Further to what Gary has written about the role of the Protector of Aborigines in South Australia in the nineteenth century: while I was typing up the nine thousand letters (between 1840 and 1912), time and time again, I said to myself,' 'Well, I don't think I would have done anything different myself.'

In fact, looking back, if, as it seems, the Protector was adhering to the pro-Aboriginal policies of the provincial (State) government, then I would have no quarrel with any of those policies. Sometimes the language used by the Protector was a bit abrupt, a bit impatient with some of the incessant demands made and innovative lurks perpetrated, but bureaucratic jargon was much less creative in those days. He got things done, and I wonder if those two factors are correlated.

Clearly, Aboriginal people are making use of the series of conferences to have their head, to put forward their wish-list of what they want from the rest of Australians. After fifty-odd years observing the Aboriginal political scene, I can't avoid the conclusion that Aboriginal 'leaders' are amazingly inept at both stating their aims to the Australian people (who must make their judgements in a referendum) and in controlling the more 'radical' wings of the Aboriginal movement.

But at least we know now what many - by no means all - Aboriginal people, especially wannabe 'leaders', DON'T want: they don't want equal rights, they want superior rights; they don't want reconciliation, they want domination; they don't want an end to discrimination, but a renewal of forms of Apartheid. Yes, sometimes the political naivete of Aboriginal leaders is breath-taking.

So many don't want understanding and togetherness: they want power - power with benefits, the eternal financial benefits from the Canberra money trees.

I'm forced to suspect that, in fact, what many Aboriginal 'leaders' and wannabes want is a permanent Indigenous mass-welfare society, a rentier society. They WANT a Gap, never to be Closed. They WANT discrimination, i.e. some permanent form of 'recognition through discrimination'.

Might this explain the hostility to celebration of Indigenous successes in higher education ?

[TBC]

What we really need is a thanksgiving day to all those immigrants who have made this nation great. We need to thank God and our forefathers who sacrificed so much to give everyone the roads, infractructure, hospitals and other services. The sooner we get over ' white guilt'. the better for all. We have already squandered billions on ruining many Indigeneous people. One old missionary told me about an old indigeneous elder who once commented that if the Government was to give us all welfare you may as well line us up and shoot us. How long are wwe going to allow activist and the idiotic united nations to continue to ruin the people.

[continued]

It's time to say that 'No, we are all Australians, we are all entitled to the same benefits, and we are all burdened with the same obligations to each other.'

If there ever is such a Referendum, and if there is an option to tick the box, 'To abolish all discriminatory legislation, for and against any group', then I'll tick it. Any other option seems tainted, in my frail and simple mind, with racism. Benefits should be awarded on the basis of need.

Having written that, I'll contradict myself slightly in suggesting that, as one way out of lifelong welfare, Indigenous units at universities and TAFE colleges should lift their game and go out of their way to publicise education in outer-suburban, rural and remote schools, with a view - eventually - to enrolling and supporting those students at TAFE and university. Otherwise, the Gap will keep Widening. Picking the low-hanging fruit, the Year 12 graduates, to enrol in higher education, has been the easy part,

Thanks, Gary.

Joe

Yes Gary, and here I find myself almost compelled to agree?

That said, a DNA test would allow a more conclusive test of ambit claims to be established? And perhaps exclude some of the wannabe participants, who purport to speak for the first Australians? Or get away with doing so on the grounds they feel Aboriginal?

In America, where a similar mixing of races has occurred, to claim any Indian Heritage whatsoever, one must at least pass a 25% test. Which is satisfied, it would seem, by at least one full blood Grandparent? or two half caste?

At some point we need to decide who can claim based on bloodlines and or Grandparents? And perhaps allow folk who can trace their Australian lineage, back through three successive generations of native born Australians?

Particularly if one or more of your forebears was transported here in chains, or arrived here as a bought and paid for, indentured servant? Which would eliminate any element of choice!

That said, a meeting between traditional elders and the Australian parliament, might be considered and arranged?

So we can understand what they really want? I'm sorry if that excludes loudmouth urban blacks, some with skin whiter than mine?

I think we have gone far too far with land rights and ambit claims by folks, often not belonging to the tribe they claim to be representing? Or the very first, first Australians, which by the way, would seem to be Tasmanian?
Alan B.

The Aboriginal elites and their renegade white supporters are now saying that recognition without a treaty and all the grabbing that goes with it will not be acceptable. Stiff cheese. All this nonsense in favour of 3% of the population does not deserve to get off the ground. No recognition plus nothing is the best way to go. The bipartisanship of politicians should be enough in itself to warn Australian voters off; since when have our politicians been the sort of people we should take notice of? I am looking forward to the great Australian silent majority putting the kybosh on this rubbish. The the 2013 recommendations were too much for even the Gillard government to stomach; this lot of demands will be even worse.

