Completely agree with you Mike, that the constant retreating into their own, now way out of date, cultural behaviour is stopping people advancing in general society.

Fear of change possibly, I suspect it is, but the real losers are the young of each generation who go through this blinkered lifestyle to realise some time later what they have missed out on.

They missed out on living a life of potential and possibility that everyone deserves a crack at, so little wonder they become angry and discontented with their world.

I don't have any answers beyond the usual obvious one to everyone in my peer group and generation, get them out and stop this backsliding into primitive lifestyles when things get tough.

Learning to stand on their own two feet and not expect everyone else to support them, I am sure they'll be amazed at what they can accomplish when you are not caught on the end of a handout system that requires you to stay primitive to get the benefits of the handouts and charity.

It is sad they cannot see to join us in the real world and grow into their potential.

Succinct, heart-felt and clear. Hopefully you won't be shouted down in this forum but more importantly I hope the message inspires a few younger folks wasting away in outstations to walk away from the old and embrace the new.

I think the outworking of Mike's suggestions is another 'stolen' generation.Hmmm. It is very hard though to disagree with you if the plight of the indigenous is ever to improve for many than a few Government workers on the gravy train.

I would support Mr Pope's analysis. In fact, I have been worried for years that the Indigenous population is, broadly speaking, moving in different directions - the majority in towns and cities getting on with business, making their way, regardless of having lost their land and so much else, while a small minority has been subjected to new forms of apartheid, often Indigenous-controlled, which as Mr Pope writes, leaves people utterly unskilled, powerless and dependent, in the eye of a perfect storm of disaster, which is perhaps irreversible.

Meanwhile, close to twenty four thousand Indigenous people have already graduated from universities, with another ten thousand currently enrolled, the majority of whom will find meaningful employment in the towns and cities. With their families, they alone make up perhaps a quarter of the Indigenous population - in fact there are more Indigenous university graduates than there are adults in NT remote settlements and out-stations.

But the gulf is not just educational - the 'Gap' between the two main Indigenous populations in health, trouble with the law, and all the rest, is huge: in fact, the 'gap' between the working and urban populations and the general Australian population is not all that significant. Which means, statistically, that the 'Gap' that the government talks about is actually far greater for the people in remote settlements than any government report has ever acknowledged. How on earth anybody can sit back and conclude that life in remote areas is somehow idyllic is dreaming. Or worse.

rmg1859@yahoo.com.au

Joe

Excellent article.

While the maintenance of the indigenous "homelands" and culture is politically correct, as far as young aboriginals are concerned they are in a backwater isolated from decent health, education, and employment. The remote location makes delivery of any of the above extremely expensive and difficult.

These areas must be mind numbingly boring for youngsters, and I am not surprised that they go off the rails. Likewise they find themselves trapped by poor education and skills and unable to fend for themselves in the real world.

To be blunt, in bending over to protect their cultural identity we are trapping them in an endless loop of poverty. The sooner they are integrated into Australian culture, the sooner they can begin living real lives.

Joe, I wonder what percentage of your indigenous graduates are taking up positions in remote areas with the aim of improving the lot of their fellows. Are many of them fluent in aboriginal languages? Have they turned their backs on the plight of their fellows in order to pursue more successful careers in the wider community? On that note, what courses have they successfully undertaken?

It appears to me, that these are the people to whom we should be turning to find solutions, because the non-indigenous community has only been successful at ineffectively throwing away large sums of money.

David

VK3AUU,

About 30 % actually, even if most graduates are not from remote settlements. But why do you think that Indigenous graduates have got any more obligation to patch up the legacy of generations of racism any more than non-Indigenous graduates, of whom perhaps 1 % ? 0.5 % ? are contributing to cleaning up the mess ? In the forties, there was a move to identify individuals from some missions and send them off for training as teachers and nurses, on the assumption that they and they alone would be required to come back and 'serve their people' for the rest of their careers in some remote settlement (can you see the racism in this ?). The pity about equal rights now though, VK3AUU, is that people can more or less study what they damn-well like, go where they like, work where and for whomever they like.

Anything else you want to attack Indigenous graduates about ?

What is the go here? Does the author need to see his name in print to make him feel good?

It is odd that the once again there is a call for assimilation, but despite the fancy talk, lets be real.

If and when Indigenous Australians do move to larger towns and cities life is no better in many cases as they are kept firmly in the margins of society.

Even with university degrees, the fact is that too often the jobs they will get are identified positions and once the money runs out they are unemployed.

Our universities will employ Indigenous people, and beat their chests about it, but too often these are contracted positions entirely dependent on 'black' funding.

The taxpayer funding that is often referred to is contributed to by Indigenous Australians, in case you have forgotten, we are Australians too.

Returning to the purpose of this article, I suggest that when non-Indigenous Australians learn how to unpick their superiority and xenophobia they might understand that the 'fair go' attitude is not enacted by many of their mob. It is no wonder that some people do not feel part of mainstream society, and do not desire to be part of it.

