Hi LEGO,

I partly apologise for my remark earlier - I read the first sentence in one of your earlier posts and wrote you off - I should have read further.

As an erstwhile supporter of 'self-determination', I would cautiously agree with you that it has been a con. I don't think Aboriginal communities ever intended to be genuinely self-determining in the sense of trying to build up an economic base, and run all their own affairs themselves, and strive for a measure of self-sufficiency and independence.

I would still support Land Rights, but in the full awareness that people were more interested in getting mining royalties than building up their own economies.

There's not a lot I believe any more about, say, Aboriginal history. I don't have much faith in 'community' - and if we reversed the question: "is 'community' part of the solution, or part of the problem ?" then we would have to face up to some very uncomfortable truths.

[TBC]

[contd.]

Somebody commented above on poor school attendance - but ask yourself, if everybody around you is doing okay living on welfare, and your parents and uncles and cousins have never had to look for work, it's a safe bet that you won't ever have to, either - 'so what's the need for schooling ? You won't have to ever develop any skills, you'll be okay.'

'The old men seem to know how to get more out of Canberra, with their magic, and white fellas can do it all for us anyway, there's always one more sucker who will do the most ridiculous things for us. Yeah, you will have to put up with violence, booze, unutterable boredom, lifelong poor health' (but don't worry, life's usually pretty short for people in remote 'communities').

So low school attendance amongst the children of the lifelong-welfare population is no mystery. It's a bit harder to get away with in the towns and cities, when you know that there are opportunities slopping around everywhere if you look for them.

But in remote settlements, those holes-in-the-wall, maybe the last thing anybody should be doing is listening to people there - of course, they will ask for yet more to be done for them, and make effectively impossible demands - feed our kids, wash my feet, clean my house, give me another fridge or TV, pay my rent.

Meanwhile, in the cities, Aboriginal kids are steaming through Year 12, and going on to trades and uni: the equivalent of about 1.2 young-adult age-groups is enrolled at uni at any one time, overwhelmingly in mainstream courses, Gemma, and maybe quite a few are in genuine trade-training as well. It's a grind, but it's happening.

While remote settlements are dead in the water. And What's that definition of insanity of Einstein's again ?

Joe

Dear Lego,
Well said. However coming from non indigenous and non native English background I found current Australian education system non discriminatory rather concerned about indigenous students. I don't see lack of opportunities for indigenous students if they want to progress further. Rather I find it more challenging for non indigenous students to compete in real life where option to access in jobs and education are limited. We can say we need a merger of non mainstream education with mainstream education. Mainstream education cannot be denied for indigenous student. We need to have a working NBN to deliver education remotely. My personal view is, all the remote places should have basic access of education, hospitals, shopping centre, cultural centre etc. While indigenous students enjoy more opportunities than non indigenous students, they all should take advantage of it.

Apology gratefully accepted, Joe. And welcome Alanur Akand.

My fundamental premise, here on OLO, is that we as a society can not create effective governing policies if we continue to take for granted that all human beings have equal intelligence, and therefore equal rights. The principle of equal rights is a noble one, and one that should always be considered when proposing policies.

But the fact that this is based upon a fallacy, is self evident when you can see that legislative organisations constantly need to make exceptions to the principles of equality, in order to make things work. The issue of aboriginal education is a case in point.

As I understand it, pure blooded aboriginal people have measured IQ's around 70, which is very low indeed. Such people tend to be tribal aborigines still living in stone age communities of family, clan and tribe groups. It was fashionable for the "angry young men" of the 60's to proclaim that all humans were of equal intelligence, and they demanded "self determination" and "independence" for black societies everywhere.

But their attitudes were built upon the false premise of human equality. Giving tribal aborigines equality with whites, resulted in giving them the right to drink alcohol, and that created a social catastrophe.

Prior to equal rights, tribal aborigines lived on reservations in the care of "protectors" who looked after their interests, maintained order, made certain that the kids went to school, and that the parents worked for their own upkeep. It was accepted then that aboriginal people were not intelligent, but they could be trained to become productive and accepted. My premise, is that this outcome was better than what has transpired.

The fact that we now have "aboriginal education", which is clearly meant to take into account low aboriginal intelligence supports my premise. But what the author of this article seems to be suggesting, is that this fiction of aboriginal equality of intelligence should be maintained through the application of novel excuses. And taxpayers should keep pouring in bucket loads of cash to continue to maintain this fiction.

City folk generally have no concept of what life is like in remote communities. Generally, it is white Australians trying to connect with Black Australians in schools in town. In over 20 years teaching (in the city), I am convinced that I am just the wrong colour for my indigenous kids; they need blackfellas who've worked their way through whitefellas Uni, who know the language and relate to the culture that the kids know.
That said, I think mainstream education is limited by one-dimensional teachers, the emerging National Curriculum (non-differentiated curriculum) and Naplan-centrism which imposes pressure on schools to get results that are quantifiable. Real-life learning has intangibles you can't put on a league table; and indigenous kids (in my experience) are universally practical, real-life people - they can spot a fake from 2 miles away. Winning their respect is a long-term project not often achieved by white teachers. The ongoing battle for the teacher is waged against the standard three problems: abuse / neglect, alcohol and drugs.
There are remote area Christian schools in WA who seem to be getting on with the job - people in town like me could learn a lot from working models in remote areas, but the challenges of remote area education are formidable. Hats off to people working in these tough environments; these sorts of teachers have the qualities and commitment of 19th century missionaries (ie the helpful ones who succeeded in helping out).

Loudmouth, there are many kids both black and white who are never going to be university material. Under the current system you have to not attend classes to fail in many of the courses being offered. Also, by the turn of the century, at least 95 percent of Australians under the current definition, will be aboriginal because of inter marriage. I suspect that a majority of the current crop of aboriginal graduates are only one quarter or less aboriginal.

Only time will sort out the education problem for aboriginals. Money is certainly not the answer.

David