LAGO; "My car battery went flat so I rang the NRA" Who did you ring? The National Rifle Association, and some murderous white trash from Africa turned up. Yes, just as Nazi war criminals were able to flee prosecution for their war crimes, and hide out in Australia post WWII, so did some White trash who committed war crimes in Africa do likewise after the fall of British colonialism.
The Rhodesian "refugee" who I spoke of earlier, who went on about shooting blacks, had partook of the liberally supplied free piss beforehand, so he was somewhat inebriated. Being in the company of all whites, he would have felt relaxed in such good surroundings to talk freely of his exploits, he did seem only moderately educated and full of the piss and wind. He had one of those grating white African accents than wants to make you throw up every time you hear it.
BTW; thanks for "like so many other young people, you", at 67, who should I consider are the old people?

Big Nana,

thanks for the pointers through to the statistical data on deaths in custody... http://aic.gov.au/publications/sr/sr21

As you say it demonstrates information very different to that which is claimed by the aboriginal industry and media.

Primarily it shows that while aboriginals are much more likely to end up in custody that non-aboriginals, once they are in custody they are somewhat LESS likely to die than non-aboriginals. This was the case even before the Royal Commission but is much more so after it, demonstrating that aboriginals get better outcomes in prison than non-aboriginals.

As an example, in the last year of the available data, 0.14% of aboriginals in custody died from all causes, while the equivalent number for non-aboriginals was 0.18%.

This is the type of data that isn't mentioned in polite company because it goes against the narrative of racist Australia. But its nonetheless a fact.

As an aside, the data also shows that a higher percentage of men in custody die than women, which of course demonstrates our sexist society.

Joe,

The federal government led by Gough Whitlam adopted
the policy of "self determination"for Indigenous
communities in 1972. This policy was described as -
"Aboriginal communities deciding the pace and nature of
the future development as a significant component within
a diverse Australia". It recognised that Aboriginal people
had a right to be involved in decision making about their
own lives.

While there is no commonly agreed definition of self
determination in Australia and its meaning is contested
there does appear to be general argument that central to
self determination is the right of Indigenous Australians
to make decisions on issues relating to them, and to
manage their own affairs.

However unfortunately there is no such agreement as to HOW
this should be achieved NOR has a framework within which this
can occur been established.

The government has defined self determination as -
"Aboriginal communities deciding the pace and nature of their
future development as significant components within a
diverse Australia".

This in effect LIMITS the exercise of self
determination to what is compatible with the
interests of the Australian state.

Successive Australian governments have rejected the view
that self determination includes the right of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people to decide things for
themselves.

Self determination has been defined in this country much
more narrowly than it has been in international forums
where as part of the decolonisation process it has been
premised on the right of a people to decide their own
status and future. Not in Australia.

For me this discussion has now run its course.

I wish the young author of this article every
success in her future life's journey and Thank
her for raising these issues for discussion.
It's been interesting.

Take care.
Stay safe.

Foxy,

Can I, for the sake of this website, make an appeal to whatever ethics you retain.

Your most recent post was a complete regurgitation of another website... http://www.workingwithindigenousaustralians.info/content/Culture_7_Self_Determination.html

Now I know that you do this more often than not. But plagiarising this much from one location without the slightest hint that its someone else's work (not even using quotation marks) places OLO and Mr Young in some potential legal jeopardy.

Its the sort of thing that would get you an automatic fail at most respectable learning institutes but which is also a legal grey area. Since Graham clearly monitors comments, he may be liable for such plagiarism in the event of an injured party taking offence.

So by all means grab a sentence or two from elsewhere. But for the sake of OLO and its owners please try to limit it to a sentence or two and if you need to take more, acknowledge the original writers either by note or link. At the very least, the very least, use quotes to show that its someone else's work.

And if all that doesn't tweak your ethics gene, you also can be liable for copyright infringement.

mhaze,

Your concern is commendable. And I Thank You
for it. However, this is the internet.
And once you publish something on the internet
it's fair game.

It's interesting that in the past when I give links,
quote sources, which by the way I usually do - you've
accused me of "making stuff up." You've even recently
lombasted me for the use of the wrong words - (semantics)
even though the meaning was clear for everyone else except
yourself, obviously.

From this last post to Joe, I presumed that it would be
quite clear to both him and everyone else reading the material
that what I was saying was obtained from the web of from
the book "Self-Determination and The Struggle for Equality",
by David Roberts (which I also happened to have accessed, as
did the article which cited the information).

Anyway - you're on a roll - keep up the good work.
And as I said - your concern is commendable.