Joe, very true nothing worthwhile is achieved without effort.

David, when I said "there is an imperative for indigenous people to maintain their customs, traditions and language." That certainly can be achieved whilst at the same time maintaining a 21st century lifestyle. I'm not saying indigenous people can only maintain their customs, traditions and language by living in a totally isolated and traditional way. My partner is a traditional Maori, living in Australia, who speaks the language fluently, she understands the tribal protocols, customs and traditions of her people. At the same time she is a 21st century woman, just as happy working in a tough hospital environment as she is gathering pipi's with her bear feet in the traditional way. Clearly there is a place for a traditional way of life along with modern living.
For example, I would hate to see Aboriginal art confined to a dusty old museum and not being produced as it has been for thousands of years.

OTB,

I always enjoy your rednecked Nazi opinions, after all you are the expert on everything and they make for interesting reading. How are you and that dear old biddy of yours going at flushing out Fabians in the indigenous community? LOL

Dear sweet Foxy,

I suggest that OTB is pretty accurate in his assessments. Thirty billion, BILLION, dollars go into Aboriginal affairs each year, not counting all the standard benefits that people are entitled to. Since Indigenous working people, mainly in the cities, don't cost any government agencies much, if anything, then that thirty billion is expended in the care and attention to the needs of perhaps three hundred thousand people on lifelong welfare. A hundred grand each: that works out to one social worker, one nurse, and maybe one teacher, per family.

Self-determination has been a disaster, since it has been interpreted to mean, "You ask, and we'll give". The effort factor has never come into play. Are there any Aboriginal communities or organisations which are funded on the basis of effort, of achievement, of meeting targets ? Of course, there surely must be. Out in the remote areas ? I wouldn't be so certain.

I'm certainly not saying people are lazy, don't get me wrong: but in a foraging ethic, one takes what is there, given, by Nature, and if it's not there, you go without. Famine or feast. So along come governments which, for no apparent reason, give. Endlessly, and from the very earliest days: rations (equivalent to a pretty good day's food-gathering and - wonders ! - no effort required !), boats, guns, clothes, tobacco, etc., and on Missions, houses and schooling for your kids. Able-bodied people often don't even need to hunt and gather any more, even though it is allowed (yes, in each State; still is in SA). Not a bad deal - thanks, as people may see it, to the power of the elders.

I'm starting to suspect that Aboriginal people in remote areas don't have the foggiest understanding of how the outside world works, and government agencies don't have the foggiest understanding of THAT misunderstanding. So people talk past each other, and the notion of people doing for themselves (i.e., what most people would perceive as 'self-determination') recedes further and further, in both schemas.

And it's not getting any better.

Joe

Goodes is just another footballer who doesn't represent aborigines, who I would hazard a guess, would be very glad that he does not. He would be an emrassment to anyone connected to him. He is a trouble man who needs to straighten himself out if he wants acceptance.

Dear Paul1405,

Basic to a people's culture is their worldview. Emil Durkheim wrote "The Elementary Forms or Religious Life" describing Aboriginal religion. The book was published in 1912 when there was enough Aboriginal religion left to describe. It largely has been replaced by the European Christian superstition. The Aborigines over the long ages they have lived on this continent have developed a culture which gave them the techniques to get their food, clothing and shelter from the world around them. With the European style of land ownership they are no longer free to roam and provide for themselves according to their tribal methods. That has gone. Many of their languages have also gone. What remains is a detribalised, demoralised people for the most part. They can be put in enclaves and kept that way. They can be helped to make the transition to Australian society. The culture that existed in 1788 cannot be restored. It is more unreasonable to expect that then it would be to suggest Nick Xenophon go back to Greece. Greece still exists, but the pre-European Aboriginal world has irretrievable gone. It is a romantic, unreal idea to suggest otherwise.

Ask your partner what she thinks. The Maori situation is different. They fought the occupation of the English to such a degree that they were recognised as a people and made a treaty with the occupiers. I was in NZ recently and was told by a Maori that many even keep their traditional religion. Those who have left their religion made a choice. Their children were not separated from their parents.

All Aboriginal people have not had the same history.

Just to pick up a side issue to prove the enduring ignorance (so often self-serving to preserve their own careers and guvvy grants) of the multicultural 'experts' on indigenous affairs who advise government, I would like to take the 'informed', 'indigenous-sensitive' policy on hunting as an example.

Government allows indigenous to kill threatened species. However, that approval can be conditional upon the use of indigenous methods to do so. The unforseen negative outcomes of that extreme multiculturalism are two fold:

first, threatened species are being killed, needlessly; and

secondly, the slaughter is very cruel indeed and wounded animals for example turtles may be flipped onto their backs for use much later.

I am not endeavouring to cover the policy in all jurisdictions, but to prove that while government has been earnest for many, many years and perhaps always, in trying to protect Aborigines and their traditions, the advisers and consultants and often some of the indigenous who have set themselves up as advocates and activists are themselves ill-informed (eg through researcher error), or worse, allow their own benefit and careers to rule. Perhaps some just like power.

For myself, I find it very difficult to rule out the existence widespread, systemic corruption that has endured for decades and is assisted by cynical politics and tabloid journalism.

How else can one explain why the red flags waved by courageous whistleblowers and the findings and recommendations of the independent reports, for example by the ANAO (always tabled in the federal Parliament), did not result in change?

Of course I could have taken other topical examples of persisting health, education and social problems.

It is an area where simple, practical problems are being made very complex and murky by people who should and possibly do know better, but are serving their own secondary agendas. Any wonder so much academic research is flawed. Gimmie the grant.

Maybe the electorate needs to continue to tip out governments after one term until some statesmen appear instead of the career politicians and political hacks who infest the federal Parliament.