Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Time to ‘tell it like it is’ for the sake of Aboriginal culture

G'day. Roslyn Ross made her Webdiary debut only days ago with Sometimes rules are made to be broken. Personally I'm embarassed the Webdiary community, for all our talk of racism and imperialism, has not frankly discussed the Australian Aboriginal situation for a long time. Thankyou Roslyn for a very thoughtful, non-cliched discussion of the subject. This one is the real test for all of us. Hamish Alcorn.

by Roslyn Ross

If it is true that ‘money talks’ then it has never been more than a ghostly whisper when it comes to solving the problems faced by Australia’s indigenous people.

Over the past six years those problems have steadily gotten worse. In 2002 national spending on Indigenous health was $1.8 billion. That’s up from $1.4 billion in 1999, but the health outcomes of Aboriginal people have not improved and life expectancy has continued to fall. In 2000 the life expectancy of Aboriginals was 17 years less than the rest of the population and today that figure has risen to a life expectancy that is 20 years less. Rates of infant mortality, suicide and diabetes remain two to three times higher than those of other Australians.

Needless to say, there are people out there who are thinking hard about how things might be done differently but the reality is that greater awareness on the part of the Australian public would aid in that process. In many respects, and like most colonising societies facing this problem, whether it be older ones like the United States or very new ones, like Israel, a lot of people prefer not to think about ‘indigenous’ issues. It goes into the ‘too hard’ basket, all too often packed tight with a few comfortable wads of assurance that ‘we tried’ and a tuck or two of irritation that it ‘didn’t work and it’s not our fault.’ But denial only ever makes a flimsy and temporary bandage.

Aborigines, like many indigenous peoples in the world, have become something akin to insects ‘pinned’ into a specimen box. The community at large feels ‘guilty’ about the fact that our ancestors conquered and dispossessed them and so we try to make amends by believing that the best thing we can do is ‘help’ them to hold on to their culture; to ‘pin’ them into a place that diminishes our guilt and supposedly helps to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past.

In truth, if experience is any sort of teacher, the best thing we can do is help them to join the greater community while respecting those parts of their culture which have a place in the modern world.

Land rights hasn’t worked; greater autonomy hasn’t worked; ‘respecting’ cultural differences in regard to schooling, or rather non-enforced schooling, for children has not worked; pouring money in hasn’t worked; trying to build homes and communities that ‘respect’ Aboriginal beliefs hasn’t worked; trying to maintain communities that fit with a traditional nomadic life hasn’t worked; trying to make good on the guilt hasn’t worked and while saying ‘Sorry’, is a nice gesture, I doubt that it would really make much of a difference either.

The real Sorry should be: We are desperately Sorry that we haven’t managed to solve this problem and that you are still living in such misery. But that’s a Sorry that needs to be said by everyone, Aborigines included. And that’s part of the problem, the fact that the problem has been divided into victim and victimiser when it is no longer about that and has not been for a very long time. Being a victim is addictive; it also has a tendency to render people powerless to act in their own best interests.

Aborigines are just as capable as anyone else; just as intelligent, just as sensible, just as rational. They just have to start believing it again. We all have to believe it and we all have to recognise that we are all in this together and putting the Aboriginal problem and the Aboriginal people into a separate box doesn’t help anyone.

Even the classification ‘indigenous’ is a problem. The viewpoint that establishes people as ‘indigenous’, ie, as in, ‘there before others,’ or ‘there before us’ is one that takes into account nothing but a brief pinprick in cosmic history and tries to see the issue in isolation. The whole argument is based upon a dangerous premise that ‘time’ matters when it comes to rights and ownership of a given place. It also sets apart those defined as indigenous and prevents them from becoming full participants in the greater community; they are, in essence, locked into a time-warp.

If trying to keep them ‘preserved in aspic’ has not worked, what might? Well, given that indigenous peoples, around the world, who have been treated in this way, seem to be in the same predicament, perhaps it is not so radical to suggest that what worked historically for everyone else, might still work today: some sort of assimilative process.

I realise that this strikes horror into many hearts but if one alternative is a slow death by remaining separate and no future for your children and the other is greater assimilation and a positive future for those who will follow on after you, it seems a simple enough choice to make.

The anthropologist, Peter Sutton, in his keynote address at the National Rural Health Conference in March last year, raised his concerns about what he calls the ‘politicisation of disease,’ whereby the ability to improve the Third World state of Aboriginal health is impeded by a belief that the only answer to the problem is increased political representation.

This, he says, completely ignores the part that cultural beliefs and behaviours play in Aboriginal health, or rather ill-health.

There are culturally embedded behaviours, he says, which have a direct impact on health. These include very basic things such as domestic sanitation and personal hygiene, housing density, diet, the care of children and the elderly, gender relationships, alcohol and drug use, conflict resolution, the social acceptability of violence, cultural norms to do with expression of the emotions, attitudes to learning new information and attitudes to making changes in behaviour.

“If the answer to this criticism is that indigenous self-government will deliver improvements in all these areas, there is an obvious reply: conditions in remote Aboriginal communities, especially, but also in urban ghettoes like Redfern in Sydney, have generally become worse, not better, since the transfer of local power from church and government to locally elected bodies in the 1970’s,” he said.

Calling upon Aborigines themselves to take responsibility for the part they play, because of cultural structures and beliefs, in their poor health and living circumstances, should not be interpreted as ‘blaming the victim.’

Sutton is critical of the politicisation of such views where any suggestion of personal and cultural attitudes as contributing factors is interpreted as assigning moral culpability and used to silence those voices seeking to point out the part that culturally transmitted behaviours and attitudes play in the huge differences between indigenous and non–indigenous health outcomes.

“There are positive forms of assimilation that deserve respect,” says Sutton. “If people don’t assimilate themselves to certain blanket-washing and other relevant practices then their children are more likely to get scabies, and hence more likely to suffer kidney disease.

“Another way of putting this is that unless there is a cultural adaptation to the biological features of fixed housing and repeatedly used and shared bedding, the perpetuation of cultural practices and beliefs appropriate to the old semi-nomadic camping style, but now mixed up with fabrics and buildings, will continue to do people harm.”

He goes on to say that while dispossession has had an impact and Australia’s indigenous people, as hunter-gatherers, faced a far greater challenge in terms of adapting, the evidence is that Indigenous groups least affected by dispossession are just as dysfunctional, or in some cases more dysfunctional than those who have borne the worst colonial dislocation and depredations. In addition the evidence shows that social disintegration amongst Aboriginals has accelerated as Australia has become less racist and oppressive.

In recent years, aboriginal activist Noel Pearson has taken the view that it is wrong to interpret Indigenous dysfunction and substance abuse as symptoms of dispossession and racism. He says it makes progress difficult when people believe that they must undo history in order to overcome current problems.

In his 2003 Leadership Lecture, Pearson cited these figures and said they were a result of increased substance abuse, passive welfare and the removal of Indigenous people from the real economy.

He said that nothing can be done about the problem unless contemporary causes of Indigenous violence, like substance abuse and the breakdown of social order in communities are taken into account.

He says any belief that history must be ‘set to rights’ merely traps Indigenous people in the role of victim when what they need is to take responsibility.

When the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was instigated in the 1980’s it found that Aboriginal people died at the same rate in custody as white people, but there was disproportionately many Indigenous people in custody.

One other thing that came out of the study was the observation that the death rate of Aboriginal prisoners in 1987 and 1988 was approximately half that of Aboriginal people who were on non-custodial court orders. In essence, it was clear evidence that it was healthier and safer to be in gaol.

“Aboriginal people,” said Noel Pearson, kill themselves in large numbers inside or outside custody and they kill others too. They do so because Indigenous society is falling apart and rotting at its core.”

In December, Pearson, who is director of the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership said the Aboriginal welfare system needs to be reformed to make sure the emphasis is on real work and not welfare to work.

“For too long,” he said, “ Aboriginal people have been reliant upon government handouts; content to work their two days a week and collect the dole because it’s simply more appealing than going to university or getting a job.”

The choice, he says, is about whether to pursue a ‘traditionally oriented lifestyle,’ or whether to engage in the ‘economic mainstream.’ Pearson sees effective education of Aboriginal children as a key tool in this process.

Gary Johns, a former minister in the Keating Labor government and president of the Bennelong Society said last year: “For nearly 40 years, governments - persuaded by well-meaning but misguided intellectuals - have led Aborigines down a path to poverty. It was possible, the argument went, for indigenous Australians to escape adjusting to the rules of a modern economy, a modern legal system and a modern welfare state. Those days are over. Governments must now prepare Aborigines for the world outside of their communities.”

In helping Aborigines move on we also need to understand the sorts of things that hold them back. Just as we can understand and yet not condone, so too can we acknowledge without condemning. For everyone’s sake it is time to tell it like it is no matter how embarrassing or unpleasant that ‘is’ might be.

Let’s forget about the positive aspects of Aboriginal culture, and I admire them as much as anyone and focus on the negative. There are many aspects of Aboriginal culture that are quite simply backward and have no place in a civilised and compassionate society. Take tribalism for instance; rigid sets of rules established to punish people who wish to be different. Or patriarchy, a belief in the superiority of men, and a belief that men have a right to use violence to subjugate women.

In a civilised society there is no place for ‘spearing’ someone as a form of punishment in the same way that we no longer put people on public display in stocks or ‘mark’ thieves with a branding iron. Neither is there a place in the modern world for girls as young as four to be bound in marriage to grown men.

All cultures in their own way are racist and discriminatory; it is the nature of the beast. Many Aborigines who have had the courage to change have been rejected by their community: ‘coconuts’ they are called, black on the outside and white on the inside. And Aboriginal society has been just as prone to rejecting half-castes as any other group; one of the reasons that underpinned previous Government policy of removing children for their own safety.

The ‘stolen generation’ controversy was never as ‘black and white’ as some would like to believe. Sometimes when children were removed it was simply a ‘wrong,’ but sometimes when they were removed it was to ‘right a wrong.’ This tendency to ‘whitewash’ Aboriginal behaviour in all circumstances and to ‘blacken’ the motives of non-Aboriginals has done far more harm to Aborigines than it has to anyone else.

Aboriginal society is not perfect and it never was. Being invaded and occupied and dispossessed is tough; it’s rotten and cruel but it has been experienced by most peoples in some way or another, at some time or another. In the civilised world it is no longer considered acceptable and that is a good thing, but it doesn’t mean we should blind ourselves to the positive aspects of such forced change, even as we oppose such practices today.

The truth is many of the beliefs that indigenous peoples have to give up in order to join the modern world and to function productively are beliefs that our ancestors also once held. Superstitious beliefs (and I make a distinction between healthy spiritual or religious beliefs), patriarchal beliefs, misogynistic beliefs, rigid tribalism and plain old-fashioned ignorance are the truly destructive forces at work in Aboriginal society today.

Not only do they need to become honest with themselves but they need the rest of us to be honest with them. It is only in dealing with truths and realities, no matter how painful or politically incorrect they may be, that Aborigines can have a healthy future and all Australians can live without shame.

left
right
[ category: ]
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Telling it like it is?

Hello there, I hope you don't mind I thought your article/paper could use a little bit of an indigenous perspective to it. I hope you enjoy it.

If it is true that ‘money talks’ then it has never been more than a ghostly whisper when it comes to solving the problems faced by Australia’s indigenous people.

Over the past six years those problems have steadily gotten worse. In 2002 national spending on Indigenous health was $1.8 billion. That’s up from $1.4 billion in 1999, but the health outcomes of Aboriginal people have not improved and life expectancy has continued to fall. In 2000 the life expectancy of Aboriginals was 17 years less than the rest of the population and today that figure has risen to a life expectancy that is 20 years less. Rates of infant mortality, suicide and diabetes remain two to three times higher than those of other Australians.

Needless to say, there are people out there who are thinking hard about how things might be done differently but the reality is that greater awareness on the part of the Australian public would aid in that process. In many respects, and like most colonising societies facing this problem, whether it be older ones like the United States or very new ones, like Israel, a lot of people prefer not to think about ‘indigenous’ issues. It goes into the ‘too hard’ basket, all too often packed tight with a few comfortable wads of assurance that ‘we tried’ and a tuck or two of irritation that it ‘didn’t work and it’s not our fault.’ But denial only ever makes a flimsy and temporary bandage.

Aborigines, like many indigenous peoples in the world, have become something akin to insects ‘pinned’ into a specimen box. Oh I agree I often feel like that, especially when people like you and other's who write papers like this.

The community at large feels ‘guilty’ about the fact that our ancestors conquered and dispossessed them (No you don't and here you are making yourself out to be a victim at our expense) and so we try to make amends by believing that the best thing we can do is ‘help’ them to hold on to their culture; to ‘pin’ them into a place that diminishes our guilt and supposedly helps to ‘right the wrongs’ of the past.

In truth, if experience is any sort of teacher, the best thing we can do is help them to join the greater community while respecting those parts of their culture which have a place in the modern world. (I have a computer with internet access, a visa card, a bank loan etc, do you think I have a place in the modern world?)

Land rights hasn’t worked (Ah, what land rights are you thinking of?) greater autonomy hasn’t worked: (We as a people never had 'greater autonomy' that you speak of) ‘respecting’ cultural differences in regard to schooling, or rather non-enforced schooling, for children has not worked; (There has been no 'respecting' cultural differences in schooling, in fact the curriculum is still delivered in dominant culture aspect) pouring money in hasn’t worked; (Ever thought as to how the delivery aspects went in regards to pouring money via a centralised system?) trying to build homes and communities that ‘respect’ Aboriginal beliefs hasn’t worked; (how about trying to build the homes first?) trying to maintain communities that fit with a traditional nomadic life hasn’t worked; (if it were traditional then it would be self sustaining, i.e The Wik peoples who live traditionally) trying to make good on the guilt hasn’t worked and while saying ‘Sorry’, is a nice gesture, I doubt that it would really make much of a difference either. (I don't want a sorry, I want to be treated equally and not like I am a criminal/dumb/lazy/lesser because of typical racial stereotyping.)

The real Sorry should be: We are desperately Sorry that we haven’t managed to solve this problem and that you are still living in such misery. (Well I didn't realise I am living in such misery, but thankyou for speaking on my behalf) But that’s a Sorry that needs to be said by everyone, Aborigines included (I am sorry that I am living in such misery that I didn't know of). And that’s part of the problem, the fact that the problem has been divided into victim and victimiser when it is no longer about that and has not been for a very long time. Being a victim is addictive; it also has a tendency to render people powerless to act in their own best interests. (Here, I would like to point out that I am definitely not a VICTIM, that you think that I am by broadly grouping everyone who is an 'Aborigine' into your stereotype.)

Aborigines are just as capable as anyone else; just as intelligent, just as sensible, just as rational. They just have to start believing it again (Well I'll be, I never knew that, I guess you just have all the answers). We all have to believe it (So go and hug the first blackfella you see and invite them over for dinner) and we all have to recognise that we are all in this together and putting the Aboriginal problem (I'm a PROBLEM?) and the Aboriginal people into a separate box doesn’t help anyone.

