Sebastian makes the same mistake as the average Australian; using a broad-brush approach to social frictions by using tolerance or as he puts it ‘acceptance’ of each other and dropping our prejudices to accommodate the ‘other’ as the bandaid remedy.

This would probably work with most races and colours given time (e.g. the Asians) – BUT with the muslims it is a different game altogether.

They (mulims) are called to put religion before the host state or country. The repercussions are terribly worrying to the alert observer.

The religion of islam does not need - let alone respect - our democracy or our laws. They come to a country with their own set of laws that supersede the law of the host land.

Just listen to any moderate imam at the normal every-Friday address and you will understand what business they are in. Their elitist stance is made obvious by their arrogant behaviour towards the koffar (non-muslims).

Non-muslim Australians still don’t get it. Asking for a wolf to live and respect the sheep by preaching tolerance and acceptance simply WONT WORK

The problem is quite simple really. The top half of our society (academics, politicians, business leaders) want higher levels of immigration and a more multicultural, diverse society. The bottom half, the people who don't wield much power or influence think otherwise. People who think the ideas espoused by Sebastian and Co is a load of B.S is not represented at all in any of our parliaments. If fact, anything contrary to the opinions of Sebastian and Co is 'hate speech', 'intolerance' and 'vilification'.

How about a few Jean Marie Le Pen's in our parliament. Now that would make politics more interesting.

Sebastian you've taken the narrowest possible view of the meaning of tolerance and are instigating controversy because of the breadth of meanings of the word accept.

Here's a few definitions

1. From dictionary.com

'tol·er·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)
n.The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others...
The capacity to endure hardship or pain.

2 My mum's old and tattered Concise Oxford Dictionary Seventh edition 1982

'Tolerance n. willingness to tolerate, forebearance(esp.Med) capacity to tolerate,...'

Tolerate v.t. endure, permit (practice, action, person's doing); allow (Person, religious sect, opinion)n.to exist without interference or molestation; endure with forebearance, sustain, endure (suffering etc.) esp. Med.; sustain use of (drugs, radiation etc.) without harm, so ~'ATION n, (esp.) allowing of diferences in religious opinion without discrimination...'

3.From dictionary.com

ac·cep·tance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-sptns)
n.The act or process of accepting.
The state of being accepted or acceptable.
Favorable reception; approval.
Belief in something; agreement.
Abbr. acpt. ...'

4.And from a really tatty page of that much loved old dictionary.

Acceptance n. 1 consent to receive(gift,thing delivered, payment, pleasure,duty); favourable reception (of person or thing by or with person); affirmative answer to invitation.2. approval, belief, toleration...

The verb accept also has in it's list of meanings a couple of phrases every multiculturalist should abhor.

....submit to. (Old Oxford Dictionary)

...To endure resignedly or patiently: accept one's fate (Dictionary.com)

Tolerance is more than sufficient...unless you intend to change the meanings of words and not just all my values, customs and beliefs.

I'm not going to submit myself to someone elses values, beliefs, and customs. I am entitled to hold my own. However if people with differing values, customs and beliefs wish to join my community I will recognise and respect their values, customs and beliefs. I'll allow them to exist without interference or molestation. I'd expect the same in return. I'd expect them to apply the words (their meaning is clearcut)of our Official Multicultural Policy too.

That policy is something we all ACCEPT.

davo, would you agree with le pen's policy of mass-expulsion of foreigners? in what way is this consistent with our 'judeo-christian' values?

IRF.. worked for Joshua. But, not theologically applicable today.

ACCEPTANCE vs TOLERANCE.

It all depends on our meaning of ‘acceptance’ - in the cultural or the legal sense.

If Legal, migrants already have to uphold our laws.

The area of more concern is the CULTURAL.

Lets say it means “We accept your right to practice your culture, within Australian law”

But what if that cultural expression is in CONFLICT with prevailing Australian culture but not law ?

