.

(Continued …)

.

I, personally, am incapable of evaluating the legitimacy of these major policy shifts. Suffice it to say that I have no reason to suspect that the federal government is not acting in the common interest. I note - and I find it relevant to our present discussion - that the government declares in its presentation of the 2016-17 budget, under the title “Smaller government” :

[ The Government has introduced a range of “Smaller Government” reforms designed to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Commonwealth public sector …

The goal is to deliver accessible services, affordably and efficiently. The public sector needs to be smaller, more digital and more flexible … ]

Federal staffing levels have been cut back by 15 350 persons (made redundant) to slightly less than what they were ten years ago, in 2006-07 :

http://budget.gov.au/2016-17/content/glossies/budget_repair/html/

All this appears to constitute a fairly severe slimming regime for our Aboriginal communities and their traditional service providers.

Might I add that it also tends to validate my suggestion for the creation of a foundation to provide the financial support needed to set up the structures capable of assisting our Aboriginal compatriots in getting back in charge of their lives, free of the crippling shackles of welfare.

If you are right in thinking that “what happens in remote 'communities' is up to the people in remote 'communities', primarily, to resolve”, then the management of the foundation would obviously need to base their strategy on that all important factor and structure their organisation accordingly.

No doubt, it’s easier said than done, but I, personally, am confident that the right talents exist among our indigenous and non-indigenous populations and local communities and that the ways and means could be found to recruit the active participation of some of those talents in this major enterprise that I take the liberty of advocating here, once again, with renewed vigour.

.

Hi Rodney,

Thanks for the laugh: "You sound a bit defeatist there, Joe." Well, duh.

I don't think my wife would have ever claimed to know much about Ngarrindjeri culture, even though she tried all her life to find out as much as possible - it was gone, more or less, (unless you mean 'culture' in a sociological sense ?) a hundred years ago.

I have ideas about what COULD be done in remote 'communities' but I've been bitten enough times to know that what could, and what will, be done are two very different propositions. Yes, on the one hand, it has to be up to the people to pull themselves together and try to understand the real world that they are in, on the one hand, and up to agencies to try the most obvious strategies, but in the expectation that yet again, their hopes may be dashed, one way or another.

One crazy idea:

*let parents have all the benefits they would be entitled to if, say, they were actually raising their children;

* schools to offer kids three full meals each day, including weekends;

* schools to offer dormitory accommodation to any kids who wanted it, either through the week, or 24/7.

All fully funded and appropriately staffed, of course. i.e. another rescued generation.

Paternalist as buggery, like the good old mission days. Ideally, this might encourage the next generation to come to understand the links between schooling, future work and making a proper contribution in return for wages or salaries in the sorts of jobs that they want to work in, and are eventually trained for.

I reckon we have less than one generation to get something like that done. Otherwise ......

Yes, Australia has had a quarter-century of employment opportunities, especially in more remote areas. Yes, those opportunities have now withered away. Improving life in remote 'communities' is now that much harder, with work even less likely to feature in people's lives. But if people want to live forever on the public tit, that's their choice and they thereby create the consequences.

[TBC]

[continued]

As for your complaint about staff cut-backs, given that so many of the multitude of Indigenous organisations get no observable improvements from one year to the next, I hope, sincerely hope, that many of those cut-backs are in Indigenous organisations.

So frankly, your proposal would simply mean more of the same. Nor, by the way, do I put much store in more 'consultation', 'self-determination', UNLESS the realities of their situation, especially their financial entitlements, are spelt out, that they are made aware of their responsibilities and how much effort they need to put into meeting those, including preparing their kids eventually for work, and thereby the long years of schooling, so that they can begin to make some contribution to their own livers.

But if people are locked into a Cargo Cult mind-set, if they don't think they or their kids will ever have to work, but will always be looked after by an ever-growing army of outsiders, then they need to change their mind-set. Nobody has those rights. Nobody. If they want to eschew those benefits, they are completely free to do so - one way is to go back to a foraging life (which nobody seems in a hurry to do), or join their compatriots in preparing for and doing work.

Let's get one thing straight: people die in remote 'communities' at much, much earlier ages than the Australian average. Grog kills. Violence (against children as well as women) kills. Boredom kills. Drugs kill. Crap diet and no exercise kills. Child abuse and its consequent suicides ill.

