[continued]

None of this may be deliberate, although I have heard one Aboriginal parent almost boast that none of his kids were going to get a better education than he did. But marginality or marginalisation is solidly inter-generational. In fact, perhaps it gets more entrenched with each new generation: so much for anybody riding in on their white horse with a Brilliant Idea;)

How to cut that Gordian Knot ? Then along comes the 'Left' and encourages Aboriginal people to stick with their marginality in the name of 'culture'. So what chance do they have ?

Yes, yes, I'm an assimilationist. Not a supporter of Apartheid by any name. And 'self-determination' may have been effectively just that, locking people out of genuine opportunity, justifying that lock-out, and condemning perhaps a third of all Indigenous people to lifelong welfare (and short lives at that), and dependent on a parasitic elite to justify their existence.

Joe

Foxy, just a thought, instead of taking a stance of indignation, and waste your time bleating about something which ultimately, it appears, and contrary to your perception or wishes, was NOT a good or viable idea.
Try and research the WHY, not repeat the OBVIOUS.
You can simply start with the obvious, and that is, it was mis-managed.
If you find that that was not the case/fault, then keep looking.
But my guess, knowing what the sentiment is on the ground, or at the bar, it just was not something people cared about.
Your assertion about it's viability, is obviously over-rated or exaggerated, because firstly the school children attendance, you say was one of the largest group of people visiting the centre.
School children don't count, as there has been an extremely large push on for all things to do with the black fella, over the past few decades, as part of their education syllabus, but more importantly or relevantly, is the overarching fact that they were NOT there by their own choosing, but part of a school agenda.
If it was up to them, I KNOW that would be the last place on earth they would want to be.
I think you will be surprised as to why it was shut down.
I and millions of others are not.
As for the Italian club, HEEEEEY, atsa mada foryu, you don't know us wogs very well if you haven't figured out, by now, that they have already done the back door deals and money, er; sorry, brown paper bags are changing hands, as we speak, or more likely have already changed hands.
BADA BING, BADA BOOM, and that's what WE wogs, call progress!

Hi Joe,

Surely it doesn't have to be "All or Nothing", that
people either assimilate, that is they - totally adopt
the ways of another culture and fully become part of
a different society rather than they integrate with
individuals from different groups into a society as
equals, still maintaining their own culture.

By asking people to give up their cultures all you than value
is their labour. And what makes your culture so superior to
theirs?

I am an integrationist not an assimilationist. I guess that's
the difference between us.

You say things must be this way. I ask - why?

Things seem so black and white (pardon the pun) to you.
White - superior. Black - shyte.

We're already a country of many different cultures. Greeks,
Italians, Lithuanians, Chinese, and many others. We are one
yet we are many and from all the different lands we come ...
Or words to that effect.

Why can't people maintain their own cultures and still be part
of the mainstream? Others have done it. We're living proof.

It doesn't have to be - either or. It can be - both.
And we'll be the richer for it as a nation.

Dear ALTRAV,

You know you're cute when you're angry.

Despite you really pissing me off at times. I can't help
liking you. Especially the BADA BINGA - part. You made me
laugh out loud and spill my coffee.

You are a sweet man after all and please accept my apology for
my at times stupid comments. I didn't mean them.

ALTRAV, (and really for Joe also),

I know I'm probably flogging a dead horse (or maybe a white one), but I wrote it, I think it's fair, so here goes.

I accept you have a valid perspective, but we cannot ignore the fact that they, the Indigenous peoples, were here first, and we must accept accordingly that they have a valid claim for due recognition of that reality. Possession has standing in our 'culture', and must therefore be afforded similar merit in their legitimate claims to 'inheritance'. Wrangle and obfuscate as we may, ignoring factual reality is not an option. ‘Terra Nullius’ was and is ‘fake news’. The problem, as I see it, is how such recognition may reasonably be applied. I don’t think just saying ‘thanks mate’ will fly.

