NationStates Jolt Archive

Today quite a big thing happened in Australia, yet I have my doubts that the commercial news stations would've spent much time on it.

As some of you may know, Australia is a federation, much like the US. The States have their own jurisdictions, and the role of the federal government is fairly clearly defined.

John Howard today decided to take big steps towards violating that definition by taking over an issue from the Northern Territory's government - namely that of how to fix the Aboriginal community, or as he put it "a national emergency".

Aboriginals live shorter, poorer lives, are likely to live with curable diseases. Added to that is alcoholism and petrol sniffing. And a recent article adds to that absolutely vast child sexual abuse. There seems hardly a child in remote outback communities that wasn't sexually active at the age of 12, usually with adults. Some do it for money, others do it because they're forced to and again others seem to look at porn and think that this is normal behaviour (or so the report says).

And because the NT state government has not been able to do anything about this in decades, basically, Howard now decided to take charge (and I'm sure the election has nothing to do with it...).

His solution is a package that includes tying welfare payments to the children of the family not being abused, a ban on alcohol in outback towns, restrictions on alcohol in the whole of the NT (which presumably includes restaurants in Darwin), a total ban on porn and so on. He does this by overriding the state government, normally the federal government wouldn't have power to do this. He's going to rush laws regarding it through parliament (possibly calling some MPs back from holidays).

More details here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21943476-601,00.html).

The thing is, I actually agree with him on this being a national emergency. These communities are broken, whatever culture they used to have has been virtually destroyed and replaced by what seems to be a neverending horror financed with welfare money. I don't think a ban on porn is going to change anything (though making alcohol harder to get in these communities might, and non-sniffable petrol definitely will), and I think he should be doing these things with the NT government rather than over it, but that's the election for you.

But how do you think communities like these can be fixed? This is a rich, developed, multicultural country but these people live like in Darfurian refugee camps except with money for alcohol. It's not a situation that can really be tolerated, but I have no idea how to change it. What do you reckon?

Has anybody actually asked them if they want to be 'fixed' in this manner?

It was my understanding that the Northern Territory was just that, a Territory, and not a State at all; meaning that it does not have the same jurisdiction as the other real states. This means Howard has as much right to do what he wants there. But then again, what would I know, i'm just a Kiwi.

The States have their own jurisdictions, and the role of the federal government is fairly clearly defined.
John Howard today decided to take big steps towards violating that definition by taking over an issue from the Northern Territory's government

Is he allowed to do so? This looks like a sort of constitutional reform to me.


His solution is a package that includes tying welfare payments to the children of the family not being abused,

Well, this could be a good idea... if you also take the abused children away from that families, that is and jail the perpetrators of the abuses.


a ban on alcohol in outback towns, restrictions on alcohol in the whole of the NT (which presumably includes restaurants in Darwin),


US previous experience with ban on alcohol clearly hasn't taught anything to Mr.Howard.


a total ban on porn


So, goodbye freedom of print! If I'm an adult and want to watch porn, it is my bloody right to do so.


I think he should be doing these things with the NT government rather than over it, but that's the election for you.

Cpt.Obvious says "politicians will do anything to win elections".
Yes, working with the local authorities could be a better idea.


But how do you think communities like these can be fixed? This is a rich, developed, multicultural country but these people live like in Darfurian refugee camps except with money for alcohol. It's not a situation that can really be tolerated, but I have no idea how to change it. What do you reckon?

Maybe, creating/supporting the growth of the local tourism industry could be a good idea, along with special taxation laws that state that all the tax income of the NT will be used IN the NT to create new infrastructures and services (roads, schools, aqueducts, housing, hospitals etc).

I actually heard quite an interesting opinion on this at a Labor discussion at my local branch recently, basically it is that the Howard liberal govt has neglected aboriginal communities for 10 years because it saw them as ideologically abhorrent, and wants to introduce property leasing/renting, individual contractual employment etc to try and destroy traditional aboriginal communalism, which itself sees the whole community as a single unit and the Aboriginal society has lived like for over 40k years, as opposed to the atomic family model of conservatives of the liberal govt. I mean just look at the recent proposal, bans on porn, no alcohol, individual property enforcement (opposed to individual culture), it reads more like a conservative manual than a effort to increase the welfare of aboriginals.

It's a wonder they survived this long without government intervention.:rolleyes:

It's a wonder they survived this long without government intervention.:rolleyes:

lol

I think the inherent alcoholism of these communities is the one that has to be tackled. Firstly, the distribution of it needs to be severely reduced... not removed, that would cause MASSIVE outcry, and rightly so, but limited, stem the flow a little... and re-education that alcohol is a sometimes food.

But I don't know the logistics of these things, or what the attitudes of the people would be... I always feel sorry for them, they need help :(

Has anybody actually asked them if they want to be 'fixed' in this manner?
I'm asking you about the manner, but that something need fixing is in my opinion pretty obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians#Issues_facing_Indigenous_Australians_today

The thing with Aboriginal groups at the moment is that there's a lot of moaning and complaining about past injustices and very little self-reflection.

But then again, what would I know, i'm just a Kiwi.
Exactly. :p

Seriously though, I'm not too clear on the legalities. It may well be that the NT is a special case and there won't need to be far-reaching changes to get this through. But in a practical sense it still is a pretty big thing to do, because even though the NT might not be a state in legal terms, it pretty much is in all others.

...destroy traditional aboriginal communalism...
Someone needs to step out of his labor party discussion room and into the real world.

Aboriginal communalism is dead. When everyone's high and/or drunk and coming hope to have sex with 9-year olds, that's not communalism.

Obviously Howard is gonna have his conservative ideas about how people should live, that's why he became a politician. But I'm also asking about what your ideas would be.

It's a wonder they survived this long without government intervention.:rolleyes:
Well, you can see that both ways...some of these communities are no better than some third world village, except with fewer norms of behaviour. That may be "surviving" in the biological sense, but not a lot more.

It pains a liberal like me to say this, but "think of the children!" Being born into that sort of community basically ruins the rest of your life. Regardless of your political persuasion there seems to be something unfair about that.

Someone needs to step out of his labor party discussion room and into the real world.

Aboriginal communalism is dead. When everyone's high and/or drunk and coming hope to have sex with 9-year olds, that's not communalism.

Obviously Howard is gonna have his conservative ideas about how people should live, that's why he became a politician. But I'm also asking about what your ideas would be.


Well for one, this problem has been blown totally out of proportion, the alcohol/drug/sexual abuse problem has for the most part been centralized only to the 3 communities in NT, it has little if any support outside those communities obviously. I also think your attacking the aboriginal people and their culture, basically all the Howard govt has done recently has been to raise these tiny fringe occurances and then somehow use it to say aboriginal communities and culture are dead and now we have to enforce conservative culture on them. Let them tell you something, aboriginals have been living communally in our country for forty thousand years! That's why to this day they live in their own removed communities in their traditional communal society, to keep it alive because it has survived and been perfected for so long. Now people like you and others basically want all aboriginal communities to pack up and go to the cities, put on suits and become white people all but for their skin color, everyone should know that this is assimilation and cultural genocide at best. This proposal is nothing but the Liberal govt trying to force their backward ideology on others, overriding state/territory authorities like BB because it's an election year.

How to deal with their remains? I don't know, eat them?

Exactly. :p

Seriously though, I'm not too clear on the legalities. It may well be that the NT is a special case and there won't need to be far-reaching changes to get this through. But in a practical sense it still is a pretty big thing to do, because even though the NT might not be a state in legal terms, it pretty much is in all others.Teh wiki says the NT government derives its powers through delagation of the Commonwealth's powers, and not through constitutional right.

And now, watch the entire non-Aboriginal population of NT RUN FOR THE FUCKING HILLS. Leave the shit to the Aborigines.

Sounds curiously like apartheidism (I think I made up that word),... but what do you expect from the current Australian government.

Sounds curiously like apartheidism (I think I made up that word),... but what do you expect from the current Australian government.

Except it SHOULD be. Why should the non-Aboriginals of the NT suffer? If the Aborigines are the problem, then various degrees of aparteid they should get until they fix their act.

Except it SHOULD be. Why should the non-Aboriginals of the NT suffer? If the Aborigines are the problem, then various degrees of aparteid they should get until they fix their act.

GOD for TEH WIN!

ahem... "You make sound like it's gonna be the Final Solution on the Aboriginal Problem".

GOD for TEH WIN!

ahem... "You make sound like it's gonna be the Final Solution on the Aboriginal Problem".

Uhh, tell me why normal NTers should be denied alcohol and porn because the Aborigines live like crap.

Uhh, tell me why normal NTers should be denied alcohol and porn because the Aborigines live like crap.

Well, if you really want to be liberal,... let them destroy themselves.

Oh, okay, I'm just joshing,... anyways, the problem with this isn't as simple as taking away the vices. It'll never work. This is a social problem, so it should be dealt socially by education and all that.

Either way, weren't the settlers who introduce alcoholism and pR0n to the natives? Well, it's up to the settlers too to introduce them to moderation.

The total ban on porn is only X-rated porn; which is already illegal in most of the country.

To be honest, I don't have a clue what to do. I don't think anyone does. Soft and hard schemes have all failed. I'm willing to support this latest scheme; I'm not convinced it will work, but we have to try. The report title is very true, "Little Children are Sacred."

Am I the only one who was moved when JWH said,
"We're dealing with a group of young Australians for whom the concept of childhood innocence has never been present and that's a sad and tragic event."


Hopefully the Liberals can sign up Noel Pearson and run him in an outback seat this year.

I started reading the Report, but abandoned the attempt. The point that resonates with me is that it is a destructive spiral. The longer it is allowed to continue, the worse it will spiral out of control.

Here are a few select quotes.

"HG was born in a remote Barkly community in 1960. In 1972, he was twice anally raped by an older Aboriginal man. He didn’t report it because of shame and embarrassment. He never told anyone about it until 2006 when he was seeking release from prison where he had been confined for many years as a dangerous sex offender. In 1980 and 1990, he had attempted to have sex with young girls. In 1993, he anally raped a 10-year-old girl and, in 1997, an eightyear- old boy (ZH). In 2004, ZH anally raped a five year-old boy in the same community. That little boy complained: “ZH fucked me”. Who will ensure that in years to come that little boy will not himself become an offender?"
Little Children are Sacred: pg12

"Are there simple fixes? Of course not! Our conservative estimate is that it will take at least 15 years (equivalent to an Aboriginal generation) to make some inroads into the crisis and then hopefully move on from there. Perhaps this is too optimistic (COAG has an as-yet un-commenced 20-year-long plan – to start, if agreed to, in 2009. It has been talking about it, or something like it, since at least 2000!). The NT Government is also working on its own 20-Year Action Plan. When will it start?"
Little Children are Sacred: pg13

"In one community, an 18-year-old youth anally raped and drowned a six-year-old who was swimming with friends at a waterhole. It was an opportunistic crime and the offender was a chronic petrol sniffer and under the influence of petrol on the day of the murder."
Little Children are Sacred: pg64

There is another item of abuse pg64 that turned my stomach, though I should have expected it. Anyone who decides to read, should consider themselves warned.

"I was attending to a mother in the waiting room area one day when her three-year-old daughter, who was naked, laid down on the floor in front of a young boy. This three-year-old girl then spread her legs wide
apart and motioned the boy to her vagina.

There was no evidence this girl had been sexually abused but clearly she had been exposed to sexual behaviour and it had made her a vulnerable target."
Little Children are Sacred: pg65

"And you know like; I suppose the biggest part in my life was the sexual abuse. You know that happened from not long after the old man grabbed me, a friend of the family, and I put up with it till the age of 14, when
I said no enough’s enough. It started about four or five years old. Now, like with my crime now, [rape] like when I see these programs mob and they say “hang on, you talk about empathy. Now let’s put on your shoes,
putting yourself in the shoes of the victim” and I said hang on, woo, pull up, I was a victim. So I”ve seen both sides of the fence and I can comment to you as a victim and as a perpetrator of the crime."
Little Children are Sacred: pg67

"When I was six my old man shot my mum, yeah fucking shot my mum, bang in the head. They had been blueing all night. He made me clean her brains off the floor. When I raped that girl I felt like all my pain was going into her, when she screamed that was me screaming, I know it sounds fucked up but that’s what it felt like. I looked at my hands after, the blood on my
hands and the shit, it was all slimy, I thought I was cleaning up my mum’s brains again, it felt the same."
Little Children are Sacred: pg67

Tragic situation, and tricky issue to solve. I'm sure we all agree that something does need to be done to protect these Aboriginal kids.

Howard's efforts may have some positive outcome, but for the most part I'm guessing they'll just create a lot of resentment without solving much. And treating innocent adults like children with limited rights is bound to make people angry.

There are of course no mirably solutions. But if you're going to address the problem thoroughly, you need to talk to responsible figures of authority within the affected Aboriginal communities, see what they think, rely on their experience, and work something out with them.

(Oh, and the title of your thread is way off topic, by the way.)

Uhh, tell me why normal NTers should be denied alcohol and porn because the Aborigines live like crap.
Because 'normal NTers' aren't being denied alcohol?

snip

Nevertheless, I fail to see how this involves non-Aboriginal Australians. This is a problem that the Aborigines and the govt. have to work out.

I believe the article said "restriction on alcohol in the whole of NT".
I got this:

"Detailing the measures, Mr Howard said: "In relation to alcohol, the intention is to introduce widespread alcohol restrictions on Northern Territory Aboriginal land for six months."

Because 'normal NTers' aren't being denied alcohol?

I believe the article said "restriction on alcohol in the whole of NT".

Sounds like Facism to me. This 'report' ,ay aswell say "The aboriginees are clearly the source of all Australia's problems."

I got this:

"Detailing the measures, Mr Howard said: "In relation to alcohol, the intention is to introduce widespread alcohol restrictions on Northern Territory Aboriginal land for six months."

I read "whole of NT". We'll see what comes of it.

Everything except the ban of alcohol and t3h pr0n seems good and workable...

Today quite a big thing happened in Australia, yet I have my doubts that the commercial news stations would've spent much time on it.

As some of you may know, Australia is a federation, much like the US. The States have their own jurisdictions, and the role of the federal government is fairly clearly defined.

John Howard today decided to take big steps towards violating that definition by taking over an issue from the Northern Territory's government - namely that of how to fix the Aboriginal community, or as he put it "a national emergency".

Aboriginals live shorter, poorer lives, are likely to live with curable diseases. Added to that is alcoholism and petrol sniffing. And a recent article adds to that absolutely vast child sexual abuse. There seems hardly a child in remote outback communities that wasn't sexually active at the age of 12, usually with adults. Some do it for money, others do it because they're forced to and again others seem to look at porn and think that this is normal behaviour (or so the report says).

And because the NT state government has not been able to do anything about this in decades, basically, Howard now decided to take charge (and I'm sure the election has nothing to do with it...).

His solution is a package that includes tying welfare payments to the children of the family not being abused, a ban on alcohol in outback towns, restrictions on alcohol in the whole of the NT (which presumably includes restaurants in Darwin), a total ban on porn and so on. He does this by overriding the state government, normally the federal government wouldn't have power to do this. He's going to rush laws regarding it through parliament (possibly calling some MPs back from holidays).

More details here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21943476-601,00.html).

The thing is, I actually agree with him on this being a national emergency. These communities are broken, whatever culture they used to have has been virtually destroyed and replaced by what seems to be a neverending horror financed with welfare money. I don't think a ban on porn is going to change anything (though making alcohol harder to get in these communities might, and non-sniffable petrol definitely will), and I think he should be doing these things with the NT government rather than over it, but that's the election for you.

But how do you think communities like these can be fixed? This is a rich, developed, multicultural country but these people live like in Darfurian refugee camps except with money for alcohol. It's not a situation that can really be tolerated, but I have no idea how to change it. What do you reckon?

What? Am I a national emergency now?

Sounds like Facism to me. This 'report' ,ay aswell say "The aboriginees are clearly the source of all Australia's problems."

Actually, sounds more like "The aborigines are clearly the source of all of the aborigines problems".

Actually, sounds more like "The aborigines are clearly the source of all of the aborigines problems".



Actually, sounds more like "The poverty resulting from colonialism is clearly one of several sources of some of the aborigines problems".

It may be difficult for you to understand but the truth is this: blaming all the problems of aboriginal communities on aborigines is as stupid as blaming it all on white people.

As for the OP, it seems like a foolish and high handed approach to solving problems best dealt with on a local level. Any solution that appears to come from the Australian government will probably be seen as an unwelcome intrusion into aboriginal affairs, while a similar effort coordinated with local aboriginal leaders would not be perceived as such.

A comprehensive approach would have to include some method of supporting aboriginal culture, while improving local infrastructure at the same time. An example would be to provide the funds for hospitals and schools designed and built by members of the local aboriginal community. Often, cultural communities have different ways of educating children or administering to their sick and wounded that are overlooked or unknown to "western" designers and professionals.

Even having simple things like ensuring free access to potable water on aboriginal lands could alleviate a lot of problems with disease. This would lessen the demand on the infrastructure and free up more resources for the communities formerly afflicted with high levels of disease. Using aboriginal workers would also help with the unemployment that also afflicts these communities.

Actually, sounds more like "The aborigines are clearly the source of all of the aborigines problems".

Actually the report suggests the problems are caused mainly by alcohol and a lack of education. Noel Pearson also points to unemployment, easy money and too much free time.

Also, the report points to both whites, mainly miners, and blacks being the perpetrators of sexual abuse.

But the fact remains, if this is such a 'national emergency' and big problem, why didn't Howard do something about it 11 years ago when it was first discovered, now that it's in the media and it's an election year and Howard is in trouble, he's giving money, he doesn't care about aboriginal cultures or if anyone is being sexually abused, he just wants to doubleplusgood enforce and take over the NT because it doesn't have many electoral senate seats, and he wants to destroy traditional aboriginal communalism.

The Northern Territory has two Senate seats, not zero.

Why hasn't the government acted for 11 years? First, the problem goes back to when Labor was in power federally, and runs while Labor has been in power at a state level, so Labor can't point fingers here.

I suspect in part, you're right the Liberals weren't that interested; but also there was an ignorance of the scale of the problem. Mal Brough is the first indigenous affairs in a long time to really care about the plight of aboriginals, and I think this has had sway over the cabinet. I don't think anyone was ready for the contents of "Children are Sacred", and it was widely assumed to be isolated incidents.

As for this being electorally motivated; aboriginal issues have never been vote winners before and I don't see there being any votes in this now. People are far more swayed whether a CMFEU official shot Bambi's mother.

If only the fucking abos would quit molesting their children, sniffing glue and getting drunk. I wonder if it's a genetic weakness? I mean...it's not like anything really bad ever happened to slowly twist them that way. They were given everything for free from the very beginning. We should just build a wall around them and let them kill themselves off.

If only the fucking abos would quit molesting their children, sniffing glue and getting drunk. I wonder if it's a genetic weakness? I mean...it's not like anything really bad ever happened to slowly twist them that way. They were given everything for free from the very beginning. We should just build a wall around them and let them kill themselves off.

hear hear! its not as if this fits into some perfectly predictable pattern that has repeated itself countless times around the world or anything. they must just be inferior.

