Once again the 'progressives" on Australia feel let down because they soaked up all the spin, all the words of a Labor leader once again expecting something to happen because of the big symbolic event - The Apology.

PM Rudd used the apology as a political tool, not because he believed in it, it was just a childish in your face exercise to humiliate the opposition.
Once it was done, it was done and no further capitol could be made of it.

His own staff did the infamous "turning of the back" on Brendan Nelson, and all the sycophants followed suit - what a giggle eh, that's real leadership that is. Statesman like, that's the kind of thing we want the world to see, the world we expect should follow suit when we do anything,(we're soooo important) wait till they see PM Rudd do the ETS thing .. oh wait.

No leadership, no depth, no commitment, that's exactly what conservatives said would happen. I'm not happy about being right this time, I didn't and don't agree with the reason for the apology, but I'm disappointed because it was divisive and not the nation building exercise it was touted as. It could have helped a whole lot of people get over what they had been told was their problem.

Mind you, ALP voters probably all voted for more of the same from the ALP, let's hope they get more of what they voted for eh.

Perhaps conservatives differ from progressives because we actually judge the actions of leaders, not just the words and the spin.

Interesting article in yesterday's SMH by Hugh Jackman along the lines that economic development, not empty gestures might be the key to solving 3rd world poverty. To quote:

History has shown development is possible, but not inevitable. Our challenge in the developed world is to help people to be more productively involved in the economy, to raise themselves out of poverty, and achieve a life with choices for their children - all without handouts. From what I have seen, economic development projects do work. They are the best answer to one of the biggest social issues of our time.

Makes you think don't it? Maybe we need more Noel Pearsons on the job?

Wesley Aird has an interesting article in today's Australian - for those who would never read the Australian, it can be found here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/rhetoric-shades-tangible-plans/story-e6frg6zo-1225914993390

His article provokes the question: does the Left want to 'Close the Gap', or 'Maintain the Gap' ?

As Mr Aird writes, the vast majority of Indigenous people - his figure is 85 % - live near enough to towns and cities to seek work. At the last Census, around 45 % of ther Indigenous peopulation lived in metropolitan or large urban areas. Currently, more than 25,000 - one in every ten adults - are university graduates. 50,000 - one in six adults - by 2020.

I have to ask the Greens, for whom I've been handing out election material for ten years now: 'Do you envisage the rightful place for Aboriginal people to be standing on one leg, in a loincloth, spear in one hand, boomerang in the other, in some remote and inglorious spot ?'

I think Noel Pearson is right - the Coalition has more progressive policies in Indigenous affairs than Labor or the Greens.

And that thought disgusts me.

Yes Loudmouth, I agree, the irony is stunning.

A good and timely article from Alan Austin. I agree that Indigenous issues have been woefully neglected by Australian goverments of both persuasions of late.

<< The Greens, while having a strong platform on paper, have raised with the leaders of the major parties only the symbolic matter of recognising Aborigines in the Constitution. >>

I think it's a bit premature to criticise the Greens at this stage. As you say, they have a comprehensive set of policies that address most, if not all, of the concerns you raise. At least they secured agreement from Labor for recognition in the Constitution, while I imagine that more pressure will be brought to bear once the new Senators enter parliament next year. The full set of policies on Indigenous Australians are to be found here:

http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples

Joe/Loudmouth - you are kidding, aren't you? In what area/s is Coalition policy concerning Indigenous Australians better than that of the Greens?

Excellent to hear Noel Pearson again being a voice of reason for the aboriginals. Don't you love it. Mt Pearson says

'ABORIGINAL leader Noel Pearson has urged key independent Rob Oakeshott to back Tony Abbott, describing the Liberal leader as a "once-in-a-generation" conservative who could lead the way on reconciliation.'

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/greens-alliance-threatens-aboriginal-wellbeing-pearson/story-e6frg6nf-122591502620

Thanks for taking the time, CJ - Wild Rivers legislation, the Intervention, substance over symbolism, OPAL - just a few.

Especially because the Coalition (backed up by the Independents) might attend to substantive issues over symbolic gestures - I'm sick and tired of symbolism, you can't eat it, it doesn't fix up a leaking tap or help your kids get a job.

Symbolism tied to substance - yes ! And, while I'll probably never vote Liberal, I suspect that they will be more likely to put their money where their mouth is.

CJ, I really think we all have to think very hard about where Indigenous policy, and Indigenous affairs, are going. We have to consider whether we have relied on panaceas, and silver bullets, for too long, and that we need to do more than re-cycle the same dreary policies over and over, like has been done for forty years now.

It's a different reality now from 1972: most Indigenous people live in urban areas and are not likely to go back to the bush (much as the Greens seem to wish it were so). There are now more Indigenous graduates and university students than all the Indigenous adults in the NT put together (and the Greens cannot understand THAT reality - of course, neither can the Indigenous elites, but that's another story).

We have to ask: what is moving, and what is dead in the water ? What policies have stuffed up Indigenous people and what has worked - even if the answers don't fit in with our ideologies and paradigms.

And I fear that the Greens are on the wrong side of that debate.

Joe

The 1967 referendum decision was to STOP Commonwealth and State racism, to stop them from qualifying the rights and responsibilities of fellow Australians using racial identification as the measure.

The 1967 referenda was NOT to widen opportunities for Commonwealth to continue, to widen, its own racist policies.

Arguing for rights, responsibilities to be qualified by racial identification/testing IS racism.

Our choice is either support racism or reject racism.

IMHO correctly, most Australians reject racism.

Compensating victims injured by prior denial of rights or responsibilities does NOT require same injuring behavior continue !

Loudest voices heard are those seeking rights and responsibilities qualified by racial measurement, because it suits them.

Many short memories, failing to learn from history.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) 1976 Act has given ownership, title, of large NT land areas to corporations.

ALR(NT) recognized "Traditional Owners" as shareholders in these Land Trusts, with no special rights - other than a right to stand somewhere upon the ground - when not denied this.

For long time the Commonwealth and NTG using public monies constructed houses on these lands without secure titles.

