.

Dear Joe,

.

You wrote :

« … Aboriginal people themselves have to be front and centre in re-building self-esteem, etc., while others can only provide secondary support. Self-determination surely means that people themselves determine and negotiate their own futures, mainly (if not exclusively) through their own efforts ?

Of course, very many are doing just that: the equivalent of around 20 % of a young age-group now graduate from universities each year, through their own efforts: it's possible. Many others are gaining skills, and altogether the majority are searching for, or gaining, employment »
.

I find it quite remarkable that so many are managing to assimilate modern civilisation after such a brief transition from their hunter-gatherer way of life. I shudder to think of the effect it would have on me if I suddenly found myself having to adapt to an alien culture that was 60 000 years in advance compared to my own. I doubt that I could handle it alone – not at my age. Perhaps if I was a toddler brought up like one of them, in a warm, affectionate atmosphere, with somebody to guide and teach me …

The words of Bob Randall, elder of the Yankunytjatjara Nation, are ringing in my ears:

« Now we’re stuck between two cultures, two worlds; we can’t go back to the old way because the natural environment has been destroyed. Nothing is there in its natural state anymore. We can’t get into your system because many of us don’t understand it »

I understand the disarray and feeling of helplessness that must deprive many of them of a credible role in their own care and life decisions, particularly for those who live in the outback. How could it possibly be otherwise?

I don’t pretend to know how best to help but I do know that many of them are continuing to suffer from our brutal intrusion into their worldly environment. I simply indicated four major issues I think we need to address in an attempt to somewhat attenuate the negative effects of that unwanted intrusion.

.

Hi Rpodney,

You suggest: " ..... I find it quite remarkable that so many are managing to assimilate modern civilisation after such a brief transition from their hunter-gatherer way of life. "

Not really, it seems that in the early days in SA, people's curiosity about this strange new world (and rapid acceptance of the ration system) worked together to help people make the break from a foraging society to one which, as the margins, quickly began to get involved in the money/agricultural/horse-and-cart economy. After all, once people started to get involved in the new economy - everywhere - they rarely went back to a foraging one. So after perhaps a single generation, many people had put their knowledge of a foraging economy on the back-burner, and had thrown themselves as much as possible into this new type of society.

And let's face it, nobody, NOBODY, in remote 'communities' is now totally living a foraging lifestyle. Everybody has access to vehicles, money, grog, TV, [even helicopters], etc., etc., which have been part of their lives, often, for their entire lives.

Culture is not genetic: people either live it or not. Down this way, many, many Aboriginal people were living a pretty-much fully 'Western' way of life, literate, speaking English as their first language, etc., well before 1900.

But draw that line between agricultural and pastoral country (esp. cattle vs. sheep) and yes, people 'over the line' certainly missed out on the opportunities available to people further south and east. And that's been their problem, the 'problem' which has given rise to so many others afflicting 'communities' now.

Cheers,

Joe

Yes, I do, LEGO.

<<You claimed that I have no evidence of your dishonesty.>>

Try giving one example of it.

<<Then you accused me of saying that only nature (genetics) was responsible for human behaviour. You posted a hot button link to "prove" your claim. Since I knew your claim was complete and utter crap, I clicked on the hot button and scrolled down. And gee whiz AJ, what did I find?>>

Oh, really? Where was that? You can’t provide a quote, can you LEGO? What was that I was saying about you relying on your readers to not click on my links?

<<Me saying that both nature and nurture were responsible for human behaviour. What did you do, AJ? Did you think that you could just say any lie and nobody would bother to check?>>

No quotes, I notice.

<<I have submitted five examples of genetics controlling both animal and human behaviour.>>

No, you’ve only used biological sex to prove your point, and I’ve already disproved that.

<<All of these concepts I have explained to you before, in depth.>>

When? How about you provide a “hot button” link to it then? Can’t? I’m not surprised.

<<But you are not going to let the facts get in the way of your politically correct, neo-Marxist, anti white racist ideology.>>

LOL, “Marxist”. That’s cute.