So Mr Pope, I suggest you go off and do some mature thinking as the typical blurb you write on Indigenous Australians is just immature, ill researched, paternalistic trash.

Loudmouth, if you read my post you will see that I was not attacking anyone, I was merely seeking information. It does seem to me that these people are better qualified than most to have an understanding of what might be required to help their fellows. If they choose to move into other fields, that is certainly up to them and I have no beef with that at all.

The problem in the past, with people like you, is that criticism has been directed at the white population for having the temerity to presume to know what the solutions are. Now that I am suggesting that indigenous people may be better able to provide solutions, you tell me that I am wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Indigenous students are in many ways similar to foreign students who come out here to gain an education and then stay on because they want a better lifestyle that they would have if they returned home. Once again, on this forum at least, I am not going to make a judgement lest my motives be misinterpreted.

David

Hi Dave,

I agree with you that neither Indigenous nor non-Indigenous people people have any monopoly on what the solutions to the dreadful predicament in remote Australia might be. Certainly, I don't think 'communities' have a clue, which is part of the reason why the mess continues. Indigenous effort will have to be an essential component to Indigenous problems, however. No effort from the people themselves: no change for the better.

But Indigenous graduates have little or nothing to do with any of that: they don't have any more obligation to do a damn thing about it than anybody else. Very few Indigenous graduates come from 'communities', most come from the cities where they were born, and they are not often related to the people in remote 'communities'. And in terms of equal rights, they are as free as anybody else to do what they damn-well like. If they seek to offer their services to remote 'communities', as many do, good on them, but it should be completely voluntary, as it is for non-Indigenous graduates.

In 2003, my late wife was desperate to get back to her community, 160 km south of Adelaide, to set up a Study Centre there. No takers, so we worked on the dairy farm, planting trees, milking and looking after the calves for six months. She was devastated to realise that her skills could find no place there, unless she was prepared to re-invent herself as a welfare worker and wipe people's backsides. A few years later, the 'community' there wiped out its own economic base by shifting a million dollars of CDEP debt onto the Farm, whereupon DEEWR promptly took its million dollars back by stripping the place. There is nothing there now except beef cattle. So please, anybody, don't tell me about the potential of 'community'.

Joe

"What is the go here? Does the author need to see his name in print to make him feel good?"
"So Mr Pope, I suggest you go off and do some mature thinking as the typical blurb you write on Indigenous Australians is just immature, ill researched, paternalistic trash"
Are there any moderators on this blog?

blairbar,
in case you were not aware, academics get brownie points for publications. As well it establishes them as some form of expert in the field if they write on a topic.

From an Indigenous academic's point of view (where I work is not up for discussion) this piece is poorly researched, lacks maturity of thought in the current Indigenous academic realm and is paternalistic.

I am confident that what I said in my earlier post is a fair comment, and far nicer than some people who choose to speak out on Indigenous issues based on information gleaned by biased reporting, hearsay and spite.

Dear Aka
I look forward to reading articles and comments that are well researched (when needed), well written and well argued. Your comments fail this test completely as they consist simply of name calling and unfounded statements. Not once in your diatribe did you refer to any specific points raised in the original article. If you are indeed an Indigenous academic then you do fellow Indigenous academics a disservice.

If I may move to a different line of argument. Why is it so important for our indigenous people to become university graduates anyway. I would have thought that there was as great a need for people to have learn vocational skills, particularly in areas such as the building industry, where there are opportunities. I am sure that the newly announced gas contract with its need of 6000 people would be able to employ many from north western Australia who are currently living on welfare. All they would have to do is stand up and be counted.

blairbar,
I was submitting a comment, not an article.

Regarding the issue of detail, there are countless documents, articles, books, reports and ejournal articles that offer great detail on the vast area that incorporates Indigenous Australian's lives today. If you would like to find out more, many of them are available on the internet. OLO has some good stuff written by people such as Tom Calma. Check out the tabs on the sidebar.

One problem though is the minute that something that challenges the negative stereotypes of Indigenous Australians, the same old stooges splutter in outrage.

So many people do not want to hear how the housing in the NT/WA remote Aborginal communities were dodgy built to start off with. Or hear how the so called 'black money' is outrageosly manipulated so as to include the cost of the ATO for doing Indigenous people's tax returns, and how much of that black money is siphoned of by non-indigenous peoples before it gets anywhere near Aboriginal people. The list is long and complex and I suggest you would find the information very interesting if you choose to seek it out.

Dear Aka
I rest my case. You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated accusations. "the same old stooges splutter in outrage." "how much of that black money is siphoned of by non-indigenous peoples before it gets anywhere near Aboriginal people"
You claim you are an Indigenous academic; Indigenous maybe, academic hardly.

VK3AUU,

Yes

blairbar,
it appears that my comments have offended you. For that I am truly sorry.
I, like many others on these forums, comment on how I see and understand the article and others response to it.
If you read my posts carefully, I have been negative to the content of the article and to the attitudes displayed by some others in this forum, I have not attacked a person directly.