This will lead to automatic marginalization because of the incompatibility of the new and the old culture. It will emphasize “difference” and give no motivation to adjust or assimilate to the predominant culture.

EXAMPLE

Murut Tribe of Borneo.

There ‘culture’ was that a young man could have multiple girlfriends in various villages. If he travelled a distance, he was free to SLEEP with the girlfriend in that village, but NOT to have sexual relations. To do so meant severe and immediate social ostracization.

Dayak/Iban of Borneo.

Their ‘culture’ included a custom ‘Mengayap’ where the young females and males (unmarried) from puberty onwards slept in the outside ‘sikang’ or verandah away from the adults. It was quite normal for Iban boys to have sexual relations with a number of girls during this time. Visitors were also allowed to engage in this practice.

Now..ask yourself, if an Iban/Dayak boy of 15 goes to stay in a Murut Village..... and is by Murut culture allowed to sleep with a young girl, what is the likely outcome ? yes.. you got it in one.

Cultures are NOT compatible and should NOT be seen as something to be simply ‘accepted’ by an existing culture nor ‘tolerated’. In the example above it is abundantly clear that the Dayak boy MUST conform to Murut culture or all hell will break loose ! (and a bundle of arms and legs might result.)

CULTURE INCLUDES RELIGION
and to the extent that a new migrants religion is in conflict with the Australian Culture, it should not be practiced supported or encouraged. (Islamic call to prayer from a mosque, Female genital mutilation etc )

I tend to agree that we need to aim for acceptance rather than tolerance as when tolerating there is no obligation to be kind, respectful or nice.

Even being kind can have a totally different meaning depending on who you are. Some might think that they were being kind when they kicked their victim in the stomach instead of the head!

Acceptance demands more respect.

In regards to the poll on channel 9 to which the article refers, the figures aren't as worrying as they appear due to the fact that the poll was swamped with calls from a right-wing anti-immigration group (whose name escapes me at the moment). Nonetheless, there remains a disturbing amount of agreement with the hypocritical bile of Andrew Fraser and his comtemporaries.

Tim.

Greetings from New Jersey, USA.

Consider, in my view, the ultimate step...

Reverence

All the best.

I guess, according to this article, that when something new is placed into our cultural environment we should work on our acceptance:

So when we are having something hard, sharp, damaging and painfull shoved unceasingly up our collective cultural fundament, we should just learn to accept the torture knowing that somehow we will be enriched by the experience?

("God grant me the wisdom to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things that I can and the wisdom to know the difference")

By the way, stuff soccer. I would have prefered the nominal Australian team (who all actually play for European clubs) to have lost both games 10 nil.

And Australia is not a mulicultural country by any realistic measure: We have people from different countries living here, but that doesn't make the place multi-cultural.

And playing with statistics:

The article states: "Contrary to claims by some, this is not just an Anglo-Celtic versus-the-rest problem. Australia is truly a multicultural society. According to the 2001 Census, 23 per cent of Australians were born overseas. An additional 20 per cent had at least one parent born overseas."

Lets put that another way: 23% were born overseas. An Additional 77% had at least one parent born in Australia, and 57% of people had both parents born in Australia. It sounds a bit different doesn't it?

So only 23%% were 'alien', but how many were born in basically Western liberal democratic cultures? Lets assume about half of that (but probably more): so, only 11% or so of people were born overseas from cultures of possibily some significant difference to the Australian culture of Western liberal democracy.

In other words, the so called ethnic component is much smaller than the 43% alluded to in the article.

So, should the rest of us still accept one tenth of the population shoving something hard, painful and dangerous into our collective cultural fundament?

Dear Hamlet
I must say I'm kinda warming to your newfound passion :)

On that '23% born overseas' stat.... if I'm not mistaken, the largest component of those were actually Anglos, which also changes the significance of the stat completely. I had a look at the ABS breakdown of people by place of birth of parents etc.. and it seems to stack up as I stated above.

