Oliver said:

"Economic outcomes of a pre-agrarian [and agrarian] society more tethered to malthusian limits than are post-industrial and market-based societies."

Oliver, I like the gist of your last 2 posts and I think I know what you are getting at but.. what does the above mean? Who or what was Malthus?

"It's time the Aborigines took their lives back and began to function as independent, self-actualising human beings..." - Aqvarivs
Yes Oliver, because no matter a Aboriginal society of hunter/gather's pre "white invasion", I would suggest they were a independent, self-actualising people by necessity of basic human survival and had pride of self regardless of a base existence in comparison to todays managed existence by government policy on Aboriginal affairs.
Every human being needs the opportunity to stand before his or her society and proclaim "I am" by my own efforts, "We are" because of our effort. Familiar inclusion and shared productive contributions that lead to familiar, local, community, state, national pride and sense of self worth. Value.
Such lack of self-worth, pride, dignity, being of a value to society isn't an Aboriginal issue alone. It can be seen in long term reliance on social welfare, extended prision sentences or any other exception were human beings are managed and "institutionalised" with in society.

Be careful of what you easily dismiss in the name of historical context or Familialism and kinship. The issue is not with the Aboriginal "clan" structure as a deterrent to a independent and self-actualising and productive society but, rather that today that society is dependent on "another" society for it's survival and sense of social expectation and regard.

Stickman,

Thomas Malthus [1766-1834] tried to understand the relationship between population and food supply. By way of extension technologically advanced societies are better placed to create a surplus over food needs. Moreover, with further extension, the surplus can be used to free labour for research and development, while sustaining the entire population.

Aquarivs,

Familialism and kinship are cultural dimensions defined by anthropologists to show communal groups with strong in-group/out-group affinities: They are homogeneous and exclusive, tribal.

In contrast, the West is heterogeneous, because of the need to sustain a cosmopolitan function. While the clan may have the same values of an individual in a civilization, it is the clan’s group value not the “self” which is highlighted. Here, I posit that the clan structure ‘is’ “deterrent to an independent and self-actualising and productive” behaviour in contemporary Australian society.

The issue is that an in-group clan structure does not mesh with a cross-group Western society. The in-group/out-group behaviours exhibited are not in context with the prevailing societal ecology. Similarly, the Jews didn’t function well in Greek and Roman colonies, while they remained steadfast in the belief it was their land [given by God] and that they possessed a special exclusivity apart the rest of society.

Agree on the matter of dependency, but add dependency is a consequence of the aforementioned. The people involved need to break with the clan model reassign heritage as a respected retrospective.

Oliver, do you include Australia in your definition of 'the west'? And if so how do you exclude the Aboriginal from that influence. Not only is the historical clan structure of the Aboriginal society not being upheld it doesn't exist- with the Elders being refused a voice by the 'administrators' of Aboriginal affairs, complete families broken up and others decimated by drugs, alcohol, lack of education, socialisation, employment and a drought of aboriginal leadership over their own affairs. The whole structure of the idea of having and practicing an Aboriginal policy is rank insult. Consider a policy enacted to manage oliver? Not a happy thought I think no matter how willing you are to have strangers dictate the manner and form of your existence.
I should think Aboriginals would be part and parcel of that western cosmopolitan Australian society, in as much as Scottish, Greek, Indian, Vietnamese or gay and lesbian communities can be considered all of one society under todays (multi)culturally influenced localities which are clans by a different name.
Australia has had 200 odd years of direct influence in matters of Aboriginal life and society and aside from the myth and tourista speak very little of a historical cultural Aborigine structure has not been displaced by a very aggressive 'western' permutation.
I don't believe there is blame or in political apologies or political sympathy. A clash of cultures is a clash of cultures. What I do think is Australia needs to make peace with the Aborigines by stepping away from political and governmental policies that manage the Aborigines affairs.

Aquarivs,

Yes, I would include Australia in my definition of “the West”, wherein by heterogeneous I should add there is no/little self-departmentalisation... Yes again, there are differences, but, today, the locus needs to be on the main society, not the enclave. The Scots “remember” their clans and the Greeks their folklore, but typically they are not so engaged in their [past] society of origin, as to miss the main game. Multiculturalism works, where the various cultural representations are not kin-based, because kin altruism holds too distant non-kin altruism, by definition, and diminishes the potential for assimilation. By assimilation, I mean into the direction of [Western] society direct not emulation of today.

Clans are fundamentally exclusive [Alliances between clans are often utilitarian].

[The gays are a sub-culture within a society, but I understand your point. The gays are not refusing to engage Western civilization.]

People remember WWI, including people, who made recording of the lyrics of the old war songs, before the last diggers died. Valuable, but one does not act as if it “is” 1915. The aboriginals need to demote tribalism to treasured heritage, and participate in out-group society.

Elders have power in a clan community and community members will listen: But age-related patriarchs will wish to maintain its community’s cultural status quo, and, therefore, have a stake in perpetuating ecologically non-compliant systems. Instead, Elders need to accept reality, and promote the model of modernity, whilst preserving past legacies.

“I should think Aboriginals would be part and parcel of that western cosmopolitan Australian society…” So, do I, but it requires dramatic change on their behalf, not only help.

Making peace is two sided. Perhaps special financial compensation is required for a few generations to permit transition [then stop]. But ultimately one needs stop taking tooth-ache cure and go to the dentist. Today, Clans cannot co-exist with modernity, at least, not as some bastardised form of what was. The aboriginal infant needs to feel it lives in the West’s today, not an aboriginal today.

Offpost for a few days. Busy.

Oliver, you say:
"Elders have power in a clan community and community members will listen: But age-related patriarchs will wish to maintain its community’s cultural status quo, and, therefore, have a stake in perpetuating ecologically non-compliant systems. Instead, Elders need to accept reality, and promote the model of modernity, whilst preserving past legacies."

"Ecologically non-compliant systems"? Interesting. What is it you mean? How is such compliance or non-compliance determined?