Even the classification ‘indigenous’ is a problem. The viewpoint that establishes people as ‘indigenous’, ie, as in, ‘there before others,’ or ‘there before us’ is one that takes into account nothing but a brief pinprick in cosmic history and tries to see the issue in isolation. The whole argument is based upon a dangerous premise that ‘time’ matters when it comes to rights and ownership of a given place (Please disregard the fact that reception has taken place. In this theory then, if you leave your house at 3.55pm and I colonise it at 4.00pm it will be mine?). It also sets apart those defined as indigenous (just because I define myself as Aboriginal/Indigenous, you consider that I cannot become a full active participant in the greater community? Wow then what was I doing at the big huge shopping complex today being a consumer in the Australian economy? mmm strange) and prevents them from becoming full participants in the greater community; they are, in essence, locked into a time-warp (Yeah, I just can't stop myself from shakin' a leg there).

If trying to keep them ‘preserved in aspic’ has not worked, what might? (Have you ever tried a different preservative?) Well, given that indigenous peoples, around the world, who have been treated in this way, seem to be in the same predicament, perhaps it is not so radical to suggest that what worked historically for everyone else, might still work today: some sort of assimilative process (I know, what if we remove their children off them and put them in with white families so they can break from the savage culture that they are stuck in, oh wait that was done before, where and where else oops, My bad!).

I realise that this strikes horror into many hearts but if one alternative is a slow death by remaining separate (Just like life in general is a slow death, but that depends on how you look at life in general) and no future for your children (Are you telling me that my children have no future because they are Aboriginal, here you go putting us all in the same basket) and the other is greater assimilation and a positive future for those who will follow on after you, it seems a simple enough choice to make.

The anthropologist, Peter Sutton, in his keynote address at the National Rural Health Conference in March last year, raised his concerns about what he calls the ‘politicisation of disease,’ whereby the ability to improve the Third World state of Aboriginal health is impeded by a belief that the only answer to the problem is increased political representation.

This, he says, completely ignores the part that cultural beliefs and behaviours play in Aboriginal health, or rather ill-health.

There are culturally embedded behaviours, he says, which have a direct impact on health. These include very basic things such as domestic sanitation and personal hygiene, housing density, diet, the care of children and the elderly, gender relationships, alcohol and drug use, conflict resolution, the social acceptability of violence, cultural norms to do with expression of the emotions, attitudes to learning new information and attitudes to making changes in behaviour (F.Y.I all of the above issues were not initially in our communities TRADITIONALLY).

“If the answer to this criticism is that indigenous self-government will deliver improvements in all these areas, there is an obvious reply: conditions in remote Aboriginal communities, especially, but also in urban ghettoes like Redfern in Sydney, have generally become worse, not better, since the transfer of local power from church and government to locally elected bodies in the 1970’s,” he said. (It wasn't fully self-governance as in the sense of the way Native Americans have self-government, It was a token self-government)

Calling upon Aborigines themselves to take responsibility for the part they play, because of cultural structures and beliefs, in their poor health and living circumstances, should not be interpreted as ‘blaming the victim.’ (Well I will remember to have a shower tonight and wipe my children's face)

Sutton is critical of the politicisation of such views where any suggestion of personal and cultural attitudes as contributing factors is interpreted as assigning moral culpability and used to silence those voices seeking to point out the part that culturally transmitted behaviours and attitudes play in the huge differences between indigenous and non–indigenous health outcomes.

“There are positive forms of assimilation that deserve respect,” says Sutton. “If people don’t assimilate themselves to certain blanket-washing and other relevant practices then their children are more likely to get scabies, and hence more likely to suffer kidney disease. (Here I would like to say that I and no other Aboriginal person I know has had scabies, oh and I have a nice washing machine that beeps and has lights that flash and I use it to wash clothes and sheets in it, amazing!)

“Another way of putting this is that unless there is a cultural adaptation to the biological features of fixed housing and repeatedly used and shared bedding, the perpetuation of cultural practices and beliefs appropriate to the old semi-nomadic camping style, (You mean you guys don't pull all your bedding outside once in a while to watch the stars, light a fire and have a yarn, damn, keep on forgetting about these new ways) but now mixed up with fabrics and buildings, will continue to do people harm.”

He goes on to say that while dispossession has had an impact and Australia’s indigenous people, as hunter-gatherers, faced a far greater challenge in terms of adapting, the evidence is that Indigenous groups least affected by dispossession are just as dysfunctional, or in some cases more dysfunctional than those who have borne the worst colonial dislocation and depredations. In addition the evidence shows that social disintegration amongst Aboriginals has accelerated as Australia has become less racist and oppressive (less what?? Now I know that he sure don't live anywhere near where I do).

In recent years, aboriginal activist Noel Pearson has taken the view that it is wrong to interpret Indigenous dysfunction and substance abuse as symptoms of dispossession and racism. He says it makes progress difficult when people believe that they must undo history in order to overcome current problems.

In his 2003 Leadership Lecture, Pearson cited these figures and said they were a result of increased substance abuse, passive welfare and the removal of Indigenous people from the real economy.

He said that nothing can be done about the problem unless contemporary causes of Indigenous violence, like substance abuse and the breakdown of social order in communities are taken into account.

He says any belief that history must be ‘set to rights’ merely traps Indigenous people in the role of victim when what they need is to take responsibility.

When the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was instigated in the 1980’s it found that Aboriginal people died at the same rate in custody as white people, but there was disproportionately many Indigenous people in custody.

One other thing that came out of the study was the observation that the death rate of Aboriginal prisoners in 1987 and 1988 was approximately half that of Aboriginal people who were on non-custodial court orders. In essence, it was clear evidence that it was healthier and safer to be in gaol (You are kidding me right? At the rate Hep C is spreading through the gaol and the normal dangers associated with being inside, how could you even suggest it is safer and healthier to be in gaol. I think I will take my chances out here in my miserable existence, ANYDAY!)

“Aboriginal people,” said Noel Pearson, kill themselves in large numbers inside or outside custody and they kill others too (Well that was just a one off, okay, its not like I'm prone to doing it due to my genes.). They do so because Indigenous society is falling apart and rotting at its core.”

In December, Pearson, who is director of the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership said the Aboriginal welfare system needs to be reformed to make sure the emphasis is on real work and not welfare to work.

“For too long,” he said, “ Aboriginal people have been reliant upon government handouts (Yep, I expect one every corner I go around); content to work their two days a week and collect the dole because it’s simply more appealing than going to university or getting a job.”

The choice, he says, is about whether to pursue a ‘traditionally oriented lifestyle,’ or whether to engage in the ‘economic mainstream.’ Pearson sees effective education of Aboriginal children as a key tool in this process. (Education is the key tool for anyone, not just indigenous people. CDEP won't work unless you give them training other than mowing lawns and picking up garbage and other menial tasks that the government have incorporated under CDEP or work for the dole schemes)

Gary Johns, a former minister in the Keating Labor government and president of the Bennelong Society said last year: “For nearly 40 years, governments - persuaded by well-meaning but misguided intellectuals - have led Aborigines down a path to poverty. It was possible, the argument went, for indigenous Australians to escape adjusting to the rules of a modern economy, a modern legal system and a modern welfare state. Those days are over. Governments must now prepare Aborigines for the world outside of their communities.” (oh yes, do, for its filled with bright lights and endless opportunities, combined with hugging a blackfella and inviting them over for dinner is fantastic)

In helping Aborigines move on we also need to understand the sorts of things that hold them back. Just as we can understand and yet not condone, so too can we acknowledge without condemning. For everyone’s sake it is time to tell it like it is no matter how embarrassing or unpleasant that ‘is’ might be. (oh I agree, everyone, go up to an Aborigine and tell them like it is, if there are none in your neighbourhood take a drive, I guess to Centrelink, where there will be a big mob of them waiting for the handouts, don't forget the hug and invitation for dinner.)

Let’s forget about the positive aspects of Aboriginal culture (Well do you even know what they are?), and I admire them as much as anyone (Why don't I believe that?) and focus on the negative (Is that unusual?). There are many aspects of Aboriginal culture that are quite simply backward and have no place in a civilised and compassionate society. Take tribalism for instance; rigid sets of rules established to punish people who wish to be different (Isn't that what Australian Law is? Some would say that Law is used as a means of regulating behaviours and controlling society as a whole). Or patriarchy, a belief in the superiority of men, and a belief that men have a right to use violence to subjugate women.

In a civilised society there is no place for ‘spearing’ someone as a form of punishment (people still stab other people in what they see as a means of punishing someone, it is just illegal, but it still doesn't prevent the act. What do you think of the 'civilised' countries that have the death penalty?) in the same way that we no longer put people on public display in stocks or ‘mark’ thieves with a branding iron (Well that would save me from being stereotyped as a 'thief'). Neither is there a place in the modern world for girls as young as four to be bound in marriage to grown men. (I will grant you that one. But they are not married until they are considered 'Adults'. Even so I am an advocate of the fact that a woman has a right to choose in ALL aspects her of life.)

All cultures in their own way are racist and discriminatory; it is the nature of the beast. Many Aborigines who have had the courage to change have been rejected by their community: ‘coconuts’ they are called, black on the outside and white on the inside (Oh really, is this because you know many Aborigines who told you this actually happened to them? Have you ever watched the Deadlies? It is where Aboriginal people who have made great achievements within their communities are recognised for their contribution to the Aboriginal society, maybe we should rename it the Coconuts and bag them out instead). And Aboriginal society has been just as prone to rejecting half-castes as any other group; (So if I am a half-caste then my family will be prone to rejecting me? Why are they still talking to me then? I have never seen that ever) one of the reasons that underpinned previous Government policy of removing children for their own safety (yes and the reds are under my bed)

The ‘stolen generation’ controversy was never as ‘black and white’ as some would like to believe. Sometimes when children were removed it was simply a ‘wrong,’ but sometimes when they were removed it was to ‘right a wrong.’ This tendency to ‘whitewash’ Aboriginal behaviour in all circumstances and to ‘blacken’ the motives of non-Aboriginals has done far more harm to Aborigines than it has to anyone else (OMG, you even did this to your own people because at the time it was considered wrong to have a child out of wedlock and the white mothers were on T.V. talking about their suffering and pain at having their newborn child torn out of their arms).

Aboriginal society is not perfect and it never was. Being invaded and occupied and dispossessed is tough; it’s rotten and cruel but it has been experienced by most peoples in some way or another (oh I bet you had it happen everyday, because you seem to know all about it), at some time or another. In the civilised world it is no longer considered acceptable (No, but it's ok to ignore the current invasion/occupation/dispossession/genocide, that is happening over in West Papua. Is that because, unlike Timor, there is no oil to plunder?) and that is a good thing, but it doesn’t mean we should blind ourselves to the positive aspects of such forced change, even as we oppose such practices today (oppose on the one hand, ignore on the other, I like this society).

The truth is many of the beliefs that indigenous peoples have to give up in order to join the modern world and to function productively are beliefs that our ancestors also once held (You mean the world isn't flat? You can actually have a bath? Oh wait I think I just invented the wheel, wow, build a cart, get a kangaroo to pull it around, no wait a wombat, emu??). Superstitious beliefs (and I make a distinction between healthy spiritual or religious beliefs like Christianity as opposed to Islam?), patriarchal beliefs, misogynistic beliefs, rigid tribalism and plain old-fashioned ignorance (Like all Muslims are terrorist kind of ignorance? And they are still looking for the WMD in Iraq, its in the dossier, I swear!) are the truly destructive forces at work in Aboriginal society today.

Not only do they need to become honest with themselves but they need the rest of us to be honest with them. It is only in dealing with truths and realities, no matter how painful or politically incorrect they may be, that Aborigines can have a healthy future and all Australians can live without shame. So a healthy future for me = Australians living without shame? Who's portraying who as the victim know? Just to get this straight, I don't want a damn stupid sorry, nor do I expect you to live in 'shame' and if you do that is your own stupidity because you still are not getting the point. I would like to see mind less ignorance on your behalf. Perhaps all the academics who sit around wafting about this crap actually try and get some real life experience outside of your nice middle to upper class existence, instead of writing pieces like this espousing how you know everything, just because you read what so and so wrote. I don't really think anything will be achieved by doing this, nor has it previously. Personally, I like the hug a blackfella and invite them over for dinner approach, but I laugh at the mortified expression some of you will have at the thought of this. (Boongs in the house! Will this depreciate the value of our house dear?).

All said, Yes some Indigneous people live in conditions that are terrible, but nothing will be solved with an article like this, that seems oh so damn similar to the last twenty or so I have read previously. There have been some excellent programmes that have been initiated by the community for and by the community that have seen an immense improvement, only to have it stopped due to funding being non-continuous. Why is that so? Current practices stating that funding will only be on certain grounds and subjected to future applications for extra funding is an unbelievably stupid reason to stop a programme that is successful within a community. The Governments failure to commit long term to initiatives and programmes would be another. AND the fact that almost all decisions that impact communities come from Canberra and others, who operate on a fly in, stay for a week, then fly out basis to supposedly learn about these issues, but if I were to spend a week reading about, oh medicine, would that make me a doctor, NO, so what insight would anyone get in a week? And they decide on the policies. It really makes no sense.

Dinner?

I think we could probably dispense with the hug for the moment but when would you like to come over for dinner?

I do a mean roast.

Welcome to Webdiary

Welcome to Webdiary Chanay. I'm hoping that your comment was not just a one-off venting of spleen, but that you are here to engage with others about this issue.

Your perspective is crucial if this is to be a proper discussion about indiginous issues, and you bring to it your unique experience, your obvious intelligence and your anger.

I'm not going to say you shouldn't be angry, or that you shouldn't vent your anger when you read things that you feel are ignorant, misinformed or racist, but I am, without engaging any detail, going to make one defence of Roslyn and people like her.

Most people in Australia don't even look. They have learned to stop considering Australia's violent history and the ugliness of the dispossession of its original inhabitants. They have expertly constructed blind spots to the poverty, disease and social disfunction that many Aboriginal people still suffer as a result of this dispossession. These people will, possibly, never feel the bite of your anger.

Robyn may be ignorant, stupid, misinformed and poisoned by a latent racism (I'm not saying so, by the way). But it's also possible that her heart is pure, that she engages these issues because she thinks they're important and that she gives a shit, unlike, regrettably, most Australians.

Please try to give us the insight you obviously have. Webdiary is a place to talk, and we need to talk. Can we start by sitting down, having a cup of tea, and saying, "G'day."

For Roslyn and Jane

For Roslyn and Jane, I too have been away a bit and am just reading through some items.

Firstly Roslyn, I think you miss my point and I guess that's down to my writing. I certainly did focus on the question of who to ask. My point there was there isn't anyone to ask even if we had questions as the groups are so scattered and diverse in opinions etc.

I also stated that it is up to Aboriginal leaders to take charge and help their people. The rest of us as a country should certainly support those leaders but where the hell are we going to find a political party that will genuinely do that? Also how and what? And where are we going to find any leaders, in any racial group, who can be trusted to disburse buckets of money.

For Jane, I think if you actually read what has been written you will find I have not taken a paternalistic stance on this issue. You will find also that I have raised the Aboriginal community in relation to the other issues you mention on other threads as well.

I do agree though that no one else even bothered to comment or raise their plight re that new legislation and on that I agree with you. But don't lump me in the group you refer to please.

My opinion is that many have opinions but no actual knowledge and that shows through as ignorance. Perhaps that's why no one attempted those answers?

I also asked these questions, but again no one sees any reason to respond. I can only conclude no one can see any good in their culture. I do but it really isn't very much in my opinion. Their culture may have been destroyed since settlement but what I have seen and experienced has little to offer the people today.

