An Enormous Decision for Indigenous Australians. | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

An Enormous Decision for Indigenous Australians.

Back to the thread topic. Says a lot I think to anyone who thinks injustice against blacks is ancient history, that although all the Noongars get from this decision, in theory, is respect, both sides of politics have embarked on a scare campaign and stated it will be appealed to the High Court.
 
For one reason or another, this didn't survive the cull and ended up in feedback...so I brought it back...

Liverpool said:
skybeau said:
Sorry if this has been answered in this thread...but can someone tell me what the implications of all this is? I mean, what can the Aborigines do now that they have land rights to Perth? Can they do anything like force people out of their homes cos they're living on some sacred ground or something?

Essentially, I guess I'm asking if Aborigines have to potential to use this for potentially destructive purposes (terrible word, I know...can't think of a better one, sorry) or is it just in name only?

Sorry for the basic q...I should take more interest in current affairs, but it all just seems a little silly sometimes...
Skybeau,
No-one has answered that particular question.
I'm guessing here....but assume that they will either get compensated by the Government for the land, or they might even ask for some sort of 'royalty' from businesses who are making money on this land.
I don't think they would go to all the legal expense and process for a simple name change.
I don't think any court would adjudicate that people have to leave their homes or anything dramatic like that though, unless the Government bought them out, and then proceeded to hand the land back to the Aborigines.
Either way, its $$$ they are after, and its $$$ they will get.

That's interesting. Does the agreement allow them to take money, for whatever reason, from the people living there? It seems strange that the Government would allow themselves to sign an agreement that could potentially cost all their voters money. Without calling into question your beliefs, Liverpool, isn't what you've suggested more of an extreme rather than a likelihood?

Appreciate the reply, though Livers, thanks for that. If anyone can add to it, I'd be much obliged...
 
From the very first post of this thread (an article copied here by Phantom).

....The judge, Justice Murray Wilcox, granted the Nyoongar people "native title" over more than 6,000 sq km of land, including Perth and its surrounds. That means they can use it for traditional activities such as hunting, camping and fishing, as well as looking after sacred sites and generally caring for the land.

The judgment will not affect homes or businesses, as the Australian courts have ruled that native title does not apply to land owned on a freehold or long-lease basis. Mr Justice Wilcox cautioned that it was "neither the pot of gold for the indigenous claimants nor the disaster for the remainder of the community that is sometimes painted".

Native title claims in the past have prompted scare campaigns by mining and agricultural companies. But the judge said that his decision would have no impact on "people's backyards"......
 
I wonder if the native title land is still subject to the same laws as non-native title land.
 
skybeau said:
For one reason or another, this didn't survive the cull and ended up in feedback...so I brought it back...

Liverpool said:
skybeau said:
Sorry if this has been answered in this thread...but can someone tell me what the implications of all this is? I mean, what can the Aborigines do now that they have land rights to Perth? Can they do anything like force people out of their homes cos they're living on some sacred ground or something?

Essentially, I guess I'm asking if Aborigines have to potential to use this for potentially destructive purposes (terrible word, I know...can't think of a better one, sorry) or is it just in name only?

Sorry for the basic q...I should take more interest in current affairs, but it all just seems a little silly sometimes...
Skybeau,
No-one has answered that particular question.
I'm guessing here....but assume that they will either get compensated by the Government for the land, or they might even ask for some sort of 'royalty' from businesses who are making money on this land.
I don't think they would go to all the legal expense and process for a simple name change.
I don't think any court would adjudicate that people have to leave their homes or anything dramatic like that though, unless the Government bought them out, and then proceeded to hand the land back to the Aborigines.
Either way, its $$$ they are after, and its $$$ they will get.

That's interesting.  Does the agreement allow them to take money, for whatever reason, from the people living there? It seems strange that the Government would allow themselves to sign an agreement that could potentially cost all their voters money.  Without calling into question your beliefs, Liverpool, isn't what you've suggested more of an extreme rather than a likelihood?

Appreciate the reply, though Livers, thanks for that.  If anyone can add to it, I'd be much obliged...

No problems mate.

Its interesting that Justice Wilcox has claimed it isn't a pot of gold for the Aboriginal community and not a disaster for the remainder of the community.
Maybe the Aboriginal community should be more proactive in disclosing to the public exactly what they want to achieve by claiming owndership of this land. What things will change and what won't change.
Surely this would debunk the so-called "scare campaigns" certain groups are accused of.

