Hi Chris, I think there is something very much being missed in all white conversation about indigenous people.
I note also, that most of the convo and comments comes from an identifiable 'white/western' world view. I'm white, but married to an indigenous person from Asia. I learned wayyyy more by livng with them (and their language and culture), and experiencing many of the same things and watching others (such as exploitation by Muslim and Chinese cozy bedfellows rather than white in this case) that Aussie indigenous people are encountering.
That thing which is missing is a careful anthropological understanding of our indigenous people. Even that will vary from tribe to tribe. But anthropology alone is not enough. It was because of enlightenment anthropology and secular science, which, in the absence of the previous moral authority of the Church, began categorising everything, including people using the new 'liberated and enlightened' science. This resulted in white Europeans regarding black people as 'the closest to the apes' (Darwin has a lot to answer for here also) and that the pigmies actually were apes. The model for this classification was the Greek male statue.. well proportioned, white, clean cut. This was the mentality that came with Cook and co. (it was the secular view, not the Church's-Gal 3:28)
Now this alone was enough to wreak spiritual and social destruction on the Aboriginals, but there was more to come. See this article for much deeper information about how technology can destroy a whole people when well meant artificats (tools) are introduced to 'make friends'. (Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians- Lauriston Sharp) The Yor Yiront people were wiped out by a simple gift of steel axe.(s)

The Spiritual Foundation. We all know about the dismal, depressing, and degraded character of the camps of chronic drunkenness in places like Alice Springs and near Darwin. I can show you a people group which was just like that, drunk more days of the year than they were sober. They were transformed when they decided to become Christians. (the story is fascinating..they searched out some Missionaries in the area and invited them to teach about the faith). The whole people with very few exceptions, were renewed. The key point here is that the 'old' spirit fear and animism was replaced with (to use an anthropological term) a cultural equivalent. Christianity.

In the case of our own Indigenous, there is a sense of powerlessness, and the inadequacy of the old dream time to accomodate modern reality. Hence they are caught between two worlds. Those aboriginals I know who are Christian, are similar in outlook to the Lun Bawang of Borneo, Christ has truly changed them.

Western secularism has not, is not and will never be successful in bringing the aboriginal Aussies into modern life because secularism does not have a cultural equivalent to the dream time. It replaces 'belief' with non belief.. with 'human rights' (as if that means anything to Aboriginals other than those who have been scripted by nefarious political interests.)

So to finally get to Chris Harpers point.. "I wish it would all go away".... I don't believe there is a human solution Chris..seriously. They will be kicked between one bunch of scheming opportunistic politicians and another, with the 'human rights' mob yapping at their heels and running around like headless chickens. The solution I offer is one that can only be embraced by choice, not by management.

Julian, your contributions to this disccussion reminds me of a wittisism that I think emanated out of the Pacific: "When white-men first came, we had the land and they had the Bible. Now we have the Bible and they have the land".

I'd like to defend the much maligned Charles Darwin. Darwin actually was a deeply religious man (as were most intellectuals of his time). It is not his fault nor others like Malthus that their writings should have been seized on and used by opportunists to justify the worst excesses of colonialism.

As for us secular Australians, you are right. We will never succeed in "bringing the Aboriginal Aussies into modern life" You know why? Because we don't think it is our prerogative to do so and also because they are already there (modern life that is)

Have you heard any of the senior lawmen saying that they would like their system of law recognised?

Well, "senior lawmen" seemed to hit the nail squarely on the head with my experiences with working on land claims in Central Australia during the 1980s and i really doubt, Frank, if things have changed that much since then.

Agree that the term "elder" is often applied by non-indigenous people in a way which would not be matched by First People's themselves, where a "young fella" may be 60 years old. Ditto too the use of term, much beloved by mainstream media and politicians of "Aboroginal leaders" - but where are the followers?

What has changed is a lot of these men have died young. In my view, they have been "sung" by the songs coming out of Canberra and other capitals.

Hence the importance of getting new songs and, if not amending the 1901 imperial measure Constitution, forming a new one which is bi-culturally balanced.

But the point I seek to make here is that the voices of senior lawmen are always the last to be heard (if heard at all) in these discussions. Until we do this can only be a one-sided cultural monologue, which can only produce a one-sided solution.

We need to fashion new ears to hear these singing voices.

More better, apparently, we look into the furtherest reaches of the universe for the first hiss of creation than seriouly turn our attention to this long delayed task.