What I do find facinating though is your reaction to my comments.

I am a little taken aback that merely by stating a point of view that differes from yours, you have taken it a personal slight. I had assumed that I had an implied right to put forward my point of view.

As, like you, I use an alias and posting short comment, I did not see fit to get all formal etc. Some people find academic writing, while it has its place, is overly complex for everyday communication such as an online forum.

In regards to your latest comment, perhaps I should have stated 'the same people splutter in outrage' as the term 'old' might be offensive and perhaps some people would take offense at the word 'stooges' as it might imply they were somewhat unthinking fall guys in someone elses plot. Perhaps I should have been more factual rather than satirical when using the word splutter as in an online forum the term obviously used as a metaphore.

Once again I am sorry if, in exercising my implied rights to have a different opinion to yours, my comments offended you.

Dear Aka
My name is Blair Bartholomew, hence blairbar. Any regular readers of the blog know this.
"I am a little taken aback that merely by stating a point of view that differes (sic) from yours, you have taken it a personal slight. I had assumed that I had an implied right to put forward my point of view"
This Forum is designed to encourage persons with different points of view to express their opinions but you have decided to go down the abuse trail. Any person who disagrees with your views is immediately labelled eg "I suggest that when non-Indigenous Australians learn how to unpick their superiority and xenophobia". So we have xenophobic superior non-Indigenous Australians.
"if, in exercising my implied rights to have a different opinion to yours, my comments offended you."
All you have offended Aka are people out in blog land who are interested in well reasoned argument and rational discussion, not immature abuse. The ball is in your court.

"The responsibility of all Aborigines, particularly the younger generation, is to join the broader population and embrace the 21st century."

And the responsibility of the author or this article is to inform himself of the facts relating to the reasons that impede Aboriginal people from embracing anything. What an ignorant man. What a waste of time

Blairbar,
I love your humour, when I read your post I laughed for ages.
You are so serious.
I sign on as Aka, it means grandmother.
Keep up the satire - it is hilarious.

I am saddened when Rainer makes comments such as he has. I wonder what those indigenous people who have put their shoulders to the proverbial wheel and have done something with their lives think when they see his opinions expressed in such a negative fashion. My heart really blleds for him.

David

Western language: Torres Strait Islands
Ama: Mother
Aka: Grandmother
Dudu: Great grandmother.
My mother-in-law is a dudu from Saibai.

I had never heard about Aboriginals before moving to Australia but certainly have it shoved down my throat far too often to my liking. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too aware that the Aboriginals themselves wanted to be discriminated against when they pursued the successful 1967 referendum regarding Section 51(xxvi) to be a "coloured inferior race" (as the Framers of the Constitution referred to) rather then to remain equal to other Australians as was provided for by the Framers of the Constitution.
I oppose racial discrimination but have to accept the choice of the Aboriginals wanting to be discriminated against. Then again how many people really understand the 1967 referendum condemned Aboriginals rather then it being in their interest?
.
If I had my way Aboriginals are to be equal to all Australians and forget about special rights also. Education, health, etc, should be equal for all regardless of race, religion, colour of skin, etc.
.
Huge amount of monies are being spend on Aboriginals and yet somehow it disappears with little to show for. Mining companies pays them royalties and where is this going?
The unconstitutional NT intervention also did little.
.
We all, including Aboriginals must work on the basis we are all equal and stop squandering money and concentrate of providing appropriate facilities to all Australians including non-Aboriginals and we all be better off.

Mr Schorel-Hlavka,

You may have interpreted the 1967 Referendum proposals inaccurately:

* one proposal was to include the Aboriginal people in the Census: up until that time, at least since the twenties, Indigenous people had been counted within each state by state authorities, but not in the national census, since they were not regarded as the responsibility - as all other Australians were - of the national government;

* the other was to remove the exclusive power of the states to make laws regarding Indigenous people, and to bring Indigenous people into the population for which the national government could make laws, i.e. all other Australians.

The essence of both proposals was to REMOVE some discriminatory legislation, not to introduce it. Back in 1901, issues to do with Indigenous people had been excluded from the deliberations about a Constitution of Australia, and left to the states. The 1948 Citizenship Act formally recognised Indigenous people as Australians and as citizens, but this was not drawn attention to until during the lead-up to the referendum, by FCAATSI and other bodies.

Yes, you are right that 'Education, health, etc, should be equal for all regardless of race, religion, colour of skin, etc. ' The Referendum proposals were in this spirit, of complete equal rights in a formal and open democracy. But this spirit was subverted from the early seventies by a retreat to 'difference' - as if Indigenous people had not been treated differently for a couple of hundred years by then.

