Good thinking from Anthony Dillon - as always. Governments don't do anything properly, and aboriginal 'leaders' and self-serving whites and sundry do-gooders are most of the problem. Billions of dollars spent, and we still have people living miserable, meaningless lives. We haven't progressed from the 'living museum' days of those two a... holes Gough Whitlam and Nugget Coombes.

So what's 'working' ?

Participation in higher education, for one: more than fifty thousand graduates (maybe around 57,000 by the end of last year), one in every seven or eight Indigenous adults, isn't a bad effort.

But you have to differentiate between urban/remote-rural, and working/welfare-based, populations. Amongst urban, working people and their children, most of the 'Closing the Gap' measures are closing rapidly - no particular thanks to any programs, the improvements are far more likely to be 'bootstrap' initiatives by the people themselves. There is such a thing as social forces, social change, which the people themselves are bringing about and, if anything, special 'programs' are hindrances to those social changes. Working people are more likely to push their kids, and in turn their kids have positive role-models AND more information about their options, which inevitably include hard work, regular school attendance and performance, and expectations of future careers, as logical outcomes for all that effort.

Currently, even on the federal Education Department figures, on: https://www.education.gov.au/higher-education-statistics - which (I suspect) are about 30-40 % out, in 2016, nearly seven thousand Indigenous people commenced university study. A relevant age-group numbers around fourteen thousand, so the equivalent of at least HALF of, say, the 21- or 24- year-old age-group is commencing university study each year. That number is going up by about 8 % p.a.

So currently, the equivalent of about four age-groups are university graduates. Five, by around 2020; six, by around 2025; and so on. Proportionately much more in the cities, and even more amongst urban working families.

That's one reality, one 'pole' of the 'Gap'. All the work now needs to be done on the other 'pole'. How to get kids to go to school - using the Eternal Carrot doesn't seem to be working, so why not a bit of stick? Penalise parents who don't send their kids to school by cutting Family Benefits, which implicitly assume that parents ARE getting their kids into school ? And is it impossible to devise training programs for all those able-bodied unemployed people in remote and rural areas ?

Joe

It makes little sense impoverishing one group in society, to furnish the whims of another group, deemed to be more important (politically).

And if closing the gap is actually necessary, then keep the word egalitarian firmly at the centre of the push.

The author very briefly hit on the problem of inequality, IE Who's inequality?

All Australian communities have an issue currently totally ignored by politicians, its called “poverty”.
It's stark, and has no cultural boundaries.

Closing the gap BS, simply breeds more resentment on one side, and total arrogance on the other.

I know more whites in dire need of reasonable and affordable housing, (with or without A/C, they wouldn't care), than privileged Aboriginals (with “private property, do not enter” signs erected at their entrances).

“Closing the gap” is total BS, and we out here in normal land, are fully aware of it!

Forgive me for suggesting, very tentatively (out of fear of being burnt at the stake, perhaps after being drawn and quartered), that to an extent, perhaps, in some cases, maybe, [how's all that for ambivalence ?] that 'Closing the Gap' and maintaining 'Culture' are antithetical ? You can't do both ?

Is it possible that the root causes of some aspects of the 'Gap' are cultural, or at least traditional-oriented society ? Patriarchy, the frequent recourse in traditional times to extreme violence, documented everywhere, the necessity in foraging societies to focus on today and not tomorrow, to gorge if it's there and starve when it's not, to act on the spur of the moment, to take that's offered by the World/Nature/Outside Authorities, without asking too many questions because it may not come again ? To perceive all effort as unpleasant, negative and unnecessary (but natural for Whitefellas, like a servant class for Blackfellas), and permanent leisure as the ideal ?

Jesus, now I'll have to migrate to some unnamed country :(

Joe

Closing the gap is dependant on folks willing to relocate to better served areas and put an emphasis on learning english language and Stem subjects ahead of the native tongue.

As long as folk can hide in remote locations, the children abuse problem/domestic and alcoholism will continue along with its aftermath on the unborn.

This refusal by some to move out of the stone age and into the 21st century, by a community of welfare dependant folk, is a significant part of the problem as is the usual nepotism/cronyism etc/etc.

Yes by all means, let them keep their languages and culture but none of the problems it allows. Public drunkenness, domestic violence, massive child abuse and seriously neglected kids.

Folks can complain and blame whitey? But nothing much about accepting grown up responsibility and owning your own behavior.

And entrenched/reinforced by recalcitrant intransigence!

Simply put, if some folks can start from the same place and go on to succeed, it has to say something about the real problems and the humbug that tries to excuse the part of principle players, who've seen billions literally flushed down the toilet trying to tackle problems not recognized as emanating inside the culture!?

Time to call a spade a spade and call out the Humbug!
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

When my kids were in primary school, and we were living in an area with a large Greek population, they used to go along to the Saturday morning Greek-languge programs which were offered for free by Greek community members. What's to stop Aboriginal people in communities from intensively teaching their kids any local languages like that ? In addition to speaking their languages at home as well ? And, if possible, integrating new words, the words that they all use every day, into local languages ?

Yes, English is, as the common language across Australia, on TV and radio, in schools and universities, the common language, vital to Aboriginal people who want to participate more in the national economy. Without a command of the national language, people can't access the national range of opportunities. Clearly, there is no necessary contradiction between local and national language use, they each have their domains. The parents have their roles, and the schools have theirs.

Joe

Joe

You just described the “blacks” (progressive term), that their progressive Aboriginals cousins refer to deridedly; and you describe as the escapees of cultural negativity.

It's the progressives who have my sympathy. The negative cultural influence is all too pervasive.

From Rudd to Dodson "Closing The Gap" has certainly become a partisan Labor Party weapon to embarrass the Turnbull Government.

Kevin "Moon Face" Rudd is its self-appointed Saint. Rudd is ignorant how prestentious his Preaching Speeches sound. http://junkee.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/good-one.jpg

Meanwhile Labor Senator Pat Dodson, with his funny hat and flowing grey beard, has set himself up as the Gap God http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/sites/sbs.com.au.nitv/files/styles/full/public/e6ab0fba-7b8a-4250-901d-97ab3afc587b_1518052939.jpeg?itok=pDCmM_sj

Labor Party jokes both.

.

Dear Anthony (the author),

.

The general gist of your article makes good sense if, as you claim, our “dominant Westernised culture” is superior to Australian Aboriginal culture. It is certainly more highly developed, more refined and sophisticated, but is that sufficient for it to be considered superior ? Time will tell. I think it’s a bit too early to judge.

The early beginnings of our “dominant Westernised culture” can be traced back to the Neolithic Revolution about 12,500 years ago. According to the historians, the Neolithic Revolution "inspired some of the most important developments in human history including the invention of the wheel, the planting of the first cereal crops and the development of cursive script, mathematics, astronomy and agriculture".

Whereas, genome sequencing carried out in 2011 revealed that “Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago” (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177).

There is no doubt that Westernised culture is dominant in Australia today, but in terms of longevity, Australian Aboriginal culture is more than five times superior to Westernised culture.

Life on earth is a self-sustaining process that began about 3.5 billion years ago and, with a bit of luck, it will continue for at least another 3.5 billion years. But, we have no way of knowing if our present “dominant Westernised culture” will prove to be any superior to Australian Aboriginal culture in the long run.
.

You conclude :

« Finally, we must focus on the real issues: employment, education, housing, and the problems associated with remote living »

That's OK if the objective is to assimilate the “dominant Westernised culture”. But I think you’re jumping the gun on that one, Anthony. That may not be in the Aboriginal peoples’ best interests, nor in Australia’s best interests in the long term.

I think we should have a double objective : assimilating the “dominant Westernised culture” and doing whatever we can to help maintain traditional Aboriginal culture in the best possible conditions, given the current state of the ecosystem.

As you say, we must focus on the real issues.

.

