5) Finally, in Dr Dillon’s uses the convenient label ‘activists’ to demonize all & sundry he states “the view promoted by some activists that people who identify as Aboriginal Australians are culturally different, spiritually different, & have a distinctly different view of the world to non-Aboriginal Australians, &hence require different rules from the mainstream to live by, needs to be questioned.” The door is wide open for Dr Dillon to begin his crusade against these ‘activists’. No one is saying ‘how dare you question these people’, indeed I have previously asked Dr Dillon to name these so called “activists” & to stop hiding in the shadows but he’s obviously too afraid to go public with his views. I ask myself surely with his education he is capable of doing more than writing obscurantist opinion pieces that dog whistle rednecks? But sadly I suspect this is all he is capable of doing.

Rainier,

Deaths in custody:

At the time of the royal commission, 23 % of prisoners were Indigenous. 22 % of deaths in custody over an extended period, had been Indigenous.

[Notice that this does not say, in any way, HOW MANY people had died in custody, only the PROPORTION who were Indigenous.]

What proportion of deaths in custody would you expect to be Indigenous - 2.5 - 3 % ?

Or 23 % ?

Okay. I'll go slowly.

IF 80 % of prisoners were Indigenous, what percentage of prisoners who die in custody would you expect to be Indigenous, 80 % and no more than that ? Or 2.5 - 3 % ?

IF 1 % of prisoners were Indigenous, what percentage of prisoners who die in custody would you expect to be Indigenous, 1 % and no more than that, or 2.5 -3 % ?

You still don't get it ? Okay. Suppose there were no Indigenous prisoners at all in a hypothetical incarceration system - what proportion of prisoners who die in custody would you expect to be Indigenous ? 2.5 - 3 % ? Or none ? 0 % ?

Suppose, in some other system, ALL the prisoners were Indigenous: what proportion of deaths in custody could be expected to be Indigenous ? 100 % Or 2.5 - 3 % ?

Still don't get it ? Ask a high school student who has done basic statistics.

As for your idiotic attack on Dr Dillon, in your last posts, do you know the difference between argument and ad hominem attacks ? He pointed out that neither cops nor the justice system was perfect, and you rip into him ? You're a fool, Rainier.

And he uses the word 'activists' ?! Good heavens !

So what ?

I think you are the one who is dog-whistling, Rainier ;)

Joe

The exaggerated date usually given for the first Australian’s arrival (possibly by a factor of 10) may add to the mystique when marketing Aboriginal art or souvenirs (and sometimes even Aboriginal rock music.) Unfortunately, it also serves to separate Aboriginal history from the rest of world history and detracts from our common humanity. It has been widely known for decades that scientifically speaking the concept of race means very little. Biologically there is only one human race and the genetic diversity found between the so called 'races' is somewhat arbitrary. The differences between two varied individuals found within one 'race', for example, the Swedish race, can be greater than the difference between average measures of disparate 'races'. In other words, all so called races are closely connected with much overlap.

Our failed paternalistic strategies on Aboriginal welfare have served to reinforce racist attitudes towards Aboriginal people. We should be committed to services and incentives without distinction to race, such as adequate medical provisioning, home ownership, discouraging unnecessary welfare, and strict community-policed alcohol controls where needed. We must aim to promote certain patterns of behaviour without falling into the trap of making different rules for different races

Hi Danny de Meringue,

Thank you, I think in your last paragraph you have paraphrased precisely what Dr Dillon has been consistently writing: services on the basis of need, not 'race' which is, as you point out, not a useful (or scientifically valid) concept.

But it is possible that human beings have been in Australia for far longer than six thousand years. According to the latest, incredibly exciting, genetic research into the dating and spread of our mtDNA and Y-chromosomes, it appears that the population movements out of Africa and eventually (after ten thousand years or more) into our region (the 'Sahul') went something like this:

* about 120,000 years ago (+/- 20 %), a first wave of people migrating imperceptibly slowly through south-east Asia and eventually into the PNG highlands, moving at about a kilometre a year or less;

* about 68,000 years ago (+/- 20 %) people arriving in PNG and Australia (then joined, and to remain joined until 10,000 years ago);

* about 56,000 years ago, +/- 20 %, a second wave of people migrating slowly along the low-lying shores of southern PNG, with some groups moving north and into PNG, and others into Australia;

* About 5-6,000 years ago, a migration, perhaps by sea (since PNG and Australia were separated by then) from southern India and present-day Sri Lanka along the southern coast of New Guinea and into Australia.

That's what the genetic evidence shows so far. There is a slight discordance with the Biblical account, but until equivalent evidence of a 6,000-year time-frame is found, this is what I am happy to run with.

Yes, it suggests that Aboriginal people were not the first humans to 'leave' Africa and migrate either into the Middle East and central Asia, or along the southern coast of Asia and into the PNG-Australian region. And that migrations (at least one) were still taking place as recently as six thousand years, perhaps of Austronesian sea-faring people who at the time were sailing between the PNG coast and the eastern coast of India (the Coromandel coast), and Sri Lanka.

Joe

Aka, I had reason to go back and read some of my Drum articles. I noted your comments in that forum. They were very much appreciated. Thank you.

Anthony,
I am pleased that you appreciated my comments on the Drum.

I try to speak honestly and without nastiness.

When I write on posts sometimes I get a little lax with my English (before I went to uni - straight into a mainstream ug degree I had only been to year 9). So, because you picked up on my imprecise wording (and I know the psychology behind it) I will edit my earlier statement considering your pedantic view.

So Anthony, I get cranky that you dare assume what or how I might think.

I hope that makes it clearer.