Joe

I have no issue with Section 127 as it was long overdue to be removed.
Section 51(xxvi) however was inserted in the constitution to specifically DISCRIMINATE against “inferior coloured races” and when a special law was enacted they also would lose their “citizenship” (political rights). My books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series on certain constitutional and other legal issues canvas this extensively.
.
Australian citizenship is a political status nothing to do with nationality, and I succeeded in Court on 19 July 2006 after a 5-year legal battle with the Commonwealth that neither Section 245 of the CEA of compulsory voting was constitutional valid.
.
This post doesn’t allow me to set it all out but there is no such thing as “Australian nationality” called Australian citizenship. See INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP published in 2003.
.
Aboriginals were equals and specifically protected from racial legislation by the way Section 51(xxvi) used to be but they wanted to be discriminated against and so they are now. Section 51(xxvi) is there for the specific purpose to discriminate!
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I did bother to check this out!
.
Aboriginals who had State franchise upon federation did vote in the first federal election! As such, constitutionally they had the right to vote if the State had granted franchise. You seem to be under some illusion as most Australians are and then blame me for being wrong or misconceiving matters.
see also
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® & What is the -Australian way of life- really?
A book on CD on Australians political, religious & other rights

.
Again on 19 July 2009 the Court upheld my case against the commonwealth and so I am entitled to rely upon this court decision!

I think perhaps that you have to defer to a superior wisdom on this matter Joe.

David

'Aboriginals who had State franchise upon federation did vote in the first federal election! As such, constitutionally they had the right to vote if the State had granted franchise.'

Yes, I'm aware of that - here in SA, where Aboriginal people had the vote under State (provincial, colonial) legislation from as early as 1856 (men) and 1894 (women), if they were registered at the time of Federation, 1901, then they could continue to bote in State elections and they could (perhaps upon specifically registering?) vote in Federal elections. But after 1901, no new registrations were permitted until the fifties: the last man who could vote in state elections, down around the Murray Lakes, died in 1943.

As for Aboriginal people wanting to be discriminated against, given the exclusion from many federal government welfare provisions until the sixties, that really is ludicrous.

Joe

SA was the front runner of women voting and because of this s.41 was constructed to ensure “adult” was inserted so if any State after federation granted women the right to vote then they AUTOMATICALLY had the right to vote in federal elections.
Aboriginals were in the same position but in 1908 the Federal Parliament, albeit unconstitutionally, limited voting to :”white only” and instead of pursuing this unconstitutional law to be over turned the Aboriginals went on seeking to have subsection 51(xxvi) amended, despite that the Federal government in the early 1950’s was warned that this was the wrong way to go about as a complete new section should be created for Aboriginal rights and not use the subsection 51(xxvi) that is specifically to discriminate.
The States had the powers to protect Aboriginal culture and religious items and the commonwealth has no such power (See Section 116).
.
As such people were blind to go for an amendment they didn’t understand how it would in fact jeopardize Aboriginals.
.
In their misconception they asked to have the amendment to be discriminated against and so be it. Even the United Nations was supporting this in their ill-conceived perceptions. This post doesn’t allow to set out the proper argument regarding it all. The point is that you do not amend the constitution to try to stop problems because of an unconstitutional legislation!
.

Gerrit,

I defer to your expertise, but I'm still puzzled why you think that Indigenous people wanted to be discriminated AGAINST. That 1908 federal decision may have had more to do with not wanting to take responsibility for Indigenous affairs out of the hands of the states than with any definite decision: i.e. 'it's not our business', rather than 'it's our business and we'll discriminate against whoever we want to'.

On this interpretation, what the Referendum decided was to transfer responsibility for Indigenous affairs from the states to the federal government, to allow the federal government to treat Indigenous people as it did other Australians, no matter how defectively, at least until the RDA in 1975. Not that most of the states took any notice, apart from South Australia under Hall and Dunstan. Certainly, Queensland and WA thumbed their noses at the Feds well into the eighties.

So in terms of human rights, the intention of the Referendum was to end discrimination, as I see it - certainly, without it, the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 may not have become law, at least for a long time afterwards. Is this on the ball ?