Hi Banjo,

Latest news ! Indigenous people are not like sheep, they will 'assimilate' or join with the rest of Australia, or whatever term you want to use. They will not have it done to them, or for them. Please refrain from using the passive voice when writing of Indigenous people's initiatives and decision-making.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« Latest news ! Indigenous people are not like sheep, they will 'assimilate' or join with the rest of Australia, or whatever term you want to use. They will not have it done to them, or for them. Please refrain from using the passive voice when writing of Indigenous people's initiatives and decision-making »

That’s right, Loudmouth. I’m sure you know more about it than I do, but I too have serious doubts about the objectives pursued by the federal government in spending $33.4 billion directly or indirectly on Aboriginal affaires for the period 2015-2016, and continuing to do so, as it has for several years now.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I have the impression that the powers that be in the federal government are in a similar frame of mind as that of Anthony Dillon, the author of this article. The very term of the government programme, “Closing the Gap”, says it all. They are both absolutely persuaded that there is nothing better for our Aboriginal compatriots than to totally assimilate what Anthony refers to in his article as the “dominant Westernised culture” – and that is what they are determined to impose on our Aboriginal compatriots – as if they were “like sheep”.

Of course, they are not “like sheep” and “they will not have it done to them, or for them”. It is up to them, and them alone, to decide which culture they wish to assimilate. British colonisation brutally deprived them of their life source, their land, and we severely aggravated matters by transforming the ecosystem with our “dominant Westernised culture”. So it is that by virtue of the high moral values we profess (that distinguishes our superior civilisation from the savages), we are now faced with the immense task of reinstating whatever can be reinstated and offering them a more or less viable alternative: our “dominant Westernised culture”.

Personally, as I wrote in my previous post, I am not persuaded that our “dominant Westernised culture” will prove superior to traditional Aboriginal culture in the long term.

.

This relates to what I said in a different thread.
No one has any control over what will happen.
It just depends on who mates with whom. It started 230 years ago and
you can not change it or divert it.
It is bigger than all of us.

Banjo Paterson,

" .... I am not persuaded that our “dominant Westernised culture” will prove superior to traditional Aboriginal culture in the long term."

It might be time for you to come home, Banjo, and find out what is really going on.

And yes, people are not like sheep - they will choose integration, living with and alongside other Australians of all manner of backgrounds, OR they will try to retain what some might see as personally useful, such as patriarchy, a life on welfare, humbugging their grannies and aunties, dodging work and getting their kids to dodge school, keeping out of sight in hle-in-the-wall 'communities', etc. It's their choice. In fact, it's ALWAYS been their choice. What we're witnessing these days is the consequences of those choices.

Meanwhile people - especially working Indigenous people - in the towns and cities have also chosen: chosen to make their own way in a rapidly changing world, free from the seductive clutches of welfare, doing their best to make sure that their kids do get a good education and go on to trades or higher education (figures for which are improving at about 9-10 % p.a.) and participating in Australian life to the full. And the consequences ? Happier, healthier families, children, young people, with options unavailable in 'communities'. Again, those are THEIR choices.

As Warren Mundine says today about education funding, we have to disaggregate all of the figures in relation to Indigenous progress: as he and many others, such as Anthony, point out, urban, working Indigenous people have indices for health, life expectancy,cetc., very similar to those of other Australians. The figures for remote/rural/outer suburban people on welfare are very different. So to lump them all together is bound to give a very distorted impression.

For example,

{TBC]

[continued]

For example, Indigenous commencements at universities improved by 12 % in 2016 (from 2015, since you ask). 12%. Very little improvement would have come from 'communities' or any welfare-oriented population (perhaps 1 %), and given that the urban-working population makes up around two-thirds of the total Indigenous population, it's possible that the 'real' urban-working improvement in university commencements in 2016 amongst those populations was closer to 18 or even 20 %. That population is moving fast, making choices which facilitate that sort of improvement - while welfare-oriented populations are, if anything, desperately making choices to retain their welfare-oriented life-styles and AVOID ever going down the path of their more progressive urban, distant, cousins.

So which population is booming ? Which population is stagnating, or even declining ? Which choices are positive, life-enhancing, and which are negative, literally life-threatening ?

As Noel Pearson has been pointing out for a decade now, there are, more or less, two identifiably distinct populations, each with different ideologies, trajectories, destinies. If anything, perhaps government agencies need to be able to accordingly differentiate improvements on those Closing the Gap targets, one set of outcomes in relation to the urban-working population, the other in relation to the welfare-oriented population.

My bet is that the KPIs for the urban-working population are improving at a far greater rate than sheer population growth, already very healthy, while the KPIs for rural/'remote/outer suburban welfare-oriented 'communities' and their parasite organisations are going backwards - not at a great rate, but 2-3-5 % p.a. Do any of the five thousand parasite Indigenous organisations have KPIs ? For $ 33 billion p.a., wouldn't setting KPIs be a useful idea to consider ?

I have this image in my head, of a huge warehouse-type building in Canberra, in which hundreds of bureaucrats, every fortnight, stuff money into brown-paper bags and post them out to the five thousand parasite organisations, no questions asked. Obviously, this is a very naive notion: in reality, they stuff money into brown-paper bags and post them to State and Territory agencies, who in turn .......

Am I wrong ?

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

Thanks for going to the trouble of spelling all that out, Loudmouth. It all sounds very familiar to me. It’s a much more balanced description than the one-sided view presented here by the author of the article we are commenting.

You ask :

« Do any of the five thousand parasite Indigenous organisations have KPIs ? »

Not to my knowledge, Loudmouth, unless they keep them to themselves – and if they do, they must be pretty bad, otherwise they would be shouting about them from the rooftops.

That said, if the State and Federal governments did the job themselves, it would probably be worse.

Please be assured, Loudmouth, that I have no doubt whatsoever that you keep your finger on the pulse of what’s going on and what’s not going on that ought to be, on the ground, as regards Aboriginal affairs, particularly in South Australia, but also, more broadly speaking, in Australia generally. For the latter, communications are such that the fact that you live in South Australia and I live in France does not make a hell of a lot of difference.

I simply observed in my previous posts that our federal government, like all its predecessors since colonisation, continues to pursue a single objective of assimilation of what the author of the present article, Anthony Dillon, calls the “dominant Westernised culture”. The rejection by the Prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, of the suggestion of any form of autonomy of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples is a very clear illustration of government policy in this respect.

As regards our “dominant Westernised culture”, I added that I am not persuaded that it will prove superior to traditional Aboriginal culture in the long term. By “long term”, I take as reference the 65,000 years or so of Australian Aboriginal culture. Our “dominant Westernised culture” has only clocked-up 12,500 years so far. It still has a long way to go.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I will be around to see if, in the final count, it is superior or inferior to traditional Aboriginal culture.

.

Hi Banjo Paterson,

If, by 'assimilation', that Indigenous people freely and enthusiastically choose for themselves, you mean equal rights and opportunities, then I'm all for it.

In an article in today's 'Australian', the Indigenous author Kim Scott talked about the need for 'classical Indigenous culture and languages' to be at the forefront of policy. But if you ask yourself, 'Which portion of the Indigenous populations is living by classical traditional culture, and which portion of the Indigenous population is suffering the worst in all of the negative indices', you would come to an uncomfortable conclusion. Which portion - the great majority - of the Indigenous population has experienced most from colonisation, and which portion is doing best, in terms of health, employment, life expectancy, etc. ? Another uncomfortable conclusion awaits.

Of course, Indigenous people should continue to practise what they can of traditional culture, but they should be aware of the consequences. And, as well, urban and working Indigenous people should continue to seize opportunities and build healthy and productive lives, with whatever aspects of traditional culture are beneficial and positive - and, in turn, reap the consequences.

Currently, it seems likely that there could be seventy thousand Indigenous university graduates (a measure of 'assimilation' that they willingly accept) by 2020, or one in every seven or eight adults - a level that Australia as a whole attained in about 1992. From patchy memory, I recall that Australia in 1992 was a highly-developed and well-educated country, moving rapidly from a manufacturing to a high-tech and professional work-force. The improvement in those Indigenous university participation rates is about two or three times as fast as for Australia as a whole - in 2016, commencements rose by 12 %. Indigenous home ownership is better than 40 %, even including those 'communities' where home ownership is impossible.

So where is the good news ? Where is the chronically bad news ? How, and when, can the two populations be reconciled ?