Those houses are owned by the Land Trusts - unless the Commonwealth and NTG arrange to remove them with Land Trust permission.

ALR(NT) recognized "Traditional Owners" are denied valid leases to what they thought were their homes, denied valid leases by these Land Trusts.

Apprehended Violence Orders can NOT be obtained in court to order others away from your home and furniture because you do NOT possess required proof of right to exclude others - a valid lease.

Aboriginal Land Rights (NT) 1976 Act gave management agency responsibility for these large areas of the NT to other Commonwealth corporate identities - the various Land Councils.

Management decisions of these Land Trusts - are subject to instructions from these agent Land Councils.

To date most people in NT communities are still denied valid leases to their homes by these agencies.

polpak,
very disturbing what you say but somehow typical.

Amicus,
Neither side of politics has achieved anything, the left uses symbolic gestures and no action while the right gives action that violates rights, shows no respect nor understanding of culture and achieves nothing. The intervention for all respects is as bigger disaster as the batt's scheme. Pity there isn't the same level of outrage in the community over that.

In the end you can only conclude that no one achieves anything on aboriginal affairs because they have no idea what to do. Maybe they should listen more and do what is needed despite the cost and the possibility that it may go against what we have set in our minds as the right and proper outcome. What that is i don't know but we never will if we don't ask.

Hi Runner,

Your linked article of Noel Pearson in the Austalian isn't working. Yes, Mr Pearson is great - thank God he's around. And I know Tony Abbott does a lot of voluntary work within the indigenous community amongst other voluntary work. He is a man of action and puts money where his mouth is.

I am very saddened Labour got in. And am very worried about this odd Gillard. Another lying lawyer with limited experience in life it seems to me.

Cheers,

Just a quick update to the claim in the article that “none of the four all-powerful independent members of the lower house has listed reform in this area among their demands”.
It has now emerged that Rob Oakeshott’s parliamentary reform proposals include an acknowledgment of country prior to prayers on each sitting day. As Oakeshott negotiated this deal with both major parties it is not clear exactly who instigated it. Though we can be pretty sure from Tony Abbott’s ‘tokenism’ comments it wasn’t him. But both sides have now agreed to it.
The other addendum is that Bob Katter sought individual title deeds to homes and businesses to replace native title. He also wanted Aboriginal housing built only by indigenous labour. These are academic now Katter has sided with the Coalition.

Nairbe,

The thing is that Indigenous people, particularly in the cities, are doing it for themselves: there will be a total of about 26,000 Indigenous university graduates by the end of this year, about 1500 this year alone - four a day. They are not sitting around waiting for Lord or Lady Bountiful to drop their welfare blessings on them, they are up and doing. Maybe people in the remote communities are sitting around like stunned mullets, but many people in the cities are taking their own destinies in their own hands - and that may take some getting used to, for all those white destiny-deciders.

Agency and how to enable it, how to get people up on their own two feet and making their own decisions - that's the issue.

Oh, and the Indigenous community is on track for 50,000 university graduates by 2020. And they're not asking for your permission either.

Joe

Joe, the number of graduates is impressive and a credit to those who have pushed the barriers aside, as well as to the graduates themselves. So thanks for these observations. But a couple of questions for you (and anyone else):

How many of these tertiary students came from city families who gave up or were forcibly removed from their traditional country years ago?

Should Aboriginal people have the right to continue a largely traditional lifestyle on tribal lands with the adoption of ‘white’ values and options to the extent they choose?

What should be done to give children in traditional communities a fair shot at a good education?

If the issue is "how to get people up on their own two feet and making their own decisions" do you support the Greens and Labor policy of an Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander elected body like ATSIC?

What should be done to give children in traditional communities a fair shot at a good education?
Alan Austin,
Just for once can we stop forcing people to have to do what we want ? Let people make up their own mind. They know that academic education is not available in certain places. If they'd want it they'd go & seek it. All this education waffle is well & good if there is employment at the end of it. But there isn't is there ? look what Hawke's clever country achieved ? Absolutely nothing, on the contrary. We now have academic ignoramuses running around indigenous communities like chooks with their heads cut off & stirring everyone up. These mutts cost the taxpayer a fortune just to dream up useless schemes that cost the taxpayer even more. Yes we do need education but it has to have a degree of pragmatism. Education just for education's sake only gives us what we have now, a great many confused people with no idea where they're heading & dragging everyone down the drain with them. A mechanic or a plumber or a carpenter can keep a community going, an academic can't. So, which is of more use ? Education is not about creating intelligence it's about harnessing & putting intelligence to use for the common good. In the past few decades all we got out of education is two generations of people who can't contribute to their own existence & expect everyone else to feel responsible.Is this Education ? No.! Force-fed mindlessness ? Yes !

Joe,
Great numbers on education, maybe i am not so correct and for the last generation things are moving. Perhaps we are simply expecting to much to quick and the change comes generationally and in another 30 years there will be much stronger outcome as the next generation of uni graduates come through.

Individual,
I take it that you refer to tertiary education. If that is so i very much agree, we have far to many uni degrees and no where near the trades people that we need. more practical action and less brilliant ideas that amount to nothing would be appreciated.

nairbe "The intervention for all respects is as bigger disaster as the batt's scheme. Pity there isn't the same level of outrage in the community over that."

The Coalition hasn't been running the intervention since November 2007 .. if it's now a disaster, I suggest parking at the ALP's door, not the coalition.

I agree, why is there no outrage about it? If the coalition was running it and it was a disaster, we'd all know about it - but because it's the ALP, it's evidently OK for it to be a disaster. Mind you, among all their other disasters it probably doesn't rate .. except when you think of all the rhetoric about what they were going to do, and haven't done.

Then again, ALP voters seem to love the symbolism don't they .. and someone actually doing something, like the intervention is what .. you seem to think it's still being run by the coalition, such is the level of knowledge of ALP voters .. or such is the spin, you think it's still being done by PM Howard.

Do you remember why it was done? To improve child health and safety was a m major reason .. how's that going? Why don't we hear .. because it is a success? You're the first person I've heard mention it for ages .. the ALP have sure buried it haven't they.

