The fundamental attribution error in Billi McCarthy-Price's article, is that the concept of regarding aboriginal people as equal in intelligence with whites and asians, giving them equal rights, giving them "self determination", and the especially, the right to drink alcohol, has been a spectacular and extremely expensive failure. As recent experiences have shown, no matter how much money you pour into "aboriginal" programs designed to create equal outcomes, it makes little difference.

60% of the NT social welfare budget is now spent on 30% of the population who's circumstances never change. Recently, the SA Premier toured a remote aboriginal community, commented upon the squalor, and remarked that for the amount of money the SA government had deluged upon that community, "the streets should be paved with gold."

The fact that people barely out of the stone age are emotionally and intellectually unfit to manage their own affairs, was tacitly recognised by the Howard government, when it instituted the policy of "Intervention" in aboriginal welfare payments. This program ensured that welfare money was being spent on food and aboriginal children, instead of being flushed away on grog, ciggies, and drugs.

Naturally, this resulted in screams of outrage from the egalitarian left, who reject any program which takes for granted that everyone is not absolutely equal.

There is no doubt that the aboriginal programs instituted by socialist egailtarians have not only been spectacular failures, they have been nice little earners for the Public Service socialists and the "bearded aboriginal men in black hats" who are employed by the government to continue to propagate failure. Not surprisingly, Billi McCarthy-Smith suggests that the solution to aboriginal disadvantage is to pour even more billions down a black hole. Her article is dotted everywhere with the expected premises of governments "increasing investment", "funding needs to be increased", and "inadequate allocation of resources."

One program which would bring immediate results would be to once again, ban or licence aboriginal people to drink alcohol. But no evangelical social crusader will support programs heretical of the current apparently infallible orthodoxy that all races are equal in every way.

Come on Bill, how could we not be aware of the billions of our dollars wasted by all the professionals in the Aboriginal industry. There the ones, like those in the "harm minimization" lot in the drug industry, careful not to cure anything, & run out of a nice job.

From your article I can only assume the Psychologists & Psychiatrists feel they have been missing out on a good quid, & want to get in to the aboriginal industry for their chop.

Nothing like a greedy professional to look for the main chance.

It would have been refreshing to read something about prevention, but I guess there wouldn't be many jobs left if that was tried, and ifit worked.

I'm very disappointed that observers keep lumping all the figures together, work-ethic with welfare-ethic Aboriginal people, because the stats for one are very different from those of the other. For working Aboriginal people, health is not all that different from that of non-Aboriginal people, - but the health of welfare-oriented people, people who will never work in their lives, people whose day revolves around grog or drugs or how to get more out of Centrelink - is far worse that Billi seems to be aware of, to put it nicely forher.

For example, the gap in life expectancy - as Christopher Squelch in Townsville has pointed out recently - is far greater than a mere ten or twelve years, much more like thirty or forty years. Very few people live past forty five, menor women.

Go into any 'community' and ask around. Go back every ten years and check out how young those people were who have passed away in the meantime. Dying at thirty is not at all uncommon in 'communities', women from far too much Coke, men from grog and drugs and fighting. A news item today talked about people in remote settlements spending three-quarters of their money on grog alone. Pity the poor kids.

So how to PREVENT poor health, how to get people on the right path in terms of diet and exercise before they destroy themselves ?

Oops, I said it: diet and exercise. Or decent food and work. Employment. Keeping active during the day, too busy to hit the grog, or beat up one's beloved.

Sorry, I don't have an obfuscation gene, nor a secure job in Aboriginal Health, so I can't bloviate for hours at endless conferences on the dilemmas of Aboriginal Health', like it's a big mystery.

So Billi wants us to sit back and wait for mental health problems to develop, hopefully to reach crisis levels, THEN send in ever more experts ?

Despicable.

Joe

In agreeance with Joe regarding health and life span divides between "Aboriginals" living and working in whitefella world and those in communities where the 'culture' is one of bludging and multiple forms of abuse, self and towards others: Apart from slightly higher genetic propensity (shared with asians)for diabetes type 2 and maybe some lesser resistance to certain bacterial/viral infections, 99% of the difference is LIFESTYLE.