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You ask :

« So where is the good news ? Where is the chronically bad news ? How, and when, can the two populations be reconciled ? »

Personally, I am quite amazed that so many of our Aboriginal compatriots have caught up with us in just 230 years after having fallen behind by 12,500 years. Their ignorance was obviously not due to a lack of intelligence but to a lack of education. That, to me, is the good news.

The bad news is that those who would prefer to pursue their traditional way of life are now unable to do so for the reasons I indicated in my penultimate post, i.e. :

1. British colonisation brutally deprived them of their life source, their land

2. We severely aggravated matters by transforming the ecosystem with our “dominant Westernised culture”

The state and federal governments have never made any serious efforts to restore the sort of natural environment our Aboriginal compatriots enjoyed prior to British colonisation and our use of their land. They have constantly been denied the means of their autonomy and confined to a life of dependence on social welfare when they failed to assimilate our “dominant Westernised culture”.

That can hardly be considered a choice. It’s totally unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable. It’s not a choice at all. It’s a hold-up ! We have taken away their dignity and submitted them to our diktat.

The two (Aboriginal) populations will be reconciled when we create the conditions of an authentic choice in which both options are equally viable.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Funny, I've never thought about Indigenous people in terms of a lack of intelligence. And I was just saying to someone this morning that a study should be done, if possible of the reactions in the first one, five or ten years, of Indigenous groups who happened to occupy the country that major cities were later built on, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide of course - that those people, especially the young people, would have come to know town life, Western life as it was then, very quickly, perhaps within weeks and months.

Young people would have realised that, if they had money, they could buy all sorts of stuff, and one way of getting some of it was to offer to work from government people or farmers or on ships. Very quickly, they would have realised that they could work basically anywhere that labour was needed, all over the colony and indeed in all the colonies.

Young people would have been able to understand English within months, and fairly fluently within a year or so. In fact, they may have been able to operate easily in 'Western' society within five years and put their traditional culture on the back-burner, for when they were in the relevant domain.

So your amazement that people could 'catch up' in 'only' 230 years may be a little misplaced, to put it tactfully. Let's not forget that, when Macquarie set up a school for Aboriginal kids in Sydney in 1814 or so, within two years, one girl, Maria Lock, beat all the white kids in a colony-wide academic competition. That's really not so unusual in our 230-year history.

'British colonisation' currently leaves people pretty much to themselves - they can practice whatever traditions they like, while they cherry-pick the benefits of the Western welfare system. In short, people are doing whatever the hell they like, whenever they like, including some pretty stupid things, for which they reap the consequences. 'Communities'

[TBC]

[continued]

'Communities' have had self-determination for the best part of forty or even fifty years - autonomy, if you like. They have been free to make their own ghastly mistakes, even as they demand that all manner of government agencies pick up the pieces - since, after all, they are so 'powerless'. Yeah, right. Don't believe everything you hear from the Bilger.

And, of course, since around a third of the continent is in Indigenous hands, many people have the freedom to go back to a foraging life. But nobody does. Even in the thousands of 'communities, nobody works to build up a vegetable garden - in that regard, everybody is, if indirectly, aware of the story of the Little Black Hen.

Oh, except for the few White Benjamin Brandysnaps. Thank God for the thousands of government-funded Magic Puddings.

Come home, Banjo :)

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« Funny, I've never thought about Indigenous people in terms of a lack of intelligence »

That’s probably because of your long personal experience with them, Loudmouth. I never thought of them as being less intelligent than Caucasians either. I was alluding to certain reports that average IQ testing on indigenous peoples demonstrate the contrary.
.

You point out that Aboriginal children could have assimilated our “dominant Westernised culture” much earlier than the 230 years since British colonisation to the present day. That may be so, theoretically, but you have to remember that that was well beyond the imagination of our ancestors who considered that they were savages, something less than human. Even today, many of our Caucasian compatriots take for granted that anybody of Aboriginal extraction is of inferior race and treat them as such. Ignorance and racial discrimination has never been the exclusivity of our Aboriginal compatriots.

You also wrote :

« 'British colonisation' currently leaves people pretty much to themselves - they can practice whatever traditions they like, while they cherry-pick the benefits of the Western welfare system. In short, people are doing whatever the hell they like, whenever they like, including some pretty stupid things, for which they reap the consequences »

That’s right. British colonisation leaves them pretty much to themselves – after having taken away their life source, their land, and we destroyed their natural eco-system. That’s like cutting the legs off a cockroach and leaving it pretty much to itself. In short, it can do whatever the hell it likes, whenever it likes, including some pretty stupid things, for which it reaps the consequences.

« 'Communities' have had self-determination for the best part of forty or even fifty years - autonomy, if you like »

No, they had autonomy for 65,000 years. The means of their autonomy were ripped off them 230 years ago.

The means of its autonomy, its claws, had not been ripped off “The Little Black Hen”. It was able to continue to forage for its traditional life source, worms, not welfare!
.

Banjo Paterson,

I must dispute your assertion that " .... you have to remember that that was well beyond the imagination of our ancestors who considered that they were savages, something less than human. " Not at all - as I tried to point out ABOVE in my reference to Governor Macquarie's Aboriginal School at Black Town. I don't think it was the case here in SA in the early days either - and even if it were true, many urban-based Aboriginal people in the earliest days learnt quickly by observing this 'new life' buzzing all around them.

You have to try to understand that Aboriginal people have never been sheep, pushed here and there, learning nothing new. People had a very wide range of experiences from the outset with that 'new life'. When the Rev. Taplin set up his School at Pt McLeay in 1860, he spent much time learning the local language in the expectation that few kids could speak English. They pretty much all could by then - in fact, some had moved with their families to Pt McLeay from elsewhere and couldn't speak Ngarrindjeri. Already by 1860.

Even by then, some Ngarrindjeri adults had been to the Adelaide and Encounter Bay Schools in the 1840s and were quite literate. Men were working on the harvests by at least the early 1840s in all the regions around Adelaide. They made their own choices, they didn't have to be driven. In fact, I don't think Aboriginal people have almost ever been driven, they go where they like and, with constraints of course, do what they like, and they have done so since Day One.

No, Banjo, they do have autonomy now. Native Title covers at least a quarter, maybe a third of Australia. Communities are, and have been, free to run their own affairs for a long time now. And people have been free to 'forage' to their hearts' content, the men 'foraging' with Toyotas and rifles, knowing they can come back to the community store any time they like, perhaps dropping by the ATM first.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,.

The Samuel Griffith Society, named after the chief architect of the Australian Constitution, notes, as you do, that there were some early achievements in educating Aboriginal children :

« Roger Sandall has familiarized us with the concept of "crossing the ditch", the huge gap between hunter-gathering and tribalism on one side and agriculture, domestication of animals, permanent dwellings, literacy and division of labour on the other. That ditch had not been crossed by any Australian Aborigines before 1788. Once New South Wales became organised sufficiently to consider how to educate the children of convicts and free settlers, thoughts were addressed to what, if any, provision should be made for Aboriginal education. Officials and missionaries often started with feelings of optimism, sometimes fuelled by the facility many Aborigines showed in acquiring the English language and in translating one Aboriginal language into another … Governor Macquarie believed that, if "cultivated and encouraged", Aborigines would quit their "Wild wandering and Unsettled Habits" and "live in a State of perfect Peace, Friendliness and Sociality". However, early optimism about the prospects of sharing modern ideas and techniques with Aborigines was usually soon quenched, although a number of Aborigines "crossed over" the ditch without being counted. Excessive hope was succeeded by excessive despair »

Here is the link (c.f., the chapter “What should have been done?) :

https://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume19/v19chap11.html

It is also interesting to recall the mentality of much of the Caucasian population at the time. Here is what John Polding, the first Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Colony of New South Wales had to say in 1845 :

« I have myself heard a man, educated, and a large proprietor of sheep and cattle, maintain that there was no more harm in shooting a native, than in shooting a wild dog. I have heard it maintained by others that it is the course of Providence, that blacks should disappear before the white, and the sooner the process was carried out the better, for all parties. I fear such opinions prevail to a great extent …