It will be interesting to see how this will work though.
Will Aborigines be allowed to throw spears and such in parkland close to residential areas?
Can they just set-up tents and 'shanty towns' on this land and light fires, even though its bushfire season?
Will they be able to catch as many fish as they can, even though there are laws regarding quantities and sizes of fish allowed to be caught?
Will protected species animals still be protected on 'native title' land?
Will Aboriginal justice be allowed on this land, to replace white-man law?

I think if many questions were answered, and an easing of peoples minds about what the result will mean to the parklands and the residential areas surrounding them, then this would go a long way to making a court decision such as this more understandable for the people living in the surrounding areas, and maybe even more accepting.
 
All of your questions can be answered by reference to the law itself rather than by requiring Nyoongar people to answer specific questions. Native title is not some trump card that excludes aboriginal people from the operation of the law. Hence if fisheries management laws are in place in a particular area (for instance) they will continue to apply to native title holders. Justice Wilcox's decision allowed aboriginal people certain usufructuary rights in relation to some land. Those rights do not provide for exclusive use, do not allow (as Ruddock continues to maintain) for a capacity to exclude people from beaches or parks. In practice, the rights allowed are quite limited.

Similar claims have failed elsewhere. That the claim succeeded here indicates that the Nyoongar people were able to show to the court a continued cultural and spiritual link with traditional lands that has survived all of the upheavals of white settlement. Quite an achievement, really.

By the way, Liverpool - regarding your post directed at me a couple of days ago. Richards post was not directed at me as such, and certainly required no reply from me. I refuse to respond to anyone who says words to the effect "I worked there, I know what goes on". Maybe he worked in the communities, maybe he didn't. In any event, his post contained a series of assumptions rather than facts. What am I supposed to do? Bow down to his earthy wisdom? Acknowledge his trump card - him having worked there and all?

The reason I raised the issue of the death in custody in Queensland is that it is a classic example of continuing problems aboriginal people confront in our society. Years after the Royal Commission into the issue, aboriginal people are still beaten to death in police cells. And your only response is "But eight ace, white people die there too". Off course they do, you idiot, but that's not the point, is it? It is the nature and rate of aboriginal deaths, in comparison to the general population, that marks them as different. The same can be said for any number of indicators in relation to the general community. STDs, alcoholism, diabetes, heart disease and the list goes on. Are you genuinely trying to suggest it is all the fault of aboriginal people? Are you genuinely trying to suggest that all aboriginal people need to do is "straighten up and fly right"? There has been a systematic failure of our society to deal with the unique problems that have confronted indigenous Australians. Maybe that is understandable to a degree, as those problems are large and difficult. But to turn it around and blame aboriginal people themselves for that failure, is typical of all you cretins who inhabit the "silent majority" (god help us).

You keep referring to "facts" as if you are the keeper of some holy *smile*ing grail of truth. Here's a suggestion, bub - you don't have any special knowledge, you don't have a great deal of common sense and you have been entirely unconvincing on this issue to date. Try reading a book - see if that works for you. And don't just limit yourself to Windschuttle.
 
eight ace said:
By the way, Liverpool - regarding your post directed at me a couple of days ago. Richards post was not directed at me as such, and certainly required no reply from me. I refuse to respond to anyone who says words to the effect "I worked there, I know what goes on". Maybe he worked in the communities, maybe he didn't. In any event, his post contained a series of assumptions rather than facts. What am I supposed to do? Bow down to his earthy wisdom? Acknowledge his trump card - him having worked there and all?

The reason I raised the issue of the death in custody in Queensland is that it is a classic example of continuing problems aboriginal people confront in our society. Years after the Royal Commission into the issue, aboriginal people are still beaten to death in police cells. And your only response is "But eight ace, white people die there too". Off course they do, you idiot, but that's not the point, is it? It is the nature and rate of aboriginal deaths, in comparison to the general population, that marks them as different. The same can be said for any number of indicators in relation to the general community. STDs, alcoholism, diabetes, heart disease and the list goes on. Are you genuinely trying to suggest it is all the fault of aboriginal people? Are you genuinely trying to suggest that all aboriginal people need to do is "straighten up and fly right"? There has been a systematic failure of our society to deal with the unique problems that have confronted indigenous Australians. Maybe that is understandable to a degree, as those problems are large and difficult. But to turn it around and blame aboriginal people themselves for that failure, is typical of all you cretins who inhabit the "silent majority" (god help us).

You keep referring to "facts" as if you are the keeper of some holy *smile*ing grail of truth. Here's a suggestion, bub - you don't have any special knowledge, you don't have a great deal of common sense and you have been entirely unconvincing on this issue to date. Try reading a book - see if that works for you. And don't just limit yourself to Windschuttle.