If there is a human rights issue, again, go ask the ALP.

Alan, thanks for your questions; I'll try to offer answers to each of them:

<How many of these tertiary students came from city families who gave up or were forcibly removed from their traditional country years ago?>

- You might be aware that, although Indigenous people were dispossessed 150-200 years ago in the settled parts of Australia, they were still not allowed to live in urban areas until well after the Second World War. But many people broke out of missions and dispersed across rural towns in the forties and fifties and sixties, and from there people moved to the larger towns and cities where opportunities were better for their kids. So close to half of all Indigenous people now live in Australia's cities, and this has been going on for up to three generations or more.

Universities tend to be based in the cities. So, no surprise ! Indigenous university students and graduates tend to come from the cities. In the eighties, the first major boom in Indigenous student numbers, a much higher proportion of students came from country towns - but even then, very few came directly from communities.

<Should Aboriginal people have the right to continue a largely traditional lifestyle on tribal lands with the adoption of ‘white’ values and options to the extent they choose?>

- Of course, whatever 'a largely traditional lifestyle' might mean in the context of welfare and royalty incomes, Toyotas and half-million-dollar homes. Are people actually living 'a largely traditional lifestyle'? I don't know, I don't think so.

<What should be done to give children in traditional communities a fair shot at a good education?>

I would take Individual's advice on this. I'm not sure what he means by 'academics' (university graduates ? university lecturers ?) but he seems to be critiquing the b*llsh*t TAFE courses foisted on Indigenous people in communities, the rubbish Certificates which have got people nowhere, under the guise of 'Aboriginal TAFE'.

[TBC]

Alan,

Another 'representative body' ? Was the last one a major driver of innovation and opportunity and a beacon of light and prosperity, or was it a crock, memorable for its innovative combination of incompetence and corruption ?

We now have an MP in the Lower House, and articulate and outspoken leaders like Noel Pearson, Warren Mundine and Wesley Aird. Indigenous issues are likely to be prominent in this new government's thinking, if only because Noel and others will keep them honest. Meanwhile, dead silence from the newly-appointed Council of Indigenous Whatever: quieter than a fifth wheel, only less useful.

Yes, voluntary organisations can spring up any time, anywhere, nothing is stopping Indigenous people from initiating their own associations, but appointing some bunch of elites to roll around in a $ 128 million bucket of money and big-note each other ? Really ?

Nairbe, 'expecting too much too quickly' ?! No, higher education is one area in which Indigenous people ARE moving quickly, and not asking your permission either - given that 30 % of the Indigenous population is illiterate (Prof. Michael Dodson), the university participation of LITERATE Indigenous people is close to parity. Indigenous women are commencing university study at a better rate than Australian non-Indigenous men. Commencement (4600) and enrolment (10,000) numbers break new records every year.

These are not just mindless numbers: the current 25-26,000 graduates are individuals with families, relations, and friends, and with influence in their work-places. They have graduated across the entire spectrum of tertiary study - you name it, there's already graduates. By 2020, by which time graduate numbers could double to 50,000, these graduates will be in regular contact with a couple of hundred thousand other Indigenous people and their families. By 2034, the graduate numbers could double again. Of course, by that time, 80-90 % of the Indigenous population will be urban, perhaps 70 % metropolitan.

This isn't some one-off 'that's nice' moment: it's forever. The people are doing it, and they are not waiting for 'progressive' whites to get their heads around it. They are leading, not following.

Joe

Amicus,
I will choose to believe that you have simply assumed far too much by your response. Yes the intervention was continued by the labor gov and continues to be useless. I haven't noted any reports indicating the success of the intervention. It has most likely gone under the radar because labor have had so many other disasters that it has been forgotten.
It would appear that everyone tries something but no one has success, so i revert back to what i said in my first post on this subject.

Thanks, Individual, for your response to my question 3. Is it fair to deduce from this that you would say yes to question 4?

Joe, you ask “Another 'representative body' ? Was the last one a major driver of innovation and opportunity and a beacon of light and prosperity, or was it a crock, memorable for its innovative combination of incompetence and corruption?” Fair question.

Perhaps it was neither and perhaps it was both. At the outset it certainly seemed a beacon of hope. At the end it seemed a shambles. But was it given a fair go after 1996 when the parties opposed to Aboriginal self-determination took government? That is a matter of divided opinion. Some, like DR H C Coombs, claim ATSIC was never given a fair go, not even by the Hawke-Keating government that put it in place at such great cost.

Some years ago a native American elder visited Australia and was interviewed on (I think) ABC’s Life Matters. She claimed that it took 80 years for her tribal representative body to gain the confidence and competence to manage its affairs effectively.

So the question can be asked whether, given Australia’s history, was it fair to abandon this tentative attempt at self-determination so soon? Or should genuine consultations have been undertaken towards getting ATSIC right? Currently, does the newly-appointed Council of Indigenous Whatever have the authority and responsibility needed for it to achieve Aboriginal aspirations?

From the contact I have had with remote communities as well as urban Aborigines, I think these are key questions.

Nairbe, is this in accord with your first post?

Thanks for your question, Alan,

How do issues get articulated, and promoted ? People feel a need, perhaps a dire need, and they come together to find ways to resolve those needs, they may form groups, associations, organisations, to promote solutions to those issues. Pretty quickly, they would find other groups with similar concerns, and so they would co-ordinate their activities to pressure relevant bodies, perhaps governments, to resolve inequities or right wrongs.

That's what I thought might happen back in the early seventies, when representative bodies were proposed for Indigenous people - that local bodies, and then regional bodies, would be organised and set up first, then state bodies and a federal body, by whatever name, it diddn't matter. Issues and mobilisation would come from the people themselves, so I thought. The point was that issues and concerns had to come from the grassroots UP, not from some government-appointed, lap-dog body DOWN. Still, dependence on government initiative ruled, so that's what happened, and now that's all water under the bridge. The NACC, the NAC, ATSIC - almost forty years of irrelevance.

Do we do it all over again ? Do we set up yet another bunch of grasping careerists, with 10 % local support, and give them a huge budget and little responsibility ? Perhaps, even put on some sham elections and call it representative ?