"What part of Aboriginal culture do you think is good?

What do we do if a majority of groups say they want to be what their ancestors were? We can't let that be so as we have changed the face of this country. You can't put them all into one area and say "Go for it"."

An example of the thinking of our MP's, the MP for Townsville has announced in the media that all the people on Palm Island should be brought back to the mainland and distributed amongst a range of locations with very few going to where he lives. The Palm Islanders are naturally very angry about that rubbish but he is still saying it today.

How would the rest of Australia respond if all those in communities said they wanted to move into towns and cities of their choice?

In conclusion I would have to say, and I think this is where Jane is coming from, is that so many supposed attempts, meetings, gatherings, promises, ignorant laws, pure racism and the rest have all been raised and tried. Because of that many Australians say they have been given plenty and they pissed it away.

Well, yes, it has been pissed away but by whom? Having stood at the Roulette table in Darwin on many occasions the biggest punters were always either Chinese or Aboriginal. And they bet big. That money of course came from either land rights payments (mining ) or other funds allocated to try and help.

If you saw the 7:30 report tonight they stated that there is a Senate Comittee that has raised a number of issues with the "Hillsong Church" about essentially ripping off funds they were given to use for Aboriginal help projects. What the ABC reported was that Hillsong are alleged to have spent high percentages of the grants from government intended for Aboriginals on "fees" and white employment. Only a small amount of that money is alleged to have reached it's target.

This is a major part of the problem. How does the rest of Australia get the money the Aboriginal people need to them and not to either black or white organisations that siphon off the bulk of such money?

You, Jane, have seen the conditions on the communities, the general store that paternally controls their cheque payments and all the rest. Charging like wounded buffaloes for Coke and other items. You should also know that the spirituality you experienced is not like that for the Aboriginals who live in "civilised" towns and cities. That is part of what I write about in my first response. They are not all in one group living the same way and feeling the same way, just like everbody else.

I ask the questions above again.

Naive and disingenuous

Roslyn, I've been away from Webdiary for a while, so have only just read the post you addressed to me.

You write: “Why is it paternalistic per se: to have such a discussion? You seem to suggest that because we are not a part of the suffering group we have no right to debate or to have an opinion on the subject.”

Debate and opinion are fine to have, but they can often be a trap. Almost all debate occurs within strict parameters set by the agendas of the powerful, and thus public opinion is heavily manipulated by those same agendas. Debating “the Aboriginal problem” is a bit like debating “why women nag”. It both establishes and validates its own premise – that Aborigines are a problem and that women nag. There is no cultural or psychological room to question or deny either premise, only to “debate” it or to have an “opinion” on it. By way of another example, the British government debated “the Irish problem” for centuries, without ever being able to see that the Irish problem was actually the British government.

What I found in my personal dealings with Aboriginal people, which includes teaching on reserves for a few years and a romantic liaison or two, is that, despite their dispossessed situation, many of them actually pity us - our spiritual emptiness, our lack of passion, our cultural deprivation, our lost ancestral links. I perceived that they see us whites primarily as unhappy, destructive children, and with good reason.

White imperial culture – of which Australia is one of the world’s purest modern examples – seriously underestimates the destructiveness of its own narcissism in relation to its self-imposed Aboriginal “problem”. For obvious reasons, imperial cultures are obsessed with “self-responsibility” and “moving forward”, and are intensely intolerant of any form of “victimhood”. Unlike many of the people here, I don’t have a problem in seeing Aboriginal people as victims, or in Aboriginal people seeing themselves as victims – or doing so for as long as it takes. Embracing one’s victimness is essential to the healing process – otherwise victims become stuck in the belief that they, not the complex exploitive traditions of the prevailing culture, are the cause of their problems.

Your essay, and many of the posts here, while interesting, overlook the way in which we whites are manipulated into taking a stand on what Aboriginal people need and want but miss the whole point behind this manipulation – that, by politicising Aboriginal people in this way, we also dehumanise them.

I don't disagree with the things you say (I particularly agree with many of your points about women). I'm trying to point out that the reason we keep “failing” to solve the Aboriginal problem is because we need so much to have one.

Indigenous Americans

I recently visited a number of Indian reservations in the USA and was struck by the different impression I received of the status of Indians vs. Australian Aborigines. I wondered why the Indians are doing so much better. Could the fact that they have the autonomy to make their own tribal laws apply on their own lands have something to do with this? And/or is culture a factor? Perhaps the Indian cultures were somewhat more "advanced" to begin with than the Aboriginal ones, thus there may have been less culture shock when confronted with European culture; but I admit to knowing little about these issues and am simply raising questions. I found it interesting that most Indian reservations strictly forbid anyone, even tourists, from bringing alcohol onto Indian lands.

The Indian situation

Mike: "The American Indians were more 'advanced' than Aboriginals which must make the 'shock' of adjustment less but one also needs to take into account that the Indians have had an extra 100 years to tackle this adjustment."

I don't know how many Indian communities you visited but there are still quite a few which, while perhaps not as dire as the worst of Aboriginal communities, are still pretty bad. Then again, there are some successful Aboriginal communities too so the”success” rate is across a spectrum.

Good point, Roslyn.

I visited the Makah, Ho, Navajo, Ute, Hualapai and Havasupai reservations. I was pleasantly surprised by the absence of obvious poverty, though I've heard from others that the Sioux reservation (which I drove across but did not stop to check out) is in poor shape. I also enjoyed a spectacular Pow-wow in Kamloops BC.

Incidentally, the Havasupai tribe lives in a kind of Garden of Eden located deep within a remote section of the Grand Canyon, requiring a 16 km hike to reach the main settlement. They have their own website, havasupaitribe.com. It is an amazing place and well worth the effort to reach it.

Re: Indigenous Americans

Native Americans do have a level of autonomy stemming from the fact that they were recognised from early on as separate "nations." There are treaties between the United States and various tribes that are still in force though they were signed centuries ago. The situation is somewhat analogous to the Maori and the Treaty of Waitangi.

A controversial exercise of this autonomy is that some tribes run casinos on their reservations in states where gambling is otherwise illegal, eg. the Foxwoods Casino in eastern Connecticut, owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation.

A lot of people don't like these casinos, but the "White Man" is not really in a position to judge anyone else's use of gambling as an income producer (think Atlantic City and Las Vegas).

Indian nations and casinos

A lot of people DO like these casinos, which is why they are such big moneymakers. A few small Indian tribes in California have become quite wealthy as a result, for example.

Taking responsibility

Roslyn, it is possible I am trying to be too rational about this. You are right that people who are emotionally damaged and/or under the influence of mind-affecting substances have difficulty thinking rationally. But it still seems to me that in the Mulan agreement, while we want people to believe that they can and must take responsibility for their own situation, what the government is actually saying is "You are incapable of caring properly for your children without material incentives". That may not be consciously realised, but I think at some level it is heard and, in signing up to the agreement, people are forced to agree with that assessment of themselves. In my view, that can only add to the psychological damage and be counter-productive in the long-run. So I doubt that government policy which follows the pattern of the Mulan agreement will succeed. In fact, it may well make things worse and, yes, it is still possible for things to be worse.

The Mulan agreement was struck at the end of 2004. Does anybody here know how that community is actually doing?

The stolen generations

Robyn asked about the Mulan agreement. IIRC the pump was finally installed/delivered just before the wet season (about Dec). The effect upon the incidence of nits and scabies, petrol sniffing etc. has probably been neutral or detrimental. It certainly hasn't been greeted with enthusiasm in the north west.

I am depressed that a six year old quadrant article is Roslyn's sole source of information on the stolen generations. It is factually inaccurate and so poorly researched, and so deliberately ignorant of the considerable historical documentary material (see Broken Circles, by Anna Haebich, also the Bringing Them Home Report (1997) and the Deaths in Custody Report) recorded elsewhere, that the usual appellation applies.

There was disquiet and opposition to the policies of selective removal of traditional Australian children from the 1920's on. In the post war years extending into the 1980's there were about 20 times as many Aboriginal children in care compared to white children. Every single elder I know has a story about children being taken against the consent of their parents from their own family. About half the elders I know were removed themselves from their families.

The abduction of children, especially girls, was common practice from the early years of the colony. The usual excuse was the absence of white women and the need for servants. The stated aim at the time was to bring them up white and away from the influence of their culture (not their families) . This statement is repeated in official and unofficial reports and letters up until the end of the WW2.

Responsibility

I’ve tried several times to sit down and respond to your article, Roslyn, and have found it difficult to identify exactly what it is that does not sit comfortably with me. Apart from some things already mentioned and a lack of detail in the examination of what money has been spent on and what has and hasn’t “worked”, I think it is mostly that it is difficult to see exactly what you are proposing.

My worry is that this is the sort of thinking that has led to the “shared responsibility agreement” where the federal government contracted with the Mulan community to provide a fuel bowser in exchange for keeping houses and kids’ faces clean.

Thank you for the link to Noel Pearson’s 2003 speech on leadership. In it he speaks of the “our right to take responsibility” and I would like to see us explore this concept further. I haven’t been able to locate his essay which takes this as its title (but the text of another very interesting address to the National Reconciliation Planning Workshop in May 2005 is here – it contains a beautiful discussion of the conflict between the “denialists” and the “morally vain”[ouch!])

I think part of what is meant by the “right to take responsibility” is that in order to truly take responsibility for our lives we need to be free to do it. Bryan has already commented on how much autonomy has actually been allowed by governments who are unable to be truly hands off despite the appropriate rhetoric. Psychological growth requires some space, and if the space required is not available, resources must first be employed in finding or struggling for it. I doubt whether a contract like the Mulan agreement allows the space for genuine moving on or growth. The contracting of responsibility for something like the hygiene of children may achieve cleaner faces for a while, but people have been implicitly told that they care more for easier access to fuel than they do for the welfare of their children and the fuel bowser stands as a reminder. I think this is likely to be de-motivating in the long run, rather than encouraging the taking of true responsibility.

Noel Pearson and Pat Dodson have discussed the flaws in this agreement much more successfully than I can here. But I would be interested to hear how others think the right to take responsibility can be promoted.

Taking responsibility

Robyn, thanks for the links to Noel Pearson's address. He is a voice of reason amidst much confusion. Again he reiterates the importance of education and I think everyone can only agree with that.

It was education which dragged the rest of us out of the stinking sewers of England and Europe.

He is right that education is the only way the languages and traditions will be saved, although history suggests they will be saved (and respected, honoured and explored) in the same way that the Celtic culture is saved. There's nothing wrong with that in my book, but I suspect it is not what he means.

Ditto in regard to homelands. I know many Aboriginal people live on lands which have been given back to them but I also remember talking to an Aboriginal guy in WA who said that he and his community only ever visited their traditional lands for a holiday. Fair enough, although one can understand why some non-Aboriginals in the area might resent it. I am not supporting that position, merely commenting on it.

And that is the reality with the kids. Once educated where do they work? Some, but only a few, will find work on the traditional lands and most will be absorbed into the greater economy. Like non-Aboriginal kids they will leave home for work and make a life somewhere else. That is the inevitability of life and why concepts of traditional homelands are ultimately doomed, unless, like some American and Canadian indigenous communities, you set up a casino and bring the people to you ... while providing jobs and making a heap of money.

The discussion on the denialists and the morally vain was a good one and spot on. He is right that Aboriginal people have to take responsibility and he is also right that they have been used by both sides.

In regard to racism I agree with Pearson that Aboriginal people have to take responsibility and I think they also need to look at what they do, or what part they play, in creating an environment where racism exists. If they are demanding that red-necks do it, as they should, then they must also do it.

Nothing happens in a vacuum. As I said in another post, very often what people don't like, or condemn in Aborigines is not their colour or Aboriginality but the way they live. They condemn it in non-Aboriginals too so it is not about race but about dysfunction: violence, alcoholism, filth.

I know when I have visited Aboriginal communities I am always struck by the filth and litter. I remind myself that these people are dysfunctional, for all sorts of reasons discussed here, but I am struck by the paradox. We are told how Aborigines value and respect the land. How they are in tune with it and how they honour it when all I can think when I see some of these places is: "Then how can you let it be such a pigsty?"

But that is applying the rational to the irrational. And it is applying my belief that, when someone honours and respects something, they care for it in a literal sense.

I think Noel Pearson is on the right track and I for one am encouraged by what appears to be, a growing realisation by Aboriginal people that they can take responsibility and that ultimately they are the ones who must save themselves. With our help, of course. But only if they want it.

Practically speaking

Robyn, if I was proposing anything it was the need to take a fresh look at the problems facing Aboriginal people and the need to find new ways of dealing with them, considering the failure of past policies. And I think we would all agree that they have failed or so many Aboriginal people would not be living in the dire circumstances that they are today.

I was not putting a case as much as presenting some thoughts in order to initiate discussion.

You said: "My worry is that this is the sort of thinking that has led to the “shared responsibility agreement” where the federal government contracted with the Mulan community to provide a fuel bowser in exchange for keeping houses and kids’ faces clean."

Yes, I can see that things like this can be flawed. I can also see that it has come about as a response to the failure of the “sit down money” as a means to create motivation in parents to improve hygiene levels for their children.

I can see positives in the principle but am not sure about a petrol bowser as the carrot, particularly given the role that petrol-sniffing plays in destroying communities. A tasteless irony in that.

You said: "I think part of what is meant by the ‘right to take responsibility’ is that in order to truly take responsibility for our lives we need to be free to do it."

Yes, and that must also take into account the capacity of people to do it. People who live with the physical and emotional dysfunction of alcoholism, for instance, do have less capacity.

But, at some point, we have to take responsibility if we are to survive, and perhaps the first thing to do is to encourage people to believe that they can do it.

Then again, as anyone knows who has been ill, drunk, or drugged, it is hard to think, let alone think with any sort of rationality.

Perhaps that is why a payment scheme, materialistic as it sounds, for keeping children, houses and community clean and for ensuring children go to school is the way to start. It may not be noble but money talks, and all that matters is that some way is found out of this dysfunction. If people can be motivated by money to improve their lives, then why not?

If the message is that people care more for money, or fuel, than their children, and the result is that the children receive better care ... who cares? At the end of the day all that matters is that the children receive better care.

You are trying to rationalise a situation that is dysfunctional and trying to apply reason to people who are seriously damaged emotionally and physically. Practicality may be what we need instead of nobility.

The crucial thing is to break the cycle. Once that is done other things become possible; all things become possible. You talk about de-motivating people but these people who are in the worst of it are not motivated anyway so they can't be de-motivated. It's as bad as it can get.

canine coincidence

Bob Howard, thanks for clearing that one up mate. However, if you read exactly what you wrote then I’m sue you may forgive me for asking the question.

Thanks also for concluding your post with some positive stuff in relation to the present. Most of that positive stuff goes unreported or under reported as I suspect most Australians are not interested. Usually in the tabloid media all we hear are the usual negative clichés. SBS and the ABC air programmes about positive things but that sort of stuff in general doesn’t rate well. As such our national commercial current affairs programmes avoid Aboriginal stories like the plague. Most Australians would rather watch Big Brother.

It would interest me if we were to conduct two polls among our non-indigenous community. The first poll would ask the question: are you concerned about the welfare of Aboriginal people? The second question (to a control group) would ask: when did you last seriously consider the welfare of Aboriginal people?