<<1. Human races and ethnicities quite obviously do equate to sub species of animals.>>

Not they don’t. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization))

<<2. That males are much more prone to violent and criminal behaviour than females.>>

“Sex is not the same as race. Gender is a far more reliable predictor of behavioural traits.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#331140)

<<This is a very strong argument that genetics and behaviour are linked.>>

No, it’s not, and you haven’t yet addressed my rebuttal.

<<I was disappointed that you did not try your pathetic explanation of the difference in gender behaviour, by claiming that it was hormonally induced behaviour and therefore not genetic.>>

I never said anything about hormones.

Continued…

…Continued

<<But I suppose you realised that you have made a complete fool of yourself on that one…>>

Yeah, you’re not very smart, are you?

<<Neither will you admit that since you now have no credible non genetic explanation for gender behaviour differences…>>

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=gender+behavior+definition&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibqtXx-uvPAhUDyGMKHeGxDE8QgQMIGTAA

Whoops.

<<3. That the AIC cites "recent twin studies show persuasive evidence that both genetic and environmental factors contribute to anti social behaviour." Gee, AJ. Why don't you challenge the AIC and tell them they must be wrong about the genetic part, unless they can quantify exactly how much genetics causes crime "on a macro level.">>

“No. In fact, I was the one who had to tell you that:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0”

<<4. Thank you for agreeing that incarcerated criminals have low intelligence…>>

As if it were the first time. More dishonest rhetoric. You schmuck.

<<…and that intelligence is heritable.>>

As if it were the first time. You’re a bit slow, aren’t you ol’ LEGO. Is it the ealy onset Alzheimer’s you told me about? That would probably explain the Thought Disorder symptoms.

<<That must have had you squirming trying to figure out a way to deny that.>>

Yeah, “squirming”.

Try again, LEGO. You’ve failed once again.

.

Dear Joe,

.

You wrote :

« … it seems that in the early days in SA, people's curiosity about this strange new world (and rapid acceptance of the ration system) worked together to help people make the break from a foraging society to one which, as the margins, quickly began to get involved in the money/agricultural/horse-and-cart economy »
.

That’s what I find quite amazing.

According to the most recent anthropological estimates, the Australian aboriginals were among the first to leave Africa (probably due to major climate shifts) about 100 000 years ago, in search of new pastures, and migrated to Australia about 40 000 years later. Prior to British colonisation of Australia in 1788, their hunter-gatherer life style had practically not evolved since they left Africa. One hundred thousand years, that’s 4 000 generations.

Another group migrated from Africa and headed north, arriving in Europe about 50 000 years ago:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oldest-bones-from-modern-humans-in-asia-discovered/

The cold European winters obliged the black Africans to clothe themselves and store food like many other animal species. This led to the invention of animal husbandry and agriculture and a drastic change of diet. The combination of all these factors reduced the melanin content in their skin in order to allow greater bodily intake of ultra violet rays of the sun to produce the amount of vitamin D they needed to remain healthy - resulting in the genetic change that ultimately produced white skin.

Farming and animal husbandry led to the invention of more sophisticated tools allowing improved methods of production and storage which, in turn, stimulated the development of science and industry, etc., etc.

While all this was going on, Australia’s Aboriginal peoples continued to perpetuate their hunter-gatherer way of life, isolated from the rest of the world, in a vast island-continent where there were ample natural food supplies and no need for clothes or shelter from the cold winter climate – until the future suddenly caught up with them – in 1788.

.

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

I could never have imagined it would be possible for any of them to bridge the evolutionary gap of 50 000 years (2 000 generations) of human achievement in less than 10 generations - from 1788 to the present day - which has seen over 40 000 of them having graduated from university and, as you say, the number continues to increase by a healthy 7-8% per year.

I can’t see how that would be possible if they were intellectually inferior to us (as LEGO adamantly claims, based on IQ tests). Given that incredible performance, I, personally, am inclined to think that many of them are perhaps, if anything, more intelligent than many of us.

I don't know, if the roles were inversed, if we would perform as well as they have. In my opinion, they have to be admired.

.