Besides which an "Aboriginal" may be someone who is genetically up to 15/16ths Caucasian or other racial mix. Go figure!

You want to prevent youth suicide? Remove babies from disfunctional families/communities where neglect and abuse is rife and adopt them into families who will nourish and care for them, ensuring they recieve what is needed for healthy physical, intellectual and emotional health. Not to mention at least an opportunity for good basic education, employment, meaningful social engagement and so on. In other words - Give them a LIFE.

Sort of like the stolen generation ... Because when you take a hard look at that 'social experiment' and compare the failures with what is happening today with kids in much of so-called Aboriginal culture it makes the maligned practices of yesteryear look like world best practice. Most of us are sick of the waste and lack of results - not to mention the continued misery heaped on the most helpless and vulnerable, resulting from the ridiculous political correctness that results in people calling the situation as it is howled down by screams of racism.

This problem needs a simple solution based on individual responsibility.

First, develop a statement, running into as many pages as it takes, by the best medical and general health experts we can muster - of what needs to be included and what needs to be avoided in a person's actions to maximize the chance of a long and healthy life.

Second, make sure that every citizen has easy access to the statement.

Third, develop a statement of what might be preventing people from following the advice.

Fourth, take measures to remove all such impediments that are not voluntary decisions of the individuals.

Fifth, protect all children, and all others vulnerable to compulsion, from being forced by anyone whatsoever to take or neglect actions that lower their health.

Sixth, ensure that all adults and children are funded to do what is necessary and consult who is necessary to protect their health should they decide to do so.

Seventh, if any group suffers poor health or lowered lifespan through deciding to live in a way known to harm health, abandon all agonising about demographic consequences.

The same general approach could be applied to poor education, or enhanced gaol time. This could be monitored to identify and confront factors genuinely preventing people from taking care of their health, their education and their freedom from gaol.

Some personal decisions likely to lower length of life may be

*Abusing harmful substances such as petrol, glue, alcohol, narcotic drugs.
*Violent brawling.
*Committing suicide.
*Dangerous driving.
*Diverting household income from the essentials of adequate health (e.g. booze or gambling replacing necessary food and health care).

EmperorJulian,

The first initiative should be to WHO's soap'n'water sanitation and hygiene campaign that has been so successful in undeveloped countries in reducing gastro and other problems. Aboriginals may use soap and water for clothes washing for example, but young mothers in particular need to understand such basics as washing hands with soap and water after nappies and before preparing food. Mothers need to encourage children wo wash hands with soap and water after toilet and before eating. Not cleaning ears with twigs and so on.

Huge imnprovements are possible overnight where such simple education is undertaken.

Onthebeach, while the washing hands education is certainly essential, it would all go by the wayside if mum, dad and all the surrounding adults are drunk or drug affected.

I am with Divine Msn in agreeing that ALL children, whatever colour they are, who are neglected and at risk, must be removed from the current situation until and if it ever improves.
This constant rubbish about not repeating the 'stolen generation' needs to be shelved while we try to save these kids from learning about a life of violence, deprivation and crime.
While taking kids away from their abusive parents may be traumatic, I feel that a fair few of those kids who were part of the original stolen generation did end up with a good education at least.

When you talk to Aboriginal people who are doing well in life, with jobs or studying hard etc, they almost invariably have had a grandmother or mother who was part of the group of children, rightly or wrongly, who were removed from their parents and brought up in other homes or on missions etc.

These mothers were far more likely to encourage their kids to learn and get jobs, because they had this growing up themselves.

Hi Divine Ms and Suse,

I have to say I don't believe in a stolen generation. I've done a bit of research into the school records of a major Mission here in SA and I could find only about 40-45 school-age kids out of 800 - over a period from 1880 to 1966 - who were, at any time, put into care. Over that period, 40 mothers died leaving 120 school-age children, and two or three fathers died, leaving teenage daughters when the mother re-married. Figure.