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Very recently in the presence of two clergymen, a man of education narrated, as a good thing, that he had been one of a party who had pursued the blacks, in consequence of cattle being rushed by them, and that he was sure that they shot upwards of a hundred. When expostulated with, he maintained that there was nothing wrong in it, that it was preposterous to suppose they had souls. In this opinion he was joined by another educated person present »

Here is the link :

http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/history/history/

You maintain :

« No, Banjo, they do have autonomy now. Native Title covers at least a quarter, maybe a third of Australia. Communities are, and have been, free to run their own affairs for a long time now. And people have been free to 'forage' to their hearts' content, the men 'foraging' with Toyotas and rifles, knowing they can come back to the community store any time they like, perhaps dropping by the ATM first »

What you see as their “autonomy” in today’s context is totally different from the autonomy they enjoyed for 65,000 years prior to British colonisation in 1788. The OED provides the following meaning of the word autonomy :

1. The right or condition of self-government

2. Freedom from external control or influence; independence

Origin : Early 17th century: from Greek autonomia, from autonomos ‘having its own laws’, from autos ‘self’ + nomos ‘law’

As I understand it, the British colonised their country, took possession of their life source, their land, and submitted them to British law. The only major change since 1788 is that they have been granted limited right of use over “maybe just a third of Australia”, under “Native Title”, Australian Common Law - not their own, Aboriginal traditional law. Prior to 1788, they had total freedom to do what they liked with the whole of Australia (100%).

If my understanding of the English language and this important event in Australian history is correct, our Aboriginal compatriots lost their autonomy in 1788 and have never recovered it since.

.

Banjo Paterson,

So what if handful of whites think one way ? Government policy didn't usually support those views.

Autonomy ? Depends on the circumstances. Yes, it might mean choosing to sit bare-arsed on a Winter's morning around a half-dead fire with nothing to eat OR it might mean having money in your pocket, food in the fridge and the air-conditioning on a pleasant 22 Celsius. It might mean having six kids, four of whom die, OR it might mean having three kids, all of whom go to university. It might mean living to forty five and dying a violent death by club or spear, OR it might mean choosing to work hard, live a fairly comfortable life and dying at eighty five surrounded by your loving graduate children and graduate grand-children.

Banjo, you may wish to preserve Aboriginal people in amber for some obscure reason but surely it matters vastly more what they want to do ? Do they want to go back to foraging ? No. Do they want the benefits of modern, Western life, with or without quotation marks ? Yes. Right then, that's their choice and you have no right to demand otherwise.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo, you may wish to preserve Aboriginal people in amber for some obscure reason but surely it matters vastly more what they want to do ? Do they want to go back to foraging ? No. Do they want the benefits of modern, Western life, with or without quotation marks ? Yes. Right then, that's their choice and you have no right to demand otherwise »

To clarify what you describe as my “obscure reasons” please be assured that I do my best to keep an open mind on everything and systematically check the facts. I have no axe to grind. I am a pragmatist, not an ideologist. I do not “wish to preserve Aboriginal people in amber” as you suggest. I place a very high value on my own, personal freedom, and have the greatest respect for the freedom of all others, whoever they happen to be.

If I had found evidence to back-up your claim that our Aboriginal compatriots “do have autonomy now”, I should have been absolutely delighted. Unfortunately, having thoroughly investigated the matter, I found that they had lost their autonomy completely in 1788 and never recovered it since that date, as I pointed out in my previous post.

You now declare that “it matters vastly more what they want to do”. I agree. You affirm that they don’t want “to go back foraging … they want the benefits of modern, Western life”.

I can understand that. Since we invaded their land, transformed their natural environment, imposed our law on them, and polluted their culture and life style with ours, it’s evident that we created conditions such that it is no longer possible for them to continue to live as they did for the last 65,000 years.

If the British had not colonised their country, and if we had not exploited it, they would probably still be happily foraging instead of living on social welfare and enjoying the so-called “benefits of modern, Western life”.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

You conclude: “that's their choice and you have no right to demand otherwise”.

I couldn’t agree more – on both counts.

I do not demand anything of our Aboriginal compatriots. I try to get to the facts and correctly understand the historical events that have led to their current situation and, as you say: find out “what they want to do”.

It is clear that they have suffered from British colonisation and our subsequent exploitation of their life source (their land) resulting in the transformation of their natural environment. I consider that the British and Australian governments should now do all that they reasonably can to allow our Aboriginal compatriots to achieve whatever it is “they want to do” – including, if that is what they want, a maximum amount of autonomy, without endangering the integrity of the Australian nation as a whole, in today’s aggressive world.

Perhaps some of them would like to have the best of both worlds: our Western culture as well as their own traditional culture.

Why not ?

Having lived the first third of my life in Australia and the second third in France, I have integrated both cultures - though I have never taken French nationality. I am an Australian who happens to have fallen in love with France.

.

Hi Banjo paterson,

Autonomy yes, as long as it doesn't involve the freedom to kick your wife to death, or sexually abuse any kids you feel like just because you're an 'elder'. Autonomy within the law - i suppose that's what you mean, Banjo ?

Of course, 'autonomy' in a very remote, small, 'community, with no prospect of ever generating employment, poor schooling and health, but access to grog, drugs and gambling - may be different to the 'autonomy' of people in the cities from working families, all cognisant of the possibilities of the entire world at their feet, if only they put effort into their choices.

As for some cherry-picking of Western and traditional cultural practices, I don't think that would even be on the cards: 'southern' people, raised in cities and from families often with long work histories, have left behind fundamental cultural practices a very long time ago, perhaps with a smattering of 'kitchen language' and perhaps with knowledge of their genealogies. Usually these days, one of their parents - and perhaps parent of their Indigenous parent - might not be Indigenous, yet they choose to identify with their Indigenous ancestry, as they have every right to do (not necessarily to claim benefits as well, but that's another story).

As for your easy blending of Australian and French culture, I would have thought that that would be far, far easier than any hypothetical blending of Western and traditional foraging culture, even if the latter was possible. Blending the latter seems more akin to merging Pentecostal and Marxist-atheist beliefs: two completely different world-views.

So what's going to happen ? The proportion of urban, working, well-educated people will grow healthily, perhaps 8-10 % p.a. The proportion who are marooned out in their remote islands will decline, perhaps 2-4 % p.a., while their rates of child abuse, domestic violence and murder, ill-health, school truancy, etc. will slowly increase. What will eventually happen may be a matter of sheer attrition. I don't welcome that, but every other non-urban pathway seems to get thwarted, again and again.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

Well, you have had your finger on the pulse of Aboriginal Australia for many years now, Loudmouth, and it’s saddening to see that you paint such a bleak picture of the future of such a magnificent civilisation. The question we should now ask ourselves is should we simply stand on the sidelines and watch it slowly die, disappear, and be forgotten forever, or should we try to do something about it.

There’s not much I can do from here, except add my voice to all those who stand up and fight for the respect of our Aboriginal compatriots’ rights as laid down in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I have in mind, in particular, articles 3-6 which state as follows :

« Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality. »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

When the Declaration was adopted in 2007 only four countries voted against it: Canada, New Zealand, the US and Australia. In 2009 the Australian Government made a public statement formally endorsing the declaration.

That’s nearly a decade ago now but the federal government has still not put it into practice. Action is long overdue.

Here is the announcement made by the Australian Minister of Indigenous, Affairs Jenny Macklin, on Friday, 3 April 2009 :

« Today we celebrate the great privilege all Australians have to live alongside the custodians of the oldest continuing cultures in human history. We recognise the right of Indigenous Australians to practise, revitalise and sustain their cultural, religious and spiritual traditions and customs. We celebrate the vital positive contribution of Indigenous culture to Australia. And we honour Indigenous Australians who so generously share their culture, knowledge and traditions. We pay tribute to them, to their ancestors and the generations to come. In supporting the Declaration, Australia today takes another important step towards re-setting relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Working together to close the gap »
.

I can understand the deception and frustration of our Aboriginal compatriots at the rejection in October 2017 by the Prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, of the Uluru statement recommendations, which included embedding an Indigenous voice to parliament in the constitution. The recommendations were quite anodyne compared to the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights the government declared it subscribed to in 2009.