Eightace,
Firstly, Richards42's post WAS directed at you....you did ask the question, didn't you?
And Richards42 quoted your question, and answered it from his own experiences up north.
Richards42 also says that he DID work in the communities, which you quickly brush over by questioning him "maybe he worked in the communities, maybe he didn't".....do you know Richards42? are you calling him a liar?

richards42 said:
eight ace said:
Give me a recent example of a non-aboriginal person dying in similar circumstances to Mulrunji Doomadgee. No? Didn't think so.

So, the average life indicators for an aboriginal person today in Australia are the same as those for the average non-aboriginal person? Care to elaborate?
Its a fact there are about 10 times the amount of white people die in custody its just makes the media when its an aboriginal person.
Trust me i've worked in aboriginal communities up in the territory.I don't have racist views in fact I've got a lot of aboriginal friends. I just deal in facts.
I too feel sorry for the past injustices, but thats what they are past. In todays society we make sure aboriginal can go to uni,have access to docters recieve grants and so on so they can achieve some kind of lifestyle the rest of us enjoy.
In a lot of communities housing is built at no cost money wise or labour wise. This makes some people have no respect for the house they recieve hence they are usually smashed up in no time. The young boys should be given apprenticeships to help build these houses, giving them a job and a sense of pride.
In most topend and west australian communities boredom is the killer. We barge in all there food, therefore giving them nothing to do during the day.We don't give them jobs and with no need to hunt a life of dope,sniffing, and alcohol and and violance are the norm.
We don;t hear much down here  but the problems in the communities are enormous.
I had a mate(policeman) up there and he was having a lot of trouble with the kids in the black community. He loved his footy, so he called up Nicky Winmar who was playing footy in Darwin at the time to come and have a yarn to the kids. From that day on all the kids looked up to him and he had a lot less trouble with the kids.
I don;t think we have to take sides, I think we should try to give them jobs in there own areas especially and i think their pride and respect for themselves will grow massively.

And of course, when embarassed again, you come out with more name-calling....the "silent majority" are cretins, I'm an idiot, 'bub' etc.  ::) ...like we're supposed to bow down to your skewed 'facts'.

Its like I have previously said....people like yourself cannot debate without lashing out.
Even when someone who posts for the first time on the thread, and simply tells of his own personal experiences up north....not attacking anyone, no name-calling, just simply stating what he has seen with his own eyes and his own opinion of a situation, and yet you question the validity of his time in the community (do you know Richards42?), and then continue with more name-calling, directed at myself.
A thread like this will get locked due to people like yourself, but then, you'd rather see the thread locked, rather than have the 'silent majority' question you and your views.
Its Eightaces way or the highway....its just a pity your way is going nowhere.

Trying to stick to the topic now....

Eight-ace,
Don't you think Aborigines should take some responsibility for the way they live though?
If STDs are high...why is it?
Are they being deprived of purchasing contraceptive products? No.
Are they turned away by doctors? No.
Do we have an apartheid system where there are only white-hospitals and black-hospitals? No.
STDs are high because they show no respect nor regard for each other.
Even within certain communities at the moment, there are Aboriginal children being molested or raped, but due to the previous 'stolen generation' accusations, the authorities are too bloody scared to remove the children, in case of future stolen generation scenarios:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20478697-17001,00.html
Its a sad day when ANY child, black or white, cannot be protected.
Surely the Aboriginal people have to take responsibility for this.

Alcoholism.....well, I'd have to agree with what Richards42 said, in that its boredom, lack of work, etc encourages this type of behaviour.
We can't ban alcohol for Aborigines, as that would be classed as discrimination and racism, so what can you do?
You can't stop someone from drinking, if thats what they want to do.
If I walked out of work today, sat in the pub, got tanked, didn't turn up to work the next day or the next day...just went to the pub each day...got sacked from work, ended up on the street, whose fault would that be?
Mine.
Who was responsible for what happened to myself?
Me.
Not the Government, not the Poms for coming here 200+ years ago............ME!
While boredom and lack of work can encourage drinking sessions, it doesn't justify it....it is ultimately up to the individual to stop this behaviour, and do everything to get a job, go to work, and earn a living.
But with Government handouts, community housing built for them, etc...then why would they want to try and get a job for?

