Your obviously very tired Loudmouth, too much time on your hands, plus lots of relevance deprivation?

What I and my people would do with out lands would be up to us, would you ask such a paternalistic question to other land 'owners' , pastorialists, farmers? Of course you would not - because in your eyes they are seen as legitimate and therefore normal in your eurocentric world view.

Are you in full time employment now Loudmouth? Besides writing poorly researched papers for right wing think tanks, what else do you do? Many have complained over the years about the 'Aboriginal industry' and rightly so as its infested with the likes of you who under the false pretence of 'helping Aborigines', make a tidy living, not from actually doing something constructive, but simply offering so called expert 'opinion' about us.

As for the example you provide from SA, I too would have employed whites because all that government was offering was an opportunity to act and think white inside "their" paremeters of administrative deligence or 'self management'. There are other values about looking after country, kinship, and general well being that are completely ignored in government approaches to recreative themselves inside communities. Here are the key difference between SD and SM.

Self-determination refers to the right of a culture, society or region to decide for itself whether its future will be as an independent sovereign entity in the world, or whether its people accept association with or integration in an existing national constitutional order.

Self-management is a delegated function whereby a group or some type of formal authority carries out tasks with funds and program design determined by others outside the group or region. A welfare office on Indigenous land may be staffed by local people and may hand out the cheques and carry out other welfare functions within the guidelines of a higher authority.

Its very clear to me that people like you have made a living out of SM and your have to hide to call us welfare dependent?

Hi Rainier,

Wow. So much vicious slagging.

No, I worked for my money: I was a labourer at one community, plus the emergency night-driver, plus working a vegetable garden on the side for free, at least for about three seasons until it was clear that nobody was ever going to reciprocate. Reciprocation is for mugs, I learnt.

Then I worked for my money, after many years of study, to build up a student body at a university campus from eight to forty. Then I was pushed out, since the campus where I was at didn't have any Indigenous-focussed courses - a deficiency which seemed to be fine by the students.

A bit more study. Then I set up an ATAS/ITAS scheme at another university. Then I copied out three thousand pages of old archive documents.

A bit more study. Then we tried to go back to my late wife's community to help with building it up. Milking, and planting trees. Total futility for both of us, and very devastating for her.

Oh yes, I got paid to be returning officer in the community council election: I noticed that, on a small community, every single voter DROVE to the voting point. Up to 200 metres. Such dedicated people. I could hear people getting ready: "Cyril, get in the car!" "But I don't ... " "Get in the fecking car!" Slam ! Then it all again, in reverse.

Would I do it all again, working for Aboriginal land rights, etc. ? No. I would leave it up to Aboriginal people to do their own running, apart from a bit of ra-ra demonstrating once a year or so. Maybe not even that. Apart from that, if I had my time over again, I would rather work in a dog-food factory: after all, one might get more sense out of a can of dog-food than a community of Rainiers :)

No, I worked my money, Rainier. What are you doing, now that we are exploring each other's contributions ? Have you ever wiped your own

Hi Rainier,

On Saturday, you wrote:

"Loudmouth / missionary bean counter:

"Give me your email, find out who I am, learn about my work history and then you might STFU."

and I replied as soon as I could on Sunday: "By the way, my email address now is: joelane94@hotmail.com "

It still is :)

No rush. Take your time. What does 'STFU' actually mean ?

Whenever you're ready :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Rainier,

On Saturday, you wrote:

"Loudmouth / missionary bean counter:

"Give me your email, find out who I am, learn about my work history and then you might STFU."

and I replied as soon as I could on Sunday: "By the way, my email address now is: joelane94@hotmail.com "

It still is :)

No rush. Take your time.

Bean-counter - I liked that. When I was working for free in the vegetable garden up on the 'mission', I had a patch of ripening sweet corn, maybe 200 plants. One guy asked me if he could take some for a party, I said, 'sure', and he took the lot. Every cob.

Would I do all of that again ? No.

Those archives: missionary's 600-page journal 1859-1879, another 600 pages of superintendents' letters 1884-1899, 1912-1915, Royal Commissions of 1860, 1899 and 1913-1916, etc., all typed up voluntarily, for free. All available to anyone who wants any of it.

If I had the energy, I would love to go into the State Records and type up all of the correspondence of the Protector, 1840-1920 or so. That would be a fascinating gold-mine. Might take about a year.

Whenever you're ready, Rainier :)

Cheers,

Joe

If anybody is serious about combatting racism, they could learn a lot from this Paper by my friend at the CIS, Sara Hudson, about the employment of barely literate people as Health Workers:

http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-127.pdf

If it isn't racist to inflict under-trained and well-paid time-servers on Aboriginal people, I don't know what is: I thought that Aboriginal health was a very serious concern, a matter of life and death, certainly not something to put in the hands of completely unqualified people, and just so that they can have some sort of employment.

Would white people put up with this ? Actually, would Aboriginal people in the cities, or would they have too much sense and self-respect ?

Disgraceful.

Loudmoth.
Jenny Macklin taps $400m Aboriginal fund for running costs

Paul Cleary
The Australian
January 10, 2012

INDIGENOUS Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin is increasingly using a burgeoning $400 million indigenous fund to pay for running costs and short-term financial fixes - actions that have attracted a warning from the Auditor-General.

The mining boom has given Ms Macklin growing financial clout as she presides over the little-known Aboriginals Benefit Account, which last year collected $155m in mining-related income and has quadrupled in size since 2004 to $412m in equity.

While the minister has been calling on Aboriginal groups to safeguard their future and build financial assets, documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show that for the past three years, Ms Macklin has either ignored or rejected her department's advice to develop a long-term investment plan for the fund - although her office now says she has recently done so. The ABA was named last month by the Auditor-General as one of a number of federal agencies that had made payments that "do not accord with conditions included in relevant legislation". As a result, the ABA risked non-compliance with section 83 of the Constitution, which states that all monies paid by the commonwealth must be lawfully appropriated.
The Northern Territory's opposition indigenous affairs spokesman, Adam Giles, said the federal government had spent "hundreds of millions" from the fund on services and capital costs that it should have been providing anyway. He said the ABA should be used exclusively for "economic infrastructure" in the Territory's Aboriginal communities.

The ABA was created in 1976 to promote Aboriginal economic development in the Territory and has in the past provided capital grants to remote communities and seed funding for emerging enterprises.

The federal government uses consolidated revenue to pay the ABA an annual amount equivalent to the royalties that mining companies pay to the NT government for mining on Aboriginal land.

But Ms Macklin's department recently removed any reference to the ABA's purpose being specifically for the benefit of Aborigines, contrary to what is stated in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

TBC