Ed Rosenberg... c'mon 'cobber'... you can do much better than a couple of lines... give us some reasoning and further explanatio of what you mean.
I question the idea of 'reverence' of any culture (including our own) because they are simply human responses to our environment. This means that different groups will have different responses, some of which may be diametrically opposed and in conflict. At that point, a prevailing or dominant culture must decide which aspects of the new to accept. (if any)

Last night at my gym, I had a long chat with a Bosnian Muslim guy about this very matter. He had lost 17 of his own family during the war there. We discussed 'culture' and assimilation.

At first he said "We should look at new cultures and take the best, and reject the worst" , and he used the example of food, like Kebabs (from the Greek food tradition) and I said..sure.. if we like Kebabs, and he makes them, we can eat them, but we sure don't wan't some Greek ramming Kebabs down our throats.

He agreed. When I made the point that rather than we being expected to just 'accept' the culture of someone migrating here, we should inform them first of 'how we operate' here and they should decide if they are happy to come under those circumstances, he again agreed.

So, people are free within reason to practice their own culture here, but not to tell us we should accept it just because it's theirs or more seriously, 'adopt' it.

BD - has the Christmas break given you a new found acceptance?

To state the bleeding obvious: Of course we stand to gain by accepting the best that other cultures have to offer and reject the worst. In many cases "rejecting the worst" is why many people have immigrated to Australia.

And, equally, no one should be forcing their ways or beliefs down our throats. With this in mind, I am sure you will refrain from carping on about your version of religion in future.

Cheers

I am a man of simplicity and brevity, consequently, a few sentences, on the most part, is about all you are going to get out of me...unless I get a bit fired up. In which case you may see four or five paragraphs explode from my keyboard.

At any rate, I see reverence as more spiritual than cultural.

Reverence is when we hold each other in the highest respect as unique children of a God and/or Nature.

I suspect there are those who have reached this level among us...many of us, however, appear to be struggling to reach tolerance, at least as I am, unfortunately, seeing it.

BOAZ_David, in your example of the two tribes, isn't this a "law" of the Murut tribe more so than cultural?

"to SLEEP with the girlfriend in that village, but NOT to have sexual relations. To do so meant severe and immediate social ostracization."

Given the fact that it is a binding custom of the tribe and punishable by tribal justice if violated, therefore the Dayak/Iban boy would be breaking the Murat tribe law by following his own cultural practices.

Culture is generally not something that can be as easily controlled and regulated as law. Culture is cultivated, it changes, grows, evolves. A culture may include a predominant religion, but does not preclude other religious practices. Only law can really do that. Culture can influence law but culture is not enforceable like law. In Australia we have laws and we have a mainstream culture, but citizens are only required to obey the laws and that is it. A citizen of this country has no obligation to adhere to or adopt any mainstream or other cultural belief, attitude, value, practice or whatever. They are only required to allow others the lawful freedom of expression, association, etc.

Hamlet; what a childish thing to say about Soccer, sorry make that football, many throughout Australia including the prevailing culture love the game, I have agreed with many of your posts in the past, so please don't weaken what can otherwise be great points of view by being ridiculous !, this is an important debate for the future of our counrty, and we owe it to our children to get it right, what's right ? to be honest I struggle to know what is right anymore because I find myself in a quandary, on the one hand I want the typical easy going Aussie that gives everybody a fair go, on the other hand the easy going nature is being tested by being continuedly being told that I'm racist, that my country is racist, that my culture is not worth a pinch of crap, and that I should be ashamed of being born a "white Australian", because we must have somehow been born with the racist gene !, well okay I think to myself lets be fair, how much ownership of these accusations do I take on board ?, but while I sit and try to be honest with my part in this, I find I can't even get out of the blocks in this thought process, because you cannot examine your own behaviour in a disagreement if you are the only side that's doing the examining, the way this is heading is more and more tolerant easy going Aussie's will treat this like a joke and will not even engage in debate because it is just too ridiculous for words, it's like listening to some fool like germaine greer lament how racist Australia is without doing some heavy hitting on some of the horrendous racsism,bigorty,child abuse and womans rights atrocities that go unchecked as "cultures" all around the world, go to town on these poeple and then I will start to listen otherwise you are just a fake and a coward !

