Hi Joe,

I understand what you say, and I understand where you are coming from.

'Stereotyping' is one of the dangers, I'm not making this little story up. Yesterday afternoon my partner and I caught the public bus from the city with a our mate, the old bloke I've mentioned before, who does the clap sticks with the boys, down at the quay entertaining the tourists for a few bob. My partner got on first, tapped her opal card (fare), then me, our mate was a bit slow getting on, then had trouble finding his opal card, fumbling around, the drive in a snarly voice said "just sit down" our mate came back "I pay my fare" he then found his card and tapped on. He came and sat with us said "I always pay my fare, don't that fella know that!" If that had been me, would the driver have spoken to me in that tone, I think not. The facts are 80% or 90% of Aboriginals blokes catching the bus don't pay their fare, our mate always does. But the driver might have simply taken the narrow view, others like you don't pay, you don't need to bother either. Stereotyping, therefore drawing a wrong conclusion at times, would you agree?

Hi Paul,

I fully agree: stereotyping is a vile practice. One objection I get sometimes about the graduate numbers - maybe 44,000 but we'll see when the Census figures come out, + 3,000 more last year, 3,300 this year - is "Yeah, but there're all doing Ab studies, aren't they ?" Pig-ignorant people. But they include University senior management: certainly that brainless, perhaps cynical, assumption destroyed my wife's career. No, for the record, maybe fewer than 5 % of all Indigenous students are now enrolled in Indigenous-oriented courses, and most of those in sub-degree courses.

More scary for the Indigenous 'academic' elites, around half of those graduates go on to higher studies: so how does an elite control the process of re-creating itself, controlling who gets 'in' and who stays 'out', if comparatively vast numbers are coming through, uncontrollable numbers ? They've lost that game, I'm glad to say. But they still have a dreadful influence on university policies.

There are wonderful people in Indigenous communities, and always have been, strong, good people. Most that I knew are now departed. I'm sure that there are honest, principled, hard-working and thoughtful Indigenous staff at universities. And there are loafers and bludgers even in some urban, working families. Life can't be stereotyped :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Paul,

Completely off the topic but I came across this article which you might be interested in:

http://caepr.anu.edu.au/Seminars/13/Seminar-Topics%E2%80%94Series-1/20_3_Seminar.php

When we lived in New Zealand in the late sixties/early seventies, my wife came across only one other Indigenous person: she attended a tennis match being played by Evonne Goolagong and introduced herself. She was very inspired, immediately got homesick and was back in SA within a week.

We knew an Aboriginal student who was born in Sweden, her mother had married a Swede: when a professor from Finland came over to give a talk, he was thrilled when she spoke to him in Swedish. Lovely girl, I hope she did well.

I would imagine that an Australian Indigenous diaspora has massively expanded since the eighties, there would be Indigenous Australians all over the world now.

Cheers,

Joe

At the risk of seeming paedophagous, I have to keep asking, that apart from Dorg's wish-list, does anybody have any ideas at all about what should be in a Shiny New Treaty ? What are you going to put your name, or at least your vote, to ?

A brand-new Treaty needs stuff in it to agree or disagree to. So what then ? A blank sheet ? But a very beautiful blank sheet ?

Or is nobody interested enough ? Of course, that's very valuable information in itself, that nobody gives a toss.

So presumably most of us will either not vote at all (I don't think that voting in referendums is compulsory, maybe I'm wrong on that) or vote informal, or vote 'NO'. After all, every poster (hmmm ..... Dorg ?) on OLO would surely be sensible and decent enough not to vote for an empty document, or for an impossible wish-list ?

All I can think of is: "an affirmation of the equal rights of all Australians." And for that, we don't need a Treaty, it's already law, albeit imperfectly applied. [I've always wanted to use 'albeit' in a sentence.].

Meanwhile, kids go hungry out in remote communities. How many women, do you reckon, got belted the daylights out of last night ? Or will, next pension night ? Every night ? How many enterprises will a Treaty set up on the fifth of Australia which is Indigenous-owned ?

If nobody has any suggestions at all, I'll pack this in :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Professor George Williams, Dean of Law at the
University of New South Wales tells us that a treaty
should involve 3 things:

1) A starting point of acknowledgement.

2) A process of negotiation.

3) Outcomes in the form of rights, obligations and
opportunities.

He then elaborates:

A treaty could provide among other things:

1) A symbolic recognition of Indigenous Sovereignty and
prior occupation of this land.

2) A redefinition and restructuring of the relationship
between Indigenous people and wider Australia.

3) Better protection of Indigenous rights.

4) A basis for regional self-government.

5) Guidelines for local or regional treaties.

6) Structures and systems for local and regional
decision-making processes.

There's quite a bit on the web that you can Google
on this subject.

Dearest Foxy,

Thanks for that sage advice about Google. That's 'G' with a capital G, right ? On the electric computer web thing ? Hey, my shoe laces have come untied, what do I do now ?

That's George Williams, also a bit of a wish-list. But what do 'ordinary' Australians, the highly intelligent posters on OLO, think of all that ?

So what does 'Sovereignty' mean actually ? In the Australian Indigenous context, does it refer to One Big Mob having 'sovereignty', or Warren Mundine's five hundred 'nations', i.e. what use to be called 'tribes' ?

Or does it apply to the ten thousand independent 'land-holding and foreigner-excluding groups', the clans ? After all, it's traditionally been the clans who settle a 'makarrata', i.e. come to an agreement after all the bitterness and feuding and killing and payback has stopped for a time ?

So ten thousand treaties ? Not to mention the inter-group treaties as well ? How long might that all take ? How long has the Indigenous population got before it is completely fragmented by the passing wheels of history in the meantime ?

And what are the 'rules' of sovereignty ? Once people have taken something from another government, and for years, decades, generations, centuries at a time, what is left of 'sovereignty' ? Most people in the south wouldn't know their clans, of even what someone means by the word. Many people wouldn't even know their dialect group, or 'tribe'.

Have clans voluntarily surrendered 'sovdereignty' by taking from the State and then national governments all this time ? i.e. sovereignty is not only clan-centred but it's gone, used up, traded away, swapped for the conveniences of modern living ?

Indigenous people are Australians now and that's how most want to stay. No ? then test it with a pre-referendum Indigenous-only referendum on 'sovereignty' and a Treaty, with a full information campaign setting out what it all means, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Love,

Joe