Abuse and suicide ? Linked ? I think so: I would suggest that the great majority of child suicides follow rapes AND the complete lack of 'community' response or support for young people. Perhaps some researcher with courage, a rare bird indeed, could make a study of it all. And why kids are out on the streets at three in the morning.

Joe

.

Dear Joe,

.

You wrote :

« I don't think my wife would have ever claimed to know much about Ngarrindjeri culture, even though she tried all her life to find out as much as possible - it was gone, more or less, (unless you mean 'culture' in a sociological sense ?) … »

By culture, I mean :

« The ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society » (OED).

People of different cultures not only look different; they usually speak a different language. They think differently; their psyche is different; their mental references are different; their customs are different; they interpret everything differently; their world view is different; they have different sensibilities; different intuitions; and their reactions are different.

One of the first things I learned about Japanese culture in my travels was that in polite company there are two kinds of yes: yes that means yes and yes that means no. In Bulgaria, shaking your head from left to right means yes and up and down means no. There are literally thousands of cultural differences around the world that you had better learn if you want to do business or become accepted, otherwise you will never succeed.

I am sure your wife could equate to people of Ngarrindjeri culture better than you could. I am also sure that you and your children could equate to them better than I could. And - perhaps I am kidding myself - but I suspect that even I could equate to them better than many of those civil servants in Canberra who have never had any face to face contact with Aboriginal people or had to struggle to assimilate different cultures as I have most of my life.

Due to the multitude of different Aboriginal cultures, nobody could pretend to be capable of equating to them all correctly – not even full-blooded Aboriginal people themselves. Even speaking the same language, especially if it’s English, is not much help either.

In my experience, language is a poor substitute for communication anyway …

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Sometimes it’s a hindrance. I learned that very early in my international travels. In everyday life, I tend to speak only when I can’t communicate otherwise. Language is a double-edged sword. We use it just as much to hide what we really think (our true sentiments) as we do to express them.

There is no way we can help our Aboriginal compatriots unless we succeed in building an open and trusting relationship with them. If we don’t find a way of doing that - and doing it properly - then, I agree, we might as well forget it.
.

You remark :

« As for your complaint about staff cut-backs, given that so many of the multitude of Indigenous organisations get no observable improvements from one year to the next, I hope, sincerely hope, that many of those cut-backs are in Indigenous organisations »

I am not complaining about staff cut-backs. I agree, it might be a good thing. As a matter of fact, I have my doubts about the ability of the federal government to manage anything from Canberra and I think they do too - which is probably one of the reasons why they want a “smaller government”. Liberal governments usually consider they have no right interfering in the private lives of citizens at all - come what may. Labor governments have a somewhat different philosophy.
.

I consider that a foundation would have the following advantages :

1. Inclusion of the British Crown and government, both responsible for colonisation, in the overall financial effort
2. Negotiation and agreement of the contribution and role of the three trustees (the Crown, the British government and the Australian government) as well as the statutes of the foundation
3. Continuity of policy and finance (less subject to political and economic variabilty)
4. Management by an independent team of professionals under exclusive work contracts
5. Management by objectives and results
6. Improved control and reporting procedures
7. Annual audits of activities and results
8. Improved visibility of activity and results as well as use of public funds

.

Hi Rodney,

Oy, where to start ? Your ramble about culture is not really relevant any more, and perhaps hasn't been relevant in Australia for around 100 or 150 years. You seem to be constantly exoticising, or 'othering', Indigenous people, as if they are not of this world. They certainly are here, if not on the summits of Montparnasse. They live like any other people here, by choice, and because they can.

An example, make of it as your wish: we got hold of the Mission school roll, covering the period 1880 to 1966. We checked out Maria's grandfather's record and those of his brothers and sisters, born between 1874 and 1898 [their father had been one of the last to ever get initiated, in an abbreviated ceremony, around 1875-1880]. On average, they attended school for ten years each - i.e. between 1880 and 1915. The school competed with neighbouring (white) schools in standard maths, spelling and technical drawing, etc. in the early 1900s and didn't do too bad. Indigenous people and school were not alien to each other then and they are certainly not now, at least in the 'South'.

You may not realise it but some of what you write would be quite offensive, even racist, to many people. You really do need to come home, Rodney :)

Cheers,

Joe