It is evident that our federal government is reneging on its commitments in respect of Indigenous rights and continuing to pursue its policy of assimilation – whether our Aboriginal compatriots like it or not. That’s it.

.

Hi Banjo Paterson,

Every society in the world has been constantly changing for a hundred thousand years, sometimes very slowly, but none stay the same, or even stay in the same place. Fifteen thousand years ago, all societies, Aboriginal Chinese, Spanish, West African, Central American, were Stone Age societies, mostly Old Stone Age, with very primitive technologies, foraging every day, and with cultural practices to match.

On that huge Asia-Africa-Europe land-mass, innovations spread slowly across vast distances, sometimes through invasions and the physical movement of masses of people (it seems that Britain was invaded just over four thousand years ago by people originally from the southern Russian steppes, for example) and sometimes through the diffusion of ideas. On the mostly-arid continent of Australia, such innovations never got off the ground.

Certainly, Aboriginal 'understandings' of how the world worked were ingenious, but based almost totally on principles of religion and magic. Check out Frazer's 'olden Bough' and you can understand how it couldn't be otherwise - after all, one's knowledge depends of what you might call one's 'technology of knowledge' - e.g. it was impossible to even know about moons around other planets until the telescope was invented. Similarly, knowledge of germs before microscopes. Aboriginal 'knowledge' was limited largely to just the basic human senses. So ingenious yes, but ultimately correct, maybe not.

Anyway, that's all well in the past for most Indigenous people in Australia. We can lament that, we can demand that somehow the clock should be turned back, we can cite UN Declarations until the cows come home, but the wheel of history only ever rolls forward.

And as for those UN resolutions, yes, Indigenous people here do, in remote areas, certainly have 'self-determination' although

[TBC]

[continued]

although it may mean something very different to the people than what may have been intended: people here have a genius for turning every promising program and idea into yet another welfare pathway - perhaps that relates to a fundamental foraging ethos, a basic meta-cultural principle, that magic (and the old fellas) will provide what you need without any perceived effort required. Hence self-determination AND total dependence, simultaneously. Would that it weren't so.

Meanwhile, the reality is that the great majority of Indigenous people now live and work in urban areas, and they have chosen freely to do so. UN resolutions may well be completely irrelevant to them. Those still trapped in remote, work-less 'communities' may have more access to 'culture' but also to endless free time, endless futility, endless power for men and powerlessness for women and kids, and 'access' to endless violence and abuse. It may take some time, another generation or maybe two, but that won't end well.

But in the meantime, how to protect the women and kids ? I have to say that, if there had to be a choice between 'culture' and the safety and well-being of women and kids, I would come down 100 % on the side of the latter. And, of course, since Australia is physically and socially an open society, one (very difficult) solution to the problems of violence and abuse may be the slow trickling away from remote 'communities' of the women and kids to nearby towns, leaving the men to kick the daylights out of each other to their heart's content.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

Thank you for those reflexions which I find quite remarkable, and for sharing your experience, knowledge and insights with me.

What you write comes to me as a wakeup call. If we continue as we are today, we are headed for disaster. It’s time for all of us to wake up and take stock of the situation. We have to act, and act now. The current state of affairs is absolutely pathetic, but it’s not too late to fix it.

Unlike Goethe, I do not believe in the inevitability of “great, eternal iron laws”. The “Divine” may or may not exist (I, personally, think not) but I do agree with Goethe when he writes in his poem, Das Göttliche, (On The Divine) :

« Only mankind
Can do the impossible:
He can distinguish,
He chooses and judges,
He can give permanence
To the moment »

It’s all too easy to put the blame on governments. We merit the governments we elect. We are all responsible for the current debacle and will be severely judged by future generations. We must shake off our present complacent attitude and tackle the problem head on, with an iron will and the firm conviction that history is in the making, not in passively suffering it, a posteriori.

We have to get our act together, alert everyone to the problem and mobilise the whole country towards a common objective : the preservation of the world’s oldest civilisation. It can be done, if we have the desire and the will to do it. For that, we need a leader of exception, a statesman or stateswoman – not a calculating politician – to rise to the occasion.

Australia is in the unique position of being home to both the youngest and oldest civilisations on earth. The challenge is to ensure their harmonious coexistence and mutual enrichment in a grand-child/grand-parent relationship that reflects our common humanity.

I hope someone will get the message and come forward, soon … before it’s too late !

.

Hi Banjo Paterson,

You assert that: "We have to ..... mobilise the whole country towards a common objective : the preservation of the world’s oldest civilisation." Says who ? "Preservation" ?! Surely it stands or falls, ossifies or modifies, on its merits ? And through its agents, the Indigenous people themselves ? After all, there is no iron law that says that, at all costs, this or that cultural practice must be 'preserved'.

But I agree with you that " ..... it’s all too easy to put the blame on governments." If we've learnt one thing about the foraging ethos, it is that, like most deeply religious-based societies, problems get externalised: it's usually someone else's fault and/or responsibility. As someone explained to me, traditionally-oriented people may have very different perceptions on responsibility: if one is given a house by some housing authority, it will always be the responsibility of that housing authority to maintain the house - in a sense, it has imposed an obligation on the new owner, not a blessing. In other contexts, to lend/give someone money, means that you have plenty while they are in need, and since that will continue into the future, you will owe them at last as much again whenever they need it, and they will never have to pay it back since, after all .......

So, no, parental responsibilities - human responsibilities in general - should not be usurped by any government agencies. 'Colonisation' doesn't mean a free ticket.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« "Preservation" ?! Surely it stands or falls, ossifies or modifies, on its merits ? And through its agents, the Indigenous people themselves ? … there is no iron law that says that, at all costs, this or that cultural practice must be 'preserved' »

In a Darwinian sense, I guess you could say that a civilisation “stands or falls, ossifies or modifies, on its merits”. But those of us who belong to Western culture pride ourselves in thinking that we have long surpassed that primitive stage of the law of nature we call the “survival of the fittest”, the lowest rank of human society, that of the “savages” (to employ the anthropological term) and developed a much more advanced culture, passing through an intermediary stage of “barbaric” culture before attaining our current superior, so-called “civilised” culture.

Modern Western civilisation, has developed a series of governing principles that include democracy, the rule of law, individual human rights, and socially acceptable conduct.

In modern civilisation, the law of nature we call the “survival of the fittest”, (i.e., the survival of the strongest to the detriment of the weakest) has been replaced by the principle of the “rule of law” whereby “all use of power must be derived from the law” (i.e., democratic law).

This means that the mere fact that our Western culture is more advanced and powerful than Aboriginal culture does not give it the right to do anything to the detriment of the less developed and vulnerable Aboriginal culture.

British colonisation and our subsequent exploitation of the Aboriginal life source, their land, have been, indisputably, to the detriment of our Aboriginal compatriots and their traditional culture.

Consequently, by virtue of our own "rule of law", we are responsible, together with the British Crown and government, for their resultant disarray.

It’s time we both pulled our head out of the sand and assumed our responsibility, mobilising our combined force and intelligence to save what can still be saved of the magnificent culture of the world’s oldest civilisation, before it's too late.

.

Hi Banjo Paterson,

"Magnificent" ? I'm not so sure. "Ingenious", yes. "Ingeniously coping with a harsh environment as best people could with very low-level technology", yes. But unless you're prepared to champion the resurrection of all tribal culture, everywhere, perhaps the word is inappropriate. And after all, one aspect of Western culture is "choice".

In remote Australian 'communities', there is precious little of that, especially given that they are all totally dependent on outside funding, which serves inadvertently but inevitably to perpetuate the most dreadful abuses, particularly against women and children. And there seems little likelihood that the status quo can 'evolve' into anything more positive.

So what to do ? What might break the vicious cycle of violence and abuse ? What can be done to ensure that the next generations have far better opportunities, like those of other Australian kids ? Schooling could be the key, if it was worked effectively.