Diabetes..
Here's a good link:

http://www.mydr.com.au/default.asp?article=3998

Interesting to note that the Aboriginal metabolism, different to a "Western" metabolism, and with the introduction of westernised foods, is a main reason for Aborigines having a higher diabetes rate.
However, if they went back to the more traditional Aboriginal way of living, then they improve.
As the article says:
While it’s not practical for many people to adopt a traditional Aboriginal lifestyle, the principles remain true for all of us, whether we’re from an indigenous or non-indigenous background: adopt a low-fat, high-fibre eating plan, ensure you are physically active, and maintain a healthy weight to help improve metabolic control.

So yes Eightace, many Aborigines do need to 'straighen up and fly right' and start taking responsibilty for their own actions, instead of using the old racism/persecution cards, encouraged by left-wing people such as yourself, as excuses for why they claim to be 'hard done by'. ::)
 
Well done Liverpool. Yes I do question Richards' asserted experience. His opening line was "Trust me, I've worked there". Why should I trust that assertion when it can be easily used as a trump to a discussion like this? Like I said, maybe he worked there, maybe he didn't. I have no reason at all to trust that assertion. Also, his post didn't require an answer from me and didn't get one. I'm sure he can speak for himself and doesn't need you to hold his hand. Liverpool, the people's guardian. What a laugh.

Poor you, liverpool. Having to post here under the constant burden of the personal assaults you daily experience. It must be so hard.

http://www.crcah.org.au/resource/STTSCairnsConference.pdf
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/koori/keyindicators0405.pdf
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/koori/cultural-respect-framework.pdf
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/ihw/hwaatsip05/hwaatsip05-c07.pdf
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/ihw/hwaatsip05/hwaatsip05-c10.pdf

"Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have low levels of access to, and use of,
health services such as Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and private
GPs (Bell et al. 2000; Keys Young 1997). They face a number of barriers to accessing
services including distance from services, lack of transport (particularly in remote areas),
financial difficulties and proximity of culturally appropriate services. The relatively low
proportion of Indigenous people involved in health-related professions can also affect
use of health services by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people."

"Measurement of the accessibility of health services involves factors other than the
distance people must travel and the financial costs incurred (Ivers et al. 1997). Many
Indigenous people or communities do not have adequate access to either culturally
appropriate services or to other suitable arrangements, and where culturally appropriate
services exist they are often under-resourced or unable to meet community needs
(Bell et al. 2000). The perception of cultural barriers may cause Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people to travel substantial distances in order to access health services
delivered in a more appropriate manner than those available locally (Ivers et al. 1997).

The willingness of Indigenous peoples to access health services may be affected by such factors as community control of the service, the gender of health service staff, and the
availability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, particularly where the patient’s
proficiency in spoken and written English is limited (Ivers et al. 1997). Some Indigenous
people do not feel comfortable attending services such as a private general practice
because of educational, cultural, linguistic and lifestyle factors, and will do so only when
there is no alternative or their health problem has worsened (Bell et al. 2000)."

"Health services that are initiated, controlled and operated by the Indigenous community
have the potential to increase the level of access to health services for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples by providing holistic and culturally appropriate care. A
review of the Australian Government’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary
Health Care Program (Primary Health Care Review, undertaken through an
inter-departmental committee) was completed in 2003–04. The Review found that access
to comprehensive primary health care is an essential component of action to improve
health status and that the Australian Government had made significant progress in
increasing the provision of such services. It found that in areas where these services were
adequately developed, more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were having
disease detected and treated as well as taking part in programs to improve health. In
these areas, reductions in communicable disease such as pneumococcal disease,
improved detection and management of chronic disease such as diabetes, and better
child and maternal health outcomes including reductions in preterm births and increases
in birthweight were evident (Dwyer et al. 2004)."

The quotes above were all taken from AIHW "The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 2005"

"Compared with other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are disadvantaged with regard to a range of socio-economic indicators, including education, employment, income and housing, and are therefore at greater risk of ill health. Information on these indicators is available from the 2001 Census and was covered in detail in The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Socio-economic status alone does not explain the variations in health status that exist between groups in society. Health risk behaviours (e.g. smoking, alcohol misuse) and other health risk factors (e.g. poor housing, exposure to violence) are also important determinants of health but even these do not fully explain the differential burden of disease between population groups. Research suggests that at least a partial explanation for the remaining differences lies in other determinants of health such as aspects of the social environment. These include the neighbourhood in which one lives, one's position in the workplace relative to others, the quality of one's social connections with friends, family and the community, and the degree to which one feels included or excluded by society (Wilkinson, 1999, Shaw et al. 1999). A lack of control, whether actual or perceived, over aspects of one's life, may also contribute to poor health (Marmot et al. in Marmot & Wilkinson 1999 and Lantz 1998). A recent qualitative analysis of the health of the Yolgnu people of north-east Arnhem Land extends these hypotheses to the Indigenous population. Trudgen (2000) has identified loss of control among the Yolgnu as leading to hopelessness, the loss of the will to live and, ultimately to high levels of sickness and mortality" (my emphasis)

See, anyone can post a few links, Liverpool. There is no doubt that money is being expended on aboriginal health, but questions of access, availability and adequacy of health services for indigenous people clearly still exist. How could this be? Of course, for you it all comes down to straightening up and flying right. You asked me whether aboriginal people should take any responsibility for the way they live. Of course, left-wingers like me could never expect that, could they?

