Aka, at no time were my pieces ever intended to be academic pieces. This is called online opinion. Only a person with manure for brains would think that they were academic pieces. I have read many 'academic pieces' including some of the stuff you have listed, and it is not of a good quality for the reasons I have stated many times before - such as making emotive statements without any support. It is not academic writing that is going to solve the problems facing Aborignal people. And I feel sorry for the person who thinks that acadmeic writings are the solution. I notice that after all this time, you still fail to answer my questions. Here's another question for you. I just want make sure that I understand you, and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. When a high profile person, or a researcher/acadmic makes a statement like "Aborignal people are suffering today because of colonisation" then you believe it must be true because it was spoken by an academic or a high profile (Aborignial) person in a journal?

Anthony,
you are wrong on many points. You continue to insist I answer your questions yet remain stubbornly silent on my questions.You state that your articles on OLO are opinion pieces yet I am sure you count them as publications in your acquittal of the publicly funded ARC research grant you receive.

I will answer your question this time in spite of you ignoring mine. Unlike you it seems I like to look at all of the facts and opinions from all sides, before making up my mind. It is poor form to do research with your mind already made up. In the case of the statement "Aborignal people are suffering today because of colonisation" I make up my mind by looking at the supporting evidence from the beginning, and prior to, colonisation. The scientific papers of the time demonstrate scientific racism underpinned colonisation and enabled settlers to disregard the dispossession and depopulation of Aboriginal people. I also examine the policies of respective govts since colonisation, and how they relate to modern day policies and attitudes. If, with all the evidence, I agree with a certain line I am confident that I have made an informed decision.

Of course this is a very short answer but this is why I continue to challenge your ill formed assertions. Go back over your work Anthony and you will see that it is you who rely on emotive statements.

PS, your use of 'manure for brains' is purely juvenile.

I have talked a couple of times to a young man from the Central Desert whose father was a Policeman (indigeneous). The father was so hated by his own family that he could no longer stand the pressure. Even the son lost friends just because his dad was a policeman. The father is now a drunk along with many others in that town. He is however again accepted by all the bros. If the need of outside intervertion is not clear one has to be in absolute denial.

Aka
“you are wrong on many points”. Well I am happy for you to point out where I am wrong. But just to point out to me somebody who holds a contrary view to me does not necessarily mean that I am wrong.

“I answer your questions yet remain stubbornly silent on my questions.” You are kidding right?

“I am sure you count them as publications in your acquittal of the publicly funded ARC research grant you receive.” Totally wrong. I cannot think of anyone who would count an online piece as ‘acquittal of the publicly funded ARC research grant’. This is just a hobby for me. Again, you can guess what I think such a person must have for brains if they think my online opinion pieces are in any way connected ARC grants.

“I make up my mind by looking at the supporting evidence from the beginning, . . .The scientific papers of the time demonstrate scientific racism underpinned colonisation and enabled settlers to disregard the dispossession and depopulation of Aboriginal people.”
No argument from me on this point (which is not the point I have been discussing). Yes, a lot of bad things have happened, but they are not the reason for the disadvantage we see today. This is something you fail to see. Again, I am happy to be corrected here, but your idea of ‘evidence’ is finding someone, documents, etc. that basically agree with what you believe, namely, “Aboriginal people suffer today because of injustices of the past”? Claims like that are fine, but they need to be substantiated with more than consensus.

With regard to the comment about assuming my opinion pieces were more than opinions, what would you conclude about a person who believes that they are more? Further what is your opinion about someone who thinks my online opinions somehow relate to ARC grant money?

Ok Anthony,
If your OLO articles, and I presume your Drum articles, are not academic works, mere opinion pieces, I will stop trying to make sense out of your poorly argued assertions.

I will know in future that, despite your strident demands for academic proof - it is all a bit of showmanship. For you it appears, this is a site that allows you authorship of poorly informed and crafted opinion and your comments mere trolling.

As to your comment on the ARC grant acquittals of publications, I have seen OLO and Drum articles cited in such ARC university acquittals - it is not without precedent - as I am sure you are aware.

Aka,

The upshot of all this attack and counter-attack is that there are major problems in remote communities in the NT, and what the hell should anybody - the communities, the respective governments, the bureaucrats, Uncle Tom Cobbley - do about it ?

Kids are dying here, women are dying, while so many people find so many reasons not to do anything about it.

There are chronic problems - what are the reasons, and what are the solutions, step by step, point by point ?

What do you suggest ? Leave everything alone ? And watch more 'communities' go down the drain ? What then ?

Joe