Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 … 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.