cont'd ...

on the other side of the coin there's an interesting
article by Greg Craven in The Australian, entitled,
"False promise of indigenous treaty could derail
recognition ..." which may be of interest. It's
worth a read.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, I've circulated Craven's article:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greg-craven/false-promise-of-indigenous-treaty-could-derail-recognition/news-story/a831cb624f4e3f8dfa0c2c33cacd0530

I urge all OLO readers to have a good look at it. I suspect that 'Treaty' will morph into 'a separate State within Australia' which, soon enough, will morph into 'a separate, independent State carved out of Australia', still funded from Canberra and joining together a string of remote communities 'with predominantly Aboriginal populations', i.e. out in the sticks, with no economic base, and already representing the most dysfunctional parts of Aboriginal Australia.

Will the great majority of Aboriginal people, i.e. those in the cities, joyfully move out there ? Gosh, I'm not so sure.

Otherwise, what can 'a separate State' mean ? Bits and pieces all over Australia, somehow co-ordinating their fund-raising in Canberra ?

Ironically, when we moved to that community in 1973, we thought that, if every community worked hardtop build 'self-determining' economies, perhaps even exchanging goods between each other, they COULD build up a strong and healthy network of Aboriginal economic communities, and thereby a strong and healthy Aboriginal society [Marxists to the end :) ].

But very quickly, that hope faded. The 'communities' that I am most familiar with have either been abandoned (one or two families still there), or converted themselves into basically pensioner villages with no economic activity worth the name (although tens of thousands of good acres between them). I can't see that mkodel attracting people from the cities, to which they have already fled, sometimes long ago.

The question arises: If Aboriginal 'leaders' have their way, should urban Aboriginal people be required to move out to remote 'communities' ? Or should urban people be allowed to have some say in their lives ?

Did somebody mention Apartheid ?

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

It is a complex matter isn't it.
Here's two more links:

http://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2014/09/a-rightful-place/extract

And -

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/creation-of-indigenous-treaties-being-led-by-states/8119488

Foxy,

To sum up your reasons for having a treaty:

1 Other countries have one,
2 You have reasons but can't tell anyone?

The reasons given in the link you provided are:

1 a symbolic recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and prior occupation of this land
2 a redefinition and restructuring of the relationship between Indigenous people and wider Australia
3 better protection of Indigenous rights
4 a basis for regional self-government
guidelines for local or regional treaties
5 structures and systems for local and regional decision-making processes

All wishy washy and vague, none of which require a treaty.

Dear SM,

To quote David F.,:

" I think that I will have to be satisfied
that we are so far apart in our views that
we cannot have a useful dialogue."

Cheers.

Foxy,

Indeed we are. I don't base my views on what feels good at the time.