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