Maybe the Aboriginal community should go and ask the Greek, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Russian, Indian, or a hundred other ethnic communities in this country how they mange to keep their sense of identity and culture whilst still fully partaking in the advantages of life in Australia and not degenerating into the abyss of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, crime and despair.

Mr. Mooney uses the word “assimilation” as a substitute for the more inflammatory word “genocide”. Does he really think that encouraging Aboriginals to fully take part in the opportunities that this country offers is going to cause cultural extinction? What absolute rot! Just ask any member of the above communities if they feel like they’ve lost their cultural identities.

Mr Mooney doesn’t like the idea of Aboriginal people individually owning land. Sounds to me like he would like them to return to the stone age, wandering around spearing kangaroos and digging for yams. It might make Mr. Mooney feel all warm and fuzzy, but I’m not sure if Aboriginal people are quite as delighted with the prospect. It is the paternal and patronizing views of this entire article that keep Aboriginal people from helping themselves.

The Aboriginal culture is definitely something that every Australian should be proud of. It’s one of the oldest on earth and their religious and social customs are amazing and beautiful in their complexity. It would be a disaster if their culture was lost. Mr. Mooney should direct his energies to convincing Aboriginal people to be proud of who they are and of the dignity and beauty of their language and cultures. Aboriginal Australia can no longer continue separate and alone. They need to remember that assimilation does not mean extinction - either for themselves or their culture - and indeed the sooner they participate fully in the life of this country the sooner they will cement their future as a people and culture.

If Mr. Mooney is so enraptured with the idea of Aboriginals living the traditional lifestyle I can recommend some excellent books that are sure to flood him with nostalgia.

"That assimilation will destroy Aboriginal Culture and Identity"

The evidence is there already;
Racial Assimilation commenced when cohabitation began with white men and Aboriginal women.
Loss of language was the first cultural casualty as assimilated people lived as fringe dwellers or in half-way communities that embraced part assimilation.

Aboriginal language and culture exists but is under threat on traditional communities where mixed families are in the minority.
Culture is being lost as the authority of tribal elders is diminished and ceremonies not being conducted. Young men tend to leave traditional communities and gravitate to urban centres to sample the taboos in place on their birthplaces.

The reality is that there are two related but distinctly separate Aboriginal identities. One which has enjoyed entrance to Australian mainstream existence and chooses to identify as Aboriginal whilst being of mixed race.

The other lives on traditional land,is not obviously of mixed race,uses their mother language and observes traditional customs.
They will inevitably change over time as a result of the existence of another world outside their closed communities.
The rate of change must only be at their pace, when they embrace it

"If, in this bordering-on-hegemonic neo-liberal world, "

Anything which starts with a bunch of pseudo-intellectual weasel words like the above really sets itself in a little (but very deep) hole all by itself to be mark "here lies a bunch of twaddle".

Despite the above I rallied on.... what do I find... the age old complaint oif the never-satisfied - "assimilation is worse than segregation".

"Indigenous Cultural life" is an expression which attempts to assess commitments to an ethnically or racially based uniqueness. Its survival is as strong as the commitments, attitudes and values those who share that cultural heritage. It is an individual heritage and can only be sustained by individuals cherishing and pursuing its observances and practices.

You cannot have it both ways -

aboriginals object if non-aboriginals assimilated their cultural practices (they have when it comes to dot-painting with failed demands the technique should be copyrighted to prevent non-aboriginals from practicing it).

Therefore, if aborginals wish to maintain and sustain their cultural identity they have to do it for themselves.

But not as the author seems to want -

" That flourishing must be set in Aboriginal cultural terms"

Sorry - no-can-do - that requires "segregation" and that is just not on - under any circumstances.

The terms of any "flourishing" of any cultural sub-group has to be on the "level playing field" and not on something "skewed" to the particular demands of a "minority" group within the greater Australian society.

So Gavin - quit the apologist stance, for that is all you are promoting, it has never and will never work because it absolves the supposed "victim" group from exercising "cultural uniqueness" for themselves.

