The annual aboriginal guilt day has past with much of the same rhetoric spoken in the media. However the so called "stolen" generation of aboriginals were in fact and generally speaking the "saved" generation with many of them as adults taking up responsible positions in both the aboriginal and wider Australian community.

Those left behind were, and are, the "sorry" generation, generally speaking - while the got the vote they often remained on isolated reserves (renamed aboriginal communities) and left to rot.

Assimilation of the "saved" generation was a great achievement and the removal of abused children from dysfunctional families, unwedded mothers and child mothers, whether aboriginal or other Australians was common in the past and why not if it helped the kids.

West, a few points to argue!

1. The AGRICULTURAL capacity of the land may have arguably been decreased. But greater use of the land for agriculture has lead to there being larger populations of certain native animals - kangaroos in particular. A very rich food source. As I mentioned, white settlers also introduced rabbits - again a good food source and fairly easy to catch (we used to run them down when we were kids). There is year-round water in almost all rivers except in the worst droughts, and fishing clubs release fingerlings often. There is probably more food now than there was 200 years ago.

2. I have yet to find a member of the Christian community that regards the aboriginies as domesticated savages. Yes, there are some that will say that things would have been easier if the settlers had finished them off. I dont subscribe to that theory but I acknowledge that there are those that do. Mostly its frustration about not being able to do anything to improve their current circumstances.

3. The average life expectancy of a paelolithic hunter-gather was 33 years. Mostly due to childhood diseases and infant mortality. High infant mortality is given as a major contributing factor towards why the indigenous life expectancy is so low. As we improve this, we will improve the average life expectancy. There is certainly more work to do, but they were starting from behind, so you cant expect that they will be on a level playing field yet. It does require people that keep drawing the publics attention to it though.

Country Gal ,

1. Biodiversity has taken a nose dive in Australia. Most beef country is so degraded half the food plants that once existed are extinct on those lands. Else where reserves are too small and only preserve that which is so vulnerable that any collection of plant material would cause extinction within a few short years if not immediately. As far as kangaroo is concerned it should be Australia’s primary meat, a little research additional to already existing data should make Kangaroo farming viable.

2. The discourse concerning the assimilation of indigenous peoples is directly suggesting that those people are required to be [civilised] as [WE] are [civilised]. This is a direct influence of the monotheistic values of self adulation and deification [WE are right , everybody else is wrong] and barbarity [ you must be as we are]. A good example of this is Adrian Jacksons post above yours. Clearly the living conditions and opportunities presented to our Indigenous citizens today is testimony that we are not a civilised society at least our values have not been for at least 200 years. I have been arguing that we are savage if anybody is. We are a society of conflict, a society of competition. Clearly the living conditions and opportunities presented to our Indigenous citizens is testimony that for all the horrors and abuse indigenous communities received from churches to assimilate them benefited only the pride mongering of the Christians and churches involved to the detriment of indigenous communities. The word assimilation is suggestive of domestication and is the accusation the ‘other’ is a savage. What we are seeing now are a people with out hope because they have never been respected nor valued by us.

3. Again you are using 19th century assumptions of life expectancy. Within a few years of the first fleet European diseases had ravished the Murray Darling Basin. A life expectancy of 33 certainly does not make sense for some clans who’s hierarchy was topped by great, great grandparents, which would require a large enough population of enough at least 55 year olds.

I offer this advice, with grn in mind.

BEWARE PATERNALISM.

West,
1.Yes but there are now other food sources including native grasses introduced into areas where they didnt grow naturally, and completely introduced. Some have been a good move and some have not. I assume by beef country that you are thinking of the NT and northern QLD, because most marginal areas of southern Australia are considered sheep country -beef cant get enough fodder to survive. Even in this country though, populations of native animals are still quite high, due to pasture improvement, the seeding of claypans and the provision of permanent water sources.

2.Geez, what way do you want to argue? You seem to be determined to draw a distinction between us and them, so I'll sink to the same level. If we leave them living in hunter-gatherer conditions (humpies/gunyas, no western medical aid, no clothes/food supplied), then we are savage and barbaric. But if we provide them with westernised accomodation, food, welfare if they cant get a job, medical services etc, then we are savage for trying to assimilate them. So what's the bloody answer? Its this sort of prancing on both sides that makes it impossible to offer anything and have it accepted as good or useful.

3.No I am using 20th century estimates of paleolithic lifespans. Obviously they are estimates. The estimates suggested that the reason for the AVERAGE life span being so low is no real medical treatment, and high infant mortality. It was also suggested that those that survived childhood, accidents and wild animals (which wouldnt have been a particular problem in Australia apart from crocs), probably lived up to 55-65 years. This allowed the societies to be governed by elders, because those that did survive were quite healthy and long-lived. This life expectancy thus DOES make sense in application to aboriginal tribes, and is borne out in some medical data from today. The indigenous population has quite high fertility rates, but also high infant mortality rates. Apply those to the population in general condsidering that western medicine has improved infant mortality rates, and an AVERAGE expectancy of 30-40 years is quite reasonable.

Ok with the risk of going around in circles

1. Biodiversity has collapsed. The carrying capacity of the land has diminished. We should not expect Indigenous communities to be stuck in time but offer the best material and theoretical technicologys to help sustain their lives with a wellbeing consistent with the rest of the comunity in so much they may live within the scope of their own cultureS if they so choose and where they deem it important spiritually and traditionally to be. Its inefficent growing native flax for flour when wheat has greater yield.

2. We (the non indigenous Australia) approach indigenous Australia from the assumption of superiority. Yet we have destroyed indigenous culture and social frames , so our superiority is unfounded at best. Science has been guilty of this , anthropologists collected the deceased. Now they are reflexive and aplogetic and trying to right their wrongs. Christianity is just plain obnoxious and arrogant , probably as a defence because they believe in childish and ridiculous concepts. But so they have a word which means they claim superiority which is heathen. The misguided attitude that our way is the best way is the fault of the Cult of Christianity.

3. This is Australia , Some of Australias communities are dying younger than the rest. There is no good excuse. Wether or not indigenous people lived to 15 in 1750 is not relevant.