NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read this:
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11671164
Tough love

This time “white paternalism” might actually be doing some good

WHEN Sue Gordon was four, in the late 1940s, the authorities took her from her aboriginal community in outback Western Australia, put her on a train to Perth and handed her over to a Christian charity home. As a mixed-race child, she grew up as one of Australia’s “stolen generations” ordered to obliterate her aboriginal heritage. Now 64, and a juvenile-court judge, Ms Gordon has just finished assessing an equally controversial government takeover of aboriginal lives. And she is surprisingly impressed.

After a report in June last year revealed widespread aboriginal violence and child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory, John Howard, the former conservative prime minister, ordered police and the army to take control of 60 remote indigenous communities. Aborigines make up 29% of the federal territory’s population, compared with 2% nationally. Mr Howard’s measures included compulsory health checks on children, confining the spending of welfare money to food and clothes, and the suspension of the communities’ rights to grant permits to visitors.

Critics at the time blasted the “emergency intervention”, as it was called, as a draconian return to the white paternalism that aborigines had fought for generations. But after visiting more than half the 73 communities eventually involved, Ms Gordon has found good progress in cutting violence and sexual abuse: alcohol and pornography have been banned, more children are going to school and police patrols have left more women feeling safer.

[...]

So, basically this intervention at its core was the idea that these communities aren't fixing themselves, presumably not because they don't want to, but because they can't. Traditional lawmakers can't enforce whatever traditional laws there are to prevent violence, child abuse and addiction and as a result the communities themselves cease to exist in any meaningful way. It stands to reason then to send outside help to enforce at least the most basic laws that protect the personal safety and integrity of the individuals involved.

That did then, and probably does now, smack of paternalism in a way. Policemen from the cities can't be expected to come in there and understand or enforce Aboriginal laws. Hell, if Australia had a bill of rights many traditional Aboriginal punishments may well be illegal, for all I know.

Nonetheless, initial investigations have now found that the intervention has shown some promising sucesses. So where does that leave the debate? By condemning white paternalism and everything associated with it, are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Yes, yes we are we have had a long time (about 30 years) to do it the other way and look where it has gotten them, nowhere. We shouldn't be enforcing Aboriginal law we should be enforcing Australian law if it is in conflict with Aboriginal law.

Yeah i agree. But be aware for the bleeding hearts. Taking a child away from an aboriginal community in Australia where all the children over 10 have an STD is politically incorrect. Its much nicer to give the adults of that community money for drugs then actually intervene.

Traditional lawmakers can't enforce whatever traditional laws there are to prevent violence, child abuse and addiction and as a result the communities themselves cease to exist in any meaningful way. It stands to reason then to send outside help to enforce at least the most basic laws that protect the personal safety and integrity of the individuals involved.

Indeed. It strikes me as absurd to argue that any intervention is necessarily a bad thing. Aboriginals have individual rights as well as collective rights, and those individual rights -personal safety foremost among them- need to be enforced.

Having said that, there are prominent Aboriginals who have been speaking up for many years now asking for government intervention in close coordination with Aboriginal leaders. Those voices need to be heeded. There is a need to intervene in some cases, but there is also a need, in such cases, to work with Indigenous leaders rather than ignore them. Empowering indigenous leaders helps restore a sense of order, structure, discipline, and pride and self-empowerment within the community. Outside intervention which marginalises Aboriginal leaders further simply worsens the problem by further destroying any Aboriginal sense of self-worth and any sense that they can ultimately cope by themselves. It would worsen the root causes by seeking to treat the symptoms.

We shouldn't be enforcing Aboriginal law we should be enforcing Australian law if it is in conflict with Aboriginal law.

I disagree. That's what's been tried for decades, and look at the result. Aboriginal law is currently powerless, and it's the breakdown of its official power which has led to the current crisis. If Aboriginal law were backed up and enforced with official help, and Indigenous leaders were empowered to enforce it, the situation would improve. A system which worked well for over 60,000 years was smashed, and no-one has seriously attempted to work out a way to restore it, within the framework of a globally Western society.

Taking a child away from an aboriginal community in Australia where all the children over 10 have an STD is politically incorrect.

If a child is being abused, then obviously he or she needs to be protected - and, if possible, placed in the care of Indigenous relatives, outside the immediate community if need be. There is a fundamental difference between helping a child regardless of its ethnicity, and what was done up to the 70s, which was seizing children on the basis of race, regardless of their well-being, so as to "breed out their colour", as the official policy so nicely put it.