VGC

A fourteen line post comprising one sentence. Marcel Proust would have been proud of that.

Re Soccer, which was the name given to it by its own administrators back in the 1880s, because Rugby Football was known as 'Rugger'. It was decided to call 'Association Football': "Soccer". The football codes being called football because they were ball games played on foot, rather than on horseback, ie polo. It has nothing to do with the use of the foot on the ball.

As far as I am concerned an Australian sporting team consists of playing who spend the vast majority of their activities competing IN Australia, and are not overseas mercenaries.

And I cannot like a game where the rules are so artificial as to prohibit the use of the hands in playing a ball or where half of a particular national team seems to be proud to not know who their fathers were. I am talking about Brazil, of course, where so many players only have one name (Renaldo, Fred, Ricardino etc). They seem to not know what their surnames are, so that tells me a little of their ancestry...

However, every person’s culture has a value to them, and people can borrow or take wholesale parts from other cultures if they wish. I am free to decide whether I want to accept someone else’s culture having an effect on mine or not. In the same way, if I was to move to another country, say the Netherlands, I would be churlish to object and protest against the way that Dutch culture deals with the use of drugs. If I move to the Netherlands, I would have to accept that. I would not be forced to use drugs myself of course.

So, why do people coming to Australia want to change the culture that previously existed here? They may maintain their own cultures, at their own expense if they wish, but why expect that Australians would subsidise and accept the alien culture as if it was their own?

A person coming here should accept what is here.

Well well Hamlet, you surprise me, you use the same tactics of the left to denigrate the great unwashed/uneducated to strengthen their point of view,so I'll say to you in one big long sentence never judge a persons intelligence or the lack thereof,on thier grammar and sentence structures or indeed spelling, you can critise till the cows come home but it still does not make you right, all it shows is that your a sarcastic educated elitist bully, rather like ivory tower academic lefties !

Oh look a paragraph, your pathetic take on football, is so farcical I really wouldn't know what theory to challenge first, prehaps I will limit to just one seeing as this is not supposed to be a post about football.

you say.......

"And I cannot like a game where the rules are so artificial as to prohibit the use of the hands in playing a ball"

"Artificial" ? what the ? so requiring more skills to play a game is "artificial" ? I have played all football codes in this country and I love them all, they all take a different set of skills to play, football just takes a bit more talent, maybe this is what is worrying you champ,

mate I don't know why you are so petty about a great game, that has been played in this counrty for years, but hey that's your choice.

How far to the right are you hamlet, are you about to fall over the edge ?, if we are to put forward some sensible debate about immigration,culture and our way of life I think it would be fair to say we could do without extreme views on either side, now hating football is not extreme views I know, but it comes across as hating anything ethinic based, and I'm sure that's not what you want, do you ?

VGC

Australians have been forced to tolerate the intolerable. And like the horse that you can force to the water but you can't make it drink.....you cannot make us like the intolerable.
Particularly when that intolerable bunch shows it's hatred, racism and thanklessness to us.
Forcing two different types of resentful societies to live in the same country is asking for civil war.
In what other western nation do Muslims live a crime free, peaceful existance?

VGC

That is a new one: I have been accused on OLO as being left wing, and I have had arguments with people because of my views against Fascism and racism, but this is the first time that I have been accused here of being 'right wing'.

In another forum I have been described as:

"A pretentious, pious, know nothing, psuedo-intellectual inner Sydney w@nker"

A tag which I now wear with pride.

