Ranier,

What is "your" plan to change manage:

1. The invaders' sense of superiority?
2. The aboriginals' sense of inclusiveness?

For the reasons stated in my previous post, I posit these are key questions, to be addressed, before, moving-on. It is not skin "colour". Mostly, Chinese and Indian immigrants are not marginalised.

Sociologists (e.g., Triandis)note, that immigrants (he main study was Hispanics in the US) often become super-citizens of their adapted country for a generation or two to actively "fit-in", then, there is a swing back to one's roots. As a result, overtime. there is a melting pot, at a macro-level, and, multi-culturalism at a micro-level. Where there are exceptions,the society, I posit, will often be clan base.

Infant aboriginals are born into a conquered country. Distasteful or not, they born, effectively, as societal immigrants. Herein, sociologically, it is better not to pull against the more powerful party. "Join them"... Then, produce a "traditionalism" annex; while, remaining attached to the main society. Be Australians, yet, retain a deep interest in historical traditions and customs. Many other commmunities succeed in this way.

Moreoever, with regard to being economically disadvanged, we don't want an aparteid. Benefits should be managed based on merit and need only, regardness of DNA.

Land disputes are a legal matter to be decided by the Courts. Personally, I feel that compensation should be paid, but, not to every generation. The traditional Chinese build patrimonial trusts which belong to the descendants of ancestor "x". Herein, the governemnt could make a one time only paymeny, say, $100,000 per year for five years to each aboriginal. If it turns in millions in a few generations, good. If not, who has whetted it away? [The Canadian Indian clans seems to have been good managers. In Nauru, its citizens were advised not to spend on consumerables, but invest, and, we now know the situation "they" achieved for themselves.

Ranier: Don't forget the questions. Tah.

Country Gal,

Some other Countries do better, and I never said the UK was perfect with Multiculturalism. I believe the UK is not as openly anti-immigrants like some in Australia, but I didn't say the situation was perfect.Although it probably feels more natural to them since migrants came there many years ago.

Col Rouge, when migrants come to live in a different country they bring apart of themselves. I know that doesn't mean they should try to dominate or make life harder for others, but thats what make some cultures and religions different to each other

Oliver, your idea is akin to dumping a desert nomad into Sydney and expecting him to thrive (although he would probably be more successful than a Sydney professional dropped into the desert!). You cant just say here's $x, goodluck, dont come back. Not without teaching financial management, long term goal setting and planning. These dont happen overnight. Wouldnt be much different to giving the same bequest to today's street kids (of whatever background). Some would prosper, others would end up back where they are in 6 years (I give it 12 months after they get the last payment). Given the quantum of money that you talk about, it would be better spent on improving education and infrastructure for the benefit of all Australians.

We are better off to force children to go to school. With education there is hope. Withhold parents dole payments if school attendance records drop. Provide a breakfast and lunch program if kids arent being fed properly at home. The biggest problem I saw when living in western NSW was kids wandering the streets at the age of 5/6 (well before becoming teenage no-hopers). In the small town where I lived (was about 60-70% indigenous), there were luckily enough caring adults (mainly white) who would pick up these kids if they saw them, and drop them into school, or one in particular that I can think of would take them to work with him for the day (at least they were doing something and off the streets).

Likewise, withhold parents income if kids miss their health checks and vaccinations. In communities where substances abuse is rife, provide little support by way of dole money, instead give vouchers for food, clothing and medical supplies. Yes, its paternalistic, and denies freedom of choice, but we need to at least give the kids a chance to get a good start in life, with a reasonable education and good health.

Oliver /CG see these, http://www1.aiatsis.gov.au/exhibitions/treaty/links.htm

Rainier,

Will have a look at link. Thanks.

CG,

Can see your point to a degree. But, these folks [today's clans] were not born in the [nomadic] eighteenth century. Thus, a change management strategy is needed, and, hence, my questions to Rainier.

Dole payments are as much for the children as the parents.

Agree, its behavioural and [with Rainier?] about being disenfranchisement. That said, both parties, [in fact there should not be a "both parties" in Oz], need to come to grips with the real situation:

1. The aboriginal clans lost the war.
2. There are plenty of white racists
3. There are plenty of black racists
4. Clans tend to be inclusionary.
5. According to the World Bank, Australia is the wealthiest country on the planet [assets/population]. We can pay for any financial solution. Also, 2nd on HDI (sometimes, we swap with Canada). But, ther is more to it.
6. We have a largely aboriginal driven aparteid.

Were one to take the 1788 map of "any" continent and compare it, WITH A map today, the political, military, and, significantly, territorial power, would have changed by large measure.

Australia is a member of ABCA [America, Britain, Canada and Austalia] the US lead core Western military powers, the most powerful power in the History of History. The clans have been defeated, but each is now under umbrella of its power. Accept it. Maybe, sadly, much culture has been lost. Accept it. [So, was the Library of Alexandria, with tomes on early Greek and other histories.]

We can't turn back the clock [1787].

The push from the aboriginal community and the pull from the Anglo community must be better synchronised. Its, perhaps, more about attitudes and behaviour, than "land rights" and "compensation". [charge are independently valid.]. Having income does solve situatation, as in Nauru, which in the 60s had a higher per capita income than Oz.

One can't ride a dead horse, but, one can ride a fresh one.

CG, agree, education is important. So is a positive outlook and good home life.

Oliver, agree that dole payments are for both parent and child, but sadly is often not used that way. I have seen (on more than one occasion) little black kids (sorry Rainier, not trying to be derogatory, just black and white type quicker!), at the checkout at the general store/supermarket counting out 5c coins to try to buy a single roll of cheap toilet paper. Other trying to buy a loaf of bread, crying from hunger. What happens?? Mum and Dad (or carer) drink the payments, or play the pokies, leaving next to nothing for food, or health care, let alone anything else. This is happening NOW. Where I lived you could pick Payment Day - the pub and club were full (not just black people, the white scum were there too, but due to town dynamics, were in the minority). What I suggest is a mechanism, geared to the individual needs of each town, that provides for the basics for the kids, but punishes mum and dad if they dont ensure the kids are meeting basic health and education standards. I dont mean making mum and dad starve, give them food vouchers etc as needed. But take away the play money. Look its not just a black problem - my own grandfather relied on his adult children to stock his pantry so that he wouldnt go hungry (the rest went on smokes and grog). The issue is that a higher proportion of the black population have addiction problems and it would seem that a higher proportion of black children do not get the basics, even when the facilities are there.

Rainier, thanks for the link. Will check it out.