DOROTHY...one word for you dear, ATSIC.

Couldn't do a worse job than whitey? Are you joking. Name me 5 nations around the world that would be good places to live that whitey doesn't run?

What, Japan? Try being a South Korean there. Unlike the crap Aboriginals come up with about racism against them here (the Racial Disc. Act 1975 which says one can't disc. on basis of race was actually suspended when dealing with Aboriginies - to give them preferential treatment over whites! Talk about racism!)

No, actually, name me even 1 country.

White ways = European enlightenment, better.

Aboriginies who don't want to integrate should be deported to their homeland....SRI LANKA!!

As I am white, what would I know?
But in my town the indigenous people know who they are, already setting themselves apart with their own flag, sense of national identity and services. I would also reduce special funding over a set time e.g. five or ten years, so all Australians receive the same funding and benefits as everyone else. There are enough Aborigines with excellent leadership skills who could make self determination work. What I see white people doing is giving more money, enabling a community to fail themselves and their children, making the situation worse. Integration should be a matter of personal choice.
I know white people 'caused' the problem in the first place, but nobody was forced to become alcoholic. We all have to make personal and often hard choices in life, and take the consequences.

Maracas,

It's probably late in the day but I have to comment on your throwaway line: "Then there are urban Aborigines, the product of the stolen generation ... " In fifty years, I have heard some rubbish but your totally pig-ignorant comment made me inhale sharply: why on earth do you think that is the case ? Do you realise how insulting that is to most urban Indigenous people, who overwhelmingly were NOT stolen ?

Ah, I get it: 'assimilation' means 'stolen generation' means taking children to be raised as white people (hardly ever, in my experience - not never, but hardly ever) which means taking them to the cities and - hey presto ! the urban population must have been stolen ! Briliant ! Get out and actually talk to some Indigenous people, or, if you can't do that during school time, ask your teacher to find you some relevant information on the subject. It must be difficult in those middle-class areas to meet any Indigenous people, but do make the effort, I'm sure you will find it rewarding.

Joe Lane

Loudmouth
Well Joe Lane, I don’t know what part of the country you come from but in my area of Australia, it has become difficult to accurately refer to a particular section of the population who claim Aboriginal ancestry.

In the top end of the N.T you could be Yolngu from west Arnhem Land or a Warramirri man from Galiwinku with a specific clan or language group. You would be referred to as a Traditional man if you are still living a traditional life style

In the centre, don’t call me Yolngu, I am referred to as Aboriginal Man of a language group, Gurindji or Wailpri or one of many more.

If you are a person of mixed race, a product of the stolen generation, had the benefits of regular schooling and urban living ,regular employment and public housing in an urban centre who would have previously been referred to as half-caste but now wishes to be called ‘indigenous’ but not Aboriginal…Reference as Urban Aborigines, product of the stolen generation is a more accurate reference.

This is not intended to offend you but it is a historical reality which refers to a group of people who at this time in their lives are searching for their Aboriginal Heritage Many have returned from where they were taken to find their mothers deceased but reconnect with relatives.

If you are an urban aboriginal who was not stolen, thank your lucky stars and get over it, the reference does not refer to you

Maracas,

The vast majority of urban Indigenous people were not stolen. Period. The vast majority of urban Indigenous people are the second or third or fourth generation of people who left the missions in the forties and fifties and sixties looking for work, usually first to country towns, then to the cities where work and services were more plentiful, and where their children would have more opportunities.

Since the sixties, there has been a very high degree of inter-marriage, up to 90 %, as Indigenous people (at 1 or 2 % of a city's population) mix more freely with the other 98 or 99 %. Thus, very high birth rate: in some very young Australia-wide age-groups, close to 5 % are now Indigenous. As each generation passes, that will go up by about 60 % each generation. So, in a hundred years or so, it is possible that a much higher proportion of our descendants will have Indigenous ancestry - as well as Vietnamese, Sudanese, Afghan and many other ancestries.

People have moved to the cities since the war. Their children and grandchildren have been born there and married there. There is no need to hypothesise a 'stolen generation' to explain an urban population.

Loudmouth,
I’m curious to know when ,as time passes and more of the population with some ever diminishing percentage of Aboriginal, Yolngu or Indigenous ancestry (whether stolen or not) should consider dropping the tag ‘indigenous’ and simply refer to themselves as ‘Australian’ as the rest of us with mixed ancestry.
I certainly hope it is a matter of pride in their Indigenous, Yolngu or Aboriginal heritage and not exemption from payment of hecs debt