The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No excuses > Comments

No excuses : Comments

By Harry Throssell, published 21/2/2007

Australian Indigenous life expectancy is among the world's poorest.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. 15
  14. All
Banjo,

I know I said I wouldn't post anymore, but I couldn't help offer some support.

When I read FrankGol's criticism of you for using the term 'sit down' money I had to smile. I hadn’t heard the term until I went to Arnhem Land where it's routinely used by all indigenous people. It’s just another glaring example, something we’ve seen time and time again on this thread, that FrankGol and co have absolutely no idea what goes on in remote communities.

It’s ironic. When you have remote area experience and try to tell people about it, you get accused of lying by charlatans who pass themselves off as experts, but who are proved time and time again to have absolutely no idea. Hence, we get breathtaking statements like, "I was disgusted to find teachers wouldn't teach until the children showered and got into white fellers' clothes". Apart from being unable to make the link between good health outcomes and hygiene, it betrays an astounding ideological pigheadedness - what would FrankGol have teachers do? Let children run around filthy and naked?

You were right, not a single suggestion after 50 posts. When pushed what does FrankGol suggest? Surprise, surprise another report! Lets take a guess what it will say: whites should shut up, feel guilty and pay up. It will have been written by human rights groups who parachute into communities for an Aboriginal experience day. They will be accompanied by Aboriginal industry professionals with 20 years experience, like FrankGol, who steer them in the right direction, make sure they meet the right people and hear the right things. In short, as Sir Humphrey Appleby might say, to make sure everything was ‘sound’.

And the result? Well here’s another surprise. After more than 30 years of self-determination indicators of Aboriginal wellbeing will continue to decline.

These people aren’t impartial professionals trying to improve outcomes for Aboriginals; they’re advocates pushing their beliefs. And that’s why you and I, and Aboriginal health, will not win.
Posted by eet, Saturday, 3 March 2007 1:30:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo.

eet's exact words were:" If you speak to any remote area nurse you'll find that Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population in the country." That is not the same as your gloss: "he was emphasising that medical services in most aboriginal communities was adequate or more so in some cases." Look at the difference between eet's and your version. Note your use of 'most', 'adequate' and 'in some cases' compared to eet's 'most prodded, tested and over serviced'.

I did not challenge your use of the term 'sit down money', which I know is widely-used. Read what I actually said. " Do you expect to be taken seriously when you assert that people deliberately take 20 years off their lives for 'sit down money'?" What I found offensive was your use of the crude 'blaming the victim' mentality.

aka can and does speak eloquently for herself. But your abuse of me is ugly and defamatory. Quote: "I think you don't want aboriginal health to improve because lefties can use the poor health to try and get some political gain. You are not the slightest bit interested in aboriginal welfare." I assume you have no proper argument to put forward, hence the resort to personal insult and lies.

eet just can't help himself. Back in, with useful contributions like 'charlatans who pass themselves off as experts' and 'astounding ideological pigheadedness' And another deliberate distortion of my point about recommendations. I did NOT suggest another report. What I said was that there are adequate positive recommendations in a number of reports that have not yet been impemented. We don't need another report; and I did NOT call for one, despite eet alleging I did. Readers will make up their own minds about where the truth lies.

Now what did I say about eet and lies? Why should I call him a liar? His own words show the world what manner of man he is.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 3 March 2007 4:58:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol,

I’ll say it again. Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population.

After all this time you still haven’t managed to grasped my point so I’ll spell it out for you – it doesn’t matter how good the medical facilities are out bush. If people have a poor diet and abuse alcohol they will not live a long and healthy life. In my post I made it clear this didn’t matter whether you were black or white. Yet you call this “simply absurd”. Can you please explain why this is absurd?

You said:

“ [people like eet] challenge the "myth" about Aboriginal health care by telling big porkies about the abundant health services in remote areas”
“breathtaking hypocrisy “
“resort to meaningless rhetoric and hand-wringing”

From your very first post you called me a liar and then went on to accuse me of hypocrisy, meaningless rhetoric and hand-wringing. Like Aka you thought your bully boy tactics would see me too frightened to respond.