So where does that leave the debate? By condemning white paternalism and everything associated with it, are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
No, because there are two separate issues at work here. The stolen generation was designed to destroy a people by taking away their children and beating the Aborigine out of them. That is evil, and yes, should be 100% condemned.

The idea of working with the leaders of the community to help restore what was lost in the first place without an underlying message of non-white = bad, stupid, not not of worth is a good thing... as long as care is taken of course.

What Australia is doing now could be one or the other and only time will tell.

I disagree. That's what's been tried for decades, and look at the result. Aboriginal law is currently powerless, and it's the breakdown of its official power which has led to the current crisis. If Aboriginal law were backed up and enforced with official help, and Indigenous leaders were empowered to enforce it, the situation would improve. A system which worked well for over 60,000 years was smashed, and no-one has seriously attempted to work out a way to restore it, within the framework of a globally Western society.

After having a previous discussion with you on a similar topic I know what your thoughts are but. We had a vote 41 years ago which made Aboriginals Australian citizens, being Australian citizens living in Australian land they should have to follow Australian law and be punished adequatly if they break it. This has not being tried for decades what has been tried has been a mish mash of the two which is why we see Aboriginals that live on these lands getting light sentances because they may be punished by the tribe that is what has been happening I am saying that we abolish the two systems and put everyone under the same umbrella, while I do not care if they continue with their culture, if it contradicts Australian law they should not be allowed to do that.

After having a previous discussion with you on a similar topic I know what your thoughts are but. We had a vote 41 years ago which made Aboriginals Australian citizens, being Australian citizens living in Australian land they should have to follow Australian law and be punished adequatly if they break it. This has not being tried for decades what has been tried has been a mish mash of the two which is why we see Aboriginals that live on these lands getting light sentances because they may be punished by the tribe that is what has been happening I am saying that we abolish the two systems and put everyone under the same umbrella, while I do not care if they continue with their culture, if it contradicts Australian law they should not be allowed to do that.

Three points.

First, this is their country. They never willingly ceded it. Australia was invaded, not ceded by treaty. There is no justification for forcibly abolishing Aboriginal laws more than has already been done. In this relatively progressive era, leaders have begun to realise that indigenous peoples are entitled to certain rights, specifically because they are not entirely the same as the majority of their fellow citizens. Nobody expects non-Indigenous Australians to conform to Aboriginal law, so why would the reverse have to hold true? (After all one could argue that, being on their land, you should integrate into their ways.)

Second, as I've said, Aboriginal law has not received the backing it requires to make it effective.

Third, stripping Aboriginals further of their traditional ways is an act of humiliation and disempowerment, which worsens their sense of lack of worth, and passivity. You can't expect people to develop a sense of pride, self-worth, empowerment and ability to cope by themselves if you coerce them into forcibly stifling their means of self-empowerment.

If a child is being abused, then obviously he or she needs to be protected - and, if possible, placed in the care of Indigenous relatives, outside the immediate community if need be. There is a fundamental difference between helping a child regardless of its ethnicity, and what was done up to the 70s, which was seizing children on the basis of race, regardless of their well-being, so as to "breed out their colour", as the official policy so nicely put it.

The problem is that the distinction can not be drawn by too many people. The left in Australia were highly critical of the intervention but offered no solution of how to fix the problem. Prehaps the current method of intervening in Aboriginal communities isnt ideal but who was a better method?

And please dont say "more funding". The solution to an addiction is not funding. It makes the problem worse.

Anyone who saw The Last Wave (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076299/) knows that aboriginal and European law systems just don't mix. Forcing them to is apocalyptic.

Second, as I've said, Aboriginal law has not received the backing it requires to make it effective.

Ariddia, Aboriginal Law will not work, no matter how much backing it is given.

This is due to a variety of factors. First, every band had it's own laws. Note I did not say tribe; the Aboriginal Australians did not live in tribes prior to white arrival. No Aboriginal group had any organization beyond the extended family. What we now call Tribes are groupings based upon linguistic similarity, and the "tribal councils" that now exist were not part of their traditional society at all.

Even if we allow that said councils can rationalize every surviving version of their law into a single code for their "tribe", that law would be radically insufficient for the modern world. There were no laws against intoxication, because there were no intoxicants. There were no laws against theft, since everyone owned everything. There were no laws against killing an outsider, there were no laws against making peace and trading - the law mattered only to the band. Even at the meeting and trading places (such as Canberra once was) there was no overarching law, and no means of enforcement if there had been.

The laws they lived under were sufficient for hunter-gatherer bands in a harsh and brutal land. They allowed survival and even prosperity in a place that will quite easily kill any unprepared person that ventures upon it - and does, every year or so. But that law simply cannot be applied in the environment of a modern western state - the two are utterly incompatible.

