May 27th marks fifty years since more than 90% of white Australians voted to give, at least in name, some semblance of equality to Indigenous Australians. If that was the purpose of the 1967 referendum has that been achieved? The referendum did not give aboriginal people the right to vote, nor did it give them the rights of citizenship, In fact it gave very little to the first Australians. It did give the government the power to make laws for all Australians, including aboriginals, and it also required the government to take account of Aboriginal people when determining the population of Australia. Some would say not a great deal was actually given, and they would be right!
The question is, fifty years on, where do Indigenous Australians now stand in relation to equality with the rest of the Australian population

Hi Paul,

Forty-something thousand university graduates, roughly equivalent to the number of Maori graduates. Fifty thousand before 2020. A hundred thousand by 2030-2032. That will be one adult in every four, one in three women.

Currently, around 120,000 Indigenous people have been at some time to university, and around 18,000 are currently enrolled.

A rapidly growing urban, educated middle class.

Around 20 % of the country under Indigenous control.

No, the 1967 Referendum approved of the Federal Government taking control of Indigenous affairs from the States and make laws respecting Indigenous people instead of it being a State matter, and the States were quite happy to see those changes. The wording of the proposal in 1967 could have been more felicitous.

People were already counted by the States, and the difficulty back in 1901 was in estimating how many Aboriginal people still remained 'outside of civilization', which affected the number of parliamentary seats that WA and Queensland would have been entitled to, if an estimate of their numbers were included. Whinge about that if you like.

Indigenous people were already citizens, from the passing of the Citizenship Act of 1949: before that, nobody in Australia was a citizen: British subjects yes, and so were Indigenous people.

Aboriginal people already had the vote, some had had it uninterrupted since the nineteenth century. Indigenous women in SA had the vote twenty four years before British women over thirty, and thirty four years before British women over twenty on. French women got the vote in 1945. Saudi women (I think?) either don't have the vote yet, or have only recently gained it (Oh, hello, Yassmin, didn't see you there).

Anything else ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Paul,

Here's a link from the 7.30 Report that may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2017/s4619991.htm

Oh that was unkind of you Joe, shooting poor Paul down with facts.

You must surely realise our lefties can't stand facts, they get in the way of a good emotive bit of bleeding.

You'd best duck now. When they get hit with irrefutable facts, they come after the messenger, after all they have nothing else to argue with, but personal attacks.

Hi Has been,

I'm a big boy, I can take it :)

Thanks anyway. Yes, facts are dangerous things. Perhaps one day, they'll be banned, as tends to happen in totalitarian societies, where the Conventional Narrative rules with an iron fist, Gulags and a revolver.

Joe

@Loudmouth honestly i agree with your opinion.

Where are we now, total embarrassment I would suggest, I mean, what else could you possibly pump billions upon billions into without any decent result.

Let's face It, pumping this money in the way we have certainly wouldn't pass the so called 'pub test' now would it ., 50 years on and still the victims. Unbelievable!

Aw, poor Hasbeen. Did you come here to stamp your feet instead after your ‘personal attacks’ line flopped on the other thread?

<<You'd best duck now. When they get hit with irrefutable facts, they come after the messenger, after all they have nothing else to argue with, but personal attacks.>>

Yes, why I’m sure Joe is just bracing himself for a barrage of personal attacks from Paul1405 after he had said the same thing, only in greater detail.

Hi Joe,

No need to be offensive with "Whinge about that if you like", we have discussed this issue many time, and I am well aware of the facts, and totally agree with what you posted. An opening post to start the debate, didn't hurt and it didn't dispute the facts, but as far as the referendum itself was concerned it was more or less tokenism rather than substance, and your facts clearly show that. Hassy as usual has nothing to offer in the way of positive comment, in Hassy's world 1967 is still a century away, 1867 was wonderful year, seems like yesterday, and for Hassy it was! Butch sees in his minds eye some perceived unfairness to the rest of Australia, most impotently to himself, the hard working Aussie butcher supporting the blood suckers of society! Butch detests what has been done for Aboriginal people, its so unfair, nothing new in that from Butch.

In 1967 the position of Aboriginal Australia was at a very low ebb, and the referendum in itself was a positive, but not a catalysts to drive the necessary, and inevitable, social change that Aboriginal Australia would be subjected to in the coming 50 years. At the time the whole world was changing, civil rights was gaining momentum in the US, Colonialism was mostly dead, the "white mans burden" had been lifted in Africa and India etc, and younger people were questioning the values of their parents and society in general, it was a time for change. Regardless of what the referendum did, or didn't do. social change in Australia was going to happen, and that included Aboriginal Australia.

As a Futurists I am more concerned with where we are going, more so than where we have been, although history is important, and something we can learn from.

On this thread the question should be; Where to next for Indigenous Australia? There are still issues to be dealt with, problems to be solved. Lets move on.

Hi Paul,

Of course, the Referendum was a positive, but not in the ways people believe now (or even then). Indigenous people were citizens already, like everybody else after the Citizenship Act of 1949. They had had the vote for many years.

But it cleared up a couple of anomalies and anachronisms in the Constitution. For example, it approved taking responsibility for Indigenous affairs out of the hands of the generally grateful States, and brought the anomaly of how to count Indigenous people in the Census up-to-date:

We forget that, up until at least 1950, there was still a general belief that, 'out there', there were still tens of thousands of 'tribal' Indigenous people. As it happened, these estimates were massive exaggerations. The inauguration of government settlements and a few Missions across the remaining parts of remote Australia revealed that the process of incorporation of Indigenous people within the structure of Australia had almost been completed. Hence the need to revise that part of the Constitution in the Referendum.

For decades, I've been puzzled by the different definitions of 'self-determination' used by Indigenous spokespeople. As a Marxist and then ex-Marxist, I took it for granted that it meant that people were at last able to do everything for themselves, genuinely run their own affairs, run their own communities and their economies, fixing up any social problems that arose from the collision between a foraging society and a Western society.

But no: it seems to have meant that 'we decide what and how much non-Indigenous Australia is supposed to do for us - and they should do more'. That seemed quite racist to me: that Indigenous people were too incapable of genuinely running ALL of their own affairs, including all of the social problems plaguing communities, that they didn't need whites to do it for them (in fact, I believed that would never work).

My wife and I made a huge banner saying "Black Control of All Black Affairs" for the 1973 NAIDOC marches, on this assumption. We learnt the hard way :( But we learnt and it's impossible to unlearn

Sorry rehctub, you are wrong on this one. WE don't need the aboriginals to blow our borrowed billions on.

Well not when we have education & Gonski. Universities teaching how to play better tiddlywinks, & the NDIS chucking them at the least deserving of our so called needy.

Our socialists can always find some thing to waste other peoples money on.

Pink bats anyone, they are free, Oh, & grab a few solar cells while your here, we have to get rid of the money we ripped off those rich check out chicks & cleaners.

Hi again Paul,

I have to chip you about your opening statement:

"May 27th marks fifty years since more than 90% of white Australians voted to give, at least in name, some semblance of equality to Indigenous Australians."

No, Indigenous people had the vote well and truly by then: it wasn't just 'white Australians' who voted. No, they had pretty much every feature of equality that any government could provide. What aspect of equality didn't they have ?

In fact, this is one of the problems with current demands: they have to go well beyond formal equality to mean anything now, a treaty, recognition of hundreds of nations (and probably drawing up a treaty with each one), sovereignty (whatever that's supposed to mean), a separate State, probably a separate country - we'll see after the Uluru Conference.

You correctly ask: "Where to next for Indigenous Australia? There are still issues to be dealt with, problems to be solved. Lets move on."

Yes, indeed: there are grave problems which everybody ignores, and which will not be amenable to any number of Treaties or separate statehood, etc. Frankly, I'm starting dimly to perceive a drastic contrast between 'Recognition' and genuine 'Reconciliation': one leads into the wilderness while the other, the much more difficult road now, leads towards an inclusive society with a significant Indigenous component.

I don't think there's much time to get it right. One section of the Indigenous population is happily dispersing into, and inter-marrying with, the general working population, the other is immured in remote and bankrupt 'communities', and the two populations are moving apart rapidly.

Joe

Currently 250 indigenous delegates are meeting at Uluru Conference Centre and will vote today [Friday] on Constitutional reforms. Seven delegates and supporters from NSW have walked out of the Conference because they want treaty recognition which has not gained the support of the majority.

Thanks Foxy, there are none better or more inspirational as a community leader than Shane Pillips.

The positive achievements for Aboriginal people over the last 50 years, could not even been imagined on Referendum day in 1967. If you had asked the average voter on that day. who incidentally overwhelmingly voted yes, what they had voted for, they most likely could not tell you. other than offering some vagary that they had given "rights" to Aboriginal people. In the 5 years of conservative rule in Canberra after the referendum there was little change for the indiginous, they were still being marginalized, discriminated against and disadvantaged. Not until Whitlam came to power in 1972 did things start to change.

The question still remains what is the future for our indigenous Australians? No does it all hold together.

Joe, thanks for your comments, self determination is only practicable when people have the tools necessary to self determinate. Check out Africa after independence and the exit of colonialism. Then we do not want to impose our own form of patronage with missionary zeal, even if it is well intended. We can say in name "I impose upon you equality." but the reality at that time was very much different. Was the referendum no more than a feel good exercise, or a deflection from what could be. One must be suspicious of the conservatives motives who put it up, given their inaction over the next 5 years of government.

Hassy, I tried to make up a list of undeserving groups in society you hate. I gave up at entry 27,962, Hawaiian shirt wearers. Can you help me with that list

Dear Paul,

There is certainly still much to be done as far as
our First People are concerned. Deaths in custody,
youths in prison, suicide rates, rates of disease,
and the list goes on. The following link may also
be worth discussing:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/selfdetermination/would-a-treaty-help-aboriginal-self-determination#axzz4161FmVpx

Joe has corrected Paul's ignorance; nothing further need be said.

Paul, you are wrong when you say aboriginal affairs was at a low ebb in 1967. I don't know where you were living at that time, but in the Kimberley the majority of aboriginal people were buying houses, going to university, being trained as tradesmen, voting, working and paying taxes like everyone else in the country.
Since then matters have improved so much that now over 30% of aboriginal people own their own homes, many, including one of my sons have started their own businesses, university qualified numbers are soaring as Joe has stated, and there are more programs and facilities available for aboriginal people than white people have ever dreamed of.
The fact that a small proportion of the aboriginal community have massive social problems is nothing to with lack of funding or attention but everything to do with traditional culture and the well meaning but destructive paternalism of left wing groups who seem to never heard of the theory of allowing people to live with the consequences of their actions.