That's OK with me. "Senior lawmen" is fine, especially as you know what you're talking about! It's however a bit like 'Jukurrpa' which when translated into English as "The Dreamtime" loses much of its deeper meaning.
You are so right in that "we need to fashion new ears" if we aren't to be forever doomed to come out with "a one-sided cultural monologue, which can only produce a one-sided solution"
At Kalkaringi last year (45th Anniversary of the Wave Hill walk-off) Rosalie Kunoth-Monks declared in a speech that "In Australia there is no Aboriginal Problem, there is only a white-fellow problem."
On the subject of new ears:
A limited exploration of the Warlpiri verb ‘purda-nyanyi’:
Nyanyi is to see, purda-nyanyi is to hear, it is also to understand. It is to listen and take notice.
Purda-nyangunpaju? Did you hear what I said? Did you pay attention to me? Could you understand me?
Purda-nyangkaju! Listen to me! Pay attention! Understand what I’m saying!
Purda-nyanyika He is listening. He is paying attention. He can understand.
Kulalu-nganpa purda-nyangu yijardurlu. 'They didn't really listen to us/understand us.' Kanginy-purda-nyangulu-nganpa. They failed to hear us.
Jenny Macklin-paturlu, kulalu-nyanu langa-kurra-manu yimi nganimpa-nyangu. JM's mob didn't put our story into their ears/brains - i.e. didn't take any notice of what we said to them.
Langa-kurra-mani To get into (one’s) ear.
Yungulu-nyanu langa-kurra-mantarla. They should have taken it (what we said to them) in (into their ears)
A person that isn't listening is said to be 'Langa-pati' Langa is ear(s) Pati is hard impenetrable compacted soil.

If only English had a verb like Purda-nyanyi! Perhaps all our pissing in the wind and shouting to the rooftops wouldn’t all fall on deaf ears.
Perhaps your 'bi-culturally balanced' dialog might have happened.

Hi John,

Before my time in Central Australia (1980s) the "settlement" of Warrabri is said to have had a great garden of some kind, which folded when the single non-indigenous person who made it happen departed. A common pattern in my experience, as seen in some "Aboriginal" organisations which function well while certain people remain, and can turn rotten very quickly when they depart and their place is taken by carpetbaggers.

But your N Z friend could have done well to reflect on the great cultural differences between First Peoples and those of us who take horticultural and farming practices for granted. Alyawarra and other people at Warrabri continue to seek their food from their country, and also, alas from the community store which (in the past at least) was run by those with concerns for profit and not well-being.

Your NZ friend also needed to understand that these "settlements" were created as places of confinement by the governments of the day, resulting in people being forced to live together in far greater densities than their culture provides for. Overcrowding etc resulted in houses which were never part of how these people lived.

Desert people do not use water the way European farming people's use it. Fire is to them as water is to us. This differences runs deep in their cultures.

And part of life in the "settlements" was to convert extended families into nuclear families, with Mothers being expected to conform to the introduced notions of motherhood. The social experiment was never going to work as expected.

So it is not a common sense situation, but one requiring uncommonly good sense. Western culture does not provide us with the ready-made mental scripts which would help us in these frustrating situations.

Instead of reacting the way she did, your friend would have been well-advised to accept what she was told, and to work from that basis to see if there is a solution. A hard lesson to learn, and I think some health professionals may be on to it.

And that hard lesson to learn applies to all non-indigenous people in Australia. The challenge is for us to change our Ways, for First People's have already had to do all the hard lifting on the change front, and it has not only taken its toll, it continues to do so.

Ironically, it used to be said First People's were incapable of change. The use of mobile phones (and so much else) disproves that.

Think of how much change had taken place since 1788 in everybody's life - with the industrial revolution taking off over that period.

We are still flat out coming up to speed with technological change, let alone dealing with this very deep issue of relations between the original and introduced cultures.

For this reason I think the sc-called "middle-classes" here are important, since they have the resources and surplus energy required to - at least - think about these issues.

There is unlikely to be any substantial support from the "working" class as they are well and truly struggling with their own issues at this time.

"...Change itself does not destroy a culture. All societies are constantly evolving. Indeed a culture survives when it has enough confidence in its past and enough say in its future to maintain its spirit and essence through all the changes it will inevitably undergo."
― Wade Davis, The Wayfinders

Black Knight, I have witnessed the heavy lifting you speak of. The changes that Warlpiri society has made to itself in the several decades I have lived here are almost unbelievable.
The authorities that are tearing at the social fabric of these remote Aboriginal places are mostly ignorant of these changes and most certainly unwilling to give credit where it is due.
I fear for these societies because they have virtually no say over their futures.
Stronger bloody Futures indeed. Shame Jenny Macklin, shame!

Frank,

"leveli" is a word which you may know from Warlpiri senior men, used so we English speakers might understand.

Two peoples coming level.

Got this key concept via linguists who worked with Warlpiri people, so I think it is a good one to add to the mix here.

What do you think?