You mention 'integration' and 'assimilation', and these have indeed been the subject of quite some considerable endeavours in the past, but, apart from 'fitting in', no such direct demands are made on any of the many other cultures invited to join our 'happy band' in more recent times, and few, if any, obstacles to retention of the ‘cultural histories’ of these recent arrivals would have been experienced by them or are now imposed on them. The multitude strands of Indigenous history and culture will have taken an extraordinary beating since white arrival, and much will be beyond retrieval, but what may be recovered has value, perhaps akin to that afforded the Rosetta Stone or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Extraordinary efforts have been and continue to be made to maintain and to study the histories and culture of virtually every other strand of humanity on this planet. Do our Indigenous deserve less? Or, in the circumstances prevailing, much more support?
(TBC)

Cont'd:
There is a justifiable case for active retention of their cultural history and genuine cultural traditions, as far as may now be possible, and a legitimate claim that these have been significantly impacted by changes imposed on them through no fault or active pursuit of their own.

'We' have, after all, been able to retain and practice our various legitimate 'traditions' - so long as acceptable under the law - and many of our 'traditions' have been actively taught in our schools for very many years. 'They' have really had no such benefit until much more recent endeavours in this regard.

I would submit there have been considerable detrimental demands and impositions placed on our Indigenous peoples over a considerable time, particularly in the early years of our shared history – for their own good, and well-intentioned, no doubt - but the detrimental impacts of the experiences caused and suffered cannot be ignored or wished-away.

The 'Aussie' fair-go should be applied fairly and inclusively, and there are many problems which may not be wished-away, or resolved simply by shouting 'shape up'.

We know there are those who have unrealistic aspirations or expectations, but beyond the 'noise' of the relatively 'assimilated' mob, there remain those who have been truly left behind and who quietly seek or dream of a better chance, a chance at least for self-expression and dignity, who deserve the opportunity for their own ‘reformation’, quietly, on their own terms (and not a wrenching with blunt force trauma) into a new ‘dawn’.

There are also those who have been able to successfully keep a toe in both waters, maintaining vibrant communities with a minimum of outside interference, and maintaining important cultural traditions. Could this not be a model, which, with their assistance, might light the way for other truly troubled communities to find their way from trouble to coherence and successful new beginnings?

I prefer wishful thinking to despair and chucking-in the towel. Hoping I am not alone. (Also hoping I am not totally misguided and foolish.) A new dawn and new aspiration, or Paradise Lost?

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your input.

I think that we can all agree that to ensure change the system
must be reformed to encourage and indeed, mandate responsibility.

Policies to address family violence, truancy, suicide and alcohol
abuse in Indigenous communities would be improved with input from
the people they are intended to benefit. The success of the Native
Title Act would be greater if government
could better hear Indigenous peoples' ideas
to remove red tape and make their land
more economically productive.

What many people don't realize is that parliament
makes specific
laws and policies about Indigenous people.
There is no native title act for Lithuanian-Australians
like myself, because my
ancestors were not dispossessed of land in Australia.
The same goes for Italian-Australians or Greek-Australians.
Nor has there been a Lithuanian-Australian
intervention. Nor an Italian-Australian Intervention,
nor a Greek-Australian Intervention.

When parliament makes laws and policies about
the First Nations of
the Northern Territory, as they did with the
Northern Territory Intervention,
the First Nations of the Northern Territory
should have a fair say. Whether you agree of
disagree that the Intervention was necessary,
there is consensus that it was poorly implemented,
without proper consultation, and not as effective
as it could have been. The Intervention failed
to achieve its aims.

Had local First Nations been empowered
to take responsibility in its formulation,
the Intervention would not have been discriminatory.
It would have been better accepted by the communities
and more effective.

The First Nations have a right to take
responsibility. They should be empowered with
a constitutional voice in their affairs, so they
can always participate in decisions made about them.

Joe, as a champion of responsibility, should support such a reform.