John Pilger does talk up a storm about all the awful things "white Australia" is doing which prevents "Aboriginal Australia" from coping. Invading Australia is not one of them - we didn't do that. Others did, and they are all long dead. Our offence, according to the industry for which Mr Pilger speaks, was to be born here. Like every Aborigine.

What is lacking in Mr Pilger's periodic lectures is some well-thought-out proposals for just what he and others like him reckon "white Australia" should be doing so that Aborigines can cope with life. To give the industry's proposals credibility, it might also include some prescription of what Aborigines should be doing in order to cope.

If the industry is really dinkum, following their prescriptions should mean an end to their complaining. For good.

Pilger is a one trick pony. The repetitive conspiracy theory bilge would have dried up years ago were it not for the left-leaning and lazy ABC.

ABC managing director Mark Scott has freely volunteered that the ABC and SBS duplicate each other and waste millions of taxpayers money.

well said, EmperorJulian. My younger brother is something of an apologist for all things Aboriginal so, when I challenged him to come up with some concrete actions that should be taken to address Aboriginal disadvantage, he told me to read the 17 pages of recommendations of this report:

http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au%2Fpdf%2Fbipacsa_final_report.pdf&h=PAQG_KGNJ

I hope you can open it. It's the "Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse 2007" and I hope to study it over coming days, as should John Pilger.

The provision of services, including health, education and shelter to wherever aborigines decide to call home is not helping them assimilate into modern civilization.

As you say, Loudmouth, "nobody, nobody, nobody is living a traditional life in Australia now", so there is a logical limit to how remote a "remote community" should be supported from centres providing health, education, and shelter. Aborigines should not get to decide this, only be consulted in decision making.

On the provision of shelter, it can not be expected that gov't should house every remotely situated person for free (or peppercorn rent) when it is not the case in major, mixed population settings. All we are doing is providing half-way housing between traditional life and modern civilization from which there seems no escape, as decades of experience shows.

Aborigines must come to towns and these must be firmly run for the greater good, so that problems are minimized, while finding their feet without free meals based on race. The towns are the staging point for the urbanization and full integration of aborigines and their thriving into wider, multicultural Australia.

Where land rights are won, it is the responsibility of aborigines to make a living from that land that they devise for themselves, and without any right to lock its minerals away, as applies to any other landholder. The developing creative practice of making them custodians of their own land, as rangers with uniforms, vehicles and salaries, will not bring them autonomy but further dependence.

What has to be done will be painful for aborigines, but if it is not we will see what Pilger sees into perpetuity. What he sees we can all agree with, but not with what he infers about us from it.

I agree with your last comments, Luciferase, but, where you write "Where land rights are won, it is the responsibility of aborigines to make a living from that land that they devise for themselves", the point needs to be made that native title is inalienable title which means that the owners of that title are unable to sell it or do other income-earning things with the land that you or I could do if we owned title to a parcel of land. In time, I believe Aboriginal people around Australia will push for native title land to be changed to normal freehold title that can be sold, bought, subdivided, etc, like all other privately owned land.

On that one, Bernie, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_land_rights_in_Australia#cite_note-wtd-1 :-

"A successful land rights claim usually results in a special grant of freehold title or perpetual lease. A title document for the land is issued. The title is normally held by a community or an organisation, not by individuals. There are usually some restrictions on selling, and dealing with, land that has been granted in a land rights claim. Normally, the land will be passed down to future generations in a way that recognises the community’s traditional connection to that country."

The "dealing with" bit would not be so prescriptive as to stop owners form profiting from their asset, one would think. If it did, the situation could be remedied. I'm am restricted on land use of my property and can vary this with application to the appropriate authorities. The same would presumably apply to native title