I would argue that the greater majority of respondents would answer the first question in the affirmative. However, I would also argue that the greater majority of respondents would struggle to honesty answer the second question.

I googled the following: “Australian attitudes aborigines polls surveys” and all I could come up with was a link to National Youth Survey 2005. Maybe we are too scared to find out whether we really do care. The National Youth Survey (11,000 kids from 11 to 24 years of age) did come up with these figures: When asked what protest movement they were most likely to join 25.8% said “Aboriginal land rights movement”; 5.6% of the respondents identified as indigenous. Also 71% believed the Government should enter into a treaty with Indigenous Australians. When asked what activist events they have or would get involved in nobody said anything Aboriginal, not even on the radar.

I suppose the good thing is that if a treaty bill was introduced in parliament then it would have the support of our youth. Go democracy! I wonder how the adult world really feels and do we really want to know?

The stars above, the cultures below: I remember reading in Poor Fellow My Country about Koonapippi or Mother Earth, though the name varies from tribe to tribe up in the north west of Australia. Koonapippi is referred to as the “very old woman” and she brought in her dilly-bag the spirits and souls that would inhabit the land, except one, Wanjin the Dingo that she brought with her as a companion and scout. The Old Women is represented in the night sky by the constellation Pleiades or the Seven Sisters as we call it and her dilly-bag is represented by the triangular Taurus. Strangely Wanjin the Dingo, the only animal that she brought with her in the flesh, and the only animal known not to be strictly indigenous (I think) is represented by Sirius or as we call it the Dog Star. Up in Asia the Chinese refer to Sirius as the Heavenly Wolf Star while in Africa Sirius also has canine connections. In ancient Egypt Sirius is represented by the deity Sopdet, sometimes portrayed as a large dog. During the Roman Period Sirius is sometimes shown as riding side-saddle on a dog. Rather a cute canine connection of cultures, don’t you think? Make what you want out of the above but somehow I feel it is rather lovely that our Traditional Australians along with the Chinese, the Greeks and the Egyptians had something in common even if only in the stars above.

Anyway, it's late now, and my candle burns low, so I'll be off to bed, but not before I step out and check out the stars for a wee while. Night night all and may our tomorrows bring better things.

Apologies

Bob, Apologies for putting the wrong name on my reply to you. That is the trouble with reading through a heap of posts. But no excuse really.

Continuing with the cobblers

Phil Moffat, the comment regarding Asian and African cultures was made by Roslyn, not me (see her response). She was commenting on the universality of patriarchy. I was questioning whether it was fair of her to lump traditional Australian culture with African and Asian cultures. It's indeed difficult to argue with someone who uses phrases like civilised or uncivilised to describe a particular culture and then claims that all cultures are uncivilised because all cultures are patriarchal.

As to positive suggestions - read on.

Roslyn wrote: "You can just as easily say that while children were taken from their mothers’ arms, and feel the injustice of that, other children were saved from neglect and abuse because they were taken away, and feel the justice of that."

You really don't get it, do you?

I wrote: "...and she knew as a seven year old that she either hid or got into her clean dress if she had the time."

And Roslyn commented: "Doesn't this suggest to you that one of the motives of the Government was to ensure that Aboriginal children were properly cared for? That they were washed and fed and healthy?"

Nope - you haven't got a clue, have you? Try reading Anna Haebich's "Broken Circles" about the 150 years of stolen children in Australia before you write any more claptrap about why children were stolen. Stolen may be emotive but it is also far more accurate regarding both the motivation and the methods used than your euphemisms about 'taken' and 'for their own good'.

Roslyn wrote: "Also, how many of the children of whom you speak were half-caste?"

What has that got to do with it? This just confirms, if confirmation is needed, that you bring to this conversation nothing more than the latest political clichés and the usual baggage of racist assumptions.

I wrote: "In 1981, I was a witness to the deliberate poisoning with strychnine of nine Pintubi in Alice Springs."

You wrote: "I presume you reported this to the police. This is murder."

Actually the Alice Springs coroner, Denis Porrit, referred to this case at the time as the one that should have got all the publicity (you can work out for yourself what the other case was). But you get that when you live in a country so full of racists that they don't want to know what's happened in their own country. I just had to go and tell the relatives of the victims who had died and who survived. Pesky things, these victims.

You wrote: "I think Aboriginal parents should be legally bound to ensure their children attend school just like everyone else." Since they are (legally bound like everyone else) - can you please explain why you are sounding more and more like Pauline Hanson?

You wrote: "I think any Aboriginal child considered to be at risk should be removed in the same way that non-Aboriginal children are." The last phrase is just more weasel words to hide your arrogant racist attitude and wilful ignorance of the true situation confronting most traditional Australians in their day to day lives.

Your arrogant assumption that all the problems they suffer is because of some 'victim disease' ranks alongside Barbara Bush's comments about the "things working out very well for them" referring to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Oh, but of course - you agree with her since you don't believe that there are any victims anywhere. Certainly not any that need your help.

You write: "Not only do they need to become honest with themselves but they need the rest of us to be honest with them." Luke 6:42

As to what can make a difference. What is making a difference is the fact that many local communities are recognising their traditional heritage and beginning to honour and respect the people that they previously spat on. This causes some problems for many elders unused to the positive attention and the competing invitations to open things and 'welcome people to country' etc. The irony is manifest.

But the flag (the real one!) is now being flown every day at the City Council and the schools. The languages are being revived and nurtured rather than being a reason for arresting people. A local entrepreneur has established a small scholarship scheme for Noongar students. Opportunities are opening up in mining sites with apprenticeships being more available than ever before. CALM and National Parks around Australia now have significant training programs for traditional people. The return of National Parks to traditional ownership (however symbolic) is a very important step in many communities because it provides a way of focusing on the land that is central to our traditional identity.

Much of this happened in the wake of the 'reconciliation marches' of the late 1990's which in turn were motivated by the report on 'Stolen Generations' and all those 'victims' coming to light. I know you don't think anything positive can come from recognising that a crime has been committed and that a victim might need compensation or assistance or simply justice no matter how late in the day it might be. But in this case, it was the hearts of the perpetrators that were opened and that has led to the thousand small miracles that have happened since then.

Much needs to be done. There are bush foods in most communities in Australia, both animal and vegetable (marrin kuka) that are critically in danger of being lost. The last time a qualified botanist worked with Noongar women on plants in the south west was in 1975! A couple of years ago people were coming to me talking about the money they've got to do a desktop study of Noongar plants of economic value. It seems sometimes that it's just too hard to actually talk to a real Noongar woman about this stuff. Never mind, we'll probably never really know which of the orchids has the really good edible bulbs, which of the creepers are medicine etc etc.

Most Noongar people are rightly suspicious of doing anything with this knowledge because they know that CALM has the power to sell their traditional knowledge to the highest bidder. As happened with that smokebush in 1998.

State and Federal Governments could easily legislate to protect traditional knowledge and prevent it from being an easy target for patent lawyers.

There is still some goodwill and the WA State Government has made positive noises in this area but what will come of it, who knows.

There is a lot more that can and should be done but I'm not getting paid or invited to comment here. I find it deeply disturbing that Hamish Alcorn apologises for a silence about Aboriginal issues in these pages. If this article and the subsequent comments is the best that Webdiary can come up with then I feel sad for my country these days.

Hamish: firstly, please submit an article with another point of view - you clearly have much to contribute. Webdiary's contributions are almost all provided by Webdiarists for free.

But most importantly, however well-founded your criticisms of Robyn's views, do you doubt that she attempts to grapple with extremely difficult issues as a concerned human being in good faith, where most would prefer to ignore them? Your strategy of undermining her as a person does nothing for the credibility of either your character or your argument.

For me the apparent inability of Webdiarists to argue as fellow-humans and fellow-citizens is far more than a failure of a media ideal, which my sister Margo deeply believed in. It is graphic evidence that we do not deserve democracy, and that Australia is indeed going in the direction it deserves. Can we please attempt to do better? Please.

Still divided by a common language

Bob Howard, I think we both need to be clear about the meaning of civilised. My use of it conforms to the dictionary definition of “having a high level of development both technologically (and more importantly) socially”. The most important aspects of being civilised are in terms of the level of human and individual rights practised by that society. I admit, and think I said as much, that this can probably only come about when one has reached a certain level of technological development.

My point in using the word was to say that the modern world has reached the point of greatest development in terms of offering the greatest quality of life, greatest equality of life, greatest opportunity for human rights and individual expression compared to less developed societies today and anything in the past.

This suggests that, given all human beings wish to live with material comfort and with respect and freedom, that the modern world, the developed world, is as good as we have gotten so far and this is where everyone else wants to be and has a right to be.

No, let's not digress into all the things wrong with the West, because there are many, but even with that, it is still as good as it gets in terms of a way of life.

I was not seeking to dismiss, insult or deride less developed cultures but merely to say that they cannot stay where they are, they cannot go backward and therefore they must move forward toward those circumstances and rights which we term civilised.

Perhaps enlightened is a better word. In an enlightened world (and we have not reached it yet even in the West) there is absolute gender equality; there is respect for the rights of others; there is compassion and tolerance for those who are different and the community is able to work together for the good of all ... not just one's own family or tribe as is the case with many other cultures including the Aboriginal.

You misquote and you misrepresent. I did not say all cultures were uncivilised. I said that none are “truly civilised” because none have complete gender equality. There's a difference which you would have seen if you had been able to get beyond your visceral response and conviction that anyone who posits a different view to yours is racist.

You said: "You really don't get it, do you?"

I could say the same of you. You don't get the fact that it is easy to categorise and demonise and create victim/victimiser, but life is never that simple. There are historical records aplenty which attest to the dire need in which some children were found and that they were taken into care to save their lives.

You said: "Nope - you haven't got a clue, have you? Try reading Anna Haebich's Broken Circles about the 150 years of stolen children in Australia before you write any more claptrap about why children were stolen.”

That is one book written by one person with one perspective, no doubt highly subjective. Try reading the official government reports of the time which cite the state in which some children were found, particularly those who were half-caste.

I am perfectly prepared to accept Broken Circles as part of the story. Why must it be all of the story for you? Ah, because without it you would not be able to divide it into goodies and baddies.

Humans are much more complex than that. Good Aboriginal mothers lost their children and incompetent or uncaring Aboriginal mothers lost their children too.

You said: "What has that got to do with it?"

What has the children being half-caste got to do with it? Well, again, and it is part of official Government historical record, there were large numbers of half-caste children in Aboriginal communities and while some were cared for, many were not. Aborigines being just as racist as we seem to be.

These children were neglected more because they were half-caste. The question for the Government was, if they are half Aboriginal and half “European”, why not bring them up in the European half and give them a greater opportunity in life?

Fair question, I would have thought. The fact that some kids who were loved by their parents and cared for also got swept up does not deny the fact that children who would probably otherwise have died were saved.

It's not racist assumption; it is historical fact.

You said: "Since they are (legally bound like everyone else)..."

No, exceptions were made in the past for Aboriginals in the way they were not for non-Aboriginal Australians. Again, a matter of record.

You said: "can you please explain why you are sounding more and more like Pauline Hanson?"

Can you please explain what you mean? Or was that an insult? People who resort to insults and name-calling do so because they have no argument.

Given that you seem set upon wilfully misinterpreting there hardly seems any point in re-iterating what I mean by victim. You of course continue to completely ignore the fact that I was talking about victimhood reaching disease levels and not about people being victims in a particular circumstance.

But, never let the facts get in a good if dishonest argument.

I am glad that the community with which you are involved has achieved so much. One could only wish it were universal. But it isn't, which was the point of my original article.

There's no point you sitting there chanting racist just because you know of an instance where Aboriginal people are moving ahead and refuse to recognise that it is an exception, not a rule.

In regard to bush foods, much has been done and not just by Aboriginal people. Non-Aboriginals have been active in recording and saving these foods for at least the last twenty years. All to the good.

These foods are a part of Australia and need to be respected as such. Aboriginal knowledge is invaluable but there is no need for Aboriginal people to be pinned into this “insect box” either. It's another version of making boomerangs and artefacts for tourists.

You said: "State and Federal Governments could easily legislate to protect traditional knowledge and prevent it from being an easy target for patent lawyers."

I'm not sure how. The important thing is that it is recorded. These days no one gets a patent on anything. The truly important thing is seed gathering and saving, and great work is being done with bush foods in this respect and also traditional vegetables and fruits.

Webdiary and racism

I must say Hamish that it's bit rich suggesting that I'm undermining by calling Roslyn's comments 'racist' when she doesn't believe anything I say and belittles every comment I make. Please reread what I have read and her replies.

Roslyn please explain this latest piece of unjustifiable racism: "These children were neglected more because they were half-caste."

Please explain how you are entitled to prejudge a book and it's author without having read it (that's prejudice by the way). "That is one book written by one person with one perspective, no doubt highly subjective."

If you are going to continually assert that everything you say is an historic fact and everything I say is speculative then you could at least do me the courtesy of quoting your sources.

Oh, and BTW the Hamish, if Webdiary is so ashamed about  having neglected to comment upon "the Australian Aboriginal situation" how come you didn't ask one of the numerous academic or journalist Aboriginal people who could provide you with better copy than this cliched, prejudiced and ignorant rubbish?

Hamish: why don't you Bob? I'm one person, and it sounds like you have much better contacts on this front than me. We're in this together - you, me, Roslyn and everyone else who wants to be - or it is senseless. Take a deep breath and help us all - including your own position - out.

Subjectivity

Bob Howard: "Roslyn, please explain this latest piece of unjustifiable racism: 'These children were neglected more because they were half-caste.'"

Would you like to explain why it is racism after reading the Quadrant article from the link I posted in an earlier reply? If you had read it, which it seems you have not, you will see that anthropological reports from as early as the late 1800's comment on the maltreatment of half-caste children in many communities. Not in all, but it was common. These are records kept by people who were there at the time. How does a statement of fact rate as racism?

You said: "Please explain how you are entitled to prejudge a book and its author without having read it (that's prejudice by the way). "

I did a search on the book you quoted and read some excerpts. I am not in a position to get hold of the book at this time but could make an assessment from the research I did. I never said the book was not valid, merely that it was one perspective and one perspective only, and, given the nature of the book, and from the overview I gained, one that would appear to be subjective.

All books are subjective, of course, to some degree. But I would say that a final judgement on subjectivity should only be made after completely reading the book.

You said: "If you are going to continually assert that everything you say is an historic fact and everything I say is speculative then you could at least do me the courtesy of quoting your sources."

Fair enough. I have posted a link to one. Have you read it?

Please help

Bob Howard, I read your post with interest and thank you for your comments. I do have a couple of questions that you maybe be able to help me with.

You wrote: “Traditional Australian culture is nothing like Asian or African cultures and has a completely different attitude to women and relationships in general.”

Would you care to elaborate with supporting evidence and what particular African and Asian cultures were you referring to?

Finally, do you have anything to offer in relation to our traditional Australians and their future; or do you have any positive ideas to put forward?

Dialogue?

Jay S, interesting but I was wondering, do you know how the Aboriginal people feel about your solution and the manner, in which you suggest, that it should be implemented?