You then went on to tell us about yourself:

“I have some credentials. I have taught Indigenous students in the NT and Victoria.….. In the past 20 years I have worked closely with brilliant Indigenous educators who are achieving outstanding results”

Perhaps this was meant to reassure us about your credibility; that you really do know what you’re talking about. But in the same post you tell us how ‘disgusting’ it was for teachers to expect children to be clean. Why was it disgusting?

After being prodded you finally mention a report with ‘positive recommendations’ but you neglect to tell us what they are. Why don’t you tell us? You attack anyone who doesn’t agree with your worldview, won’t explain your inconsistencies and then go on to say my own words prove I’m a liar. How?

You accuse me of having “no stomach for the tough questions” Yet where are your answers?

At least you got one part right – people will read and decide for themselves who is telling ‘porkies’.
Posted by eet, Saturday, 3 March 2007 7:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eet bleated:

"it doesn’t matter how good the medical facilities are out bush"

So how do you explain the low mortality rate of those who are not alcoholics and who attempt to follow a healthy life style?

And what about those pregnant mothers who must travel and stay near a hospital in a city well before the expected time of baby arrival because the services in remote communities are not adequate?

And what about those old people with renal failure?

You can try to get away in this forum masquerading as someone who knows the realities but it does not fool me for a moment.

For gods’ sake, do some proper research - certainly beyond what you read in the Murdoch press.

Here is a good document to start with
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/DA4283E5D5C265BDCA25722E007B377B/$File/wrkstrgy1.pdf

When you've finished reading this (written by expert researchers and policy makers) come back and try to engage in a real discussion that includes some evidence - and not just your pathetic "armchair" opinions.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 3 March 2007 9:26:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
eet

I challenge your unqualified assertion - "Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population." I take it you mean they have access to better health services than any other segment of the Australian population? Give me the evidence - as distinct from assertion.

Now your honesty? This is what you allege was our exchange of views: 'If people have a poor diet and abuse alcohol they will not live a long and healthy life. In my post I made it clear this didn’t matter whether you were black or white. Yet you call this “simply absurd"'.

Compare what I actually said: 'His claim that "Aboriginals are the most prodded, tested and over serviced segment of the population in the country" is simply absurd.' Blatant distortion.

Another example. You said: "Mindless ideologues like you usually have never left the city and never met an Aboriginal." So I listed my credentials. You respond with a non-sequitur: "But in the same post you tell us how ‘disgusting’ it was for teachers to expect children to be clean. Why was it disgusting?" It was disgusting because the children were not dirty and wore clothes when they came to school. The teachers demeaned them. Tell me any school which would do this with non-Indigenous kids?

Of course, you twisted the facts (without checking the evidence) - "what would FrankGol have teachers do? Let children run around filthy and naked?" Why did you assume they were filthy and naked?

Finally, you say: "After being prodded you [FrankGol] finally mention a report with ‘positive recommendations’ but you neglect to tell us what they are. Why don’t you tell us?" I've told you it's the famous Bringing Them Home Report - and conscientious people working in Indigenous education know its recommendations very well. You appear to be an exception.

Your transparent gambit: "You accuse me of having 'no stomach for the tough questions'. Yet where are your answers?" won't deflect attention away from questions to you posted on 25 February.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 3 March 2007 10:04:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier,
Would you have a look at the second sentence of your last post. It reads the opposite to what I think you want it to say.

If you mean that those that do look after themselves are still dieing at a younger age than the rest of us. I certainly cannot say, but I guess the medicos would come up with possible reasons.

Most prudent mothers to be go to larger centers to give birth. My closest large centre has a population of 24,000 approx and last i heard they were having trouble getting a specialist Obstertrician. I think to do with very high professional insurance costs for them. So I would not think it likely that small communities would get specialist medicos. I think those with renal failure would also have to go to the large centres for dyalisis. Its all part of living in rural and remote areas.
Posted by Banjo, Saturday, 3 March 2007 10:53:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. 15
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy