Had another read.

Yes, it may appeal to many, but I view the article as absolute rubbish and an example of extreme bias only fitting of a poor scholar weighing up the strengths and weaknesses of Aust society.

To suggest that the Howard govt absorbed white supremacist arguments, and that Murdoch journalists have not had some sincere interest in the plight of Aboriginals, is an absolute disgrace.

Loudmouth,

"South Africa has a nominally democratic government now, Squeers, wind your clock forward."

Same old, same old....democracy isn't always an instant cure.
While not wishing to derail this thread, I'll remind you that the ANC had the cards well and truly stacked against them by the connivance of the outgoing de Klerk government, who bound and tied the new government by signing South Africa up to all sorts of charming globalised Western agreements, mostly administered by the IMF and the World Bank.

You might think Western culture is the pinnacle of all human aspiration. Perhaps Aboriginal people throughout the world see the reality of Western indulgence for what it is, a system driven by greed and excess, incompatible with honourable shared social bonds and values.

Chris Lewis,

You may not have noticed it, but it was pretty evident to me that the Howard government did absorb much of the emotive community antipathy toward anything not of White/European/Aussie stock engendered by the Hanson phenomenon.

They quickly realised the groundswell of support for her views and decided that it was a winner. Mr Howard was a wiz at playing the electorate to the right tune at the right time, and the Liberal party quickly moved to take over the Hanson mantle.

They even tried the same ploy in the Haneef Affair - an act of pure desperation, but also a pertinent example of playing the race/terror threat card when the chips were down

The battle lines have been drawn for half a century. The conservatives seek to impose their views on Aborigines, the progressives seek to enable Aborigines to contribute to Australian society in their own right. The conservative view is collapsing because it's patriarchal and patriarchies are collapsing worldwide. The progressive view has remained constant and will prevail. The transition is taking some time because its part of a global process and its occurring between the extremes of human culture, the most ancient and the most modern. Oh, and if you work for Rupert Murdoch it doesn't matter one wit whether you have "a sincere interest in the plight of Aboriginals", you get paid for writing what the quivering control freaks of the collapsing patriarchy want you to write.

There's one question that I can't move past.
Some of the people who committed depredations against Aboriginals in the 20th century, whether in extra judicial actions or as part of official policy must still be alive so why haven't they been named and prosecuted?
I mean, "following orders" is no excuse and it's interesting to note that when the Australian government was setting up it's war crimes tribunals in the late forties the legal precedent used to assess culpability in the Japanese chain of command was actually a case in Queensland relating to an expedition in which Aborigines were murdered. In that case the commander of the expedition was prosecuted even though he played no part in the actual murder and kidnapping of Aborigines, the perpetrators were, incidentally, convicted and hanged.
What's more, when Pilger asserts that the genocide of Indigenous Australians has been recognised what does he mean?
By whom has it been recognised?
Genocide is not a crime under Australian law and the claim of Genocide has been put before the high court by Aborigines and rejected.
I'm being slightly "cute" with this post, examining the issues of Genocide and why there has been no serious attempt to investigate the claims is not "rocket surgery" but nobody else has brought it up yet.

You are a disappointment, Joe.

The Stolen Generation certainly is contested, which means there are opposing views. Sorry I'm not willing to dismiss the whole thing on your say so. It's got nothing to do with anything "resonating" with me. If it really was a beat-up someone would have laid down the irrefutable evidence by now, but the whole thing's just another example of "history wars".
I'm buggered if I know why blaming aboriginals "resonates" with you!

On South Africa, in the context of what I said, obviously I meant as it was under apartheid. But since you appear to have little else to offer, quibbling over trivialities will have to do eh?

Your last criticism is contemptible:
<<You write: " ... I don't think aborigines should be striving to be like us...." So .... whites have the monopoly of the good life, on higher education, on comfort and security ? Other people shouldn't try to get some of what is rightfully yours alone ? Pull your head out of it, dear.>>

So based on what I've said above, you think this is a fair summation of my motives: That I'm jealously guarding and seeking to withhold western privileges from aborigines?

Well that's quite a feat, if you can get that from what I've been saying, deny the Stolen Generation's a cinch. I'll leave you to it!

...And who's side are you on?