Feedback

These ideas started coming together only in the last few days, Phil. Would you know some aboriginal people you could run it by? Certainly, if there are any aborigines who read these pages, I'd value their comments. In fact, it is not specifically targeted at aboriginal communities, and anyone who has grown up in a community in chronic crisis (as described here) may have valuable comments. Nor would I expect any initial proposal to take off until stakeholders take hold of it and mould it to their needs, at which time, it may be totally unrecognisable from what is here. I suspect that the groups who will make the real decisions on such public policies are groups such as the doctor’s, nurse’s, police and teacher’s unions.

Follow the link

Jay S, maybe get in touch with the “Unsung Hero” I mentioned earlier. Follow the link I provided earlier and have a read. If you really are interested in connecting then Jack Beetson can help in all sorts of ways. Cheers mate.

Solution: Communities in chronic crisis

Problem Statement: There are communities where clusters of social indicators such as crime, education, health, employment and alcoholism indicate a complex malaise. Existing solutions, either imposed on these communities with good intent, or by providing funding for them to manage themselves has not proved very effective.

Solution: Make a sustained effort to develop world-class leadership skills within these communities.

The federal government shall provide capital funding for centres of excellence in selected universities for teaching the disciplines of (i) nursing and health; (ii) teaching and learning management; (iii) social work and (iv) public safety, for working in communities in chronic crisis. While the centres are expected to be research intensive, their priority is their undergraduate students.

The federal government will fund undergraduate places at these centres for students from these communities. The standard of education will be funded to be the best in the country: the same as provided for dentistry, medicine and veterinary science places and include the loading for medical students. Both mature-age and school-leavers will be recruited from these communities, based principally on their (i) commitment to the discipline, (ii) commitment to their community, and (iii) their maturity, including their maturity in dealing with alcohol and other drugs. School grades do not have a strong correlation to university grades.

Teaching will be intensive, with strong mentoring and a significant amount of practical experience, some in their own community, but also in other Australian and international communities. It will include a formal year of internship.

Graduates will be guaranteed a job in their own communities with starting salaries similar to that paid to dentists and engineers working in mines. They must physically live in their communities.

Training will continue for four or five years in a manner similar to that for medical registrars – they put in a full day’s high-quality work (often more), but also keep learning as well as coaching junior staff. Their pay is comparable to that of registrars.  Once they finish their training, their pay, if they continue to live and work in their community will be similar to that of a specialist.

Their pay reflects the value society places on them rather than how much we need to pay to get them. It also helps give them the status they need to get the work done. The people we really want are those who are willing to work for a pittance. On the other hand, it may not be as much as they will be offered to take a cushy job in Canberra as a consultant.

In a decade we will have committed and highly skilled leaders from and for these communities.

Cons:

Paying these graduates salaries higher than their counterparts will cause problems. Part of it is that we tend to treat a job as an 8 hour activity.

There is bound to be some corruption and politics. There are also bound to be problems with conflicts of interest, particularly in policemen from and living in the community they police.

Strengthening aboriginal communities may not be a good idea. They will get better at figuring out how to make us give their land back.

This strategy doesn’t solve unemployment. For any transformation to work, we need a parallel strategy that will provide reasonably enjoyable jobs to anybody who is willing to work. With luck, these graduates will invest their excess salaries in local businesses.

Some may even argue that if there were reasonably enjoyable jobs, then the strategy outlined here would not be necessary.

These professions have a high rate of burn-out. It is likely that too many of the graduates may decide that it is all too hard and flee to the suburbs.

Voices from the Past

In terms of the real story of “stolen” children the following article – Genocide and the Silence of the Anthropologists which was printed in Quadrant in 2000 is interesting if only because it discusses the lack of anthropological evidence for anything approximating “genocide”, and it questions the often commonly held belief that children were taken into care for purely racist reasons.

It also suggests, which is the position I take, that while there were wrongs there were also rights and that the people at the time were in the main, trying to do what was for the best.

The article, by Kenneth Davidson, quotes “voices from the past”: the anthropologists who were studying and recording Aboriginal life from the start of last century.

Whether you agree with the position he takes or not does not matter because the most interesting things are the comments made by people who were observing at the time ... not forming an opinion half a century or more later.

It's worth reading.

The victim disease

Geoff: What you are talking about is the “victim disease”. It is highly contagious and cannot be treated by anyone other than the sufferer. What makes this hard is that the “victim” is often infected by others and so looks to them for the cure.

I am sure that to be invaded and conquered by a more powerful, alien and in many ways, more sophisticated culture creates a high level of shock and it is in this state of shock that we more readily absorb messages, including those of victimhood, at an unconscious level.

Most human beings, and this is general, not specific to any culture, race, society or nation, avoid taking complete responsibility for themselves. It is easier to have someone to blame because then you can never fail, nor find yourself in a situation where you make a “wrong” decision and must be held accountable for it.

Individual responsibility is a modern concept and one developed furthest in the West. We all started out in the same place in tribalistic societies where a few people made decisions, held the power and took responsibility. It is in Europe and what we have come to call the West that the individual was brought into purer being and individual responsibility took greater form.

In tribal societies you have responsibility but only for some things, not for everything. In modern societies where the individual is accorded far greater rights and powers you are, in essence, whether you recognise it or not, responsible for who you are and what you do.

This is clearly terrifying and no doubt one of the reasons why some developed societies, the US in particular, has moved so far into the blame game and the culture of litigation where people can claim that what happened was not their fault, but someone else's.

But, to return to cultures like that of the Aboriginals, this concept is not only alien, it is incompatible with all that the culture believed itself to be, believed it could be and which various vested interests, do-gooders, advisors etc. believed they should be.

Taking responsibility means accepting that you play a part in what happens to you. Beyond the terror of that realisation lies the freedom of autonomy and the realisation that if you have responsibility you also have the power to change yourself.

It is the belief in the individual and the acceptance of responsibility inherent in that which has taken the developed world to where it is today. One would add, it was a process which took hundreds if not thousands of years and so it remains a big ask to expect less developed societies to do it in a matter of decades. But ask we must.

I have also said that it is not possible (nor right) to attempt to save cultures because it is in the dying that new things are born.

And what we all want is to belong. We want to feel a part of our greater society, most of us anyway; that is what nationalism is about. As long as we are pinned into a box of expectation as so many indigenous people are (and as women have been, I would add) then we will never feel that sense of belonging; never feel comfortable in the skin of our society.

Load of old cobblers

I don't know where to start because there is so much wrong with the original article and the various comments that it saddens me that commentary on traditional Australian culture has been reduced to such clichéd nonsense.

Let's start by talking about “traditional Australian” and substituting that for “Aboriginal”. Because it's not some alien race that was just here by accident before “Australia” was discovered etc.

Unfortunately, your ignorance about traditional Australian culture and willingness to generalise leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you share the racist attitudes of your upbringing and have never questioned them. You certainly have made no attempt to understand the culture that you are a part of.

Your talk about “victim disease” is nothing more than blaming the victim - I'm sure you don't go around blaming rape victims. It's not a question of things that happened 200 years or 50 years ago either. It's often what happened last week. In Albany where I live, the Noongar population is about 1000 and it sometimes seems as if there is a funeral every Friday (especially in Spring).

Mind you, Albany has one of the most middle class Noongar populations in Australia - they all have nice houses. Nevertheless, most men here die at 50, and drugs and car accidents kill young people with monotonous regularity. Not to mention the kidney disease, rheumatic fever and diabetes that are present.

So I suppose we should just get on with it after the funeral as if nothing important has happened. I guess that's what most people actually do. I attended a funeral for a wadjela friend and the dignity and strength of community of the Noongar funerals that I'd been attending for the last six months was bought home to me. My wadjela friends, God bless them, did not know how to mourn – they hadn't had enough practice.

Somewhere you accuse traditional Australian society of being patriarchal and like the cultures of Asia and Africa who are, in your view, so obviously uncivilised. Both these opinions are factually incorrect. Traditional Australian culture is nothing like Asian or African cultures and has a completely different attitude to women and relationships in general. This is nothing but lazy racist stereotyping.

Assuredly there is plenty of family violence and sexual assault in our culture but it is NOT traditional. Certainly not in the way that it is expressed today. Most traditional communities have been subjected to massive disruption of their families over the last 100 years. Children were stolen (not taken or voluntarily given up). but stolen out of people's arms.

One reason people remember missionaries is because it was the missionaries (in WA) who often protected and hid children. I've just published a book called the Dusty Road. An autobiography of a Noongar women who grew up in the 1940's in the south west. The dusty road signified that the government man was coming “to sort our colour out” - and she knew as a seven year old that she either hid or got into her clean dress if she had the time. This was going on until the 1970's. Her mother's sisters had been taken away

"They just came in and took them away and grandmother ran into the sea crying and calling for the ship to stop. She stood there and watched the ship disappear with her daughters on board."

In 1981, I was a witness to the deliberate poisoning with strychnine of nine Pintubi in Alice Springs. Hatred of traditional Australia still runs deep in this country and is an everyday experience for people living further than 25 kms from the Post Office of our capital cities. I've learnt from most of my Australian friends to laugh rather than get angry.

Hardly the response of victims.

I'd like to know what positive idea you are putting forward. I haven't been able to identify one yet - just another load of old cobblers.

Police action taken?

Bob: I assume you reported the strychnine poisoning to the police. On the face of it, it was either attempted (mass) murder, or murder pure and simple. What came of it?

Divided by a common language

Jay S, I think we have an instance here, and life is littered with them, where we are divided by a common language. We all assume when we share a mother tongue that we are communicating what we really mean and that others are hearing what we are saying.

You clearly feel deeply about this issue and while we are all of us subjective, passion often makes us even more so. I respect your views but feel that you have misunderstood what was being said.

It's easy enough to do and not necessarily a reflection on you because it may just as easily have been how I expressed myself, or failed to express myself.

Of course many of the views expressed here are general; that is the nature of this forum. Anything more specific can be found in book form or academic treatise.

And even if you were or are a 'traditional Australian' (Aboriginal) your views would only be specific to your experience and by necessity, otherwise general.

Sometimes too it is the outsider who can see more clearly than those who are living within a society or situation.

It is unfair to classify a difference of opinion as racist. I was most definitely not brought up racist. With a grandfather nicknamed 'nigger' because of his dark-skinned Greek heritage, or so the family story goes, and able to laugh about it ... there was only tolerance taught in my family.

Racism is a word that is flung around with little understanding.

This is racist: Aborigines (or Indians, or Eskimos, or Maoris, pick any of them) are violently dysfunctional.

This is not racist: Aborigines, like most indigenous groups, frequently experience high levels of violence in their society which is a sign of greater dysfunction.

There is a difference. Please post any 'racist' statement that you have found to date.

None of us can completely understand another culture, we can only gain greater understanding of it by exposure to it, reading about it and talking about it with others.

When I used the term victim disease I used it in the sense of victimhood becoming a disease; of one's experience either as individual, race, religion or culture as victim becoming entrenched to the point of dysfunction ... or disease.

And yes, I would apply it to rape victims. I would apply it to those who experience domestic violence. I would apply it to those subjected to religious persecution. It applies to anyone, or any group, where the experience of being a victim is not left behind; where beliefs associated with the experience of being a victim remain so strong that they create or exacerbate dysfunctional behaviour.

Psychological wellbeing demands that at some point we must move on; we must be able to process and assimilate our experiences to the point where we remember them as a part of who we are but they do not become ALL that we are. That is the victim disease, when what we have experienced is all that we are, or at least, most of what we are instead of merely experience.

It applies to everyone who suffers trauma, no matter how it manifests, from car accident to colonisation.

You said: "Somewhere you accuse traditional Australian society of being patriarchal."

It is not an accusation it is a statement of anthropological fact.

You said: "...and like the cultures of Asia and Africa..."

These were cited only because I had lived there. The French are more patriarchal than Australia but I have not lived there. Russia, where I have spent time is very patriarchal still. Most of the world is. It is not specific to Asia or Africa. The comparison was made between developing or less developed cultures.

You said: "...who are, in your view, so obviously uncivilised."

No, but less civilised because a truly civilised society must be based on gender equality. To that degree no such society exists today which is truly civilised.

You said: "Assuredly there is plenty of family violence and sexual assault in our culture but it is NOT traditional. Certainly not in the way that it is expressed today."

I don't think anyone ever suggested it was.

You said: "Most traditional communities have been subjected to massive disruption of their families over the last 100 years.

No-one has denied that.

You said: "Children were stolen (not taken or voluntarily given up). but stolen out of people's arms."

Stolen is an emotive word. I don't have a problem with its use but taken means the same thing.

No-one denies wrongs took place as a result of the government policy of the time but, even with the wrongs, there were 'rights.'

You can just as easily say that while children were taken from their mothers’ arms, and feel the injustice of that, other children were saved from neglect and abuse because they were taken away, and feel the justice of that.

No system is perfect. I don't condone the system but I do understand the reasons why it came about. It must be understood in the context of the times and it also needs to be understood for itself, not for some fantasy which people want it to be.

Some children were taken away because they could be; some children were taken away to save their lives. The policy was not perfect, the 'whites' were not perfect but neither were the 'blacks.'

You said: "...and she knew as a seven year old that she either hid or got into her clean dress if she had the time."

Doesn't this suggest to you that one of the motives of the Government was to ensure that Aboriginal children were properly cared for? That they were washed and fed and healthy?

Even today one of the reasons why there is so much illness in communities is because of a lack of hygiene.

Also, how many of the children of whom you speak were half-caste? It is also a recorded fact that half-caste children were often neglected and that is why they were taken into care.

You say 'this' was going on until the 70's. Well, the Government was putting non-Aboriginal children considered at risk into care at the same time. I think if you are going to make a case you have to take into account all of the issues and not just define it as racism.

You said: "In 1981, I was a witness to the deliberate poisoning with strychnine of nine Pintubi in Alice Springs."

I presume you reported this to the police. This is murder. The motivation, even if it were hatred of Aboriginals would need to be established in a court of law. Otherwise what you say is mere conjecture.

You said: "Hatred of traditional Australia still runs deep in this country and is an everyday experience for people living further than 25 kms from the Post Office of our capital cities."

Possiby. But I have also lived further than 25kms from the GPO a number of times and my experience was that people did not hate Aboriginals per se:, in fact I and my friends worked and socialised with them, as do my relatives and friends still, but that people hated the way that some of them lived. They hated the violence, the filth, the noise, the aggression.

Funnily enough they hated it in everyone. They had the same sort of response to non-Aboriginal people who lived or acted in this way.

You said: "I'd like to know what positive idea you are putting forward. I haven't been able to identify one yet."

Perhaps you did not read carefully enough although my motive was not to supply answers but to initiate discussion.

I agree with Noel Pearson. I think education is absolutely crucial even if it means kids have to be sent to boarding schools. This is already happening and proving very successful.

I think Aboriginal parents should be legally bound to ensure their children attend school just like everyone else. I don't think there should be any exceptions. I think any Aboriginal child considered to be at risk should be removed in the same way that non-Aboriginal children are. Perhaps this would give their parents greater motivation to change their lives.

In many ways I think the future lies with the children although I don't believe in giving up on the adults.

I believe Aboriginal people need to recognise, and many are, that they are ultimately responsible for who they are and how they live. That they have the power and the ability to change their lives. Yes, I know it is hard to do but it must be done all the same.

Talking and learning

Jane: "What would you recommend, that non-Aboriginals dismiss, disregard and deny the problems that Australians of Aboriginal descent face?"

Why is it paternalistic per se: to have such a discussion? You seem to suggest that because we are not a part of the suffering group we have no right to debate or to have an opinion on the subject.

