Will let her know.

My friend also wants to buy a deck…

The only head of state that makes laws is an authoritarian one. A First Nations Head of State would be a custodian of laws, culture and land, not someone who determines what they are.

The First Peoples' Assembly of Victoria who are the representative body for the Treaty process has two co chairs that represent 11 groups, and 60,000+ First Nations people – people agree that one or two people can represent many - not sure why you can’t accept how that works.

And yet the Victorian Treaty represents multiple First Nations groups and individuals across the state – your objection is a flimsy excuse that doesn’t hold water either theoretically or practically.

I’m not suggesting a feudal king to rule and make laws, I’m suggesting a representative who performs a public role and addresses issues of concern – as with other heads of state who represent multiple groups within a broader community.

Really pointless in this context – the whole point of a Head of State would be to represent a broad range of First Nations communities. There are already other organisations in various sectors that represent multiple communities. Suggesting it can’t be done because it homogenises groups is nonsense.

No it doesn’t – First Nations can easily choose someone that represents the group without privileging one cultural or political entity – other heads of state represent diverse communities all the time.

First Nations peoples in this country need a Head of State so every time there’s a death in custody or an attack by racists the government can invite them to Canberra and explain their response, and so there is someone to publicly represent the community’s shared grief and mourning.

Congratulations on defeating the sub-boss “Lit Review” – level up!

A fascinating study of how the lax approach of history-as-entertainment can reinforce harmful stereotypes – well done.