Joe

You do not seem to understand the constitutional context of Section 51(xxvi), it was created because at the time India was under British rule and the Framers of the Constitution didn’t want to have the Commonwealth of Australia flooded by British subject of India, as they were entitled to enter, and for this created the special provision for the Commonwealth to legislate against a specific race. Further, it was also to keep in check the Afghans, Chinese, etc. And they held that if a special legislation was enacted against a specific race then it had to apply to all persons of that race and they would all AUTOMATICALLY lose their franchise (political rights).
On 2-3-1898 it was made clear that Section 127 was unfair against Aboriginals but it was held better to do so because of the burden upon the newly formed States having to pay taxes per head of population. If Aboriginals had been included then this may have resulted to a mass extermination just to save a lot of money payable on taxes, and so in the overall it was better to have Section 127 and at the time few Aboriginals voted, as being the best all around.
The right to vote for an Aboriginal was with the States as like that of anyone else.
Subsection 51(xxvi) excluded any legislation against the general community. And while the High Court of Australia claims that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is not within Subsection 51(xxvi) but within external affairs powers, this cannot be so because the Framers of the Constitution made clear that “external affairs" powers only related to the given legislative powers!. The RDA 1974 is and remains to be unconstitutional.
Subsection 51(xxvi) PRIOR TO THE 1967 AMENDMENT protected Aboriginals against racial discrimination!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Clause 120-In reckoning the numbers of the people of a State or other part of the Commonwealth aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
Dr. COCKBURN: As a general principle I think this is quite right. But in this colony, and I suppose in some of the other colonies, there are a number of natives who are on the rolls, and they ought not to be debarred from voting.
Mr. DEAKIN: This only determines the number of your representatives, and the aboriginal population is too small to affect that in the least degree.
Mr. BARTON: It is only for the purpose of determining the quota.
Dr. COCKBURN: Is that perfectly clear? Even then, as a matter of principle, they ought not to be deducted.
Mr. O'CONNOR: The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
Dr. COCKBURN: I think these natives ought to be preserved as component parts in reckoning up the people. I can point out one place where 100 or 200 of these aboriginals vote.
END QUOTE
.
Again;
QUOTE
The amendment you have carried already preserves their votes.
END QUOTE
.
This related to s.41 where adult electors of a State (including Aboriginals) who were entitled to vote in State elections also were entitled to vote in federal elections.
.
And s.41 specifically denied the Commonwealth to exclude any person who had the right to vote in a State election and being an "adult" from voting in a federal election!

Hansard 3-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Sir JOHN FORREST.-What is a citizen? A British subject?
Mr. WISE.-I presume so.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-They could not take away the rights of British subjects.
Mr. WISE.-I do not think so. I beg to move- That the words "each state" be omitted, with the view of inserting the words "the Commonwealth."
I apprehend the Commonwealth must have complete power to grant or refuse citizenship to any citizen within its borders. I think my answer to Sir John Forrest was given a little too hastily when I said that every citizen of the British Empire must be a citizen of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will have power to determine who is a citizen. I do not think Dr. Quick's amendment is necessary. If we do not put in a definition of citizenship every state will have inherent power to decide who is a citizen. That was the
decision of the Privy Council in Ah Toy's case.
Sir JOHN FORREST.-He was an alien.
Mr. WISE.-The Privy Council decided that the Executive of any colony had an inherent right to determine who should have the rights of citizenship within its borders.
Mr. KINGSTON.-That it had the right of keeping him out.
.
Mr. BARTON.-No, but the definition of "citizen" as a natural-born or naturalized subject of the Queen is co-extensive with the ordinary definition of a subject or citizen in America. The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
Dr. QUICK.-That refers to special races.
END QUOTE
.
Again
QUOTE
The moment be is under any disability imposed by the Parliament be loses his rights.
END QUOTE
s.51(XXVI) PROVIDES SUCH DISSABILITY! Since the 1967 amendment of s.51(xxvi) ( to include Aboriginals) then Aboriginals therefore constitutionally have lost their vote once the Federal Parliament legislated in regard of them!

So, on some distant planet, Indigenous people now do not have the national vote but they did have the national vote between Federation and the 1967 Referendum ? Are you saying that they do not have the vote now ? That might come as a surprise to Indigenous people.

Don’t blame me for the rot they put onto themselves.
All I do is to set it out what is constitutionally applicable!
Again, in the 1950’s the lawyers warned the then Federal Government against using s.51(xxvi) when it then contemplated to amend this section that it would rather harm Aboriginals.

For your information, late last year I was asked to assist in a case as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, where up to 20 lawyers were involved in the case all ganging up against this about 62 year old man and they already had declared him mentally unfit and appointed an Administrator and the judge made clear she could imprison him for up to 5 years for CONTEMPT.
So, I came along and explained that he was the only sane person in the litigation and the rest all were mental. I then explained at two different hearings that this man had done no legal wrong but the lawyers had it all fabricated. The trial judge ordered a permanent stay of the proceedings but I also have the administration orders to be defeated. What was proved was that with all those lawyers involved not a single one of them was aware that actually the man had done no legal wrong.

Like that I found the same in other court cases where I defeated the crown lawyers on 19-7-2006 because after a 5-year epic legal case on numerous constitutional matters. It is that as a CONSTITUTIONALIST I pursue the proper application of the Constitution and it is up to the Aboriginals and others if they desire to rectify the error of amending s.51(xxvi) or not. They chose to amend it in 1967 and so they cannot complain about it that it isn’t what they wanted.

As with this man where the lawyers wanted him to be imprisoned I know pursue that they cop it now themselves for perverting the course of JUSTICE by CONSPIRACY. What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander.

One of my daughters is aunty of 5 Aboriginals and therefore do not assume I am against Aboriginals!

On what research and analysis do you base your opinion piece? Are you aware of every Aboriginal person and their use of outstations? Your statements are unfounded and ridiculous.

My family come from two communities and often use our urban dwelling to access hospital and other services. Yes, I have worked since I was 14 and own a car and house.

