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