Sorry, Alan, life's too short.

Joe

Is it fair to deduce from this that you would say yes to question 4?
Alan Austin,
Australians still haven't grasped that whatever program or policy they introduce re indigenous matters will prove no better than what has already been tried. The crux of this dilemma is that people need to leave other people to make decisions for themselves. If they stuff up then so be it. If they succeed then great ! But we must refrain from this perpetual we know better attitude by academia & bureaucracy. Of course people have great ideas which work absolutely fine, for them ! They might not appeal to people who do not wish to live a similar life style. How can we ever achieve a harmonious society when one group keeps dictating to the other. At the same time we can't continue to pander to those who can't make up their mind & constantly bite the hand that feeds them. I am going through a process at work for the sixth time in 25 years where new management has done full circle to all the policies which have failed so miserably in the past, yet they're implementing them again & again. I'm talking about fairly educated people in policy making who simply can not see that they're destroying one indigenous community after another by their arrogant come ignorant attitude of "we know better" after having been in a community for 3 months with the prospect of lasting maybe 15 months. City folk will never comprehend country mentality & vice versa. Let city people make decisions for city people & country people for country people. That way we might have a small chance of getting somewhere instead of perpetuating misery.

So, Individual, is that a yes or a no to question 4? I am genuinely interested in this, not just being provocative.

And I completely agree with your observations about the disconnect between city and country. Totally. (In case it is relevant, I am a boy from country Victoria who lived in Melbourne for a while, but with a light aircraft licence has visited about 90 Aboriginal communities fairly regularly since 1975.)

Joe, I almost wept when I read your post: "Do we do it all over again? Do we set up yet another bunch of grasping careerists, with 10% local support, and give them a huge budget and little responsibility? Perhaps, even put on some sham elections and call it representative? Sorry, Alan, life's too short."

Because history is absolutely your side, Joe, as Individual affirms. But aren't there other possibilities? Surely it is possible with the benefit of the experience of ATSIC circa 1996 to replace the current dysfunctional unrepresentative administration (which has 1% support) with a revamped elected body. But this time give it a fair go. Maybe not the 80 years of the native Americans, but at least 40.

Researchers who have lived their entire adult lives with Aboriginal people, such as Richard Trudgeon, say this is the only hope.

Thanks for your input, Alan, I don't have any crystal ball, but I did say

<How do issues get articulated, and promoted ? People feel a need, perhaps a dire need, and they come together to find ways to resolve those needs, they may form groups, associations, organisations, to promote solutions to those issues. Pretty quickly, they would find other groups with similar concerns, and so they would co-ordinate their activities to pressure relevant bodies, perhaps governments, to resolve inequities or right wrongs.

<That's what I thought might happen back in the early seventies, when representative bodies were proposed for Indigenous people - that local bodies, and then regional bodies, would be organised and set up first, then state bodies and a federal body, by whatever name, it diddn't matter. Issues and mobilisation would come from the people themselves, so I thought. The point was that issues and concerns had to come from the grassroots UP, not from some government-appointed, lap-dog body DOWN.>

Yes, of course there are other options besides the tried and failed ones that, as Individual says, get re-cycled over and over again, simply because people can't think of what else to do. Organising voluntary bodies, independent of government funding, seems to have worked for other ethnic groups, Vietnamese, Dutch, Maltese, the various Greek communities, so why not for Indigenous people ? The initiative should be with them alone.

Forty years is a working life-time, Alan. How many of those do you have ?

Meanwhile, the Indigenous population inexorably moves to the towns and cities. Inexorably, the numbers of tradespeople and university graduates build up, and their influence, one would hope, becomes greater. What might be the outcome of those two processes is for Indigenous people as a whole to decide and I am full of hope for the next couple of decades. And yes, for the next forty years. People have agency, they are not passive victims, and their future should be in their hands.

Joe

@Loudmouth
Pt. 1.
Firstly I'd question your claim to support the Greens while spouting the typical Conservative rhetoric & posting links to Aboriginal neo-con opinion pieces.

If you actually knew anything about the Greens, you would know that it's their Senators & leaders who, with drastically less resources, actually bothered to rock up to Indigenous community based events & rallies dedicated (not to the almighty dollar) but to the protection of rights most other Aussies fully enjoy without them being infringed upon.

"..Of course, whatever 'a largely traditional lifestyle' might mean in the context of welfare and royalty incomes, Toyotas and half-million-dollar homes. Are people actually living 'a largely traditional lifestyle'? I don't know, I don't think so..."

It is the governments who implement & defend strategies that do bugger all (if anything) to achieve better employment outcomes on communities, quell the welfare trap or refuse to support local organisations adequately. Being drip fed doesn't give you a chance to thrive, but means you're lucky if you survive!

I take offence to your accusations about defining 'traditional lifestyles' & questioning what Indigenous peoples do with private royalty payments (that is compensation for them & nothing to do with you!).

Traditional lifestyles have been maintained as best they can, in the face of oppression ,institutionalisation... virtual cultural genocide forcing us (sometimes) to relocate time & time again, drop our heritage to be Anglicized, constantly being torn between two cultures/societies only to then have mud slung in our face accusing us (on 1 hand) of not being black enough (while on the other hand & with a big stick) being corralled into the mainstream...

Pt. 2
Since every Tom, Dick & Kardiya Wajalla seems to be an expert Indigenous adviser, here's some tips from the other side... Find out what it is you really expect from Indigenous Australia & ask yourself if that is what's happening (&/or why not)? Secondly, ask yourself if we do actually get equality in service delivery/infrastructure in comparison to other Aussie communities?... Were the (no offence) bushfire ravaged communities declared 'unviable' after the devastation that took place, I think not. There seems to be inconsistency (if not hypocrisy) when it comes to us blackfellas, so while I am well aware how much work needs to be done from both blackfellas & non-Indigenous camps, it is bleeding obvious where all the fingers are pointing...

PS. So how much 1st Aussie cultural heritage were you forced to learn at school or have volunteered to research, not much it looks like!

