the three women who recently came to visit me? How much does this man really know about the language and culture of the tribe he claims to come from and why is it so much more important than the other fifteen-sixteenths? Why is he allowed, indeed encouraged, to deny the greater part of his heritage? Why is he a "victim"?

We need another definition of just who can claim to be "aboriginal", especially if there are special benefits attached. 

(For the record, my great-grandparents were Scots...and, while I am immensely proud of the fact, there are no special benefits attached to that.)