If only the fucking abos would quit molesting their children, sniffing glue and getting drunk. I wonder if it's a genetic weakness? I mean...it's not like anything really bad ever happened to slowly twist them that way. They were given everything for free from the very beginning. We should just build a wall around them and let them kill themselves off.

Your an absolute tool, and if you actually read the report you'd know that the majority of those found to be sexually abusing and raping aboriginal children are WHITE outsiders from the community who bring the alcohol/drugs and sniffable petrol in, and swap it for sex. So please leave your racist raving at home fool.

Your an absolute tool, and if you actually read the report you'd know that the majority of those found to be sexually abusing and raping aboriginal children are WHITE outsiders from the community who bring the alcohol/drugs and sniffable petrol in, and swap it for sex. So please leave your racist raving at home fool.

She was being sarcastic.

hear hear! its not as if this fits into some perfectly predictable pattern that has repeated itself countless times around the world or anything. they must just be inferior.

That's pretty obvious. Sure, it's not nice to say but...they've only done this to themselves. I don't see why taxpayers should have to dig them out of the misery the abos themselves have created.

Your an absolute tool, and if you actually read the report you'd know that the majority of those found to be sexually abusing and raping aboriginal children are WHITE outsiders from the community who bring the alcohol/drugs and sniffable petrol in, and swap it for sex. So please leave your racist raving at home fool.

lol

It's a wonder they survived this long without government intervention.:rolleyes:

Well of COURSE it's their fault they were completely fucked over. How DARE they live where we wanted to settle.

That's pretty obvious. Sure, it's not nice to say but...they've only done this to themselves. I don't see why taxpayers should have to dig them out of the misery the abos themselves have created.

indeed, it really would be best for everyone if we just forgot about them altogether.

Your an absolute tool, and if you actually read the report you'd know that the majority of those found to be sexually abusing and raping aboriginal children are WHITE outsiders from the community who bring the alcohol/drugs and sniffable petrol in, and swap it for sex. So please leave your racist raving at home fool.

Although many offenders were white; I didn't see anything suggesting the majority were white or black. Perhaps you were reading a different report?

"...As a result [of inconsistent reporting patterns], however, the Inquiry cannot definitively estimate the prevalence of various types of child sex offending, nor accurately identify the proportion of cases involving non-Aboriginals, Aboriginals, family members or others. The following sections, therefore, reflect some of the types of offending that were commonly brought to the Inquiry’s attention by professional or community sources..."
Children are Sacred: pg60

How do you stop an impoverished people from sinking even further into self-destructive behaviour patterns? Why, tighten up their wallets and take away beer and t*tties!


From Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070621/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_aborigines;_ylt=AgMoVJafgyeThJQkUNbn5khvaA8F)

CANBERRA, Australia - Australia's prime minister announced plans Thursday to ban pornography and alcohol for Aborigines in northern areas and tighten control over their welfare benefits to fight child sex abuse among them.

Some Aboriginal leaders rejected the plan as paternalistic and said the measures were discriminatory and would violate the civil rights of the country's original inhabitants. But others applauded the initiative and recommended extending the welfare restrictions to Aborigines in other parts of the country.

Prime Minister John Howard was responding to a report last week that found sexual abuse of children to be rampant in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. The report said the abuse was fueled by endemic alcohol abuse, unemployment, poverty and other factors causing a breakdown in traditional society.

...

Australia is home to about 400,000 Aborigines. About 60,000 live in the Northern Territory, often in isolated, impoverished communities where jobs are scarce and substance abuse is widespread. The land was returned to them over the past 30 years and accounts for about half the Northern Territory, which is about twice the size of Texas.

...

Howard said the sale, possession and transportation of alcohol would be banned for six months on the Aboriginal-owned land, after which the policy would be reviewed. The child abuse report found drinking was a key factor in the collapse of Aboriginal culture, contributing to neglect of children and creating opportunities for pedophiles.

Hardcore pornography also would be banned, and publicly funded computers would be audited to ensure that they had not downloaded such images. The report said pornography was rife in Aboriginal communities and that children often were exposed to it.

Under Howard's plan, new restrictions would be placed on welfare payments for Aborigines living on the land to prevent the money from being spent on alcohol and gambling. Parents would be required to spend at least half their welfare on essentials such as food, and payments also would be linked to a child's school attendance.

Howard also called on state governments to send police to the Northern Territory to address a shortage on Aboriginal land there and offered to pay their expenses.

The child abuse report was commissioned by the Northern Territory government and is widely regarded as credible although it attracted some critics. It was unable to quantify the extent of the sexual abuse problem, since anecdotal evidence suggested much of it went unreported.

Conducted by an indigenous health worker and a government lawyer, it found children had been sexually abused in all 45 remote communities visited. The abusers were both Aborigines and non-Aborigines operating in or near their communities.

...

Australia's original inhabitants suffer far higher rates of poverty and substance abuse than the rest of the country's 21 million people, and their life expectancy is 17 years shorter.

For years, white men were banned from marrying Aboriginal woman, and mixed-race children were taken from their Aboriginal mothers to be assimilated into mainstream society.

Though many found employment in the cattle and sheep industries, they were paid less than whites, sometimes working just for rations. Unable to achieve economic independence, many have become welfare dependent.



Yep. Why solve the problems of allowing them to be paid nothing to work if they do manage to find a job? Why deal with the evidence that non-natives are abusing kids in native communities? Why not instead just take the beer an porn away from just the natives, ignore the white abusers, and tell the parents that they will lose social assistance if their kids cut classes while doing absolutely nothing to try to give those kids a reason to go to class.... like, say, ensuring that they will get a fair day's pay if they finish class.


Oh yeah, that'll solve EVERYTHING!

I guess that there is no "all men are created equal" bit in the Australian constitution...

A little point missing from the OP: Howard can only do this because the Northern Territory isn't a state. It's a self-governing territory, and under the Australian Constitution, DOESN'T have the same protections against Federal interference as the states do. In fact, the Federal Government is permitted to override ANY NT law at any time for any reason.

The NT had the opportunity to become a state a few years ago and turned it down. More fool them.

And it's well known fact, it's white people who supply the grog in the first place.

By the way...the whole porn ban thing? Is this because they actually think that watching porn leads to child abuse? Or are they worried that porn is being shown to children? It just sounds stupid.

By the way...the whole porn ban thing? Is this because they actually think that watching porn leads to child abuse? Or are they worried that porn is being shown to children? It just sounds stupid.

The report found children were acting out scenes from movies, imitating what they had viewed.

The report found children were acting out scenes from movies, imitating what they had viewed.

So it had been used to groom victims.

There are quite a few Northern aboriginal communities in Canada that ban alcohol. No ban on porn, though it didn't seem to be rampant. In any case, sexual abuse in these communities has not really been impacted by the bans, many of which have been around for more than three decades. Substance abuse has shifted to things like glue, and petrol. Liquor STILL gets into the communities...you could make a fortune bootlegging to these places.

Howard's pissing into the wind. Unless something substantial is acutally done to improve the economic situation of these people, and the issues underlying the rampant abuse are dealt with...all he's doing is making himself feel good, and accomplishing nothing.

So, goodbye freedom of print! If I'm an adult and want to watch porn, it is my bloody right to do so.

Australia has no freedom of the print, or press, or speech for that matter.

On the topic, this is fucking typical of Howard. Ignore the problem for a decade then when people start going to the media about it kick up a ruckus a few months before the election to diffuse the point. It does seem to have the right general strategy though.

And on the ceding of power from the NT to the Commonwealth, whether or not it is constitutionally legal it is not a watershed moment in the separation of powers in Australia. For decades now it has been slipping, but since Howard came in he has completely demolished any notions of due process, checks and balances, state powers and historical institutions. Funny that he calls himself a conservative. Not only taking power from the states, coercively in many cases, but even ignoring his own cabinet members and government and concentrating power in the position of Prime Minister. Typical.

I seem to have gone on a tangent, but anyway, I'll wait and see Labor's policy on the topic.

Today quite a big thing happened in Australia, yet I have my doubts that the commercial news stations would've spent much time on it.

As some of you may know, Australia is a federation, much like the US. The States have their own jurisdictions, and the role of the federal government is fairly clearly defined.

John Howard today decided to take big steps towards violating that definition by taking over an issue from the Northern Territory's government - namely that of how to fix the Aboriginal community, or as he put it "a national emergency".

Aboriginals live shorter, poorer lives, are likely to live with curable diseases. Added to that is alcoholism and petrol sniffing. And a recent article adds to that absolutely vast child sexual abuse. There seems hardly a child in remote outback communities that wasn't sexually active at the age of 12, usually with adults. Some do it for money, others do it because they're forced to and again others seem to look at porn and think that this is normal behaviour (or so the report says).

And because the NT state government has not been able to do anything about this in decades, basically, Howard now decided to take charge (and I'm sure the election has nothing to do with it...).

His solution is a package that includes tying welfare payments to the children of the family not being abused, a ban on alcohol in outback towns, restrictions on alcohol in the whole of the NT (which presumably includes restaurants in Darwin), a total ban on porn and so on. He does this by overriding the state government, normally the federal government wouldn't have power to do this. He's going to rush laws regarding it through parliament (possibly calling some MPs back from holidays).

More details here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21943476-601,00.html).

The thing is, I actually agree with him on this being a national emergency. These communities are broken, whatever culture they used to have has been virtually destroyed and replaced by what seems to be a neverending horror financed with welfare money. I don't think a ban on porn is going to change anything (though making alcohol harder to get in these communities might, and non-sniffable petrol definitely will), and I think he should be doing these things with the NT government rather than over it, but that's the election for you.

But how do you think communities like these can be fixed? This is a rich, developed, multicultural country but these people live like in Darfurian refugee camps except with money for alcohol. It's not a situation that can really be tolerated, but I have no idea how to change it. What do you reckon?

I'm not sure if there's much that can be done. Introducing an indigenous society to a completely different cultural hegemony (not to mention technology beyond what they've developed) is probably quite a huge blow to their life style. The problems we have with the conditions in aboriginal communities now took root long ago, when we first started blending with them.

It's hard to know where to begin with this. You could try to have them assimilate into mainstream culture, but lose their heritage (that's if they even consent to such a thing); or you can attempt to finance a people that do not synchronize with the dominant society and risk trying to build bridges with no supports.

But I don't think throwing money at the problem and banning alcohol is the way to go. The causes of these problems need to be looked at as much as possible; why are people turning to alcoholism? And then you have to ask.. why are people abusing children in that community, why is it so prevalent? ..Not that anyone will ever ask that, because they'll either be afraid of the outcome or be afraid of what they'll be branded for even asking that to begin with.

So it had been used to groom victims.

You could draw that inference. I don't recall actually recall the report saying that, but it could be inferred.




Also I believe the type of pornography being banned is illegal in all the states anyway.

Latest article:


A federal government plan to combat child abuse in indigenous communities by curbing Aborigines' rights will fail because it is racist, a territory government leader said Friday.

The federal government announced Thursday plans to stop rampant sexual abuse of children on Aboriginal-owned land in the Northern Territory by banning alcohol and pornography in those Outback communities as well as restricting the amount of welfare spending on gambling and substance abuse.

[...] The abuse on Aboriginal-owned land in the Northern Territory — covering an area the size of Texas but populated by only 30,000 people — is fueled by alcohol, unemployment, poverty, overcrowded housing and other factors causing a social breakdown, a government report on child welfare in these remote communities found last week.

While the plan has attracted a range of critics, all agree that the government must act decisively to drastically improve living conditions on remote Aboriginal communities.

Howard has gained the in-principle support of the opposition Labor Party — of which Stanhope is a member — to get any necessary law changes through parliament.

A federal human rights advocate, Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma, agreed that details of the plan could breach discrimination laws.

[...] But Howard said new restrictions that would force Aborigines to spend at least half their welfare checks on food and essentials might to spread to all Australians who did not provide adequately for their children.

"It's nothing to do with race, it's got everything to do with responsibility and parents," he said, adding that his senior ministers would consider the issue at their next cabinet meeting in two weeks.


Other than that, I've already said what I think on this topic...

If any Australians have been watching the news tonight, it seems their is a massive backlash now to Howard's intervention, as their should be. I don't think this should be underplayed, the federal government has just taken over (compulsory commonwealth acquisition) over 60 towns and the responsibility of tens of thousands of people, just because the NT isn't a state. If anyone has noticed, Howard has suggested expanding this to non-indigenous populations in the NT and other states, this is doubleplusgood authoritarianism and disregard for local govt at it's most extreme, and all the state (labor) premiers have come out tonight and condemned the proposal.

how to deal with indiginous communities is to seek their wisdom and guidance, especially in matters of environment. return to them and their elders as much authority as is practicable, and try to remember that it is, after all, THEIR land, that so called 'modern' society, has parked its fat butts upon.

further to encourage them to in turn encourage wider community participation without corrupting their traditions. all land is sacred and such cultures as have lived in a given place the longest time have the best likelyhood of understanding how to live in harmony with it and to have learned from it how to do so.

wherever you are, whatever cultures have been indiginous to that place for thousands of years, are the most likely to be in tune with the soul of that place.

again though, this is up to them and cannot be forced either. and of course all of us can't just go away. so imperfect compromises are unavoidable. still, and again, wherever, whenever and however, such ancient or not so ancient, living perceptions of those honored among the decendents of such cultures as have been longest in any given place, need rationally to be returned such possitions of authority as they can. nor in any case can our world and our human species long afford to continue putting economic interests ahead of environmental ones.

(which has always been the real issue, that even from the very beginning, in every place it has occured, which is nearly everywhere, prompted the usurpation of indiginous soverignty)

=^^=
.../\...

how to deal with indiginous communities is to seek their wisdom and guidance, especially in matters of environment. return to them and their elders as much authority as is practicable, and try to remember that it is, after all, THEIR land, that so called 'modern' society, has parked its fat butts upon.

further to encourage them to in turn encourage wider community participation without corrupting their traditions. all land is sacred and such cultures as have lived in a given place the longest time have the best likelyhood of understanding how to live in harmony with it and to have learned from it how to do so.

wherever you are, whatever cultures have been indiginous to that place for thousands of years, are the most likely to be in tune with the soul of that place.

again though, this is up to them and cannot be forced either. and of course all of us can't just go away. so imperfect compromises are unavoidable. still, and again, wherever, whenever and however, such ancient or not so ancient, living perceptions of those honored among the decendents of such cultures as have been longest in any given place, need rationally to be returned such possitions of authority as they can. nor in any case can our world and our human species long afford to continue putting economic interests ahead of environmental ones.

(which has always been the real issue, that even from the very beginning, in every place it has occured, which is nearly everywhere, prompted the usurpation of indiginous soverignty)

=^^=
.../\...

Well essentially Howard is 'legacy shopping' for the election, partly because he wants to win and also partly because if he doesn't he wants something to be remember favorably by. But I don't think anyone should think of this or remember it favorably in the least, the local aboriginal leaders have been sidelined, the NT govt has been sidelined, everyone except the liberal govt has been sidelined. It's nothing but a cynical election ploy that will have no long term effect, just as all federal interventions in aboriginal affairs have had. To sweep away decades of Aborginal self-determination and land rights struggle, as well as traditional aboriginal communalism, is indeed a costly ploy too for the NT communities.

The aboriginal people are their own nation and culture.

the local aboriginal leaders have been sidelined, the NT govt has been sidelined, everyone except the liberal govt has been sidelined. It's nothing but a cynical election ploy that will have no long term effect, just as all federal interventions in aboriginal affairs have had. To sweep away decades of Aborginal self-determination and land rights struggle, as well as traditional aboriginal communalism, is indeed a costly ploy too for the NT communities.

The aboriginal people are their own nation and culture.

Indeed. To take any action without concerting with local Aboriginal leaders (not to mention NT authorities) in unthinkable, and probably very counter-productive.

Indeed. To take any action without concerting with local Aboriginal leaders (not to mention NT authorities) in unthinkable, and probably very counter-productive.

Exactly right, and that was my point, how can the Commonwealth govt expect to go to the heart of these issues and solve them without the extensive knowledge of community, individuals and the issues themselves, it will not work. I am all for law and order and even giving money to aboriginal communities, but going in with a jackboot, with white and police soldiers (the PM mentioned the possibility of the army), banning porn and alcohol is not only an abuse of aboriginal rights, it's an abuse of individual rights. The only people who can solve their own problems are the communities themselves. I would just wish rudd would stand up and oppose this, as well as proposing devolution for aboriginal communities as his policy.

So it had been used to groom victims.

There are quite a few Northern aboriginal communities in Canada that ban alcohol. No ban on porn, though it didn't seem to be rampant. In any case, sexual abuse in these communities has not really been impacted by the bans, many of which have been around for more than three decades. Substance abuse has shifted to things like glue, and petrol. Liquor STILL gets into the communities...you could make a fortune bootlegging to these places.

Howard's pissing into the wind. Unless something substantial is acutally done to improve the economic situation of these people, and the issues underlying the rampant abuse are dealt with...all he's doing is making himself feel good, and accomplishing nothing.


There is also, of course, the significant difference that the communities in Canada that have implemented bans have done so THEMSELVES democratically in order to attempt to curb abuse issues, with the ability to self-manage the programs should they prove ineffective. That is a huge difference from a federal entity acting paternalistic and forcing a ban upon them.

The report found children were acting out scenes from movies, imitating what they had viewed.
So what, they were walking around saying, "uh...yeah..I...uh..have..uh..come to deliver this...uh...pizza"
"Oh, and I'm all alone and dressed only in my nightie!"

The thing with Aboriginal groups at the moment is that there's a lot of moaning and complaining about past injustices and very little self-reflection.
Here's an idea: Maybe they're still moaning about past injustices because nothing has been done to address them, and they still feel very hurt and abused from them.

Hell, it was only a few years ago lil' Johnny Howard refused to apologise for the Stolen Generation, saying "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies."

Now it's an election year, he's behind in the polls and whoah! Aboriginal problems are a big issue. Shame they're so undeveloped that they can't control themselves. Oh well, good old nanny state and the white man will help these poor backward uncivilised unfortunates and teach them how to behave all proper-like.

I started reading the Report, but abandoned the attempt. The point that resonates with me is that it is a destructive spiral. The longer it is allowed to continue, the worse it will spiral out of control.
snip
As unpleasant and yucky as this all is, is that one could find equally distressing and unpleasant things happening in any community. Using the worst excesses of a community to impose several heavy-handed restrictions on all is simplistic and patronising.
It doesn't address the problem and one could argue can make things worse. One of the main causes for aboriginal social problems is a feeling of helplessness and pointlessness. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that an outside agency from afar deciding on what they can and can't drink, watch or read is merely highlighting and reinforcing their helplessness.

The total ban on porn is only X-rated porn; which is already illegal in most of the country.

Buh? Isn't most porn X-rated? Isn't that, you know, the point of porn? To communicate X-rated ideas?

No, in Australia it is mostly R rated. If it is tame its MA and only the most severe pornography is X rated.