Kele mwerre, arregenenge!
Dibirdi Gumerungi Bunbajee, Berradkiah-Gununa
(Where the White Doves Fly).

Thanks for the serve, Bunbadgee :) You're right, people can do what they like with their royalty payments, and spend their welfare payments as they wish just like other people; they can live in houses and drive Toyotas - but whether all of that fits in with a traditional lifestyle is questionable. I guess I assume that 'traditional lifesyle' includes a traditional economy, living from hunting and gathering and, as you say, people can't or don't do that much any more. So I'll stick by what I wrote.

How much did I learn at school back in the fifties ? Not much, but at my school, the houses all had Aboriginal names: Wandoo, Nardoo, Mulga and Wilga. We listened to Harold Blair and learnt about how astute Sturt was to respect and follow tribal boundaries, and so on. I hope kids therse days learn a great deal more.

Volunteered research, etc.? My wife Maria was Indigenous, my kids are Indigenous, we lived for years in one community and the best part of a year in another. Through the seventies, we made Aboriginal flags after work and sent them around the country, free (probably the first one you ever saw was one of ours). Maria opened up a pre-school in one community where I set up a vegetable garden. We found, re-typed and circulated the birth, death, marriage and school records of my wife's community, and constructed genealogies - and clan affiliations - of most of the families there, and circulated them. We typed up the 600-page journal of the first missionary there, and the 1000-page letter-books of the superintendents. We studied the annual reports of the AFA from the 1860s through to the 1960s. We drafted a history of education at that community. I researched the income and employment conditions at another community. Between us, we worked for forty years in Indigenous tertiary student support.

Sorry, Bunbadgee, I don't speak Arrentye, only some Ngarrindjeri: we put together a 120-page grammar and vocabulary of the language too, come to think of it.

Joe

Thanks for this, Bunbadgee. Agree that traditional lifestyles have continued “in the face of oppression , institutionalisation ... virtual cultural genocide forcing us (sometimes) to relocate time and time again, drop our heritage to be Anglicized, constantly being torn between two cultures …” It has been a privilege to have visited traditional people both in Arnhem Land and Central Australia who have copped all this yet still retain powerful stories, art, music, language and lore.

Joe and I have been discussing replacing the current state and federal government Aboriginal departments with an elected Indigenous body – like ATSIC but set up properly by Indigenous people themselves, not foisted on them.

There is an argument that this is necessary, though by no means sufficient, to restore confidence and hope. This argument has won me. What do you reckon?

For what it's worth, Bunbadgee, I have thought of myself as being on the Left from birth, coming from a CPA family. But for the past fifty years, I've tried to think for myself and not just mindlessly go along with whatever passes for left-wing du jour. So I don't have any trouble asking the question again:

<does the Left want to 'Close the Gap', or 'Maintain the Gap' ?>

Ask your friends: if you get a straight answer, you might be disagreeably surprised :)

You might then want to ask another question:

<who are the real conservatives these days ?>

Joe Lane
Adelaide

Alan austin,
apologies for not answering your 4th point, had to dash off to work. I, as does Joe, do not wish to see yet another indigenous department (white bureaucrats slush fund) like those mentioned by Joe. We're led to believe that there are many indigenous people who are more than qualified & capable to lead their people within a western society. Offer them to go to communities & do the work that is presently being done by non-indigenous. Let's see how many are willing to take up these offers & then we can all start planning. In the meantime we can just move on with just being australian. One other way of putting a stop to the exploitation is to introduce fuel & freight subsidies so Governments don't have to pay the outrageous remote area incentive allowances etc. Once we get rid of that insidious carrott only people who WANT to go to communities will go there & become part of the community rather than 18 months career bureaucrats with no interest whatsoever in living in these communities. Take away the Dollar & you take away the problem. No need for yet another Department.

Hi Alan,

You wrote that: <Joe and I have been discussing replacing the current state and federal government Aboriginal departments with an elected Indigenous body – like ATSIC but set up properly by Indigenous people themselves, not foisted on them.>

Actually, I wouldn't go along with that: governments have their roles and responsibilities towards Indigenous people, just as they have for all Australians and they should be held to account for those responsibilities without trying to pass the buck to some other body.

This is not Apartheid South Africa where groups could be excluded on the pretext of having 'their own' bureaucracies and administrations.

Much as many of the Aboriginal elite would love to be big frogs in little ponds, ruling over a captive population and with a bottomless bucket of other people's money, surely what the history of the past forty or so years has shown is how irrelevant and unnecessary such bodies have been in the lives of Indigenous people. The elites may have their Grand Plans but I don't think ordinary people want a bar of any of it. They just want to be left alone to get on with the business of life.

I am curious about why Indigenous Australians are supposed to live in 'traditional' ways before the self-apointed non-Indigenous adjudicators will accept that they are 'real' Indigenous Australians.

If the same standards were to be applied across the board that might be ok - If the non-Indigenous people were prepared to go back to living like their mob did prior to 1770 before they were classed as 'legitimate' people, we would have no problems.

However, many people who do live in flash ($500,000) houses, and you don't get a very flash house for that price these days, and drive Toyotas or Holdens etc, still do live in very traditional ways. Just because people are able to function to a high level in the mainstream society does not mean that their worldview, culture and philosophy needs to match that of the non-indigenous society.

I doubt if many non-Indigenous people could function at a reasonable level if forced to live within an Indigenous worldview and cultural expectations and responsibilities.

Bunbadgee, I agree that 'tradional lifestyles' have been maintained as best we can, and I would like to point out that Indigenous people are intellegent and adaptable, so what people see is the adaptation of traditional lifestyle so that it can be maintained alonside traditional philosophy in the current age.