Foxy,

Does that site explain why some persistently fail and seem to cultivate that lack of success, or even trying, intergenerationally, while many others are the opposite, being successful and happy, with children who are safe in their homes and away from those molesting, longgrassing 'rellies'?

ttbn, "...nothing further need be said"

There is something that does need to be said: after quarter of century of Greens elite serving themselves and leading jolly good lifestyles they have done nothing, zilch for the Useful Idiots who have allowed their social jealousy to make them malleable putty and easily manipulated by the elite who benefit from the Greens.

Hell, and example would be gay leader Bob Brown got everything he wanted personally from the Greens, while doing SFA for the needy and obviously less well off, and the Brown left to enjoy his taxpayer=funded life of luxury with his partner. Brown even gets to dress up and play pirate on the high seas and again without any real commitment and no cost or risk to himself.

It is not as though you see these Greens elite men and women volunteering at soup kitchens or out living with indigenous as (say) their hated Tony Abbot did.

No, what the Greens were quickly aimed at 25 years ago was protest that cynically and unashamedly fosters disempowerment, division and even hatred among those who might otherwise realise the hope and opportunities that are freely available to them and to their children who already should be enjoying very best, world-class education, health and legal protection, but in some cases are not. That is NO fault of the broad Australian community who continue to wish them well and ensure that many millions are available annually from their taxes.

Paul1405,
First do no harm. Wishing self-imposed apartheid upon indigenous as applied after that fool Gough Whitlam, when the black curtain rapidly descended and black bullies, thieves and thugs were allowed to rules communities is a step back, but good protest politics for that Greens elite who couldn't care a *bleep* anyhow, as is demonstrated by their past from.

Some editing problems, oh well.

The essential point being that here again is Paul1405 spreading the message of discontent and misery that can only serve the selfish, egotistical interests of the elite who so obviously benefit personally from the protest party that the previous environmentally concerned party has become.

Talk about reverse evolution. But it is only the 'Useful Idiots' who will be back in the caves. The Greens elite quite like international travel, public servants doing their bidding and being abused for it (SHY), luxury rooftop gardens in plush, hipster 'burbs (Larissa Waters) and those golden handshakes.

To repeat, the Greens supporters should be exhorting that self-serving elite leadership to, "First Do No Harm".

G'day there PAUL1405...

The biggest menace to our indigenous people today, is by far booze 'n drugs. Moreover it's those low bastards who push and provide the illicit drugs and alcohol (especially to the younger members), that represent the greatest peril. Instances where illicit drugs are concerned, often the supplier will provide the first couple of hits gratis, until the poor little buggers find the relief they seek with it's continued use.

The same applies to excessive alcohol consumption, though to a lesser extent. After all the stuff is legal with some restrictive practices and locations, being averred as illegal by government's. The youngsters tend to observe older family members consume so much liquor they become almost paralytic, such is the degree of their inebriation? Again, it gives them some transient relief from the tedium and banality of their seemingly valueless and futile existence.

In both instances, these people are clearly the victims, nevertheless the coppers 'have' to lock 'em up (regrettably). It's the suppliers in both cases that need locking up, for a very long hard time.

leoj,

The site explains a great deal including the importance
of self-determination and why Aboriginal politics fail.
Also there's further references listed on the subject
under the heading of - "Further Resources" to help
access some of the other issues involved. The web has
plenty of sites on the subject. Here is another one just
to get you started:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/economy/aboriginal-employment-jobs-careers#axzz4i61FmVpx

"In both instances, these people are clearly the victims"

Is everyone who commits an offence by definition a victim of society?

Is it always someone else's fault?

What criminal doesn't say that? After first denying s/he did it.

What about choice?

We all suffer and some do have more to contend with than others. But I have grown up with many who led very tough and impoverished lives and while like other folk only the few might have excelled as far as the 'successful life' is judged (fame and assets), the greatest majority - with very, very few exceptions - went on to be good upstanding citizens who contributed to society and raised their families to their best ability.

Why, in both cases? What prevents the offender from leading a good life, where s/he has some regard for those around him and demonstrates care and compassion for others?

Dearest Foxy,

That's exactly the point:

"There is certainly still much to be done as far as our First People are concerned. Deaths in custody, youths in prison, suicide rates, rates of disease, and the list goes on."

Yes, indeed, and which of those are not, ultimately, the responsibility of the people themselves to fix up ? Isn't that the gist of Bill Leak's famous cartoon ? Isn't that precisely what self-determination is supposed to mean ?

It's fascinating, and a bit depressing, to notice from the early records in SA, the Protector's Letters, the missionary's journal and mission letters, etc., how some individuals and families got stuck into working to take advantage of the new opportunities; while others, and their descendants down to the present, easily made the transition from foraging to lifelong welfare, with the obligatory detours into boozing and gambling and general skiving, and haven't moved much since.

Once I did a quick genealogy of graduates I knew from one community, and found a great many were descended from the working people of the earliest days, while few of the early skivers had had any graduate descendants (unless they had married workers) - even though they had all more or less lived side by side for 160 years.

Maybe it depends on how people interpret their new opportunities: some to work, and do something for themselves, while others saw the new situations as opportunities to live off the new system. I don't mean that some are good and pure, and others are born lazy, but that people honestly saw opportunities differently. After all, it's no great stretch to move from dirt-scrabble poor to lifelong welfare if it's offered.

In the late nineteenth century in SA, around a hundred Indigenous people, men and women, took up land leases on a peppercorn rent. Most made a go of it. Some quickly tried to sub-lease their grants to whites, sort of share-farming, and make easy money, but that was just as quickly knocked on the head. Guess which working grant-holders now have graduate and working descendants, and guess which not.

What I object to are the SOBs who make their living, so often sinecures in public employment QUANGOs and NGOs, who patronise, deny the agency of indigenous and disempower them, while claiming all of the time to be 'Do Gooders', but knowing that they are everything else but.

As for some here, it is all water off a duck's back. Lights on but somehow there is no-one at home. Just like Larissa Waters, SHY and others whose superficial protest politics they admire. People who have trouble distinguishing a TV series from the ADF operations. And when might Larissa live in an indigenous community for a fortnight? Would she take any responsibility for the distraught protesters she might encourage in an ABC studio? What about for their later night or days after?

The difference is that those seat-polishing Greens Senators sleep well at night and yes, they obviously enjoy the trappings of power with no responsibility and those present day entitlements like travel and the eventual promised golden handshakes are never refused either!

All care and no responsibility, and your money for nothing, that is the life.

Dear Joe,

I have no wish to argue on this issue with you.
I've tried that in the past. Read the provided
links. Aboriginal people have much lower employment
rates than other Australians due to a variety of
factors from housing conditions, to
education, training and skill levels, poorer health,
limited market opportunities, discrimination, and so on.
It isn't as simple as a matter of "choice".
But then that is something that you should know.

leoj,

I agree with your thoughts on the Greens; they are just a 'root-everything-up group, no use to man nor beast.

If only Joe and Nana could teach in our schools. They are worth a thousand times more than our dumbed down academics with an ax to grind. Thanks Joe and Nana. So refreshing.

Coming from our resident poster with no
ax to grind - (cough) we'll take that as a comment!

Dear ttbn,

Not everybody has the imagination or the soul to:

"...see the world in a grain of sand and heaven in
a wild flower. Hold infinity in the palms of your
hand and eternity in an hour."
(William Blake).

Hi Runner, I'll defer to Big Nana every time :)

President Obama has just spoken about 'fake news' and said something like "Facts matter. A democracy is in trouble when people continue to dismiss facts."

I'll have to get the full quote. But it sounded spot-on.

Cheers,

Joe

Well the aboriginal Conference in Uluru has determined that invading peoples should make treaties with the aboriginal nations. Noting most of those present have some of the invaders genes. They believe treaties will solve all the problems of aboriginal youth.

However I believe the problems are culturally ingrained. Some are taught that the property of the invaders is rightfully theirs, because the invaders reside on stolen lands.

Leo you phony moderate, once more spitting your anti Green venom, with a rant of convoluted nonsense, but as always being careful to avoid any possible scrutiny of your own biased Hansonite opinions. It would be a most unfortunate turn of events for Aboriginal people should those of your political ilk ever come to power. What is One Nations policy on Aboriginal affairs, or is it just too draconian, too extreme, to be publicly aired. Can you enlighten us? Unlike the simplistic BS of One Nation, The Australian Greens have a comprehensive policy on Indigenous Affairs.

Big Nana, the first Aboriginal to graduate from an Australian university was Charles Perkins in 1966, so I find it hard to believe that in 1967 isolated Kimberley Aboriginals were "going to university" certainly not in large numbers, as for your other assertions I can't comment. like 99% of Australians I was not living in the Kimberley in 1967.

The following link makes for interesting reading;

http://www.nma.gov.au/indigenous/civil_rights/the_referendum,_1957-67/australia_in_the_1950s

I stand by my "low ebb" comment.

Foxy,

? I have to say that you have completely lost me.

Hi Paul,

There may have been quite a few people graduating from uni before Charles Perkins, Margaret Valadian for one. And many people who had graduated as nurses and teachers as well, certainly as far back as the late forties. In a sense, Indigenous people started one generation behind non-Indigenous Australians in large-scale tertiary education (the 1980s compared to the 1960s), and are closing the gap quickly: Indigenous women are already commencing uni study at a higher rate than NON-Indigenous Australian men, and at about 80 % of the rate of Non-Indigenous Australian women.

Currently, about 60 % of 20-25-year-olds commence uni study, and more than half of those graduate. So currently, around one in three in that age-group will graduate at some time. Back in the 1950s, barely one Australian in a thousand went to university. True. There are roughly as many Indigenous uni students currently studying as there were of ALL Australian uni students back in 1950. Check out the Dept. of educ. web-site, it's all there.

Those are the facts, and surely Paul, facts matter ?

Cheers,

Joe

Paul1405,

Apparently anyone who might disagree with you is a 'Hansonite' and then off you go on one of your moon walks.

Paul Keating on the contribution of the Greens to federal politics,

"Greens self-serving Trots: ex-PM Keating

Former prime minister Paul Keating has used a Labor rally to turn his caustic wit on the Greens Party, labelling it "a bunch of opportunists and Trots"..

"They're a protest party, not a party of government, but their game is to nobble the party of government that can actually make changes," Mr Keating said.

"You can't be a government when you've got a bunch tearing away at you, trying to pinch a seat here and there, all to make themselves look important."

http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/keating-batters-pathetic-greens/news-story/84c9273bb8753df6e13b58dcdbe1aba1

Tell us now, when have any of the Greens elite ever spent time living with and volunteering to help indigenous? Tony Abbott did many times and the Greens lambasted him for it.

How is that for Greens form?

All the Greens do is turn up at demos and stir the pot. There is nothing constructive but a lot probably destructive in that. The Greens are ambulance chasers and always out for headlines for themselves.

Just to add that it was the grinning Bob Brown, leader of the Greens who toppled Julia Gillard, Australia's first woman PM.