Here's a model. Back in the nineteenth century, the missionary at Pt McLeay, George Taplin, set up his school in the usual way, kids living in the camps and coming to the school each day. But he (and his hard-working wife) found themselves busy washing, feeding and clothing the kids each day before school could begin. With the approval of their parents, he soon realised he had to bring the kids to school each Monday morning, until Friday afternoon. Quickly a couple of dormitories were built (one doubling as the schoolroom). Kids were given back their camp clothes on Friday afternoon and went back to the camp.

Nobody seemed to disagree with this procedure and, after all, he had no powers to compel anything in the face of the freedoms and powers of the parents to go off any time they liked and take their kids with them. At first, some parents demanded to be paid for sending their children to the school, and the right to keep the new clothes for themselves, but Taplin advised them to keep their children in the camps if they wished. No compulsion, but no payment.

This model

[TBC]

[continue]

This model was also common up until sixty-odd years ago in SA, freeing up parents to go out to work on farms and fruit-blocks during the week, while families were re-united for the weekends.

Is it possible to set up boarding schools in local towns, where children from remote settlements could go to school during the week and return home for the weekend ? All completely voluntary, of course. This way, there wouldn't be kids on the streets at three in the morning. Of course, all of this should be monitored, but at least the kids would be as free from abuse as in any other school, free to learn, provided with decent food and clean clothes. Many health problems would be avoided as well.

At Pt McLeay, the standard of teaching was roughly on a par with that at neighbouring non-Aboriginal schools, certainly by the 1880s: in inter-school contests, the Pt McLeay kids could hold their own: in one contest, their top class came first in a Technical Drawing competition.

Should Aboriginal kids from remote settlements have the same opportunities as other Australian kids ? Or should they be, as you imply, Banjo, bound by the 'evolved' cultural practices of their 'elders' ? Should they have 'choice' like your kids and mine ?

Joe

Why should we expect aborigines to to want to preserve a caricature of their ancient selves, and why would the rest of Australia want that for them?

Every culture has its history, language and traditions which are not other's responsibility to preserve. Anthropologists on the government payroll may record these for posterity, but they only observers, not preservers.

I like Loudmouth's boarding school suggestion as a staging post towards getting aboriginal kids involved in the 21st century.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

The breakdown of the traditional social organisation of our Aboriginal communities, due to the brutal introduction of Western civilisation in their midst, has been a disaster from which they will probably never fully recover.

The “most dreadful abuses, particularly against women and children” which you deplore, is just one of the more sombre aspects of that disaster. Unfortunately, there are many others, such as the shockingly high Aboriginal prison rates in all States and Territories as well as the alarming statistics on youth suicide, which show Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men between 25 and 29 have the highest suicide rates in the entire world.

I think the loss of cultural bearings, and the breakdown of the traditional social organisation of our Aboriginal communities, has a lot to do with this deplorable state of affairs. I take, as evidence of this, the fact that their culture has lasted, uninterrupted, in Australia, for over 65,000 years. It’s difficult to imagine that it could have outlasted all other cultures in the world, including Western civilisation, if it had always been as bad as it is today.

In the final analysis, traditional Aboriginal culture has passed the test of time with flying colours. It has proved more efficient than all other cultures that exist or have ever existed. Aboriginal peoples are not only highly conservative but, at the same time, capable of creativity and innovation which has allowed them to survive.

That is why I consider that Aboriginal culture is magnificent.

I note, in passing, that domestic violence is a common feature of all countries and all cultures, even the most advanced. Thousands of women die each year, around the world, as a result of blows received from their husbands or domestic partners in an atmosphere of general indifference. In 1999, the United Nations declared 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in an effort to provoke public awareness of the problem.

According to the latest statistics, in France, 267,000 people – 85 per cent of whom were women ...

(Continued ...)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

… were sexually harassed on public transport between 2014 and 2015, including kissing, groping, flashing and rape. A woman dies at the hands of her live-in partner every three days, and one in ten women are raped during their lifetime. The situation is much the same in all other modern democratic countries.

Interestingly, a leading Australian anthropologist of New Zealand origin, Gillian Cowlishaw, indicates :

« In New South Wales country towns there is an Aboriginal culture. There is an ongoing recreation of a distinct cultural heritage which has its own vocabulary, its family form, pattern of interpersonal interaction and even its own economy (Cowlishaw, in press). One source of this culture has been the specific everyday experience of the black population which has given rise to common-sense (in the Gramscian sense) ideas which conflict with the whites' common-sense concerning normality, propriety and the sanctity of private property. One of its manifestations is the highly developed humour which reinterprets events which threaten to engulf Aborigines' lives. Another part of it is the direct attacks on property. It is also manifested in the black power vocabulary which has been adopted by some of the young people, and in defiant public emphasis on values that are known to upset the dominant whites. Willis and Corrigan have discussed such 'oppositional culture' in Britain, and the work of Genovese discusses equivalent cultural creations of the oppressed »

Perhaps you have remarked a similar development in country towns or other urban districts in South Australia.

You ask :

« Should Aboriginal kids from remote settlements have the same opportunities as other Australian kids ? Or should they be, as you imply, Banjo, bound by the 'evolved' cultural practices of their 'elders' ? Should they have 'choice' like your kids and mine ? »

Of course, they should have or, rather, “be offered”, the same opportunities as other Australian kids. But, as we all know, everywhere throughout the world, it’s the parents who decide for their kids. Culture is inherited. Religion is a striking example of that.

.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

Here are some interesting facts relating to domestic violence in Australia as published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) in its 2018 report, just released :

Worldwide, almost 2 in 5 murdered women were killed by a partner.

In Australia, from 2012–14 about 1 woman a week and 1 man a month were killed as a result of violence from a current or previous partner.

Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1 in 3 (30%) women who have been in a relationship have experienced physical or sexual violence from an intimate partner since the age of 15.

In Australia, about 1 in 6 (17%, or 1.6 million) women and more than half a million men (6.1%) have experienced violence from a current or previous cohabiting partner since the age of 15.

Compared with non-Indigenous Australians, Indigenous Australians experience:

• 2x the rate of partner homicides

• up to 32x the rate of hospitalisations

• 7x the rate of child abuse/neglect

One in 3 children (35%, or 18,409) on care and protection orders were Indigenous, despite Indigenous children comprising only 5.5% of the Australian population aged 0–17. More than 16,800 Indigenous children were in out-of-home care, a rate almost 10 times that for non-Indigenous children.

Here is the link to the full report :

http://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/d1a8d479-a39a-48c1-bbe2-4b27c7a321e0/aihw-fdv-02.pdf.aspx?inline=true
.

Also, the latest Australian Indigenous Health Bulletin reports as follows :

« The current poor nutritional health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people is in marked contrast to the situation prior to European settlement in Australia, when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were generally healthy and enjoyed a varied traditional diet low in energy density and rich in nutrient.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

« In remote Australia, many older Aboriginal people retain the knowledge and ability to live as hunter-gatherers. The health benefits of temporary reversion to traditional hunter gatherer life were illustrated by a small group of diabetic people in the West Kimberley in the early 1980s. Among the dramatic health improvements seen, after only seven weeks “living off the land” in their traditional country they lost weight and their metabolic indicators and risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease normalised. People rarely complained of hunger; although their diet was low in energy (1200 kcal/day) it was high in protein (54% energy), with 33% carbohydrate, and 13% fat. While reverting to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not a realistic option for the vast majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who live in towns and cities today, in some remote communities, people do regularly hunt animal foods and collect plant foods to supplement the foods they buy from the store. The model of the hunter-gatherer diet and lifestyle can be used also as a benchmark, and as a guide to healthier patterns of eating and lifestyle.

After European settlement in 1788, there was decreased access to and availability of traditional foods, and Aboriginal people were increasingly forced to become dependent on introduced foods.

Recent reviews have confirmed that efforts to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nutrition remain fragmented, lack sufficient resources and co-ordination, and hence are largely ineffective in Australia »

Here is the link to the full report :

http://healthbulletin.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nutrition-Review-Bulletin-2018_Final.pdf

.

Banjo Paterson,

Jesus, where to start ? Why bother, when so much of your posts are complete rubbish, and pretty much everybody in Australia knows it. It might go down well in naive Europe, but it won't wash here.