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/rciadic/individual/harrison/29.html

There is no doubt that a change to a culture of alcoholism amongst aboriginal people needs to come from within. But are you seriously trying to suggest that the origins of that culture come only from aboriginal people themselves. What am I asking? Of course you are.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80506e/80506E0f.htm

Oh yes, in Liverpool's world, these are all simple questions with simple solutions.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/14/1065917413172.html?from=storyrhs

The article attached to that link suggests that the rate of aboriginal imprisonment is 15 times higher than for the general population. Straighten up and fly right indeed. Of course, in Liverpool's world, it is because they are lazy, black criminals - hey Liverpool? No other expanation for aboriginal people's over-representation in crime and the criminal justice system is needed, hey Liverpool?

See how easy it is to put words in people's mouths?

Liverpool, try to cut down on the pained sense of self-righteous indignation - it only makes you sound pathetic.
 
eight ace said:
Well done Liverpool. Yes I do question Richards' asserted experience. His opening line was "Trust me, I've worked there". Why should I trust that assertion when it can be easily used as a trump to a discussion like this? Like I said, maybe he worked there, maybe he didn't. I have no reason at all to trust that assertion. Also, his post didn't require an answer from me and didn't get one. I'm sure he can speak for himself and doesn't need you to hold his hand. Liverpool, the people's guardian. What a laugh.

Eightace,
This is hypocrisy though.
Why should anyone believe or take any notice of what you say or say you have done?
With this line of thinking, no one can believe any one, on any thread.
You have to take people at face value, unless you know them personally.
I think this is just an excuse, because someone answered you who claimed to have first-hand knowledge, and you had no reply.

eight ace said:
They face a number of barriers to accessing services including distance from services, lack of transport (particularly in remote areas), financial difficulties and proximity of culturally appropriate services.

I don't doubt this Eightace.
Agree with what you posted.
But my point is, if you or I were living on a sheep-station, or a small community somewhere in outback Australia, then we would have the same distance problem, as well as a lack of transport problem. This problem isn’t just exclusive to Aborigines. It’s a problem for anyone who resides in such remote places, regardless of race or religion.
Also, if I felt where I was residing didn’t provide myself, or my family, with important services, such as employment, health, education, welfare, etc…then you would move, wouldn’t you?

eight ace said:
"Health services that are initiated, controlled and operated by the Indigenous community
have the potential to increase the level of access to health services for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples by providing holistic and culturally appropriate care.
SNIP
Australian Government had made significant progress in
increasing the provision of such services. It found that in areas where these services were
adequately developed, more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were having
disease detected and treated as well as taking part in programs to improve health.

Don’t disagree with what you posted.
Good to see that Johnny ‘don’t say sorry’ Howard’s government has been the one to make significant progress in this area.

eight ace said:
"Compared with other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are disadvantaged with regard to a range of socio-economic indicators, including education, employment, income and housing, and are therefore at greater risk of ill health. Information on these indicators is available from the 2001 Census and was covered in detail in The health and welfare of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Their education indicators are poor, because they are brought up in an environment where education is deemed as not important.
Many of the parents, who haven’t been educated themselves, show no responsibility towards their children going to school and getting an education, and so the evil circle continues.
Distance has been used as a reason for inhabitants in the very remote regions of obtaining a high-level of education, and this is quite valid for ALL Australians who reside in these areas, however, how can this be used as an excuse for Aboriginal children residing in suburbs of larger communities, such as Redfern in Sydney, for example?
For Aborigines, the opportunity for an education is there, as it is for everyone.
No school has a legislation denying Aborigines the right to attend, and if I'm not wrong, I thought it was compulsory for all children to attend school up to a certain age anyway?
Aboriginal community leaders should be concentrating on encouraging Aboriginal parents the importance of their children getting a good education, as the building block for future employment opportunities, where money earned can be used to provide themselves and their families better housing, and basically, a better lifestyle.
This, I feel, is a major step in breaking the evil circle.