Although in a partnership agreement, the Greens were constant critics and embarrassed the Gillard government at every opportunity, slyly claiming credit in advance of Gillard's announcements and all of the while pretending to support her.

Paul Keating's comments on the disruption, treachery and disloyalty of the Greens were mild.

It is a protest party where everything is skewed towards the advantage of the few who are the controlling elite who are on a power trip and are more interested in their own benefit and being able to disrupt the legislature at will.

That is what attracted the flakey far left from Labor to the Greens. But cynical Bill Shorten is trying to entice them back with his Class War and getting into trouble with Plibersek and ors for that.

Where Shorten and the Greens are concerned, indigenous presents more opportunities for opportunist political gamesmanship, that is all.

"Paul Keating on the contribution of the Greens to federal politics,

"Greens self-serving Trots: ex-PM Keating"

And yet Labor under Gillard aligned with them. I think Labor changed rather radically from Kevin Rudd on. My father would not recognize the party he voted for all his voting life, as anywhere near the same party these days.

Sometimes I even think some of Labor's ideals align quite closely with the Greens

Hi Joe, what my point is, the celebration of the 67 referendum is of little impotence and secondary, when compared to what can be celebrated as the fine achievements of Aboriginal people, despite the sterotypers and knockers we have in society . I would like to celebrate the young Aboriginal girl I met for the first time on Wednesday in Redfern, she is well educated, well spoken, and works assisting disadvantaged people, she is a cause for celebration.
"Those are the facts, and surely Paul, facts matter" they certainly do Joe, they certainly do. All the facts, the good as well as the bad.

Hi Leo, thanks for all that opinionated dribble including the comments from the 'Antique Clock' himself. When it suits. you will label Keating "Australia's worse PM ever" same goes for Gillard, Rudd, Hawke, and not to forget the dreaded Gough! is there a trend there, or are you just biased? You can slag off The Greens all you like, it suits your deflection tactics. never a word of criticism of the Lovely Pauline or One Nation.
As for the entitlement seeking mad Abbott and what he did for Aboriginal people, if you call taking advantage of photo ops, and having a team of gofors an dofors running around after you is doing something I suppose Abbott did a lot.
I liked your comment elsewhere on "Muslim acquaintances", I suppose buying a kebab from 'Abdul's Takeaway' down at the local strip makes the bloke behind the counter a Muslim acquaintance. How often do you buy a kebab to make those Muslim acquaintances? Do you have any Aboriginal acquaintances?

Paul, are you suggesting that people way up the Kimberley had better access to services than the majority who were living in large towns and cities?
Surely not.
As for university students, the Kimberley was producing qualified teachers and nurses/midwives in the 60s, girls raised in remote areas with poor access to education but who, despite all this disadvantage lived down south for years then returned to the Kimberley.
The 60s also saw a large number of qualified tradesmen, especially carpenters, who were involved in boat building for the pearling industry and fishing.
Today you will find many jobs being done by aboriginal people. The technician who came to fix my air conditioner last week was aboriginal.
And many are now buying their own homes, many have children at private schools.
And these are dark skinned aboriginal people who still remain in close contact with their traditional land and what little remaims of the real culture.
That's how far most aboriginal people have progressed since the 60s.
The small percentage who have disastrous lives are those who remained in small isolated enclaves with little contact with the outside world, except to pick up the worst of its habits.
Whilst they live in these places or in the first generation or two in town, we will continue to have these problems unless, like their earlier relatives three/four generations ago, who moved into towns, they are forced to live at the same standard as the rest of the community.

Most indigenous are of very mixed race. Many are so minimally Aboriginal that in no other country could they call themselves indigenous.

Most are in mixed marriages and very much a part of the mainstream society. This indicates minimal racism by indigenous and non-indigenous.

The minority still struggling are suffering because of dysfunctional cultural attitudes, often entrenched in the remote communities in which they live.

Indigenous Australians, even those with so little Aboriginal ancestry it is a joke, get more benefits than non-indigenous, even if they do not need help. That is wrong. Benefits should be needs-based not race-based, particularly when there is often so little race involved.

Hi Rhross,

Yes, I agree that benefits should be needs-based. I did a rough income study 35 years ago of a community where we had lived, assuming from the look of it that I would find much poverty, but the average household weekly wage there was equal to the Australian average at the time, and rents were about a fifth of the national average. So poverty wasn't it.

But whether or not someone genuinely can claim some Indigenous heritage depends largely on who raises them - usually that happens to be the mother, so if she is strongly Indigenous, especially if she has ties to her birth-community, then her children are likely to feel strongly Indigenous too (especially in the absence of any other alternative ancestry 'presence'), regardless of how dark or pale they might be.

But these days, there seems to be a disconnect between Indigeneity and poverty, I'm very glad to say :)

Hi Big Nana,

I don't know what's happening up North, but down this way, it seems that a couple of 'communities' have pretty much closed up shop, with just one or maybe two families living there. I've heard also that many 'outstations' in the North-West of SA haven't had anybody staying there for years (unless a government visit is planned), yet are maintained, roads, solar panels (so the lights are on all night), water tanks, telephone box, etc. I don't know how common this is.

Cheers,

Joe

Paul1405,

The Greens elite farm 'Useful Idiots', feeding them what they want, which is any justification no matter how wild and flakey, for their bigotry against anyone who is happy and may be doing OK.

Bill Shorten knows that and is cynically trying to raid the Greens for the far left swinging vote with his 'Class War' BS - that Plibersek and ors realise will result in electoral defeat.

Shorten also wants to relieve the Greens of any young impressionable, first time voters, who plainly lack any understanding of civics and might be impressed by Shorten's 'Progressive' anti- stance on everything 'authority'.

Because the perennially useful Gay band wagon has run out of steam, the Greens are casting about for other wagons to hijack. Gillard's government gave activist Gays all and more (talking about the enlarged de facto arrangements) than they ever expected and wanted. Now many gays are left wondering and rightly too if it was only the already entitled well-off middle class that changes were directed at. They would be right of course.

If the meddling and always disruptive Greens are exposed (and it is happening) for their similar cynical piggy-backing on indigenous and for wishing to drive in ever more wedges between indigenous and the mainstream for the political advantage of the Greens, then the present gathering slide of the Greens towards political oblivion will be hastened.

You should wake up to your handlers. What have they done for you recently, or ever? But they obviously do well for themselves. Money bags Lee Rhiannon is a prime example of the chasm between Greens' rhetoric and reality.

But few have the guts and personal authenticity to be Left. So-called leftist 'Progressives' are superficial and self-absorbed Hipsters, materialistic and 'blessed' with flexible (non-existent?) ethics and short memories.

So the Uluru Conference decided on another consultative body. That should keep everybody busy for a few years. Perhaps they could study the histories of the NAC, NACC, ADC, and ATSIC, to learn pointers on how not to run such a body.

On the other hand, Warren Mundine's suggestion of the recognition of hundreds of 'nations', and perhaps thousands of clans, should be studied: perhaps each one needs its consultative committee, to make input into federal and state government legislation. Wow, that could take up even more valuable time.

And that's maybe time that the Indigenous movement may not have. With the majority of the population now in the cities, moving off in one direction, and remote 'communities' resolutely determined or unable not to move in any positive direction, I have concerns that the fragile solidarity of the entire Indigenous population could fragment in the next ten years unless their is a stronger rationale for it.

Oh, and a Treaty: what, a blank bit of paper called a 'Treaty' (Gosh, ho fantastic: our own, at last), or something with teeth ? So what should constitute those teeth ? What teeth do people need that they don't already have ? How many more teeth do people need ? Just a question, to provoke passionate and hostile criticism.

Joe

This is the sort of story that the 'Progressive' ABC and ors would not give any prominence to. But why not?

"Distinguished Aboriginal scholar made Honorary Fellow

Known for her lifelong work in Aboriginal social issues and women’s rights, Professor Marcia Langton AM of the Bidjara Nation has added another honour to her long list of accolades, being installed as an Honorary Fellow of Emmanuel College at The University of Queensland.

Professor Langton’s Honorary Fellowship, the highest honour the college bestows, was awarded during the College’s Convocation Service, one of the first official events of the new year.

Emmanuel College Principal Adjunct Professor Stewart Gill said Professor Langton personified the heart of university education.

“It is an honour to add Professor Langton to the prestigious list of honorary fellows at our college, which includes former UQ Vice Chancellors Professor John Hay AC and Professor Debbie Terry AO,” he said.

“After the service, Marcia spoke to first year students and guests at Emmanuel’s Convocation dinner about the great privilege of a collegiate education at The University of Queensland. She emphasised it came with a responsibility to give back to the wider community,” he said."
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2016/02/distinguished-aboriginal-scholar-made-honorary-fellow

Why does the ABC, eg Q&A, fly in Greer, the one book wonder of the entrenched group of septuagenarian feminists, Emily's Listers, when the dynamic, razor-sharp intellect and contemporary relevance of Professor Marcia Langton AM is available but is being passed over? Or panels of 'representative' women but no Langton. Why not?

Most would remember Greer in action with Dan Savage and ors, thanks to the ABC.

Introducing Professor Langton, Professor Gill quoted from her 2012 Boyer Lectures.

“The role of a public intellectual is not to agree with the paradigm but to be sceptical, to ask questions, refute mistaken beliefs, discuss important ideas and literature, provide accurate information and cogent interpretations of matters.”

There are indigenous who are not heard often enough and are being passed over. Why? Who benefits from wedge politics affecting indigenous and getting political out of doing so and it very definitely isn't indigenous women and children?

Hi Leoj,

Yes, the Indigenous elites usually keep tight control of who is in, and who isn't. There have been many, many people who work like buggery over decades, are innovative and deeply committed, but are either ignored or outright shunned. That may have been, and may continue to be, a fatal mistake, massively diminishing the talent pool that should be fostered instead. Maybe the day will come.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe, regards the remote communities, in fact there are some quite large ones all across the north, and by large I mean from 300 to 2000 people. They have schools, health clinics, community store, office, recreation hall, basketball courts, etc. A few even have swimming pools. They have access to internet and tv and most have some form of smart phone. And all have a church.
What they don't have is jobs in any number. All they have is what is required to keep the community functioning and these jobs are paid at mainstream rates.
So you have teachers, nurses, health workers, powerhouse workers, office staff, garbage collectors, water supply workers.
The professional workers, like teachers and nurses are always white. As generally are any project officers who help run training programs or work programs like CDEP. The rest are locals.
Not a lot of positions and no attempt by locals to fill the professional roles as a rule. Anyone smart enough to get out and get qualified rarely returns to their home community.
The great tragedy is that quite a decent living could be made by topping up their Centrelink by returning to the ventures instituted by the missionaries in all these places and at which all the old people were trained. Chickens, pigs, goats, bakery, creamery, veggies and fruit growing. Etc. multiple millions has been spent trying to get the people interested in returning to these activities, with generally no success.
All that land and water lying useless.