As unpleasant and yucky as this all is, is that one could find equally distressing and unpleasant things happening in any community. Using the worst excesses of a community to impose several heavy-handed restrictions on all is simplistic and patronising.
It doesn't address the problem and one could argue can make things worse. One of the main causes for aboriginal social problems is a feeling of helplessness and pointlessness. It doesn't take much intelligence to see that an outside agency from afar deciding on what they can and can't drink, watch or read is merely highlighting and reinforcing their helplessness.

I suggest all Australian policy makers watch the bolded word. It is a brilliant and important word.

I have another word: Purpose.

No, in Australia it is mostly R rated. If it is tame its MA and only the most severe pornography is X rated.

Oh. In America, all porn is X-rated. M and X are the same thing over here as well.

Indeed. To take any action without concerting with local Aboriginal leaders (not to mention NT authorities) in unthinkable, and probably very counter-productive.
The thing is that there are no real Aboriginal leaders these days. The last guy who could be seen as a political leader got kicked out and convicted of rape.

So you have a bunch of communities with elders who are still respected, but also a lot of them were the elders are talking but no one listens. Youth unemployment is virtually 100% in these places and no one goes to school, so all they can do all day is drink, sniff and fuck. And once a teenager is in such a state, the community elder (not to mention that the problem has been going on for so long that many of the elders are no different in some communities) can talk all he wants, it's not going to change anything.

This is probably my neocon side coming out again, but I think that "aboriginal culture" as it is practiced at the moment in many (not all) of these self-governing communities has been a failure. I wouldn't mind if they wanted to live like they have for 40,000 years, hunt and dance and do all the other things they did. But that's not what they're doing at the moment - they're basically just really poor, really crappy ghettos somewhere in the outback, which are somehow immunised against change by the fact that they're not populated by white people.

I would tend towards assimilation in many of these failed communities. The houses are government property anyways, so they should probably be ripped down and new shelter provided closer to the city where there are schools, employment and the infrastructure to monitor kids actually learning stuff. For all the "connection with our land" stuff (and since I'm not a spiritual person I have no reason to believe that's anything other than a cultural meme), I think people come before cultures.

I don't agree with PM Howard's actions, but I'm unclear about NT's status. I thought NT was not a full fledged state, but a territory, much like Puerto Rico is to the US. Is it?

So you have a bunch of communities with elders who are still respected, but also a lot of them were the elders are talking but no one listens.


In the latter case, the elders can still be consulted for advice by the national government. They presumably know best what's going on. It makes sense to consult with them, and it would lessen the impression that the government is acting in an authoritarian or paternalistic manner without bothering to consult the leading members of the communities.


I would tend towards assimilation in many of these failed communities.


Attempts at forced assimilation are what created the problem in the first place. Trying to complete a devastating act of cultural erasure, which swept away Aboriginal people's sense of self-worth and their traditions of work, isn't going to solve anything. (Nor can you force them to go back to what they were before either, obviously. Which is why there's no magic easy solution there.)


The houses are government property anyways, so they should probably be ripped down and new shelter provided closer to the city where there are schools, employment and the infrastructure to monitor kids actually learning stuff.


You can provide them with the means of moving closer to cities and city facilities; you can't force them. Urbanisation in the 1950s onward didn't really help the Maori in New Zealand... Force urbanisation onto these Aboriginal communities and you are, again, repeating the mistakes of the past. Rip away someone's sense of self-worth, everything that gave meaning to their existence, and... well, you can see the results.


For all the "connection with our land" stuff (and since I'm not a spiritual person I have no reason to believe that's anything other than a cultural meme), I think people come before cultures.

I happen to know a little (well, quite a lot) about Aboriginals' connection with the land. The least you could do is try to find out about it before you shrug it off.

Traditionally, land was (and, for those who can, still is) quite literally everything.

This is sometimes difficult for "Westerners" to understand, but Aboriginals (like many other societies) traditionally did not seperate the various aspects of existence. Work, religion, birth and death, land, etc... were not distinct spheres of life; they were/are one and the same. A person exists only on his ancestral land. Not out of a mere "cultural meme", but because history and the Dreaming make it so in a very real sense.

In the Dreamtime, in Aboriginal beliefs, ancestors walked to earth and shaped it. They taught immutable laws to the people of each area, and inscribed reminders of the importance of those laws into the land. Hence, features of the landscape on a specific area of land are like a history book or book of law, that only the community can read: they are constant signs of the presence of ancestral beings, and reminders of key points of law. (A shape in a rock, for instance, may be a place where an ancestral being pressed a part of his body during events which are now told as a story justifying the need for a certain behaviour by members of the community.) The ancestral beings also taught people where to find ressources (especially water) on their own land, and these places too are remembered in stories of the Dreaming. It's also important to know that the features of the landscape related to stories about Dreamtime activities are still part of the Dreaming in the sense that the ancestral beings' "essence" is still there, permanently; hence these places still have spiritual potency. (The Dreaming, contrary to what many people think, is outside time, eternal, continuous; it's not in the past and over.)

An individual is defined only through his connection to all this. Which is why, from an Aboriginal perspective, your life quite literally has no meaning outside your land. Westerners might stop being so perplexed about perceived Aboriginal nihilism or apathy if they knew a little about all this. Once you've removed everything that made an Aboriginal person conform to ancestral laws, once you remove the meaning behind them, the result is quite visible today.

So no, the connection to land is not some cultural nonsense that can be brushed aside. It's the vital essence of all that gave meaning and purpose to Aboriginal people's lives. It ensured that they led productive lives within the scope of their people's traditions, and that they respected ancestral laws. Which is why forced assimilation was, from the very start, a horrendous mistake.

It's tragic that the vast majority of non-Aboriginal people fail to know or understand this. They (including you) seem to see Aboriginals as just people like any others, with a bit of disposable cultural mumbo-jumbo thrown on top. Even educated and intelligent Australians I know are grossly ignorant regarding the most vital aspects of Aboriginal "culture" (which is so much more than what we usually mean by "culture").

It's high time non-Indigenous Australians were educated about their own country, its history from an Indigenous perspective (I can recommend a few books if you want), and a few basics (at the very least, for goodness' sake!) about Aboriginal people. Or you'll continue repeating the same devastating mistakes. It's tragic that non-Indigenous Australians were not educated about all this long ago.

The NT is only a quasi-state, it doesn't have the same constitutional rights as the actual states.

I agree that something has to be done. Aboriginies have an average life span of about 40 years. I don't know if alcohol & porn bans are the solution, but if not, what is?

I did hear something on the ABC radio that the defence force could be used as a supplement to the police. That disturbs me greatly.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/23/1959896.htm

The army is not a police force & should never be used as such. For Howard to be even contemplating it really, really, really shakes me to my core. It's not a huge step from army as police force, to state of emergency, to military dictatorship. I'd hate to see us even put a toe down that path.

It's tragic that the vast majority of non-Aboriginal people fail to know or understand this. They (including you) seem to see Aboriginals as just people like any others, with a bit of disposable cultural mumbo-jumbo thrown on top.
The thing is that I actually do know all these things. As you know, we're immigrants so my mum in particular soaked this sort of stuff up like a sponge and I couldn't get around learning about it too.

The difference between you and me is that I still think it's cultural mumbo-jumbo.

Look, I don't want to be disrespectful towards anyone, but fact of the matter is that culture and beliefs are fine until they stop someone from functioning properly as a person. It looks like at the moment that's precisely what they are doing. They don't want to leave the land (funny fact: the biggest issue holding back native title claims is that various Aboriginal nations are claiming overlapping land), but they have apparently not the will nor the expertise to make something out of it. I'm not even sure whether you can make something out of a bit of NT Outback.

Up near Cairns lives a guy called PJ. He's one of the few guys of his nation left who still lives on his land. He runs tours through the rainforest and teaches people about what's going on there and has been doing that for decades. I think that's a good example of someone who can bring together his culture with the ability to exist in the modern world. The thing is that the communities in the Northern Territory are very different. People don't seem to think about the future there (and while I wasn't in a remote community I was in the Kimberlies and there's enough evidence of that there), so the question I wanted to ask was what can be done about it.

I think by continuing to respect everything they do and giving them a sense of self-worth that some really don't deserve you're just perpetuating the problem into the future because nothing will change. Other cultures have managed to move into the 21st century, even very old ones. There needs to be something that can get the ball rolling for Australian Aboriginal cultures as well.

Noel Pearson: "Ask the terrified kid huddling in the corner when there's a binge drinking party going on down the hall, ask them if they want a bit of paternalism. Ask them if they want a bit of intervention, because these people who continue to bleat without looking at the facts, without facing up to the terrible things that are going on in our remote communities, these people are prescribing no intervention, they are prescribing a perpetual hell for our children."

I suppose the Loopy Left will respond that Noel Pearson is a conservative racist who ideologically hates aboriginal culture; and instead traditionalism should be bolstered by welfare.

Could I ask, does anyone oppose the part of the plan that increases/introduces law enforcement agencies in remote communities?

Noel Pearson: "Ask the terrified kid huddling in the corner when there's a binge drinking party going on down the hall, ask them if they want a bit of paternalism. Ask them if they want a bit of intervention, because these people who continue to bleat without looking at the facts, without facing up to the terrible things that are going on in our remote communities, these people are prescribing no intervention, they are prescribing a perpetual hell for our children."

I suppose the Loopy Left will respond that Noel Pearson is a conservative racist who ideologically hates aboriginal culture; and instead traditionalism should be bolstered by welfare.

Could I ask, does anyone oppose the part of the plan that increases/introduces law enforcement agencies in remote communities?

Your just buying into the 'New Tampa for this election' as I call it by Howard, this will accomplish nothing, it has no planning for sustaining any welfare program to communities, it's just random banning of this and that so Howard can look tough before an election, as he tried to do with Tampa. He has had 11 years help aboriginals, and has he? No. This is a cynical election ploy aimed to win the election, destroy decades of land rights legal struggle, communal traditionalism and to replace it with his own conservative anti-alcohol/porn rigid authoritarianism.

Sure aboriginal communities need help, but it's important to remember that aboriginals have lived on their (not our) continent for thousands of years, it's just because of past (liberal govt) assimilation/genocide policies that they have tried to make them dependent on the government to survive.

Your just buying into the 'New Tampa for this election' as I call it by Howard, this will accomplish nothing, it has no planning for sustaining any welfare program to communities, it's just random banning of this and that so Howard can look tough before an election, as he tried to do with Tampa. He has had 11 years help aboriginals, and has he? No. This is a cynical election ploy aimed to win the election, destroy decades of land rights legal struggle, communal traditionalism and to replace it with his own conservative anti-alcohol/porn rigid authoritarianism.

Sure aboriginal communities need help, but it's important to remember that aboriginals have lived on their (not our) continent for thousands of years, it's just because of past (liberal govt) assimilation/genocide policies that they have tried to make them dependent on the government to survive.

Oh dear; someone is in denial about the Labor party being as guilty as anyone. Yes the Liberals have only become interested in seriously dealing with aboriginal issues in the last four years; guilty as charged. But this country's left are equally as guilty. White Australia, Mandatory Detention...is someone in denial about these too? You are incredibly cynical; yet only about cynical about one side of politics. Believe it or not, when conservatives say 'think about the children', they actually mean it.

And aboriginals did exist for thousands of years before the arrival of white man; before access to alcohol, X-rated pornography, petrol and welfare. Proponents of traditional elements, urge continuing access to things that play no role in traditional Aboriginal life. These bans are certainly not random; they directly relate to the findings of 'All Children are Sacred', and the welfare reform suggestions are directly related to the suggestions of the NT government and aboriginal elders.

Conservatives care about one thing, their portfolios.

Yes the Liberals have only become interested in seriously dealing with aboriginal issues in the last four years
Try last four months, at the most.

And just so you know, pretty much every aboriginal group is now against their move by the government, mainly because Howard is using it as a cheap opportunistic way to take away hard won aboriginal land rights and enforce harsh eviction inducing renting schemes against traditional aboriginal communalism. Most of the perpetrators of this are white outsiders who come into the community with alcohol/petrol/drugs and swap them for sex, Howard seems to be ignoring this and using it as an excuse to paint aboriginal communities as all morally decrepit pedophile infested dens, ignoring the fact that Labor governments are the ones who introduced welfare and self-determination rather than liberal govts who have literally done nothing for aboriginals ever, except for stealing their land and using it to test nuclear weapons.

Conservatives care about one thing, their portfolios.

Try last four months, at the most.

And just so you know, pretty much every aboriginal group is now against their move by the government, mainly because Howard is using it as a cheap opportunistic way to take away hard won aboriginal land rights and enforce harsh eviction inducing renting schemes against traditional aboriginal communalism. Most of the perpetrators of this are white outsiders who come into the community with alcohol/petrol/drugs and swap them for sex, Howard seems to be ignoring this and using it as an excuse to paint aboriginal communities as all morally decrepit pedophile infested dens, ignoring the fact that Labor governments are the ones who introduced welfare and self-determination rather than liberal govts who have literally done nothing for aboriginals ever, except for stealing their land and using it to test nuclear weapons.

Prove the bolded part. It isn't in 'Children are Sacred'.

The rest is bile and hatred of an alternative political persuasion, and I won't bother responding to it.

You continue to ignore the point that the main stake holders and the people who know the communities and their individual issues, that being the NT Government, Aboriginal leaders, have been ignored (even Howard acknowledges this) and the commonwealth have been grossly authoritarian in taking over the communities, and spitting in the face of aboriginal self-determination/land rights.

The difference between you and me is that I still think it's cultural mumbo-jumbo.

It's what enabled them to function as a society, until it was taken away from them. The result of destroying that "cultural mumbo jumbo" is the situation we see today.


Look, I don't want to be disrespectful towards anyone, but fact of the matter is that culture and beliefs are fine until they stop someone from functioning properly as a person.


You're missing the point. That "culture" (to use a somewhat inadequate word; as I said, the English word "culture" doesn't quite cover it) is precisely what enabled Aboriginals to function properly as people and as communities. Its absence today is what has destroyed the bases of their society, their motivation for functioning as productive, law abiding, etc... people. Renew their sense of self-worth, help their leaders remind them of the contemporary relevance of Dreaming laws, and you'll have gone some way towards solving the problem. As I tried to explain, their "culture" had practical value (not just theoretical or abstract, not just "culture for its own sake") in enabling them to function as individuals and as communities.

Enforced assimilation, dispossession of land would be continuing what created the problem in the first place. It would be fighting fire by tipping oil on it.

If there is to be a solution, it would have to entail helping these Aboriginal people, with the active help of their leaders, to reconcile their traditional values with intrusive aspects of the "modern world". Forcing them off their land would be disastrous. I've seen how poor Aboriginals live in Sydney; what makes you think that forcing these people into cities would do anything but swell the numbers of the Indigenous urban poor, the drunks huddled under the bridge near Central Station and elsewhere?


but they have apparently not the will nor the expertise to make something out of it. I'm not even sure whether you can make something out of a bit of NT Outback.


They'd been making something of it for over 40,000 years.


Up near Cairns lives a guy called PJ. He's one of the few guys of his nation left who still lives on his land. He runs tours through the rainforest and teaches people about what's going on there and has been doing that for decades. I think that's a good example of someone who can bring together his culture with the ability to exist in the modern world.

Yes, I met an Aboriginal man like that near Sydney. Fascinating stuff he taught.


I think by continuing to respect everything they do and giving them a sense of self-worth that some really don't deserve you're just perpetuating the problem into the future because nothing will change.

No, you don't encourage them to have a sense of self-worth when there's nothing to feel worthy about. You encourage them, give them the means, with the active participation of local leaders, to regain a sense of self-worth by re-appropriating the value of their own culture and understanding that it is still meaningful in a very practical sense today, and reconciling that (for those who want) with "modernity".

What I was trying to explain to you is that Aboriginal cultural heritages, Dreaming values and laws, can and do have a practical role to play in

a) re-affirming ancestral laws that guide people's behaviour
b) explaining the reasons behind those "laws"
c) reminding these people that they had a structured, functional society with values and laws for millenia, and that most of that can be "salvaged" and brought to bear on their contemporary situation
d) give them a sense of pride and self-worth, on the condition that they do embrace the traditional values and laws that can reform their lives for the better
e) show them that tradition and "modernity" are not incompatible (as you correctly point out).

That's what I mean when I say that "culture" has a practical and valuable role to play. And when I say that it's tragic that the vast majority of non-Indigenous Australians have no understanding of this. I'm sorry, but that includes you. Whatever tidbits you may have picked up, you obviously lack an in-depth understanding of the essence of your country's Indigenous traditions. Not only does it seem absurd for Australians to know almost nothing of 40,000 years of their own country's history, but if non-Indigenous Australians had at least some understanding of these issues, you would have some hope of playing a role in tackling today's problems (and not risk making things worse).

I recommend Jennifer Isaacs, 40,000 Years of Aborinal History, and Henry Reynolds, The Other Side of the Frontier. I've also got (and read) several works of fiction by Aboriginal writers, which bring up important real issues through fiction. I can give you a list if you're interested, but you could try Kim Scott's True Country. Gives you some sense of Aboriginal perspectives.

You continue to ignore the point that the main stake holders and the people who know the communities and their individual issues, that being the NT Government, Aboriginal leaders, have been ignored (even Howard acknowledges this) and the commonwealth have been grossly authoritarian in taking over the communities, and spitting in the face of aboriginal self-determination/land rights.

I wouldn't call it authoritarian; with the possible exception of overriding the NT Government. Aboriginal leaders have criticised a lack of action, by the Territory government; just as other leaders have criticised Federal interference.

And I don't think the point has to do with the role of the Aboriginal leadership. This is about children who will grow up broken. Children are the main stakeholders here.

I wouldn't call it authoritarian; with the possible exception of overriding the NT Government. Aboriginal leaders have criticised a lack of action, by the Territory government; just as other leaders have criticised Federal interference.

And I don't think the point has to do with the role of the Aboriginal leadership. This is about children who will grow up broken. Children are the main stakeholders here.

What's all this crap about 'think of the children', how about think about all of the aboriginal people, including their over one hundred year struggle for self-determination, I think that is infinitely more important.

What's all this crap about 'think of the children', how about think about all of the aboriginal people, including their over one hundred year struggle for self-determination, I think that is infinitely more important.

Unfortunately, a lot of people here see self-determination for the Aborigines as being the same as losing those same powers for the current landowners. Add to that the simple fact that the Aboriginal vote is too tiny to be bothered with by politicians, and the chances of them ever being more than a marginalised, outcast sub-group is quite minimal.

That's what I mean when I say that "culture" has a practical and valuable role to play.
The question is: why hasn't it played that role? It's stupid to blame it on white people, there hasn't been any actual surpressing of culture for decades now.

The thing is that modern society is a very intrusive thing in the way that technology and trade reaches everywhere. For Aboriginal laws to actually make sense, I think these communities need to be very, very cut off from the outside world. Ultimately the laws worked for 40,000 years, but they worked for a very specific, for want of a better word primitive, lifestyle.

