Mhaze,

Or, of course, distribute any benefits on the basis of need alone.

Around sixty thousand Indigenous people have graduated from universities, overwhelmingly at full-degree-level. There are currently around twenty thousand Indigenous students at universities. A young-adult age-group would number about twelve thousand. About 140,000 Indigenous people have at some time, or are currently, enrolled in university courses since 1980.

There are tally not that many perks in tertiary education for Indigenous students: ABSTUDY is, as far as I can tell, about the same as AUSTUDY [the names may have been changed recently], and some assistance with travel costs. Given how many have taken up opportunities, there may not be any more need for any special financial assistance anyway.

But there certainly would be a need to somehow lift the education level of people in remote communities, if they wished to take up such opportunities, from pre-school right up to university graduation. But, if anything, it seems that university student numbers from rural and remote areas may have stagnated, or even be declining.

Maybe more university support programs for Indigenous people can lift their game, instead of relying on the low-hanging fruit of the urban population for their numbers.

Joe

Dear Big Nana and Joe,

Thank You both for your explanations.

However, I am still bothered by the fact that former Prime
Minister Turnbull rejected the recommendation that an
Indigenous voice be constitutionally recognised
in the Parliament.

He said he didn't think it would get support and would be
"contrary to principles of equality and citizenship."

This so smacked of the past where every aspect of daily life
was deemed in need of supervision.

Former Referendum Council Co-Chair Pat Anderson described
our former PMs comments as "poor" and "crude"adding:

"This is who we are and we need to have a say or some kind of
input into the decisions that affect us."

The former PM upset many Indigenous leaders including Pat
Anderson by rejecting the key recommendations in the
Uluru Statement from the Heart (which he'd asked for).

It would appear that white rhetoric today that denies
self-determination and self-government is not much different
from that of over 100 years ago. Indigenous people speak
of the fundamental questions of sovereignty and treaty that
government in Australia has avoided and refused to
address for over a century.

What you're both saying and what the government is doing in
practice appears to be different.

Dear Foxy,

Five thousand organisations have at least five thousand voices. The Indigenous MPs in almost every parliament in Australia have voices. There are national committees in health and housing and education etc., which have voices. The National Congress of Australia's First Peoples has many voices. There are Indigenous newspapers and journals and TV stations and god knows what else which all have voices.

If anything, it's amazing how little many of the most responsible voices have to say when there is so much they could be talking and writing about in their specific fields of expertise. Perhaps they don't know what to say ? They don't know enough about their own areas to say anything much ?

So what are all of those voices NOT saying which yet another body could say ?

I was puzzled by your statement that "this so smacked of the past where every aspect of daily life was deemed in need of supervision." I'm still trying to join the dots on that one :)

I know it's fun to manufacture a problem and then complain about it, but this is a bit rich.

Love notwithstanding,

Joe

Anyway, to get back to topic, the High Court has ordered the NT Government to pay the equivalent of $ 20,000 per hectare to a native title group.

Native title now applies to more than two million square kilometres across Australia. On that basis, more than forty billion dollars should now be set aside to compensate for infrastructure built on Aboriginal land, even if it was for the benefit of the Aboriginal people involved, roads, schools, sewage systems, electricity cables, etc.

Like mineral royalties, these funds will not be taxed, and will probably, after deep consultation, be given out to individuals on a roughly per capita basis, depending on how close individuals are to the power structures in communities. One is tempted to suggest that everybody should buy brewery shares immediately, but that would be quite churlish.

Joe

Hi Foxy,

What gets up my nose is the cynicism expressed by some that Aboriginal people should be grateful for all the "gifts" European colonisation has bestowed upon them. European colonisation was inevitable, so they say, but that inevitability does not negate the years of injustice where Aboriginal people were dispossessed, neglected and marginalised. That was the norm for almost 200 years, why did empire builders do that, because they could, and it advantaged them. Our band of histories revisionists want to tell us a different story, a story where it was the fault of the Aboriginal that he did not assimilate, as he should have, he was simply defiant and ungrateful for the goodness shown by the British.

Lets see if this hypothesis flies, I say those Europeans (Australians) captured by the Japanese during WWII suffered great misery and deprivation at the hands of their Japanese captors because they failed to recognise the great benefits of the Japaneses Empire, and the goodness of the Emperor. Should Japan have colonised Australia by way of Australia's defeat, of course all you lot would now be singing the praises of the Emperor. A bit like the Aboriginals should be doing.

Foxy,

No comment on the millions of Indian widows?

Or do you think that they should still be treated in the pre-British manner?

Got any thoughts on the Caste System?

Should certain people be condemned to a life as the lowest in society?
Think of the plight of the Untouchables, certainly, their lot is improving in line with the democratic principles of British justice that India inherited.

But back to the widows, it was not British practice for them to immolate themselves on their husband's funeral pyre, that was a purely Indian idea, of course, it cut down on the number of widows, so as an inherited custom it would be considered OK, especially in regard to splitting up the estate (if any).