Hi Big Nana,

Thanks for that timely analysis.

Maybe I've got a weird notion of what self-determination is supposed to be, but your comments that:

" .... you have teachers, nurses, health workers, powerhouse workers, office staff, garbage collectors, water supply workers.

"The professional workers, like teachers and nurses are always white.....

"Not a lot of positions and no attempt by locals to fill the professional roles as a rule. Anyone smart enough to get out and get qualified rarely returns to their home community."

suggests that community people have a drastically different perception. Is it possible that, in traditional times, for all the talk about culture, the dominant issue was finding enough food, every day, and once that was done, then other issues can be dealt with - and that a welfare culture fitted very easily into that framework, and stayed there ?

That people really, honestly, don't see S-D as meaning anything more than, "Give us what we want, and we'll let you know if we want more" ?That effort on the part of the people is simply not on that agenda ? So there isn't any perceived need for education of the kids ? Yes, schools are great if they provide breakfasts, and maybe have a pool, but otherwise they just take the kids off parents' hands all day, thankfully.

God, I'm becoming a miserable, grumpy, cynical old man :)

Regards,

Joe

Wow, somebody finally gets it!

In a nutshell Joe. It's a cultural mindset and as long as they keep receiving enough to keep them relatively happy then they see no need to over exert themselves.
Why care for a house if they aren't forced to pay for damages they inflict. Moan long enough and the government will build you a new one. And while they are waiting they'll just move in with Aunty and overcrowd her house and she can't complain because it's not culturally acceptable to do so.
Why bother to wipe a child's nose, it will only be dirty again in 5 minutes and if he gets Trachoma from flies attracted to it, well, does it really matter in the long run? Someone will pay for the medical treatment and give him assistance.
For those with ambition they soon learn that to act differently to the herd brings scorn and derision so they either give up or leave.
I can remember when I was the bookkeeper in the community and had to train local girls in office procedure. They were under constant demand from relatives to loan them money from the cash we had on hand to pay wages ( this was before the days of internet banking). When they refused they were either accused of being unloyal or of stealing money from the office for themselves. Very few lasted more than a couple of weeks. The only one I had success with was a girl from a very different area who had married a local so had no skin ties in the community.
The only way I can see forward for this group is to let them suffer consequences of their decisions as a community and stop rescuing them when it goes pear shaped

Hi Big Nana,

Probably a bit of a side-track, but it's your fault: when my wife started running the pre-school on the settlement where we lived, she used to make sure the kids' noses were clean. She was chipped by the Van Leer Project supervisor who said it was natural for Aboriginal kids to have runny noses [Christ protect us from racists].

Not bloody likely, my wife (the eldest of ten kids, so she had experience) said to herself, and she make very sure at the beginning of every day that the kids gently blew their noses and kept them clean, to avoid burst eardrums and deafness. She provided each of the kids with handkerchiefs of their own.

And toothbrushes: they had to brush their teeth every day. She made all of it into a game. Actually the kids were very proud of it. God, they'd be pushing fifty now.

It's dispiriting to think of lessons that have to be learnt and re-learnt, over and over again - that there are still kids getting burst eardrums. Don't people learn anything ?

Joe

It is happening in the towns too.

We had a lovely young girl working for my wife at the local library in a small coastal city. She was a great kid, always well presented, happy & smiling. A smart good worker she was great with the people, & had started a library technician course.

I had no idea she was part aboriginal, until one night while waiting to pick my wife up after work, I saw the local "uncles" grab her & take her money.

My wife organised some strategies to make this harder for them, & we thought she was on her way up. Not so unfortunately. She had a baby, went onto welfare, & was a welfare dependent single mother of 3 by the time she was 22.

So much promise, wasted.

Welcome to the Club, Hasbeen :(

On another topic, I just re-discovered this:

In South Australia, in 1851, all pastoral leases were re-drawn to contain this clause, to make an implicit situation, explicit:

“And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made.”

It's still more or less the law.

Oh, and this, from the 1936 Annual Report of the Aborigines' Friends' Association in SA:

Number of Aborigines in Australia

FROM THE DEPARTMENT of the Interior we have received the following information relating to the aboriginal population of the Commonwealth as at June 30th, 1935. These are the latest figures available:

Full-Blood Half-Caste Total
New South Wales 909 9,367 10,276
Victoria 48 582 630
Queensland 12,070 5,425 17,495
South Australia 1,741 2,047 3,788
Western Australia 22,188 4,254 26,442
Tasmania -- 263 263
Northern Territory 17,422 822 18,244
Australian Capital Territory 57 57

TOTAL 54,378 22,817 77,195

"After a careful enquiry into this subject, the Association considers that the total number of aborigines in Australia might be safely reckoned as 80,000, for there are large numbers of wandering natives in the Warburton, the Musgrave and Everard Ranges and in Arnhem Land which have not been included in the official list issued by the Government."

If you keep looking, you never know what you may find :)

Sorry, I should have used full stops or dashes to spread those figures for 1935-1936 out:

..................................................Full-Blood............................Half-Caste....................Total
New South Wales ...............................909....................................9,367.................10,276
Victoria...................................................48.......................................582......................630
Queensland ....................................12,070....................................5,425..................17,495
South Australia..................................1,741....................................2,047....................3,788
Western Australia............................22,188....................................4,254..................26,442
Tasmania.................................................--........................................263.......................263
Northern Territory............................17,422......................................822...................18,244
Australian Capital Territory...................--..........................................57..........................57

TOTAL.............................................54,378.................................22,817..................77,195

Although it is a product of its times, these comments on policy are interesting: from Mary Durack's 'The Rock and the Sand' 1969: pp.5-6 :

"Certain unpredictable tendencies, noted with some indulgence at the beginning of settlement, were to prove a mere prelude to the repertoire of contrariness on the programme of history. Benevolence would be found prone to result in thankless exploitation; forthright self-interest in loyal co-operation.

"Confidence in the natives' potential would court disillusionment; denial of their mental capacity invite surprising evidence [6] to the contrary. Expected to flourish under improved conditions the people would lie down and die; lamented as a dying race they would unaccountably revive.

"Encouraged into the new economy they would languish for loss of their tribal ways; given reserves they would be drawn to the amenities of civilisation; withheld citizenship and social benefits, the injustice of their situation would strike at the whiteman's self-esteem, but let them be granted equality in all material aspects and the whiteman would stand condemned by their spiritual deprivation and lack of incentive.

"Let Welfare Departments declare a policy of assimilation and the dark people would rediscover their pride of race; recognise their right to a separate identity and they would suspect a move towards segregation.

"Set up a Royal Commission and it would be found that there was no longer one dark race with specific problems but a mixture of races with many different problems and in many different stages of development; attempt to grade their needs according to colour and it would appear that the degenerate near-quite could be more dependent than the robust black."

Some fascinating insights, but I hope that we can agree that we have come some way in fifty years.

The Indigenous people want a voice in Parliament. One voice, Ken Wyatt, explained that on the ABC today. He is one of the five voices currently in Parliament, about 2.3 % of all federal parliamentarians. The Indigenous population of Australia makes up about 2.5 % of the total population, perhaps 2.2 % of the adult population.

Currently, there are ministers of Indigenous ancestry in at least four state and territory parliaments: SA, WA, NT and Queensland. There is an advisory committe to the Prime Minister and, of course, the assembly of First Nations. But perhaps the re-institution of ATSIC or the NACC or NAC or some similar body might do the trick.

Indigenous people are sick of symbolic action, they want practical action. For those of us who haven't lost our memory, Prime Minister Howard proposed in 2006-2007 that any changes had to be practical rather than symbolic, when he abolished ATSIC and brought in the NT Intervention. I wasn't aware that he was at the Uluru Conference. But it seems that he was broadly correct in his attitude to mere symbolic action.

So if we vote for practical action in a Referendum, such as a representative body like ATSIC, and practical activity such as a toned-down version of the Intervention, but of course under Indigenous supervision, in order to resolve some of the critical and very practical problems afflicting Indigenous 'communities', maybe all that might work, even if it didn't in the past. One recalls Einstein's words.

Such a representative body, as proposed, alongside the voices in parliament, would have the power to scrutinise every piece of legislation if it affects Indigenous people in some way. I'm trying to think of any piece of legislation which won't affect Indigenous people simply because they are part of the Australian people - I can't for the moment, but experts will surely identify them.

So one early task would be to form such a representative body - or bodies, if it is decided that every 'nation', i.e. clan, requires its own representative body. This may take some time. I hope that

[TBC]

[continued]

that they can do this expeditiously and in a way which strengthens Indigenous cohesion, because the Indigenous population is so diverse and moving off in different directions, that it will become more and more difficult to maintain any sort of solidarity over the next few years and beyond if little of value is produced from all this effort.

Indigenous unity is, after all, a post-colonial construct; there was nothing like it pre-Invasion, nor during the days of State control of Indigenous affairs before the 1967 Referendum. Back in 1972, different groups around Australia were fashioning their own flags, replete with boomerangs, spears, koalas, swans, lightning bolts, etc. We were worried that people were going off in their own direction, willy-nilly, and we thought that solidarity of some sort was vital. So my wife and I decided to make the Flags which one currently sees.

We were both factory workers so we would put the kids to bed and start making Flags. We made perhaps a hundred of them, the first were five extra-long ones for the Aboriginal embassy here in Adelaide in July 1972, then we made others and sent them all over Australia, and overseas. If the first Aboriginal Flag you saw had a wonky centre-disc, it was one of ours.

I think the Flag has actually had the positive effect of pulling people together, just a little. But nowadays, it seems as if many 'nations' are re-fashioning their own all over again, going back to Square One. Oh well, I suppose that's nothing new in Indigenous Affairs: I don't know how many times my wife would say that to each other.

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth)

You referred to Mary Durack earlier. Among her other qualities she had a gift (through hard thought and work, nothing comes easy) for blending black and white in a most sensitive and meaningful way.

Tell me though, do you or maybe someone else here, know of any memorial to Mary, outside of The Story Teller (Burdswood Heritage Trail), and where she was buried? Died Nedlands, WA, 16 December 1994. Here for those interested,

http://cherylfletcher2.blogspot.com.au/

I have done a lot of travel with themes of following the routes of explorers, observing and reflecting upon the works of early settlers and so on.

It is not simply a matter of getting past the propaganda, misinformation and outright lies and distortions surrounding Aboriginal history and circumstance, it is a matter of finding people who are willing to hear the truth, however unpalatable it may be.

We seem awash in do-goodery in this day and age and delusional do-goodery at that.

There are important points which are overlooked:

1. Aborigines in 1788 were not united, in fact they were mostly at war with each other. Aborigines in 2017 are even more divided given that there might be a thousand or so who are fully Aboriginal and maybe a couple of thousand who are half Aboriginal, but the majority of the roughly 600,000 registered as Indigenous are minimally Aboriginal, even up to 1/32nd, and they are not Indigenous or Aboriginal in any real sense.

