FrankGol “sustainable economic opportunity?”

Personally I have moved twice with the intention of improving my personal “sustainable economic opportunity?”.

Once from Southern England to London and then from London to Australia.

If individuals want “sustainable economic opportunity?” they have be prepared to meet the opportunity at least half way, rather than expect it to simply be provided by someone else’s effort , like “Cargo Cult”.

That
1 tribal aboriginals want a better life expectancy is, I am assuming, a given.
2 tribal aboriginal society lack the basic skills to make value and life enhancing decisions for their own well being would appear to be apparent.
3 That aboriginal people are exposing younger generations to social and moral degeneracy is absolutely apparent.

Only TWO things will fix these Issues,
For Aboriginal people to acquire the necessary skills and attitudes from more successful “races”
For aboriginal people to give up the notion they are different and deserving of different treatment to non-aboriginal Australians.

The short-term alternative is the protect the new generations from the old generational attitudes. That might be ‘paternalistic’ but the alternative to such ‘paternalism’ is a continuation of the status quo.

Therefore the one remaining issue is

Does White Australian paternalism produce better outcomes for developing generations of aboriginal Australians to the tribal degeneracy of the “status quo” ?

After ignoring six of my seven original points, and dismissing the other with his personal chest-thumping anecdote, Col Rouge defines "the one remaining issue" in terms of a manufactured false dichotomy in the guise of a rhetorical question: "Does White Australian paternalism produce better outcomes for developing generations of aboriginal Australians to the tribal degeneracy of the 'status quo' ?" Any reasonable person can see that the issues cannot be summed up in these two alleged competing alternatives. When confronted with complex issues, only simple minds deal in simple solutions.

When Col Rouge seriously considers all my points (and those of other serious contributors) we will have the basis for a considered discussion

FrankGol “When Col Rouge seriously considers all my points (and those of other serious contributors) we will have the basis for a considered discussion”

Ah you consider yourself a “serious contributor” Frank?

It is a shame you cannot be “serious enough” to suitably promote your 7 points effectively, by separating them, instead of running them together like someone afraid to waste a line of paper or, sillier still, a couple of ^N (Line feeds) to improve understanding.

To be honest, after reading the beginning of the line and the first of your seven points, you were so “seriously boring”, I could not be bothered to read the rest of the paragraph.

However, I will accept your choice to decline more constructive comment as admission that your capacity for pomposity has displaced all reasoning ability.

It seems some of our Onliners are taking the possibly wornout ‘survival of the fittest’ attitude, which incidently is a phrase that was not coined by Darwin, but by an acquaintance Herbert Spencer, who as a socio-political realist virtually used or abused Darwin’s theory not only to justify injustices concerned with colonialism, corporatism and free-market Laizess-faire, but even war as a genuine part of progress. To Darwin’s distress, businessman Walter Bagehot and Herbert Spencer and others helped formalise Darwinian Socialism, which aided by Hegelianism has carried on the concept through two World Wars sparked by imperialism and Nazism, and right up to the present day with the return of Laissez-faire and the increasing demand for oil, which just happens to exist in countries that Western corporates feel justified to take over as a part of progress or survival of the fittest.

According to Darwin, however, the emphasis on animalistic struggle as a necessary part of human progress was a narrow and one-sided interpretation of his thesis. Different to animals humans have either been gifted or have developed the capacity to reason, and so it is not improbable that as a part of human progress more and more virtuous tendencies should have proven to have developed. As regards colonialism, and what to do about the indigines, we could wonder whether we have progressed very far or not? Certainly it seems a job for philosophers or social scientists and not politicians or lawyers.

Brushbred,we all need a survival component in our lives to cleanse the spirit and appreciate what we need to stive to become better people.This applies to all socio-economic groups in our society,since no discipline or learning means decay.There is decay at all levels of our socio-economic divide,from parisitic lawyers to leftist do gooders who seek comfort in the weakness of the inept.

In a previous post,I described the Aboriginal dilemma as thus;
"We have removed the survival component from a culture that once thrived on the challenge that most of us could never endure.To remove the reason for ones existence is the cruelest cut.Just to be paid for existing is like being in gaol,there is no reason to learn or evolve."

Our present Aboriginal Culture needs discipline and direction,since there is no longer a natural environment that caters for this need.Just paying them conscience money to appease our guilt,is in reality,effecting the slow genocide we are witnessing now.

Col Rouge, I know it's hard for some people to deal with more than one idea in each post. So to prevent you getting a splitting headache, here are my seven points again numbered 1-7 (remember I was tackling Tony Abbot's claim - "Australians’ sense of guilt about the past and naïve idealisation of communal life may now be the biggest single obstacle to the betterment of Aboriginal people." I suggested there might be bigger obstacles.)

1. How about the almost complete lack of sustainable economic opportunity?
2. How about lack of employment opportunities in isolated communties (and elsewhere for that matter)?
3. How about the lack of infrastructure in Indigenous community?
4. How about demoralisation brought about by continuing paternalism?
5. How about the lack of political representation in national and state level decision making?
6. How about the massive number of well-researched reports and practical recommendations that sit in government offices gathering dust?
7. How about the periodic wringing of hands every time we re-discover the same old problems? And so to sleep again when it all stops being front-page news!

Oh drat, after going to all that trouble for you Col, I've just realised I'm wasting my time. It wasn't that you couldn't cope with seven ideas. It's just that you got "seriously bored after reading the beginning of the line and the first of [my] seven points", and "could not be bothered to read the rest of the paragraph". How can I ever imagine myself on the same level as such an intellectual giant?