Traditional cultures everywhere are violent and especially repressive of women - in isolation, they have to be, just to keep their political and cultural mechanisms in place. BUT in Australia, Aboriginal people have had equal rights with other Australians for generations now and one of those rights, which they have enthusiastically taken to their hearts, is access to public benefits. In that sense, they have long ago 'taken the Queen's shilling', they have participated in some of the bounty (more than some: mining and national park royalties, for example) and thereby have implicitly agreed to observe the rights and responsibilities of any other Australians.

Of course, parked out in very desolate areas with little prospect of generating genuine employment, people have been free to access standard benefits without having to meet standard responsibilities. I transcribed the half-dozen Conference proceedings of ministers and senior officers through the sixties (on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, on the Conferences Page), and it's clear that this problem had them stymied even then. Bringing people into settlements was one thing, transforming them into centres of employment was quite something else. As it is now.

So Aboriginal children should spend their relatively-short lives condemned to stay in those hell-holes ? Should 'culture', i.e. traditional culture, take precedence over children's rights ? Not that here is much of it these days, the ATMs and fast-food outlets on even remote 'communities' are probably more in people's minds than ceremony and secrets.

We can lament the passing of traditional cultures 'in all their magnificent richness', etc., but they can't be allowed to over-ride human rights, especially those of children and women. Oh, you forgot to mention that Aboriginal women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence than non-Aboriginal women across Australia (urban, working Aboriginal women have probably similar rates of hospitalisation as non-Aboriginal women). Next time ?

Joe

Banjo Paterson,

Oops, you did mention that Aboriginal people were thirty two times more likely to be hospitalised - but that figure relates only to women experiencing domestic violence, often of the most repeated, sustained and horrific nature. Getting smashed in the face with a rock a few times tends to put the notion of hospitalisation in women's minds.

So why do you think that happens, Banjo ? Because the men can. That's why. Nothing unique about that as a cultural practice. And why do you keep repeating the garbage that, somehow, Aboriginal culture is the oldest in the world ? What do you think other societies were dong for 65,000 years 'without culture' ? Of course, they had culture, but it was evolving slowly rather than ossifying. Cut off from the rest of the world, Aboriginal culture had to ossify, no animals to domesticate (somebody suggested that emus could be herded like Inuit and Sami herd caribou and reindeer) or high-nutrition plants which could be cultivated. So I don't see the slightest positive about an unchanging, primitive and reactionary culture, but you'll have to excuse the old Marxist in me :)

Yes, you're probably right (but less and less with each generation) that some of the older people know about hunting and gathering. But they don't do it. Nobody does, except with Toyotas and rifles - except perhaps some of the older women might go out occasionally to relieve the boredom and violence (it takes some genius to combine those two) of 'communities'.

After settlement, restrictions on access to traditional foods ?! In SA, the Protector gave out copious fishing lines and netting twine, so if anything, sitting on a river bank wrapped in a blanket, just chucking in a line rather than wading through the shallows with a spear, people would had had MORE access to traditional foods. And fifteen-foot boats too, perhaps more than a hundred of them, provided and repaired free. Get real, Banjo.

Joe

"That is why I consider that Aboriginal culture is magnificent."

I'd agree but for the tense, BP.

Cowlishaw proposes the existence of an "economy" non-immersed in respect for private ownership, it appears. This doesn't sound magnificent but more like hunting and gathering other peoples possessions for survival, presumably to supplement welfare payments.

Hi Luciferase,

Yeah, I remember forty-odd years ago on the 'community', blokes who had gone down to Adelaide might pinch a car in order to get back, often a really flash one, a Merc or a BMW, rip it around all the back roads, do a few wheelies on the high bank of the Murray, get out and push it over. Watching the frogmen hooking it up and getting it dragged out again was a bit of a spectator-sport. Ah, great times !

Many observers have commented on a sort of adapted, 'oppositionalist' Aboriginal culture, from Marie Reay's (ed.) "Aborigines Now" of 1964. The Berndts of course remarked on something similar in their 1950 book. In the US, the late John Ogbu focussed much of his attention on that oppositional culture even in his last books, a wonderful man. Eugene Genovese, Herbert Aptheker, Harold Cruse and Oscar Lewis studied these issues from slightly different angles, all being Marxists.

It's doubly ironic that Paul Willis' book was titled "Learning to Labour": he meant it to be, given hat working-class kids rebelled against any decent education an ended up doing much as their fathers had (that book was put together back in the seventies); and that Aboriginal kids out in Cowlishaw's study area, around Wilcannia and Menindee, usually were never going to "labour" at all. Last time I went through Wilcannia, it still had heavy grills over the shop-front windows. I wonder if it even has a shop at all these days, or just the servo across the road.

That might be the fate of many country towns - and of many young Aboriginal people, waiting like the last dung beetles at the arse-end of the last Diprotodon for one more freebie.

Of course, the problem with that oppositionalism is that people cut themselves out of opportunity, and condemn themselves to irrelevance, often in the name of 'resistance'. Then discover, far too late, what a dumb-arse course of action that was.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth, Dear Luciferase,

.

Thank you, once again, Loudmouth, for sharing your knowledge and personal experience of both traditional and contemporary Aboriginal lifestyles with me.

I understand your frustration at some of my comments which obviously do not correspond to your own vision and interpretation of the underlying causes (and responsibilities) of the deplorable lifestyle you describe of that 25% of our Aboriginal population who live in remote areas of the country and have not assimilated Western culture.

What is also very clear to me is your opinion that the only solution to the problem is to educate that 25% of the population in our modern Western culture and “civilise” them so that they adopt our lifestyle. Successive Australian governments, including the present one obviously shares that view and continues to pursue that objective.

Whereas my impression is that much of that 25% of the population aspires to a solution that not only educates them, but also allows them to continue to cultivate their Aboriginality with a maximum of security and independence. So far as I can judge, I don’t think that necessarily excludes, in their minds, the possibility of close cooperation with our modern Western society.

Suffice it to recall that a good number of them volunteered to fight alongside us during the Second World War and also during the Boer War.

I think we need to approach the problem with a much broader outlook than we have up until now and try to find a solution that takes into account the profound aspirations of many of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who continue to suffer from the shock waves of British colonisation and our exploitation of their life source, their land.

I am sorry if you find that suggestion offensive, but, rightly or wrongly, it is my carefully considered opinion – and I stand by it.

.

Hi Banjo paterson,

Yes, and in the First World War, Korea and Vietnam too - but I'll bet that the vast majority of those volunteers came from the 'south', from communities of people who had assimilated themselves, if you want to use that word, to a thoroughly Western way of life, even a hundred years ago and more.

25 % ? More like 10 %, in remote settlements, living lives which are very different from that of their hunting and gathering ancestors. How many people might go out, on foot, hunting and gathering these days ? Apart from some of the older women, probably none. Thankfully, they now have Toyotas and rifles, and homes to come back to after a hard day's 'foraging'.

Aboriginal-controlled land now covers a quarter of Australia, about two Frances. People have chosen how to live there and, as a friend described it, they are 'living the dream' from a foragers' point of view: money which drops out of the sky into their ATM accounts, fast food, accommodation, seemingly endless Toyotas, government people to look after their kids. What's not to like, especially from the blokes' point of view ? Remote populations here (i.e. the men) must love 'colonisation'.

On the other hand, for women and kids, it may be a different story: as a friend put it, if he was ever reincarnated, the last thing he would want to come back as would as a desert girl.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

Thanks for those details.

I see that in the prime minister’s 2018 report on the seven objectives the State and federal governments have been pursuing for the past ten years in order to “Close the Gap” between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, he admitted that very little progress had been made towards attaining their objectives. Only two of the seven objectives had seen any progress at all :

• Early childhood education

• Year 12 or equivalent attainment

No progress whatsoever has been made on any of the other five objectives :

• Child mortality

• School attendance

• Reading and numeracy

• Employment

• Life expectancy (proxy: mortality)

It is evident that despite the $33.4 billion a year the federal government spends, directly or indirectly, on Aboriginal affairs, these results are extremely poor and totally unacceptable, to say the least.