Third, stripping Aboriginals further of their traditional ways is an act of humiliation and disempowerment, which worsens their sense of lack of worth, and passivity. You can't expect people to develop a sense of pride, self-worth, empowerment and ability to cope by themselves if you coerce them into forcibly stifling their means of self-empowerment.

Then we need to find another means for their empowerment. This one isn't working.

Three points.

First, this is their country. They never willingly ceded it. Australia was invaded, not ceded by treaty. There is no justification for forcibly abolishing Aboriginal laws more than has already been done. In this relatively progressive era, leaders have begun to realise that indigenous peoples are entitled to certain rights, specifically because they are not entirely the same as the majority of their fellow citizens. Nobody expects non-Indigenous Australians to conform to Aboriginal law, so why would the reverse have to hold true? (After all one could argue that, being on their land, you should integrate into their ways.)

Second, as I've said, Aboriginal law has not received the backing it requires to make it effective.

Third, stripping Aboriginals further of their traditional ways is an act of humiliation and disempowerment, which worsens their sense of lack of worth, and passivity. You can't expect people to develop a sense of pride, self-worth, empowerment and ability to cope by themselves if you coerce them into forcibly stifling their means of self-empowerment.

1) It is not their country it is our country they are a part of it but it is not exclusively theirs. It was settled and became under the domion of the British, and in fact their are some parts of Australia where they did willing cede it. They should be expected to conform to Australian law because they are in Australia, just like if I were to go to France I should be expected to abide by French law. We have been alowing many groups to abide by their law for a long time now (while I know it has been implemneted effectively as it should have) it has simply not worked and so a new system must be worked out to ensure that they live better lives.

3) I am not saying that they should not be allowed to practice their culture and traditions entirely, what I am saying is that if it contradicts the laws of Australia then they should be stopped. If they want to teach their kids the old language and the traditions and the stories then I don't see a problem with that, after all if you brought your children to here from France I would not say that you can't teach them French or tell them your stories or say you can't celebrate Bastille day, but if your tradition contradicted with Australia say you had to slaughter ten dogs ( and I know that is not the case) then being on Australian soil you should not be allowed to do that.

I left two because I do acknowledge you on that, and it never will be effective. Unless they are sent back to their ways which means no welfare, no cars, no petrol, nothing everything that was not made by them before settlement will have to be taken away so that they can live like they used to.

No solution to this problem can be found with the system of capitalism.

No solution to this problem can be found with the system of capitalism.

You should lead them in an uprising to overthrow the oppressive regime. You can do it AP

The problem is that the distinction can not be drawn by too many people.

Indeed.


The left in Australia were highly critical of the intervention but offered no solution of how to fix the problem. Prehaps the current method of intervening in Aboriginal communities isnt ideal but who was a better method?

And please dont say "more funding". The solution to an addiction is not funding. It makes the problem worse.

I didn't criticise the idea of an intervention.

Anyone who saw The Last Wave (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076299/) knows that aboriginal and European law systems just don't mix. Forcing them to is apocalyptic.

I've seen it. It's a work of fiction.


This is due to a variety of factors. First, every band had it's own laws. Note I did not say tribe; the Aboriginal Australians did not live in tribes prior to white arrival. No Aboriginal group had any organization beyond the extended family. What we now call Tribes are groupings based upon linguistic similarity, and the "tribal councils" that now exist were not part of their traditional society at all.

I'm well aware of that.


Even if we allow that said councils can rationalize every surviving version of their law into a single code for their "tribe", that law would be radically insufficient for the modern world.

You make the same mistake that most people make: You see culture and tradition as static, rather than adaptable. Laws everywhere adapt to current circumstances. Take Melanesian countries such as Vanuatu, for example. Traditional indigenous law there is recognised within the framework of the legal system, alongside the imported French and British systems. Customary law, or kastom, in Vanuatu isn't about trying to use unchanged ways of the past in the present; it's about adapting traditional law to modernity while retaining its essence. Conceiving it as flexible. A thing does not cease to be simply because part of it changes.

Which reminds me that part of the solution must be to educate non-Indigenous Australians about Aboriginal traditions and values. It will avoid comments stemming from preconceptions and misunderstandings.


Then we need to find another means for their empowerment. This one isn't working.

You've missed my point. Indigenous law has never been given the legal backing and formal framework which it would need in order to function in a contemporary setting. You can't just tell Indigenous leaders: "Right, apply your law. The courts and police won't help you do it, so you'll have to assert your own authority in whatever way you can." Of course that doesn't work. What you need is to give Indigenous law backing within an official framework. Give it teeth, so to speak.