A "culture" which is not practiced is dead and thus not "culture" at all - just a bunch of artifacts in a museum.

There are a great many warm fuzzies to be had, thinking about utopian ideals of equality, but it is not a trait particularly easy to identify and isolate.

"If they are treated the same, the argument runs, they will have the same outcomes in terms of health, education, and so on."

No argument I have ever heard runs this way. Equality of opportunity has never, and can never, achieve equality of outcome. Any primary school teacher knows this. It is simply not possible in our world, and from what I have heard, nor will it be in the next.

So you are absolutely correct in deriding this as unable to achieve anything worthwhile, but it did occur to me to wonder halfway through the article, what exactly DO you want for Aboriginals in Australia? Do you see them as Aboriginals or just Australians? If the latter, what precisely is bad about providing them with the same opportunities as other Australians? If you want "Aboriginal people and their identity [to] flourish, economically, socially and culturally" then there has to be some form of separate identity. But that would reek of Apartheid, wouldn't it? And that cannot possibly work, can it?

Trying to reconcile these two incompatible objectives should be the task of our political leadership. Instead of which, they ask us (through focus groups, opinion polls etc.) which way they should lean, in order to get or keep our vote.

I often wonder what Aboriginals think on this topic, but somehow it always seems to be territory occupied by concerned white people.

Aboriginal society needs to evolve and adjust to the reality of the world around them. This does not mean the extinction of their culture and identity, just reinvented accordingly. Aboriginals can incorporate aspects of their traditional culture with the modern world. All it takes is a bit of creativity. They need to be able participate in both cultures.

I don't think any 'white' Australian want to destroy aboriginal culture. We just don't know how to help. We can help, but only according to our values and the way we do things. In the past this has come back to haunt us (stolen generation).

Ultimately, I don't think it is wise for Aboriginal people to expect the white man (or anyone for that matter) to solve their problems. They will literally wait all day. They have to determine their own future.

I think we should all apply to become Aboriginal.Aboriginality has nothing to do with race.It is now a state of mind.It is really and insult to the "true Aborigines" who still live off the land and survive largely on their own.Handouts without some obligation of effort, destroys all people.
You don't have to look beyond your own family,when children are given money with no obligation of effort.

I dont think Gavin intended to limit the issues that form the larger picture of oldest continuing culture in the world the aboriginal culture and perhaps did not have the benefit I have had of walking in the 'daily' footpaths of these people while I worked with the Flying Doctors in central Australia.

They see their daily existence very differently. They act with their 'soul' meaning they have a real awareness of their departed family who are to them by their side in their daily life and they see the land (world) as a living entity and the true 'mother' who sustains their life from her bosoms through out their life.

I have spent time pondering over this and what made me sway from our culture focus of 'success is the financial well being' a little towards benefit of theirs was the question 'What do you take with you when you die?'

Hard question but I know from my life experience that the moments I remember the most involved other living beings interacting, negative or positive. No money, work goals, expected duties...

Maybe they have learnt something from their evolution of culture that swamps ours to insignificance and we could learn some basic fundamental truths that would benefit us personally leading to growing mutual respect.

Sam

when considering issues relating to aboriginal people dont forget to remember the impact of past benign yet destructive government policies and practices.

with regard to bozzies comments about asking the chinese, italians, greeks et al how they've managed to retain their cultural heritage and be successful in australian communities. unlike aboriginal people they were not beaten nor discouraged to discontinue these practices under the guise of protectionism, and further they were not deprived of the opportunity to fully participate in an economic way and thus establish an asset base because they received full payment for work done. the issue of stolen wages is a contributing factor to the socio-economic status of aboriginal people who were deprived the opportunity of equality.

past benign policy and practices were equivalent to a hurdle placed in front of 'equality'.