As I said, this is one area where I end up coming across like a neocon, but I think that faced with a choice between an old, nomadic lifestyle (even if that includes showing tourists around the place) and the modern world there would be very few who wouldn't end up bored with the former. Once they hit 16 they're outta there and maybe they'll come back either if things didn't work out (often as broken individuals with troubles fitting in back on their land) or when they're old and nostalgic. Either way you'd be preserving the communities as a museum piece for the amusement of the tourists (and people who get off on the fact that there are such communities out there even if they never visit them), not because people actually want to spend their whole lives that way.

Right now it's a bad place in between actual integration and total segregation. I can't help but think that your idea would be pushing towards the latter while I'd support the former, even if that means the old ways dying out. Afterall, it's Aboriginal people themselves who have the right to decide what sort of life they want to live, no one else. Howard's plan doesn't do either, it's an election-directed attempt to treat some of the symptoms.

So I suppose here's my idea: gradually phase down welfare payments and get rid of public housing out there. Get mobile access into these remote places. Open the land for white people to come into. Offer scholarships for good students in these communities to get into prestigious schools in the cities, and tie welfare payments to school attendance for everyone. Actually get decent teachers out there. Introduce non-sniffable petrol and ban alcohol. If sensible, offer services to help people with their addictions. And if people get caught committing crimes (for example child abuse), don't treat them any different and punish them like you would punish some bogan in Brisbane if he did the same thing (though that would first require making sure that there are enough facilities in prison to make sure they won't have their issues anymore when they get out).

What's all this crap about 'think of the children', how about think about all of the aboriginal people, including their over one hundred year struggle for self-determination, I think that is infinitely more important.

"The" people? There are lots of different types of Aboriginals, all which are nothing alike other than the colour of their skin.

You cannot have self determination without self reliance and self management. Only the Cape York and to a lesser extent in the Pilbara are we seeing this.

Aboriginal peoples are stuck in a place between worlds. They are no longer part of traditional tribalism, nor are they reflective of the modern world. Continual existence in this destructive between-place has been unwittingly supported by successive governments. Aboriginal communities must either go down either the fork of traditionalism, abandoning grog and other evils of the West, or accept liberal and everything that does with it.

Unfortunately, a lot of people here see self-determination for the Aborigines as being the same as losing those same powers for the current landowners. Add to that the simple fact that the Aboriginal vote is too tiny to be bothered with by politicians, and the chances of them ever being more than a marginalised, outcast sub-group is quite minimal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the land has always belonged to the Aboriginals.

Aboriginal communities must either go down either the fork of traditionalism, abandoning grog and other evils of the West, or accept liberal and everything that does with it.

False choice. We aboriginal people can also manage to live a blended life of traditionalism and 'Western' living. However, it needs to be us, choosing what parts we want...not having them rammed down our throats. We are incredibly adaptive, and that seems to get forgotten all too often. Do we still hunt with bows and arrows in my homeland? No. But we still retain the same respect for the animal we kill, we give the same thanks, follow the same protocols. Our elders record their words to be played back on CD, or in mp3 format. We use new technologies to manage our environment. We could be as 'high tech' as anyone else and STILL be aboriginal...because we don't need to compromise our beliefs in order to use freaking cell phones and computers.

So no. We don't have to uttery reject or utterly accept. What a ridiculous proposition.

The question is: why hasn't it played that role? It's stupid to blame it on white people, there hasn't been any actual surpressing of culture for decades now.

Because the damage done is incredibly hard to undo. You do realise the extent of the attempts made to eradicate Aboriginals as a distinct people? Children were still being forcibly removed from their Aboriginal mothers, for the sole reason that they were "half-castes", in the 1970s. Most Aboriginals today either suffered through those policies, or are the children of those who did.

Removing a child from his mother and his community was not only inhuman (in seperating mother and child), it was also horrendously disruptive, precisely because it removed the child from the knowledge, laws, values and self-worth of his community, all of which would have taught him (or her) how to live and behave.


Either way you'd be preserving the communities as a museum piece for the amusement of the tourists (and people who get off on the fact that there are such communities out there even if they never visit them), not because people actually want to spend their whole lives that way.

You're wrong for a simple (and common reason) reason: you're assuming a static, unchangeable view of culture. You're assuming it can't adapt and change to face the influence of the "outside world". You're adopting the static, "primitivist" view which has sadly been held by so many non-Indigenous people in Australia right from the 18th century. (Which brings me back to what I was saying: it's vital for Aboriginals to educate their fellow Australians, if only to teach them a few basic facts and get rid of the grossest misconceptions by non-Indigenous Australians.)


Afterall, it's Aboriginal people themselves who have the right to decide what sort of life they want to live, no one else.


I'm glad we agree on that point.


So I suppose here's my idea: gradually phase down welfare payments and get rid of public housing out there.


That only works if the people have opportunities to no longer need them.


Open the land for white people to come into.


Without the consent of the Aboriginal land owners? HELL no!

It's also a matter of law. There has never been a treaty in Australia or any kind of legal transfer of land from Aboriginals to anyone else. It is their land, and absolutely no-one else has any right to say what should be done with it. No more than anyone has the right to climb over your wall, pitch a tent in your back garden and stay there. (You'd be slightly pissed off at that, I assume. You understand property, yes?)


Offer scholarships for good students in these communities to get into prestigious schools in the cities, and tie welfare payments to school attendance for everyone.


Now that is a practical and workable idea.


Actually get decent teachers out there. Introduce non-sniffable petrol and ban alcohol. If sensible, offer services to help people with their addictions. And if people get caught committing crimes (for example child abuse), don't treat them any different and punish them like you would punish some bogan in Brisbane if he did the same thing (though that would first require making sure that there are enough facilities in prison to make sure they won't have their issues anymore when they get out).

Agreed on the whole (although banning alcohol would have to be only for convicted offenders rather than on the basis of ethnic discrimination).

Encouraging Aboriginal people to regain a sense of worth and pride in their ancestral laws, and making sure they understand their traditions' contemporary value and relevence to the "modern" world, would also be a very important step.


False choice. We aboriginal people can also manage to live a blended life of traditionalism and 'Western' living. However, it needs to be us, choosing what parts we want...not having them rammed down our throats. We are incredibly adaptive, and that seems to get forgotten all too often. Do we still hunt with bows and arrows in my homeland? No. But we still retain the same respect for the animal we kill, we give the same thanks, follow the same protocols. Our elders record their words to be played back on CD, or in mp3 format. We use new technologies to manage our environment. We could be as 'high tech' as anyone else and STILL be aboriginal...because we don't need to compromise our beliefs in order to use freaking cell phones and computers.

So no. We don't have to uttery reject or utterly accept. What a ridiculous proposition.

Thank you! That's what I've been trying (with some difficulty, it seems) to explain.

Farmina your incredibly racist, your statement pretty much comes down to 'Either they live like us, or they don't get clothes, electricity or anything western, and they can go and live in the bush'.

Noel Pearson: "Ask the terrified kid huddling in the corner when there's a binge drinking party going on down the hall, ask them if they want a bit of paternalism. Ask them if they want a bit of intervention, because these people who continue to bleat without looking at the facts, without facing up to the terrible things that are going on in our remote communities, these people are prescribing no intervention, they are prescribing a perpetual hell for our children."

I suppose the Loopy Left will respond that Noel Pearson is a conservative racist who ideologically hates aboriginal culture; and instead traditionalism should be bolstered by welfare.

Could I ask, does anyone oppose the part of the plan that increases/introduces law enforcement agencies in remote communities?

What? But he said that during an interview on Radio National, the holy grail of left-wing Labor bias! :rolleyes:

Farmina your incredibly racist, your statement pretty much comes down to 'Either they live like us, or they don't get clothes, electricity or anything western, and they can go and live in the bush'.

False choice. We aboriginal people can also manage to live a blended life of traditionalism and 'Western' living. However, it needs to be us, choosing what parts we want...not having them rammed down our throats. We are incredibly adaptive, and that seems to get forgotten all too often. Do we still hunt with bows and arrows in my homeland? No. But we still retain the same respect for the animal we kill, we give the same thanks, follow the same protocols. Our elders record their words to be played back on CD, or in mp3 format. We use new technologies to manage our environment. We could be as 'high tech' as anyone else and STILL be aboriginal...because we don't need to compromise our beliefs in order to use freaking cell phones and computers.

So no. We don't have to uttery reject or utterly accept. What a ridiculous proposition.

I was talking about self sustainability. The current mix is unsustainable. And I stand by the fact that the current mix is completely unsustainable. I don't endorse the NL plan to bring people into larger communties; but I will not support government financing of communities that are failing to maintain social cohesion. Never did I intend to suggest the forks were absolutes.

And Andaras Prime, enough bile. As a Tasmanian, I doubt you would even be able to recognise an aboriginal.

Noel Pearson gives conditional support to the government's measures.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21951636-7583,00.html

"I believe the Government's proposal will make a difference in the short term. If one accepts that the proposed measures will save women and children this year, then the bottom line is this: rejecting the Government's emergency measures equates with giving priority to some other issue before rescuing the children."

Mutitjulu community leaders Bob and Dorothea Randall [...] said police and military intervention was fine for logistics and coordination but healthcare, youth services, education and basic housing were more essential.

"Where is the money for all the essential services?" they asked.

"We need long term financial and political commitment to provide the infrastructure and planning for our community.

"There is an urgent need for tens of millions of dollars to do what needs to be done.

"Will (Indigenous Affairs Minister Mal) Mr Brough give us a commitment beyond the police and military?

"The commonwealth needs to work with us to put health and social services, housing and education in place rather than treating Mutitjulu as a political football."

[...] The Randalls also questioned why it had taken so long for drastic action when the community had been in dire need of help for years.

They asked the government to clarify how it proposed to enforce an alcohol ban when there was a five star hotel 20 minutes from the town.

"We have been begging for an alcohol counsellor and a rehabilitation worker so that we can help alcoholics and substance abusers but those pleas have been ignored," they said.

"What will happen to alcoholics when this ban is introduced?"

[...] "This community is in terror. I thought the government was here to protect the women and children and they are scaring the living daylights out of them," he told the ABC.

"This is bringing back a lot of memories and opening a lot of scars for these old people here; they are running to the hills and hiding."

Women feared that police were being sent to the community to take away their children, he said.


(Article (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/mutitjulu-leaders-question-need-for-occupation/2007/06/25/1182623797026.html))

The effects of unilateral top-down action instead of working with the community.

You're wrong for a simple (and common reason) reason: you're assuming a static, unchangeable view of culture.
Well, it's hard to make general statements about these things, but if the modern world requires flexibility and openness both geographically and on a personal level, how can things like the "connection with the land" and excluding people from areas because they're "sacred" be helpful?

Of course culture can change, but I would argue that little of the 40,000 year old way of living would survive. Of course modern Japan is distinctly Japanese, but it's nothing like Japan was 400 years ago. The Bushido way of life has gone the way of all earthly ways as have many other aspects of traditional Japanese culture.

I'm thinking that this mystical connection with the land which ties people down and segregates them is the first thing to go. Like it or not, but Aboriginal culture being such an extremely old (and for the most part it appears very static too) way of life, not a lot of it can be easily translated.

That only works if the people have opportunities to no longer need them.
People tend to make those opportunities once it becomes necessary. As long as you're getting free housing, why would you bother looking for ways to pay for it yourself?

Without the consent of the Aboriginal land owners? HELL no!
Fact of the matter is that the traditional Aboriginal understanding of land doesn't include fixed borders and certainly doesn't include property rights. As I said, today most title claims are stalled by various nations claiming the same areas - you can be as spiritual as you want, but it's hard not to feel just a tad cynical. Especially if things get as ridiculous as the recent decision to hand out native title over the Perth CBD.

There has never been a treaty in Australia or any kind of legal transfer of land from Aboriginals to anyone else.
Well, there was terra nullius...but beside that (I suppose the courts did overturn it, citing among other things IMHO spurious reasoning once again about connection with the land) I don't think that some sort of collective "Aboriginal" ownership of the land can actually hold water. I can make deals with another person owning a piece of land, but I have my doubts even tribal elders would be in a position to make such a deal. Since it's not tradable on their set of rules, I don't see how it actually is ownership.

No more than anyone has the right to climb over your wall, pitch a tent in your back garden and stay there. (You'd be slightly pissed off at that, I assume. You understand property, yes?)
I understand property only in as much as someone has put their effort into earning or building up that land. I have my difficulties seeing the justness of exclusive ownership if somone's done absolutely nothing to earn it. Most nations were traditionally nomads and didn't "improve" the land, save the occasional clearing fire. And even if they did the idea of collective property is questionable at best.

But whether or not they should have a claim on the land isn't important: the fact that people use it as a tool for segregation and isolation is.

Encouraging Aboriginal people to regain a sense of worth and pride in their ancestral laws, and making sure they understand their traditions' contemporary value and relevence to the "modern" world, would also be a very important step.
I'm always up for letting people believe whatever they want, as long as they leave their personal theories on life outside when it comes to matters of economics and law. I'm fine with pretty much anything, but when it comes to "I get to be here and you don't for no other reason than that I have a spiritual connection with this land" I start getting a bit sceptical. And when that then turns into "sorry, but these kids are going to grow up to be abused rapists and you can't do shit about it because of my spiritual connection with the land" all the relativism in the world has to take a step back for a minute.

I don't really see Aboriginal beliefs any different than I see other religions and cults. When people start claiming their belief so special that they're entitled to special treatment at the expense of others (whether that be some women at the receiving end of an honour killing or the kids who don't get to see a police officer when they've been raped), I think there's scope for action, even if that violates what some people think is the universal truth.

At the moment most of them fail according to the measurements of the modern world. Why is that? For many it is just a lack of opportunities.

But both that lack of opportunities and the failures by some are excused with "well, that's white people's lives and white people's society, we measure success differently". But right now, whatever it is some would call a traditional way of life is objectively worse even than being poor in a city. Telling them that any objective, material standards of success don't apply to them because they're 'different' (which is what you'd end up doing trying to reaffirm traditional Aboriginal, inherently anti-materialistic, ways of life) is bound to result in yet more tragedy.

In short: I simply don't believe that there is a contemporary value to this particular way of life in modern society. The values are contrary to what is needed to have a good life in our world, the laws are specific to the land to the point of becoming meaningless if you leave it (which again you have to do to have a good life).

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the land has always belonged to the Aboriginals.

No, Andaras. We are talking about reality here.

Huge tracts of land are owned by non-aboriginal-descended people. That's the reality of the matter. And those landowners have done and are doing absolutely nothing wrong.

A lot of people here are bemoaning the aborginal loss of culture and their land. It's right to say that, today that is a tragedy.

It's also done. With only a very few exceptions (fewer, I fear, everyday) the modern aboriginal person does not live anything like a traditional lifestyle. The half-white half-black culture they have developed is often dysfunctional and self-damaging.

The Northern Territory isn't the only regional government that has allowed the situation to fester in the too-hard basket. It is, however, the only region where the Commonwealth can simply step in and impose it's will.

I don't know if Howard's plan will be good or bad, but leaving the situation alone will only let it worsen. Kudos for the man; he's chosen to act, where everyone else just sat and squealed.

Well, it's hard to make general statements about these things, but if the modern world requires flexibility and openness both geographically and on a personal level, how can things like the "connection with the land" and excluding people from areas because they're "sacred" be helpful?

Those aspects can remain without isolating oneself completely from modernity. It's been done elsewhere. And people being excluded from sacred areas only affects limited areas of land, not entire territories.


People tend to make those opportunities once it becomes necessary. As long as you're getting free housing, why would you bother looking for ways to pay for it yourself?


If you have no opportunity to get a job, where does that leave you? You can do away with free housing once you've assisted people in obtaining opportunities to earn money. Not the other way around.


Well, there was terra nullius...


Mabo, 1992. "Terra nullius" was an illegal pretence which has now been recognised as such.


but beside that (I suppose the courts did overturn it, citing among other things IMHO spurious reasoning once again about connection with the land)


There's nothing spurious about it, as I've been at pains to explain. What right have you got to expect Aboriginals, in their own country, to have conformed to Western culturally subjective notions of land ownership in the eighteenth century?

Or to put it another way, how would you like to be told, one day: "Sorry, your individual ownership nonsense just has to go. From now on, your house is no longer yours. It belongs to the whole street. What do you mean, that's not how your society does things? Well, it is now. We're the ones with guns."


I don't think that some sort of collective "Aboriginal" ownership of the land can actually hold water. I can make deals with another person owning a piece of land, but I have my doubts even tribal elders would be in a position to make such a deal. Since it's not tradable on their set of rules, I don't see how it actually is ownership.

Gah, you don't know how frustrating this is... Why is it you're incapable of seeing beyond your entirely subjective cultural values, and accepting that Aboriginals, in their own country, have a different way of doing things? What gives you the right to try and impose your culture's way on them, on their own land? Australian land ownership systems have functioned for 40,000 years; why on earth should they be erased by some foreign system?


I understand property only in as much as someone has put their effort into earning or building up that land. I have my difficulties seeing the justness of exclusive ownership if somone's done absolutely nothing to earn it. Most nations were traditionally nomads and didn't "improve" the land, save the occasional clearing fire. And even if they did the idea of collective property is questionable at best.

You sound like something from the eighteenth or nineteenth century. I mean this seriously. You're a couple of centuries behind the times. If you really don't understand why, I can help you, but this is... worrying. And rather sad.


But whether or not they should have a claim on the land isn't important: the fact that people use it as a tool for segregation and isolation is.


Their land. Their right.

"Segregation", as you put it, existed for very practical reasons: because of limited ressources. You didn't nick stuff from someone else's land. The validity of those laws was proven when swarms of foreigners from Europe appeared and drove Aboriginals off their own land.

See it as similar to immigration laws today. Each Aboriginal territory was its own sovereign nation. Unless you argue in favour of abolishing all immigration laws in Australia?


I'm always up for letting people believe whatever they want, as long as they leave their personal theories on life outside when it comes to matters of economics and law.


I repeat: Aboriginal land belongs to Aboriginals. That is a matter of law. Follow your own advice: believe what you want, but leave your personal theories on life outside when it comes to Aboriginals deciding on economics and law on their own land.


I'm fine with pretty much anything, but when it comes to "I get to be here and you don't for no other reason than that I have a spiritual connection with this land" I start getting a bit sceptical.


I'm going to try this again... Aboriginal concepts of land ownership are not only valid, they are the only ones valid on their own land, and there is no possible or conceivable justification for alien laws being imposed upon them. Any more than it would be justified for the government to knock on your door and tell you one morning that your back garden was being expropriated.

Forget "relativism" (which you talk about, without seeming to realise that your code of values is not the only valid, universal one). On lands that are legally recognised as being Aboriginal, your personal beliefs just don't get to apply. Any more than the Chinese government gets to decide on property ownership laws in Canberra. They're foreign. Full stop.


And when that then turns into "sorry, but these kids are going to grow up to be abused rapists and you can't do shit about it because of my spiritual connection with the land" all the relativism in the world has to take a step back for a minute.


You know perfectly well that's not the issue. No-one has been advocating sitting back and doing nothing. And Aboriginals in those communities have definitely not said they don't want anything done. On the contrary, if you'd read that article I pasted, they've been asking for assistance for years to deal with these problems, and have been turned down.