In my view, the mainstream Anglo-Australian idea of level playing field - during the last century at least - was akin to a sheer vertical cliff. Them on top.

Ambrose.. you are doing it too... "approaching an indigenous issue with a white western secular mindset"

Evidence: Far from being merely annoyances, they are greater barriers to fundamental betterment of Aborigines as a group than the disadvantage of Aboriginals themselves.

You use two words of interest "Betterment" and "Disadvantage" but I'll bet you define those terms in your own head in a materialistic way. "services/ housing/health/education" etc....am I right?

ooh you have a lot to learn :)

Not from empty vessels, Julian.

Solvent-sniffing would by any rational standard - I can't speak for yours, Julian - involve disadvantage. It is hard to see how the mental disarrangement caused by hallucinations, and emotional disturbances could not affect culture, learning and social behaviour.

Aborigines did not as far as I'm aware - I can't speak for your awareness, Julian - prefer starvation to pleasant sufficiency.

We may take it that it is possible for non-Aborigines to understand the issues.

ooh you have a lot to learn :)

Good comeback Ambrose... I like that. (even if I might disagree a tad).. I suppose I'm saying we need to step back a bit and try to see the bigger piccy rather than the specific. Let me illustrate, in the case of the Bornean tribe, they only received an initial exposure to the teachings of Christ (between 1932 ish and 1939 and then the the 'culture wrecking missionaries' (as secularism loves to taunt) had to get out due to the war. (Japs) during the war they were left to themselves. During that time they were sorely tested for sure, but they held firm and grew on their own insights with the new faith. After the war the Misho's went back and continued the task. Bible Translation, (taking an oral language and making it also a written language) You cannot even begin to know the joy of the Lun Bawang when they received firstly the New Testament and then the Old many years later... in their own language.

While we can identify 'disadvantage' in the syptomatic glue sniffing, are we not at the same time trying to understand this in western material secular terms? The implication of your cordial reply seems to be saying "If we fix the disadvantage we will fix the glue sniffing", but we both know that umpteen tens of millions of dollars has been allocated to this or that project and.. still the glue sniffing and drunkennes prevails.

I do hope you read that 'Steel Axes' article, it will reveal insights into the intricacies of not just aboriginal culture (Cape York) but there are lessons in it for us also. How long have we had 'certain moral innovations' in our community? Who knows.. such things might turn out to be a steel axe for a bunch of people who find their true identity in 'stone axes' and the relationships and identity which went into making them. (I'm using a bit of artistic licence here) the impact of certain trends and decisions could yet prove utterly destructive and devastating for us. Keep in mind..that what the Yor Yiront lost in the arrival of steel axes, was male identity and clarity of position in society. Once that is destroyed, the blokes are not too far behind on the downward spiral.. See my drift ?

Frank... if I may make the point again.... .. you are speaking about people being 'distinct'... ok.. but there are difficulties with that. The more 'distinct' people are and unique their culture, it is inevitable that there will be a clash on one level or another with the dominant culture. At that nexus, one of two things must happen. Black culture is sidelined or white culture is sidelined. I don't see much middle ground if there is a direct conflict of perceived rights.
I'd be interested in your view of History, and how peoples who have been firstly invaded and they in turn (the invaders) invaded by others, and in the long run the outcome is a society of hybrids racially. (I'm speaking of the "English")... then...they go to another land (Australia) and repeat the process. Why cannot Aboriginal people be absorbed in the same way that the Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings were ALL taken into the Norman race/culture etc when William invaded in 1066? the Norman language, culture and nobility became an overlay on the previous culture. Only the Welsh have survived all this and they speak a different language to prove it. (it's worth noting historically, that Celts driven out by the Anglo Saxons came 'back' with William the Conquerer to kick a bit of English rear end.
So.. 'we' (whitey) are here.. and we are 'many' you might say. Aboriginals are few. Is it not in their best human interests to join our 'tribe' ? The best educated "Aboriginals" are mostly half white from what I can see. They have joined our tribe..but some with certain political ambitions claim to be of the other mob. Yes...I'm a bit of a cynic.

Peter..not sure what you mean by 'our own history' and your use of "'serious problems"

Let me make 2 points.
1/ the history you speak of came from secular scientific thinking about the world.
2/ The serious problems? are you thinking in secular materialistic terms? I suggest you are.

Yep ... secular and materialist ... that'd be me.

That's not to say the options for Aboriginal people are secular and material - opr merely limited to those. A sense of future - I think everyone needs that. Don't know how one gets one though. That'll be for them to work out I think.

Have to disagree that recognition of Australia's First Peoples as First Peoples will never do anything concrete or real for them.

The history of colonisation here has been one of the "unrealisation" of First Peoples, and to acknowledge them and their Ways (languages, cultures, cosmologies, world views ...) as real is a major turn-around in the genocidal and ethnocodal practices which arrived in 1788.