"Aboriginal society needs to evolve and adjust to the reality of the world around them. This does not mean the extinction of their culture and identity, just reinvented accordingly"

Here is a quote from an article about the history of the Lun Bawang Tribe of Borneo

"The Lun Bawang were a Dayak people group who lived on both sides of the Sarawak/Kalimantan border. It was common for this people group to be drunk before dawn 100 days out of the year. Disease, crop failure and drunkenness were gradually reducing the Lun Bawang population, which is what Governor Charles Brooke desired. He wanted this people group to die off so their land could be given to other tribes"

Sound familiar ? just like our aboriginals. Then.. we read the words which made the difference .. "But God...."

Today, due to the impact of the gospel, this people has been totally transformed. Today they are lawyers, members of parliment, doctors, architects, and their population is thriving. The practice of slavery was abandoned, slaves were set free and given their own land.

Having said that, one cannot assume that all aboriginal people will embrace Christ. There is still a solution for their social and cultural dilemna but it will not be the same solution for each group.

Due to the differences in tribal history and background, a strong anthropological approach should be taken, looking for the keys to the sense of despair most seem to experience. No amount of 'social policy/access to services/treating them the same' will EVER overcome this one thing, only an understanding of the situation and dealing with it as it really "is" will.
This might mean that we who now hold (il)legal title to land once theirs,should re-think some of our precious values about private ownership.

regarding religion some aboriginal people shy away from it due to past experience on christian missions where abuse and cultural decimation occurred in many places across australia.

having said that there is a growing trend by many aboriginal people to embrace christianity nowadays. they see the past christian mission efforts as ignorant and restrictive practices that are not carried on today - thankfully.

many aboriginal christians nowadays embrace both god and culture and walk strongly forward - good luck to them and those who dont hold the same beliefs.

I'm tempted to assail some of the ill-informed, outrageous assertions in some of the posts ...However, I have resisted the temptation to make another comment on the Article.

South African apartheid was framed after Paul Hasluck's Welfare Ordinance in the Northern Territory. The work Black or Aboriginal was not used in the description of a 'Ward' in the Ordinance ..
A ward was, "a person who is unable, without assistance to adequately manage their own affairs"

The Legislative Council proceeded to compile a register of all Aborigines in the Northern Territory where they were identified by tribal name, common name,Clan, sex and moiety. This register, commonly referred to as "The Stud Book" then became part of the Regulations under the Ordinance.

Persons who were identified in that register, had their lives controlled by the Welfare Department.

The Permit system which exists today does not equate with apartheid.
A person wishing to visit a Community on Aboriginal Land is required to seek permission, stating the purpose of the visit as a courtesy.

I have never been denied permission when I have applied to enter Aboriginal Communities .
However, during the days of Welfare Department control, I was never granted a permit.
The Permit system is designed to provide privacy to Aboriginal people no different from the privacy you would expect on your property , A person who would enter your home without your consent is no more than an intruder.

It is surprising and depressing the level of mental processing, empathy and sociological understanding evident in the vast amount of respondents to Gavin Mooney's article. I find especially ironic the way people repeatedly say 'I wonder what aboriginal [sic] people would think about it' and that it is seems to be the 'territory of concerned white people'. As Gavin Mooney explained, and as I assert is the case with myself, what 'concerned white people' do is ask. It sounds simple but it has rarely prefixed policy assertions by white colonial people obsessed with their own cultural perspective, lets call them 'unconcerned white people'. The use of the lower case 'a' in Aboriginal people also indicates a lack of respect, which belies their self-professed interest in Australia's Indigenous people. There are also plenty of examples of indigenous people trying to get their voices heard but only find friends in the media if they support the free market line fundamental to corporate media.

Also the concepts that 'past disadvantage results in present day disadvantage' and that 'treating people equally when equality doesn't exist only further entrenches inequality' are clearly to difficult for most people lacking insight or empathy to comprehend. Thanks Gavin for your article.

Maracas, thanx for the insight into that 'register' I was not aware of it, and your post fills in some gaps.
It seems the past few posts at least have been from those who have some experience with Aboriginal people, and the issues of past disadvantage hinder present equality... yes, but with reservation. Even that comment is definitely from a 'white' perspective... seeing aboriginals in terms of 'wages for work done' kind of thing. The far greater disadvantage is the overwhelming cultural imperialism by us, which is at the core of the problem. Imagine if you thought you know how the comsos works, only to find that a swarm of others come along and if not actually show that view to be invalid, at least demonstrate that they can be powerful without any reference to it. I think this alone would be enough to spiritually and psychologically disadvantage anyone, including us.