Before any talk of treaty, sovereignty or other measures is even considered, the very first thing that needs to be done is have a more definitive definition of " aboriginal".
As it is anyone with the slightest amount of aboriginal blood can claim benefits and perks,intended for those truly disadvantaged by birth.
In Canada, the treaty is with Status Indians who are Indians who can claim descent on their paternal side, not maternal which would rule out most aboriginal people here, who are descended from a " black" granny or great granny. In Canada there is no treaty with part Indian people or " Metis"
In the US the treaty is with registered members of Indian tribes, who must have a certain quotum of Indian blood, the amount decided by each tribe and sometimes as high as 50%.
And regardless of all this, the figures for unemployment, illiteracy, addiction, crime and poor health in these countries is no better than here, so,what exactly had a treaty achieved?

We're not Canada Big Nana and can and do atribute land rights etc to a maternal link!

Which is true for many aboriginal tribes, whose link to land is linked exclusively via maternal links, and always has been?

Thus when women were stolen from other tribes, their connection to land, was stolen with them? As would seem, common practise in Tasmania, Where the women ruled the roost?

At least that is my understanding of our difference, inculcated at my Grandmother's knee, with other indigenous inhabitants of other lands.

The rest of your post, I can broadly agree with. Native title should go to folk, indisputably native, regardless of paternal or maternal lineage!

Me, I strongly identify with my Celtic forbears, who had their traditional generational land and tenure stolen by armed invaders!

Many of whom, would have been forced to witness the burning of their crofts and humble possessions as harsh northern winters threatened, leaving few survivors/rebels, lucky enough to find and share a cave and a few crumbs.
Cheers, Alan B.

I can remember the start of the Race Relations Industry (1960's UK) the main objection was that there was no "Race" in the British law and now it is being introduced. That objection was swiftly cast aside and since then the "We are all equal" mantra has held sway except that some racial groups are more equal than others. Australia actually excepts aboriginal people from some of this law too. I strongly object to this and always have especially seeing how it is working.
What an excellent suggestion Loudmouth, a question in the referendum to except no one. I will vote for that and believe it would get up too, along with a real test for "Aboriginal status".
It can never happen as there are just too many people on this gravy train.

@Loudmouth, Thursday, 15 December 2016

Excellent summary and conclusions Joe, many thanks.

Aw shucks, you fellas ;)

Isn't freedom of expression wonderful, or at least illuminating: Michael Mansell has just published a book on a separate Aboriginal state and sovereignty from outside rule, and manages to square the circle by explaining how it would also mean extra funds from Canberra for this break-away from its control, AND an Indigenous body in Australia's parliaments to oversee any legislation affecting Aboriginal people, i.e. every new bit of legislation, a new organisation 'a bit like ATSIC', and also separate representation in parliaments, to boot.

And - hey presto ! - probably an end to all discrimination into the bargain.

Do some of these children ever think beyond their brilliant little five-second thought-bubbles ? For example, where would a separate State be ? One with a 'predominantly Aboriginal population' ? Let's see; you draw a line from way out west of Ceduna, across to the Flinders Ranges, across the north-west corner of NSW, up to around Cooktown; then on the other side, down from south of Broome to east of Esperance. You would have to leave out Alice Springs (oh, all right then, it can be the capitol) and of course Darwin and Katherine - and Broome, since they don't have a predominantly Aboriginal population.

So what area are we talking about ? Perhaps a hundred thousand people, in five million square kilometres of the hardest, most barren country in Australia, with the most mendicant, skill-free Aboriginal population in Australia.

Of course, another question arises: how many of the Aboriginal elite would go there ? In fact, how many of the elite have EVER been there ? Would they be happy to live in Alice Springs ? And let's not talk about passports. Haven't these duck-brains ever heard of South Africa ? What a bunch of warnkers.

But if this is what some Aboriginal 'leaders' REALLY want, i.e. anything but reconciliation, then perhaps we should put this whole 'Reconciliation' band-wagon on hold until they get a modicum of common sense and think through - just this once - the implications of one of their thought-bubbles.

Joe

I hate to say this Joe, but sometimes I think the brains of some of these so called "leaders" are back in the stone age still.

David

Hi David,

I don't know about that, I don't believe anybody inherits much from their ancestors, culturally maybe but not mentally. More likely, many 'leaders' see opportunities for power, from the point of view of 'representing' a small minority (whether they like it or not), and one way to grab more power is to flog these sort of issues for all their worth without thinking through their associations (i.e. Apartheid in Mansell's case) and consequences (i.e. the further disintegration of the Indigenous entity, which has enough to contend with on that score already.)

Meanwhile, while these would-be Neros play on their fiddles, remote and rural 'communities' go even further down the drain (their problems are not the concern of the elites, after all), and urban populations successfully integrate their lives further with the lives of other Australians (bad urban populations !). After all, Indigenous people have historically, usually, done whatever they liked within constraints, they've never let themselves be herded anywhere, or told what to do. And their 'leaders' won't have much success there either. They're pissing in the wind. Leave them to it, it's no less than they deserve.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi David,

Given the reliance of many Indigenous 'leaders' on a spurious interpretation of history, as pretext for a treaty, recognition of nations and ultimately sovereignty, there's a fantastic, long and thorough article about the 'Recognition' schemozzle in today's Australian by Greg Craven, Professor of Law, VC of the Australian Catholic University.