2. The various Aboriginal cultures in 1788 were variations on the theme of nomadic hunter-gatherer and the way of life something which Anglo/Europeans had left behind thousands of years in the past.

In other words, Aboriginal culture, while possessing some interesting myths and artistic styles like all such groups, was backward, primitive and totally out of step with the then modern world. It was tribal, patriarchal, misogynistic, cannibalistic and brutal.

So, just as backward Britons were hauled along by the more advanced Romans, and later, other waves of invaders and occupiers, so were Aborigines. It has no doubt been a crucial part of human evolution.

But, the important fact coming from all of this is that there is very little of Aboriginal culture which remains from the late 18th century, and even less of value.

3. Any self-determination would require Indigenous to go and live in the same place. Where would that be? Why would they go? Many indigenous are settled and successful and in mixed marriages so why would they go off to live in the bush? They would not. And which bit of bush would it be?

So, in essence, there is no unified or generic Indigenous to create any kind of self-determination.

Aboriginal cultures today, are a hybrid, often in mongrel form, of aspects of Aboriginal culture mixed up with Anglo/European/Asian and others.

Much culture is dysfunctional with high levels of child abuse, child sexual abuse, violent misogyny, racism in skin traditions ..... all a part of Aboriginal culture when the British arrived but with no place in a modern world.

Wow Leo, the all seeing, the all knowing Hansonite, privy to all that insider goss, about Labor, The Greens, even the Government, and any other organizations or groups you can name. the ABC, unions etc etc. Yet you can't say a word about 'One Nation', strange that. Politicians should check for that fly on the wall before they go to bed at night, its probably the all seeing, all knowing LeoW..

Now you have discovered a new class in society, the mysterious and as yet unnamed, left wing 'ELITES'. According to you, and others of the right, these mysterious Elites act only for self interest and for no other reason. Possibly you might name some of these Elites in the field of Aboriginal affairs.

Hi Paul,

You're kidding :) Anybody in the business, or recently exiting the business, knows who they are. Throw up a prominent name, check what they have done recently, and if you notice that comes to "nothing", then you've got yourself one of the elite.

Joe

Hi Joe,

If you. or Leo know these Elites, name them, you're constantly referring to them. a bit of naming and shaming. Leo, is forever banging on about left wing Elites, but never actually names any.

You're in the business, Leo's in every business.

I'll try your formula; Throw up a prominent name, LEO aka onthebeach

Check what they have done recently; I read all his posts, Answer; NOTHING.

Conclusion; LEO IS AN ELITE.

Next name Joe,,,,

G'day Paul,

No, thanks, I've got kids who have to make a living.

And I wasn't aware that Leo was on a good salary for doing nothing in the Aboriginal Industry :) If he's not getting paid at all, why should he do anything apart from show some civil concern about the welfare of our fellow-Australians and where our country is going ?

Any body in the business know what I'm talking about. I suppose it's not that different from what goes on in New Zealand, really.

Anyway, back to reality: the Uluru Statement seems to put any demands on for constitutional change on the back-burner. They ask for a blank-sheet 'Treaty', with the thorny issue of a Treaty with every Indigenous nation left for future, bitter dispute.

So what should be in a Treaty ? In 2017 and beyond ? A Treaty usually comes 'before', not 'long after', and it has clauses, teeth. As you would know, the Treaty of Waitangi ceded Maori sovereignty (but not land ownership) in return for British protection. At the time, New Zealand was claimed as a part of New South Wales, so it could, at a stretch, be claimed that at least one Australian Province was involved in Treaty-making with Indigenous people. But even the Waitangi Treat was pro-active: I'm puzzled how any 'Treaty' can be otherwise, that it can be retroactive.

So, again, what should be in a 'Treaty' that isn't just more time-wasting ? I'm concerned that the Indigenous Entity doesn't have that much more to waste.

Joe

Hi Joe,

There may well be people on high salaries who do bugger all, or worse still incompetent, that happens in all businesses. Those in question would not agree of course. For example under your criteria I can't brand Tony Abbott as an elitist. I might not agree with his politics but the bloke earns his pay, as do most politicians I have met from all sides and parties.

"Any body in the business know what I'm talking about. I suppose it's not that different from what goes on in New Zealand, really." There is that perception at times, but no proof, the elites are obviously in the business, so they should know what you are talking about . Some of it might stem from jealousy, some of it may be well founded. We have to be careful that we are not simply dreaming up things about others, simply because we don't agree with them.

On this issue of a treaty I'll have to read a bit more, as I have said previously, I am ambivalent on the idea of treaties in general. Si I'll get back later.

Joe,

Is there even an Indigenous entity beyond the groups pushing this agenda who don't represent unity of Indigenous in any way, just a small group of activists, most of whom are so minimally Aboriginal in ancestry they are Aborigine Lites.

It all comes down to the bottom line that any Recognition or Treaty demolishes democracy in Australia and sets up a two-tier system of citizenship where a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of the 24 million Australians get higher ranking because they can supposedly trace some of their ancestry, no matter how minimal, back further than others.

The flow-on effect from that is we have a ranking of Australianess beginning at the lowest level in those who become citizens today, laddering back to those who have some ancestry going back centuries and then to those who have some ancestry going back, so it is claimed, tens of thousands of years.

That is racist, undemocratic and I believe, unconstitutional.

If non-indigenous can get over the traumas of the past, convict ancestors, those fleeing persecution, poverty, starvation and wars vastly more horrible than anything Aborigines experienced at the hands of the British, then so can anyone.

We are enabling Indigenous to be pathetic, money-hungry victims.

Hi Rhross,

My wife and I used to play a little game - if we saw some bloke (usually a bloke) on TV, with his black hat all decorated with the colours, and especially if he had adopted an Aboriginal name, we used to race to call out 'Wnaker !' first. Almost always, sooner or later, it would turn out that he had just discovered that his gr-gr-grandfather might have been a Native, perhaps even an Aboriginal Native.

Well, yes, his ancestor might even have been a member of the Australian Natives' Association, set up in 1871, for all native-born whites, those defiantly antagonistic to all those Pommy bastards coming out and taking the best jobs. But I think they had an all-white policy.

Even in the early days, many Aboriginal people worked hard and did all right, as well as any white man. Some families are still on land that was leased more than a century ago. So perhaps their descendants might have to be barred from putting their hands out these days, if that's the criterion ?

Identifying people is fascinating: genuine Indigenous people waste no time in telling you who they are related to, a matter of seconds. Phonies hum and ha, equivocate, find reasons why their mother or father can't be checked: 'They were part of the Stolen Generation' is a good one for this purpose. My rule of thumb was that if you can't find out who someone was related to, year after year, they probably were phonies.

And guess what ? So often, they're in charge. They work their way up pretty quickly. They seem to look after each other. They know early which jobs or scholarships to apply for. Oops, Andrew Bolt territory :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

Common sense as usual. The goal of the British was to help Aborigines join the modern world. People do the same thing today sending aid to Africa and other parts of the Third World.

If it was racist and wrong for the British to seek to usher Aborigines into a more developed world then why the hell are we spending billions on foreign aid today?

Those evil Europeans wanted Aborigines to have proper homes, education, clothes, jobs, futures for their children ..... how could they?

Dear Paul,

The following statistics given in this link speak
for themselves:

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/the-gap-indigenous-disadvantage-in-australia

Or do they? It's probably a "leftie" site and the reasons
for the stats are due to personal choice - right?
After all if we can succeed then why can't they? Right?

Eternal victimhood and entitlement is a poisoned chalice. Not something I would wish on my children and grandchildren.

But very rewarding where lawyers, academics and public bureaucrats are concerned. What about those NGOs that so often astroturf to protect the $millions they make from government grants? $Windfalls forever. Pity the taxpayer.

-A parallel can be drawn with the equal married rights 'initiative' of the Labor Gillard government.

As a personal observation from years of outback travel and sometimes into indigenous land with their prior approval, I cannot say that any of the indigenous I happened to share some time, a mug of tea and those damned bush-flies with, would regard their views as being fairly represented by those who showed up at Uluru. Some might agree that Bolt had a point to make on who is indigenous and who isn't.

Also, there are the unforeseen negative psychological consequences for indigenous themselves from certified victimhood, or for that matter from having to live up to the 'First' tag and all that goes with it.

As for people today remembering and inheriting the pain of the past and more recently of 'stolen generations', much of that is nonsense. Psychological pain retained for years is depression and other conditions. It is not normal or healthy. And there are many well documented cases where people have suffered lives of painful mental confusion and depression, from 'rediscovered' memories, which are likely 100% fabricated anyhow and often led by the 'helper' and other factors. - Consider how memory is reconstructed.

BTW,

Still waiting for that mob from the Uluru knees-up and narcissistic talk fest to improve things ONE JOT for indigenous women and children.

Honestly, how can that be so hard?

And so forgotten?

Dearest Foxy,

And Indigenous women commenced university study in 2015 at a slightly higher rate than Non-Indigenous Australian men (4,789: 168,029 = 2.8 %). You won't find that in Reports like the one you cited.

I'm very uneasy that there is something obscene about how statistics are used against Indigenous people, a sort of triumphalism that beats people down, with no hope of getting up and moving forwards. So often, the figures seem to be used to proclaim: 'Us whites will always be so all-powerful and you blacks will always be down at the bottom, so depend on us to say yea or nay.' There is never, or hardly ever, any comparison with how the situation might have been a few years ago, to show any improvement on any dimension, such as infant mortality.

Maybe many whites like it like that: so they are dead-quiet about university participation, or find ways to cry it down, or slimily suggest that Indigenous students shouldn't be studying mainstream courses, 'white courses', but only 'Black' courses: mainstream students are traitors. Yes, I have heard that. And not just from whites either, but from what even Paul might call the 'elites'.

Long way to go, that's for sure.

Joe

@leoj,

You are correct. The concept of inherited inter-generational trauma is handing down to descendants dysfunction and inferior capacity.

Here is the fly in the ointment however, if intergenerational trauma were as much of an issue as the Aboriginal industry claims, then we would expect to find it in the majority of human beings since most are descended from those who have suffered, some shockingly.

Where is the intergenerational trauma in the descendants of convicts or others who fled persecution, poverty and the horrors of war to become Australians?

It doesn't seem to exist as it is said to exist in Indigenous so does that mean that Aboriginal ancestry, no matter how minimal, confers inferior function and less capacity to evolve and survive this world? That sounds awfully racist.

Dear Joe,

I don't view the data given in my earlier link
the same way that you do. The facts presented speak
for themselves. I don't think anyone is "decrying"
anything. Merely pointing out that yes there have
been achievements but there is still much to be done.
We can draw conclusions about the data and consider
the questions that the statistics raise.

cont'd ...