And almost all of those kids came back, often within six months or a year. Clearly, family break-down and economic destitution had a bit to do with who was taken into care, just as they would be for non-Indigenous kids.

And when ? Certainly not before 1930: I checked out the movement to and from this School and - at a time when supposedly, people were also 'being herded onto Missions', in addition to 'countless thousands of children being taken away' - in the first twenty years of those School records, 1880-1899, how many kids were enrolled from outside the region, and NOT to and from another Mission ?

Eight. Mostly kids brought down from the North by stockmen, survey parties, etc., and abandoned in Adelaide and a couple of families of abandoned young mothers from the Mid-North. Case in point: one boy from the Far North who was unhappy at the Mission, so the Protector asked him if he wanted to go back to his home country, which he did, so the Protector arranged his free rail passage up to Oodnadatta and his further travel to The Peake.

So no, no stolen generation before, say, 1930. After this time, economic destitution, family break-down, maternal death, migration of the most capable families away from Missions, provide ample grounds for temporary removal of children by responsible authorities.

So why do people believe the myth ? Perhaps it has something to do with all those boogeyman stories from other parts, where strangers, Gypsies, Jews, whatever, for whatever reason, were always scheming to steal children.

Joe

“BRINGING THEM HOME”

The Australian practice of Indigenous child removal involved both systematic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law. Yet it continued to be practiced as official policy long after being clearly prohibited by treaties to which Australia had subscribed.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. "STOLEN GENERATIONS" DECISION.

Justice Daryl Dawson, High Court.……

There is nothing in the 1918 Ordinance, even if the acts otherwise fall within the definition of genocide, which authorizes acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, any aboriginal group. On the contrary, as has already been observed, the powers contained in the 1918 Ordinance were required to be exercised in the best interests of the aboriginals concerned or the best interests of the aboriginal population generally. The acts do not, therefore, fall within the definition of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention.

Justice Michael Mc Hugh, High Court.

The 1918 Ordinance did not authorize genocide. Article II of the Genocide Convention relevantly defines genocide to mean acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” as such. The acts include “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, and “forcibly removing children of the group to another group.” There is, however, nothing within the 1918 Ordinance which authorize the doing of acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, the aboriginal race.

Douglas Meaher QC, who led the defence of the government in the first test case wrote years later on the failure of the “stolen generations” premise of “genocide” in the High Court.

"The opinion proved to be wrong in every respect. It was wrong on the facts he assumed. It was found to be wrong by the High Court on the cause of action based upon the Constitution. It was found to be wrong by Justice O’Loughlin in respects to other causes of action." (Cubbillo & Gunner vs. Commonwealth

Well when you have a situation where a prominent AFL footballer makes a huge song and dance about a 13 year old kid calling him "Ape" when the same insult, either in derision or cheek has been directed at probably every second Australian male old enough to have facial hair and claiming it as a exclusive racial slur AND seemingly having much of the idiot Media concurring then you realise how utterly ridiculous and out of hand the whole "Racism" question has become ...

Wrong door: two threads down the hall, Ms Divine :)

About inter-group fostering and adoptions, this article might persuade:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/aboriginal-girl-mikala-caught-in-middle-of-adoption-struggle/story-e6frea6u-1226654057440

So what is important - somebody's life and well-being, or some adherence to something almost mystical and ethereal called 'culture' ? Should children's lives be sacrificed on the altar of ever-changing custom and tradition ?

Another question: are children the property of parents, who can do as they like with them ? Or are children the responsibility of RESPONSIBLE parents, who forfeit their relationship if they continue to neglect or mistreat their charges ?

Clearly, I'm in favor of placing children with capable, loving parents or substitutes. If the carers happen to have similar cultural preferences, or are related to the child, all the better, as long as they are caring and responsible people.

But culture or cultural experience not an absolute: the welfare of the child comes first, before any bogus 'culture' which some drunken parent tries to wave at a welfare officer.