Not only has no “progress” been made on 70% of the governments’ objectives for the past ten years, but, in many other important areas, the situation has markedly degenerated : overflowing jails, high suicide rates, more and more kids taken away from their parents and placed under State care and protection, nutritional health problems becoming pandemic, …

In addition, Loudmouth, as you have amply related, yourself, right throughout these discussions, the recurrent manifestations of anti-social behaviour, nonchalant attitudes, blatant disrespect of people and property, and despicable profiteering of numerous individuals, in both urban and non-urban environments, have reached endemic proportions.

We are now even observing, as the anthropologist, Gillian Cowlishaw, noted, the emergence of an Aboriginal sub-culture, a "culture of the oppressed", in opposition to the whites’ culture, in a number of urban districts.

We have obviously got something wrong, somewhere along the line. Unilateral – ideologically motivated – political solutions, of our successive leftist and rightist State and Federal governments, have proven grossly inefficient.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

It is time to take stock of the situation and initiate a more sensible, open-minded, pragmatic approach.

The 2017 “Uluru Statement From The Heart” issued by the 250 or so Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates to the National Constitutional Convention to advise the Referendum Council (appointed jointly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten) “what constitutional recognition means to them”, replied :

« We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country … Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: "the coming together after a struggle". It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination. We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations … »

In my view, we should pick up the gauntlet, take them up on their word, put their backs to the wall and … lend our full support to their endeavours !

It has now become perfectly evident that neither we nor they can succeed alone. We must work together.

It is their problem. They must fix it. But, as we, together with the British Crown and government, caused it, we must help them - alone, if necessary.

Unlike our Kiwi cousins, it seems that the very docile and holy reverence in which we hold our British masters is such that we dare not even evoke the problem with them – let alone suggest that they, too, might possibly bear some major part of responsibility in this everlasting saga.

Oh, well, that's our problem.

.

//We can lament the passing of traditional cultures 'in all their magnificent richness', etc., but they can't be allowed to over-ride human rights, especially those of children and women. Oh, you forgot to mention that Aboriginal women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised for domestic violence than non-Aboriginal women across Australia (urban, working Aboriginal women have probably similar rates of hospitalisation as non-Aboriginal women).//

I have my doubts that the appalling violence and dysfunction observed in some Aboriginal communities can be so readily attributed to the remaining vestiges of pre-colonisation culture.

I have my own hypothesis that nearly all of it is attributable to something that was never a part of traditional culture because the indigenous people never learnt the ability to manufacture it until after colonisation: alcohol.

Hi Banjo Paterson,

Yes, isn't it amazing how little can be done with 'self-determination', the power to do things for yourself, IF you don't want to do anything for yourself, IF 'living the dream' means that it will all be done for you AND you can always dodge your human responsibilities by demanding more, as an 'oppressed' people ? 'Oppressed' ? I don't believe a word of it.

Actually, that oppositional culture has been around for a very long time, revolving very much around grog, how to get it, how to drink huge amounts of it, how to get up the Whitefellas' noses in public displays of oppositional behaviour. Great fun !

Yes, it's time - it's time for Aboriginal people in remote and rural areas to meet their human obligations in return for their welfare benefits, to take care of their kids properly, no more wandering the streets at three in the morning, no more abuse by 'uncles', making sure the kids will have a better and more fulfilling life by ensuring that they get proper schooling and are prepared for satisfying and meaningful employment, ideally by competent and productive Indigenous organisations. Getting vegetable gardens in remote areas would be a start, given that people usually have running water and plenty of equipment. Just one vegetable garden - I'd like to see that !

Yes, 'we' caused many problems by providing foraging people with shelter, food and all manner of services. And then we expect them to cope with such change ! How can we ever atone for our crimes ?

Perhaps, if foraging people had all services etc., cut and were driven back out into the desert, to forage to their heart's content ? Would that do it ? Do you want to advocate that ?

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

As I have often remarked on this thread, your extensive personal knowledge and experience of our Aboriginal compatriots – their culture, their history, and their evolution – are of tremendous value and unparalleled in my opinion. I feel privileged that you share them so generously with me.

For someone disposing of such a wealth of knowledge and experience, I must confess that for a long time, during these discussions, I had difficulty understanding why you persistently judge our Aboriginal compatriots exactly as you would any other Australian. Until it occurred to me that if I, myself, had married an Aboriginal lady and we had children as you did, my love and affection for them would be exactly the same as if they had been of non-Aboriginal extraction. But then, not every oyster in the ocean contains a precious pearl, unfortunately.

Let me repeat that my sole interest in the matter is to understand to the best of my ability and propose what I consider to be the best solution in the circumstances. I am neither prosecutor nor defence lawyer nor judge. Nor do I pretend to be an expert on anything.

There is little I can add to my previous post. It sums up my thoughts on the matter.

However, you ask :

« Perhaps, if foraging people had all services etc., cut and were driven back out into the desert, to forage to their heart's content ? Would that do it ? Do you want to advocate that ? »

I think we need to adopt a sensible, open-minded, pragmatic approach to the problem. The unilateral – ideologically motivated – political solutions our successive governments have pursued for the past 230 years have proven grossly inefficient.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander delegates to the National Constitutional Convention in 2017 requested constitutional reforms to empower their people to rule their own destiny. In my opinion, we should let them “have a fair go” – and back them up as best we can.

It’s their problem. They must fix it. But we must help them.

.

Hi Banjo Paterson,

Clearly nobody wants to go back to the pre-European situation in Australia, to a foraging life. Nobody 'south' of the pastoral line simply because their ancestors abandoned it a very long time ago; and nobody in the 'north' because life would be unimaginably harder compared to the good life they're living now (except perhaps the women and kids; and the elderly). And the bonus is" . you can complain to your heart's content that any problems are the Whitefellas' to fix up.

For example, I've heard it said that, because Whitefellas make the packaging for all the goodies that people in remote communities buy with their standard welfare benefits, then it's the Whitefellas' job to pick up all the rubbish, not theirs. And if people get sick from drinking too much, well, who provided the grog ? Whitefellas ! So it's their job to fix people up. Same with drugs - all Whitefellas' responsibility. THAT is what people mean by 'self-determination.

In 2018, it's surely time, when anybody talks about Aboriginal issues, to differentiate the 'south' from the 'north', people living amongst overwhelmingly non-Indigenous population of all sorts, from people living in isolated shirt-holes with nobody for company but their own relations and maybe those bastards from other country. In one population, the great majority, perhaps 90 % living in cities and large towns, one might find 95 % of the graduates, and people with similar statistics to other urban Australians, while in the other population, one might search in vain for graduates (except good-hearted urbanites wanting 'to serve their people' until they're pissed off) but one would quickly observe very different statistics, far more brutality, sickness and death. In one setting, life expectancy might be well in the seventies or eighties, but in the other, barely forty. In one setting, not out-of-the-ordinary domestic violence, but in the other, Aboriginal men would be putting their 'beloveds' into hospital 32 times as much. Heroes.

Two populations, separated mainly by that pastoral-settlement line, with very different histories and current statistics. And I fear that the Gap is Widening.

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« Two populations, separated mainly by that pastoral-settlement line, with very different histories and current statistics. And I fear that the Gap is Widening »

Yes, the situation seems pretty desperate. It remains to be seen if it is beyond repair or if there is any hope at all.

We obviously can’t do it. All we have succeeded in doing so far is to wreak havoc in their social structure and the natural ecosystem, with the catastrophic results you describe in their lifestyle. It took us 230 years and a lot of money to do that. Pretty poor performance if you ask me.

It would be a miracle if they could somehow manage to succeed in reconciling Aboriginal and Western civilisations after our having done everything we could for the past 230 years to impose assimilation into Western civilisation as their only possible future.

But, miracles do happen, sometimes, and we owe it to them to let them try. In my opinion, it’s the least we could do. It's their lives and they have the right to live them as they choose. Obviously, there is no way they could possibly succeed without our full support.

And if they failed, we should be by their sides to help pick up the pieces and, together, carry on as best we could.

.