I don't really see Aboriginal beliefs any different than I see other religions and cults. When people start claiming their belief so special that they're entitled to special treatment at the expense of others (whether that be some women at the receiving end of an honour killing or the kids who don't get to see a police officer when they've been raped), I think there's scope for action, even if that violates what some people think is the universal truth.


Then look at it this way. If you can. When you're on Aboriginal land, you're an outsider. A foreigner. What gives you the right to claim special treatment and say that, because you're an outsider, your personal beliefs should be imposed on Aboriginals on their own land?


But right now, whatever it is some would call a traditional way of life is objectively worse even than being poor in a city.

No, because what you have in these failing communities is a "neither, nor" situation. There's very little left there of a traditional way of life. As you know perfectly well, Aboriginal communities who have retained an almost "full" traditional way of life are doing very well.


the laws are specific to the land to the point of becoming meaningless if you leave it (which again you have to do to have a good life).

There are a great many Aboriginal communities that prove you wrong.

I'm going to leave you with one simple suggestion: Try to understand that Western subjective concepts on land property are not universal. There is no justification for seeing them as universal. Any more than Chinese law is universal. Aboriginal lands were seized illegally, in violation not only of Aboriginal law, but also of British law at the time. Aboriginals never ceded their land. What land they still have is theirs, and your personal opinion as an outsider simply doesn't apply there. Their country, their land, their rules.

As a non-Indigenous Australian, you have a huge debt to Aboriginals. All non-Indigenous Australians do, whether they've been here for generations or whether they arrived last week from London or Jakarta. You live in comfort in Australia because Indigenous Australians were illegally deprived of the land which you now live on. Australia was founded on a monstrous violation of legally recognised human rights.

However much you do to help Aboriginals, you can never fully repay them the full tremendous debt you owe them. To deny even that, and to advocate dispossessing them of what they still have, in the name of enforced assimilation and "white man's way is best, whether you want it or not" is quite frankly sickening.

What's appallingly sad is that you seem incapable of even pausing to question your cultural subjectivity, your unthinking cultural arrogance and your preconceptions. (I use these words carefully; I'm not just flinging them out at random. These are issues I've given a lot of thought to, and I know the background basics a lot better than you do.) I've already suggested three books to you if you want to at least make some tiny effort to understand Aboriginal history, Aboriginal society and perspectives. Your main problem, though, is that you can't step outside your cultural subjectivity and see it for what it is. You've not been capable of imagining the situation reversed, and considering how you would feel about it. If it's a lack of simple human empathy, there's probably not much that can be done. If it's wilful ignorance, on the other hand, it can be remedied.

Have you ever seen the short film Babakiueria? It has its flaws, but it may help you "switch things around" and ask yourself how you'd feel as a member of an indigenous minority told you're forced to assimilate to an invader's way of life because the arrogant invader thinks it's "best", thinks you have no rights over your own country, land and life, and thinks you're not capable of (and should not be allowed to) make your own decisions and lead your own life.

If you're willing to consider that, we may get somewhere. If not, I think this conversation has reached a dead end. And I honestly can't tell you how sad I am about that.

False choice. We aboriginal people can also manage to live a blended life of traditionalism and 'Western' living. However, it needs to be us, choosing what parts we want...not having them rammed down our throats.

putting aside the clear ethical requirement to do so, are there any examples, anywhere, where returning decision-making and control to indigenous peoples has made them worse off?

putting aside the clear ethical requirement to do so, are there any examples, anywhere, where returning decision-making and control to indigenous peoples has made them worse off?

Zimbabwe.

putting aside the clear ethical requirement to do so, are there any examples, anywhere, where returning decision-making and control to indigenous peoples has made them worse off?

Afghanistan, when the Soviets returned control to the originial Afghan locals.

putting aside the clear ethical requirement to do so, are there any examples, anywhere, where returning decision-making and control to indigenous peoples has made them worse off?

Er, something like a third of Africa, actually...

putting aside the clear ethical requirement to do so, are there any examples, anywhere, where returning decision-making and control to indigenous peoples has made them worse off?

I can really only speak well for the Americas. I can't think of a single example of it going 'wrong'. We have had our systems of governance and law in place for tens of thousands of years...there has been a disconnect over the last century or two, but these things are not forgotten. In Nunavut Territory (Canada), all laywers and judges are now trained jointly in the common-law and aboriginal system. Politics are hashed out in the Inuktitut language.

Among my own people, a focus on language means that those in my generation and my children's generation are once again speaking nehiywawewin. We are relearning our laws, even as we become more educated in the laws of the Canadian system...learning how to value our traditions as the Canadians value theirs. The more educated we become in BOTH systems, whether we're talking law, education, social welfare, etc...the more we are able to once again implement our own systems in a functional manner. But first comes a recognition of the worth of our systems...systems which have been denigrated, and stripped from us. It's also about self-worth. We've been taught for so long that we are inferior, our systems are inferior, and we will always be inferior as long as we hold onto self and our traditions...it's a hard cycle to break out of.

The communities that are truly dysfunctional are those that are seeped in tha lack of self-worth. You have some who want to hold onto tradition, because they see it as a path to health...and the majority who just want to escape, any way they can. Yet even those communities can be 'saved' when there is a renewal in culture. I've seen some amazing changes in our own communities when we stepped up and recognised our situation as an emergency, and really focused on bringing back traditional systems.

I can really only speak well for the Americas. I can't think of a single example of it going 'wrong'. We have had our systems of governance and law in place for tens of thousands of years...there has been a disconnect over the last century or two, but these things are not forgotten. In Nunavut Territory (Canada), all laywers and judges are now trained jointly in the common-law and aboriginal system. Politics are hashed out in the Inuktitut language.

Among my own people, a focus on language means that those in my generation and my children's generation are once again speaking nehiywawewin. We are relearning our laws, even as we become more educated in the laws of the Canadian system...learning how to value our traditions as the Canadians value theirs. The more educated we become in BOTH systems, whether we're talking law, education, social welfare, etc...the more we are able to once again implement our own systems in a functional manner. But first comes a recognition of the worth of our systems...systems which have been denigrated, and stripped from us. It's also about self-worth. We've been taught for so long that we are inferior, our systems are inferior, and we will always be inferior as long as we hold onto self and our traditions...it's a hard cycle to break out of.

The communities that are truly dysfunctional are those that are seeped in tha lack of self-worth. You have some who want to hold onto tradition, because they see it as a path to health...and the majority who just want to escape, any way they can. Yet even those communities can be 'saved' when there is a renewal in culture. I've seen some amazing changes in our own communities when we stepped up and recognised our situation as an emergency, and really focused on bringing back traditional systems.

That's really great. I mean that; the idea of a culture that was threatened rebuilding and finding the fine things of it's past again is something that gives me heart.

And I certainly can't say that it can't happen here. In many places it has. Numerous tribes on the Western and Eastern seaboards of Australia are doing their best to revive their traditions, their languages, their sense of community and nation.

But we also have whole towns and regions where the situation is just about as bad as it can be. It's a situation where there is no prospect of improvement, no chance of a better life, no hope at all.

Howard's actions may well be paternalistic. They may well be mistaken. But frankly, he seems to be the only one who's so much as giving a damn. ANd the situation is such that ANYTHING would be an improvement.

That's really great. I mean that; the idea of a culture that was threatened rebuilding and finding the fine things of it's past again is something that gives me heart.

And I certainly can't say that it can't happen here. In many places it has. Numerous tribes on the Western and Eastern seaboards of Australia are doing their best to revive their traditions, their languages, their sense of community and nation.

But we also have whole towns and regions where the situation is just about as bad as it can be. It's a situation where there is no prospect of improvement, no chance of a better life, no hope at all.

Howard's actions may well be paternalistic. They may well be mistaken. But frankly, he seems to be the only one who's so much as giving a damn. ANd the situation is such that ANYTHING would be an improvement.

Apparently, the aboriginals are at the point where they don't give a shit.

However, so many bad things have been done in the name of "we're the government, and we're here to help..."

Howard's actions may well be paternalistic. They may well be mistaken. But frankly, he seems to be the only one who's so much as giving a damn. ANd the situation is such that ANYTHING would be an improvement.

The road to hell...

His good intentions are questionable at best, and his methods are laughable at the least. I haven't seen any indication that he is actually trying to implement anything that is going to address the root of the problem, which is essentially, cultural disconnect.

You strip a sense of identity from ANYONE and you're going to have a mess on your hands. The key is allowing them to regain that identity.

Apparently, the aboriginals are at the point where they don't give a shit. It's the same kind of apathy you'll find in any ghetto. Why give a shit when giving a shit has no results anyway? Cultural revitalisation takes resources...a LOT of them. It takes planning, vision, commitment. Where many communities are at is the stage of seeing absolutely no way out.

However, so many bad things have been done in the name of "we're the government, and we're here to help..."
Well, political will seems to only last as long as it's politically convenient...if it even lasts to the next election, it's a miracle. No point in holding out for a change there.

There is a lot of consultation that goes on, lengthy processes behind the scenes in terms of land agreements, resource sharing...the process in Australia is not nearly as developed as it is in Canada, but it's bloody exhausting regardless. All that talk, all that work, all that consultation...and it rarely if EVER pans out. What the hell more are we supposed to do? The government moves the way the government moves...all talk, little action. Apathy is understandable.

Er, something like a third of Africa, actually...

i don't know that i would call those places a return of indigenous control. the institutions running them aren't very homegrown looking to me.

i don't know that i would call those places a return of indigenous control. the institutions running them aren't very homegrown looking to me.

I can't really say squat about Africa, knowing so little about it. But the worst thing I've seen here, is 'returning control' to communities via Canadian-created institutions. The whole Band Council is not in accordance with our traditions, and are rife with corruption. No one has faith in them. The Indian Act spells out for most Reserves exactly how things are to be run. That it's natives filling in those positions doesn't mean that control has been returned to us. We're just darker skinned Canadian bureaucrats.

REAL control looks a lot different.

REAL control looks a lot different.

Like Mugabe.

Like Mugabe.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

You're saying Mugabe isn't really in control of Zimbabwe?

You're saying Mugabe isn't really in control of Zimbabwe?

No. You are saying Mugabe is an example of true indigenous control, in the indigenous tradition.

I'm saying...bullshit. Being black and yapping about 'Zimbabwe for blacks only' doesn't mean 'indigenous' in the sense we've been discussing here.

No. You are saying Mugabe is an example of true indigenous control, in the indigenous tradition.

I'm saying...bullshit. Being black and yapping about 'Zimbabwe for blacks only' doesn't mean 'indigenous' in the sense we've been discussing here.

No one made them do that stupid Communist shit. And don't tell me the whites that lived there before made them do that.

They could have easily gone back to their original lifestyle after their revolution.

But they didn't.

No one made them do that stupid Communist shit. And don't tell me the whites that lived there before made them do that.

They could have easily gone back to their original lifestyle after their revolution.

But they didn't.
So you admit you have no point. You're not talking about indigenous government when you bring up Mugabe to derail the discussion.

Good. Nice to be clear.

So you admit you have no point. You're not talking about indigenous government when you bring up Mugabe to derail the discussion.

Good. Nice to be clear.
I do have a point.

Even when you give them the choice to do indigenous government, they don't do it.

Nice of you to miss that.

Alcohol and high fat diets seem to take their toll...

I do have a point.

Even when you give them the choice to do indigenous government, they don't do it.

Nice of you to miss that.

Does Mugabe even know what indigenous governance looks like?

I bet you're the type who sees a native person and says things like, 'How Kemosabe', and asks them to do a rain dance.

Indigenous governance is a communal thing. Just because Mugabe is black, it doesn't mean he has the backing of the indigenous community, or the knowledge, or even gives two shits about it. He wants power...just like the next warmongering fool. The colour of his skin doesn't damn him (he didn't choose indigenous governance even though we LET him) any more than it saves him (he's black, and can do no wrong).

So take your bullshit, shifting, oh-what-I-really-meant-was-I-can't-believe-you-missed-it, argument elsewhere.

I do have a point.

Even when you give them the choice to do indigenous government, they don't do it.

Nice of you to miss that.

"They", who? Surely you realize this is one case where only SOME supported it. It doesn't address everyone who wouldn't have given control to Mugabe, nor does it address the plethora of peoples who have nothing to do with him or what is going on there. It seems like most people who struggle with the illogic of taking specific examples and pretending they are general, you don't realize how silly you're being.

Alcohol and high fat diets seem to take their toll...

On everyone.

"They", who? Surely you realize this is one case where only SOME supported it. It doesn't address everyone who wouldn't have given control to Mugabe, nor does it address the plethora of peoples who have nothing to do with him or what is going on there.

Don't let Deep Remote Online sidetrack you. It's his speciality, but it's not worth enabling.

Don't let Deep Remote Online sidetrack you. It's his speciality, but it's not worth enabling.

Come on, even he can't believe that's more than a really stupid argument. It's like saying that because you're indigenous that everything you do is necessarily indigenous and necessarily applies to all indigenous people. No one is stupid enough to buy that nonsense.

EDIT: I take it back, tons of people are that stupid, but that doesn't make it a good argument.

*snip*

For the record, with the exception of a couple of really bad arguments, I've really enjoyed this thread. Something rare these days on NSG.

Come on, even he can't believe that's more than a really stupid argument. It's like saying that because you're indigenous that everything you do is necessarily indigenous and necessarily applies to all indigenous people. No one is stupid enough to buy that nonsense.

EDIT: I take it back, tons of people are that stupid, but that doesn't make it a good argument.

He basically a troll at heart. I used to be amused, but mostly I just ignore it now. Who knows WHAT he believes...but the argument is stupid, yes...and intended to blow the discussion off track. It amazes me how so many people here fall for it.

Including us, who are now discussing his sorry ass instead of the topic. Although I am sort of waiting for someone besides Remote Legs to post something I can actually sink my teeth into.

For the record, with the exception of a couple of really bad arguments, I've really enjoyed this thread. Something rare these days on NSG.

I jumped in late, and didn't want to even bother going back through the initial pages.

I can really only speak well for the Americas. I can't think of a single example of it going 'wrong'. We have had our systems of governance and law in place for tens of thousands of years...there has been a disconnect over the last century or two, but these things are not forgotten. In Nunavut Territory (Canada), all laywers and judges are now trained jointly in the common-law and aboriginal system. Politics are hashed out in the Inuktitut language.

Among my own people, a focus on language means that those in my generation and my children's generation are once again speaking nehiywawewin. We are relearning our laws, even as we become more educated in the laws of the Canadian system...learning how to value our traditions as the Canadians value theirs. The more educated we become in BOTH systems, whether we're talking law, education, social welfare, etc...the more we are able to once again implement our own systems in a functional manner. But first comes a recognition of the worth of our systems...systems which have been denigrated, and stripped from us. It's also about self-worth. We've been taught for so long that we are inferior, our systems are inferior, and we will always be inferior as long as we hold onto self and our traditions...it's a hard cycle to break out of.

The communities that are truly dysfunctional are those that are seeped in tha lack of self-worth. You have some who want to hold onto tradition, because they see it as a path to health...and the majority who just want to escape, any way they can. Yet even those communities can be 'saved' when there is a renewal in culture. I've seen some amazing changes in our own communities when we stepped up and recognised our situation as an emergency, and really focused on bringing back traditional systems.

I hope Neu Leonstein reads this, all of it, in detail. It's all exactly what I was trying to say, but you've put it rather more clearly, and with proof that it does work.

So much for NL believing Aboriginal cultures are either irrelevant or harmful to Aboriginals.

On everyone.

:rolleyes:

Don't play dumb. The Native Indians have an especially low tolerance to alcohol and fat.

:rolleyes:

Don't play dumb. The Native Indians have an especially low tolerance to alcohol and fat.

The "Native Indians", huh? Hmmmm...

However, do you actually have a point or are we just posting random observations?

I can do it too.

Socks have grey toes.

:rolleyes:

Don't play dumb. The Native Indians have an especially low tolerance to alcohol and fat.

Yeah, aboriginal indigenous native indians living on a nutrient-poor diet of snack food an alcohol have assorted deliterious health problems. Like anyone living on the same sort of diet would.

And as Jocabia asked...do you have a point? Or are you just the random observation guy?

Yeah, aboriginal indigenous native indians living on a nutrient-poor diet of snack food an alcohol have assorted deliterious health problems. Like anyone living on the same sort of diet would.

And as Jocabia asked...do you have a point? Or are you just the random observation guy?

God damnit, did you not even read what I posted?

Native Americans and aboriginals, and pretty much all other ethnicities who have been introduced to fatty foods and alcohol have a very low tolerance to it because they've only been consuming it for one to three generations tops.

If you get an average American and an average Native American and put them on a high fat diet with alcohol for six monthes the Native American will fair much more poorly because the good majority of his ancestors lived on a diet of plants and very lean meat. I.E. Deer, Buffalo, rabbit, etc.

This is different from the American/European who has had countless generations drinking alcohol and eating domesticated animals.]

My point? It was a response to the thread, "How to deal with remains of indigenous communites?" Mind you that can be interpreted as "how do we help them" or "How do we deal with them?"

The answer I put was sort of a sarcastic manifest destiny kind of joke, but I guess that was lost somewhere or it was too subtle, or maybe (probably) it only made sense to me.

-snip-
Look, so far you haven't convinced me. It's all nice and easy to talk in general terms, but it's the details that I think bring the whole thing down. Yes, there could be various supernatural things being associated with a rock or a plant. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the actual Aboriginal law, which ultimately is law that fits a 40,000 year old nomadic lifestyle, not the 21st century.

The question I have is: How can you hope to participate in a market economy if you don't believe in personal property rights?

And establishing private property rights is sorta made difficult if you make selling land impossible for religious reasons.

And that is not "my culture". That is objective fact - for a market economy to work there need to be people owning and trading commodities, and out there the most important commodity is land. Not only that, but them not leaving what amounts to large parts of empty desert they don't participate in the market economy of Australia either. And without a market economy you see precisely what you see right now: people incapable of taking personal responsibility for their lives without any sort of ambition. Yes, you can hide behind past injustices all you want, but that won't change a thing, and it certainly doesn't justify continuing to spend money on treating symptoms.

As for the idea of all this land actually being Aboriginal, let's just say I don't buy it. Living somewhere or even being born somewhere doesn't confer property rights, and that is again not my culture, it's a matter of having a system that doesn't end up with everyone claiming the same stretch of land and there never being any undisputed ownership.

God damnit, did you not even read what I posted?

Native Americans and aboriginals, and pretty much all other ethnicities who have been introduced to fatty foods and alcohol have a very low tolerance to it because they've only been consuming it for one to three generations tops.

If you get an average American and an average Native American and put them on a high fat diet with alcohol for six monthes the Native American will fair much more poorly because the good majority of his ancestors lived on a diet of plants and very lean meat. I.E. Deer, Buffalo, rabbit, etc.

This is different from the American/European who has had countless generations drinking alcohol and eating domesticated animals.]

My point? It was a response to the thread, "How to deal with remains of indigenous communites?" Mind you that can be interpreted as "how do we help them" or "How do we deal with them?"

