"to find ways to responsibly maintain each dispossessed Aboriginal Nation" oh dear what an imagination, wandering tribes of hunters and collectors are now "nations". Next we'll hear of the fabulous cities of old and the wonderful way of life it was back then .. before civilization, modern medicine, fast food and the internet made life so miserable.

Why does no other group in Australia appear to be in such need of total and overwhelming support, why is not other group in Australia such a basket case dependent of help.

We regularly shower this "nation" with money and services, give them special laws and a leg up.

yet I suspect even if we were to house everyone in 5 star hotels and hose them with money .. it still would not be good enough, it still would be basis for their hatred and racism towards all and sundry.

Get on with life, most of us in Australia today are not related to the first settlers or their descendants, do you realize that?

Yes you can stir up guilt in some, but increasingly less and less of the community care about all the constant whining because we do get on with it, we came here with nothing, did not get, do not get handouts - yet have prospered - yet there is one group that only increases in volume as time goes on.

What is it you want?

No one seems to be able to satisfy your demands - and what if they did satisfy them?

Would you then get on with life, go and make something of life.

We're not going away, we're here to stay - and it's not our fault that you remain in the condition you are in - it's your fault if you don't pick yourselves up and DO something.

The cost of keeping people in Stone-Age museums of squalour should not be borne by anybody or any section of society. Integration is the only answer.

It pains me, but Amicus and Leigh have the right of it.
Continuous charity leads to resentment and dependence.
Integration attempts lead to "stolen children", yet many find it hard to witness the suffering that goes with a primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyles: It doesn't seem ethical to leave kids to die horribly.
Sadly, "traditional" practice leads to periodical starvation, over 60% infant mortality and limited medicine.
Western civilisation is based on childhood discipline and is utterly reliant on technology, specialisation and professional discipline. I don't see how we can avoid the inherent clash.
This was brought home to me in a pub in Bachelor (near Darwin) where I was talking with a particularly well spoken and well dressed aboriginal bloke. He said he was somewhat lucky to be an orphan. When I expressed shock at this he said "I get to keep my income and can keep a neat house without it getting trashed by drunk uncles and other family. My aboriginal mates don't bother working, they can't keep it up under the social stigma of 'being a whitey' and any wealth gained is lost to them when the family 'takes their due'. Easier to go with the flow than try."
So how/why do you preserve a culture when the culture itself precludes change for the good of any kind?

JDB Williams is obviously angry but being angry does not make him right. If I understand this article, withdrawing a subsidy is paternalistic. I thought putting the subsidy in place was paternalistic, or did I miss something? As for not meeting the cost of keeping indigenous people in their own country, does this mean if we withdraw subsidies indigenous people will leave Australia in disgust? I don't think they will receive more subsidies in another country.
I have no objection to the Government lending a indigenous people a hand but much aid has been patchy and misguided. Even counter-productive. A more balanced view of such aid would be more constructive.
Incidentally, did I read the last part of the article right in that the author is advocating that idigenous people should be allowed to drown their sorrows in drink, because the government won't help them? Although I think I understand where the author is coming from, that part of the article could have done with rephrasing.

You know, I had to move interstate to find work. I was uprooted from my family, friends and community.

The reality was that there was no prospect for me to pursue my career in the place of my birth, where all my friends and family still lived, where my ancestors had lived for generations. No-one was going to offer me a subsidised government job, so I could remain 'in-country'.

Generations before, my ancestors had uprooted themselves from countries that had been their homes for centuries, if not millennia.
Remind me to lodge my application for compensation from France: my people are still living with the consequences of the Normans robbing them of their land.

Yes, I'm being somewhat disingenuous; but at some point I think people - at all levels - need to stop casting around for someone to blame, and take responsibility for their own destiny.

Surely one of the worst articles ever written on indigenous issues. These inner-city latte drinking 'political' aboriginals do so much damage to the aboriginal cause.

JDB you need to graduate uni then spend a few years out bush before you comment on indigenous issues.

And as a side note, you need to research the concept of the nation. As a starter: many historians put the birth of the nation down to the French revolution. With the abolution of absolutism, it signalled the end of the medieval world order. A new political entity was born centered on the people. It was born in the furnace of revolution and the desperation of invasion by foreign monarchists. This is not quite what was happening in Australia with aboriginals.

Perhaps, when you finish your undergrad degree in stupidity you might consider one in history.