It will do something for us non-indigenous people. Something important too.

I think part of the 1967 referendum success was due to some notion that it would incorporate indigenous people into an Anglo-Australian nation, not that it would recognise them as First People's with their own Ways.

Recognition of First Peoples as First Peoples is a much greater challenge, and one with few votes in it.

Despite that much ground has been gained over the last couple of decades while beating into the backwards historical wind of Howard and others.

The UNDRIP is not to be lightly dismissed as an achievement for the start of the 21st century, no matter how hard it is to put into actual practice.

This struggle is one which requires making the most of every small finger-hold. Life turns on fine points.

Looks like recognition is the item on the agenda in Canberra, like it or not, with an Act of Recognition.

In 1994 Indigenous Rights were added to Argentina's Constitution.

Artículo 75, Inciso 17 de la Constitución Nacional:
Reconocer la preexistencia étnica y cultural de los pueblos indígenas argentinos. Garantizar el respeto a su identidad y el derecho a una educación bilingüe e intercultural; reconocer la personería jurídica de sus comunidades, y la posesión y propiedad comunitarias de las tierras que tradicionalmente ocupan; y regular la entrega de otras aptas y suficientes para el desarrollo humano; ninguna de ellas será enajenable, transmisible, ni susceptible de gravámenes o embargos. Asegurar su participación en la gestión referida a sus recursos naturales y a los demás intereses que los afectan. Las provincias pueden ejercer concurrentemente estas atribuciones.”

I’ll do my best in translating it:
To recognise the ethnic and cultural pre-existence of Argentine indigenous societies (in other words a rebuttal of Terra Nullius). To guarantee respect of their identity and their right to an intercultural and bilingual education; to recognise the legal status of their communities and the possession and communal ownership of the lands they traditionally occupy, and regulate the granting of other lands sufficient for human development; none of these lands will be sold or transferred or be subject to liens or caveats. The participation in the management of their natural resources and other interests that affect them will be ensured. The provinces may jointly exercise these powers (obligations?).

In practice these glorious words are no more meaningful than Kevin Rudd’s Apology turned out to be in hindsight.

I agree with both Gary and Black Knight. Black Knight is talking of levelling the playing field. Gary is on about kicking goals despite being denied the ball.

Have had another think on this. Let me rephrase the analogy/metaphor.
Black Knight is on about leveling the playing field and to have identical goal posts at each end. Gary Foley doesn't see any point in this, in that his team is banned from playing.
To be invited to field a team is pointless if the playing field hasn't been fixed in the first place. This is what happened in the so called "consultations" that preceded the launch of "Stronger Futures".
On the other hand I'm not convinced that so called "Constitutional Reform" goes far enough, and Australia would have been left with something like Native Title, lots of symbolism and very little else. Or the Apology for that matter: "sorry" but nil compensation and a new round of Stolen Children (in the guise of the Interverntion and Stronger Futures). The methods have changed but they're being stolen none the less.

Aaah.. at last an opportunity to discuss with Gary Foley. "Historian"
Gary.. I've made quite a few points in other replies, but in your case I would like to ask you a couple of questions.

1/ What.....do you want? Can you give us a bullet point list of 'demands' so to speak?

2/ In your history studies, you will be fully aware that if it was not whites who came here, and settled/dispossessed the indigenous, it would have been the Portugese or the Japanese or perhaps even the Indonesians. Evidence for that is found in each of our own ethnic/cultural backgrounds (I'm speaking of 'whitey' here) Each of us is a result of some other crowd taking our land, pushing us around, disposessing us.. (think Highland Clearances) Angles Saxons, Vikings..Celts...and so it goes on.
The modern englishman is a hybrid of all those dna strands. Now to the question. "why" should Aboriginal Aussies be specially privileged when we whites are still living victims of what happened to our ancestors?

3/ You would be aware that when American Native tribes made war on other tribes, the men were killed and the women and children were incorporated into the victorious tribe. Are you aware of this? and why should aboriginal people not be incorporated into 'our' victorious tribe? Do you have a moral reason? if yes..on what do you base your 'moral' reason? Is it Rousseau's idea of 'first posession'? is it God ? is it....well, you tell me mate.
4/ Gary, why do you speak of '"These racist times"? Racism is the regarding of an 'other' person as inferior to ones self. Of course it can also mean treating a non your mob person less equally, but if that is true of whitey, is it 'only' true of whitey? or. could it be a characteristic of human nature including the black fella ?
If you did get your 'list of demands' agreed to, do you honestly believe the newly empowered black fella will suddenly treat whitey as his equal or.. perhaps try to settle a few historical scores?