The answer I put was sort of a sarcastic manifest destiny kind of joke, but I guess that was lost somewhere or it was too subtle, or maybe (probably) it only made sense to me.

We read it. It just has no merit.

Look, so far you haven't convinced me. It's all nice and easy to talk in general terms, but it's the details that I think bring the whole thing down. Yes, there could be various supernatural things being associated with a rock or a plant. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the actual Aboriginal law, which ultimately is law that fits a 40,000 year old nomadic lifestyle, not the 21st century.

Neesika has shown you, in very concrete terms, why you're wrong.


The question I have is: How can you hope to participate in a market economy if you don't believe in personal property rights?

There you go with "either, or" again. Certain Aboriginal communities have retained their traditions more or less fully, and are doing fine that way. If others want to integrate a market economy, then obviously they'll have to adapt to that. That doesn't mean relinquishing everything about their way of life, as has been demonstrated.


And establishing private property rights is sorta made difficult if you make selling land impossible for religious reasons.

And that is not "my culture". That is objective fact - for a market economy to work there need to be people owning and trading commodities, and out there the most important commodity is land.

Non sequitur. There are other commodities that can be bought and sold in a market economy. There's no reason to say: "If you want to buy and sell stuff, you'll have to let us dispossess you of your land."


Not only that, but them not leaving what amounts to large parts of empty desert they don't participate in the market economy of Australia either.


So? Many are doing fine that way. Also, they owe nothing to Australia. Australia, on the other hand, owes more than it can ever repay to its Indigenous peoples.


And without a market economy you see precisely what you see right now: people incapable of taking personal responsibility for their lives without any sort of ambition.


Rubbish. Absolute rubbish, and you know it. How do you think they coped for forty millenia? How do you think many still cope now? For that matter, how do you think the majority of Papua New Guineans, for example, cope today?

Not to sound offensive, but your problem here is ignorance of any way of life "foreign" to yours. Very briefly, to continue with the example of many Papua New Guineans (which is also true of many Solomon Islanders and ni-Vanuatu, by the way... all close neighbours of yours). Most Papua New Guineans live outside the market economy, with few or no ties to it. What keeps them going? A society structure and values completely foreign to your own. Production and free, generous distribution among Papua New Guineans (in general) are the way towards social prestige and influence. That's one example among many of "ambition" (since your narrow capitalist perspective considers that to be of the utmost importance) in an utterly non-capitalist society.


Yes, you can hide behind past injustices all you want, but that won't change a thing, and it certainly doesn't justify continuing to spend money on treating symptoms.

I've addressed this point already.


As for the idea of all this land actually being Aboriginal, let's just say I don't buy it. Living somewhere or even being born somewhere doesn't confer property rights, and that is again not my culture, it's a matter of having a system that doesn't end up with everyone claiming the same stretch of land and there never being any undisputed ownership.

Rubbish again, and you really should know better. The system worked flawlessly for 40,000 years. You claim that a lack of individual property rights leads to overlapping claims is (I'm sorry to say) grossly ignorant.

Why? Well, I've already explained it. For as long as Aboriginals still had access to ancestral Dreaming stories, they knew exactly where their land was. (I could go into significant detail, but I've said it all already. Did you even read it?) In pre-colonial Australia, there was no conflict over land ownership. Nada. For that reason. Trying to gain land where your people had no Dreaming was not only absurd, it was inconceivable (quite literally). The reason for conflicting claims today (which is obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about Aboriginal societies) is precisely because that knowledge has been lost through forced assimilation (cultural erasure, the kidnapping of children on a massive scale, etc...).

It's funny we have to "invade" our own NT aboriginal communities with troops and police to restore order again. These communities aren't dissimiliar to the ones in East Timor and the Pacific islands in terms of their social problems.

This current plan of banning this and that will not work, forcing Aboriginal parents to admit their children for mandatory blatant and invasive sexual abuse checks, having police and army units marching through their communities. This is a new form of paternalism and segregation, enforced by a government determined to exterminate aboriginal communalism and enforce their own conservative family-unit values system on a people.

And without a market economy you see precisely what you see right now: people incapable of taking personal responsibility for their lives without any sort of ambition.

bull-fucking-shit and you know it.

God damnit, did you not even read what I posted? Maybe you should calm down. I'm not about to give you more notice just because you start acting like a belligerant ass.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the actual Aboriginal law, which ultimately is law that fits a 40,000 year old nomadic lifestyle, not the 21st century.

Wrong. Our legal traditions are absolutely suited to any time. Just as your are. You boil down the essentially elements, and it doesn't matter if you're riding around in a horse and carriage, or flying in an airplane. Ditto with us.

Our laws govern our relationships with one another, and with our environment, just as yours do. Our laws are steeped in tradition...and so are yours. The language gets updated as new technologies arrive, but the fundamental principles are basically the same.


The question I have is: How can you hope to participate in a market economy if you don't believe in personal property rights?

Ugh, how confused you people are. Communal property is a fantastic commodity. You can do a lot with it on the open market. There is also personal property in abundance in most indigenous cultures...you think we all share the same toilet paper? Communal property, ranging from artifacts, to land, to knowledge, can still be utilised by us on the open market...the decision making is somewhat different. Think of it more like a corporation than a single individual.

However, most important to us is our land base, so no, we're not going to sell that out from under ourselves. Sorry...that doesn't ensure our economic ruin. Far from it. Land is power and everyone knows it.

We do not need to participate in the market economy to the extact extent you seem to think we do, either. What we value the most has no price tag, and yet ensures our survival. Community. Tradition. We've survived for tens of thousands of years, and as Free Soviets has pointed out, DESPITE everything, we still survive. Some of our communities have come out of the most horrible circumstances and risen above them. But not a one of them has done it without a return to traditional indigenous governance and law.

And establishing private property rights is sorta made difficult if you make selling land impossible for religious reasons. Not religious. Cultural. We are communal. We are not going to get up and move somewhere else. This is not unheard of in Western culture. The Hutterites and Mennonites have remarkably similar systems.

And that is not "my culture". That is objective fact - for a market economy to work there need to be people owning and trading commodities, and out there the most important commodity is land. And next to that are the resources found on that land. Which we can access, sell, and manage just fine. But at the very least, we will always have a place to live.



Not only that, but them not leaving what amounts to large parts of empty desert they don't participate in the market economy of Australia either. And without a market economy you see precisely what you see right now: people incapable of taking personal responsibility for their lives without any sort of ambition. Yes, you can hide behind past injustices all you want, but that won't change a thing, and it certainly doesn't justify continuing to spend money on treating symptoms. I agree on there being no point in treating symptoms when the problem is so interwoven in the way aboriginees have been treated and still are treated. There needs to be a change in attitude on both sides...but the attitude that MOST needs changing is the one that perpetuates the system that excludes aboriginal peoples, their culture, their traditions, and their knowledge. Yours.

As for the idea of all this land actually being Aboriginal, let's just say I don't buy it.
Read Mabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_%28No_2%29). Buy it or not, it's a legal fact in Australia, and always will be.

*snip*

We have our disagreements, but I love reading your point of view in aboriginal matters. Not because you're aboriginal, but because you express that incorporation of aboriginal values into the world at large in such a sensible way.

We have our disagreements, but I love reading your point of view in aboriginal matters. Not because you're aboriginal, but because you express that incorporation of aboriginal values into the world at large in such a sensible way.

It's taken me a lifetime to regain respect for our traditions, and see them with clarity. The biggest part of that is because since I entered the school system, our ways have been misrepresented to me, and to all Canadians. It's one thing to not understand, and quite another to denigrate so thoroughly. If I can change even one person's perception on the subject, then the effort is well worth it.

It's taken me a lifetime to regain respect for our traditions, and see them with clarity. The biggest part of that is because since I entered the school system, our ways have been misrepresented to me, and to all Canadians. It's one thing to not understand, and quite another to denigrate so thoroughly. If I can change even one person's perception on the subject, then the effort is well worth it.

I understand much better as a result of your posts on the subject. Thank you for that.

You claim that a lack of individual property rights leads to overlapping claims is (I'm sorry to say) grossly ignorant.
Hey, it's not me who said it, it's "Living Black", an indigenous affairs program on SBS. I'm sure it wasn't mentioned in your books though, but then those are hardly a guide.

http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v5n1/humph51.html#Overlapping%20Claims
In the North Eastern Goldfields there is a kaleidoscope of 24 claims affecting the same area. Some people are claimants in more than one claim. Under the Act, all claimants have the same right to negotiate as if they had proved their claim, irrespective of the merit of their claim, the number of people represented by each claimant group or whether they are separately claiming the same communal title. While it is recognised that the complexities of traditional Aboriginal association with land will inevitably produce overlapping or interrelated interests, the current link between claims and the right to negotiate can produce arbitrary and unfair consequences for proponents attempting to negotiate future act agreements.

Contrary to popular belief, Aboriginals are people too. People with the potential to make mistakes, to be greedy bastards or to have no idea what they're doing. That's the reality of it.

Wrong. Our legal traditions are absolutely suited to any time. Just as your are. You boil down the essentially elements, and it doesn't matter if you're riding around in a horse and carriage, or flying in an airplane. Ditto with us.
Well, I would think there's a difference between the legal traditions of the Australian Aboriginal nations and those of the various Innuit peoples.

I have a few problems with the whole notion that the different laws are in fact equal and can in fact coexist as laws:
1) As you guys rightly point out, I don't understand them. That's not because I don't care, but because the idea of the Dreaming is so abstract, supernatural and religious that I think it only gets meaning through belief. Since I can't say I think that there actually are creator spirits lying dormant in the land, the real world relevance of the whole background of the Aboriginal legal tradition escapes me.
2) That leaves the actual rules of behaviour which to me look like they govern small, nomadic groups of families trying to survive. Many of them can be disregarded straight away because they govern the interaction with the land that is completely different (if it even exists) if one isn't in fact a nomad. Other rules, particularly those governing interpersonal relations, may not be useful anymore (as in helping the group to survive) but at least they don't hurt anyone. So I'm all for those being adopted by various people, though I wouldn't want them to apply to me.
3) Whatever remains of Aboriginal legal tradition has failed, big time. Blame it on whoever you want, but that's the fact of the matter. If you're going to tell me that Aboriginal law needs Western drug councelling, Western public housing and Western social workers to work, then that's a failure of Aboriginal law to actually govern people's behaviour. It's not a secret why there's no Dreamtime stories about alcohol and petrol sniffing, but regardless of the reason for it it's a failure nonetheless. And unless someone can come along and make up new Dreaming stories, I don't see traditional Aboriginal law stopping anyone from being an alcoholic any time soon.

Can I possibly hope to "reform" Aboriginal culture to make it compatible with the 21st century? Obviously not, only Aboriginal leaders could do so. But they haven't, which means that they failed their future generations. Even if we weren't to actively promote the alternative, at the very least there's no reason to keep sponsoring whatever it is they do with their time right now. And that means that welfare payments will be linked to looking for a job (like for anyone else), that public housing isn't a free place to hang out indefinitely (like for anyone else) and that culture or childhood is not an excuse for rape (like for anyone else).

That's the easiest way to force a decision: either join Australia and the world as productive members of society with all the rewards that brings (and if they can and want to manage it, combine that with whatever elements of traditional Aboriginal beliefs they want to have), or to return to the traditional way of life free of pesky things like medicine or food security. Right now we're subsidising a horrible existence in between, and that's got to stop one way or the other.

Read Mabo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mabo_v_Queensland_%28No_2%29). Buy it or not, it's a legal fact in Australia, and always will be.
I've addressed the case in passing. In my opinion the court made a mistake, pretty openly declaring that Aboriginal people are to be judged differently to white people. Just because I live somewhere doesn't mean I own the place, yet that is in effect what the court used as justification for native title.

If a court had decided back in the early stages of colonisation that terra nullius was wrong and that existing Aboriginal laws regarding land ownership were valid, then that would have been fine. But now, more than a century later and with an established Western system of property ownership, I don't really see the sense in suddenly transferring some sort of native title that de facto didn't exist for all this time. It was in effect a new rule made up on the spot giving people additional rights for no other reason than them being Aboriginal.

To take an extreme example, one Aboriginal people recently won native title rights over the metropolitan area of Perth. I found that amazing...I am quite willing to believe that 150 years ago and beyond their ancestors lived on that land and had their stories about it. But the simple fact is that today the place is a million-people city with some of the highest property prices in the world, with skyscrapers and everything. Am I the only one who thinks that the land these people originally lived on and had a connection with no longer exists? Is the supernatural good enough a reason for a court to make its judgement one way or the other? And if it's not the supernatural but simply the "I used to live here"...then why does it apply here and not in any other case where people moved around or were driven from a patch of land some time during history?

I just spent half a fucking hour replying to this, only to have it stolen by jolt. :( I'll try again, hopefully I can remember the bulk of it goddamit. I doubt it will be as good but…damn me for not copying it. I’m sure I’ve left some things out, but here it is. Again.



Well, I would think there's a difference between the legal traditions of the Australian Aboriginal nations and those of the various Innuit peoples.
I'm not Inuit. I’m Cree. That is however, basically irrelevant. What you need to do is learn how to distill these laws down to their essence, in order to understand what it is you are looking at. I will attempt to help you do this.


I have a few problems with the whole notion that the different laws are in fact equal and can in fact coexist as laws:
You have a problem with this, because you do not have legal training.

What do laws do? They govern relationships. Relationships between family members, strangers, communities, between us and the environment, between us and other peoples.

Among my people, the Cree (nehiyawak), it is believed that hunting improperly, out of time, or without the correct protocols, will anger the spirits. We have many legends of greedy hunters who kill a pregnant doe, or fail to give the right thanks. Almost invariably, their transgressions lead to famine among the people as the animal spirits abandon us for our behaviour. Now, if you simply look at the surface, these beliefs are easy to discount. But you need to look deeper.

What is the issue here? What is being regulated? The relationship between people, and our source of food. The restrictions, the requirements, these are the laws. The warning in the stories is still quite apt. Mismanage your source of food, and risk losing it. We recognise that there needs to be a system of management. The laws say nothing about the implements one must use to hunt. Instead, there are a series of restrictions, very closely mirroring Canadian wildlife management laws. Ours might be a bit more flexible in terms of times of need, as long as the proper protocols are still observed. Taking an animal outside the right time is never something to do lightly, and for good reason.

You can not look at our hunting laws and say they are only relevant for a nomadic people living hundreds or thousands of years ago. Not if you are actually analyzing the laws themselves.



1) As you guys rightly point out, I don't understand them. That's not because I don't care, but because the idea of the Dreaming is so abstract, supernatural and religious that I think it only gets meaning through belief. Since I can't say I think that there actually are creator spirits lying dormant in the land, the real world relevance of the whole background of the Aboriginal legal tradition escapes me. That’s because, once again, you are simply looking at the surface. You don’t have to believe in these supernatural beings. Look at them as metaphors. For what? What purpose do these beings have? More often than not, they regulate relationships. Once again, we return to fundamental legal tenants. What are the spirits doing? Protecting? Retaliating? Guiding? What are we supposed to do, or not do? Answer those questions and you begin to see the laws.



2) That leaves the actual rules of behaviour which to me look like they govern small, nomadic groups of families trying to survive. Many of them can be disregarded straight away because they govern the interaction with the land that is completely different (if it even exists) if one isn't in fact a nomad. Have you ever studied the laws of seisen in your common-law? They are based in a time very different than now, meant for people with different beliefs than ours, living in a different environment. And yet, at their root, they are about land ownership and the transfer of land. They are as applicable today as they ever were, despite the enormous changes the societies using these laws have gone through.

So no, these laws can not be disregarded straight away. The size of the community is not the issue…the relationships being governed are.


3) Whatever remains of Aboriginal legal tradition has failed, big time. Blame it on whoever you want, but that's the fact of the matter. Untrue. Aboriginal laws and traditions have been outlawed and repressed since contact. They have never been given a chance, and it is incorrect to say they have failed.

I’d like to give you some concrete examples of aboriginal law in Canada. Restoratative justice, restitution, and sentencing circles. All are compatible with indigenous legal traditions, and some are specifically based on those traditions. All are used with aboriginal and non-aboriginals alike. They are alternatives to the common-law adversarial system. At their root is the need to restore community harmony. These are laws that have been given a chance, and have succeeded smashingly. They aren’t ‘only for aboriginal’ people. The underlying philosophy can be applied to anyone, depending on the situation.

And yet, these are just one tiny part of a much larger system that has yet to be reimplemented. So no. Not failed. Repressed…and only now coming back to the light.


If you're going to tell me that Aboriginal law needs Western drug councelling, Western public housing and Western social workers to work, then that's a failure of Aboriginal law to actually govern people's behaviour. It's not a secret why there's no Dreamtime stories about alcohol and petrol sniffing, but regardless of the reason for it it's a failure nonetheless. And unless someone can come along and make up new Dreaming stories, I don't see traditional Aboriginal law stopping anyone from being an alcoholic any time soon.
The most effective programs we’ve had for drug and alcohol abuse counseling have involved traditional healing. Why do people drink or abuse drugs? Well, the reasons are varied, but poverty, lack of family ties, cultural disconnect…these are all big triggers. Western legal traditions might toss someone in jail if they act up while drunk, or maybe even force them into rehab…our traditions look at restoring the balance.

It’s not about alcohol or drugs, which yes, are new. Do you really think that twenty thousand years ago, no man ever beat his wife? No one ever killed another person, or destroyed someone’s property? Of course they did. And we had systems in place to deal with these transgressions.

Restitution or restorative justice is about restoring balance. Alright…why are you drinking? Deal with the root of the problem. Restore that cultural connection if at all possible…provide alternatives to destructive ties such as gangs. No one can be stopped from drinking or drugging…but they can be forced to face the consequences of their actions.

You got drunk and smashed up someone’s car with a bat, a la Big Lebowski? Alright. You fix it. Or you pay to have it fix. You face the person you have wronged, and you work it out. Maybe you can’t, but you do your damndest to make it right.

Will it always work? No system always works. But ours is no more doomed to failure than yours…and in fact our systems have had much more success among our people than yours. Why? Because they are consistent with our cultural beliefs.


That's the easiest way to force a decision: either join Australia and the world as productive members of society with all the rewards that brings (and if they can and want to manage it, combine that with whatever elements of traditional Aboriginal beliefs they want to have), or to return to the traditional way of life free of pesky things like medicine or food security. Right now we're subsidising a horrible existence in between, and that's got to stop one way or the other.
In one breath you say that mixing is possible and in the next you once again propose an all or nothing system. I hope you stop and really consider what it is you are supporting. I’m hoping that if you get the chance to see how ‘blending’ actually works, you’ll gain more of an appreciation for it. I suggest contacting an aboriginal group in your area for information on aboriginal governance and legal traditions.


I've addressed the case in passing. In my opinion the court made a mistake, pretty openly declaring that Aboriginal people are to be judged differently to white people. Just because I live somewhere doesn't mean I own the place, yet that is in effect what the court used as justification for native title.
I’ll just point out that without legal training, you lack the background to really form a legal opinion on the case. I hope you take the time to read up on what the case actually means, to gain what perspective you can. Here is a good place to start (http://www.austlii.org/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1992/36.html).

