"I know of no external power which did not exploit the indigenous people for colonial gain." - Boaz

Not only that above, in the sixteen century and there-abouts some the biggest profiteers from the slave trade were the chiefs of rival trbes kidnapping each others people. That is, when dealing with the West the Black Africans competed against each other to deliver human bounty to slaaver traders [Source: Tomas, H. (1997, The Slave Trade, The History of the Atlantic Slave rade 1440-1870] TV only shows one side of events.

Many Aborigines are caught in a vicious circle. Their low social and economic status traps them in older and poorer areas of cities or on the fringes of country towns.

Restricted educational opportunites and limited chances to acquire basic skills mean that many of the jobs available to most of them are poorly paid and unskilled. When jobs are scarce in the overall society, these people are the first to feel the pressure of unemployment. Only a few, in proportion to the great majority of Aborigines living in cities or in country towns have succeeded in escaping from this cycle.

Therefore today's problems revolve around such things as land ownership, sharing in economic advancement, better educational opportunities, provision of a wider range of choices in employment (along with the acquisition of skills), and political action.

One aspect of ethnic relations that requires serious consideration is the need to achieve a greater understanding of Aboriginal life and of the problems that face Aborigines today. Such understanding is needed both by Aborigines and by other Australians. Steps to counter misunderstanding and intolerance must come through efforts by the schools and the mass media.

The trend today should be toward self-determination and independence.
This does not mean that Aborigines should cut themselves off from Australian society. Rather, it implies that Aborigines should have opportunities to make decisions for themselves and be encouraged to develop their heritage.

Foxy,

I am a direct but distant descendant [IGI Index] from an historical Scottish family whom once owned the [via deed of Robert the Bruce] the Pentlands, after General Monk acting under Oliver Cromwell and in the aftermouth of the same the properties were lost: I see history has taken/quashed my claim and no doubt hundreds of that of unknown counsins around the world.

Likewise, Scotish clans survived without being the dominant culture. [Albeit James VI of Scotland was James I of England]. Their traditions now live as "traditions" to be respected. My family's land os gone. Scotland is not a power. Yet, the Scottish clan-based Diaspora live successful in all parts of the world. Same goes for the Irish and British really put the boot into them.

There are medical facilities, distance learning courses, sociologists, pychologists, jobs, and social welfare available, one needs to just seek these out, or, the Govenment needs promote these entities better.

White 1950s culture wouldn't stand the twenty-first century; how can a pre-agriculature class of clans? THese goos folk need to to the here and now. A Dr Phil momement -as I say- Don't dwell on the past or messianic vissions of the future. Participate into today's Australia, which many black ethnicities, whom cope

Dear Oliver,

The conscience of Australians has finally been awakened to the fact that Aborigines want to and will make decisions for themselves. Until recently, many Aboriginal aid schemes were run by 'whites' who adopted a paternal attitude to Aborigines, treating them like children and considering that only they knew what was best for Aborigines.

In frustration, many Aborigines took to drastic action, turned to ideas of revolution to help their people get a "fair go."

In the last five years, legal aid, land rights, education and health care for Aborigines have become the important issues for government Aboriginal Affairs departments.

Progress is being made at last in the Aborigines' fight for the chance to survive in today's Australia, and although much needs to be done, perhaps the outlook is more hopeful now than it has been in the past.

Anyway, Thank You for an interesting discussion. I'm going to move on because there's nothing more that I want to say.

Take care.

Foxy,

Thanks. See you on another post, I hope. Cheers.

All,

When the Yirrkala Reserve was claimed [1962] said claim was by the aboriginal people of Yirrkala, being members of the Balamumu, Narrkala, Gapiny and Miliwurrwurr people and Djapu, Mangalili, Madarrpa, Magarrwanalinirri, Gumaitj, Djamjarrpuynu, Marrakula, Galpu, Dhaluaya, Wangurri, Warramirri, Maymil, Rirritjinu tribes:

Given none held tenure of land, as understood by English Law, how can a specific ownshership be established, as known to modern systems?

Later,

"In his judgement, Mr Justice Blackburn held that the Yirrkala people did not have any legal title to this land. (The Crown case against the Yirrkala people's claim was that 'occupation had to be discriminated from conquest or cession). For good or ill we did conquer Australia. We occupied it. The native system was displaced . . . The colony of New South Wales was peopled only by native inhabitants who had no settled system of law. The anthropological evidence did not establish that there were private rights, or a system of land tenure, or an organised authority system. The most that could be said was that there was some form of occupation.' " - [Blackburn (1970) in Charlesworth 1984]

" The patrilineal descent group did, it is true, have a right to hold ceremonies on the land and to visit its sacred places. But that was the only kind of exclusive control involved in ownership of the land... 'there is so little resemblance between property, as our law, or what I know of any other law, understands that term, and the claims of the plaintiffs for their clans, that I must hold that these claims are not in the nature of proprietary interests'"

- [Blackburn (1970) in Charlesworth 1984]

The British would have negotiated a treaty had there been some resemblance of a law of tenure but these indigenous folk occupied but did not "legally" own the Land.

Dear Oliver,

I'm so glad that you brought up the 'Yirrkala - or The Gove land rights case.' Though they did not achieve the constitutional change sought, they were effective in making a way for the eventual recognition of Indigenous rights in Commonwealth Law.

Their persistent claim for constitutional change achieved the amendment of the Australian Constitution (S.51,S.127) in 1967, the Statutory acknowledgement of Aboriginal Land Rights by the Commonwealth in 1976, and the overturning of the obstacle of the doctrine of 'terra nullius' by the High Court in the Mabo Case in 1992.

A great result of their case was wider awareness of the just claim of the Yolngu, and of the problems of Indigenous people throughout Australia