Race relations hit a new low in Sydney

[haste]

Redfern rioters 'to be arrested'
February 18, 2004


THOSE involved in riots at inner-Sydney Redfern on Sunday night would be arrested, NSW Premier Bob Carr said today.

Mr Carr also stood by his Government's version of an incident at Redfern last Thursday in which a mob of youths surrounded two police officers, stole one of their guns and threatened them with it.

Redfern erupted into a violent street fight on Sunday night, sparked by the death of 17-year-old Thomas Hickey.

The teenager died in hospital early Sunday after falling off his bike and becoming impaled on a fence.

The community has blamed police for his death, but police have denied they were chasing the youth before the cycling accident.


"I'll tell you what needs to be done in Redfern - the arrest of the criminals who produced the situation there on Sunday night and Monday morning," Mr Carr told reporters.

"From my conversations with police in the last 24 hours, I'm very heartened by the professional way they're going about identifying from media tapes, from CCTV, the people involved in that riot."

Yesterday, the NSW Opposition said a police officer three days before the riot had his own gun turned against him by a group of men while he and his partner struggled to radio for help.

The Government said a similar incident did take place but the firearm was at no time taken from the officer.

"We've got no intention in misrepresenting it (the incident) and wouldn't attempt to do that," Mr Carr said.

"We are reporting what the police on the ground reported to us."

AAP

www.news.com.au

 

[Adikkal]

Well, Jubas and Killarava, you both seemed to be engaged in a good argument with good points on both sides. I admit that i do not know enough about the present situations faced by aborigines to comment with any particular authority, however i still have an opinion.

It appears that there is a very strong resentment in the aboriginal community against the actions of our forefathers which is completely justified. What happened was horrible and the impact on their culture can't be understated. I would agree that i'm sure there is oppression operating against the aboriginal society however this attitude of "the white man came and stole our land" whilst being true, does not achieve anything.

I do not expect them too assimilate into our society as the cultures are very conflicting but in my mind the key to progression of their community is education. THIS is where the money should be spent, help them so they can help themselves. The issue is, if a good quality of education was widely available to the aboriginal community, would they use it? If financial handouts for teens were only available if they attended educational facilities on a frequent basis, would they do it?

It seems that it's easier to blame than it is to acknowledge its a two way road. It is obvious that they have been mistreated but there comes a point where you have to realise that although efforts may be made by the govt to assist, its whether they attempt to really make something of it. I'm sure many in the community do, but for those that don't... why don't they?

Once again - this is an opinion and i do not know the aboriginal situation with any depth but am stating my observations from the position i am in.

Killarava - i'm interested, do you live in an area with aborigines or work with them or something? You seem to be pretty involved in their plight, is this in a hands on way or just in an academic sense?

Peace

Adikkal

 

[killarava2day]

When I have enough time, tomorrow maybe, i will post some statistics that show the huge disparity between white and black australians. I think you'll be shocked to see just how bad the situation is, and I mean today, not in the past. That's the thing, the problem isn't what happened 100 years ago, the problem is the scornful disregard white Australia displays towards the mind-boggling social problems faced by the Aboriginal community. There is something very, very wrong when we are among the only developed countries in the world that have occurrences of preventable diseases, that have even been eradicated in many under-developed countries, especially when those occurrences are found exclusively among the Aboriginal population and are found at rates that would be considered epidemics if they affected white communities at the same rate.

As for my interest in the matter, it is merely academic but I believe that what is going on in this country (today, not events from the distant past) is a tragic case of gross negligence which, through our silence, we are all complicit in.

 

[h@ndo]

Your a good Girl killarava2day.

I know your a bloke but I also know it's quite annoying being assumed to be a girl all the time hehehe.

Also Jubas you also put some good points across I await your next reply with enthusiasm (spl).

Personally I agree with KAR2D on the matter as a whole but really don't have enough of an understanding of the FACTUAL ins and outs of the situation so I'm happily staying out of the argument.

 

[killarava2day]

I know your a bloke but I also know it's quite annoying being assumed to be a girl all the time hehehe.

Nah, 's'okay, I kinda like it. I'm in touch with my feminine side, in fact i quite enjoy touching my feminine side in its erogenous zones

 

[Jubas]

gah oneliners..
i'll try to answer in blocks..

Maybe you need to watch less sensationalist media. People who live in such tough socio-economic circumstances do tend to have higher crime rates, after all how are we to expect Aboriginal people to respect a system that has so comprehensively failed them in so many areas? Remember, so many of the things you take for granted about this "great" country of ours (ie. basic healthcare, education and legal rights) have been systematically denied to them, a situation which continues to this day.

I'm pretty sure education is available to aboriginals as that boy who died thomas hickey was actually attending school.

The second thing he did was legislate to overturn the High Court decision which anulled the concept of Terra Nullius (that Australia was unoccupied at the time of British settlement, hence denigrating Aboriginal people to fauna in the eyes of the colonists.) from Common Law. Arguably, one of the biggest single acts of dispossesion inflicted upon Aboriginal people in over a lifetime.

dispossion? stealing? australia was invaded .. just like hundreds of other countries have been throughout the world. look at europe, its been chopped and changed millions of times. Was there any difference here? well, the english said it was no man's land and claimed it for themselves. upon finding other inhabitants they feared them and attacked them. The only way this is different from another country invading a second, is recognition and realisation of ownership and method. if the english had realised that the aboriginals 'owned' the land, what would the great british empire have done? invaded.

Pray do tell, just what "experience" have you had with Aboriginal people?

none, yet i'm still paying for them aren't i. </end joke>

It's very easy to cast blame at people based on aboriginal affairs and in particular at the police. looking at a scapegoat for people's conditions has always been done. the truth in these situations is quite often just not relevant. the police have been identified with 'endemic' racism through a number of inquests which had to show results. look at the intent and aim of all these inquests and their intended audience. case: an aboriginal man dies in custody and their community cries out racism. the story makes every headline in the country. what can the government do? they can only order and inquest. What can the inquest do? it needs to show a result. if it comes up with 'no it wasn't racism', then there is another community outrage and the inquest and the govt are accused of being racists. these inquests are tools of politics, and they give out results accordingly. sadly, its the police who take the brunt of most of these inquests.

re funding war in iraq, agree with you 110%.

You're right, I am now certain that it is based on fear and ignorance of the facts, because it sure as shit aint based on any kind of logic I can see.

we base our views on the facts that we can see. we don't just believe anything that is put under our eyes. we take everything with a grain of salt. my points re govt inquests above are a perfect example. we look at what the inquest set out to do and what kind of pressure it was under. our logic is simple. money is being spent in massive proportions for 2% of the population, yet we still see no results. what we do see via the sensationalist media is our police force being accused of all kinds of things.

True, but we can change what is happening right now because the suffring isn't a thing of the past, it is still happening. And believe you me, history will not judge us well over this my friend.

history already judges us badly, even if we are trying to correct it. history judges germans badly as well. does it make a difference to the average person? not really.

Again, you didn't even bother to read that report I linked to, did you? I kinda suspect that you aren't all that interested in finding out the truth, instead I think you would prefer to believe what you want to so you can maintain some illusion of moral superiority over Aboriginal people, otherwise you would have sought out the facts for yourself.

and down it goes....
i didn't click your link because i thought it was a reference to the articles you posted below. sorry.. jeez. and i didn't look up google *at the time* because i didn't *have the time*. i'm not going to bother responding to this anymore.

i've just read the link you posted, and i now feel even less for your case. aboriginals have 1.26 more chance of dying than non-aboriginals. 1.26?! that's what all this outrage is over?!
i think it was you who said that 30% of the prison popn was aboriginal. then why is it that from the figures in table 3.1, the number of non-aboriginals dying more than triples the number of aboriginals dying. triples. this suggest to me that more non-aboriginal people are dying per inmate then aboriginals!

oh wait, i've just looked back and the figure was 32% of police custody.
well, based on table 3.3, it seems to be pretty chop and change to me. using the deaths in custody column vs the figure of 32% of people in custody being aboriginal :

(

Aboriginal australians are 27 time more likely to be incarcerated than white australians, and as of 1995, they represented nearly 32% of all those held in police custody, keep in mind they represent 2% of the population.

)

then the solid numbers simply suggest that less aboriginals per person are dying than non-aboriginals.
where's all this racist prison/custody/policeman ship you talk about? by looking at those figures and interpreting them the way i have (for which i think i'm highly qualified), it lends to the fact that aboriginees are not being targetted in prison or in custody.

The ratio of these rates indicates that Aboriginal people were 16.5 times more likely to die in custody.

Fallacious statements such as these are the perfect example of inquests having to provide results. That figure relates the number of aboriginal inmates dying to TOTAL ABORIGINAL POPULATION. aboriginals have less popn obviously, and as such the figures are blown out of propotion.
if you wanted to see the actual chances of dying in prison you don't compare to the general population. you look at the population inside prison/custody.. the above quote could be stretched to cover that situation, but if you consider the average person from the audience they aren't going to take it that way. The overall conclusion?
yes aboriginals have greater custodial deaths per their population. BUT, they don't have greater deaths in custody per inmate. therefore, the prison/policing system is NOT targetting them in this manner. The deaths in custody scenario is a FALLACY.

Why the need to push them so far out of view then? Call me a pop-psychologist if you will but to me that just screams guilt.

who's pushing them out? (and i assume you mean away). just because we don't all join pro-aboriginal political groups doesn't mean we feel guilt.

Yes, but we all profit still to this day from the misery brought pon Aboriginal people by the Australian government, so regardless we ALL take some responsibility for it. If it wasn't for their blood, and their loss, you would probably still be a peasnt tilling the fields in Poland. Instead you enjoy a comfortable middle-class life while the Aboriginal people are still forced to live as second class citizens.

Wherever there is progress ANYWHERE in the world, people suffer. if you look at marxism, he highlights the exploitation of the worker in capitalism. People always suffer, the difference is, that our government is trying to make it stop. I'll follow in a bit with some quotes and references supporting this. Firstly, us profitting off the stolen land of aboriginals in tenuous. how are we meant to NOT profit? we all want to survive, and as such, we have to profit. trying to make us feel guilt for something we had NO control over is just not going to happen!

I thought i'd do a little bit of googling as that seems to be the craze of the day, and if you don't include it in a discussion you get shut down 8)

From the ministerial statements of the budget 2002-2003 (i couldn't find an ATSIC one for 03-04):

Indigenous specific expenditure will rise from $2.4bn in 2001-2002 to a record $2.5bn in 2002-2003.

This increase includes more than $67 million additional resources for Aboriginal Health, The Community Development Employment Project (CDEP) scheme, housing, infrastructure, native title, elements of the Australians Working Together package and other programme initatives.

the govt turning a blind eye?

In 2002-2003, ATSIC's budget will increase to $1.16 billion...

in fact, i'll just give you the link to the statement:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2002-03/budget_ministerial/ia/downloads/DIMIA_MS.pdf

now to draw a reference, the entire Healthcare budget for that same year was apx $30bn. thats for a healthcare system for our entire population. aboriginals receive 1/15th of our entire health care system.

i don't know about you, but i would consider $2.5 bn more than enough to satisfy the aboriginal population. that's the average person's hard earned money going into their communities, and yet we still see a blatant disregard for authority. that's why the average person probably secretly agrees with me.
AND, i suppose as a side point, the propaganda slamming the government over aboriginal affairs is going to far outweigh any counterview. a) its easier to blame people, and b) from my experience, race propaganda always 'sells' better than other. the number of inquests into aboriginal deaths is going to far surpass the number of inquests into the general popn of redfern not having jobs.

edit: our budget surplus for that year was $2.1bn i think..
that could be seen as good/bad.
edit2: also, have you read 'bonfire of the vanities' by tom woolfe? you'll see there are some similarities in this case at the moment. inquests having to provide the right answers to be taken credibly etc. racial tensions, the innocent being shutdown due to anti-racism etc

 

[UnSquare]

Let's Turn This Around

This is a little off topic, but it does demonstrate
the sadness of the whole situation:

From 'The Sydney Morning Herald'
(Monday, I think, I cut it out...)

Arms spending 'mad'

THE world is spending 20 times more on defence
than on development, figures that the president
of the World Bank has described as "madness".

Australian-born James Wolfensohn, speaking in
Melbourne on Friday night, said the world was
spending $1 trillion a year on defence - up from
$800 billion in 1999 - and $50 billion on development.

"This is madness," he said. "We're spending 20
times the amount on military expenditure than
we're spending on trying to give homes to people."

Mr Wolfensohn said he had decided to visit the
country of his birth because Australia was taking
on an increasing role in international affairs.

 

[Jubas]

^^^

tell me about it.
its shocking.. and if i'm not mistaken, its probably not what people would want money spent on first.

 

[Adikkal]

Put simply, if this trend keeps occurring, we are going to be defending countries rife with poverty. People will find much less justification in the notion of "protection" when they don't have a quality standard of life to protect. Fuck this paranoia fuelled hunger for power.

By the way Jubas... that was a really good post.

Adikkal

 

[killarava2day]

I'm pretty sure education is available to aboriginals as that boy who died thomas hickey was actually attending school.

Perhaps, but the fact remains that a large proportion of Aboriginal kids don't get the sort of education as other Australians. In many communities there is very little access to education, quite often as a result of isolation, but if the there were a comprable situation in a white community it simply would not be tolerated. Plus, there are always mitigating factors that hinder the educational process when you are dealing with people of disadvantage. It's hard to remain focused on study when your parents are drunk and violent most nights, or the is no food in the house, or when you get sick all the time because you don't have access to decent health-care and living in sanitary conditions that simply would not be tolerated by the majority of Australians.

dispossion? stealing? australia was invaded .. just like hundreds of other countries have been throughout the world. look at europe, its been chopped and changed millions of times. Was there any difference here? well, the english said it was no man's land and claimed it for themselves. upon finding other inhabitants they feared them and attacked them. The only way this is different from another country invading a second, is recognition and realisation of ownership and method. if the english had realised that the aboriginals 'owned' the land, what would the great british empire have done? invaded.

True, but that really isn't the point. Australia's treatment of its original inhabitants is among the worst in the world, New Zealand, Canada, the US, have all accorded "first nation" status to their indigenous people, recognising them as people who had prior occupation, sovereignty, and governance, and have engaged them in true conversation about renegotiating treaties compact. And New Zealand has gone so far as to enact land and sea rights for the Maoris, yet here in Australia the Howard government spends millions of dollars mounting technical arguements in the courts against the same rights.

In 1837 a House of Commons Select Committe found that of all British colonies Australia was the only one to deny its indigenous people their "incontrovertible right to their own soil, a plain and sacred right". Which is why pastoral leases were developed, with the express aim of allowing continued access by the Aboriginals to their land. Howard's 1996 extinguishment of native title means that, in effect, Australia is now offering its inigenous people less than the British imperial authorities 150 years ago.

And, I really don't think you can compare the European situation with the Australian one, that was a case of agricultural societies dominating other agricultural societies, such people didn't have to adapt that much. Whereas in Australia the Aborigines were a hunter-gatherer society that had not had any interaction with the outside world for at least 40,000 years, they had a lot to adapt to. Plus, one needs to take into account the effect of disease, seeing as though diseases spread faster than societies people on the Eurasian continent (from east coast china to the west coast of Britain) had been exposed to similar diseases and thus had a greater chance of developing immunities. Australia, on the other hand, was extremely isolated and diseases which were considered a trifle by Europeans wreaked untold devestation upon the Aboriginals.

There are many, many variables that effect this issue, and they all need to be examined if we are to have a comprehensive perspective of it.

It's very easy to cast blame at people based on aboriginal affairs and in particular at the police. looking at a scapegoat for people's conditions has always been done. the truth in these situations is quite often just not relevant. the police have been identified with 'endemic' racism through a number of inquests which had to show results. look at the intent and aim of all these inquests and their intended audience. case: an aboriginal man dies in custody and their community cries out racism. the story makes every headline in the country. what can the government do? they can only order and inquest. What can the inquest do? it needs to show a result. if it comes up with 'no it wasn't racism', then there is another community outrage and the inquest and the govt are accused of being racists. these inquests are tools of politics, and they give out results accordingly. sadly, its the police who take the brunt of most of these inquests.

If you took the time to actually read some of the finding released by such you would know that they don't blame police, nor do they accuse them of being inherently racist (the inquiry I quoted from was the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption in NSW, not Aboriginal isues.), in fact they go to great lengths to stress that police are not the main contributing factor behind the high rates of Aborignals in the criminal justice system. Take this excerpt for example:

The nature, however, of the Aboriginal/police interaction cannot be divorced from the nature of the criminal justice system nor the larger society picture in which the interaction takes place. Hence, to say that relations between Aboriginal people and police are a key point in determining the numbers of Aboriginal people that come into custody is not to suggest that the over-representation of Aboriginal people in custody can be explained solely or even mainly in terms of Aboriginal/police relations, or that it can be overcome merely by changes in Aboriginal/police relations. I have examined in Chapter 11 the social indicators of Aboriginal disadvantage; in subsequent chapters I discuss education, employment, health, housing and other disadvantages as causes of the disproportionate detention of Aboriginal people. Police officers have little to do with these matters (except in so far as individuals they are community members). It is the larger non-Aboriginal community that bears responsibility for the circumstances that give rise to Aboriginal disadvantage and the legacy of history referred to in Chapter 10. Commissioner Muirhead has already pointed out the importance of this relationship between police and Aboriginal people in the Interim Report, identifying police as 'the cutting edge of an uncaring society'.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/rsjproject/rsjlibrary/rciadic/national/vol2/88.html

I'll concede that there was perhaps an unfair level of accusations levelled at the police this week (although I'll wait for an independent finding before I believe the police version of events) but remember it was a very heated environment and in those circumstances the truth always gets distorted.

we base our views on the facts that we can see.

Well it's bloody convenient that most Aboriginal communities exist far from the eyes of middle-class Australia, because whatever it is you are seeing isn't the whole picture.

we don't just believe anything that is put under our eyes. we take everything with a grain of salt. my points re govt inquests above are a perfect example. we look at what the inquest set out to do and what kind of pressure it was under. our logic is simple. money is being spent in massive proportions for 2% of the population, yet we still see no results. what we do see via the sensationalist media is our police force being accused of all kinds of things.

Money is being spent (although at a greatly reduced rate since Howard came to power) but it is strikingly obvious that not enough is being spent and it is being directed to the wrong places. There is a serious problem here, pouring money at it is obviously not the solution, but then neither is throwing up your hands in exasperation and blaming the victims for their dilemma.

history already judges us badly, even if we are trying to correct it. history judges germans badly as well. does it make a difference to the average person? not really.

This amuses me, it is always the people who carp on with the whole "it's all in the past" who shrug off the idea of us being judged badly by history. And it will be the same people (or, their granchildren rather) who will be using the ol' "it's all in the past" in 100 years time. Also, considering your apparent grasp (or lack thereof) of history maybe you need learn a little about history and its importance to us today. As the old saying goes, he who does not know his history is doomed to repeat it

and down it goes....
i didn't click your link because i thought it was a reference to the articles you posted below. sorry.. jeez. and i didn't look up google *at the time* because i didn't *have the time*. i'm not going to bother responding to this anymore.

