Poirot, There are still a few on here with a social conscience, few and far between, but here. Take the platypus1900 post, well yes we did a wrong or two in the past but the government has apologised about those infractions, so lets give it a miss and all's forgiven, plus the poster adds the bad luck line of we win you loose, that's the natural way of things.
The last thing Ozzie wants to be seen as is raciest.
"If their children are sick then they should be treated just like any other sick child, if their elders are ill then they also should be treated just like any other person who is ill. Their is no excuse for singling a group of people out based on racial grouping and giving special treatment, that is simple racist."
Yes Ozzie we give Aboriginal people "special treatment" we have been singling them out for (mostly negative) "special treatment" for over 200 years. The facts are Aboriginal people are socially and economically disadvantaged and have been since 1788, all part of the "special treatment". I wont bore you with facts but a little reading will soon show how well off Aboriginal people are in society.
I see no logic in applying the line "its raciest" when trying to help Aboriginal people in a positive ways through education, health, employment, housing etc, to do nothing is "raciest" in my view.

I hate to say it but I must agree to some extent. I have tacked on a few definitions to back me up. I have absolutely NOTHING against helping out any who need help and nothing against the proposed funding, although I must say I am sick and tired of having to answer "Are you an Aboriginal or Torres Straight Islander?" in government questionnaires. It shouldn't make a difference. If I or someone else should need help and assistance it should not make a difference who or what we are.

dis•crim•i•na•tion
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

dis•crim•i•na•tion
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. action or policies based on prejudice or partiality: racial discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.

ra•cial•ism (rsh-lzm)
1. a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations

Where to start ......

Poverty: we lived in an Aboriginal community across the mid-seventies, before going off to uni as mature students. I came back in the early eighties to do some economic development research there and, as a sort of after-thought, did an income study, house by house. I expected, of course, to find dire poverty, since after all, the yards and houses looked pretty shabby. I was appalled to find that the average weekly income at that place was equal to the Australian median weekly income at the time. Basically, only the single unemployed people were living below the poverty line. Hint, hint.

This was so traumatic that I contemplated suicide, but instead I chucked in the study and applied for a taxi licence. My supervisor persuaded me to return, saying that what I had found was pretty general across all communities.

In S.A's North-West, people pay forty dollars or less per week in rent (when they pay it). Money slops around. At one NT community recently, their ATM paid out one hundred thousand dollars over a weekend, three-quarters of which went on grog. So please.

Paul: As for neglect etc., in the nineteenth century, here in SA (I don't know about elsewhere), the Protector sanctioned the appointment of Medical Officers to provide free medical attendance for Aboriginal people, paying around a dozen doctors an annual stipend. For those who needed hospital treatment, free travel by rail or steamer or horse-and-cart was provided to get people to the nearest major Hospital. So the Protector's correspondence would indicate.

I'm not saying it's all, and always been, sweetness and light, but let's recognise what did and didn't happen, let's not just pluck assumptions out of the air.

And as for a 'stolen generation', or the assertion that a higher proportion of Indigenous people were taken into care, for the usual host of reasons, than occurred for non-Indigenous people, prove it. When ? Where they they taken ? Missions ? No, not from the Mission school enrolment figures. The major orphanages ? No, certainly not in Adelaide.

Joe
www.firstsources.info

I am glad to see Joe enter this debate as I know he has experience in aboriginal living.

Last I heard 90% of people of aboriginal heritage lived in urban situations, so therefore they have the same medical/educational and community facilities that are available to everyone else.

So why is there a discrepancy in health and age of deaths?

The remaining people of aboriginal heritage live in remote areas. So comparisons should be made to those of other heritage, living in remote areas. So is there a discrepancy in health and age of deaths?

If there is a discrepancy, it has to be because of lifestyle.

Do the urban aboriginals seek proper medical help, and live a reasonable lifestyle? Or should we compare them to of other non-aboriginal people that live similar lifestyles? Do the remote aboriginals live the same lifestyle as the non-aboriginal remote living people?

In the past there has simply been a comparison between aboriginal and non-aboriginals in general, which does not give a clear picture and we have just tended to throw money at the issue. Based on race.

Do urban based aboriginals need assistance?

Do not the non-aboriginal remote living people have to relocate for health, work and educational reasons?

Loudmouth, "And as for a 'stolen generation', or the assertion that a higher proportion of Indigenous people were taken into care, for the usual host of reasons, than occurred for non-Indigenous people, prove it. When ? Where they they taken ? Missions ? No, not from the Mission school enrolment figures. The major orphanages ? No, certainly not in Adelaide."

Agree.

Whereas there is a wealth of independent evidence of forced adoptions affecting women in the mainstream population. Those who drive the victim industry in Australia are not interested because there is no money in it for them.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/comm_contrib_former_forced_adoption/report/index.htm

Paul 1405,
Not so fast Pal. There is no "We", saying that White Australians are collectively guilty of maltreatment and marginalisation of Aboriginals is racial discrimination, what's more it's a lie. The Commonwealth and only the Commonwealth are responsible for the care of Aborigines, no individual White Australian has ever had legal custody of any Aboriginal person nor any legal right or responsibility to either hold back or to supply them with any material aid.
The state is responsible for meeting the needs of Aboriginals should they need it, just as they are responsible for the welfare of any other Australians in need.
That said, you're not 100% wrong either, see below.

rechtub,
White men are in no way comparable to Aboriginals and your complaint is based on a theory of racial equality, such a belief is insulting to me as a White man and probably deeply offensive to Aboriginal men.
There can be no progress on race relations whatsoever until everyone accepts racial differences and stops trying to close this imaginary gap between White and Indigenous people. There is no "gap", only biological differences, formal equality under the law does not equate to substantive equality in society and it never will.
Aboriginals need special treatment if people want to employ them, they can't be treated just like Whites, if an employer wishes to take Aborigines on good for them but they'll need support and probably subsidies from the state to be able to retain Aboriginal workers.