[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