Kalali, I appreciated your rather warm and sypathetic mention of the issue of religion. Some abuses of the past, were indeed through ignorance, but bear in mind, some things 'called' abuses by liberal media types are not quite that :) The classic example for me is that of the government anthropologist Tom Richardson who absolutely hated the missionaries in Borneo, for 'tampering with local culture' and he crucified 'us' in anything he wrote, but when u speak with the elders of the tribes he visited, one finds that the thing he missed the most was the sexual permissiveness and drunken rice wine party lifestyle. Sometimes reports of 'abuse' have other motives at their root.
Having said that, various Christian traditions have had various approaches to indigenous issues and the gospel in regard to these.
I wanted to keep hold of many traditional chants in Borneo, but some of the elders didn't want this because they were remeniscent of the 'spirits' who they feared for so long. It would be more possible to re-capture some of that culture without the satanic/demonic overtones, with the younger gen.

what happened in borneo was not necessarily the same as what happened in australia to its aboriginal people. however i will say that i know of traditional aboriginal people who wholesomly embrace christ and god and acknowledge god as the giver of the dreamtime to aboriginal people.

the peoples of new guinea did not suffer the same extremities as the aboriginal peoples of australia given that they still retain by and large their culture, language and land, a contrasting difference to that of australian aboriginal peoples.

perhaps the one people who can best assimilate their experience with that of the aboriginal people here in australia is those of america and canada. for those in america at least they got some kind of treaty, and for those in canada at least they got some of constitutional remedy. i am yet to see the remedy for australian aboriginal people that is adequate to either of the aforementioned.

even the peoples of the torres strait do not exemplify the damage caused by colonialism, their land was not as worthy as aboriginal land in terms of agricultural and colonial value. i find it very ironic that aboriginal australia is indebited to a tsi man with regard to land rights/native title.

Kalalli, your post is appreciated.
I think there is more than just some kind of treaty needed. There is a deep rooted psychological condition which needs to be tapped into and dealt with in my feeling. It would have to be through traditional leadership of course, and the tribal elders, but I think this needs to be addressed more than a treaty. That could come later or subsequently. Treaties are a western idea more than an aboriginal one, but that itself would be an issue that an athropologist would examine "How did competing aboriginal tribes resolve differences" that would be a starting point.
Keep up the good work.

This article is so sad, so very sad because Gavin cares about Aboriginal culture and what is so sad for people like Gavin is that very few of the rest of us care. One can have fun and engage in a riot of political incorrectness but ATSIC as a target is just too easy and well why bother.

I just don't care about aboriginal culture, not in a malicious racist sense, but in the same way that I don't care about football or cricket--I find those issues boring. Aboriginal dancing and playing the didgeridoo, boring in the extreme--I would rather watch formula 1 and on a scale to measure boredom, formula 1 comes pretty close to being the most incredibly boring spectacle devised by man.

I do not wish Aborigines any harm and I do try to remember that it is Uluru, but unless I make the effort Ayers Rock always pops up first. And I just know that if I had taken the trouble to go to the Rock, I would climb it no matter how many elders had died recently. It must be my fault but I feel totally apathetic and bored by the whole thing about Aboriginal culture, but obviously and here is the paradox, I am not too bored to write a post about how bored I am with the issue—so maybe, Gavin, there is a glimmer of hope for you!

I must confess I still feel vaguely disquieted when issues of child poverty are raised on sixty minutes, but like all pictures of poverty, I do what most Australians do and turn to another channel. I do feel sort of a slight embarrassment as an Australian about Black Deaths in custody and the number of Aboriginal women being killed by their men, but overall I rather wish that the problem would go away.