By the way, I also dislike Australian Rules, mainly because it has no apparent rules, and basketball. In basketball a good game is where the two teams are level pegging until the end, and one team wins by two points, say, 102 to 100. I agree with the sports writer who said that they should simply give both teams in basketball 100 points and let them play for two minutes.

And my comment about Marcel Proust is as much about his writings as yours. Proust won a Nobel prize for putting on paper ravings in a form that would be heavily criticised if they were submitted as even a high school essay.

If people want to enjoy soccer or Australian Rules or basketball, fine, just don't expect me to get caught up in the general adulation for overpaid sports 'stars'. To submit that a win in a sporting event is a indication of Australia's multicuturalism is to denigrate the much more important Australian successes in the areas of medical and scientific research.

Australian culture is about being free to like or dislike anything you want, within the law. It is about having freedom of speech to critice such things as soccer. You have the right to enjoy it, I have the right not to.

By the way, I am not your 'mate', in a liberal society I have the right to chose who my mates are, and you are not one of them.

"And I cannot like a game where the rules are so artificial as to prohibit the use of the hands in playing a ball or where half of a particular national team seems to be proud to not know who their fathers were. I am talking about Brazil, of course, where so many players only have one name (Renaldo, Fred, Ricardino etc). They seem to not know what their surnames are, so that tells me a little of their ancestry..."

I have a first name and 2 middle names, but when I play sport, my uniform only has my family name on it. That does not mean that I don't have christian names. Similarly, the Brazilian's jerseys show an abbreviation of their full name.

"so that tells me a little of their ancestry..."

We all know how Hamlet ended. (did he only have one name?)

Hamlet

If you knew how common are the attitudes you've just expresed you'd take great heart. Australian's won't abandon the things that have made this country safe and a great place to live. Nor will they tolerate the bs that is invidiously sneaking it's way into the fringes of our society.

I enjoyed your outpouring of emotion. It is quite unusual for people who are normally quite restrained. It will alarm those who seek to damage our way of life.

Yep you are tolerant and self-critical. They are accepted norms in our culture.

I loved your post it was from the heart and showed a great passion to be Australian.

Well said.

'In another forum I have been described as:

"A pretentious, pious, know nothing, psuedo-intellectual inner Sydney w@nker"

A tag which I now wear with pride.

'...as only a '"A pretentious, pious, know nothing, psuedo-intellectual inner Sydney w@nker"'

could.

:-)

davo,

A few Jean Marie le Pens would be great.

In this country you are not allowed to have views like le Pen however. Just ask the minorities who run the show.

It would be nice to have a few Bardots also, but once again the minorities own the place, so forget that too.

It appears anyone who writes an article for this forum has only to mention the word "Muslim" once to trigger a micro analysis of words and beliefs and their justifications ad nauseum.
This particular discussion reads like a group therapy session for chronic sufferers of a new strand of public disease.
"antimuslimitys". Its obviously contagious, but some appear to have some natural immunity.

Nothing wrong with being anti-muslim Leo. Just a belief system that is a personal choice in the west. Same as anti-capitalism, anti-catholic, anti- communism.

Part of living in a democracy is that you are actually allowed to be anti-whatever. You may not win but you can try.

If it becomes a crime to be anti-muslim then we all may as well live in Saudi Arabia. But seeing many muslims flee countries where choice is not an option surely they understand their freedom here also means everyone has the same right to have very different opinion.

The Cronulla riots were not an expression of this freedom. They suppressed the freedom of many if anyhting. Same as being told it is a crime to be anti-muslim. It in itself is a crime, same as the rioters at Cronulla. No-one has the rights to take freedoms away.