1) It is not their country it is our country they are a part of it but it is not exclusively theirs. It was settled and became under the domion of the British,

It was taken by force. They retain rights as the Indigenous peoples.


and in fact their are some parts of Australia where they did willing cede it.


Which ones? If you're refering to the Batman Treaty, it was never official, and is legally void.


They should be expected to conform to Australian law because they are in Australia, just like if I were to go to France I should be expected to abide by French law.

Non sequitur. Aboriginals are not immigrants! By your logic, non-Indigenous Australians should be abiding by Aboriginal law.


We have been alowing many groups to abide by their law for a long time now

No, you haven't. Because you've never provided them with the means to implement it. It is profoundly perverse (not to mention illogical) to condemn it as non-functional when there has never been a means to implement it.


3) I am not saying that they should not be allowed to practice their culture and traditions entirely, what I am saying is that if it contradicts the laws of Australia then they should be stopped.

We probably agree on this to some extent. I'm obviously not saying that no non-Indigenous laws should apply to Aboriginals. This is not a matter of "everything or nothing". (Again, Vanuatu could be taken as a useful example.)


If they want to teach their kids the old language and the traditions and the stories then I don't see a problem with that,

On that issue, a bit of government support would be nice. As they have in New Zealand with "language nests" for Maori, Cook Islander, Niuean and Tokelauan kids, for instance. It would be far more difficult to implement in Australia, of course, given the diversity of Aboriginal languages...

But, for goodness' sake, Aboriginal languages and cultures are Australia's oldest cultural heritage, spanning 60,000 years of Australian history! The loss of Australian languages is a loss for Australia as a whole.


after all if you brought your children to here from France I would not say that you can't teach them French or tell them your stories or say you can't celebrate Bastille day,


Aboriginals are not immigrants in Australia.


but if your tradition contradicted with Australia say you had to slaughter ten dogs ( and I know that is not the case) then being on Australian soil you should not be allowed to do that.

We agree on that point.


I left two because I do acknowledge you on that, and it never will be effective. Unless they are sent back to their ways which means no welfare, no cars, no petrol, nothing everything that was not made by them before settlement will have to be taken away so that they can live like they used to.

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that it's not a question of them "being like they used to be"? Again, tradition is not rigid and inflexible. It does not disappear simply by adapting. The choice is not between abandoning modernity or assimilating.

You've missed my point. Indigenous law has never been given the legal backing and formal framework which it would need in order to function in a contemporary setting. You can't just tell Indigenous leaders: "Right, apply your law. The courts and police won't help you do it, so you'll have to assert your own authority in whatever way you can." Of course that doesn't work. What you need is to give Indigenous law backing within an official framework. Give it teeth, so to speak.
But what would this look like? Traditional law is full of superstition, odd and occasionally cruel punishments, there is no legal tradition that protects the rights of the accused or limits the prosecution. Can you really introduce the western legal system into this? You can't expect Federal Police to come in and point the death stick at someone for sitting on the wrong rock, to use an extreme example.

Ultimately, I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of more than one legal code in a country. Law is supposed to be the pursuit of a just society, and justice can't have more than one outcome. Justice can't be different because you happen to be Aboriginal. Philosophically, it doesn't make sense. Justice as a concept can't depend on the observer.

And that doesn't even cover the practical issue of answering the question: if Aboriginal communities get their own law because of their traditions, then why not any other community within the country? I'm sure local Chinese, Arab, African, Catholic etc communities disagree with each other about what the proper way of living one's life and handling one's relations with others are - is that really worth starting to enforce those differences by law?

No, the law must be the pursuit of perfection. It's gotta be the lowest common denominator, handling those things that are true for all. Everything beyond that is for individuals to figure out for themselves.

But what would this look like? Traditional law is full of superstition, odd and occasionally cruel punishments, there is no legal tradition that protects the rights of the accused or limits the prosecution. Can you really introduce the western legal system into this? You can't expect Federal Police to come in and point the death stick at someone for sitting on the wrong rock, to use an extreme example.

I can't claim to be an expert on Indigenous law. (A quick web search turns up this (http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/indig/law.htm), which I'll have to look through when I have time.) But as I said earlier, nobody is saying that Aboriginals should not be subject to any non-Indigenous laws. There's no reason for it to be a matter of "everything or nothing".

This is obviously not a matter I can resolve myself. ;) It would need thorough talks between national lawmakers and Indigenous elders. Australia may also want to look at how such things work in other countries, such as Vanuatu.