eight ace said:
Socio-economic status alone does not explain the variations in health status that exist between groups in society.
SNIP
A recent qualitative analysis of the health of the Yolgnu people of north-east Arnhem Land extends these hypotheses to the Indigenous population. Trudgen (2000) has identified loss of control among the Yolgnu as leading to hopelessness, the loss of the will to live and, ultimately to high levels of sickness and mortality" (my emphasis)

This is the ‘evil circle’ that I am talking about.
Agree with what you posted.

eight ace said:
There is no doubt that money is being expended on aboriginal health, but questions of access, availability and adequacy of health services for indigenous people clearly still exist. How could this be? Of course, for you it all comes down to straightening up and flying right. You asked me whether aboriginal people should take any responsibility for the way they live. Of course, left-wingers like me could never expect that, could they?

Yes, I stand my by opinion.

eight ace said:
There is no doubt that a change to a culture of alcoholism amongst aboriginal people needs to come from within. But are you seriously trying to suggest that the origins of that culture come only from aboriginal people themselves. What am I asking? Of course you are.

Nice of you to admit that Aborigines have to take some responsibility for their lifestyle.
No, I’ve never suggested that the origins of that culture come only from Aboriginal people themselves….where did I say that?
I’m quite happy to admit that alcohol is something that European settlers have brought to Australia, and that the Aboriginal anatomy is not used to this type of drug.
However, I show Aborigines who use alcohol abuse as an excuse, the same sympathy (or lack of) that I show drug-users, who know that these substances are not good, yet continually try them, get hooked, and then blame everybody else except themselves, for their predicament.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions, end of, regardless of race or religion.
Too many people these days blame the Government, or what happened in their childhood, or the lady down the street at the local milkbar....for decisions THEY made in their life.

eight ace said:
The article attached to that link suggests that the rate of aboriginal imprisonment is 15 times higher than for the general population. Straighten up and fly right indeed.

Yes, it’s very likely that it’s 15 times higher.
I agree with what you posted.
The article points to alcohol and drug abuse, child neglect, poor school performance and unemployment, as reasons why its so high….the evil circle I have spoken about.
With growing-up in an environment such as this, then its quite reasonable to expect Aboriginal imprisonment is much higher than non-Aborigines.
You have kids skipping school, and getting into trouble with the law, at such an early age, mainly due to a lack of supervision, discipline, and care, from their own parents.
Therefore, they only get a very minimal education, not enough to provide them with the knowledge to gain respectable employment, this leads to unemployment, boredom, alcohol/drug abuse, and criminal activity….hence why you have such a high proportion of Aborigines in trouble with the law.
They then have children, and the circle continues.

I totally agree with what the article states, in that unemployment is a major priority for helping Aborigines.
However, I’d take it back one step, and say that education is even more important, as education gives that self-discipline, planning, knowledge, and skills required to make an impression on any employer looking to hire, as well as giving the individual the reasons why education is important, so when they have children, then they will enforce their children to go to school as well.
This is the area the Aboriginal community leaders need to concentrate on, as the Government can provide the opportunities, but I think the Aboriginal people would respect their own community leaders view of why education for children is so important, rather anything that a white Government official states.
I think if Aboriginal tribal leaders concentrated more on important issues such as this, instead of protests in the park and whether the PM says 'sorry' or not, then many problems that Aborigines face, may be improved upon much more significantly.
Straighten up and fly right?
Spot on! :clap

P.S:
eight ace said:
Of course, in Liverpool's world, it is because they are lazy, black criminals - hey Liverpool? No other expanation for aboriginal people's over-representation in crime and the criminal justice system is needed, hey Liverpool?
See how easy it is to put words in people's mouths?
Liverpool, try to cut down on the pained sense of self-righteous indignation - it only makes you sound pathetic.

No need for this type of rubbish mate.
More than happy to debate and discuss the topic at hand, but the only one sounding pathetic with the above comments, is yourself.
 
I wish you cut the silent majority *smile* Liverpool it doesn't wash. Polling research shows that roughly 45% of white Australian are concerned about indigenous issues, 45% percent are either supicious of blacks because they just don't know or understand the issues, are racist, or don't care. The othe 10 percent can go either way depending on political leadership.

In 1976 Malcolm Fraser easily got enough electoral support for the Territory's Aboriginal Land Rights Act by promoting the benefits, likewise Keating did have enough support for the first Native Act 1993, then Howard was just as easily able to fan the flames of suspicion that people could lose jobs or backyards or whatever to get enough support for his 10 point plan of amendments in 1998.