Yes, well perhaps you should find the time to learn a little about an issue before you start disemminating a strong opinion in regards to it, otherwise you risk coming across as a callow bigot (and i don't mean that to be offensive, just pointing it out )

i've just read the link you posted, and i now feel even less for your case. aboriginals have 1.26 more chance of dying than non-aboriginals. 1.26?! that's what all this outrage is over?!
i think it was you who said that 30% of the prison popn was aboriginal. then why is it that from the figures in table 3.1, the number of non-aboriginals dying more than triples the number of aboriginals dying. triples. this suggest to me that more non-aboriginal people are dying per inmate then aboriginals!

oh wait, i've just looked back and the figure was 32% of police custody.
well, based on table 3.3, it seems to be pretty chop and change to me. using the deaths in custody column vs the figure of 32% of people in custody being aboriginal


then the solid numbers simply suggest that less aboriginals per person are dying than non-aboriginals.
where's all this racist prison/custody/policeman ship you talk about? by looking at those figures and interpreting them the way i have (for which i think i'm highly qualified), it lends to the fact that aboriginees are not being targetted in prison or in custody.


Fallacious statements such as these are the perfect example of inquests having to provide results. That figure relates the number of aboriginal inmates dying to TOTAL ABORIGINAL POPULATION. aboriginals have less popn obviously, and as such the figures are blown out of propotion.
if you wanted to see the actual chances of dying in prison you don't compare to the general population. you look at the population inside prison/custody.. the above quote could be stretched to cover that situation, but if you consider the average person from the audience they aren't going to take it that way. The overall conclusion?
yes aboriginals have greater custodial deaths per their population. BUT, they don't have greater deaths in custody per inmate. therefore, the prison/policing system is NOT targetting them in this manner. The deaths in custody scenario is a FALLACY.

I'll happily concede that I simply don't have a strong enough grasp of statistics to counter you arguement. But, the fact that Aboriginal people are being locked up more often, and given tougher sentences than normal, when they already face serious disadvantage as it is, means that unless we find new ways of approaching such problems then we are going to see much more of this kind of thing.

As for the police, I've never trusted those bastards (), so I admit that my attitude towards them is quite biased. Again, this can't be seen in black-and-white terms (excuse the pun 8)), the police don't have a policy to target Aboriginals (although, events like the Redfern raid of 1992{?} certainally give that impression) but the fact remains that there are serious tensions between them and many Aboriginal people, I read a report the other day which claimed that, not only do Aboriginal people have a disproportinate level of accusations about police violence, it is estimated that only ten percent of assaults are not even reported. I realise I was being a touch emotive about the police in the last few days, but if you have ever been bashed by the cops then it becomes much easier to sympathise with claims of police brutality in Redfern.

who's pushing them out? (and i assume you mean away). just because we don't all join pro-aboriginal political groups doesn't mean we feel guilt.

The guilt comment was an of-the-cuff remark, it was more directed at people like John Howard, who attacked the Department of Aboriginal Affairs as a "guilt industry". But we do push Aboriginal away, both physically and psychologically.

Wherever there is progress ANYWHERE in the world, people suffer. if you look at marxism, he highlights the exploitation of the worker in capitalism. People always suffer, the difference is, that our government is trying to make it stop. I'll follow in a bit with some quotes and references supporting this. Firstly, us profitting off the stolen land of aboriginals in tenuous. how are we meant to NOT profit? we all want to survive, and as such, we have to profit. trying to make us feel guilt for something we had NO control over is just not going to happen!

No one said we have to not profit, only that we don't deny the country's original inhabitants a share in that profit. As it stands they are being left out in a major way, it is inequitable and unsustainable, thus until we do something about it we can expect to see more trouble of this kind. And our government isn't doing much to stop it, the budget reduction and extingushment of native Title are ample evidence of that in my eyes.

