Joe, you sound envious. Of what?

These people have the opportunity to be in the mainstream. They choose to isolate themselves and self-medicate with booze. They have somehow got the idea that they cannot be part of our society or that our society is somehow going to be worse for them than what they have.

What would make them think that? Who gains from their holding that view?

No, Antiseptic, they most definitely are NOT isolating themselves from the rest of Australia, only from its standard requirements to contribute - people in remote settlements most certainly are 100 % reliant on the outside world for their constant flow of $$$ at the local ATMS, which they exchange for outside grog, outside fast-food and outside ganja.

If there was the slightest sign that people in remote areas wanted to be genuinely self-determining, economically, I would be the first to applaud, and I would applaud the longest. But that day-dream has evaporated, it's not going to happen.

I don't BLAME people for their parasitic strategies - after all, hunter-gatherer economies are by their nature parasitic, taking what the environment provides, gluttonising when there is plenty, tightening the hair-string belt when there is famine. So hunter-gatherer strategies flow seamlessly into welfare-dependent strategies.

In both, there isn't the perception that effort is followed by outcome or reward - it may be so, of course, but people may not perceive it as such. What hunter-gatherers around the world perceive as working is MAGIC, ritual, the secrets - and they may interpret the ever-flowing welfare-economy of today as the result of their old men 'knowing' the secrets of Canberra, and how to get those dumb-@rse whitefellas to keep forking out. Bloody clever men, those old fellas.

I fear however, that those who would leave and try to make it on their own efforts. have already done so, long ago. Those left are like the last Australian dung-beetles hanging around the @rse of the last Diprotodon, except that the welfare economy keep producing for them.

Like magic.

Cheers,

Joe

Many years ago I came to the conclusion that the bush Tribal Aboriginal should be left alone. They want their Tribal ways & Land. Fair enough. I advocate that a big fence put around their land. Anybody who wants to leave has to leave & never go back. Those who stay they be stripped of everything they didn't have 250 years ago & never come out. No white people are ever allowed in under any circumstance.

Those who leave must accept the white way of life totally. They can observe their tribal ways the same as we do, E.g. Paddys day, The Greek day, etc. The rest of the time we're Australian.

Joe, you're talking about justifications. That was my point: the constant reminders by way of outrage over "racism" are simply a means of making those people's attitudes more deeply entrenched.

The welfare is available whether they choose to be separate or not, but what disappears is the rivers of money controlled by opportunists, because it's dispersed.

The intermediaries are the only beneficiaries and the intermediaries are the ones who speak on behalf of those communities and to the communities on our behalf. They have a strong self-interest in maintaining that isolation.

The dysfunction is evident, so why have the intermediaries been allowed to continue to inform policy?

That's because the poor buggers in those communities have been convinced that they can't trust anybody else and we've been convinced that we can't understand the people in those communities so we need to rely on intermediaries.

It's no different to the evangelist preachers who prey on the poorest communities by claiming some special understanding and capacity to help, but their help is in the form of intangibles, while they require payment in cash.

Some might call it a scam. I call it a fraud.

Dear csteele,

Thank you.

Yes, I agree that so much will be adopted from the parents' and peers' position.

My grandchildren are very lucky in that their non-white friends' parents are part of my daughter/son-in-law's group and entertain one-another in their homes. This, of course, raises another issue. They are all professional people; and yes, this includes an indigenous family.

I consider myself very lucky that my formative years were lived in Malaysia and with a circle of friends from different races. Whilst being a minority, of one, I never encountered any racism. The only comment I heard, and not directed at me, was that fair-skinned Europeans were a dirty-pink colour. I feel that this was more an observation, than racism. (Some years ago,I met a person with liver failure; I would have called him green. Indeed, he having many tats, "filligree" came readily to mind.)

If a person, no matter what ethnicity, speaks as we do (Aussie accent), I don't notice their race/colour - just same-o, same-o. However, if a person has an accent, even English, I become conscious of the fact that they don't have the same social history as myself ... and I am confessedly intrigued. Admittedly there is racism in Australia, but I would hazzard a guess that there are many who respond as I do.

There are always opportunists in any group. An archaeologist told me of her experience with her indigenous crew. After a very hot day on a site, she decided to treat them all with beers and asked one to purchase a carton of selected labels. He returned with a carton of the most expensive. She found it common practice for many hoteliers to hit indigenous patrons with the dearest labels. It certainly wasn't uncommon for shop-owners to hold their "cheques" and decide the brand etc. to be sold to indigenous customers, frequently at inflated prices. All very disheartening.

Not all indigenous peoples were hunter-gatherers.

North-western Australia has revealed archaeological evidence of terrace farming; and Victoria has archaeological evidence of fish-farming.

I recall (I may be wrong) that there are three distinct races within our indigenous peoples.