I'd like to think the majority of Aussies, at least when given some decent info, would give blacks the benefit of the doubt. I don't count you in that majority though.
 
tigersnake said:
I wish you cut the silent majority *smile* Liverpool it doesn't wash.  Polling research shows that roughly 45% of white Australian are concerned about indigenous issues, 45% percent are either supicious of blacks because they just don't know or understand the issues, are racist, or don't care.  The othe 10 percent can go either way depending on political leadership.

Have you got a link or documentation so all can read the polling research please?
 
For Fraser passing the NT ALRA:

Libby, R.T. 1989. Hawke’s Law: The Politics of Mining and Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia. Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.

For Keating and the NTA:

Rowse, T. 1994. How we got a Native Title Act, in M. Goot and T. Rowse, (eds.) Make a Better Offer: The Politics of Mabo. Leichhardt: Pluto Press.

(there is also another chapter in this book that looks specifically at attitudes to aboriginies from polling.  Forget the author but its obvious from the title)

For Howards 10 point plan:

Brennan, F. 1998. The Wik Debate: Its impact on Aborigines, Pastoralists and Miners. Sydney: UNSW Press.

I can give you some more if you get through that lot.

by the way, I've only considered the 'majority' part of your so-called 'silent majority'. Youse aint so silent as far as I'm concerned.
 
Tigersnake,

Thanks for the links.

Regarding the figures:

45% of white Australians are 'concerned' about Aboriginal affairs.
Surprised it isn't higher, considering a person like me, who isn't in the majority, is concerned that Aboriginal leaders aren't doing enough to help their own people.
(read my post answering Eightace for my views)

45% of white Australians are 'suspicious' of Aborigines.
Well, considering that Eightace has given evidence showing that Aborigines have 15 times higher the general population, when it comes to imprisonment, then I'm not surprised by the 45% who are a little suspicious of Aborigines.
I know its a shame to tar all people with the same brush, but I guess many moderate Islams are also feeling under the microscope as well, due to extremists tarnishing their religion....the same, I imagine, would be for Aborigines out there who feel they are getting tarred with the same brush due to the Aborigines who do commit crimes.

Therefore, I pretty much agree with your post.
 
Liverpool said:
45% of white Australians are 'suspicious' of Aborigines.
Well, considering that Eightace has given evidence showing that Aborigines have 15 times higher the general population, when it comes to imprisonment, then I'm not surprised by the 45% who are a little suspicious of Aborigines.
...the chicken or the egg?
 
Liverpool said:
But my point is, if you or I were living on a sheep-station, or a small community somewhere in outback Australia, then we would have the same distance problem, as well as a lack of transport problem. This problem isn’t just exclusive to Aborigines. It’s a problem for anyone who resides in such remote places, regardless of race or religion.
Also, if I felt where I was residing didn’t provide myself, or my family, with important services, such as employment, health, education, welfare, etc…then you would move, wouldn’t you?

As usual, you just don't get it Liverpool, because despite your ever present willingness to 'debate Aboriginal issues', you know almost nothing about Aboriginal culture...which FWIW, is probably more than half the reason people lose patience with you.

To Aboriginal people, land is not just a hunk of dirt waiting to be exploited for capital gain, it's perhaps the most important element of their spiritual beliefs - the fabric of their belief system is embedded in the landscape. To demand that an Aboriginal person moves from their ancestral homeland is the equivalent of demanding that a devout Christian moves to a place where there is no church and where bibles are banned.

Pastoral leases, mining leases and European settlement destroyed any possibility for Aboriginal people of past era's to practice their traditional culture - sacred ceremonies, food procurement and traditional seasonal movement within defined territories. In many areas, much of the skills and knowledge needed to practice this traditional way of life was lost due to past European interference - appropriating Aboriginal land for commercial purposes, dislocating them and depriving them of their livelihood in the process; stealing children from their parents etc.

Practically all Aboriginal 'problems' stem from all that was taken from them.

The Australian people caused the problem, if we really believe in the sense of 'a fair go' that we frequently promote about ourselves, then no amount of time or assistance should dissuade us from working with Aboriginal communities and people to correct the great wrongs of the past.

Until you can imagine what it's like to lose your home, your community, your parents, your children, your religion, your livelihood and all the things which comprise your sense of dignity, you will continue to bleat empty, dominant culture rhetoric from a position of total non-comprehension.
 
Rayzorwire said:
As usual, you just don't get it Liverpool, because despite your ever present willingness to 'debate Aboriginal issues', you know almost nothing about Aboriginal culture...which FWIW, is probably more than half the reason people lose patience with you.