If I am representative of main-stream opinion and I suspect that I am, then Gavin has every right to worry because Aboriginal culture is probably going to disappear because most of just aren’t interested and John Howard knows this.

jbi, your comments to me represent the extent of institutional racism that is thriving and which is deeply embedded in australian society to the point where its bred ignorance that is dressed up as boredom about issues.

Paulish, your post puzzled me. What was the point that you were struggling to make? I'm only asking because two of the illustrations you used "the way people repeatedly say 'I wonder what aboriginal [sic] people would think about it' and that it is seems to be the 'territory of concerned white people'" were present in my earlier post. They seemed at the time to be a reasonable question followed by a reasonable observation (incidentally, my Aboriginal was capitalized), undeserving of your somewhat scathing response. Please, as they say, explain.

And Boaz, I think you might be on somewhat shaky ground, introducing religion into the mix here. After all, Charles Brooke was the nephew of James, and it was James who opened up Sarawak to the Christian missionaries in the first place. The fact that "... God had other plans" in 1936 looks a little like revisionism, given that he had been in the country for nearly ninety years by then. Out of politeness I will not mention the impact of early Australian missionaries on Aboriginal life. I expect they will eventually get around to plan B as well.

Kallali, how exactly do you equate apathy - especially JB1's exquisitely fashioned and acutely observed apathy - with institutionalized racism? I suspect you do so because you infer guilt from inaction, which is always a handy weapon for those with a banner and a cause. "If you're not with me then you are against me!" But in doing so you miss the precision of his observation, and which has I believe a very strong chance of being accurate, that there are many who think as he does, and that our canny little PM is very well aware of this when making policy.

to me that apathy by virtue of ignorance about historical facts relating to the treatment of aboriginal peoples in australia is part of the agenda for the survival of institutional racism. keep the australian public ignorant of the facts, that ignorance turns into apathy and the couldn't give a rip attitudes.

In sum, aboriginal communities need to drop tribal thought-sets. Australian Westerners need to appreciate that some knowledge is valuable A Priori knowledge, best known to primitive societies. Amalgamate what the two societies offer for collective survival by accommodating mutual contributions in a non zero sum game: Sadly, the suggested remedies would be unrealistic and repulsive to both parties.

Australia should not be looking at either assimilation or apartheid, but, rather, accommodation. Communities need to adjust cognitive schema towards new understandings (Piaget). However, for the aforementioned to occur, individuals from both cultures need to indwell (Polyani) within the intersection of the two cultures (Aboriginal and Western. Tritration between Aboriginal society, Western Society and indwelling (as a catalyst) is unlikely to happen because in evolutionary biology Aboriginal society has learned to sustain its continuance via Kin Altruism (Wilson). Alternatively, Western society, emphasises, By-Product Mutualism (Wilson), especially post the Enlightenment and, later amplified by pioneer liberal moralists, such as, Hume, Smith and Ferguson.

Under Kin Altruism the locus of Aboriginal identity is the extended family. The individual exists for the survival of the community. Caring and altruism are focused here. Community with others is somewhat alien. Moreover, traditional aboriginal life is a zero sum game. Herein, “what others have detracts from what I have”. In short, we see a tribal system adapted to an environment having finite resources.

Alternatively, modern Westerners can be equally selfish but have learned to cooperate and compromise for the collective good. Life is not a zero sum game. Westerners collaborate with others. The famous World War II photograph of Churchill and Roosevelt (Western society) sitting with Stalin (Orthodox society) comes to mind. This willingness to work cooperatively outside limited and bounded interests lies at the heart of the success of Western civilization.

The best solution is Aboriginal and Western cultures cooperating to play a non-zero sum game accommodating both cultures towards optimum Nash equilibrium. Herein, significant elements of aboriginality will be lost but that is a better result than total extinction. Perhaps, the evolved Western civilisation would accommodate aboriginal attitudes towards conservation improving the chances of mutual survival.

In sum, aboriginal communities need to drop tribal thought-sets. Australian Westerners need to appreciate that some knowledge is valuable A Priori knowledge, best known to primitive societies. Amalgamate what the two societies offer for collective survival by accommodating mutual contributions in a non zero sum game: Sadly, the suggested remedies would be unrealistic and repulsive to all.