Change doesn't come from people being comfortable and
complacent. It is not enough to keep citing the statistics
of achievement whilst downplaying the juvenile justice
crisis, high rates of incarceration of all age groups, the
funding of non-indigenous organisations to do indigenous
work, the collapse of indigenous bodies and so on.
Education is the key.

The wider community has to learn
about these things so that there would be an out-cry. They
need to be told what is still happening today. And the
fact the we still have a long way to go with our indigenous
people. Stressing only the positive does not do them any
favours.

Foxy,

No, but it shows what's possible. Amazing. How do people manage to slag Indigenous university participation, as if it's a bad thing ? Amazing.

Joe

Joe,

No one is saying that Indigenous achievement at university
is a bad thing. No one.

All that is being asked is that the problems that the
indigenous people still face not be brushed aside.
We still have a long way to go in this country.

What is amazing is that you are getting all hot and
bothered about it. Why?

rhoss,

It is astounding that any of the behavioural science graduates and academics can go along with such utter rot as 'the wound' and effects of 'lingering injustice', while realising the connotations, deliberately crafted.

In some quarters science has becoming anything but scientific. But the feminists were notorious for that, so it is nothing new.

50 years on and science is well and truly under attack from the leftists, who hate science with a passion.

'has become'

Dear Foxy,'

Surely success in one area can be an example to what might be done about other areas ? If 120,000 can go to university, there may not be much on the way of obstacles for everybody else ?

Of course, there are dreadful social problems in remote 'communities', and they must be addressed - and addressed in any proposal for the future. Whether Treaties (which up until now seem to be blank sheets of paper) and reconstituting 'nations' will do it, is, I think totally fanciful.

Perhaps there is a total misunderstanding about terms like 'self-determination'. Most Australians like me would assume that it meant something to do with the people themselves doing things for themselves, watching their diet and exercise, cleaning up their own houses, moderating their own grog intake, at least trying to get the skills needed for regular employment, making sure that their kids go to school in order to prepare for working futures. I don't see anything wrong with that. Of course, people can always go back to scrabbling for lizards and berries.

Others - perhaps with an unintentional racist tinge - assume that the people can't do any of that for themselves, but need others to do it all for them. That view fills me with dismay, to say the least. I never signed up for anything like that.

Of course, people moving from a foraging society to a welfare-based society may not see anything wrong with staying on welfare. They may honestly believe that the entire world lives like that. After all, we rarely see anybody actually working on TV, Aboriginal kids are rarely taken through factories to see how stuff is made, and how hard many people work, in dangerous, boring, dirty and relatively low-paid conditions.

No easy ways :)

Love,

Joe

Joe,

Did you see Q&A tonight?

If not I shall happily post a transcript for you
when it becomes available.

In the meantime - I have nothing further to say
to you.

Hi Foxy,

No, only the last ten minutes or so, I preferred to watch 'Foyle's War'. What I saw was depressing enough: so now, there are going to be three committees of some sort, a parliamentary oversight committee, a Makarrata committee and (thankfully) a Truth and Reconciliation committee ? I would certainly welcome the last one, it would be a refreshing change.

And who was that smug young girl speaking as if from a bloody throne ? Arrogant and ignorant all at once. Christ save us.

Joe

Hi Foxy, thanks for the link, the facts are undeniable, and in my view totally unacceptable. Others will disagree, seeing Aboriginal disadvantage as "the natural way of things" or like Leo presenting a minds eye view of such things as being all conspiratorial and therefore to be rejected as worthless, that is where the mysterious and as yet unnamed 'Elites' enter into the argument simply an excuse to do nothing. I admire Aboriginal people for their successes, given the adversities over the past 200 odd years, how did they get one to university let alone the numbers they have. The question is what do we do tomorrow, rather than how were things yesterday. As a Progressive I am in favor of progress.

Hi Joe, I take it you either disagree with the statistics from Foxy's link, or feel the presentation of such is counter productive to future progress. I believe Aboriginals are mature enough as a people to be confronted with such facts, yet have the resilience to work to overcome the disadvantage. For me it is all about working towards a better future for all Australians, including our indigenous brothers and sisters. The detractors wont agree, but that's it.

Hi again Joe,

I have read as much as I can about the 'Uluru Convention' and its outcome. It is clear to me Aboriginal people do not want platitudes and flowery words in some vague Constitutional recognition, they want meaningful action which leads to Aboriginal people assuming their rightful place in Australian society, not as inferiors, but as equals. Is a representative body, along with the establishment of a treaty, the way to go. Until all the argument is put forward, from all the relevant sections of society, I cannot say.

The words of our leaders;

"History would indicate that to succeed, not only must there be overwhelming support, but minimal — or at least tepid — opposition," Mr Turnbull said.

"We owe the [Uluru delegates] an open mind on the big questions. On the form recognition takes, on treaties, on changes required in the constitution," Mr Shorten said

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-26/constitutional-recognition-rejected-by-indigenous-leaders-uluru/856392

"...Aboriginal people assuming their rightful place in Australian society, not as inferiors, but as equals."

Indeed,Paul, I've always stated that ALL Australians should be treated as equals.

This would mean no racial categorisation for a start.

People often cite Canada, New Zealand and USA as examples of a treaty between their indigenous people and the ruling government.
What is never mentioned are some unpalatable facts.
For instance, there is a definition of the term indigenous based on blood quotum to be eligible.
In Canada, the treaty with indigenous deals only with full bloods. Part Indians are not recognised as needing extra benefits.
In the USA, the blood quotum is set by each tribal nation. Some as low as 15%, others as much as 50%.
Even using the less stringent method in the USA, this would rule out the vast majority of Australian indigenous from being involved in any treaty.
And in the end, the final irony. These indigenous groups with treaties have the same problems as the indigenous in this country. High unemployment, high substance abuse, worse health, high imprisonment rate.
Seems to me we should be talking more about solving those problems rather than wasting time and a lot of money trying to work out how aboriginal people can dictate to government.

@ Foxy:

You said: All that is being asked is that the problems that the
indigenous people still face not be brushed aside.

I think you need to qualify your point. For instance, there is no indigenous people facing problems.

Out of the 600,000 or so who register as indigenous there are a tiny minority still struggling. Most are doing fine. Most are in mixed marriages and a part of the broader community, holding down jobs and families like anyone else. Some, much more successfully than many non-indigenous.

To seek to push all Indigenous under the umbrella over a few is as ridiculous as saying all Australians are in the same condition as the most dysfunctional.

The problems of that small minority are not brushed aside but perhaps they should be. The billions of dollars poured into trying to help them clearly fails so perhaps it is time for them to grow up and sort themselves out, as others have to do.

The dysfunction is self-inflicted and blaming it on wrongs done centuries ago is dishonest and delusional.

@leoj,

I don't think people hate science but increasingly I believe many mistrust and question science as a system of enquiry because while it is good at nuts and bolts and man-made stuff it is pretty useless at the rest.

Science in its modern form is distorted by its beliefs and dogma that all can be reduced to the material and the mechanical. That needs to be questioned.

Hating things is a waste of time and energy.

@ Foxy.

Q&A is politically correct propaganda. It is a travesty of real journalism.

@ Paul,

There is no generic Aboriginal people. They were of mixed race in 1788 and divided by language, culture, tribe, and they are of even more mixed race today and even more divided.

Someone in a Far north Queensland remote community has nothing in common with someone who had a part-Aboriginal great-great grandparent and who is descended from urban, middle class, Anglo/Europeans for generations.

Fact is, someone in a remote community in WA has nothing in common with someone in a remote community in SA, or FNQ, beyond perhaps some shared Aboriginal ancestry, the experience of living remotely and all too often, dysfunction.

There was no Aboriginal people per se: when the English arrived and there certainly is not now.

@IsMise,

Indigenous should be treated as equals. End positive discrimination now. No extra rights, no extra benefits, no leg's up for jobs, sports, arts, academia - all benefits needs-based not race-based, absolutely.

End the aid. Cut off the money tap and let them look after themselves.

@Big Nana,

Your comment is worth repeating and repeating and repeating in the face of the lies, distortion and propaganda surrounding Aboriginal history and issues. Those indigenous who had Treaties also have high suicide rates. In fact the situations of the dysfunctional is exactly the same, whether a Treaty was signed centuries ago or not.

Quote: What is never mentioned are some unpalatable facts.
For instance, there is a definition of the term indigenous based on blood quotum to be eligible.

In Canada, the treaty with indigenous deals only with full bloods. Part Indians are not recognised as needing extra benefits.
In the USA, the blood quotum is set by each tribal nation. Some as low as 15%, others as much as 50%.

Even using the less stringent method in the USA, this would rule out the vast majority of Australian indigenous from being involved in any treaty.

And in the end, the final irony. These indigenous groups with treaties have the same problems as the indigenous in this country. High unemployment, high substance abuse, worse health, high imprisonment rate.

Seems to me we should be talking more about solving those problems rather than wasting time and a lot of money trying to work out how aboriginal people can dictate to government.

' For instance, there is a definition of the term indigenous based on blood quotum to be eligible.'

well Nana, that rules out all those privilged ones that were on Q & A last night. I wonder how many flew first class from Ulluru to Canberra. Enjoying the benefits of what the British and others brought to this nation.

Paul,

Re your Tuesday, 30 May 2017 5:35:42 AM

Of course, I don't disagree with the stats that Foxy so helpfully put up. My worry is that

(a) all the farting around won't make a bit of difference to neglect, abuse, unemployment, sickness and incarceration rates: let's come back in ten years and see :)

And

(b) that, in a cute back-handed way, people still manage to down-cry Indigenous success, in at least one crucial area, AND somehow (in a back-handed sway) tie success by some to non-success by others. Surely, as I keep saying, any success is a pointer to what can be done, and an example for ALL Indigenous people to what can be achieved, and that they don't have to go along with the misery-gutted, paranoid Narrative that all is lost, whites are all-powerful so nothing can be done, what can you do ?

On that last point, I shouldn't have to point out that what about half of the Indigenous population is, or will be, doing - i.e. enrolling in mainstream university courses, is entirely their right: in no way, should it be tied to some racist demand that, well, if they have been shown this favour they should devote their entire careers to working with their people out in the sticks. No, they have as much right as you or I to do whatever they damn-well like, work where they like, live where they like, marry who they like.

Just getting in first ;)

The bottom line is, ultimately, it is primarily up to rural and remote people to work out how to solve their own problems since nobody else can solve, or obviously has solved, those horrible problems. That's why it's called 'self-determination'. 'Helping' doesn't mean doing it for them.

People make choices; people also make brilliant decisions; people also make dreadful mistakes. Which is okay, as long as they have the means to correct those mistakes, without doing even more damage.