Ultimately, I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of more than one legal code in a country. Law is supposed to be the pursuit of a just society, and justice can't have more than one outcome. Justice can't be different because you happen to be Aboriginal. Philosophically, it doesn't make sense. Justice as a concept can't depend on the observer.


Of course it can. There's no such thing as objective justice. Justice is a subjective social concept.


And that doesn't even cover the practical issue of answering the question: if Aboriginal communities get their own law because of their traditions, then why not any other community within the country? I'm sure local Chinese, Arab, African, Catholic etc communities disagree with each other about what the proper way of living one's life and handling one's relations with others are - is that really worth starting to enforce those differences by law?

Chinese Australians, Arab Australians, French Australians, German Australians or whatever are not Indigenous peoples of Australia. If they prefer the judicial system of their country of origin, it's there for them to go to. By moving to Australia, they choose to subject themselves to Australia's laws. Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders haven't got that luxury. Their country of origin is Australia. They're not immigrants. They can't move somewhere else where their own laws are applied. Their situation is fundamentally different.

I have no problem if they stick to their traditional way of life. But they want western houses, food and medicine. Its this combination of both worlds that causes harm. In the past they would have spent alot more time hunting and gathering so they wouldnt be abusing drugs and raping children.

The best of both worlds causes the worst result. Let them choose one or the other.

Of course it can. There's no such thing as objective justice. Justice is a subjective social concept.
We're gonna have to disagree on that. If justice isn't objective, then it isn't real and no such thing exists. Whether or not something is just then depends entirely on what I happen to think of it, which nullifies the concept completely.

And at any rate, law isn't subjective. Law is the attempt to make rules that are objective, general and absolute, aimed at the creation of a society that is as good as it can possibly be. Again, if it is any less than that, then it has no valid power over anyone, because no one is in any way obliged to follow it if they don't want to.

Chinese Australians, Arab Australians, French Australians, German Australians or whatever are not Indigenous peoples of Australia. If they prefer the judicial system of their country of origin, it's there for them to go to.
That's silly. Plenty of people are in fact born here, even if their parents, grandparents or ancestors came here. Hell, the Aboriginal people around here didn't appear out of thin air either.

You can't seriously tell the majority of the Australian population to "go back to England".

They can't move somewhere else where their own laws are applied. Their situation is fundamentally different.
For better or for worse, the world their ancestors lived in doesn't exist anymore. They don't have Australia to themselves, and they have no claim to exclusive ownership it. No part of the Australian community does. This debate is no different to the one about South Africa, where one side was arguing that the place was a "white" country and the other said it was "black". Fact of the matter is that it is both and neither, just like Australia.

The reason these problems never get solved is because no one can pull their head out of their past and just take the world as it is as a starting point.

I have no problem if they stick to their traditional way of life. But they want western houses, food and medicine. Its this combination of both worlds that causes harm. In the past they would have spent alot more time hunting and gathering so they wouldnt be abusing drugs and raping children.

The best of both worlds causes the worst result. Let them choose one or the other.

No offence, but that's just silly. You're right, of course, that the introduction of European ways messed up the functional system they had lived by for over a million generations, but it's absurd to suggest that there can be no middle ground between assimilating or abandoning all aspects of modernity. Many societies have shown that the two can be reconciled. (Samoa, to name just one example.)

We're gonna have to disagree on that. If justice isn't objective, then it isn't real and no such thing exists.

The fact that justice is subjective doesn't mean it has no reality.

If justice is objective, tell me where it comes from. It's subjective because it's an artificial social construct. And there's nothing wrong with that.


And at any rate, law isn't subjective.


Indeed. The origins of law are subjective, but laws are by definition given a form of objectivity, if only in the sense that they're defined and everyone knows what they are.


Law is the attempt to make rules that are objective, general and absolute, aimed at the creation of a society that is as good as it can possibly be. Again, if it is any less than that, then it has no valid power over anyone, because no one is in any way obliged to follow it if they don't want to.


Laws are a product of society. Every society has its own history, which has produced its own values, beliefs, priorities, and so on. Law-making is necessarily subjective because it reflects cultural values. No society exists in a temporal vacuum, undefined by its past.


That's silly. Plenty of people are in fact born here, even if their parents, grandparents or ancestors came here. Hell, the Aboriginal people around here didn't appear out of thin air either.

You can't seriously tell the majority of the Australian population to "go back to England".

Nor would I ever do so. But, just as you would not expect Australian society to be entirely reshaped by its Chinese communities (for example), you cannot logically demand that Indigenous Australians abandon their own ways entirely and adopt those of the people who invaded them.

