Great piece.

As most sensible people understand, the colonisation of Australia was inevitable. At some point settlers or immigrants from elsewhere were going to land on these shores and disrupt the archaic Aboriginal culture and way of life. While far from perfect, the British were generally more tolerant and cordial toward indigenous populations than some other colonial powers.

As Geoffrey Blainey has written: "The shrinking world was becoming too small to permit a whole people to be set aside in a vast protected anthropological museum where they would try to perpetuate the merits and defects of a way of life that had vanished elsewhere, a way of life that - so long as it continued - would deprive millions of foreign people of the food and fibres that could have been grown on the land."

It is also grossly unfair to attribute Aboriginal disadvantage exclusively to white Australian racism and discrimination. As urban anthropologist Frank Salter has noted, Aboriginal outcomes tend to become worse the further Aboriginal communities live from non-indigenous people and their allegedly discriminatory behaviour, which is the opposite of what one would expect if racism was the root cause. [https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2013/12/misguided-case-indigenous-recognition-constitution/]

Hi Drab,

Jeez, I thought I had a self-effacing pen-name: I'm sure you're not !

In SA and maybe all States, Aboriginal people were declared to be British subjects, with all the rights of British subjects, from the word go. It may not have worked out pervectly, but that was the law laid down by London.

Their rights to use the land as traditionally were recognised, and still are. Pastoralists (actually, only one) who wanted to push people off their leases were reminded that they/he would be in breach of their (his) lease conditions if they did so, because those rights to use the land as traditionally were written into all pastoral leases.

Aboriginal people were provided with rations from day one, especially for the elderly, sick and nursing mothers. Through the nineteenth century, they were also provided with boats on all waterways(even Cooper's Creek), decent-sized boats fifteen feet long and five feet beam, maybe a hundred of them, and guns. If they were able-bodied, they had to pay half the cost. Repairs, similarly. Around a hundred Aboriginal men and women were given land leases, at peppercorn rent. Some of those have been transformed into Aboriginal Lands Trust leases these days.

From the record up to 1912, no children were taken into care except if orphaned or neglected. Nobody was ever forced en masse onto missions. Even at their height, missions made up less than 20 % of the known Aboriginal population. Especially on early missions, when the people were more or less from only one language group, missionaries frantically learnt, and then taught in, the local language. Of course, as time passed, and people mixed, and kids learnt English, that was impractical, so the later schools taught in English.

Imagine: if some people didn't have massacres, epidemics, forced removals, etc., etc. to fall back on, would that change their perception of the effects of settlement ? So, of course, many people HAVE to believe in all those make-believe atrocities, regardless of the lack of evidence. A bit like a religion, and as hard to shift.

Cheers,

Joe

Thanks for re-opening this discussion.

IIRC, Stan Grant said something to the effect that he looked forward to a time when we can all, regardless of historical accidents, be proud to celebrate being Australian.

There is plenty of work yet to be done to get there.

But if that isn't the goal, what is?

John, I do hope you learn more about Law than you know about this subject. Disadvantage starts with dispossession, all the rest,massacres,virtual slavery,abuse of women and so on are products of that dispossession. Take our country and you take our spiritual base - the land owns us - we do not own the land in the white society way. We are charged with the duty to care for our country, to nurture it and to hand it on to our future generations who will do the same. If you check the huge amounts of money you mention are generally spent on administration first - as much as 50% - and are often taken from existing budgeted items i.e. spurious figures.
It may be worth looking at the Aboriginal population that lives in urban and regional settings as well - these are the majority and products of dispossession. Do your homework before putting pen to paper.

I am shocked that On Line Opinion has published your article and agree with John. Until we acknowledge that racism is alive and well, we cannot move on. The author needs to educate himself and actually THINK before he puts pen to paper on this topic - now its out there for all to see for all time. Here's something much more sensible http://indigenousx.com.au/acknowledging-racism-is-not-being-divisive-it-is-our-only-hope-for-unity/

Mean to say I agree with Growly, not John!