“Without any clear fundamentals in place, addressing the social problems won't work. Little government actions or inactions are based on misunderstood and undefined principles: we have to leave this group of drunks sitting in the middle of the town, because that's self determination and it's their land or if we take this child away from the abuse, that's contributing to genocide. And there's a nonsense that basic human services can only be delivered by Aboriginal organisations. Or among individual Aboriginal people, that their situation is solely a result of hundreds of years of dispossession, rather than about the choices that they can make today.”

This is sensible stuff coming unexpectedly from a ‘human rights’ type.

Government using misunderstood and undefined principles.

Allow aborigines to sit around drunk and call it self-determination.

Calling removal of children from abuse genocide.

The “nonsense” of aboriginal organisations being the only ones able to deliver human services.

And, the best one of them all – individual aborigines insisting that their situation is solely a result of hundreds of years of dispossession, rather than about THE CHOICES THAT THEY (NOTE THEY!) CAN MAKE TODAY.

This, from a person definitely left of centre and genuinely concerned about aboriginal well being. Now, will the two loud mouths claiming to be aboriginal and their wet left mates call Howard Glenn a racist because he has come out with a few home truths?

It is indeed good to see Howard Glenn's article, pointing out that a bi-partisan approach to reconciliation seems to be happening, with the Rudd initiative of at last saying “Sorry” to the aboriginal people.

Glenn says: "Saying “sorry” shouldn't be allowed to be a proxy for addressing the more fundamental needs. It's simply a matter of clearing up long unfinished business, and a first step towards addressing the bigger issues."

Well – it better be a first step towards addressing the bigger issues. And there are many of those.

But my particular concern is in the exploitation of aboriginal land.

Around this precious, finite globe, the “First World” countries have long found it convenient to dump their rubbish on indigenous peoples’ land.
It’s noticeable that the easiest places in which to mine uranium always seem to be on indigenous land – whether of the First nation peoples in Canada and the USA, or in Africa, or in Australia.

Now we have this world-wide problem of toxic nuclear waste – whether it be “high level” or so-called more benign “low level” waste. In Australia, we have those well-known little entrepreneur groups – John White (Australia Nuclear Fuel Leasing), Ron Walker & friends, - and companies like Halliburton, Pangea, Fortescue mining, developing transport lines that would fit in so well with nuclear waste importing.

Internationally, the polluting corporations like to bribe or coerce indigenous peoples into hosting the stuff that the rich societies don’t want.
Australians should stay on guard, against this happening to our aboriginal people.

Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

Good post Leigh, of which I would only add

From the article “The most encouraging part of the debate is that it has the prospect of re-kindling a bi-partisan approach to these issues.”

Hopefully that bipartisan approach will result in agreement that Australian government is there to represent all the people, equally and not to elevate segments of the nation above the rest, based on any racial reasoning, indigenous “ethnicity” included.

The sooner bipartisan government says “no” to the cargo-cult expectations of some, the sooner those would be beneficiaries will find real self esteem and self worth as part of the reward of their own efforts.

interestingly, humankind appears to 'need' the apology first(if their have been wrong doings)before they are able to put this wrong doing behind them and move on in a fully cleansed way.
So it is only right and fair for 'Parliament' to accept this responsibility as it was a decision 'ultimately supported by the 'Government' of the day, no matter how many individuals, or individual groups contributed.
Surely progress WILL follow, as is also the natural process after after an apology(forgiveness and healing and a personal release from this burden of being wronged)
after this apology it will be up to us ALL, every single one of us, to move on.
And in particular the multitudes of people who still feel guilty, as this guilt also stops healing, a sense of remorse does not contribute to happy times.
Remember Aboriginal peoples are 'PEOPLE' first, and anything else comes second.(whether spiritual beliefs or customs etc) lets all move on to a happier'country'.

Col,

“Hopefully that bipartisan approach will result in agreement that Australian government is there to represent all the people, equally and not to elevate segments of the nation above the rest, based on any racial reasoning, indigenous “ethnicity” included.”

I agree with that. Self-imposed aboriginal ‘leaders’ have merely aggrandised themselves and done absolutely nothing of any value for their ‘constituents’ except stir the easily-led up

Leigh
It is true that some 'self-imposed Aboriginal leaders' have done as you say; but it is wrong to infer that all or most Aboriginal leaders are guilty of such conduct.

The best thing about Glenn's article is its sense and balance. He provides facts and thoughts on ideas and campaigns from past decades to illustrate his arguments. Unlike the NITsters, Graham Ring & Chris Graham, he doesn't colour his arguments with emotiveness or make a vehicle for his ego or his own agendas and allow these to dominate his writing. He reflects on his own past attitudes and actions in a considered and open way. In other words, he is not a propagandist or manipulator. This is the kind of commentary that ensures that outlets such as OLO are worthwhile endeavours.