Kallali, you appear to be saying that racism can be a passive thing, that I can be a racist by doing absolutely nothing at all.

By the same token, I assume you categorize me as a murderer, because I didn't protest publicly against the Rwandan massacres, a human rights violator because I haven't personally intervened in Chechnya, and a paedophile because I haven't actually made an observation about the Michael Jackson trial.

Incidentally, I'd watch those circular arguments if I were you... "apathy by virtue of ignorance ... part of the agenda for the survival of institutional racism... keep the australian public ignorant of the facts... ignorance turns into apathy" Apathy does of course beget apathy, but does not need to go down the road you describe in order to get there.

Which is just my way of saying that you present a nonsense argument against JB1's hard gem of reality. Just because you may not like it, or it may be an unpalatable and cynical observation, doesn't render it invalid.

Pericles,
you amaze me, (in a positive way) you would probably be just about the only other person on the forum who has any clue about the Brooks. (forgive me any others who do). So, I've cranked you up a few notches on the "posts to look at" list :) It is one of the most fascinating pieces of history I've ever come across. The interaction between the Brunei Sultan and James Brook, the expansion of Sarawak and the decline of Brunei etc..
The reason I bring religion into the mix re-aboriginals, is because my wife is a member of the Lun Bawang tribe of Borneo (spread over Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak and Kalimantan) had it not been for the gospel she wouldnt be here, nor would my kids. The story of that tribe is told in a book 'Drunk before dawn' by Shirley Lees which is not easy to track down. but it does give a good account of the pre-christian situation.

There is a village, where one single family is still living the old custom, and the drunkeness and spirit fear are as they were in the old days. They stand out like the proverbial country toilet so to speak.
The newest people group to undergo a transition from nomadic to settled life are the Penan and Punan. My first encounter with these people will never be forgotten. Straight out of the jungle, they came to the kelabit village I was in, asking for work for food. They frequently became 'virtual' slaves of other groups when jungle food was thin. But they would always be able to return at will to the jungle.
We can learn many valuable lessons from aboriginal and other indigenous cultures about how to remedy the situation our own aboriginals face, where the 'it bores me' attitude of one notable poster here is a significant challenge

pericles you would only be those things if you actually committed the acts, or accessory to it if you knowingly allow someone to committ such behaviour and do nothing about it.

as for circular argument, denial begets ignorance, ignorance begets apathy, apathy begets denial. circles, cycles, domino effects. take one out of the circle/cycle, you break it and the associated behaviour as well.

it takes one good man/woman to do nothing for evil to flourish.

If he has not done so already, it might prove helpful, were Gavin to to engage this forum.

A reasonably new member of this tremendously and enlightening forum, I apologise for citing an argument which I believe though one of Australian born British stock has become so very important to relations in Australia between indigenous and non-indigenous. After reading most of the long list of indigenous-related articles amd commentaries, the critical query from me as a reader, becomes:

Why is it so hard for so many of our contributors to say sorry to our indigenous citizens. Why so hard to say sorry when we did not recognise the former owners of their native land as normal humans till 1970. To some of our contributors it seems that not to say sorry about inhuman events of history, should be the way of history - when it should be only the way of colonial history. It is to be reminded that we are now supposed to be a democracy where everyone has equal rights - or are we still the guided democracy of pre-WW2 when we were dumbed down so much it gave us schoolkids a thrill to view a map of the world all splashed with British colonial pinky red. - as it also gave a surge to the breast to hear the sound of Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free, just as George W Bush is now copying the colonial Brits with his promise of freedom for all the not quite white citizens of the Middle East. My God, what a hypocrical load of rubbish it’s all turning out to be.

After WW2, wasn’t there a Grand Meeting to end all such bulldust, when our Queen apologised to India, the West Indies, and to so many other former colonies it would fill more than half a page. And here we have John Howard still with not enough gumption to even ask the Queen if he should say sorry to the original inhabitants of this comandeered Terra Australis.

Regards - Bushbred - WA