Saltpeter,

It depends how you define 'culture', as something which is lived, or something which you can put in a book and store on a shelf, and maybe make a living from with tourists, who long to see how primitive the natives still really are and therefore always will be (or is that too much a swipe at the Left ? Sorry).

So much of all of our former cultural practices (Scottish, Welsh, Russian, Tamil, whatever) falls into disuse as technology moves on, and as social relations change, and as we come into contact with all manner of new, exciting and strange ways of doing things - sometimes easier ways of doing things. Once we have done that, we cannot ever again claim to be oblivious of an outside world, the absence (of knowledge) of which ensured so much of the viability of traditional culture. Once you know, you can't un-know.

The rapid adoption of new practices and cultural facets - steel axes for stone ones, tobacco, flour, tea, grog, money - bring about unforeseen transformations in attitudes to the efficacy of older traditional practices, which become less and less relevant and meaningful with each generation. Nobody needs anybody to be going around in white coats and a truck, forcing people to stop practising their culture (and language too): it happens, as even Tony Abbott would agree.

We used to go drinking in 'the Blackfellas' pub' in the early seventies and it struck me yesterday that any young person of twenty who was there then, is now an 'elder' of sixty. I didn't think the young people then knew or cared about much. But I guess they must have picked up a vast amount of traditional knowledge in the meantime :)

Joe

Joe,
You seem to have a fondness for distorting the crux of my comments on this issue and proclaiming yourself supreme authority and arbiter on all things aboriginal. This course I taught doesn't refer to Richard Broome at all and I formed my stated views above long before I went to university, at which time I never had so much as a junior pass as I left school under-age. I'm not recommending victim-hood and I admire anyone who can rise above disadvantage in a rigged system.
I'm only saying that all Australians should consider the long history of prejudice against Australian aboriginals particularly, who were written about in anthropolical texts and tomes on phrenology as "mongoloid" and the least evolved of human forms; they were paraded around European exhibitions as primitive novelties and their land was declared Terra Nullius. Much of this academic racism is comparatively recent and with all the other popular interpretations of negative publicity, much of the "sympathy" for aborigines "is" disingenuous hand-wringing, or patronising. I think Aborigines too need to be conversant with the facts of human psychology and the morbid effects of institutionalised discrimination.

Good onya for your motivational views on the southern aboriginal, but wait, there's a problem. The indigenous population within predominantly white culture does often misbehave and I don't know any whites who'd want aboriginals as next door neighbours, or even in the same street. So if they're all-good and getting on with it and indifferent to racism, why are they so commonly antisocial, felonious, drunk and disorderly? If we can't put it down to social causes, can we conclude that they really are just a degenerate race?

Jay,
I haven't said I'm not racist or anti white, nor am I a self-appointed spokesperson for anyone. I'm just opinionated and follow Oscar Wilde's premise that whatever is popular must be wrong. I like your poem. What do you think it means?

Hasbeen,
I agree mate that a shitload of money is wasted on "research".

Saltpetre,
good onya for not dismissing the topic in the simplistic terms many seem to prefer.

Hi Suqeers,

Thank you for replying so civilly :) What you say in your first paragraphs is true, but a bit non sequitur: whatever has happened to 'northern' people has happened a fortiori to 'southern' people. And let's face it, people in the 'south' lost their land a long time ago - so what were they supposed to do ? The generations of discriminatory policy affected them especially, deprived of their land as an adequate economic base, yet denied the rights to live in towns, offered a crap 'adapted curriculum' education (which the 'northern' people are now having to endure, I'll agree). It must have taken enormous determination for so many people to rise above those obstacles, but very many have done so.

I'm certainly not saying that all 'southern' people have been able to prevail over adversity. But the opportunities to do so are there and most of the people you refer to would have graduates amongst their kin these days. If universities could only leave DEEWR's Indigenous support funding alone, to do what it is supposed to, namely publicise, enthuse, recruit, prepare and support Indigenous students through their studies, instead of being siphoned off to the teaching of non-Indigenous students, then the huge tasks of opening up more opportunities - for 'northern' people too - can be properly tackled.

Yes, to get back to topic, down the track there should be some sort of referendum, but its timing should be the prerogative of Indigenous people - the people, not just their globe-trotting 'leaders', and when they are satisfied with the attitudes oftheir fellow-Australians.

Enough possum stirred for now :)

Joe

poem by Oodgeroo Noonuccal
Jay,
Warm'n fuzzy words indeed. Does that mean all Aborigines are like that ? Europeans had Einstein, doesn't mean though all europeans are like he was.
Reconciliation by whom with who ? If someone doesn't want the same things as another than what's the point of trying to work that out ? I have tried & have arrived at the end of my wisdom as to how I could help the indigenous. I can not help if I'm not told what's wanted. I can't reconcile with someone who doesn't want to reconcile. Maybe that's why we're not told what's desired in case we could oblige.

Rizla,
Nice try but, again, QED.
It's common to find an Anti-White White person, it's called treason, unfortunately our ethnic group has a very vocal , but very dangerous and often violent minority of such people.
The word "Racist' only applies to White people, it's actually the only context in which Anti Whites will use the Ethnic identifier "White" to describe us.
So, yeah, if you're against Racists you're against White people.
Now can you please identify the main "Racist"individuals and organisations in this country, give us some names of powerful, influential people who are openly "Racist".
Presumably you can find dozens of "Racist's" associations, there must be literally hundreds of "Pro Racism" rallies every year, there must be a group called "Unite for Racism" out there?

Will you and Squeers please give us some names, if you like I can fill pages with names of people who are on record using the code words "Anti Racist" as their cover story.
Here's a start:
Andrew Jakubowicz
Matt Henderson
Alex Gollan
Anthony Main
Don Oorst
Brian Stokes
Cara Munro

There's seven, now get back to me with the names of seven proud, identifiable and openly practicing "Racist" writers, bloggers or commentators.

Jay,

"Nice try but, again, QED."

No, you haven't proven anything, let alone that which was required to be proven. Therefore, your use of 'QED' is unfounded.

"It's common to find an Anti-White White person, it's called treason"

No, it isn't. Treason is a statutory offence, precisely defined in the the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

You'll note that there is nothing mentioned about hating whitey. Also, there hasn't been an Australian treason case in many years - if treasonous individuals were as prevalent as you claim, the courts would be clogged with treason cases. But they're not.

"The word "Racist' only applies to White people"

No, it doesn't. It applies to anybody guilty of racism, regardless of their skin colour.

"So, yeah, if you're against Racists you're against White people."

No, you're not. I'm opposed to racism and racists, but I have nothing against white people - so there is at least one exception which disproves your generalisation. Furthermore, if you're against White people you ARE racist. And if you're racist then you can't be anti-racist, and if you're not anti-racist then you're not anti-white, by your own reasoning.