Aka,

I'm amazed that you can write:

<I am curious about why Indigenous Australians are supposed to live in 'traditional' ways before the self-apointed non-Indigenous adjudicators will accept that they are 'real' Indigenous Australians.>

Says who ? Who 'demands' such a condition on identity ? Are you imposing it yourself - i.e. are you equating 'real' Indigenous Australians with 'traditional' ways, and thereby disqualifying people who do not live in 'traditional' ways ? I certainly am not: in fact, I don't know all that many Indigenous people who are living in anything remotely like a 'traditional' way, yet I take for granted that the Indigenous people that I know are Indigenous. Their 'degree of traditional ways' frankly means nothing to me: they are Indigenous, they have been through the Indigenous experience and cope with the legacies of past policies ranged against Indigenous people, their relations and histories are Indigenous, so regardless of whatever degree of traditional culture they may practice, they are Indigenous. Try to tell them otherwise ;)

So who is equating one with the other, 'real' Indigenous people and people living in 'traditional ways' ? Is there a mote in thine own eye, Aka ? Do YOU regard Indigenous people who do not practice any traditional ways as Indigenous ? Are YOU prepared to try to tell them otherwise ?

Just asking :)

Joe

Joe, Indi and Aka, thanks again for these comments. But the key question seems not to be so much about traditional lifestyle versus adaptation of western values. Rather, are those communities and families which choose to continue their traditional stories, art, music, language and lore being allowed to, or are these aspirations being thwarted by the management of Indigenous affairs currently being imposed?

John Howard memorably said in 2007 about Indigenous people: “Their future can only be as part of the mainstream of the Australian community.” Then, with the NT Intervention, he completed the process of destroying the foundations of indigenous aspirations other than being subsumed into the dominant white culture.

Howard's philosophy and actions were summarised here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/08/30/howard-signals-the-end-of-a-distinct-aboriginal-identity/

The questions raised by this week’s article is whether or not Howard’s policies are continuing, and whether this is a good thing. The related question seldom asked is: Is there any real hope of closing any of the glaring gaps while the Howard agenda remains in place? What do you think?

I certainly don't think that it is as black and white, as either/or, as you do, Alan, with respect: Identity may coexist with aspects of traditional life, of course, but it's not identical to it. One can be Indigenous without being traditional, or adhering to any particular set of cultural practices. Urban people still are Indigenous - try telling them otherwise.

After all, down here around Adelaide, many groups stopped carrying out ceremonies, initiating young people, visiting clan lands and relying on hunting and gathering in pre-European ways, in the mid- to later part of the nineteenth century. With greater Indigenous mobility after the Invasion/Settlement, people married into and between groups and settled at missions with much greater diversity, so that from 1860 or earlier, as missions were set up, children often already could not speak the language of that region: when Rev. George Taplin was appointed to set up Pt McLeay mission, the first thing he did, and for weeks, was to learn the language. When he set up the school, he tried to teach in the local language but found quickly that many children could not speak it, so after four years trying, he went back to English which they all understood.

By 1900, very few children were learning the full language (the last person who could speak the full language was born around 1881), the last young men had been initiated twenty years earlier (and that, in a very abbreviated form) and people had started to forget where their particular clan lands were.

With European-style land-use dominating the landscape and the economy, only the older people were still relying on fishing, hunting and food-gathering - ironically, helped along by free equipment from the Protector. Sorry, that's how it was: if people chose to live on the Murray river, the Protector provided them with a free tent, rifle or shotgun, 15-ft canoe, and annual supplies of blankets, fishing lines, hooks, etc. Rifles and shotguns were repaired free. Sorry, I know that does not fit in with the stereotype of history, but there you go.

[TBC]

Joe

[Cont.]

Of course, people are trying to recover, or revive, or resurrect, traditional cultural practices, particularly art, music and language. But those who are not particularly interested are not any less Indigenous for that. It certainly is not the business of any non-Indigenous people to judge them - Aka, you're right there.

But the point is that a person is not any less Indigenous if he or she does not have much, or any, traditional knowledge. That's a bit difficult, after all, if people have been dispersed away from their land, and from each other, and if it has become impossible to live in traditional ways, or if 'modern' ways have been preferred: it can happen. But people also have access to a wealth of historical knowledge, social knowledge, from parents and grandparents and relations, from books and the media and many other sources.

So yes, on the one hand, culture can 'make' people (and in turn, is shaped and changed by people) - but also history can 'make' people. You can't merely adopt somebody else's history, or memories, or family stories, and usually you can't simply drop your own. People are shaped by both their culture and their history (and, of course, by each other). People may have been separated from their land, but they have not necessarily been separated from each other, or from their shared history, which in turn has to be continually learnt and up-dated.

And surely those factors, and their implied choices, are for Indigenous people to evaluate. It's for Indigenous people to decide who is, what makes people, and what does it mean to be, Indigenous. That's called empowerment, self-determination, agency :)

Joe

What is with your attitude Joe? Does it bug you that I can not only write, I can think and use a computer?

This talk about 'traditional' bugs me. Believe me, the use of others' interpretation of what is traditional, and the challenging of indigeniety is so annoyingly common. On things like hunting, there is a common call that only 'traditional methods' and tools should be used - that is precolonisation era tools and methods.

Would the same questions be asked if you decided to live a 'traditional' lifestyle of 250 years ago? People may think you were nuts, or a hippy, but they would let you do your own thing. Would anyone bag you for driving a toyota?

I realise from your posts that you consider yourself something of an expert on Indigenous issues, but in your haste to air your knowledge you forget that SA had a somewhat different colonisation history from the rest of Australia.

You think its fine to crow about the number of Indigenous graduates, yet you slag off at those who have achieved,referring to these people as elites. Sure not everyone is altruistic but why should they be? Your double standards and snide remarks say more about yourself than about the point you are trying to make.

It is intersting that while you are happy to play the expert role, you become quite nasty if an Indigenous person dares make a comment on this forum.

choose to continue their traditional stories, art, music, language and lore being allowed to, or are these aspirations being thwarted by the management of Indigenous affairs currently being imposed?
Alan Austin,
It is close to impossible to live a traditional lifestyle nowadays. Where could they practice that ? There's no land left to do that. Art, music etc is not thwarted by indigenous affairs, it is already hijacked by Raggae & electronic music. What we got to accept is the fact that everything has been altered including the mindset. Not having a traditional lifestyle anymore is not only due to the choice having been eroded but it is also by choice of the indigenous themselves. It does come in as a very convenient point of argument (excuse) but that's about all. I couldn't imagine an indigenous family giving up a 5 bedroom house in favour of a gunyah. No-one would want that. So far as culture is concerned it is up to the indigenous themselves to perpetuate it. No government grant can realistically do anything positive towards that. There are many examples throughout the world of displaced people retaining their culture & at times even make it stronger. As I said it's up to the people which path they want to take. One can accept the argument of people having been displaced & disowned but culture can not be erased if it is considered worthwhile.