Rayzorwire,
It wouldn't matter if I did post my personal experiences with the Aboriginal culture on here though, would it?
The response to someone who did:

eight ace said:
Well done Liverpool. Yes I do question Richards' asserted experience. His opening line was "Trust me, I've worked there". Why should I trust that assertion when it can be easily used as a trump to a discussion like this? Like I said, maybe he worked there, maybe he didn't. I have no reason at all to trust that assertion.

Rayzorwire said:
To Aboriginal people, land is not just a hunk of dirt waiting to be exploited for capital gain, it's perhaps the most important element of their spiritual beliefs - the fabric of their belief system is embedded in the landscape. To demand that an Aboriginal person moves from their ancestral homeland is the equivalent of demanding that a devout Christian moves to a place where there is no church and where bibles are banned.

Pastoral leases, mining leases and European settlement destroyed any possibility for Aboriginal people of past era's to practice their traditional culture - sacred ceremonies, food procurement and traditional seasonal movement within defined territories. In many areas, much of the skills and knowledge needed to practice this traditional way of life was lost due to past European interference - appropriating Aboriginal land for commercial purposes, dislocating them and depriving them of their livelihood in the process; stealing children from their parents etc.

Practically all Aboriginal 'problems' stem from all that was taken from them.

The Australian people caused the problem, if we really believe in the sense of 'a fair go' that we frequently promote about ourselves, then no amount of time or assistance should dissuade us from working with Aboriginal communities and people to correct the great wrongs of the past.

Until you can imagine what it's like to lose your home, your community, your parents, your children, your religion, your livelihood and all the things which comprise your sense of dignity, you will continue to bleat empty, dominant culture rhetoric from a position of total non-comprehension.

Rayzorwire,
I have no problem admitting that Aborigines were here first....I've never denied that.
However, white settlement is 200+ years into existence now. We are not going anywhere. This is fact. Its a waste of time and resources, going on about what was taken from Aborigines 200+ years ago.
Aborigines were not the first, and they won't be the last, indigenous people of a land, to be faced with such a dilemma from outsiders coming into their world.
Indians in North America from white settlers, Indians in South America from the Spanish/Portugese, many African countries have European connections, the list goes on. And if you go further back into history, there were invasions and wars throughout the ages, where peoples ways, means, languages, and lifestyles, were lost, or changed forever.
I'm afraid, that is life.

Now, 200+ years later, non-Aboriginal Australians, not just white Australians, but Australians with backgrounds from all different countries, backgrounds, and religions, have made Australia 'home'.
Many of these people are happy to co-exist, even though they are a minority themselves....and happy to contribute to the country. They are happy to use the opportunities to further themselves personally, as well as use the experiences they gain, to further the country as a whole.
I encourage Aborigines to do the same.

I still believe Aborigines have to stop using this 'all todays problems stem from what was taken from us' persona, as an excuse for what they are doing (or not doing) individually, and collectively now
Yes, white settlers may have taken the land, but on the other hand, Australia is regarded as the 'lucky country', a country envied by many others around the world. We can offer all citizens a good education, employment opportunities, wages/salaries that can buy a reasonable lifestyle, such as travelling overseas and the like.
Aborigines have these opportunities also.
But they have to be willing to help themselves also.
Your line:
Rayzorwire said:
Practically all Aboriginal 'problems' stem from all that was taken from them.
....is a cop-out, and an excuse, for current failings.

I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.
 
Liverpool said:
I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

This bloke sounds like a eugenics textbook from the 1950s.
 
antman said:
Liverpool said:
I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

This bloke sounds like a eugenics textbook from the 1950s.

Please tell me why.  What has Livers said that (in the quote above) that is factually incorrect?
 
poppa x said:
antman said:
Liverpool said:
I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

This bloke sounds like a eugenics textbook from the 1950s.

Please tell me why.  What has Livers said that (in the quote above) that is factually incorrect?

Antman... I would also like to hear your reasons for such a stupid comment.
 
poppa x said:
antman said:
Liverpool said:
I'm not asking Aborigines to forget their culture, their heritage, or their traditional lifestyles, but I think for the race to evolve and to continue, they have to also take hold of opportunities that are out there.
Just holding on to past wrongdoings, will only lead to the death of the race as a whole, as the world will not stop for them.

This bloke sounds like a eugenics textbook from the 1950s.

Please tell me why. What has Livers said that (in the quote above) that is factually incorrect?

Go away and read up on theories of eugenics, and theories that the aborigines were a "dying race" who would merge with the white population and become indistinguishable from whites (common over the last two centuries in Australia) or "die out", and it put together yourself.