Joe

Dear Joe,

I fully agree with what you've stated in your last post.
I brought up the topic of self-determination in an
earlier post of mine. However what is needed is a formal
structure of some sort (I'm not sure of the legalities)
for our Indigenous people to be able to do just that.
At the moment they don't have that control.

Paul,

Is Mise got in first: ""...Aboriginal people assuming their rightful place in Australian society, not as inferiors, but as equals."

Yes, indeed, I'm glad that somebody at last understands the possibility of people being equal AND different: since the 1980s, many 'progressives' have opposed equality (yes, crazy isn't it ?) on the grounds that equality = sameness, and they weren't the 'same'. Of course bloody not ! No two people on earth are the same, yet every one of us IS equal to any other.

So I'm glad someone has recognised that equality is not the enemy.

So what rights DON'T Indigenous people have in Australia ? What extra rights (oops, we're moving away from 'equal') do people want, or should they have ? Of course, Native Title. Of course, community control - and responsibility. But what else ? i.e. what should be in a Treaty ? [Or multiple treaties].

Presumably a Treaty has to be more than a blank sheet of paper ('but it'll be OUR blank sheet of paper'). What are we all going to be asked to sign up to ? What's going to be in it that we agree on ?

So three options:

* go with existing frameworks to enforce and protect Indigenous people's rights like those of any other Australians';

* change the Constitution for some reason (certainly get rid of those minor clauses), to do something or other with Indigenous rights that can't be done with existing legislation and policy mechanisms;

and/or

* enshrine it all in a Treaty (or treaties), (but maybe run it through multiple deliberative committees first).

So all this straining at gnats surely has to be worth it ? Surely there has to be some point to it all, to why we should vote on something, all of us Australians, equally ?

Joe

Dear Joe,

Absolutely brilliant!

Dear Foxy,

How do you mean, that people in 'communities' don't have control ? Maybe not 'responsibility' but every decent-sized 'community' would have a council. 'Communities' usually even control who can visit, and for how long, and who can't. The councils usually control who gets jobs, houses, Toyotas etc.

No, perhaps they can't control the social processes that have been brought into being by the 'interaction' between a foraging culture and a Western culture. That interaction does seem to have produced some quite dysfunctional processes of their own. Maybe the people on those councils are not equipped to deal with those problematic processes, or even to be aware of them, or necessarily want to change them.

More and more whitefellas, doing more and more, won't amount to giving people more 'control', Foxy. Self-determination surely means that the people themselves have to confront their own problems ?

Love,

Joe

Foxy, I'm not sure I understand your comment that aboriginal people don't have the means to determine their own future.
What more do they need?
I have spent the last 47 years living with aboriginal people in the north and when I say living, I mean living with them, not alongside or near. Including the large aboriginal family descended from me.
In all that time I have seen aboriginal people, from full bloods to almost white, making decisions that effect their future, controlling their own lives and those of their children.
People in remote communities have moved into towns. People raised in towns have moved back to their tribal country and community. People have got themselves educated. People have started their own businesses.
We now have aboriginal controlled health services, aboriginal controlled legal services, aboriginal controlled housing services, aboriginal school teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers etc.
All remote communities are run by elected local councils, all land councils are elected by aboriginal members.
The only remaining issue is the future control of all Native Title Land currently held in trust by the government of each state, whilst trying to determine the best method of handing over title totally to aboriginal people of each language group.
And that my friend, is going to be a bloodbath! Because even before Title is handed over, vicious fights are erupting between family groups, and even within family groups, over who is exactly entitled to what land. And the fights aren't restricted to words!
So, I am at a loss to know what they can't do now.

One thing is certain, the level of misunderstanding, misinformation, distortions, lies and delusions surrounding Indigenous Australians is enormous.

That is not surprising given that propaganda has been taught to children for the past couple of generations and we have now a largely brainwashed society, at least for those under the age of sixty.

No doubt prior to the rewriting of Aboriginal history, culture and circumstance there was also ignorance but not as much.

My first boyfriend was part Aboriginal. I thought nothing of it. He lived in the same sort of Housing Trust house that we did, went to the same sort of schools and did the same sorts of things. His Aboriginal ancestry was not him, it was just a part of him and no more important than the rest of his ancestry.

But he would never have considered himself really Aboriginal, as so many seek to do today, because he wasn't. The real Aborigines often came down to live with foster parents while they were educated. Sadly, many opted to return to their communities and in the main, the girls were mothers before they were 20 and often dead before they were 30. The lucky or sensible ones never went back.

The constitution should treat everyone equally, it is not the place to insert special interests.
I am happy to remove all lines of discrimination from the constitution and recognise them as the original inhabitants, but making consultative committees etc a constitutional item is lunacy.
Everyone should be equal, and no one more equal than others.

thanks rhross. Their seems to be more voices of truth and reason starting to challenge the very warped history narrative held on to by the regressives. We know they don't really want to go back to tribal warfare, giving of young girls to old uncles, no buildings, no electricity, no hospitals, no police and a very short life expectancy.Those rotton white males that have delivered and built such a horrible nation that no one wants to come here.

@ShadowMinister,

Why would we recognise those with Aboriginal ancestry as original inhabitants, anymore than we would recognise every human being on the planet, including indigenous, as original inhabitants of Africa?

Homo Sapiens emerged around 200,000 years ago and that includes Aborigines so they were also somewhere else for a very long time before they got to Australia. They too are colonisers and given some of the evidence, took this country from others and killed or drove them out.

They certainly did not give those they colonised the sort of rights, benefits and assistance the British gave to them.

More to the point, most indigenous are minimally Aboriginal anyway so to even call them indigenous is ridiculous.

rhross,

Good points.

I wonder too who has the most to gain from framing it all in the negative and doing their damnest to ensure that the narrative, expectations and discussion remain stuck in the negative.

There was an elder politician who said that in a one horse race one should always back self-interest. He may have just said money.

I suggest that the funding be cut, which removes the incentive to make bigger problems for the gold that immediately showers from government.

Of course the same argument extends to the white elephant the ABC, that is making a nuisance of itself because it has nothing to do any more. The national broadcaster has fallen off the back of the digital wave anyhow and years ago. Time to put that $1.3 billion of taxpayers money into improving the digital access and education of the burgeoning numbers of seniors and youth who must take up digital to further their own education, relevance and lifestyle.

Hi Rhross,

Yes, our remote ancestors came out of Africa 200,000, 100,000, and/or 60,000 years ago. It would have taken the ancestors of Australian Indigenous people ten or twenty thousand years to slowly, without being aware of it, spread across southern Asia, into central and east Asia and back again, down to what is now Indonesia and Papua-New Guinea, and on to Australia - maybe a kilometre a year on average. There would have been spurts of movement, fifty km a year, then maybe staying in one region for a thousand years or so.

But eventually those ancestors got here, and spread around the coasts, over another five thousand years or so. n good times, people would have moved inland up river valleys and colonised drier parts of the country. But perhaps by forty thousand years ago, pretty much all of it (being better watered and vegetated than now) would have been colonised. Of course, Australia was still attached to Papua-New Guinea, and until only ten thousand years ago.

I'd assume that people came here in 'waves', perhaps thousands, or tens of thousands, of years apart, and filled empty or sparsely-settled country especially along the coasts, but they were even more likely to have been beaten back by people who knew their country - but of course, that's all conjecture, there's not much evidence of its happening.

There will come a time, I hope, when a great many Australians have Indigenous ancestry - and African, and Vietnamese, and Iranian, Czech and Lithuanian etc. ancestry. I hope also that there will come a time when those in need, regardless of their ancestry, are provided for - equally.

Already, according to the last Census, more than a third of Indigenous people own, or are paying off, their own homes, up from 10 % or so back in 1981. Of course, another huge percentage is living in State-provided housing with no intention of moving out. I suspect that the average Indigenous income is not much less than the Australian average, if at all. Sorry for the bad news :(

Joe

Hi Leoj,

One problem with believing a very negative Conventional Narrative is that one can't believe any good information, and is always looking for more bad news, which one eagerly believes without much, or any, evidence.

The current Conventional Narrative -

* massacres, throwing babies down wells, poisoning waterholes;

* being driven off their land;

* being herded onto Missions;

* being starved and made to working slave conditions;

* being stopped from getting an education (I heard this last night on Q & A);

* missionaries forcing children to stop speaking their languages;

* and, of course, the Stolen Generation.

etc., etc., has - at least in South Australia, but I don't see why SA should have been so different - very little or no evidence to support it. I wish there was, if only so that I could re-join the Left :( But no, I can't find any evidence, in fifteen thousand pages of document - in fact, quite the reverse: I was struck by this remark in the Annual Report of the Protector in 1874, from Police trooper Richards at Fowler's Bay:

"The quantity of rations supplied here is quite sufficient. I have a difficulty getting women's dresses made. The want of a net is much felt, the old one being in use for nearly five years, and I have not had time to make a new one."

All in our book, 'Voices From the Past', on Amazon :)

People believe their narratives passionately, even religiously: counter-evidence is sometimes non-existent, or any demand that they provide evidence, are fought off angrily. But I have to say that I have made the flip and it's hard to re-believe again, it would take a lobotomy.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I have read material suggesting that Homo Sapiens came out of Australia and I suppose, who knows. I have also read that the original Mungo Man conclusions which had no connection with Aborigines has been debunked and now it seems there is a connection.

Given the distortions inherent in the politically correct academic climate I am not sure I believe the ‘new’ data about Mungo. Not that it matters.

Where I take issue is that if we accept the view that because someone can trace ancestry back to a land, for thousands of years, it means they have a greater connection with and/or right to that land.

It also threatens the democratic basis of equality as citizens because it creates a construct where superiority is vested in the length of ancestral connection, and inferiority in the brevity of it. Now, in times past this was of course the basis of tribalism, although everyone was at some point nomadic and moved around, invading, occupying and colonising so connections to land were made, broken and made somewhere else.

Does it matter if a Scot is found to have Celtic ancestry going back tens of thousands of years? I think it is interesting but why should it make them ‘other’, or better? And that is the problem with this stretching of Aboriginal ‘history’ for it is a guestimate and ignores the fact that some Indigenous might be newcomers as well, with links to New Guinea, Indonesia, Pacific Islands etc.

And even if the Aborigines the British found in 1788 could trace themselves back for 40, 50, 60,000 years or more, what does it say about their lack of development, their inability to evolve, and their consistently primitive culture? How is that anything to be admired in any way?

Your news is not bad, it is common sense and reason. It just differs from the ‘accepted’ narrative. Quelle Horreur.

rhross,

I delight in pointing out the obvious, but Homo Sapiens has been around for over two million years, not 200,000.