Mabo discarded the notion of terra nullius, which basically held that the aboriginals were either animals, or had no system of law or land ownership, which meant that Australia was uninhabited. Both view are extremely racist.

Aboriginal rights have undergone an evolution in the English common-law. Initially, they were usufructory in nature, based on usage. This is actually a common-law right, not something coming from aboriginal law. For example, there are two pieces of land. Plot B can only be reached by walking across plot A. That necessary usage creates a usufructory right…in essence, a property right to plot A, held by the owner of plot B. That specific kind of right is called an easement. It is not something you get rid of easily.

Now the Crown has sovereignty over all lands in Australia, just as they do in Canada. How they got that sovereignty is based on legal fiction. Oh, this is nothing new mind you. The same kind of legal fiction was used by William the Conqueror centuries ago in England when magically, all lands were seized by the Crown, and then given back out again. It’s a necessary fiction, nonetheless. How this fiction has come about as the English expanded their territories varied. Terra nullius was one such doctrine, but there were others, such as the Doctrine of Conquest (which, interestingly meant that indigenous legal systems would remain in place), or the Doctrine of Discovery (where indigenous laws were supplanted by common-law).

Contrary to your view, Mabo did not come out of nowhere. There is a long line of aboriginal common-law precedent. In 1921, a case called Amodu Tijani v. Southern Nigeria, Viscount Haldane held that aboriginal proprietary rights were not supplanted by British assumption of control. The NATURE of the proprietary rights were important, in order to determine what rights remained. It was stated that since these rights were going to vary, they MUST be understood in relation to how the aboriginal peoples themselves saw those rights.

So the rights might not look completely familiar, but a sort of comparison is needed. Who owns the land? Well, in the case of aboriginal people, the community usually does…but sometimes the land is controlled by a certain clan, or head-man or woman who dictates how the land is parceled out. Perhaps the rights to the land only include hunting, not occupation, and perhaps that hunting ground is shared among various communities. The important part is to understand the rights, as they are expressed by the traditions of the people themselves.

The courts have gone further since Amodu, in that Crown sovereignty is not just burdened by a usufructory right in all cases. In some cases, aboriginal title actually exists, layered on top of Crown title. In Canada, no one has allodial title to land. That means, no one completely owns the land they live on, or have purchased. They own an ESTATE in the land…the Crown owns the land itself. Nonetheless, that estate puts a burden on what the Crown can do with the land…much as aboriginal title does.

The fact is…Mabo invented nothing. The rights were already there, they were simply misunderstood. This understanding has changed, as legal understandings do. The right to vote, granted to women, created no new right. It simply acknowledged a right that already existed, yet had been stifled. Yes, the aborigines had rights based on prior occupation and usage. That this was not recognized or accepted before, does not mean the rights weren’t there.



If a court had decided back in the early stages of colonisation that terra nullius was wrong and that existing Aboriginal laws regarding land ownership were valid, then that would have been fine. But now, more than a century later and with an established Western system of property ownership, I don't really see the sense in suddenly transferring some sort of native title that de facto didn't exist for all this time. It was in effect a new rule made up on the spot giving people additional rights for no other reason than them being Aboriginal.
Was the right for women to vote a right that didn’t exist before? Or simply a right that hadn’t been acknowledged up to that point? If it is your contention that a right should not exist unless it existed at the time of colonization, then would you support removing the right to vote from women? Perhaps returning Australia to its status as a penal colony?

No?

Then why would you support such retroactive thinking in terms of aboriginal people?


To take an extreme example, one Aboriginal people recently won native title rights over the metropolitan area of Perth. I found that amazing...I am quite willing to believe that 150 years ago and beyond their ancestors lived on that land and had their stories about it. But the simple fact is that today the place is a million-people city with some of the highest property prices in the world, with skyscrapers and everything. Am I the only one who thinks that the land these people originally lived on and had a connection with no longer exists?
Aboriginees were driven from the coast and into the interior. If Australian land claims in any way follow the pattern here in Canada, the aborigines will not gain title to that area, but rather, the agreement will be based on revenue sharing.

Look at it this way. You steal my land, push me off it, and I’m forced to make my home in an arid plain. When I finally have the resources to come after you legally, I find that you’ve constructed a town that is surely not going to be moved. However I made my living off that land is impossible now…but your action was illegal and you profited from it. I can go after that profit. Unjust enrichment…it’s a fundamental principle of Australian common-law…not some aboriginal ‘mumbo jumbo’.

This current plan of banning this and that will not work, forcing Aboriginal parents to admit their children for mandatory blatant and invasive sexual abuse checks, having police and army units marching through their communities. This is a new form of paternalism and segregation, enforced by a government determined to exterminate aboriginal communalism and enforce their own conservative family-unit values system on a people.

While I deeply distrust Howard and his strategists, I don't believe this is his last lunge for his beloved '50s. I believe it is the race card again -- a desperate attempt to avoid the sound tonking his government deserves on the agenda they set over their entire term: workplace relations, tax reform, disempowering the States and the response to terrorism.

And if his government gets back in, they'll follow up on this "urgent need for action" issue the way they did with Tampa ... by trying their damnedest to make it fall off the agenda again.

And it's not like this is a national solution, even if the Feds have a solution. They can't do these things in the States, only in Territories.

From wikipedia, figures from the Census for aboriginal population:

* New South Wales - 134,888
* Queensland - 125,910
* Western Australia - 65,931
* Northern Territory - 56,875
* Victoria - 27,846
* South Australia - 25,544
* Tasmania - 17,384
* ACT - 3,909
* Other Territories - 233

I highlighted the territories in red.

EDIT: and credit where credit is due, this right back on page 1:
It was my understanding that the Northern Territory was just that, a Territory, and not a State at all; meaning that it does not have the same jurisdiction as the other real states. This means Howard has as much right to do what he wants there. But then again, what would I know, i'm just a Kiwi.

So I'm saying it's an election strategy, not a serious attempt to solve the problem. Only Aboriginal people themselves can do that.

Neesika and Neu L: I'm not messing with your dialogue, it's above my level. That last from N was absolutely terrific, a lot more informative than the media coverage, which sadly will determine really how this Fed move will play out.

Hey, it's not me who said it, it's "Living Black", an indigenous affairs program on SBS. I'm sure it wasn't mentioned in your books though, but then those are hardly a guide.

Contrary to popular belief, Aboriginals are people too. People with the potential to make mistakes, to be greedy bastards or to have no idea what they're doing. That's the reality of it.

I've already answered this, in detail. If you're not going to address anything I write, and not going to read it properly, what's the point?


3) Whatever remains of Aboriginal legal tradition has failed, big time.


I've already answered this, too, in detail.


That's the easiest way to force a decision: either join Australia and the world as productive members of society with all the rewards that brings (and if they can and want to manage it, combine that with whatever elements of traditional Aboriginal beliefs they want to have), or to return to the traditional way of life free of pesky things like medicine or food security. Right now we're subsidising a horrible existence in between, and that's got to stop one way or the other.


And this. (Most notably by pointing out to you that many Aboriginals have successfully combined a traditional lifestyle with access to the essentials of modernity. But what's the point of me repeating things that you don't bother to read?)


In my opinion the court made a mistake, pretty openly declaring that Aboriginal people are to be judged differently to white people.

And this. I'll make one last attempt to get this through to you. Those Aboriginal land titles have never been legally extinguished. It is their country. You're reacting as if they were somehow an intruding privileged minority. You have forced yourself onto their country as a dominant outside majority, on the basis of an illegal invasion, and on that basis you claim that the laws of the Indigenous inhabitants should be erased?

Does nothing strike you as fundamentally wrong with your reasoning?

Of course Aboriginal people have the right to maintain their own laws! I don't see you advocating that non-Indigenous Australians should conform to the laws of the country's Indigenous inhabitants (you are, after all, an immigrant majority occupying their lands), so why on earth should the Indigenous inhabitants conform to the laws of the invading immigrant majority if they don't want to?

The court - as Neesika and I have both explained - did not invent a new principle out of nowhere. It recognised that Aboriginal land had been occupied in violation of the law. Not only Aboriginal law, but British law of the time.

But I'm wasting my time here. You clearly don't want to address the points I've raised. You're not interested in even pausing to consider that perhaps you may be wrong. Quite frankly, I know these issues better than you do, and for you to claim that you can decide on the future of Aboriginal peoples while remaining ignorant of the most essential and basic facts about them is not just arrogant (and unjustified arrogance, at that) but absurd. If you were willing to admit that your ignorance (and I don't mean that as an insult) is preventing you from having an informed view, and if you were willing to do something about that, perhaps we could have an informed and relevant discussion. But as it is, if you're unwilling to question your limitations, this is pointless.

We've got to the stage where you're just raising issues that I've already answered, without you acknowledging or responding to those answers. To go any further would have us running round in circles.

I'm guessing that, in the one year I lived in Australia, I talked to (and, more importantly, listened to) more Aboriginal people than you have in all your time in the country, and I've read a hell of a lot more of what Aboriginal people have written. What does that say about your approach to these issues?

If you're interested in finding out more about Aboriginal perspectives and their relevance to today's situation, let me know. Or read Neesika's posts: most of what she says applies to Australia.

What you've written strengthens my belief that it's vital for non-Indigenous Australians to be educated about Aboriginal history, society, perspectives, and the contemporary relevance of their traditions, laws and Dreaming. None of these issues can be solved as long as non-Indigenous Australians remain so fundamentally ignorant. You asked what could be done to address issues some Aboriginals are facing. Educating non-Indigenous Australians to enable them to have informed views on these issues would be a HUGE step forward.

Perhaps it could even stop them from trying to repeat the mistakes of the past. Advocating forced assimilation, despite the glaring, disastrous failure of such policies, is a truly shocking reminder of how deep that ignorance runs. Only by informing people can we put an end to them trying to put out the fires their predecessors started by pouring more oil on them.

I just spent half a fucking hour replying to this, only to have it stolen by jolt. :(
I know how you feel.

That’s because, once again, you are simply looking at the surface. You don’t have to believe in these supernatural beings. Look at them as metaphors. For what? What purpose do these beings have? More often than not, they regulate relationships. Once again, we return to fundamental legal tenants. What are the spirits doing? Protecting? Retaliating? Guiding? What are we supposed to do, or not do? Answer those questions and you begin to see the laws.
So what you're saying is that we ignore the spiritual part and stick to the actual rules.

As long as they don't conflict with the laws made by democratic government, I'm okay with that. But I must wonder whether that would still be Aboriginal culture, particularly in the case of Australia where it sometimes seems like there's basically no division between the spiritual and physical worlds.

So no, these laws can not be disregarded straight away. The size of the community is not the issue…the relationships being governed are.
I agree, but I still don't see how the relationships can still be the same today. The whole dreamtime stuff and the connection to the land are basically a completely different system of ownership which can end up in conflict with our system. What if the tribe that was granted native title over Perth were to decide that driving cars there would somehow impede their use of the land for spiritual purposes? Granted it's an unrealistic example, but you still use spiritual reasons to argue real-world actions. That's stupid for a person, it's downright dangerous for a lawmaker.

Maybe there is a non-spiritual reading to it. Maybe the nomadic tribes needed to stay away from each others territory and stick to areas that they knew well. But even then the need for it in modern society is questionable.

Untrue. Aboriginal laws and traditions have been outlawed and repressed since contact.
Until a few decades ago. What I mean to say is that the current problems are rife in townships that are pretty much free of interference from white people, be it good or bad interference.

Whatever remains of the elders and their rules have shown themselves unable to control the situation and make something of the land once they'd won the rights to it. I mean, one of the communities that is being focused on is Mutitjulu, right next to the Uluru mountain. The people who live there do tours of the area and are joint managers of the park.

They're meant to be prime examples of success! And instead the problems there seem to be among the worst. Something has gone wrong there, and it just seems dumb to blame others for it.

Western legal traditions might toss someone in jail if they act up while drunk, or maybe even force them into rehab…our traditions look at restoring the balance.
So why hasn't this been done in these communities? If anyone had the power to use indigenous ways of doing things to help, it would have been the tribal elders there.

But the fact of the matter is that either the elders themselves don't care, or that the criminals don't listen to them. Traditional Aboriginal law might have suggested a deadly curse in that case, but even with that I have my doubts it would work if the other guy is too drunk to even notice.

No one can be stopped from drinking or drugging…but they can be forced to face the consequences of their actions.
Of course, but that hasn't happened so far. Maybe it's not a failure of Aboriginal law, maybe it's a failure of Aboriginal leaders.

But something's got to be done to end the current situation, and I have my doubts that white police officers are going to be credible walking in there and talking about the Dreaming or even point the Kurdaitcha at people.

It seems that currently the lack of talking to people in these communities has made the job of persecuting criminals harder than it has to be. But on the other hand, do you really want to talk to leaders who willingly ignored what was going on for all this time? Especially if they're going to justify mistakes they've made with relativist arguments as though child abuse in an Aboriginal community was somehow different from child abuse anywhere else?

In one breath you say that mixing is possible and in the next you once again propose an all or nothing system. I hope you stop and really consider what it is you are supporting.
Well, it's a question of the proportions you use to mix it. I'm not going to sit down and accept that people who don't participate in the economy get healthcare or other tax-funded services. And participating in the economy carries with it the willingness to adapt to the rules of exchanging goods and services. The outrage about a recent government plan to introduce *gasp* individual property rights in some Aboriginal communities (to encourage people to take better care of the public housing they lived in) indicates to me that this is not going to be easy or popular everywhere.

I’m hoping that if you get the chance to see how ‘blending’ actually works, you’ll gain more of an appreciation for it. I suggest contacting an aboriginal group in your area for information on aboriginal governance and legal traditions.
I might just do that when I have a few hours spare time. The problem is that whenever I've had the chance to talk to people about these matters, they quickly return to long talks about spiritual stuff which frankly bore me.

It was stated that since these rights were going to vary, they MUST be understood in relation to how the aboriginal peoples themselves saw those rights.
Firstly, methinks you've found a calling for yourself.

Secondly, this point in particular just doesn't sit well with me. How is that not a unilateral declaration of whatever rights they want to have? There is no written record of how they saw those rights, and I'm not going to trust anyone to answer questions of this type honestly regardless of skin colour.

That means, no one completely owns the land they live on, or have purchased. They own an ESTATE in the land…the Crown owns the land itself.
Don't remind me, it's one of the biggest failures of our modern legal systems.

Was the right for women to vote a right that didn’t exist before? Or simply a right that hadn’t been acknowledged up to that point? If it is your contention that a right should not exist unless it existed at the time of colonization, then would you support removing the right to vote from women? Perhaps returning Australia to its status as a penal colony?
The difference is that handing out votes to women doesn't take anything away from anyone. Handing out vaguely defined ownership rights over properties that may have been built up and invested in for decades to people seems a different kettle of fish to me.

At least with the Crown you've got some rules regarding what they're allowed to do to your stuff. At this point no such rules exist, with a few exceptions it's all done on a case by case basis.

You know more about this stuff than me, so maybe you can tell me what happens if native title is granted and the people in question then ask for absolutely ridiculous things in the land use agreement. What sort of protection is there for earned property?

However I made my living off that land is impossible now…but your action was illegal and you profited from it.
But I didn't. Pretty much nobody who's alive engaged in any sort of action, and I'd hate to think you're going to charge taxpayers simply because the actual criminals are no longer around.

I think my question was lost, but how is native title any different than some Italian guy walking around claiming land that belonged to the Roman Empire? Or indeed various WWII refugees going back to where their families used to live and just claim for the land back, or a share of the revenues?

I've already answered this, in detail. If you're not going to address anything I write, and not going to read it properly, what's the point?
I did read it. In fact, accusing me of not reading your posts is getting old. I did read them, and I simply don't share the emotional attachment one needs for them to make sense.

You claimed that it wouldn't make sense for one Aboriginal to claim land that isn't somehow connected to them because of the Dreaming.

And I showed you that the reality does indeed look like you expect it would: Dreamtime is a fairy tale, and hence different people can have different stories about the exact same block of land.

I've already answered this, too, in detail.
I've covered that in the above response. If it hadn't failed, the problems wouldn't be there.

Yes, bad things happened. Yes, their environment changed drastically. But you wouldn't expect that to be enough to just turn people into zombies, which is what you were suggesting. If it is, then that's a problem and since you can't turn back time, the only solution is to move forward.

I'm going to say this very explicitly rather than just implying it all the time:

Yes, I think "Western" culture (meaning individualism, reward for effort, rationalism and liberalism) is superior to traditional Aboriginal ways of life.

Why? Because the former gave us longer lives, fewer of our children dying, better health, previously unimaginable material wealth, a man on the moon, complete food security and freedom from the monster hiding under the bed. The latter was 40,000 years of stagnation.

I'm not going to force anyone to adopt it, but I'm not willing to pay a cent to support other people's decisions which I see as wrong. Some people might be, but I'm not that kind a soul, not right now, not when I need my money for myself.

And if I then see that kids there have their lives destroyed before they ever got to make a decision about anything, of course I'm going to advocate them adopting the mainstream way of life. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't, considering that I'm not going to go out there and live the traditional way of life myself (unless of course you don't think I could, in which case I'd suggest you look a bit deeper at your assumptions about all this).

Most notably by pointing out to you that many Aboriginals have successfully combined a traditional lifestyle with access to the essentials of modernity.
As they say, there's no such thing as a free lunch. And that in turns implies that either I'm paying for that access, or that they're lifestyle is not as traditional as you want to think. And in that case, I don't mind. There's lots of people out there believing all sorts of stuff. Neesika even gave an example or two of their beliefs making enough sense to be adopted by others.

And this. I'll make one last attempt to get this through to you. Those Aboriginal land titles have never been legally extinguished. It is their country. You're reacting as if they were somehow an intruding privileged minority.
I'm reacting that way because of the way in which you argued that it is "their land". I've been pushed into a distinct corner here, but normally I don't necessarily mind native title claims (unless they seem extremely cynical, as in the Perth case). As long as they're for legitimate purposes, meaning using them for ancient rituals and other things that don't impede anyone.

The way you brought the whole issue up was to imply that Western laws are overruled by Aboriginal traditions when it comes to property rights. And in that respect I will maintain that any physical value to a bit of land cannot be handed over to Aboriginal tribes. Perth wasn't worth shit before the settlers made it into something. All the additional value that the land now has due to settlement has nothing to do with the indigenous inhabitants, they have IMHO no right to even claiming a cent of it, not least because under their traditions there is no such thing as claiming monetary value of land.

You have forced yourself onto their country as a dominant outside majority, on the basis of an illegal invasion, and on that basis you claim that the laws of the Indigenous inhabitants should be erased?
I claim that on the same basis that the legal tradition of the ancient Gauls no longer applies in France. I suppose you could call it illegal invasion, yes.

Does nothing strike you as fundamentally wrong with your reasoning?
Not really. I think we work from very different assumptions - I assume that regardless of race, history, ancestry or community everyone is the same: a human being, a decisionmaker.