Would the same questions be asked if you decided to live a 'traditional' lifestyle of 250 years ago? People may think you were nuts, or a hippy, but they would let you do your own thing. Would anyone bag you for driving a toyota?
Aka,
that just about sums it up, yep !

Not sure if there were all that many Toyotas around 1250 years ago, Aka/Individual ;) Apart from that, I'm a bit too thick to understand what you are getting at.

I apologise if I wrote anything nasty, Aka: can you tell we what, exactly ?

And, with respect, you were the one who raised the straw man argument about 'traditional' ways and identity: I don't have the slightest trouble with the notion of Indigenous people not living in 'traditional' ways, and still being Indigenous: what else are they supposed to be ?

I don't know much, but what I've learnt, after 40 years of involvement, shapes what I have come to believe. It's bound to be localised, distorted and particular, but that's how one's knowledge usually is. I've learnt what I've learnt, warts and all, and limited as it is. I wouldn't claim to know anything about the Torres Strait Islands, for example, or desert settlements. So I know that what I write may not relate to them, and usually make that as clear as I can.

About 'elites': the vast majority of the 25,000 graduates work and contribute and are making a difference. But some, and not only graduates, seize positions, big-note themselves, crush and expel anybody who is not 'loyal' to them and their bunch of cronies, and generally stuff up whatever organisation they can control, to the point where it is no longer doing anything useful. Perhaps you have experience of these sorts of situations ?

So as far as I am concerned, the more graduates the better, because diminishing the influence of these blow-flies can only be good for Indigenous people as a whole, in my snide view. Thankfully, tertiary education has been a mass enterprise, not an elite pursuit, for some time, and will be much more so towards 2020. Those wonderful masses of graduates will go a long way towards 'closing the gap' in so many ways, a gap which I have come to believe those corrupt and incompetent elites want to maintain.

I welcome your comments on this, Aka :)

Joe

250 years ago,
Loudmouth,
What it boils down to is that one group constantly raves on about how the european arrival has destroyed some nirvana & the other group constantly raves on about how much the european gives & it is not appreciated/taken advantage of.
250 years means that even if anyone would want to revert to those standards it is not possible because society/regulations won't let anyone do so. Both have valid arguments re the past. Neither have a valid argument re the present & we all have a duty re the future. The indigenous australians' problems are that blame is an easier strategy to obtain funding but that track is leading them to self destruction. (see the last 30 years). The european australian' problem is that they simply are not giving it one thought as to how their imposing attitude hinders the establishing of a cohesive society. (see Public Service). On one side the hand that feeds gets bitten & on the other hand the hand that had to give up got bitten. Meanwhile the bureaucrats are becoming so useless that hopefully they become extinct soon.

Joe, there is nothing you have written with which I disagree. So perhaps I have muddled my essential argument. It has nothing to do with how traditional or otherwise any person chooses to live. No-one is making any value judgments about levels of westernisation, education, urbanisation or integration. Everyone is completely free to choose his or her style and place of life without having their Aboriginality questioned.

My concern is for that minority who wish to continue to incorporate into their mix of western and traditional life much of the old tribal art, stories, music, foods, language and lore.

Indi, there are many places where people still hunt for traditional foods on their clan lands and seas, according to the seasons, with transport and weapons adapted from western innovations - as they have chosen the adaptation.

I am thinking of the communities on Elcho Island and elsewhere in Arnhem Land, at Mornington Island and elsewhere in North Queensland and at Papunya and elsewhere in the central desert. I have visited these places regularly since the mid 1970s and worked for short periods in all of them. Many people want to maintain vestiges of ancestral life on their tribal lands and pass them on to their children.

My argument is that present structures are making such continuation impossible. But there are alternative structures. These will permit continuation of semi-traditional communities without in any way diminishing the rights or choices of other Indigenous groups or individuals.

And, as a bonus, they will lay the foundation for closing the gaps in housing, health, poverty and imprisonment.

they will lay the foundation for closing the gaps in housing, health, poverty and imprisonment.
Alan Austin,
I have put a lot of effort at personal sacrifice into trying to help people achieve this. My conclusion is that all factors required to achieve this have already evaporated. The european australian who is supposed to be the front runner for progress has been on a downhill run of mentality for several decades & we expect the indigenous who were dictated to by those europeans to catch up with the 21st century ? You can not put on a bad show for so long & then expect the audience to be any wiser.
Alan, whilst I appreciate your concerns I'm afraid the chances of success re the indigenous in particular to secure their cultures are very slim indeed. Just look at how so-called cultural events are choreographed in the western style or how even their DNA is changing. Mainly of due to outside influence & unfortunately due to their own attitude as well. This doesn't make them any better or worse than the european, only very similar.

Indi, all your observations are entirely fair. I also have low expectations, as indicated in both the opening and closing sentences of the article.

And yet both the Greens and Labor have self-determination via an elected council as policy. So I am not entirely despairing of the long term future. We can hope there will be a groundswell of pressure for real reform at some time, as has happened in the past.

Meanwhile, continual reminders of the real causes of the many problems may well hasten that day. Thanks for your comments here, Indi. Much appreciated.

But, Alan and Individual, Indigenous people ARE determining their own futures, but as individuals rather than communally (which disappoints my socialist heart, but that's how it is, and you have to work with realities rather than daydreams).

One in every ten adults is already a university graduate and, if TAFE figures tell anything, perhaps another one in every hundred is a tradesperson.

In barely thirty years, Indigenous people have halved the gap in home ownership.

In SA, almost half of all 18-year-olds are enrolling at Year 12 compared to 10 % a decade ago.

Admittedly, nothing much positive seems to be happening in remote settlements, but I live in hope that the examples set by urban people will eventually influence their country cousins.

The bottom line is that progress and prosperity will come to Indigenous people through their own actions, not from some money tree in Canberra, and yet more social workers. And an ATSIC-style body is utterly irrelevant to that process.

The dreadful policies imposed by States on Indigenous people have very long legacies. ENABLING policies which allow people to lift their heads have been implemented in opposition to the legacy of low expectations and restrictions, but it has been people's actions rather than state policy which has worked.

People sometimes have to fight against their own history. But they usually can never forget it, whoever and wherever they may be.

Joe

Thanks again, Joe. But no-one is disputing your education statistics or disapproving of the progress being made by many Indigenous people who have freely chosen to get an advanced education and participate within Australia’s mainstream economy. This is certainly to be welcomed and applauded.

But if one in 10 has a degree, then nine out of ten don't. So do you accept that there are Indigenous people in Arnhem Land, the central deserts and right across Northern Australia who do not share these aspirations, but who want to continue with a blend of westernisation and tribalism which retains what they see as the essence of their Aboriginality?

Do you accept that John Howard wanted all these people to abandon their traditional values and become completely subsumed into the white Australian community?

Have you observed their stern resistance of this, and their insistence that their future on their traditional lands is viable – if the current state and federal administration of ‘Aboriginal affairs’ is changed appropriately?

Are the aspirations of these people worth defending?

Are you familiar with any of the analysis of Richard Trudgeon? http://www.ards.com.au/ww_exec.htm

Understanding the impact of future policies probably depends on which of these points we agree on. So your continuing input is appreciated, Joe. Thanks.

Alan,

<if one in 10 has a degree, then nine out of ten don't>

Forgive me but I find that an appalling thing to write. It denigrates the hard work of tens of thousands of Indigenous people. Nobody gets their degree from the proverbial back of a Corn Flakes packet, it requires poverty, hard grind, year after year, with not a lot to give people trust that it will all be worthwhile. As graduate numbers grow, that situation is changing, but most Indigenous graduates are still the first, or amongst the first, in their families.

As well, those 'one in ten' represent 10 % of the entire adult population - roughly as many as all of the adults in remote settlements put together. By 2020, it could be 'one in six'. By 2034, less than twenty five years away, it could be 'one in four'.

So where is the initiative ? Where is the growth, the movement, the dynamism ? Certainly there may be some in remote settlements, I don't know, that's not for me to say, but there certainly is on university campuses.

Conversely, where are the problems, where is the degradation, abuse and violence ? Where are the shockingly early deaths ? The remote-area 'package' does not fill me with hope and optimism, from the little I know of it. Individual may partly agree with me on this :)

So perhaps what we are witnessing is a rapid divergence in lifestyles, 'ways of life', paradigms. The question is: can the two pathways converge, or complement each other, or is the chasm becoming unbridgeable ?

Joe

Hi again, Joe,
No, I don't think divergence is a problem. Nor is there any unbridgeable chasm. Why not look at it as diversity and celebrate it?

Not all Aboriginal people aspire to or would benefit from university education, just as not all people from any other background in Australia or elsewhere aspire to or would benefit from higher learning. For those who do - fantastic!

Our community will be the richer if we accept that education for life can take many forms. Until recently this included remote Indigenous communities teaching traditional stories in language along with formal studies of 'regular' subjects in English. Surely, more will be gained than lost if Indigenous leaders in the remote communities are allowed to recover this form of education.

Hi Alan,

Back in the mid-nineties, I ran career aspirations workshops for Aboriginal kids across SA and in western NSW. The powers-that-be put the kybosh on it after acouple of people complained that 'not all Aboriginal kids can go to university'. Since then, I've taken that to be code for 'I personally don't think ANY Aboriginal kid can go to university.' Perhaps you did not mean it this way ?

As it happened, we elicited career aspirations from around 1200 kids which ranged from unskilled work to the highest skill levels, through TAFE to university education. The range of careers that the kids ALREADY had their eyes on was amazing, and we were working with kids From Grade 6 up to Year 12: we accidentally went down to Grade 4 at one school and those kids were just as interested. One little girl I talked to after a session wanted to be a nurse: even though it turned she was still only in Grade 3, she was rapt with a little CES brochure I gave her about nursing.

So, no offence Alan but PLEASE, never say that 'Not all Aboriginal people aspire to or would benefit from university education'. And what do you mean by 'not all ..... would benefit from university education' ? Did you benefit from it ? Have I ? Of course, we have, so why assume that others won't ? It's not our call.

TBC

[cont]

Alan,

Perhaps we are looking at different aspects of the same elephant, and writing at cross-purposes. I agree with you that people should be able to practice their traditions - I don't think there is anybody stopping them, quite the reverse. But for all that, people need employment on the one hand, and access to services on the other. With proper training and education, including professional education, it's win/win !

Why do people assume that the smaller a community is, the fewer skills it requires ? A community of 300 people would have to have access to pretty much the same range of professionals as the million people in Western Sydney - dentists, pilots, engineers, plumbers, podiatrists, pharmacists, etc. So even the most remote settlement needs to have access to a range of professionals - why shouldn't they be local people - and yes, those professionals and their communities most certainly could 'benefit from university education'. Otherwise, do they depend on outsiders forever - how is permanent dependence self-determination ? Or is self-determination a con job ?

The Indigenous situation as a whole is very dynamic, moving, changing, emerging - it is not static, so the word 'divergence' is not just some charming and quaint description of 'different ways', it conceals the dangerous possibility that different Aboriginal populations are rapidly moving off in different directions, with the threat that the spatial, cultural and political gap between the remote 'traditional' on the one hand and the urban university-educated on the other, will become a chasm.

People can walk and chew at the same time, however: people should have access to services, which ideally they themselves are professionally educated to deliver - and they may also be able to practice aspects of their traditions, at the same time, much the same as a Buddhist or Muslim doctor or engineer or architect can do both, perform her professional duties AND observe the principles of her belief system. So, yes, there is the slimmest of chances that the gap can be bridged, but not if university education, and tertiary-trained indigenous people are denigrated.