My mob don't have any government homes let alone two dwellings, they can hardly afford food. Sometimes they have to fork out hundreds of dollars to travel to town due to limited types of available access. However they won't bear a victims label, they just keep working hard and improving their lives. One day at a time, despite the blatant racist comments spewed out on public forums like this.

I fail to see how Online opinion would allow this to be uploaded on their site. Fact-less and racist is the only way to describe this piece. I won't be reading any further comments so save your breath

Why is it that Aboriginals are so much complaining about the lack of services when non-Aboriginals likewise suffer the same?
When I resided in a small town of about 100 people, and my car was of the road I had to walk to the local school as there was no public transport and to go to the nearest public hospital 70 kilometres away without public transport it was that a hospital 200 kilometres away but with public transport was the alternative to attend to. And to use this one had to stay overnight in a hotel because there was no transport back, etc.
Ample of Australians, non-Aboriginals, are struggling financially and otherwise and do not get $650,000.00 houses build for them. That is why so many non-Aboriginal Australians are upset because rather then discrimination against Aboriginals it is the reverse now.
As I stated previously we did better to consider all people equal and stop this nonsense about special funding. All people should be entitled to the same level of health services, education, etc!
South Australia had a Governor of Aboriginal descent and as such it is nonsense to argue that because of culture, etc, Aboriginals cannot achieve the position in society as non-Aboriginals are! This Aboriginalising should be stopped and Aboriginals must accept they have to play a part in society and not demand everything turns about them. People like Pauline Hanson did express their views because it is coming across that Aboriginals want to be above others, not equal. They want their own court system and every excuse not to be subjected to the same laws as other Australians and it is well overdue they accept they must work hand-in-hand with all Australians!

Yea and Amen

David

Gerrit,

I agree with you: as Peter Sutton wrote recently, after forty years of dedicated work with Indigenous people around Australia, perhaps it is time that people are assisted on the basis of need, not race or ethnicity. I would add that that assistance should have a component to facilitate or enable those in need to get out of their situation, either through employment or education leading to employment. Genuine education, not rubbish, and fair dinkum jobs, not phony CDEP-type jobs, 'home duties' or cutting one's own lawn.

It has crossed my mind that Indigenous people in remote northern communities are becoming a sort of rentier class, flogging off the use of their land (for cattle, mineral exploitation, oil and gas, etc.) and never having to work for a living - and thereby trapping themselves (and the next generation) in ghastly shi*tholes: if they left for the towns, they would not get welfare payments so easily, nor the scraps of royalties that fall off the table of the Big Men. So they remain ragged-trousered rentiers.

Meanwhile, in the towns and cities, Indigenous people without land or prospects of getting any, are beavering away in large numbers. Nearly 25,000 have graduated from universities. Their children are far more likely to complete secondary education - and to 'complete' it literate and numerate - and go on and make productive lives for themselves.

Yes: provide services for people in need of them, regardless of race or ethnicity. Sounds good to me.

Joe

Joe, it just shows what communication can achieve with the postings.
I never knew about Aboriginals until I arrived in Australia and since, by self-education, learned how terrible they suffered. In my view, the apology by the Federal Government was useless because the Federal Government had no constitutional position to apologise for the States or for the Parliament, which legislated when it gained legislative powers.As I made clear at the time, children where not just removed from Aboriginals but also of others and so to apologise just to Aboriginals was the wrong thing to do.
I stood against Jenny Mackling the now Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, and I can assure you had I been elected then the Aboriginals would have been much better off. All we get is the nonsense buy political parties.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth cannot legislate to specific Aboriginals, as such either all Aboriginals loose their rights, regardless if they are doctors, lawyers, etc living in cities or none. That is what s.51(xxvi) stands for (See also Hindmarch Bridge High-Court-of-Australia decision). Keep in mind its MABO decision was ill-conceived and caused much resentment (and cost) to farmers, etc.
Ironic is that Kevin Rudd apologise for the “stolen children” but not for the murdering of so many Aboriginals since the British set foot on New Holland (Australia).
Aboriginals who were robbed of their rights and used as slaves still have no recourse for this as to have compensation for that. To me the whole land-right issue was a deceptive way to circumvent the real issues. Land-rights because of claimed religious values only then to sell it off or to have it being mined shows that the cultural issue was not the real issue by many. Ignore the loudmouth Aboriginals who have their own agenda and lets have a proper complete investigation how Aboriginals were wronged and then seek to address it appropriately so that we finally address the real issues and not merely line the pockets of some Aboriginals who couldn’t care less about their fellow Aboriginals.

Why do Aboriginals have a responsibility to live like white people?

