Individual, the debate now being given some media coverage relating to the Wild rivers legislation (Qld) is a good example of how our economic disadvantage is being further entrenched in a welfare dependency model of wellbeing with limited or no ability for us (I'm from Cape York) to throw off the shackles of government. Noel Pearson’s fight against the Wild Rivers legislation is fundamentally driven by his (and my) belief that our lands are our economic base and that we should have the legal right to make decisions about its resources, natural or otherwise. The Deeds of Grant in Trust were basically a deed (held in trust) by the Qld government which meant that that the Qld government reserved its rights to the mineral rights or other land based economic assets. Native title is not land rights and the complete absence any reference to Aboriginal land rights by the Gillard government has not gone unnoticed by those of us who have a good knowledge of the history of self determination policy and the legal and constitutional white washing of our land rights – and thus- the complete disenfranchising of a fundamental plank to uplifting our future prospects.
[You may notice I did not utter or write 'racism' in the preceding explanation] - Just in case Anthony is reading this and waiting for an opportunity exorcise me with his Andrew Bolt holier than thou ‘stop using the word racist’ water :)

Joe Loudmouth,
why are you trolling for me to respond to you? I think you have ceded, and admitted defeat, when you quote articles in Quadrant and cite Windschuttle. You write for CIS, the far-right winged so-called-think-tank funded by big businesses. Some of these big businesses, like miners, would do very well if small Indigenous communities were gone, their population absorbed into cities - where they will not find a welcome mat unless they are able to learn to think white. Tragic.

Individual,
when you refer to Joh, ex premier of Qld, as some sort of benign benefactor towards Indigenous Australians, you have likewise ceded.
Please don't bother with the lie that Joh did anything to protect Indigenous Queenslanders from exploitation, particularly when he put the likes of Pat Killoran (who in past posts you admired) in such a powerful position. Joh did not curtail Killoran's immoral exploitations and power.

Like I say, you have ceded.

Rainier,
Forgive me but I thought the mining on Cape York is paying royalties to the indigenous ?
So far as I understand it all is the situation was that the indigenous didn't have the expertise nor means all these years ago to make an economic base out of the land they occupied. When outsiders realised the land's potential they then made a deal to compensate the occupiers with mining royalties. Some could argue not enough compensation or other discrimination but nevertheless compensation is being provided. This compensation is significant & if managed better the indigenous could have turned this into an enterprise of its own by now.

Aka,
We could argue until we both change colour on this but it is my view that Joh nor Killoran were as bad as many would like to see them portrayed as. Under the D.A.I.A. the indigenous made progress as measured by australian standard. This progress was paced by the people themselves but it was progress undeniable. There were indigenous people working in just about every field of enterprise. After Goss dismantled the D.A.I.A. many lost their employment much along the lines as employment was lost by amalgamation recently. Local people are walking the streets dwindling their thumbs because of the sudden job losses. All thanks to Labor. 99% of the work in communities is now done by contractors from outside. Not a very successful economic model at all is it ? The Bad,bad Joh & Killoran spin by Labor has conned the indigenous people & now no progress is is made at all. Yes, fancy infrastructure & pretend positions are flashed around but at what stage are the communities now ? If that is your idea of successful community building then all I can say is good luck.

[contd.]

Rainier,

OR

stop pretending that they don't in any way live in, and depend on, the modern world, and throw themselves wholly into a modern lifestyle, with obligations to their kids, with kids' obligations to go to school, with parents' obligations to gain some minimal skills and look for work (it's there, Twiggy Forrest says so), and to get off the outside tit.

To use their royalty money - what is it ? $ 15,000 p.a. per family ? - to actually buy a house so that they can wreck it to their heart's content ?

No, you're right, Rainier, nobody is going to go off the life-support welfare system, with tubes in and out of every orifice, and people barely a few days away from destitution if the public tap was ever switched off. Except for hunting and gathering, of course :)

Nothing positive will come from 'communities' although people will stay there in misery and boredom. Let's admit that and move on. By the way, my email address now is: joelane94@hotmail.com

Aka,

Great to hear from you ! Yes, I have also had an article published by the Bennelong Society (available by email). Yes, I know it seems strange for a Leftist to associate with the CIS, or Bennelong, or Quadrant, but they are broader churches than people think. As for Mr Windchuttle, I have read very little of his work that I don't agree with, it all seems more or less fair dinkum.

Open your mind, Aka, examine what people actually write or say, not just what clothes they seem to be wearing :)

And you can rest assured that 'communities' will never be emptied - there will always be older people, invalids, unemployed, single-parent families and a handful of people employed, even enterprises, all at settlements.

So the question is: should every Indigenous person have the opportunities that you and I take for granted, no matter where they are from ?

Cheers,

Joe

Rainier,

In relation to your discussion of 'self-determination' and 'self-management' and 'autonomy' and 'sovereignty' and '100% decolonisation': forgive me but I can't help suspecting that the goal-posts are always being shifted.

Well, I do recall that - at least here in SA, in the early seventies, under Don Dunstan - communities were given X, full community control of all their lands, houses, management, economic enterprises, etc. and it was called self-determination. Only Aboriginal people could vote in council elections, stand for council or take part in council deliberations.

Of course, the councils themselves pretty soon, themselves, voluntarily, of their own accord, back-tracked from this and got Whites to come in and more or less run their affairs. They didn't have to, but they did, and they did so deliberately.

I remember one young guy coming through school who expressed an interest in becoming the council clerk. He was rubbished to the point where he left school, in fact by his own relations. It seemed as if REAL jobs had to be filled by Whites, as far as the Council was concerned.

I guess they thought that those Whites could be sort of quarantined, safely locked away and kept out of the community's affairs apart from just doing the books - while an actual local would know too much, would be too subject to pressure from his family, etc. Either way, they stuffed up their own self-determination, nobody else did it to them.

I'm intrigued by your statement that " ... if I held free hold title to my Traditional lands I would not need government hand outs ... " - do you mean because you and your family would work the land ?

Or do you mean that you would flog it off to the first mining company that knocked on your door ? Is that what Land Rights meant all those years ago ? Sit back and gather in the feudal dues from producers ? If only we had known ....

Cheers,

Joe