To put it differently, the White Australian majority are in a position of dominance, of power. They demand conformity and claim that it is "natural" because it suits their purpose. If you look at it from the perspective of an Indigenous Australian, why should an Indigenous person deny who he is simply because the invasion-descended communities are stronger and more numerous? You talk about justice, and then you imply that might makes right. There's a contradiction there.


For better or for worse, the world their ancestors lived in doesn't exist anymore. They don't have Australia to themselves, and they have no claim to exclusive ownership it. No part of the Australian community does. This debate is no different to the one about South Africa, where one side was arguing that the place was a "white" country and the other said it was "black". Fact of the matter is that it is both and neither, just like Australia.


Indeed. Nobody is saying that Australia is exclusively Aboriginal. By force of circumstance, non-Indigenous Australians are there, and it would be both absurd and profoundly unfair to expect them to leave. Hardly any Aboriginal would want that. You acknowledge that Australia is not an exclusively white country. And yet at the same time you say that black ways, which have an indigenous legitimacy which white ways lack, should be forcibly supressed in favour of white ways. Again, you contradict yourself. I think it may come from the fact that you mistakenly view the dominant way as "objective" and "natural", rather than as a culturally subjective product of a particular history.


The reason these problems never get solved is because no one can pull their head out of their past and just take the world as it is as a starting point.

No, the reason why these problems never get solved is because too many people want to erase the past and say that the present should be a starting point. The past matters, for a number of reasons. It matters to Aboriginals because it defines them in their culture, and because it is impossible for them to overcome legitimate grievances for as long as the consequences of past wrongs remain inescapable in the present (and for as long as many non-Indigenous Australians keep on saying, with combined ignorance and insensitivity, that the past does not matter.)

The past matters because the present is not, and cannot be, detached from it. You can't understand the present if you don't know and understand the past. You can't plan for the future unless you understand that it is a continuation of the past, in more or less modified forms.

By demanding that Aboriginals forget the past, you re-enact the aims of the Stolen Generations policies. You basically try to wash out their blackness, or more generally their sense of self. You make their situation worse in two fundamental ways.

First, you try to make them rootless, destroy their cultural means of self-identification, everything that shapes their existence and gives it meaning, enables them to live and relate to the world around them. Such things may not matter to you, but what matters to you is, in this case, entirely irrelevent. It matters to Indigenous Australians, and clapping your hands over your ears and pretending that it doesn't, or claiming that it shouldn't, only makes things worse.

Second, you imply that taking the present as a starting point (as though that were ever possible, which of course it isn't) would somehow provide a level playing field. But it doesn't. Because the consequences of the past, and of all that's been done to Aboriginals, are experienced in the present. They are globally disadvantaged. Many Aboriginals alive today are members of the Stolen Generations. The consequences of the past must be addressed, which means that the past must be known and understood. In these circumstances, to say that the past must be forgotten is not only hurtful and insulting to Indigenous people, it's also downright absurd, disconnected from any understanding of reality.

Looking at this in a detached way, I find your need to wipe away the past and "live in the present" culturally (or sociologically) interesting. Our current Western cultures emphasise the individual - with concepts that are of course culturally subjective and the results of particular historical processes. That emphasis on the individual is accompanied by a need to believe (erroneously) that the individual is entirely self-defined, that he or she is not shaped by a subjective and particular culture or collective history. It's a fascinating form of self-delusion. But it poses a problem in this particular case, since it makes most Australians incapable of understanding societies -such as Indigenous Australian societies- which do not fit what people in the West tend to see as the only correct and normal way. As a result, you tend not to understand how your forcible imposition upon other societies of your own narrow cultural norms can be incredibly damaging. To become aware of that would imply questioning the allegedly unrestrained self-definition of the autonomous individual, which most people in Western societies would balk at doing.

By condemning white paternalism and everything associated with it, are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

It seems to me that the problem with paternalism isn't an inherent one, but that many of the past behaviors criticized as "paternalism" were what we would describe today as "bad parenting" (or "outright abuse") if they were exhibited by individuals rather than governments.

The second half of the article suggests some people recognize that the next step for these communities is not necessarily assimilation into non-Indigenous Australian culture but development of their own economic bases. This might be paternalistic, but it's more positive paternalism: giving your dependents the tools and training so they can live independently and forge their own identity is what good parents are supposed to do.

If justice is objective, tell me where it comes from. It's subjective because it's an artificial social construct. And there's nothing wrong with that.
It comes from a combination of reason and logic being applied to us as beings in the world we live in. Just like any moral code.

The point is that if you think it is just to kill someone who looked at your sister, and I think it is unjust to do that, then we can't both be right. If we were, then neither of us would be. Justice is by its nature an absolute claim that can't be context-dependent.