I am fed up with the average Australian having to be tolerant of the intolerable, where is ther tolerance of our way of life, these multi-culti elite class has no idea of the real world, or do they? where do they live? Australia is becoming a nation of tribes. Wherever the Muslim lives there is trouble, they are territoral and it is a turf war, they think that the world belongs to Allah and Muslim's, we are pigs, the unclean trash, they are a belligerent arrogant breed.
They don't like us, everything they say in the media to wave over their crimes is a load of rubbish, behind closed doors it is very different. Please be tolerant, we have to be tolerant, well I for one am sick to the stomach with this BS, their is an agenda here, and the Left and Politicians don't give a hoot, we cop it because we are too tolerant. We are commiting suicide.
They get away with heaps, only have to look at the Cronulla fiasco, Australians are racists, what a load of crock they hide behind this multi-culti crap and racist slur, when if you look at the crime in their own back yard, and their threatening Aussie women because they are white, they are the racists and the intolerant ones. Wake up Australia.

well said Bluerock

Sebastian

Thank your for your article.

Within my family, I accept most members. But then, there are others who I simply cannot tolerate, no matter how hard I try.

Get the anology?
Cheers
Kay

Ditto Bluerock I'm with you on that one, my belief is that many things in society had to be changed, and it has been mostly a great thing for civilised poeple all over the world that certain rights and freedoms should apply to everyone equally, but they have in negiotating or fighting for injustices, gone over board in thier demands, and like the unions they have pushed to hard and have made ridiculous demands that only get people's back up and weaken their cause.

What is to be gained from the left wing media and acadamia elitist to continually paint false pictures that they have got to know is untrue, is it to cause bitter sentiment amongst the prevailing culture and lebanese muslims ?,that leads to more unrest so it makes better copy, and they can then turn around and tell you I told you so, therefor strengthen thier own position/cause/job/organisation ?

What amazes me is that there are truly manly horrific injustices all over the world, but through some twisted logic they will fight only the countries that will allow them to fight, that is like a parent that goes out and continually see's badly behaved children and because that cannot do anything about it, come home and give their well behaved kids a kick in the backside because they are frustrated !

Hamlet me old mate, you have broken my heart that you do not want to be one of my "mates" oh well mate I guess I'll have to find another mate to be mates with, lighten up champ you never know we might have more things in common than you think.
VGC

Good topic. Acceptance is itself a belief perspective, requiring that people suspend or reject their own self defining qualities in order to "include" all others. Thus ones own culture is rendered impotent in the face of having to "accept" and value others who get to maintain and even exploit their differences. Homosexuality is a good example - its just not tolerance that is required, but acceptance.

When we have to comply with politically correct agenders such as obtaining an "inclusive society" etc it is asking us to surrender our basic humanity that requires we identify who we are - largely in relation to everyone else. Sebastian, and this politically correct "religion" in essence requires people not to be human and obtain a clear sense of identity and worth by defining our differences.

If acceptance is to occur at all, we must define and relate by what we have in common (like joining a surf club together) - rather than shoving differences in each others faces and demanding acceptance.

It never ceases to amaze me how the people who visit and write in this forum have such insight into the issues of Indigenous people. Also they seem to lack a sense of compassion for the most disadvantaged people in this country.

Being Aboriginal and having lived in three countries, as well as one territory and 4 states, I am shocked at the lack of feeling towards what has happened to Indigenous people over the past 220 years. Especially in the online community.

I think the author is trying to wrestle with the 'notion' and unfounded belief that Australia is 'tolerant' and accepting of others. My personally experience from growing up in a small farming town to living in four capital cities and now living in one of the most racist regional cities in Australia leads me to state that we are leading the pack in intolerance and nonacceptance.

If we were a tolerant society we would not sit idle while Indigenous health standards drop below other comparable nations. Also add the fact that we are dying faster than everyone else. Oh but that is because you mob don't look after yourselves.... Well why don't people tell Cane farmers to 'look after themselves' when the international sugar market drops. Yet they seem to get millions of federal relief without comment from the public.

Please 'accept' the facts that the oldest living culture is in need of support not criticism.

'Tolerate' the need to look with compassion and help forge new ground with positive outcomes.