I thought i'd do a little bit of googling as that seems to be the craze of the day, and if you don't include it in a discussion you get shut down 8)

From the ministerial statements of the budget 2002-2003 (i couldn't find an ATSIC one for 03-04):




the govt turning a blind eye?



in fact, i'll just give you the link to the statement:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2002-03/budget_ministerial/ia/downloads/DIMIA_MS.pdf

now to draw a reference, the entire Healthcare budget for that same year was apx $30bn. thats for a healthcare system for our entire population. aboriginals receive 1/15th of our entire health care system.

i don't know about you, but i would consider $2.5 bn more than enough to satisfy the aboriginal population. that's the average person's hard earned money going into their communities, and yet we still see a blatant disregard for authority. that's why the average person probably secretly agrees with me.

Let's see what the report was really saying:

1. A major study undertaken for Commonwealth, State and Territory health authorities and relevant major Indigenous organisations found that, in 1995-96, per capita expenditures on publicly funded health services were 52-55 per cent higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people than for non-Indigenous people. 2. Poverty alone is sufficient to explain the higher public expenditure per person on health services for Indigenous as compared with non-Indigenous Australians. The level of such expenditure for Indigenous people is about the same as the level for non-indigenous people with comparable incomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 14
Expenditure on Indigenous People 143. Much of the difference is due to the higher privately funded health expenditures by non-Indigenous people. Total health expenditure per head – privately as well as publicly funded – is only about 8 per cent higher for Indigenous people. 4. The authors conclude that, considering their much shorter life expectancy and much higher incidence of many diseases, allocation of public expenditure according to need would almost certainly put more resources into health services for Indigenous people...

One of the key conclusions to emerge from this study is that a focus on special programs for Indigenous people alone will provide a very misleading picture of the distribution of public expenditure between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. A full picture must include both special programs and general programs. While Indigenous people benefit substantially more than other Australians from specific programs, they benefit substantially less from many, much bigger, general programs. This study’s detailed examination of public expenditure on education, employment, health and housing shows that on a per capita basis Indigenous Australians receive slightly more than non-Indigenous Australians in the areas of health and education, somewhat more in the area of employment, but significantly less in the area of housing. However, the advantages enjoyed by Indigenous people from public expenditure are small when compared to the disadvantages they suffer from in each of these areas.

[URLhttp://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/DP_Files/DP24SUM.PDF[/url]][/URL]

AND, i suppose as a side point, the propaganda slamming the government over aboriginal affairs is going to far outweigh any counterview. a) its easier to blame people, and b) from my experience, race propaganda always 'sells' better than other. the number of inquests into aboriginal deaths is going to far surpass the number of inquests into the general popn of redfern not having jobs.

a). I'm not blaming people, I'm blaming institutions and bueracracies, which need to be held accountable. Whereas you seem to be blaming the people, there is a big difference IMO.

b). Yes, race propaganda does sell well, which is why sensationalist papers media, such as Murdoch's Daily Telegraph, sell better than, say, the Sdney Morning Herald.

And, as far as inquests into education etc. I am inclined to agree with you, but if the rioters in Redfern hadn't caused the disturbance they did you and I wouldn't, in all likely-hood, would not be discussing this issue. The fact that we are thrashing it out has to be a good thing as far as I can see.

edit2: also, have you read 'bonfire of the vanities' by tom woolfe? you'll see there are some similarities in this case at the moment. inquests having to provide the right answers to be taken credibly etc. racial tensions, the innocent being shutdown due to anti-racism etc

Nope, I'm not a big fan of fiction but will certainally keep my eye out for it. Personally, I recommend you read John Pilgers 'A Lucky Country' for a glimpse into the life of Aboriginal Australians. Then you ought to read some Henry Reynolds, who has some eye-opening perspectives of colonial history.

 

[killarava2day]

Some interesting facts:

Australia is the only developed country to apear on the WHO's "shame list" of countries where children are still blinded by trachoma

80 per cent of Aboriginal children have potentially blinding trachoma because of untreated catracts.

The death rate of Aborigines in WA is higher than Bangladesh.

Most remote Aboriginal communities have little to nothing in the way of sealed-roads, decent housing, running-water or sanitation, basic ammenities that are provided for non-indigenous communities of similar remoteness.