It is true that thier ability to live traditionally is virtually gone now that white people control, occupy and have environmentally impoverished most of the country. They are now unable to fulfil thier sacred, traditional obligations to the land. Clearly, from many of the comments here they are also unable to get much respect from the occupiers.
However, with all the problems our culture has wreaked on the planet, placing the future of the Earths capacity to sustain humankind in question (see for example, Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Board, 2005, http://www.milleniumassessment.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pdf)perhaps it is to thier(and everyone elses) benefit to retain thier own culture and traditional knowledge.
Why would Aboriginal people have any responsibility to white people?
Australia is number 4 in the UNDP 2008 Human Development Indices, (the overcrowded United Kingdom is number 21 but I imagine it would be much worse there if our white ancestors had never left). Australias early economy was built mainly on pastoralism, which relied on Aboriginal-slave labour as well as thier land. This money then funded the mining, (usually without the dispossed traditional owners consent)which began in earnest in the 1960's. The "Stolen Generation" began in 1869 and continued until as late as 1965, some families suffered as many as four generations without parents Creative Spirits, http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics). These children were usually trained as domestic servants and other cheap labour for white peoples benefit. Aboriginal Corporations are still doing the same work for far less pay than Centerlink or Job Networks(Dan Kean, http://epress.anu.edu.au/caepr_series/no_20/mobile_devices/ch20s03.html).
We could gain so much more from Aboriginal Australia, however, if we treated them with the respect they need to reach thier potentials. For example, after over 40,000yrs of caring for this land sucessfully, dont you think they might have something to offer the imperative project for sustainability?
"Sorry" was long overdue, now how about "Thankyou Day"?

The nonsense appears to be argued that Aboriginals should not have to adapt to the white-man (white people) way of life. Well, why then is the white man’s services such as health, education, social security so much an issue?

Aboriginals who have moved to cities may have gotten jobs that suited them not because they live like white men but because they adopted their living style to suit themselves and are doing very well, thank you.

Why is it that Aboriginals want royalties of mining if it is white-man’s kind of system? Did the Aboriginals have such a thing as royalties prior to the white man’s arrival?

Is it just that Aboriginals want, so to say, the best of both worlds?

I grew up in The Netherlands where there are also many different languages used but in the end the principle language is Dutch and all students must learn this regardless if their own dialect, etc, is differently then Dutch.

I view the same should be with Aboriginals, as while no one is saying they cannot maintain their own native language they must accept that if they want to good of society then they must conform to it also and accept English as a main language.

If Aboriginals desire to live their lives as Aboriginals then forget the $650,000 kind of housing, education, health, etc all to the white mans standards. Forget about social security of the white-man.

However, if Aboriginals desire to participate with having the fruits of society such as social security, health, education, etc, then they must conform also to society’s rules regardless that they may otherwise, where there is no conflict, have their Aboriginal traditional life styles. The same as any other race/religion would be faced to accept this societies rules.

You have to make up your mind that either you, so to say, sit under a tree and live your Aboriginal life-style or you join society and live to the rules of society and have its benefits while still able to maintain Aboriginals culture and traditions provided it doesn’t clash with societies rules.

As I said, they cannot live completely traditional lives because white people have taken over the country. The country is not as it was, even the parts they can live on. Also, the assimilation policies, including the removal of children, has to a large extent done exactly what it was intended to do. Many Aboriginals are trying to learn about thier own cultures and often the only people who can teach them are old and dying, not as old as white folks die of course! A bilingual education is the norm in many countries. Malaysian schoolchildren, for example, usually learn 2 or 3 languages.
Aboriginal people are stuck between 2 cultures; white man has stuffed up thier traditional life and still complains that they arent white (metaphorically speaking) enough. The degree of widespread racism in this country is a national shame.
It seems most white people assume that Aboriginals get more from Centrelink, they dont. If you dont believe me just call them and ask.
Why is it that white people who make either insensitive or nasty comments about Aboriginals get so fiercely defensive about it? Why are they so concerned about the money "wasted" on this continents Indigenous people when they only make up 2.5% of the population and actually most of the adults are working, and they always have. "sedentary", "sitting under a tree"...how many Aboriginals do these commentators know?
40,000yrs is a long time. Before the Second Fleet had arrived the Governor had already decreed that no more trees were to be cut down within a certain distance of the river, because it was turning salty. In the 1930's the government paid farmers to clearfell thier land. We now have widespread salt problems in WA. White Western culture basically rules the world (despite the fact that we are outnumbered) and now the future looks very bleak unless someone comes up with something soon!!
Knowledge is great but unless you put it into context, and consider it all with a little humanity and less of that colonialist arrogance, you wont come up with anything new to this culture!