You seem to put much more value on the idea that Aboriginals are different from you and me.

Of course Aboriginal people have the right to maintain their own laws! I don't see you advocating that non-Indigenous Australians should conform to the laws of the country's Indigenous inhabitants (you are, after all, an immigrant majority occupying their lands), so why on earth should the Indigenous inhabitants conform to the laws of the invading immigrant majority if they don't want to?
They don't have to. But why should that invading majority be subsidising them?

Quite frankly, I know these issues better than you do, and for you to claim that you can decide on the future of Aboriginal peoples while remaining ignorant of the most essential and basic facts about them is not just arrogant (and unjustified arrogance, at that) but absurd.
Actually, I very explicitly said that it wasn't my decision what path in life they want to take.

All I'm saying is that I would definitely advocate assimilation, not as a forced policy but as a helpful suggestion. Firstly I don't think that taxpayer money should go out to people who don't appreciate it, and secondly I'm opposed to the idea of keeping cultures and people around for their novelty value. By making government institutions interact with Aboriginal people on the basis that they're somehow different to anyone else, that's precisely what you're doing.

What does that say about your approach to these issues?
I think it says that whether it's Christianity, Scientology or Aboriginal religions, I think they're all equally silly. I think it says I actually do believe in equality, funnily enough.

You can claim to have found the holy grail for all I care. Fact of the matter is that people who know Aboriginal religion, tradition and law even better than you do (if indeed there is such a person) have failed at making it relevant, and instead yelled for taxpayer money. I don't need to know the name of a particular ancestor spirit to make my judgement about that.

You couldn't even begin to understand just how much I have come to hate the "it's everybody's fault but mine" line. This is really just one more example of it: this time it's not "I lost my job because some Chinese guy does it cheaper than I do", this time it's "I get to be a rapist because my mom was taken away from her parents".

Strip away all the mumbo-jumbo and that's what's left over.

Banning pornography, alcohol and inhalents is not going to make these people want to change their lifestyle. It will however, make whoever continues to use these vices, a criminal, and I'm sure the NT jails will be filled newly-made criminals overnight. Prohibition dose not work.

So what you're saying is that we ignore the spiritual part and stick to the actual rules. No, I'm saying you can go ahead and ignore the spiritual part. If it is too difficult for you to believe. Keeping it as part of our tradition should hurt you no more than Christianity does. But it's a useful exercise if you want to understand what indigenous laws are...strip away what you consider to be 'mumbo jumbo' to get at the heart of the relationship.

As long as they don't conflict with the laws made by democratic government, I'm okay with that. But I must wonder whether that would still be Aboriginal culture, particularly in the case of Australia where it sometimes seems like there's basically no division between the spiritual and physical worlds. That view is entirely valid. Now, if you are able to understand that for us, time is circular, not linear, and there is no separation between spiritual and material, it will give you a bit of insight into how our laws work. Yes, there may be some conflict because our worldviews won't always match. But again, strip it down...the conflict is not necessarily going to be where you think it is.

Let me give you an example, once again from my own homeland. We subsisted, and to a large extent still subsist on deer, elk, and moose. Animals that are generally defined as 'wildlife', right? Wildlife in opposition to 'domestic' animals.

Alright. In our tradition, humans are related to all living things. They are literally our brothers and sisters...'all our relations'. That close connection means that when we take the life of an animal, certain thanks must be given for that animal's sacrifice. Yes, we believe they sacrifice themselves so that we may live. We only hunt at certain times, we only take certain animals, and we live in close conjunction with our food source.

Now take a look at the definition of domesticated animal: "to adapt (an animal or plant) to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans".

Take a look at the definition of wildlife, "living things and especially mammals, birds, and fishes that are neither human nor domesticated."

No, we do not put elk, moose or deer in pens, but we very much do manage their population, and live in a relationship of intimate association with them, and to our (mutual) advantage. The definition of 'domesticated' animals is much closer to how we interact with these animals than the definition of 'wildlife'.

Now, the Natural Resource Transfer Agreements essentially ceded all 'ownership' over wildlife to the Federal government. Moose, deer, and elk were included as a matter of fact, without actually delving deeper into whether the definition accurately described indigenous relationships to certain animals.

Hunting grounds could be inclusive, or shared...but they were clearly marked territories, and within those boundaries, the responsibility for managing animals fell to the people living there. This is very much like the responsibility provinces have for wildlife management.

If you realise that the term 'wildlife' is not appropriate, even under Canadian law, for the relationship we have with specific animals, then under Canadian law, ownership of those animals would be transferred back to aboriginal people. This transfer would be based on traditional lands, so some animals would still remain under Federal jurisdiction. The relationship would be one of management, not of buying or selling of animals.

The point of this little exercise is...there is common ground. What is still missing is the wherewithal to actually sit down and understand where that common ground exists.

I agree, but I still don't see how the relationships can still be the same today. The whole dreamtime stuff and the connection to the land are basically a completely different system of ownership which can end up in conflict with our system. What if the tribe that was granted native title over Perth were to decide that driving cars there would somehow impede their use of the land for spiritual purposes? Granted it's an unrealistic example, but you still use spiritual reasons to argue real-world actions. That's stupid for a person, it's downright dangerous for a lawmaker.

I already explained that ownership of lands like that under Perth is not likely to be ceded.

Now, once again, think beyond the spiritual. Imagine you have a plot of aboriginal land. They have ownership, right? Title to that land.

Now explain to me why they shouldn’t not be able to do with that land as the community sees fit?

If, for example, there are traditional laws about water usage, explained in terms of the spiritual beings that guard that water...and these law prevent chemical dumping, or overuse of the waters...how is that outcome different than traditional common-law rules of wastage and water-course use? Under the common-law, you may use a specific amount of water daily for your personal uses (from a source such as a river or lake), and no more. The reasoning is that overuse would deplete resources. Under aboriginal law, you may use a specific amount of water daily for personal uses. The reasoning is that the spirit guardians would become angered if more was used, and this would result in depletion of resources.

Maybe there is a non-spiritual reading to it. Now you're getting it. Mind you, it would still be useful for you to understand the spiritual viewpoint, because it may help you to anticipate how other relationships are regulated. Just as understanding the underlying worldview of the common-law systems helps you to understand its development, and application.


Maybe the nomadic tribes needed to stay away from each others territory and stick to areas that they knew well. But even then the need for it in modern society is questionable. Is it? Why were there territorial restrictions? Because resources were scarce. The people living in a certain area are responsible for all those resources, for ensuring that they do not become unduly strained or depleted.

Resources are still scarce. If a city is surrounded by farmland, and the city relies on that food for sustenance, at some point it must stop expanding outward and expand upward.

If anything, aboriginal conceptions of resource management have been hugely influential in the environmental arena. Indigenous perspectives have been directly responsible for things like environmental impact assessments...a survey of all the possible changes in land, flora and fauna were a certain project to go ahead. These are the kinds of things aboriginal people want taken into account. You build a mine here...what impact is that going to have, not only on people, but on every living creature? On the water supply? Etc. We approach this from the viewpoint that we humans are tasked with caring for the earth. What makes us human is this important task. You can approach it from an environmental standpoint, but we can still see eye to eye on the necessity of certain restrictions.


Until a few decades ago. What I mean to say is that the current problems are rife in townships that are pretty much free of interference from white people, be it good or bad interference.

Whatever remains of the elders and their rules have shown themselves unable to control the situation and make something of the land once they'd won the rights to it. I mean, one of the communities that is being focused on is Mutitjulu, right next to the Uluru mountain. The people who live there do tours of the area and are joint managers of the park.

They're meant to be prime examples of success! And instead the problems there seem to be among the worst. Something has gone wrong there, and it just seems dumb to blame others for it. Yes, we have been given 'control' over things like band councils and resource management in some areas. But this control is mostly fictitious. We can come up with plans, and ideas, but ultimately it is the Department of Indian Affairs that determines exactly how we will run our programs. It looks from the outside like we have control, but nothing about the system is indigenous.

Contrast this with areas like Haida Gwaii, which due to a landmark Supreme Court case have won the right to once again manage certain areas of old growth forest. There, indigenous governance is legitimate, and real. Harvesting still occurs, but at a sustainable level. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in the area work together on economic and resource development...because we do not believe that you can live in an area and have no say in how that area is used. In the areas of Haida Gwaii that remained in government control? Logging licenses were handed out in accordance with Federal management programs, and the old growth is almost completely gone in that area. Hardly sustainable. What is left to the Haida Gwaii is what they won control over...keeping in mind that these resources needed to sustain both them, and the non-aboriginal community indefinitely. Difference in priorities.


So why hasn't this been done in these communities? If anyone had the power to use indigenous ways of doing things to help, it would have been the tribal elders there.

But the fact of the matter is that either the elders themselves don't care, or that the criminals don't listen to them. Traditional Aboriginal law might have suggested a deadly curse in that case, but even with that I have my doubts it would work if the other guy is too drunk to even notice. Traditional aboriginal law has not been given the FORCE of law, and that is the point. Your mother can berate you all she wants, and you might listen to her out of respect, but at some point she is not going to have any legal power over you.

When these programs have worked, they have been joint partnerships between the Canadian (or New Zealand, or wherever) legal system, and the indigenous legal system. The system has to be validated, and supported. On the Tsuu T'ina First Nation in southern Alberta, there is something called a Peacemaker program (http://www.doj.ca/en/dept/disc/gcs/details.asp?yr=20062007&q=Q3&id=7041).

The Tsuu T’ina Court is an on-reserve provincial court with an aboriginal judge, Crown prosecutor and court clerks. The Court deals with criminal matters (adults and youth), and with violations of federal and provincial statutes and First Nation by-laws. The associated Office of the Peacemaker operates a peacemaking program that employs culturally appropriate mediation and alternative dispute resolution techniques. The program engages offenders, victims, family and community members in resolving conflicts, addressing underlying causes of offending behaviour, and promoting a more peaceful community. A Tsuu T’ina Peacemaker Advisory Council provides direction on matters that relate to the establishment, implementation, mandate and administration of the Peacemaker Program. The Advisory Council is comprised of representatives from the Tsuu T’ina First Nation, the presiding judge of the Tsuu T’ina Court, and federal and provincial justice agencies.

In essence, this is aboriginal justice that has been validated by the Canadian legal system. Now, the Advisory Council can only recommend...but most often their recommendations are accepted. Don't forget, there is still a very real provincial court there that is run by the community according to Canadian law. This is an aboriginal system working within the Canadian system, and it works, because it has the force of law, and it is recognised as legitimate both by the community, and by the Canadian judicial system.



Of course, but that hasn't happened so far. Maybe it's not a failure of Aboriginal law, maybe it's a failure of Aboriginal leaders. No, it's a failure of the Australian legal system to successful (or even attempt) to incorporate aboriginal legal traditions into the wider Australian legal tradition. I understand where you're coming from, you're saying, hell, if it works, why isn't it working then?

It isn't supported. It has no legal power. In our communities, legal training is a rigorous process...just as it is in yours. In Nunavut Territory, lawyers are required to train in both systems...THAT is what needs to happen before you can legitimately talk about there being an aboriginal legal system in place.

But something's got to be done to end the current situation, and I have my doubts that white police officers are going to be credible walking in there and talking about the Dreaming or even point the Kurdaitcha at people. White officers with some real cultural understanding are at least a good jumping off point. But that rarely happens. Cultural understanding is something that has to be experienced on a very personal level, and respect is paramount.

Real change will mean taking the time, and effort, to build WITH the community, a system of aboriginal governance and laws. It can happen, but it's a painstaking process, and takes real commitment. But Canada is proof that it CAN happen.

It seems that currently the lack of talking to people in these communities has made the job of persecuting criminals harder than it has to be. But on the other hand, do you really want to talk to leaders who willingly ignored what was going on for all this time? Especially if they're going to justify mistakes they've made with relativist arguments as though child abuse in an Aboriginal community was somehow different from child abuse anywhere else? Remember some history. The stolen generation was not so long ago...many elders will remember when aboriginal children were considered abused simply because they had aboriginal parents, and were stolen. The 60s scoop in Canada was very similar. It was essentially a crime to be an aboriginal parent, and that justified whisking our children away into non-aboriginal homes.

Our communities are desperate, and know damn well these horrible things are happening. We want them to stop, we want to heal. But how can we put our trust in the very same people who for no reason, stole our children? They spoke in grand terms back then too...and betrayed us. Trust has NOT been rebuilt between our peoples. That's what needs to be addressed first...finger-pointing and blame on both sides is not going to be constructive. Police forces serving aboriginal communities need to sit down, and listen. Just listen. And learn. They need to respect the community and work with it if they are going to get anywhere.


Well, it's a question of the proportions you use to mix it. I'm not going to sit down and accept that people who don't participate in the economy get healthcare or other tax-funded services. In Canada, First Nations who have started negotiating self-government, eventually phase out their tax-free status. They retain the right to charge a First Nations tax which supplants the GST. They then become responsible for funding healthcare, and social programs. Understandably, the road to self-sustainability is a long one...most of these programs have about a 10 year phase-in period. But in the end, the First Nation become wholly responsible for its governance, and its programs.


And participating in the economy carries with it the willingness to adapt to the rules of exchanging goods and services. The outrage about a recent government plan to introduce *gasp* individual property rights in some Aboriginal communities (to encourage people to take better care of the public housing they lived in) indicates to me that this is not going to be easy or popular everywhere. Damn rights that is outrageous, but not for the reasons you believe. Forcing individual property rights on a people that are collective, mean that suddenly, the individual may sell or transfer those property rights without the consent of the community. When this sort of thing was introduced on some US Reseverves, you had a situation where the Reservation started looking like a patchwork quilt. People sold off their land, out of desperation or greed, and the Reservations started to melt away.

It's not much of a choice to say to an impoverished people...'well choose...think of the future generations, and continue to ensure there will always be land for them...or think of yourself, sell your land, maybe get rich...'

One thing that should never be negotiated is the communal nature of our property rights. It is how we have managed to survive, and how we will continue to provide for all the generations to come. Without our land, we are no longer a people. What we face, when policies like what you discuss are imposed on us, is annihilation. And we recognise that.


I might just do that when I have a few hours spare time. The problem is that whenever I've had the chance to talk to people about these matters, they quickly return to long talks about spiritual stuff which frankly bore me. Well, you should learn a little about those spiritual matters, but you'll find that most articles or analysis of the case mention them only in passing. The analysis of aboriginal law is generally done in a manner that compares it to Australian law, and can be very useful for you.


Firstly, methinks you've found a calling for yourself. Ha, what do you think I'm spending three years in law school for? :D

Secondly, this point in particular just doesn't sit well with me. How is that not a unilateral declaration of whatever rights they want to have? There is no written record of how they saw those rights, and I'm not going to trust anyone to answer questions of this type honestly regardless of skin colour. The process of confirming aboriginal legal traditions is a long one, because the rules of evidence of course do not permit a bunch of people to just state 'this is how it was, accept it'. I'm not going to get into too much detail, but understand that an enormous amount of research is done, via interviews, archaeology, comparison with neighboring nations, and so on. However, it is not as impossible as you think to find out the history of an oral people, and confirm it.


Don't remind me, it's one of the biggest failures of our modern legal systems. If everyone had allodial title, you'd be looking at the destruction of the federation. Each property owner would essentially have property rights akin to an independent nation, within the nation. You can just imagine the nightmare this would cause. No way to expropriate for public use, etc.


The difference is that handing out votes to women doesn't take anything away from anyone.Ha, that was hardly the argument at the time. In fact, men argued that giving women the vote would cancel out the men's vote...as though women would automatically vote against the men. Also, question your viewpoint. 'Giving' the aboriginals rights? 'Taking away rights from others'? We are discussing restoration of rights. Would you cry for the man who stole land, when he was forced to return some of his profit to the original owner? Would you bewail his lot? The Australian government got their land FOR NOTHING. Unjust enrichment. The original inhabitants have a right, and always had, to be compensated for that. I'm sorry it has to happen in your life-time, and your children's lifetime...but it is manifestly just.


Handing out vaguely defined ownership rights over properties that may have been built up and invested in for decades to people seems a different kettle of fish to me.It is, and it's something that requires some extreme negotiation. There are many different agreements that have been banged out here...it's not an easy process. But reconciliation never is.

At least with the Crown you've got some rules regarding what they're allowed to do to your stuff. At this point no such rules exist, with a few exceptions it's all done on a case by case basis.

You know more about this stuff than me, so maybe you can tell me what happens if native title is granted and the people in question then ask for absolutely ridiculous things in the land use agreement. What sort of protection is there for earned property?

What do you mean by absolutely ridiculous things in the land use agreement?

If there are non-aboriginals living on lands that have been returned to aboriginal control, those non-aboriginals can not be forced off their lands. The property taxes they once paid to the province, or territory, or municipality, now go to the aboriginal nation. There might be agreements that if the person wants to sell, they must offer the land first to the aboriginal nation, at market value. Some lands may be kept in fee simple status. Each agreement is going to differ, but I no of no examples of 'absolutely ridiculous things' that have gone into any existing land use agreements...so I'll need some examples before I can comment.


But I didn't. Pretty much nobody who's alive engaged in any sort of action, and I'd hate to think you're going to charge taxpayers simply because the actual criminals are no longer around. The Crown still owns that land. It is the Crown that must compensate. The Crown is funded by taxpayers, but c'est la vie.

I think my question was lost, but how is native title any different than some Italian guy walking around claiming land that belonged to the Roman Empire? Or indeed various WWII refugees going back to where their families used to live and just claim for the land back, or a share of the revenues?

Aboriginal lands were not 'won' in conquest. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763) clearly states that aboriginal ownership of land was a fact, recognised by the Crown, and that only the Crown could extinguish aboriginal title. Not individual purchasers, not provincial or territorial governments. Any land purchase made without the consent of the Crown was invalid and did not transfer title to the purchaser.

That Italian, unfortunately, lost title to his lands. Aboriginal peoples in Australia never did.

Oh, and I do apologise for posting what amounts to a novelette.

Oh, and I do apologise for posting what amounts to a novelette.

no problem.

No ones gonna read it anyway.

no problem.

No ones gonna read it anyway.

Au Contraire. I found it most enlightening.

no problem.

No ones gonna read it anyway.

Lick me.

Vigorously.

No ones gonna read it anyway.

I did. It's extremely interesting.

While I know quite a bit about the Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, PNG and the Pacific, I'm shamefully ignorant about Canada. Seeing the commonalities (and differences) is very interesting indeed.

Oh, and I do apologise for posting what amounts to a novelette.

I read every word of it. And enjoyed it, too.

Lick me.

Vigorously.

:eek:

The Sacred and the Profane. Cheek by jowl.

I don't care if you're a man, a woman or a caribou. I love you!

:eek:

The Sacred and the Profane. Cheek by jowl.

I don't care if you're a man, a woman or a caribou. I love you!

And if I'm all three?

And if I'm all three?

Um. Well in truth I don't in every sense love you. I'm just mightily impressed.

Um. Well in truth I don't in every sense love you. I'm just mightily impressed.

I have a fine set of antlers. Your reaction is understandable :P