After all, little children are sacred. Isn't that so ?

Joe

Absolutely Joe! Obviously best and safest situation for any child is with 2 biological parents who are loving, responsible and committed to raising their offspring well. If that fails due to parental behavioural issues which cannot be modified despite assistance and support, the child should be permanently removed and allowed to be adopted into another family.

I say adopted because children need to belong. Taking them out of terrible situations, placing them with foster families who will usually keep them safe but cannot afford too much emotional attachment, returning them to their abusers to then have the cycle begin all over again is not good enough! Give them to people who want to commit to the nurturing of a child unto adulthood and beyond.

If the child can be placed with adoptive parents of similar cultural background or extended family - fine but it isn't the most pressing concern by a long shot. Most adoptions in Australia over the past 30 years have been from other countries, often disadvantaged children from totally different racial and cultural backgrounds to the parents. It seems to work well enough. Many will be curious and wish to explore their biological heritage - which is fine and should be supported when the child is mature enough.

As a society we are guilty of genocide by failing to protect children of Aboriginal blood from their own people.

In 20 years time there will be more uproar, more investigations, more Inquiries and demands for compensation because of the current social injustice of leaving the little ones to suffer.

Thank you, Divine Ms M., I agree with you 101 % !

What is best for the child ? Yes, with their own parents if possible, of course, and with other relations if that can't work out, and with people from similar social/cultural/historical backgrounds if THAT doesn't work out, and with good loving people if THAT doesn't work out - and yes, adopted out rather than ring-a-rosey fostering which seems to really screw up kids.

Kids are not property, or possessions, like a dog or a motor-bike. They are entitled to be treated better, as well as parents can manage.

Regards,

Joe

I respectfully urge all readers to have a good look at an article by Nicolas Rothwell in today's Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/genes-key-to-health-gone-awry/story-e6frg6z6-1226654732515

to get a better understanding of what preventative measures may be necessary in remote and welfare-oriented Indigenous populations.

Joe

LETTER TO THE EDITOR "THE AUSTRALIAN" newspaper

I have had a lot to do with Rehabs over the years. I even ran one in the early eighties as Senior Counsellor / Assistant Administrator. ( with my brand new Corona, the administrator had a Corolla, new of course This was at Jodaro Aboriginal Hostel and run by Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Alcohol Services. ( QAIAS ).

Like all Indigenous Specific Services there was, and is, almost unlimited government funding available. And taken advantage of. But no-one was giving up the grog. So to keep the “Gravy Train” rolling, the Rehab had to be seen to be delivering some sort of “outcome.” So, some-one came up with the brilliant idea of offering ( and delivering, still ! ) a Disability Support Pension to the clients as a strategy and incentive to attract and to keep people there !

This was, is, also occurring at Namitjara Haven in Lismore as well as Benelong Haven at Kempsey. Both Indigenous Specific rehabs in NSW. And over Many Years ! So what we have is, Many Thousands of Aboriginal people on D.S.Ps for nothing more that Alcohol Abuse. Yet in general good health. Just won't give the grog up. Pissed and partying every pension day curtsey of the Australian government. An issue not discussed in the public domain. Nor will it Ever Be.

Because of “Political Correctness” And the Aboriginal Victim Industry ( AVI ) would refer to it as “Attacking the Victims” Victims of Colonisation, and of course, Dispossession ! What a Good Lurk ! I can tell you what it is worth these days as I am on it ! ( DSP ) $700 a Fortnight ! Much better than the Dole ! With More Sympathy ! And Support ! ( if you're Aboriginal that is.)

Arthur. Bell. ( Aborigina

interesting I agree with those saying that all children who are not cared for by parents/guardians at a basic level need to be removed. The problem however is that Docs already has numerous aborignal kids that they can't find homes for. Many of them have been caring for themselves from a very young age by stealing and learning how to hate authority. Not a very easy task and you are likley to find that future academics will again demonise the genuine ones trying to help. A situation created by leftist dogma.