As John Morton points out, we routinely hear about “the oldest living culture in the world” in reference to Aboriginal culture. My response to that is, "So what?" The only way Aboriginal culture became the "oldest living culture in the world" is because Aboriginal people lived on a fairly barren island that was of very, very limited interest to other peoples of the world.

Is that a value judgment? No more so than saying that Aboriginal culture is "worthy" because of the simple fact that it is the world's oldest living culture. In fact, is Aboriginal culture the world's oldest living culture? What about the culture of the San people in southern Africa? Isn’t that equally ancient?

It's also interesting to note that another word that is applied to the culture of people who live on islands with very little contact with the outside world is "insular". It's a term that is often used rather disparagingly in reference to English culture. But wasn't Aboriginal culture prior to 1788, the world's most insular culture?

What lessons are there for us today from the ultimate in insular cultures? The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is of absolutely no relevance to 21st Century Australia, while sacred landscapes are going to have less and less relevance as people embrace science rather than superstition as the answer for geological queries. After all, Uluru predates the Aboriginal occupation of central Australia by many, many millions of years. And no amount of regurgitating Tjukurpa stories by Parks Australia is going to change that

Apart from adacemics, aborigines themselves and a few left wing do-gooders and meddlers, most of us, if we are honest, don't give two hoots about aboriginal culture - or any other minority culture for that matter.

This is not disparaging of aboriginal Australians or other cultures; there is simply no need for us to have any interest. We have our own culture, and as long as we can rub along with others who have - or choose to have - different ideas, that's fine. We should all be part of one country and its laws. If some people are left out of the mainstream because of 'culture' or having a different outlook, that's their problem. They all have the opportunity to do something about it if they wish to.

Mr Morton's desire to avoid the debate about 'culture' is understandable, seeing as he perceives that it does not help in bettering the lot of Aboriginal Australians. The difficulty of pinning down a definition of 'culture' doesn't help. It would be wrong, however, to assume that it will let us "be allowed to get on with the job of finding appropriate solutions", simply because any public policy must react with Aboriginal people.

To discuss a solution to the terrible treatment of women and children, does is help us to know that the earliest explorers and colonisers of Australia noted the exact same thing? Would it help us to know that it was a cultural norm for women to be subjected to high levels of violence, be promised away at a very early age, and that there be tribal institutions which prepared women for the feeling of pain through violence, such as the severing of the little fingers of the women of one of the tribes encountered at Sydney Cove? I think the answer is yes. It is a "yes" because it acknowledges that we are dealing something that is deeply rooted in the practice of a group of people. A combination of a yearning for one's Aboriginal heritage, and a dose of European morality, has caused an utopian vision of Aboriginal society, which hides such practice.

If we keep clinging to myths such as the one outline above, public policy will not acknowledge how deep-seated the problems are, and therefore not be effective. Rather than avoiding the debate over culture/practice or whatever word one uses, we need to do so logically and dispassionately, in order to come closer to the truth. It does not help Aboriginal Australians to has a false understanding of their roots, and it does not help the government to have to dance around the issue.

It's not a time to give up, but to try harder.

Insightful..... about how 'white' eyes see the problem.

Indigenous Aussies need to do one of 2 things.

1/ DECIDE to adapt and adopt as far as possible the values and habits of the culture which has swamped them.

2/ DENY it, and maintain with tenacious determination a traditional life in so far as it does not conflict with the ruling laws.

But to be in the middle ? yikes. That is a lose lose situation.

There are various reasons for the losing nature of that path. WE are one of those reasons, and our democratic system which sees politicians seeking to find 'issues' and make political merit out of anything they can lay their germ encrusted hands on, which in the case of Labor, Liberal, Green and Democrats one of the juiciest morsels is 'The Indigenous Problem'.

But all approaches that I hear boil down to one thing:

"Throw more money at it"

I checked out Gary Foleys web site and it holds some interesting information. So sad to see the map dots of where and when massacres/murders/poisenings etc occurred.

In regard to choice '1' above, some of the best adjusted, happiest,joyful Aboriginal people are those who have embraced Christ. (no..I DON'T mean "The Church" in the way many would interpret that statement)

Jesus once said "If the evil spirit goes out of a man, it goes looking for a new place to dwell. If, on finding none it returns to find the place it left empty, it will re-inhabit that place, and the last state of that person will be seven times worse than the original"

You might not adhere to the 'theology' but it sure is good psychology.

If Aboriginals are 'exorcised' of their old culture, but then, find rejection and dissilusionment in the new they may revert to the old but with the addition of becoming militant/radical and violent.

Money is not the answer, unless it is used for anthropologists to understand the core problem, not the symptom.

"You want us to look like warriors, but not act like them" (Torres Straight Islander commenting on Indigenous identity.

Nice article. Yes Indigenous issues do get bogged down in stereotypes. No you cannot ignore culture.

Stereotyping is also usually a method of keeping us seperated. We need to see difference and diversity as a positive. The negative-stereotyping of Indigenous people is usually the domain of people who must be blind to the positive aspects of Indigenous folk. They ignore the positives to justify their racist, cultural supremacist attitudes. They chose to ignore the positives of other group's culture and, because of that, come to see difference as a negative.

There are many aspects of Indigenous culture that are valuable and valued by Australians.

However, child abuse, is wrong and our European-based, Indigenous influenced culture is superior in that aspect. I think most Indigenous people and their leaders would concede that. Just as the Christian church and followers have conceded that burning millions of pagans at the stake is/was wrong.

Culture is set in concrete - but it is dynamic too. Usually non-core aspects can be changed with out wrecking the gist. Indigenous culture has at its centre their connection to the land. The invasion stole that from them. Bit like when the Russian "communists" shut down the churches and stole its people's property.

The psychological and social impact of the theft of their central cultural pillar and the continuing struggle and confrontation with an unjust and racist society that just doesn't understand Indigenous culture and the collective pain Indigenous folk endure and the frustration felt at not being treated justly is still being seen and, ironically, used as a negative stereotype.

The various Indigenous cultures are not only struggling with that, they are also adapting to a vastly different law structure, seperation from traditional lands, and social environment.

The Indigenous culture is changing to accomadate wiser ways of living. All change involves some disruption and often distress. The rest of us need to be more helpful and not let the stereotyping and racism bury into the core of Australian culture and override the positive aspects and core belief of the Indigenous peoples and Australian culture generally.

I reckon some outrage therapy is needed in this debate.

Put it into the context of Human Rights and it becomes independent of culture. Argue your case in front of the UN on the basis of Human Rights and it's a no brainer.

Now, for the outrage being expressed. Have a look in your backyard. How many of you would allow your kids to go about doing kid stuff unsupervised in your community? If they were six years old? If they were 12 years old? What scrutiny and outrage would your community express if you did? Why?

Because it isn't safe? Because kids can't be trusted?

Get real