ALTRAV. You are as close to the truth as I have seen. There are people out there who claim to be stolen, just so they can milk the system. I met a half caste man at the Old Telegraph station who gave me a few insights to how a lot of these kids were taken in by several different church groups and given a good education. He also told me that his cousin, Charles Perkins, was sent by his mother to be educated down south. Charles also claimed that he was stolen, which of course he wasn't. I suspect that many of today's half caste aboriginal leaders are in the same category. It is time they showed some honesty about their white heritage.

David

Hi David,

You suggest that the figure of 700,000 is too low. But it's amazing how much the population has grown from one Census to the next, with the population increase usually well-outstripping the actual number of births. Obviously, re-identification (or identification) has been a huge factor, because the actual increases in births has been quite small, barely 1 % p.a. since 1971. So I would estimate that about two-thirds of the population increases since 1971 have been through (re-)identification, not natural increase, which the ABS brainlessly rhapsodises over.

I would also agree with Big Nana that populations are moving from remote to less remote to urban areas, not the other way around. Successes, such as they are, tend to be in urban areas - university graduate numbers, for example, currently a total of around 44,000. Urban home ownership would be light years ahead of remote home ownership too. And if Indigenous data is disaggregated, instead of all being lumped together, it would be seen that urban Indigenous people have life expectancies, illness rates, etc. much like those of other Australians, while rates in remote and very remote areas would be phenomenally lower on the good stuff, phenomenally higher on the bad stuff.

Joe

Reidendification is a problem which could be overcome by refusing aboriginal identification to those who have no aboriginal grand parent. That would stop a lot of the rorting of the system and give a truer picture of the really disadvantaged ones, where we should be concentrating our efforts.

David

VK3AUU, to further your point. It has been my opinion that the figure of 700,000 is waaaaaaaay over the top. Could someone come up with a closer estimate based on my theory that ONLY children from pure blood aboriginal (both) parents be classified as aboriginal. I realise this means we have a diminishing abo' population, unless the children of pure bloods reproduce. I realise it is almost impossible to check as those who stand to lose will fight to keep their aboriginal status. Most can be eliminated by simple visual assessment.

Dear ALTRAV,

As always I find judging a rule like yours about requiring both parents to be full blooded is pretty ease, apply it to another situation and see how it flies.

Jewishness is allocated via the maternal side of the ledger and brings with it certain privileges, for instance the right, bestowed by the government of Israel, to go and settle on occupied territory, a place which is not their land to give.

Why is this okay for the Jewish people to only have a Jewish mother, but our indigenous folk being allowed to call themselves aboriginal unless both their parents are full blood?

I think have both parents as full bloods is too restrictive. However, we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere and I believe that having one grandparent would suffice.

Steel, your Jewish example is a complex one. It is a tradition that goes way back, and as you may not be aware, we must always give way to Jewish tradition. lol. It has only become an aboriginal problem sine the arrival of the first fleet.

David