He absolutely nails all the talk about treaty, nations and sovereignty as phony, very divisive (even if cloaked in the jargon of 'reconciliation' and coming together). Well worth framing.

Joe

.

This is the treaty I should like us all to sign ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbamvzYDnOE

.

Big Nana, can you name any of those benefits and perks that apply to Aboriginal people? I'd like to know so I can start applying for them myself.

Hey Joe, I can recall you not long back praising the increased numbers of Aboriginal university enrollments and graduates. Now you're stating that has come from 'Picking the low-hanging fruit, the Year 12 graduates, to enrol in higher education, has been the easy part,' And your evidence for that is?

You also never seem to divert from Aboriginal issues in South Australia, a place where many of the injustices and atrocities were avoided. How about taking off your blinkers and looking at the experiences across Australia. Start with the near genocide in Tasmania. Then move on to other parts so you get a more extensive education before making sweeping comments and putting yourself out there as the 'expert'.

The concept of a 'treaty' has been around for decades, if not over a century. Notwithstanding the South Australian governments proposal to have treaties with various peoples/nations it really can only remain a concept due to the great diversity of Aboriginal people in Australia. For instance, I have Wurundjeri and palawa heritage and don't belong to any group or organisation so who is going to have a treaty with me? No one, that's who.

The time for a treaty was over 150 years ago but it was never considered and that is possibly due to the fact there were Frontier Wars being waged and a treaty was a means of negotiating peace that wasn't wanted by the invading whites. In most cases they wanted to destroy Aboriginal people and take their valuable lands for nothing.

On a final note for now Gary Johns displays an ignorance of history, which is typical of white fellas of his ilk.

Hi Minotaur,

Be careful what you ask for: benefits ? reduced interest rates on housing loans, for example.

There's no contradiction in what I have written: there HAS been a massive rise in the numbers of Indigenous students and graduates at universities (and they will keep rising strongly), AND they have been 'the low-hanging fruit': the massive increases in Year 12 numbers since 2000 have made up for a drop-off in the numbers or rural and remote and outer-suburban students, people much more likely NOT to have Year 12: they are the fruit that is always harder to reach, yet are as entitled, surely to be encouraged to enrol at, and be prepared for, university, what we used to call 'special-entry students'.

Thanks for raising this critical issue: since the abolition of sub-degree courses, around 2002-2005, university opportunities for students away from the cities, and in non-working families, have drastically declined.

There was a time when we took students into semester-length preparation courses, drilled them in what was to come, and then enrolled them with continual back-up support. But those courses dried up, at least in SA, about 1990, at the connivance of Ab. Studies staff. Surreptitiously, we kept running month-long preparation programs from late January to give some people a chance. And against the opposition of the Ab. Studies people. Long story.

So now, rural, remote and outer-suburban people have far fewer opportunities and Indigenous programs at universities seem to be making little effort to reach out to them, their own brothers and sisters, or at least cousins. They've made it, so what, me worry ? So the Gap gets Wider.

Clearly, there is no contradiction between praising those who have seized opportunities, and making a plea to university programs, a vain plea, I expect, to make at least some effort to reach people who haven't been able to complete Year 12. Both have to be done. Wouldn't you agree ?

Wouldn't that accelerate growth, facilitating a target of a hundred thousand graduates by 2030 ?

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, as an Aboriginal person who is buying my own home I can tell I do not get a reduced interest rate for being Aboriginal...or anything else. And none of my Aboriginal friends who are buying a house get reduced rates either.

And for the last 6 years I've been teaching in a year long preparation program for Aboriginal students. And having been to many conferences and universities I know they are run in the majority of universities too.

Hi Minotaur,

Sorry, I got that wrong. Is there maybe an income test ?

I'm glad that there are preparation programs somewhere. They seemed to have been dropped here in SA. Perhaps this is why the growth in participation here has been almost the slowest of any State.

Which is ironic of course, because it used to be in the forefront of preparing 'Special Entry' students - at least the Uni of SA was, until the Support Unit was white-anted, sabotaged and destroyed back in 2005. Yes, indeed, the world is full of utter bastards.

Good luck with your students in this coming year. And Merry Christmas !

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Minotaur,

Earlier you asked me why I hadn't made a study of historical conditions in Tasmania. Probably one reason is that I'm not there, I don't have access to any documents from there and I don't like to comment on things I know nothing about. I'll leave that up to others.

Perhaps there is some half-witted old fart like me in Tasmania, who would be willing to spend a few years buried in the Tasmanian Archives. It would be exhausting but extremely rewarding, I can assure you. Perhaps when you've got some leave accruing ?

As far as I'm concerned, I've done South Australia and it's up to others on the spot to do something similar in their own States. If I won X-Lotto and my eyes held up, I'd like to give Queensland a go.

As for preparation programs: yes, we ran a year-long Bridging Course to get people into Conservation and Park Management (Parks and Wildlife): it ran from 1990 to 2002, under Henry Mancini. Probably most SA graduates in this field came through that program, I was very proud of it and its students. Such programs have to be very specific, we found.

Cheers,

Joe