We discuss the problems that women face in terms of domestic violence without any requirement that we suffer it ourselves; we discuss the problems that the mentally ill and disabled face in community and work, without the requirement that we be mentally ill or disabled, so why must one be an Aboriginal to discuss this problem?

A problem, I would add, which is not seen as an Aboriginal problem in the main but as an Australian problem. Aboriginals may do the suffering, but it is Australian society which ultimately loses and Australia's reputation in the international community which suffers.

I would suggest that in talking we are also learning; that in sharing we are informing and becoming informed.

You are naive or disingenuous to suggest that Aborigines can solve their problems in some sort of vacuum when they are dependent upon Government funds and social support for any programme they may wish to implement.

In terms of 'joining the dots' as you suggest, it is difficult to see why the general erosion of civil liberties for Australians should be particularised for Aboriginal people. The principles which have been betrayed apply to all Australians, regardless of race, sex or creed. Aboriginal people may fear what they mean to them but that is only because they have a heightened sense of powerlessness. We all need to know what these changes mean.

I am not sure I agree with you that 'every' gain made by Aboriginal people over the last 200 years has been made by Aboriginals themselves but whether you are right or wrong doesn't matter because it is irrelevant who made the gains, only that they were made.

You said: "As I said in my previous post, Aboriginal people know which way the wind is blowing. The effects of the government’s counter terrorism and anti-sedition legislation could set them back at least fifty years."

I very much doubt this. The government may be skilled in 'milking' opportunities from the flaccid teat of fear but they have nothing to gain by singling out Aborigines. Aborigines present no threat within the community and 'persecuting' them would not win brownie points for the Government in the way that demonising asylum seekers and moslems might.

Black activism threatens no-one, except, in its extreme forms, Aboriginal people themselves.

I think you are 'running with a ball ' that was never thrown and is never likely to be thrown.

Hoping for better things

Phil: "I agree with you. 'That which we condemn in others is that which we deny in ourselves'."

Except in using the word glib I was not condemning, rather commenting, in so far as your assessments of me, while perceptive in some ways, were also assumption based on minimal knowledge. And I also do the same thing and admit to it and so would not have taken offence at the use of the word as you seem to do.

But perhaps, like you, I am assuming too much.

Correct, Roslyn

Roslyn, that's cool and no, I was not offended, simply because I'm aware of the beast and he no longer frightens me. You are quite correct in your comment. I will, however, venture another assumption about you and that is I feel your heart is in the right place. I'm sure many would agree. Kindest regards, Roslyn.

Ditto

Phil: I think your comment would apply to most people. I do honestly believe that most people care about what is happening to Aboriginal people and their culture but are frustrated by the lack of progress.

Then again, some of the worst things have happened because people have their "hearts in the right place". The problem is getting the head into the "right place" and that seems to be more difficult.

I am glad you were not offended and perhaps that is too strong a word. I sensed you felt misunderstood and perhaps should have said that. But thanks all the same for your response and I would only say it goes both ways. Take care.

Spero Meliora

Roslyn Ross: One learns that quite often those who accuse others of having particular attributes also have those attributes in abundance. My reference to you being somewhat like Candide is an example. You may note that the parting sentence from my earlier post supports this: “I shall leave it there and like Candide will retire and dig in my garden.” this was intentional for at times yours truly could also be accused of being somewhat a Candide. I see similar attributes in you. I would ask you to consider your term “glib” in the same context.

Geoff Pahoff; in his last post, makes an interesting point and we dismiss his conclusion at our peril:

“No culture remains unchanging and it is impossible to "preserve" a living culture. The culture of a people depends entirely on them. It is the worst kind of arrogance to attempt to "save" somebody else's culture. What are we hoping to achieve? A living human museum? A theme park? Something to show the tourists?”

As we all agree, the plight of the Aboriginal people is tragic, especially from their point of view; however nothing can or will change the historical realities. At best we can dress history up to sanitise that reality and at worst we can simply be unconcerned, but that will not make things better for our Indigenous people.

Roslyn believes that merging cultures quite often synthesis into a richer culture. However, I do not see this in our case. Maybe there is evidence of this within the Latino cultures, but not here. Geoff (in our case) is probably closer to the truth when he talks about, “theme parks” and “tourists attractions” for so far it would appear that we continue to exploit our Indigenous culture for our own benefit and if the Aborigines benefit collaterally then that is even better. They become more like us while using their culture commercially. Yours truly is a fine example of this type of exploitation. I remember prior to the Sydney Olympics chatting with my son about the influx of tourists and how we could possibly make a “killing” selling “genuine” boomerangs to tourists. We both are quite proficient in making, throwing and catching boomerangs, we still do (occasionally) and enjoy it immensely. No, we didn’t go through with the exercise (too lazy) but I think you will understand where I am coming from. Aboriginal culture generally means nothing to us white fellas unless we can profit by it.

If the Aboriginal people want to save their culture they will, or what’s left of it that they know about. If they suggest ways in how we may assist then well and good. Today there are programmes that do reunite Aboriginal youth with their roots while educating them in the western fashion. Jack Beetson (the United Nations Unsung Hero of 2001) is a fine example. You can read a little about Jack and his work here:

“It is up to us, in the Year of International Dialogue Among Civilisations, to push the process of reconciliation forward by promoting a culture of respect and openness. That is what Jack Beetson does. Jack left school in Nyngan at the age of 13 and worked as a shearer, cotton chipper and labourer. He came to Tranby Aboriginal College as a student more than 15 years ago and went on to become a teacher, principal and executive director. Tranby has flourished under Jack's leadership. Generations of Aboriginal people have been nurtured, educated and given strength and confidence by Tranby Aboriginal College. It is a fine example of self-determination in education.”

I feel that those who know Jack will agree that he (and his approach) has much to offer all of us. I remember many years ago Jack telling me exactly what Ross stated:

“Different clans/tribes - You cannot ask all of them what they want as they will all have differing opinions and requests. In particular many of these tribes hate each other with a passion and cannot be treated as one group”

Where does this leave us? I guess we will have to keep listening (to “them”), but I still think that not many of us white fellas really care. In the meantime Jack and his ilk will quietly and proficiently do their very best while we worry about interest payments and our credit card debt.

Jane Lahey now enters the discussion and states the bleeding obvious: human rights, struggle and sedition laws. Jane, we all know or should know this is all about “the will to power” and nothing is going to change that. Those who make the law and have the (military) power to defend those laws will always prevail. Yes, the Aboriginal people know which way the wind blows and so do many others, but if change means higher interest rates or increased taxes then best leave things as they are. Jane, what would you be prepared to sacrifice to make this a more just world? So once again like Candide I will retire to dig in my garden, and as the Moffat clan motto states: “Spero Meliora” or, I hope for better things. However in appreciate of merging cultures I now feel “I dream of better things” would be appropriate.

Oh please …

Oh please … Listen to yourselves. After 200 years of active, prolonged indigenous struggle, I cannot believe that white Australians still insist on having these interminable, paternalistic discussions about what Aboriginal people want and what Aboriginal people need.

While everyone is having a wonderful time here lamenting how the lot of these wretched, dispossessed people fails to improve despite all the generous time, money and angst we’ve thrown at them, no one has joined the dots between this thread and the other threads going on at Webdiary.

I’m referring to the erosion of civil liberties and human rights in this country, through the counter-terrorism and anti-sedition legislation of the Howard government. Not a single person here has considered how this affects the Aboriginal people in their ongoing struggle for social justice and a decent life.

Very few white Australians want to admit that every gain made by Aboriginal people over the last 200 years has been made by organised active struggle on the part of Aboriginal people themselves – whether through referendums, work boycotts, marches, legal battles or any other means at their disposal to get them ‘what they want’. No regime or prevailing culture ever relinquishes any part of its power willingly – civil rights have always had to be fought for.

I made the point in an earlier post that a public forum I attended recently on the government’s anti-sedition legislation had a massive attendance by Aboriginal people. Listening to the Aboriginal audience members who got up and spoke – including activists, lawyers, artists, writers, social workers, academics and medical personnel – their overriding concern was how the political changes in this country were going to affect their ongoing struggle to achieve what they want. An important part of their struggle has always involved criticism of the government (which can now be construed as sedition) and civil disobedience (which can now be construed as terrorism).

As I said in my previous post, Aboriginal people know which way the wind is blowing. The effects of the government’s counter terrorism and anti-sedition legislation could set them back at least fifty years. At present, the first line of targets is the Arab-Muslim community; the second line of targets will almost certainly be black activism. Aboriginal people know that all too well – in fact, they’re at least three steps ahead of us.

Culture of Despair

If you tell someone that their culture and entire background is wounded and dysfunctional, that they will adapt to "modern" life only with difficulty and that the traumas of the past have indelibly scarred them to the point that it is likely and understandable that their lives will be lost in a cloud of hopelessness and substance abuse, the chances are excellent that they will believe you. If you say educational opportunities are not really for them and besides, they have an ancient knowledge and wisdom which makes it acceptable to not send their kids to school if they do not want to go, then they will not send their kids to your schools. Poverty, crime and despair will stalk them all their miserable lives.

If you excuse or mitigate murder, rape, bashing women, child abuse and theft on "cultural" grounds or social disadvantage then naturally criminals and their advocates will seize this and use it as best they can. Of course.  

If you tell people that all this is not their fault and the guilt lies with the heirs of the invaders who dispossessed them, destroyed their cultures, murdered their ancestors and oppressed them for generations with at best paternalistic policies aimed at removing all visible signs that their people ever lived, they will believe that as well. And they will resent you for it. They may even hate you. If you offer to relieve them of responsibility for the welfare of themselves and their families, the chances are that they will surrender even that. And the chances are nil that the state or the churches or charities will be able to come up with anything like a substitute. Nil. No chance whatsoever.

 If you build an overwhelming expectation of compensation, then people being what they are will not hesitate to take the money and demand more. After all it will be the least you can do. People do not value other people's money.

You probably think I am talking about the aboriginal peoples. I am not.

No culture remains unchanging and it is impossible to "preserve" a living culture. The culture of a people depends entirely on them. It is the worst kind of arrogance to attempt to "save" somebody else's culture. What are we hoping to achieve? A living human museum? A theme park? Something to show the tourists?

What the?

The first comment I have on what has been written here is that it seems that most overlook the bleeding obvious, except for Jack. Forgive me if I have missed comments but some of the posts are just too long to hold attention.

The bleeding obvious is, "What do the aboriginal people want"? Jack raised this and it is certainly the key question.

The difficulty is in who to ask. Aborigines seem to be clumped together as one group and this is a major failure in recognising the facts. To do so equates to calling all white people English, or American. Again there are so many variations you just can't generalise. If you look at our own governments and society who actually gets asked anyway? Generally groups of older men, white of course. You might as well say "All Asians look the same" when of course they do not.

There are a range of aboriginal groups as I see it and broadly they are as follows:

Different clans/tribes - You cannot ask all of them what they want as they will all have differing opinions and requests. In particular many of these tribes hate each other with a passion and cannot be treated as one group.

Then there is the grouping of all the others as one group. They are not.

There are those that have taken their opportunities and made their own way in the world. In the main, to achieve this, they need to leave their clans and maybe families as well. Why? Because of the "What's yours is mine" attitude amongst many Aboriginal communities. All this results in is that those that have made a life will be dragged back down to the community level.

These people do try and integrate into the community and some succeed. Many though do not as the rest of Australia do not really want to integrate with them. How many people do you know who would be happy to have an Aboriginal family next door? I don't care either way as I grew up in Alice Springs where the races do mix as much as anywhere. There are though many families you would not want next door (white, yellow red etc as well) as they do not live as we want them to.

This is the crux isn't it? We want them to do whatever but they may not.

Then there are many groups of people with mixed blood. Often they are shunned by both white and black so they gather together as we all would in such circumstances. My experience has been that these groups are the most aggressive, violent and intolerant of whites. They are so because of bitter experience from both white and black. Wouldn't you?

Then there are those of pure Aboriginal blood. I haven't met an Aboriginal of full blood that wasn't essentially gentle, kind and peaceful. Naturally such people can and do change if they live in the white community as they too experience rejection on every front.

Then there are the Aboriginals that are ejected from Aboriginal communities mainly because of alcohol and crime problems stemming from the alcohol.

So which group are we to ask? Which parts of each group’s culture do we see as “theirs" when it's actually just for one tribe?

For me it is essentially up to the Aboriginal leaders in our country to take charge here and Mr Pearson is one who is doing just that. But he's not going to change people quickly. After all in 200+ years little has changed except for the worse.

The rest of us need to practice tolerance, not just preach it. For people who live in Dubbo, Moree and many similar towns they cannot do that as they are so often confronted with the drunks and violence that is evident on their streets. They can't distinguish one group from another so tend to reject all.

Questions to all :

What part of Aboriginal culture do you think is good?

What do we do if a majority of groups say they want to be what their ancestors were? We can't let that be so as we have changed the face of this country. You can't put them all into one area and say "Go for it".

As to history. There is no point in pointing fingers which is happening on this thread. What matters is what happens from now. How you, yes you, treat aboriginal people. Criticise when merited and assimilate where possible of course but start doing it.

I must disagree also with Rosemary in that my own experience tells me most Australians do not feel guilty at all, regardless of history. They are more focused on what confronts them and what the media tells them is reality.

Asking the question

Ross, one of the things which has made it difficult to find out what Aboriginal people want, although I suspect, and hope this may be changing, is that culturally people will say what they think you want to hear rather than what they themselves think.

This is not uncommon as a cultural trait and you find the same sort of thing in India and in Middle Eastern cultures but it has made it difficult to first of all ascertain what people want to do and also for the various groups themselves to reach consensus.

I also suspect that when you reach the level of dysfunction as so many communities have that people really do not know what they want. What do you want is a rational question proposed to resolve a frequently irrational problem.

But it is as good a place as any to start if only to get people thinking.

Eloquence of word

Phil: I both appreciated and enjoyed your response if only for the eloquence of word and the harmony of reason. But it is late where I am and although having read I will reply tomorrow.

The Will To Power

Roslyn Ross; a generous reply, thank you; and please accept my sincere apologises for my unintended carelessness with regards your name. Sorry, Roslyn.

One gets the impression, Roslyn, that you are a fatalist, dressed up as an optimist who gives reality an acceptable face. A student of Voltaire may see loose similarities with his character Candide, who would agree with Pangloss that we live in the best of possible worlds.

On the one hand you accept the reality of people conquering other people and the subsequent consequences; it appears you view it as a dialectical process where opposing cultures merge to synthesis into a new and (as you infer) improved culture. Hegel would probably agree but one has to ask is this stating the obvious or is it simply idealism?

On the other hand you agree that the processes involved with this “dialectic” are violent and cruel so we must do our utmost to make sure these processes are avoided in the future; we must behave as the civilized people we claim to be.

You conclude by offering your view on what it is to be civilized:

“I believe to be civilised is to respect human rights, honour human individuality, to offer compassion and understanding and to be enlightened in our judgements. It is to abide by a just rule of law. To be civilized is also to defend the very best of things and whether you like it or not, there are more of those things in modern societies than in more ancient ones.”

May I suggest that the above is more about the type of people we want to be rather than the people we really are? In terms of human behaviour I would argue that collectively we are no more civilized than our ancestors; we only think we are. As individuals (in western society), we have the luxury of being sheltered from the consequences of our collective actions, thus allowing us to feel safe in the knowledge that it is others, less civilized who are the problem.