Laws are a product of society. Every society has its own history, which has produced its own values, beliefs, priorities, and so on. Law-making is necessarily subjective because it reflects cultural values. No society exists in a temporal vacuum, undefined by its past.
No, but if it is to make progress, it should. That's why historians and politicians can't make good laws - philosophers and economists (for example) can because they operate on the level of generality that is required. Any legal system is wrong as long as it can be improved, and if more than one exist in the world at the same time, then at least one of them must be.

Cultural values are irrelevant, because they are subjective, they change all the time and they don't apply to the majority of the population anyways. They're silly catch-all phrases people use to bunch a whole lot of ideas and behaviours together: good when you want to shorten sentences, but not great if you then want to impose things based upon that.

Nor would I ever do so. But, just as you would not expect Australian society to be entirely reshaped by its Chinese communities (for example), you cannot logically demand that Indigenous Australians abandon their own ways entirely and adopt those of the people who invaded them.
I don't - I just demand that the legal system doesn't stop doing what it's supposed to do and caters to the wishes of individual people who happen to want a different system but without ending the reliance on money and help from Australia.

To put it differently, the White Australian majority are in a position of dominance, of power. They demand conformity and claim that it is "natural" because it suits their purpose. If you look at it from the perspective of an Indigenous Australian, why should an Indigenous person deny who he is simply because the invasion-descended communities are stronger and more numerous? You talk about justice, and then you imply that might makes right. There's a contradiction there.
I'm not saying they should deny anything. The government should treat all matters of culture neutrally, that is: not at all. Culture ought not to have an impact on how you get treated when you kill or rape someone.

The problem is that once whatever remains of Aboriginal legal systems become enforced by the Australian legal system, you abandon that premise and it becomes a free-for-all. Neither the purpose nor the actual law itself is any longer objective. It can't be called law at all.

I can live with toleration, obviously. But positive enforcement as anything more than a temporary stop-gap is a step in the wrong direction.

And yet at the same time you say that black ways, which have an indigenous legitimacy which white ways lack, should be forcibly supressed in favour of white ways. Again, you contradict yourself. I think it may come from the fact that you mistakenly view the dominant way as "objective" and "natural", rather than as a culturally subjective product of a particular history.
First of all, I'm not saying they should be supressed. I'm saying they should be ignored.

Aboriginal legal systems are based on the spirit world, on magical things. There is no reasoning behind them anyone could hope to follow who doesn't happen to falsely belief in such magic. That is what makes Aboriginal legal systems wrong. Their history, skin colour or stage of economic development are irrelevant.

I'm not arguing that "white" ways are better than "black" ways by virtue of who follows them, but I argue that thought is superior. Hell, if anyone bothered, maybe someone could write down Aboriginal law and there could be a proper argument about the reason or unreason of its various terms and whether or not they should have a place in the ideal society. But this hasn't been done, and I've never seen anyone argue that it should. Instead those that are in favour of indigenous law make their arguments not based on the merits of the law itself, but on spurious other things that really amount to red herrings.

It matters to Aboriginals because it defines them in their culture, and because it is impossible for them to overcome legitimate grievances for as long as the consequences of past wrongs remain inescapable in the present (and for as long as many non-Indigenous Australians keep on saying, with combined ignorance and insensitivity, that the past does not matter.)
Look, I've met enough Aboriginal people to realise that they're normal human beings. That means they must be able to overcome any barriers to their life the past or their culture's interpretation thereof throws in their way. I'm not willing or able to treat them in any other way as I would treat any other human being on the planet. That's humanism, and I don't compromise on that either in a negative or a positive direction.

Regardless in which way I put this, it's gonna sound harsh, insensitive and perhaps ignorant. Regretable though that is, I don't see a way around it. That's because I'm not willing to invest a lot of time and effort into understanding the irrelevant. What happened to "my people" in the past didn't happen to me. I live in the here and now, and if I were to spend my time grieving or suffering for anything that's happened in the history of Germany, that would be the end of that history. So I suck it up and get on with what is real and what matters.

First, you try to make them rootless, destroy their cultural means of self-identification, everything that shapes their existence and gives it meaning, enables them to live and relate to the world around them. Such things may not matter to you, but what matters to you is, in this case, entirely irrelevent. It matters to Indigenous Australians, and clapping your hands over your ears and pretending that it doesn't, or claiming that it shouldn't, only makes things worse.
So what do you expect instead? It shouldn't matter, and that's the truth. You can be as culturally sensitive as you want, neither of us can possibly believe that dwelling on past injustices actually advances the interests of Aboriginals as a whole or individuals within that community. Nobody improves their life by being sad about what happened to one's grandparents.

