Sir Vivor,

"Can you kindly state these Laws of Ecology? I am not familiar with them as such. ...And I have not seen the term "ecologically non-compliant" prior to your use of it."

Thanks for your interset. I am not paraphasing someone else nor am I borrowing terms. That said, socio-anthropologist, Harry Trandis, suggests, personality is a product of culture and culture a product of ecology. Where the culture is out of touch with the environment [laws of ecology, if you will, my words, e.g, adapt of else], it is at risk. We are a heterogeneous national state in a globaling world, tribal values might nor suffice to survive. Herein, it is better to reposition life style as heritage, and live in accordance with the present environment

Oliver, with each post I think I'm getting a clearer picture of your thinking. Correct me if I'm wrong. As I see it you place the onus of change or adaptation on the Aborigine vis a vie kinsmanship/tribe/cultural socialisations in regards to the “todays” nation state which is Australia and any forward or socially progressive movement.
On the other hand, while not in total disagreement with such thinking, I believe it is incumbent upon the government and non-government interests to remove themselves from “the right” they have taken upon themselves to direct Aborigine affairs before this nation can ask the Aboriginal people to accept any participation as free Australians with in an all encompassing Australian society. For it isn't the Aborigine practice of kinsmanship that has set them outside conventional society but, rather government policy regarding the management of Aboriginal affairs. Consider the immense change over the last 200 years. Begining with the 1700's and the civil codes, the age of exploration, the industrial revolution, the steam engine, mass production, scientific method, radio, flight, automobiles, right up to today and computing hardware and nano-technologies. The Aboriginal has not missed any of this progress, has lived and grown and given birth to successive generations over the same periods of time. The only difference is that the government spoon fed the Aborigine and predetermined their course, their ability to cope with the changing times and whether they were or were not capable of utilising the technology as it arrived. Everyone else rose or fell according to their own lights while every advantage was pushed on them whether they liked it or not. Every government since 'first fleet' has treated the Aboriginals through policy management as if they, the Aborigine, could not tie their own shoes to save their lives. That perception and the concomitant policy of 'management' has lead us to the dire straits faced by the Aboriginal people today. They never were given an honest chance to join in and to grow with the rest of us. They were 'reserved' for further management.

aqvarivs,
Too true unfortunately .
In the book "Survival in our own Land" [a good read] ,edited by Christobel Mattingley and told by "Nungas and others" , [1986] ,there are numerous storys of the early 1900's in South Australia when capable Nungas pleaded with Land Comissioners and protectors to be alloted their own land to be self sufficient.

Aboriginal Joseph Koolmatrie of Meningie wrote in a series of letters to officials in vain in April 1923 to get his own land. "...I want to school my children ".

The local landowner J G Williams did not want him, according to the local policeman M C Northbridge, "to get a Footing".

His application rejected, it took until 1977 for Janis Koolmatrie to graduate with a Teaching Diploma.

In the Early history of Gippsland sucessfull Aboriginal Agriculture on missions caused problems and was discouraged when effecient production [From memory it was peas] increased competition for white farmers in the market.

Simply entitled to Sympathy - I don't think so ! .

Acquarivs,

In preface, I would say that any society, group or individual must not be at too greater odds with its ecology... One can be the world’s greatest runner, but that does not help when one cannot swim and thte boat is sinking in the middle of the Pacific. In this context kinship behaviour is in appropriate, when it postures to be parallel with the dominant nation state society.

As you say there has been “immense change” in the past 200 years, but, it needs to be remembered babies, indigenous or otherwise are born in the twenty-first century, and, herein, start life with an equal chance to adapt. In the case of the aboriginal baby, that infant, is nurtured in an environment of familialism, kinship and stories about their relationship with the dominant culture.

Where many aboriginals missed-out engaging technological progress [your impressive list], this is case of non-engagement, given the parents had a choice to educate their children when opportunities were available [from the State], the technological outcome is a consequence of a non-adaptive sociological reality. Moreover, contra-ideologies develop to entrench non-adaptation: Archaism and Futurism and unwillingness to live in the result [Arnold Toynbee]. Engagement in the Present system is avoided.

- More points to come

Kartiya jim,

“Survival in our own Land” is a curious title. I doubt before 220 hundred years ago indigenous persons from any of the previous migrations could comfortably accept it. The Land is spirits and spirits are the Land. Land could not be “owned”, in the sense it is Estate, as with the Lords of the Manor.

Even with the first Sumerians Land was administered by Priesthoods on behalf of God(s). Terra Nullius is nonsensical: Yes. But so is Land Rights, when the culture one promotes doesn’t recognise the same. What has occurred with Land Rights is a Creole between the factual past regarding historical inhabitation of the Land and the Western concept fixed Landed Wealth. An adversorial Creole.

- Three changes aboriginal communities must make?

yes, it just happenned, not different to global warming, iraq, world war one and two, world poverty, and terrorism....the list goes on.

The west can't be held accountable for its own agency..just as em!

Rainier,

My comments were addressing essentially popular misconcepts not accountabilities. Australia is accountable for the good welfare all its citizens. If aboriginal communities need special help, so be it.

What Toynbee states is supported by Quigley, who also studied the paths taken by civilizations.

"Land Rights". Land... discussed above. "Rights"...the aboriginals do not accept their dominion of the land was extinguished by conquest: That is the unimproved Land. Moreover, the Wealth generated by Western Science arising from the Great Divergence [c.1750], bears some similarities with "cargo cults", wherein the wealth and goods [from the Gods in true cargo cults] have been misdirected away "from us" [the primitive society] to the advanced society. An injustice is claimed to exist.

Rainier, resolution requires being detached from passionate issues, studying the situation, externally, and, implementing plans after objective analysis. Just as the Crown/Commonwealth must be accountable for the consequencies of the British innovation, no doubt; cutural distortions by indigenous people need to be recognised. All parties need to put the facts on the table. For example, the British did commit genicide [West must admit], and,likewise, an animist clan would not have a concept of ownership in Estate of the Land [Indinous people must admit]. [Both of the aforementioned West/Clan would support from reliable sources].
After the confession session, we can progress. But is hard for Westerners to take responsibily from the invasion and the needs of their forefathers: And, it is hard for contemporary indigenous Australians to recognise their forefathers would not accept the ownership of land in the modern sense.

P.S. Very Simply: WWI was largely between Western nation states based nationalistic idelologies, ruling family alliances and treaties. Hilterism and WWII was result of Germany binging crushed by reparations. In the Pacific resources were denied to Japan, encouraging the militarist empire to expand via annexation, and, to establish a Sphere of Co-prosperity. Iraq. Of course, it is about the oil and a presence in the region.