In the old days we fought our battles on a one to one basis, while in modern “civilized” times we get others to fight our battles as we watch from our living rooms and cheer on the good guys, whoever the good guys are. We still kill each other (in great numbers) in shocking and abhorrent ways, while inventing even more sophisticated ways for doing so, and squandering trillions of dollars in the process; money that would be better spent on being civilized.

In short, “civilized” may simply be a euphemism for gadgets and technology: those with the best gadgets are most civilized. Those with the best weapons can protect and impose their “civilized’ culture and beliefs on others. This is the way of the world, “the will to power”. Our good American allies are an example; “the American way of life is not negotiable” declares George Bush snr.

You write: “And don't kid yourself about there being some special qualities inherent in poverty or more primitive societies: they are even more raw, brutal and unforgiving than ours. They are the way we once were and history teaches us that. Well, it did when people read it.”

History teaches us many things, but what we actually learn may depend more on how we interpret history and our motivation for doing so. Yes, primitive culture was raw, brutal and unforgiving but whether more so than modern civilised society would be debatable. At least primitive societies had the luxury of ignorance while civilized society can claim no such thing. In spite of all our knowledge, all of what history has taught us we continually fall into the same traps for the same reasons: we are not using the lessons of history to modify our collective behaviour.

Maybe you could offer examples of primitive brutality and then we could consider them in context of historical brutality up to the present day. We may find brutality has been civilized to the extent that we have become more efficient yet detached in inflicting brutality, while sanitising our reasons for brutality, a noble cause, with God on our side etc. etc.

Now back to our indigenous brothers and sisters. Now matter how we feel or how we got here, nothing will change the fact that we have irreparably and dramatically decimated their culture and person. This is something we would all agree on; however, our individual feelings regarding same probably vary considerably.

What can we do about it?

I haven’t got a clue and it would appear I am not altogether on my own, but I would like to dream we as a people could behave in a manner that reflects our idea of civilized and behave accordingly. We are a long way off from achieving that ideal; as such I suspect we will be discussing this for a long time to come, and our indigenous people will continue to suffer.

In actual fact we are their problem: always have been and always will be, and it is we who have the legal and military power to ensure that will always be the case. We have the collective will to power over them, and that is what we do.

Geoff Pahoff writes: “Be careful with your assumptions, Phil.”

For someone with legal training I would have thought you may have been a little bit careful with your choice of words. My comment in relation to you implied that you did not necessarily feel guilty; your earlier post stated quite clearly you had nothing to do with the plight of our indigenous people. I apologise if I interpreted your statement as not only declaring your innocence but also your lack guilt; after all, why should the innocent feel guilty?

If you do feel guilty (albeit unconsciously as Roslyn implies), then there is no shame in declaring so.

As far as your knowledge of things aboriginal I was simply wondering what you actually knew. No assumptions there. You have since filled me in on your experience, thanks mate. Like you I have worked in the area of Child and Aboriginal Welfare, back in the dying days of the lost generation, I care not to share any of this with you. Like Roslyn I have travelled and lived in Southern Africa, Europe, the East and the Australian outback, however, I also choose not to share any of this with you except to say I have had somewhat of a chequered and colourful past. I have not and do not claim to have special knowledge of anything, other than personal experience.

You wrote: “Don't look so surprised. Did you really think you held the franchise on concern for Aboriginal people?” For someone who advised me to be careful of my assumptions would you not consider this somewhat reckless?

As far as your comments regarding “In the meantime, spare me the more righteous than thou attitudes.” And “Just throwing more money might assuage your guilt but it is unlikely to do much good for the people.”

I trust that you were referring to people in general, for if those comments were directed to yours truly then I would remind you of your initial advice to me.

Your rhetorical conclusion simply appeals to the obvious: time to get fair dinkum, time to get on with it before it is too late. It is too late Geoff and all we are trying to do now is clean up the mess, and put the past behind us. That’s what we do, that’s what we will always be doing, for our will to power is what creates the problems in the first place.

I shall leave it there and like Candide will retire and dig in my garden.

What's in a name?

Phil, the name is probably the least important thing.

You said: "One gets the impression, Roslyn, that you are a fatalist, dressed up as an optimist who gives reality an acceptable face."

Neatly put although a touch of the glib. I am a fatalist only in so far as I believe that we often cannot control or even predict what will happen to us and an optimist in so far as I firmly believe that we do have quite a bit of control, albeit within the constraints of nature, in terms of what we 'do' about, or with, what happens to us. If believing that we can bring something positive out of the worst of experiences means I give reality an acceptable face then mea culpa and I would add, why not? It certainly beats the alternative.

In the sense that what we have is what we have and the only reality is now then we do live in the 'best of all possible worlds' because it is the only world we have. But, in terms of aspiring to or striving for a world with greater justice and compassion, then, by extension, logic suggests that the world in which we live is not the best of all possible worlds because it is a world we wish to change.

I guess for me it is simply about making the best of the bit you are in while seeking to make the next bit better.

You said: "On the one hand you accept the reality of people conquering other people and the subsequent consequences."

Only in a historical sense because quite simply, what else can one do? You cannot change the past. You can only make the best of it. I do not accept this reality in the NOW because what is happening in the present can be changed or influenced.

You said: "it appears you view it as a dialectical process where opposing cultures merge to synthesis into a new and (as you infer) improved culture."

Yes and No. Yes I see historically this merging of cultures and the synthesis into something new but it is not necessarily into something 'improved,' as a given, although history would suggest it has been the case in general terms in regard to the development of humanity.

So, no I don't believe these forced mergings have always led to improvement, but yes, I do believe that overall the fluid nature of tribes, cultures and nations have led us to where we are today. And where we are today, while flawed, is still better, in the developed world than where we were five hundred years ago or less.

You said: "Hegel would probably agree but one has to ask is this stating the obvious or is it simply idealism?"

There is idealism which has connotations of naiveté and there is a holding to ideals which means a belief and defence of principles.

I said: “I believe to be civilised is to respect human rights, honour human individuality, to offer compassion and understanding and to be enlightened in our judgements. It is to abide by a just rule of law. To be civilised is also to defend the very best of things and whether you like it or not, there are more of those things in modern societies than in more ancient ones.”

You said: "May I suggest that the above is more about the type of people we want to be rather than the people we really are?"

Yes and no. In many ways we are not truly civilized but in many, many ways our society is far more civilised than it was even fifty years ago, let alone a hundred or a thousand years ago.

I would suggest the important thing is 'wanting' to be civilised because that in essence means we recognise the gap between what we are and the best that we would wish to be. Without such awareness there is no progress.

You said: "In terms of human behaviour I would argue that collectively we are no more civilized than our ancestors; we only think we are."

I would disagree, particularly as a woman. We are far more civilised in terms of equality of the sexes; respect for the religious beliefs of others; respect for the rights of children, the mentally ill and the disabled; greater tolerance for those we define as 'other.'

We may not be perfect and a long way from being truly civilised but as a woman growing up in 50's and 60's Australia I know only too well what life was like for women growing up in 30's and 40's Australia. On that count alone we have made an enormous leap as civilised people.

You said: As individuals (in Western society), we have the luxury of being sheltered from the consequences of our collective actions, thus allowing us to feel safe in the knowledge that it is others, less civilised who are the problem.

Yes and no. Our First World environment shelters us but it also gives us the time and the ability to look beyond our immediate world in a way that our parents and grandparents could not. Australians on a per capita basis travel more than any other developed nation but Westerners travel in general in a way they never have before. We are exposed to the world in a way we never were and while we may not be as informed as we should be, we are more informed and more immediately involved than our ancestors. The internet has increased this exposure and involvement a thousandfold.

I don't see others who are less developed as necessarily being less civilised, I just believe from my experience living in the Third World that, despite its many flaws, the modern world, the developed world is the best we have at this point.

I agree with you in general in regard to our warmongering capacity but it is still a fact that more of the world lives in relative peace than did a few hundred years ago. There is still war, and that is to our shame, particularly when we as Australians have been party to starting yet another, but there are more places in this world where people can live in relative peace than there was in the past.

You said: "In short, “civilised” may simply be a euphemism for gadgets and technology: those with the best gadgets are most civilised."

I think you confuse being civilised with being developed and wealthy. They are not necessarily synonymous but, it is still a fact, I believe, that the rich and developed world still has more civilised values, perhaps because it can afford to, and I can see that clearly, than poorer and less developed societies.

My definition of civilised revolves around how we treat others rather than what we possess or how much we earn. But I recognise that it is because we do not have to fight to survive, because we do not live in terror of falling through the 'net' that we can take the time and find the greater compassion for others.

In Africa and India they do not have such luxuries and life is more brutal and often cruel as a result of that. Perhaps civilisation is only possible when our needs are met as Maslow suggested.

You said: "History teaches us many things, but what we actually learn may depend more on how we interpret history and our motivation for doing so."

Of course and history is written by the victors.

You said: "Yes, primitive culture was raw, brutal and unforgiving but whether more so than modern civilised society would be debatable."

It might be debatable for a man but not a woman. The fear and hatred of the feminine which one still finds in places like India and Africa is enough of a reminder of how things were. In such places too the mentally ill or physically damaged are considered to be objects of 'shame' at best and bad luck at worst ... as they were in Europe centuries back. If you want to see where we have been then spend time in such places and you would soon realise there is nothing to debate about the more civilised values of the developed world.

Not perfect perhaps for many but heaven on a stick for women, the disabled and the different.

You said: "At least primitive societies had the luxury of ignorance while civilized society can claim no such thing."

On that note I am in total agreement with you.

You said: "In spite of all our knowledge, all of what history has taught us we continually fall into the same traps for the same reasons: we are not using the lessons of history to modify our collective behaviour."

You are right, but even with that we have come a long way.

You said: "Maybe you could offer examples of primitive brutality and then we could consider them in context of historical brutality up to the present day. We may find brutality has been civilised to the extent that we have become more efficient yet detached in inflicting brutality, while sanitising our reasons for brutality, a noble cause, with God on our side etc. etc."

You have a point and it would make an interesting debate.

You said: "Now back to our indigenous brothers and sisters. Now matter how we feel or how we got here, nothing will change the fact that we have irreparably and dramatically decimated their culture and person. This is something we would all agree on; however, our individual feelings regarding same probably vary considerably."

I can accept the 'We" only in so far as I am an Australian and I am therefore responsible as an Australian for my society. But I believe that responsibility is not a white or non-Aboriginal one, it belongs to all of us.

Neither I, nor my parents or grandparents (some of whom were not even here) decimated anyone. Do we allocate responsibility in terms of how long people have lived in Australia? Is someone who arrived two or ten years ago to be freed from this responsibility for what was done to the indigenous people in past decades, or for what has become of Aboriginal people despite efforts to help them?

I think not. What happened happened. We can weep and moan and keen about it but the only thing which matters is what we do about it now. As you also say.

You said: "I haven’t got a clue and it would appear I am not altogether on my own,"

Talking about it openly and frankly is a good start.

You said: "In actual fact we are their problem: always have been and always will be,"

No, life is their problem, they are their problem, the world is their problem and we are a part of their problem. And time is their problem. The suffering of conquered and colonised peoples is not new; it is one of life's themes.

The issue surely is not what happened or even why it happened but why we have failed to improve the quality of life for our indigenous people. The Canadians have failed, the Americans have failed ... the New Zealanders have failed. We have all failed. Why?

Whatever we have been doing it didn't work. The system is 'broke' and needs to be fixed and maybe the first thing to do is to stop doing whatever we did before. Give up all the beliefs we had before including the one that it is someone's fault, thereby turning Aborigines into professional 'victims.'

Let's forget why they are the way they are and tackle the problem itself and see if we can't do better.

Grounds for agreement

Bryan, within the disagreements there are still grounds for agreement. I was not suggesting that the problem was created just by intellectuals and do-gooders, rather I was suggesting that the problem belongs to everyone, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal whatever their persuasion. It may have been exacerbated because it was left in the hands of do-gooders and their ilk in recent years but the problem belongs to all of us.

I agree with you in some respects in regard to land but many communities were also given title to what they considered to be their traditional land and that has not been greatly successful either. The presence of mineral wealth is, as you suggest, an issue, but often it is not because corporations or vested interests are trying to get aboriginals off the land. In many if not most instances they cannot legally do this, but the way in which Aboriginal communities wish to make use of the royalties which come to them. I know for a fact that big companies who have wanted to help communities by building schools and medical centres have had to fight hard to do so against community desires for personal needs to be met; ie. more Toyotas! In some instances schools were built only because they were forced upon the community.

In essence, the points you make may well be valid but they do not amount to the whole picture.

You said: "I read in your material that you believe each (every) culture responds to the other(s), and there is mutual change."

This is not a specific quote but yes, I do believe there is a "sharing" between cultures even when one side is conquered and the other is doing the conquering. It has been ever thus.

You said: "I believe that is true, but I also believe that such exchange is not free and equal."

I never said it was but then there isn't much that is free and equal in a world where peoples are invaded and occupied. As I also said, that was the way it was and we no longer tolerate it. I am merely trying to say that there are benefits which can come out of such things. Every culture on this planet has come out of such forced and volunteered 'sharing.'

You said: "Subjected cultures are exposed to much more forced change."

Yes they are, and nowhere do I condone this. I merely say that it was the way it was in the past and we did not do it and we would not do it now but there is no point going on about it. It was what it was and we need to understand it, absolutely, but we need to move on and make sure we don't do it again and work to ensure that it is not done to others.

Interestingly we "agonise" about the impact of invasion, occupation and colonisation on Aboriginal people but we turn a blind eye to the brutal continuation of such policies in the world today: Palestine, Chechnya, Tibet, Papua and even Iraq.

The reality is that we can only work with what has happened in our own country and make the best of it. But if we truly cared, if we held any principles about the issue, we would be out on the street for those who live under occupation and colonisation today. But we don't and we are not.

You said: "Your family may have been poor, with elements of victimhood and dysfunction - but you were not taken away and forced to live in dormitories and train as a domestic servant."

No, but even in the late 50's and early 60's we lived for years with the very real threat of being taken away and put in a home if it was thought our father could not manage. He did manage, and I am not even sure the authorities knew about us because we were told to keep it a secret that our mother was in hospital, and even though we were very young, we helped him to manage, but I remember lying in my bed at night at the age of ten working out how I could get my two-year-old brother out through the window and somewhere I could hide him if the authorities came to take us away.

That was the way it was. Society did not trust men as parents in the same way they trusted women. It was also the way it was, that when children were considered at "risk", either black or white, they were institutionalised.

In terms of Aboriginal children being taken away, there was a policy of the time, which one can understand, if not necessarily defend, that half-caste children had the option of being raised in either environment. It was reasoned that they would have a better future if raised European rather than Aboriginal.

In addition, don't kid yourself that racism is a "white" thing. While many half caste children were loved and cared for by their mothers and Aboriginal families, many were also rejected and these children certainly needed to be "taken away". The same thing happened in Vietnam with the children of US and Australian soldiers.

I have talked with Aboriginal people who bemoaned the shutting down of the missions because, despite the enforced nature of much that they did, the missions educated children and for many this meant the possibility of living any life they chose.

Training Aboriginal girls to be domestic servants, and boys to work on cattle stations, was also reflective of the times. It may seem wrong to us but many things were wrong in those days by our standards today.