I never thought I would be proud of South Africa but I love when the crowds and players cry and sing a multi-lingual song and stand beneath a multicoloured flag representative of the different cultures of their society. A country that has truly left Australia behind...but I still have faith in this land on which we sit...it will guide us.

2deadly, are you a white pretending to be black?

Sebastian, a couple of comments. First, no one "has been here for over 40,000 years;" a few of us have been here around 100-110 years.

Second, re tolerance/acceptance. Yes, tolerance is essentially "putting up with." That's surely better than not putting up with. But "acceptance" is not a "two-way street." I can accept anyone or everyone, whether or not they reciprocate or are even aware of it. The best of teachings, e.g. by the Buddha or Jesus, involve acceptance as a one-way street, not judging or condemning others. This is what society needs, this is what will defuse tensions, it's an approach by individuals which doesn't depend on trade-offs, mutual responses or give-and-take. Loving kindness is a one-way street, without expectation, but it brings positive responses.

Well put 2deadly,

Its true what you say in terms of how disremembering most posters are. Egalitarian is put up as a reality - not an aspiration by these apparently learned folk.

One could go so far as to say that its assumed as a biological inheritance of most white Australians that they will be born with an encycopedic knowledge of Aboriginal people and issues because they are after all 'Australian' and knowing and having the abilty to spruke (of the cuff) remarks about 'blacks' is a god given Right and part of their colonial inheritance. Oi Oi Oi !

I've lived in 3 countries and upon arrival here it didn't take me long to work out that the stories most white Australians have to offer about 'their aborigines' are those handed down to them by their parents and grandparents. These stories are usually romanticed, anthropological or racist - or a mix of all.

One would assume that knowing about one's own backyard would be a logical precedent to knowing, understanding and respecting people who come here from other places. Tolerance or Acceptance? I believen this is an issue that goes beyond debates about semantics.

Davo, Are you an Australian pretending to be human?

2deadly,

Why don't your people stop feeling sorry for themselves.

Your culture stopped evolving. Who's fault is that?

We have built you houses that you decided to burn down.

I never buy the petrol that is being sniffed. Nor the glue. Nor the heroin.

LEO you mentioned that some refer to Aboriginal issues in an ‘anthropological’ manner as if this is something negative. I have to firmly state that that is the ONLY way to approach the issue of indigenous issues. Any other way is either misguided sentimentalism based on our western values/cultural framework at best, or base political manipulation at worst.

Part of the problem over the years has been the absolute LACK of a clear understanding of the cultural underpinning of indigenous outlook, which often prevents them from adjusting to the social policies thrust on them by political parties. I refer you to an important article which will demonstrate unquestionably the crucial nature of anthropology based cultural research for social policy. Something as simple as a ‘better axe’ (“Better”=Western value) resulted in the destruction of a whole tribe.
http://www.anthroprof.org/documents/Docs102/102articles/steelAxes.pdf

2DEADLY
appreciate your input here.

I want to address your points. Firstly, please refer you to my opening paragraph directed to LEO.
Now.. White treatment of Indigenous people was mixed. From Greed and cruelty to defending indigenous rights. The worst 'invader' was disease.

I absolutely do not believe that ‘more money’ will solve problems which have at their root much deeper issues. Funding CAN and even MAY make a difference, but only when it is directed in ways which meet the indigenous at their true point of need. Bad health is just a symptom, not the disease. The disease is cultural and spiritual alienation.

1/ Ur welcome to my place anytime. One thing you seem to be missing. If it were not ‘whites’ who came here it would have been the ‘Yellows’ or other whites. Historic inevitability.

2/ Christian aborigines are the happiest I know. (The ultimate reconciliation) (but we cannot do other than proclaim, belief or not, is at your end)

3/ ALL people in Australia have ancestors who have been alienated, persecuted, driven out by others. Join our club. Our racial mix is testimony to that (Brits=Saxon/Celt/Danish/French mixtures) alllll the result of invasions and dispossession. My wife is Bornean, also a victim.