As I indicated previously, Aboriginals have a choice to live their own lives within the larger community or benefit to the ways others live as a society and then in return accept those standards even so still maintaining their own cultures and traditions for so far it doesn’t clash with society rules. That is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution intended!
Aboriginals pursued the 1967 referendum to amend s51(xxvi) and now you are complaining about racism? Come on, what do you think s51(xxvi) was for? It was to ensure racism against inferior coloured races. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST this I am well aware of even so personally I resent racism. So don’t come with the clap-trap about the white people forcing it upon Aboriginals and I recall, the Human Rights medal was even awarded to the woman who led this change to allow racism in regard of Aboriginals, some 40 years plus ago!
.
The Framers of the Constitution provided that Aboriginals were equally to other Australians but Aboriginals themselves pushed for amending s51(xxvi) to allow racial discrimination against Aboriginals and the United nation were supporting this. So stop blaming the white-people for whatever and accept the consequences of something that was desired by the Aboriginals.
.
One of my daughters is aunty of 5 Aboriginal children and as I have stated in the past I used to be friends with a group of Aboriginals. Their leader very much respected my views knowing very well I am not against Aboriginals, but generally this might be claimed by Aboriginals who lack to understand reality.
.
There are always people who will blame whomever for their own misfortunes but it is well overdue that Aboriginals accept that they are not without blame and significantly contributed to many problems. As long as you are not willing to accept reality then you will never accept the rules of society n0or able to benefit of them.

Aboriginal culture is being seriously undervalued, again.
We should be grateful to these people for retaining as much of thier culture as they can. Furthermore we ought to assist them in doing so for our own benefit as well as thiers and for reconciliation.

It is incresingly becoming clear that "the application of Aboriginal knowledge, the result of millenia of experience, is essential to improve ecological management and inform environmental understanding...management responsibilities of traditional custodians need to be respected..." (Mark Horstman and Glenn Wightman, Ecological Management and Restoration Vol.2 No.2 August 2001, "Kaparti ecology: Recognition of Aboriginal Knowledge and its application to management in north-Western Australia).
Sadly, this knowledge is endangered though there are many attempts at revival. It is neccessary to record the old people and assist them to access thier land and take thier young people with them in order to pass on thier knowledge, survey and maintain the land as they have for so long. The Aboriginal people cared deeply and effectively for the land and lived sustainably on it, for example "Nyungar land management practices helped to ensure that sufficient resources would be available to them the following year" (Peter Bindon and Trevor Walley, Dept.of Conservation and Land Management, Landscope Spring 1992, "Hunters and Gatherers").

Many of our Indigenous people have lost touch with thier culture, this was forced on them as deliberate policy, let that policy be forever put to rest.

As I have no personal family history in regard of what was done against Aboriginals over the centuries I have neither any guilt in that regard. As such I do not need to try to write to excuse past inappropriate conduct that might otherwise stain my family. I view many Aboriginals are loud mouths and over the hill with their claims where as many Aboriginals that seek to advance themselves are nowhere heard like that. As one Aboriginal Elder gave me the understanding that he resented those big mouth Aboriginals glorifying themselves to pretend to fight the cause of Aboriginals. There are ample Aboriginals who have absolutely nothing to do with the noises of a few Aboriginals. Many Aboriginals have become well respected being it as doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc, they have not submitted themselves so to say to the white man but rather took the opportunity provided to them to enhance their lives where it suited them. They still have their Aboriginal customs and traditions and are respected for this. It is nonsense to claim that Aboriginals somehow all are the poor, drunken “siting under the tree” Aboriginals and neither does it reflect what Aboriginals really are about. While you claim funding is in regard of some of the 2.5% of Aboriginals of the total population the point is that any funding misused for whomever should not be excused. In my view a great deception is to try to use the Aboriginal culture and tradition as some excuse, like some Middle Eastern seek to do also in their regard. In my view it should make not one iota of difference if a person is of Aboriginal heritage or not, as we should all have equal rights. That is the way of thinking that should prevail and not about the white people taking away Aboriginal land, etc, because you will never resolve that issue. The Federation was put in place on governing British law and the High Court of Australia by this had no legal jurisdiction to go beyond it as it did in MABO.
See part 2

Continued from part 1
Forget about white people, black people, purple people or whatever, you will never learn if you continue about the colour of skin. Like it or not we are all one people and having a mentality to pretend otherwise is one of the major causes that divide so many.
You can argue about sorry day and any other nonsense day but it isn’t going to get you anywhere because I have nothing to be sorry about.
As I made all along clear the sorry day for Aboriginals was an utter and sheer nonsense as many half cast children belonged not just to Aboriginals but also other races and they didn’t get their sorry day! So, is it all right then to rip children away from Chines, etc, but not of Aboriginals? To me the colour of skin should make no difference. No child should be removed without proper legal excuse.
This 1967 s51(xxvi) referendum was a disaster for Aboriginals but if you cannot comprehend this then it better be for you it never will come to it that you discover how it can be used against Aboriginals!
Constitutionally not a single Aboriginals advanced in his/her constitutional rights with having the 1967 s51(xxvi) referendum succeeded and if you cannot understand this then you have lost the cause ofor Aboriginals, as if you cannot understand this while you are so much on about their rights then what hope will Aboriginals really have?
Because I am so to say neutral I can see the wrongdoing (such as the Northern Territory Intervention) on constitutional grounds. Perhaps if you were to remove the blinkers from your eyes and try to look at the overall picture and follow my line of argument then you may just realise that you can advance the cause of Aboriginals in a far better manner without needing to make attacks upon the while people and others.

Is anyone else listening?