Dear Joe and Big Nana,

The following link explains what I meant to say but
perhaps did not do it as well. I hope it clarifies
the meaning for you:

http://www.convictcreations.com/research/aboriginalrights.html

Thanks Foxy,

At first I thought that, in advising us in little words how to suck eggs, I should ask which end to suck and which to blow ? Some of this stuff is close to the truth, and probably the author means swell. But I noticed that there so many were misconceptions, mistakes and outright lies throughout this file. I'm sure Big Nana, after fifty-odd years right in the middle of it, would be a bit more dismissive.

I'd advise you to read around a little bit more, don't let yourself get hoodwinked by just first impressions.

Joe

Foxy,

Joe (Loudmouth) is always the gracious diplomat.

But don't you have some qualms, a tinge of embarrassment maybe, about appearing to be the Irish Godfather?

Maybe channeling yet another redhead might work, 'Please explain?'.

Hi Foxy and Joe,

Foxy, your link does provide a summation of the relevant facts and history covering Aboriginal issues, along with some subjective comments. It took a bit of reading, but was worthwhile.
Joe, are you dismissing it outright or does it make a reasonable basis for discussion and formulation of opinion.

One thing I have found in my experience is being "black" does not necessarily make one an expert on black issues, nor does being white exclude one. I have found that on both sides of the Tasman, my partner will now and then in frustration, when reading something or other, refer to the "dumb Maori's". Particularly those who take no interest in things that effect them. Just as people have the right to be involved, they also have the right to exclude themselves.

Hi Paul,

Yes, more or less, since it has so many inaccuracies that it is not reliable as any sort of guide. All of us really do need to read more fully around the issues, instead of relying on some sort of one-stop shop of secondary sources.

I'm sure, Paul, that you've noticed, being married to a beautiful Maori lady, that your antennae are almost always full-on: you're learning, observing, trying to make sense of what Maori people are doing and saying, trying to tie it all together into some sort of coherent narrative. After all, once you're in, you're in for life :)

I suppose Big Nana and I are in the same boat: all three of us have both a Western and an Indigenous framework, a way of thinking, to grapple with, to try to reconcile with our evolving understandings. And it never stops !

I'm trying to work through the demands implicit in the Uluru Statement and how they can be of significant use to Indigenous people here, as I see it (after all, there's no other way). I am hoping for the best from it, but am currently too confused about many of the proposals and whether each of them, separately or together, will ultimately be of just more symbolic rather than practical value.

And on top of that, I suspect that all of the various proposals will take many years to tease out and articulate to the satisfaction of the majority of Indigenous people, let alone the 24 million Australian people who, after all, have vital interests in getting it right too. But I really do worry that the Indigenous entity is fragmenting and moving off in different directions to such an extent that there isn't all that much time to waste.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy, I read the link you posted and agree with Joe, many inaccuracies. Just an example. The article states that because of the ban on drinking,prior to 50 years ago, today's aboriginal youth see illicate use of drugs differently because they are influenced by the " sly grog" era that effected many aboriginal people. The problem with that assumption is that the biggest problems with drugs comes from the kids whose parents were never legally classified as aboriginal anyway and were allowed to drink. You need to bear in mind that the definition of aboriginal was very different before the sixties. Under the law, only full blood and half caste adults were legally aboriginal and anyone less than that had the same rights as anyone else.
And as far as the article goes, I'm still at a loss to uunderstand what more you think government should do. Even that article promotes the theory that the problems aboriginal people face today are the disputes amongst themselves. The recent meeting at Uluru highlighted that fact. When some eastern states reps walked out of the meeting they complained that the traditional people weren't listening to them. And why should they? The belief that someone who only possesses a fraction of indigenous blood and has no understanding of traditional culture should have the same rights of opinion in indigenous matters as a full blood traditional person is a total insult to the full descendants of the original inhabitants.
In effect, the government has done its job. It provides billions of dollars towards improving the lives of all aboriginal people, regardless of need. The direction taken by indigenous people, including recognition of who should actually be able to claim that status, is now up to indigenous people themselves.

Dear Big Nana,

I'm not claiming to be any sort of an expert.

What I am trying to do is -
Merely presenting links up for discussion that raise
more than one side or perspective to an issue
with the hope that through discussion better understanding
will be achieved. Obviously something else must be done
to what has been done to date regarding the Aboriginal
people of this country because what has been done thus far
has not worked.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for your comments regarding the link I cited.
I found it worthwhile. There is so much to still
understand - and try to resolve the complexity of the
issues involved. Which I suspect won't happen quickly.

Hi Joe and Big Nanna,

"Just an example. The article states that because of the ban on drinking,prior to 50 years ago, today's aboriginal youth see illicate use of drugs differently because they are influenced by the " sly grog" era that effected many aboriginal people."

There is subjective opinion in the article, but it does not mean there is no worthwhile material in it.

Joe, I said I was ambivalent on the notion of a treaty and still am. From what I have learned of the Treaty of Waitangi, I could say for Maori I have spoken too, 30% agree with the treaty, 30% disagree, and 40% don't give a rats. But then I have to consider the fact it was not a great treaty in the first place, and got worse as it was broken time and again. Has there ever been a worthwhile treaty between the European and Indigenous people anywhere? How many treaties were made with the Native Americans?

cont

Dearest Foxy,

I'm sure that there are very many dedicated Indigenous people around the country, working like buggery to do the best they can in their respective roles. So when you suggest " .... what has been done thus far has not worked...." you may be a little wide of the mark. But perpaps only a little :)

But I think I can interpret what you meant. Yes, all of that sacrifice doesn't seem to be cutting down on all the negative indices. However, if I could quote a close relative who suggests, when I bemoan that inescapable fact, that, "Yes, just add the miracle ingredient: Indigenous effort." i.e. the effort of the entire 'community', not just of the handful of angels. Perhaps even parents acting like parents, men acting like real men, children going to school.

I didn't see much attention in the Uluru Statement to Indigenous effort. Perhaps, even if we don't see it on TV, it is so pervasive in every 'community' that nobody thought it needed putting in. Most certainly, nothing much will work without the Indigenous people themselves putting in effort. Perhaps the ABC and SBS need to change their film clips whenever there is an Indigenous story, of peopled dragging themselves around their 'communities', slowly, slowly, as if they had 20 kg of lead up their arses.

I used to anger my wife by suggesting, helpfully, that perhaps people in 'communities' could all be put on lifelong life-support systems, tubes in and out, perhaps a bit of physio - but with no grog or drugs or abuse or violence, so maybe people would be a lot happier, or at least safer.

Just trying to be helpful :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

As always, your advice is appreciated.

I enjoy doing research. It's an occupational
habit. Research offers the challenge of going
into unfamiliar worlds, often to find one's
assumptions shattered by the facts that one
discovers.

@ Ise Mise,

Quote: So far, the earliest finds of modern Homo sapiens skeletons come from Africa. They date to nearly 200,000 years ago on that continent. They appear in Southwest Asia around 100,000 years ago and elsewhere in the Old World by 60,000-40,000 years ago.

cont

In 2010 I traveled to NZ with my partner, and was invited to "sit in" on a land meeting between Maori leaders up North, and a prominent Maori politician, and his assistant, she took the minutes, they had made a special trip from Wellington, so it was an important occasion. I would have been happy for me to go to the pub for a couple of hours and leave it at that. I found the politician rather condescending and patronizing, more concerned with his own agenda than anything else. Saying how it should be, rather than listening to the wishes and concerns of his own people. At the end I was asked if I would like to say something, What I said to the politician was ")Name) you don't want to forget you are the representative of the people on this, and from what has been said today, there is a lot of concerns from many here on this issue, and you need to act decisively in their interest." He assured everybody that was what he intended to do. Did he? Later events indicated he did not, well not as much as he could have. He no longer represent the people. Things have a habit of catching up with those who don't do the right thing and want to serve self-interest.

p/s Talking after over tea and cakes, I think the young girl assistant would have made a better representative than the incumbent. She was well versed in the issues, and explained the problems faced in Wellington over Maori land claims, particularly with the intractable Nationals.

All nations exist because of colonisation and assimilation.

The notion that a less developed group of people who have been colonised, should not be encouraged to develop and join the more modern world, is a recent indulgence.

If the Romans, Normans, Angles, Saxons etc., had taken the same view, we would have still in Britain a few Britons living in their shelters as they did thousands of years ago.

Ridiculous.

Hi Rhross,

Yes, nobody teases out the costs and benefits of the 'Invasion': costs maybe, but benefits are somewhat overlooked.

I was daydreaming about writing a novel, entirely fictional of course, about what might have happened, and how it could have feasibly happened, if Australia had never been settled/invaded: it was to begin in 1759 with Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Geneva or wherever, assembling some of the best Enlightenment minds and future leaders, including a young revolutionary soon-to-be George III, a very young and randy soon-to-be Catherine the Great, Benjamin Franklin, Napoleon's father, a Japanese princeling, and various exiles. It was eventually to involve an enlightened Charles Raffles and required reformist British parliaments throughout the nineteenth century. Then it became too impossible to maintain any sort of sensible plot.

Does anybody really believe Australia could not have been 'settled' ? As well, does anybody working or who has ever worked in Indigenous affairs seriously believe that Indigenous people would want to have nothing do with the outside world and continue to live - economically, I'm saying - without any European/Australian benefits whatever ? No rations in hard times ? No services ? [After all, isn't that what people in remote 'communities' are demanding more of ? ] No Toyotas ?

People aren't completely silly - of course, they're rational enough to take what is available - it's probably a damn sight easier to make a damper out of a pound of flour (i.e. a loaf of bread) than to spend five or six hours gathering seed while lugging a child around, an hour grinding it, then baking it (the seed, not the child). And that's how it's been for two hundred years now in some parts.

So who wants to go back to that life ? What's stopping them now ? I don't notice any rush.

Joe

@ Joe,

Eloquent and sensible as usual. And of course there was every chance the child could have ended up as dinner.

Is there evidence that Aborigines ground seeds to make a flatbread? What seeds did they use?

I know I have said this before, but, why is there so much hysteria about the British seeking to draw, drag, move, encourage Aborigines into the then modern, more developed world, when that is exactly what we spend billions of dollars today doing through Third World aid?

Now, I don't happen to believe Aid works, but, surely it is exactly the same principle. The Brits really thought the level of development at which Aborigines lived was primitive and it was, and Aborigines, like those in the Third World today, certainly wanted all the stuff the British had, at least in material terms, so why was it wrong for the British to try to improve their lot and yet not wrong for us to still be doing it today for those who are considered less developed?

That is probably a far too sensible question for any but yourself to answer.

Hi Rhross,

They probably used every sort of grass seed hey could find, except maybe for kangaroo grass seed, which has no nutritional value although it is found everywhere.

A friend was telling me about a major three-months-long gathering during the 1980s in central Australia, for which the women had to gather grass seed to make damper for the all-important men - until they went on strike and the gathering dispersed in haste.

Probably Lysistrata had something to do with it too.

Cheers,

Joe