I'm not doing anyone a favour by saying anything different, am I. There's been an apology and a flood of aid money. There's been police to help clean things up. What can be done has, at least in principle, been done. At some point it is up to indigenous people themselves to fix their communities and figure out what exactly it means to be Aboriginal in the 21st century.

And just as with every other ethnicity, culture or religion, the less there is to distinguish you from "the others", the better. Less conflict, less barriers, less misunderstandings.

In these circumstances, to say that the past must be forgotten is not only hurtful and insulting to Indigenous people, it's also downright absurd, disconnected from any understanding of reality.
The thing is: how can you provide a level playing field to people who really, really want to live in the desert? You can't build anything there, there can't be any jobs (apart from mining, if you're lucky) or any opportunities. There is a reason Aboriginal people never built cities or drastically developed their economies - the environment just doesn't support it.

To the extent to which levelling the playing field means equal access to economic activity, there is no way it can be done out there. But then, they don't want to come to the cities either, so what do you propose?

Looking at this in a detached way, I find your need to wipe away the past and "live in the present" culturally (or sociologically) interesting. Our current Western cultures emphasise the individual - with concepts that are of course culturally subjective and the results of particular historical processes.
Well, biology does, but hey, many biologists were born in western countries.

That emphasis on the individual is accompanied by a need to believe (erroneously) that the individual is entirely self-defined, that he or she is not shaped by a subjective and particular culture or collective history. It's a fascinating form of self-delusion.
How am I supposed to answer that? You're basically denying the existence of my mind as a unique, independent entity that defines and creates me and all my actions. Any argument I could put against this would be created by my mind and therefore dismissed by you.

To become aware of that would imply questioning the allegedly unrestrained self-definition of the autonomous individual, which most people in Western societies would balk at doing.
Brilliant. You've just denied everyone and everything but the people who spend their time drinking. They're not self-defined, they choose to experience the problems in their community on a very personal and internal level. They're correct, because they realise that they are because of their community and they're nothing without it. So they get trapped in a viscious cycle in which they're the source of their own and their whole community's dispair, and the only solution is...well, there is none.

We, the broken, wrong and self-deluding westerners meanwhile, with all our individual achievements and personal fulfillment are doing quite well for ourselves. Despite rather nasty things having been done to our societies, cultures and ancestors as well.

Look, this all sounds horrible, and I know you're gonna end up forming all sorts of terrible opinions about me. But fact of the matter is that when large-scale crimes happen, they tend to be committed against entire groups, against countries, ethnicities or cultures. That happened to every group at one point or another. But collectivism and living in the past is the worst possible way to deal with such events. Once something bad happens to your community, if you take it too personally you end up starting this cycle from which there can be no escape. Australia can't be given back, Aboriginal cultures can't be recognised for something they aren't anymore (if they ever were). The world is as it is, and for better or for worse, that's the reality that every person on the planet has to deal with at some point.

No offence, but that's just silly. You're right, of course, that the introduction of European ways messed up the functional system they had lived by for over a million generations, but it's absurd to suggest that there can be no middle ground between assimilating or abandoning all aspects of modernity. Many societies have shown that the two can be reconciled. (Samoa, to name just one example.)

And the people of somoa wouldnt be in small communities away from the cities and services they provide would they?

The Somoan natives became part of the western society instead of asking for buildings to be built 50km or more from any support. However the Aboriginals still want the support of western society and yet privacy and immunity that a tribal group can get. And that is where the harm origninates

I've seen it. It's a work of fiction.


I was kidding; I know it's fictitious. The continued existence of earth is kind of a giveaway. ;)

And the people of somoa wouldnt be in small communities away from the cities and services they provide would they?

The Somoan natives became part of the western society instead of asking for buildings to be built 50km or more from any support. However the Aboriginals still want the support of western society and yet privacy and immunity that a tribal group can get. And that is where the harm origninates

what?

It's worth noting that some Aboriginal communities are in fact quite viable (in Western Australia and the North for instance.) This is quite simply because the best land was not alienated from them by the Crown. If they want to live by their own law there, without support from Federal or State governments, that option should not be excluded by some sense that all Aboriginal communities are the same. I think we tend to pay a lot of attention to the Aborigines who are struggling because the ones who aren't don't even come into town for booze or dole-checks.

I'll read the Economist article in the morning, unless something else comes up. It might have a slight bias against communities who can't be assessed for their income because they don't have any, and aren't contributing to world fish production because they're eating the fish instead of selling 'em. ;)