Many children did not stay at school beyond twelve and my parents were among them; Down's syndrome children were considered to be little more than dumb animals and were generally hidden away or institutionalised; mental illness was considered to be shameful and carried a stigma which my mother felt until the end of her days... it too was hidden away; women who gave birth out of wedlock had their babies forcibly taken from them; and UK orphans were transported across the world to Australia to live in institutions because the authorities thought it was better for them...

I could go on. The times in which we live may not be perfect but they are better and the wrongs that were done were not done solely to Aboriginals.

You said: "If you're serious about not treating Aborigines as victims, you'd do well to let them lead their own struggle, and stop believing that it's up to whiteys to solve "the problem".

I never said that. I said we all have to work to solve the problem. It is disingenuous to say that Aborigines can lead their own struggle because they are a part of the problem, we are a part of the problem and the problem belongs to each and every Australian. It is an Australian problem, not an Aboriginal problem.

Where Aboriginal leadership is needed is in acceptance of the part that the society plays in what it has become and what it might become. It takes two to tango. Sure wrongs were done, but so were rights. There are plenty of people out there with Aboriginal heritage who consider themselves Australian and who live fully functioning lives. A lot of the older ones came out of the mission schools.

It goes back to the "insect pinned in the box" theory. The only place for any of us is within the greater society as a fully functional individual. The United Kingdom no longer has Angles or Saxons as a definitive group although the history of those peoples is recorded and valued and their culture has had an enormous impact on the nation we call England today. And those are only two ingredients in the cultural pot which has gone to make up what we call British.

It is not a policy we should support in the modern world but it is one which we have inherited and we cannot change that. We can only work with it.

The evidence suggests that what we have been doing with and for Aboriginal people has not worked, and only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Even more damning is the fact that the problems faced by Australia's indigenous peoples and the manifest dysfunction they display can be found in indigenous peoples in Canada, New Zealand and the United States, all of which have followed similar policies.

You would think that, if it could have worked, it would have worked somewhere. It has worked nowhere. Separation of any kind has only led to misery and dysfunction. It is hard to let go and to become other but it is only when we do that we can create something new.

I have some half a dozen nationalities as my inheritance and as many religions, and I appreciate them all while being Australian. It is in the duality or even the many becoming one that we find a stable place to live and to be.

Redfern under Keating, Redfern under Howard

Paul Keating, at Redfern Park, 10 December 1992.

BBC documentary on the Redfern riots February 2004 "The desire to bulldoze the problems of Redfern and of Aboriginal people out of sight is one that has been expressed by generations of leaders and bureaucrats for the past 215 years. Intelligent politicians understand Indigenous people will not go away." (Aden Ridgeway).

See also these search results.

Us and them?

On controversial issues, I don’t tend to read things in a logical manner, expecting every claim to be backed up by a fact, statistic or quote. I tend to read intuitively, picking up on undercurrents and repetitions. In this essay, and in all the posts here, the main undercurrents and repetitions I pick up on are:

(1) ‘Well, we’ve tried to do this with Aboriginal people and it hasn’t worked; and we’ve tried to do that with Aboriginal people and it hasn’t worked. So let's try something else now.’

(2) ‘I’ve been involved with Aboriginal people for ‘X’ amount of time and my observations have been ‘Y’; so having been there and done that, what I think we should do with them is ‘Z‘.

(3) ‘We’re all in this culture together. Yes, we did awful things to Aboriginal people – but we need to put the past behind us and move forward.’

Regardless of how eloquent, sensible or compassionate, the problems I have with perspectives such as these (which form about 99 per cent of all the discourse about the Aboriginal ‘problem’) is that Aboriginal people are not doing the talking. They are the ‘talked about’ – the perennial ‘other’, the ‘they’, the ‘outgroup’. Even when 'they' get the chance to speak, it's usually within a carefully controlled environment - pastuerised and homogenised by 'us'.

Recently, I went to a public panel discussion at the University of Queensland about the government’s recent anti-sedition legislation. I was amazed that well over half the audience was Aboriginal. Then I realised that there was nothing at all amazing about this. It’s the people on the outside who are better able to tell which way the wind is blowing.

You're wrong, I'm right!

Hooboy, thanks for the discussion, and I hope it stays under control.

I hope that people remember to show tolerance, and try to stretch their boundaries a little when they address these pieces.

Thank you, Roslyn for sharing your thoughts, and I agree with many of them. I would like to know more about your background and history of dealing with these issues (both black and white).

I have to challenge your description of the past forty years or so. Specifically I'd challenge your assertion that "greater autonomy hasn't worked" because, you know, it's never been tried.

Over the past 12 years I've been a part-time observer of conditions in Cairns and Cape York Peninsula. I've observed a lot of money being poured into both sets of communities, but hardly any of it has been under local Aboriginal control.

It may have come via ATSIC, but it has always been tightly constrained by state and federal bureaucrats/guidelines.

Is it funny or sad that, for many years, pre-fab houses for over-crowded Mapoon were literally left lying on the ground because there was no agreement about where to put them.

Government bureaucrats insisted they had to be placed according to a European style town plan they'd drawn up, where everyone lived in suburban lots, in a little suburb on the bay, where centralised services would be made available. Economically efficient. As long as you don't mind the endemic violence which comes from forcing hostile clans, both traditional and historical, to live in close proximity.

Do we change the culture, or change the plan? How long have we got?

Or look at Lockhart River, where some 13 tribal groups were forcibly collected, and then forcibly relocated, and now live in a dysfunctional community with the full horror show of family violence and substance abuse. When I visited there in 1995 they were getting built for them, by the state government, a new police station, a better airport, an upgraded electricity system, and a new health centre that would absolutely not contain a birthing centre (women and families still have to travel to Cairns for that).

The only trouble is that most of the residents wanted to get out of Lockhart and back to their traditional clan estates which were "dry", and avoided much endemic violence. $100,000 was available in that year for outstation development, and it was spent on a single bore for an outstation that was to provide young offenders with an alternative to "iron bar" for bad behaviour.

All in the past, perhaps? Not on your nelly.

When ATSIC was abolished in 2005, the Commonwealth Education Department in Cairns colonised the office space within days. Among their first acts was to abolish the ASPAA program (which had provided small sums that indigenous parents could direct to pursue activities they saw as appropriate for their children). As a result the P&C now provides stop-gap replacements, and indigenous parents have dropped out of the P&C.

Their second act was to restructure the tutoring program which gave personal literacy and numeracy tutoring to young indigenous children experiencing difficulty. This meant that many children at our school missed out on this tutoring for 2005. That's "mainstreaming" for ya. The school I'm involved with is more than 60% indigenous and our children were fucked by the state.

The state is never going to hand back land and resources to Aborigines unencumbered.

I think that maybe what we do is stop worrying so much about the labelling of indigenous and European, and deal with the problems in a much more human way.

Let's speculate on how we deal with some ugly part of indigenous culture. My two favourites are payback and sorcery, which are often related.

Would it be best to punish and imprison people who believe in sorcery? (Maybe, if the evangelical Christians were included.) Hillsong church could be made a detention camp for the superstitious.

Maybe it would be best to provide quality education to everyone concerned.

I'm with Noel Pearson on that, and also on his work to develop leadership capacity among the people living on Cape York.

But I'd like to remind people that while Mr Pearson promotes mainstream economic development, he also believes that welfare money ought continue to be paid during transition. He just wants the money to be paid to a community leadership that can be held responsible for spending the money on collective good, rather than addictive weakness.

My God, the man is very nearly a communist.

By the way, the condition of "patriarchy" in Aboriginal society is way overstated. Men and women held distinct spheres of power in traditional society.

One of the great disappointments recently in Cairns was when feminist European agencies and Aboriginal women's agencies failed to cooperate on home violence issues because the Europeans insisted that "domestic" violence was a construct of male power, while Aborigines saw "family" violence as an expression of community powerlessness and wanted to keep their men out of prison. Go figure.

Finally, and provocatively, are you able to tell me why arranged marriages are fundamentally abhorrent? Is it to do with the disabling romantic notion of true love and personal freedom? I guess we need to nuke India as well.

Bryan...

First of all, Bryan, thanks for your post. It was informative and interesting.

My background in dealing with these issues, or rather being exposed to them, is varied. In terms of the Aboriginal situation it has been as a close observer of those working with Aboriginal communities both at the social worker and corporate level.

The formation of my perspective comes also from spending more than a decade living in both Africa and India and time spent living in Canada where I could more closely observe difficulties with indigenous peoples in that country.

No, I don't consider myself an expert and did not mean in writing the article that I had the solutions. What I was trying to do was to encourage debate in order to explore possible solutions given the clear failure of past approaches in terms of resolving the difficulties.

You said: “I have to challenge your description of the past forty years or so. Specifically I'd challenge your assertion that ‘greater autonomy hasn't worked’ because, you know, it's never been tried.”

I see your point on this but I think that the autonomy of which you speak is never and was never going to happen. My reference was to the level of “autonomy” which had been available.

You said: “Do we change the culture, or change the plan. How long have we got?”

My view would be that a lot of the problem has come about because people have sought to encourage the culture not to change. I don't think we have long at all given the parlous state of many if not most Aboriginal communities, which is what prompted my article.

You said: “I think that maybe what we do is stop worrying so much about the labelling of indigenous and European, and deal with the problems in a much more human way.”

Yes, I agree. The problem needs to be dealt with at a human level. Culture is irrelevant if you are dead or dying.

You said: “Would it be best to punish and imprison people who believe in sorcery? “

No, but as you said, education is a key. There was plenty of belief in sorcery in Europe before improvements in literacy took place. And, don't get me wrong, I have serious respect for beliefs in the occult and what is often dismissed as superstition. At core it reflects a spiritual view of life but ignorance, read lack of education, imprisons people in its most narrow place. Education, as Pearson says and as you concur, is the key.

You said: “By the way, the condition of ‘patriarchy’ in Aboriginal society is way overstated. Men and women held distinct spheres of power in traditional society.”

They may well have held distinct spheres of power but I suspect a woman's view of Aboriginal society would differ from a man's. There's an “if it walks like a duck” quality about a lot of it. Some indigenous societies were matriarchal, take southern India for instance, and one can see differences in how those societies have evolved into the modern age because of it, but Aboriginal society, in the main, is patriarchal and has all the problems attendant.

And I do not see why the issue of domestic violence as cited by you has to be either/or. Surely it can be both an issue of male power and an expression of community powerlessness. In fact, I would have thought that that is what it is anyway, whichever culture is involved. Our world has been patriarchal for a few thousand years and even in the West, still, in essence remains so although women have gained greater freedom and power. But men still get paid more, still hold most of the power at political and corporate levels. Men may be changing but they still have major issues of “face” and ego which predispose them to respond violently when they feel powerless.

I think it makes perfect sense that Aboriginal women would take a counter-view to the “feminists” if it kept their men out of gaol. One of the difficulties for women has been and remains, that, in the “war of the sexes” women must fight an “enemy” which is father, husband, son or lover. No man has ever been faced with that. Not for a few thousand years anyway.

I would add here that I hold to the belief that every relationship “takes two” and that when women are subject to violence they are also a part of it and should share responsibility. But I digress.

You said: “Finally, and provocatively, are you able to tell me why arranged marriages are fundamentally abhorrent? “

If you recall, my comment was in regard to the forcing of small girls as young as four into marriage agreements. I would have thought most people of conscience would find that abhorrent.

As to arranged marriages being abhorrent, I never said that. My view on them, after living in India for four years, is that they are an anachronism, and even in India are increasingly seen as such. The system of arranged marriage also existed in Europe a few hundred years ago and so, in the modern age, represents a backward practice. The system is also derived from the patriarchal belief in women as possessions; something to be “sold”, although in the case of India, tragically, and with tragic consequences, the groom's family is actually “paid” to take her away.

I have spent much time with Indian mothers as they made matches and have even acted as advisor to their children. As far as I am concerned, it is their country and they may live as they wish. But, as a matter of principle, I happen to believe that human beings should be free to make their own choices in life without any pressure from parents. For that reason alone arranged marriages are an abuse of human rights.

Some do work well but many do not, and even in India increasingly the trend is toward what they call “love” marriages. The way of the future is not in arranged marriages. Not in any enlightened society, anyway.

Thanks, Roslyn

Roslyn, we still have many areas of disagreement, but thank you for acknowledging that "greater autonomy" of Aborigines within Australia is a myth.

One thing I've learned to be careful about in politics is the deliberate organisation of revisionist history.

The reason I set out recent examples of government abuses is to show that the "problem" is not one created alone by "white" "intellectuals" and "do-gooders" with quaint notions of Aboriginal culture.

It's no coincidence that the current resurrection of "assimilation" (spearheaded by the Bennelong Foundation) is accompanied by the deliberate erosion of communal title to land, and by the threatened closure of small, remote communities (Amanda Vanstone the compassionate calls them cultural museums).

One thing that happens to indigenous people is that they tend to have been herded onto land that, at the time, was considered marginal and worthless. Then we discover minerals, or tourism - and we start figuring out how to get that land off them as well. Tourism corporations in Cairns hunger after remote lands in Cape York today.

The other thing to be careful of is assuming that European culture is the height of civilisation.

I read in your material that you believe each (every) culture responds to the other(s), and there is mutual change. I believe that is true, but I also believe that such exchange is not free and equal. Subjected cultures are exposed to much more forced change. Your family may have been poor, with elements of victimhood and dysfunction - but you were not taken away and forced to live in dormitories and train as a domestic servant.

But you are right. Every Aborigine I know aspires to live in their own house, with all the services. Every Aborigine I know wants their children to do well at school and participate in the mainstream economy. They also want to maintain their extended family relationships.

This is not new.

Look at Aurukun. That community generated quality leadership decades ago which worked successfully with and through the Uniting Church which ran what was then a mission. It was dry. They convinced the church to allow for "greater autonomy" and independent management of community resources. The church was going to hand over title to the land.

The Bjelke-Petersen government stepped in to compulsorily resume the land and prevent the church from continuing with its plans. The Aurukun people (Wik-Munkan people) sought intervention from the Fraser federal government and received considerable support.

Unfortunately the Queensland government prevailed. They re-created Aurukun as a shire, and introduced alcohol in the form of a Council run canteen to finance the operation. The Wik-Munkan lost a generation to alcohol. (Replicated throughout Queensland)

But, by the time of Mabo and native title, the Wik were well prepared to pursue their own interests again. They mounted and ran a very successful campaign to extend native title rights for their people. In response to which Prime Minister Howard legislated the ten-point plan to further restrict their rights.

This is not a story of victimhood. This is a story of skill, determination, and ongoing success. That is the case with so many Aboriginal people, individually and collectively, that we would do well to learn from them.

If you're serious about not treating Aborigines as victims, you'd do well to let them lead their own struggle, and stop believing that it's up to whiteys to solve "the problem". Try instead getting behind Aboriginal leadership, and ask yourself whether our state might not be the real "problem" which "we" might help address and change.

Poor fellow my country

Michael, I spent some time in Eveleigh Street back in the early seventies. It was a street filled with colour and friendship, I truly loved it. "Civilization" has destroyed all that, but that's another sad story.

Poor Fellow My Country.

For those of you calling yourselves "Australian" I suggest that at least you do our real Australians the courtesy of reading this book. It's a good place to start.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago