For a comprehensive summary of the above see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29

David

David,

Yes, that move in 'settled' Australia tended to take place after the War and up to the late sixties, and from areas near cities. For example, people escaped from government settlements such as Point McLeay and Point Pearce here in SA, from the late forties onwards, with a flood of people leaving in the late fifties. At first people moved to country towns, but from there they sought better job opportunities in the city, so a sort of two-step migration process occurred. But by the late fifties, many young families were already growing up in the cities.

And those young people grew up familiar with urban living, and with living and working alongside non-Indigenous people. Not surprisingly, the inter-marriage rate has been very high, 90-95 %, particularly amongst working people. Hence, a massive rise in the overall birth-rate since the mid-eighties. Hence, a massive rise in the number of Indigenous kids in cities enrolling at Year 12 level after 1999 (up five times by 2010). Hence, record university enrolments each year since 2005 :)

Hence, twenty five thousand Indigenous university graduates, almost all of whom have been through this urbanising experience.

Clearly, this is one pathway that has been fruitful. Can remote community living match it - has it really got anything going for it the way things are going now ? I don't think so.

So any national body which claims to have any responsibility for shaping policy must take into account what people have actually done with their lives, and where they are going now - with what is working, and what is not. And move on from wallowing in the past - never forget it, but never let it drag you down.

Joe

Loudmouth, go straight to the top of the class.
If this is the quintessentiual Loudmouth then may your mouth get louder and louder.
Bleeding hearts will find it hard to digest what the last paragraphs mean.

socratease

The time might also be right to redefine an "Aboriginal".

I will give an example. Because we have an Irish grandfather (actually we have two, but only one is required), if we can find the necessary paper work, the Irish government will grant us Irish citizenship. They will not grant citizenship to my neice or nephews. Even though they have two Irish great grandfathers, they are not eligible for Irish citizenship. I have no offspring.

In a similar fashion, we should not define as Aboriginal, those descendents of Aboriginals who lack at least one Aboriginal grandfather.

There are too many pseudo Aboriginals getting sustenance from the Aboriginal teat.

David

Dave, you're a brave man - I completely agree with you as does most everyone I know.

However, the ALP back in the 80s enabled any talk of questioning this subject to be howled down by cries of racism.

The problem is, if aboriginals get that diluted, then they are no longer aboriginal they are as mixed up as the rest of the population. Seems they just cannot or do not want to accept that.

This is what happens when you make someone "special".

The aboriginals don't want to lose the benefits they have over the rest of Australians, and we keep pouring it all over them so they quite rightly don't see a need to ever pull themselves out of their miserable existences, many of them, to become an Australian.

Why do we have 2 classes of Australians?

Now wait for the outrage, as the victim industry protect their patch.

Nothing will change .. it doesn't matter how much money you throw at it.

I hope aboriginals rise above the malaise and become a part of mainstream Australia and enjoy the benefits.

I don't hold much hope though as this is yet another institution that will profit best if it suppresses any progress.

On the other hand, rpg, here's a more positive thesis:

* since 1990, of the 300,000 Indigenous people who reached the age of twenty, i.e. adulthood, about 70,000 enrolled at some time at university, and perhaps another ten thousand attempted to enrol in genuine TAFE courses = 80,000. i.e. more than a quarter of the population gave higher education a shot. About 23,000 graduated from university and maybe 5,000 from genuine TAFE courses [i.e. NOT Aboriginal TAFE courses: that might get a few bites] in that time. Another 15,000 are currently enrolled in either university or genuine TAFE courses.

So about a quarter of the total adult population enrolled in higher education in that time, and about half of those have either graduated or are still studying.

So we are not talking about the odd Charlie Perkins here or there making it - 15 % of the entire adult Indigenous population has either made it or are still studying. These are the heroes. They're not sitting around on their backsides feeling sorry for themselves and pretending there are no opportunities for poor
Blackfellows. They are the future. THEY should be driving Indigenous policy, not the hand-out Blackfellows. I don't care about the hand-out Blackfellows, life is too short.

I welcome Indigenous people getting themselves together and taking charge of their own policy initiatives, that would be wonderful - just like the Poles and Dutch and Maltese and Kastellorians and Maoris and Filipinos are doing - and doing without expecting millions to be pumped into persuading them to get off their backsides.

Joe Lane