Aboriginal people have the worlds highest rates of rheumatic fever. Diabetes affects up to a quarter of the adult Aboriginal population and gastro-enteritis is common. All of these are diseases that are easily treated and have been controlled for over 100 years.

Life expectancy of Aboriginals is up to 25 years shorter than whites, lower than most countries and matched only by India and central Africa. It also has the distinction of having the highest peace-time death-rate in the world- among its first people.

In recent years, the health of Aboriginal women has so deteriorated that their death rate is six times that of white women.

For every dollar spent per head under the PBS, only $0.20 was spent per head on Aboriginal people.

In the US and Canada, who both have comprable indigenous populations, the death-rate is only 3-6 years diferent tthan other poulations.

According to Amnesty Internationa, "Aborigines are still dying in prison and police custody at levels that may ammount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."

John howard slashe $400 million from the Aboriginal Affairs budget upon being elected in 1996.

He also reversed the Native Title Act, which removed from common law the myth that Australia was uninhabited at the time of colonisation.

42% of Australia is covered by pastoral leases, under the ammendments to the Native Title Act this land could potentially pass from leasehold to freehold, putting under control of fewer than 20,000 peole. Among them Kerry packer (the 7th largest landowner in Australia), Rupert Murdoch, Hugh McLachlan, and the McDonalds family.. The latter two both have strong ties to the national Party.

Until 1967, Aborigines were not even counted on the census (even sheep were counted) and were treated as fauna by the system.

Ammenities taken for granted in white communitie, municipal swimming pools,, cricket grounds, tennis courts, parks, etc, are totally absent in 95% of Aboriginal communiies.

If the deaths in custody rates were applied to white Australians then 8000 would have died over the last 8 years.

27 other nation states have offered justice to their indigenous peoples in treaties and other forms, Australia has spent in excess of $30 million mounting technical arguements in court cases against implementing simlar justice here.

Source: 'The New Rulers of the World'- John Pilger.

 

[killarava2day]

Our frustration is being directed towards the instigators of the riots in Redfern, most of whom would have access to education. If these riots had escalated in an area with no access to education, then I'd wager we might be a tad more understanding. Discussing the educational standards of other areas isn't all that relevant to this specific incident.

I think you will find that many young Aboriginal kids come to Redfern from remote communities, TJ was from Moree(?) or a similar rural NSW area. Good to see you avoided all the important points I made about education 8(

The point is that invasion has occured all across the world and the intention of an invading country isn't to treat their opponents humanely, it's to conquer by any means possible. England 'invading' Australia was no different to hundreds of other invasions that have occured all over the world.

If you had the remotest knowledge of history you might just realise that the British didn't 'invade' countries, it colonised them. By the mid-19th century there was a strong progressive movement within britain that was most uncomfortable about the way native peoples were being treated, a perfect example of this is the example I cited above regarding pastoral leases. Which is why the recognition of native title exists under common law. But again, the major point obviously went way over your head.

I'm confused - you're complaining about budgets being slashed then say that "pouring money at it is obviously not the solution"? Don't you think you're contradicting yourself there?

Maybe pouring money into this isn't the solution, in which case it would make sense to slash budgets and focus more on using the designated funds wisely.

I mean that money by itself solves nothing, it also requires the positive engagement of the community.

Not to put words into Jubas' mouth here, but I believe what he was getting at is that his people have suffered grave losses at the hands of the Germans, but he's moved on, accepted - it's in the past and bitching about it won't change anything. Blaming today's Germans for the actions of their government in the past would be rather unfair, and I'm sure if you asked them if they wished the whole war hadn't occured most would agree (just like we wish that Aboriginals weren't mistreated the way they were in the past).

If you actually read what I was saying you would realise that my whole point is that Aboriginal people aren't angry about what happened in the past, they are angry about what is going on here in Australia RIGHT NOW. The historical realities only put things into context.

This coming from the same person who quoted statistics whilst later conceding that he didn't truly grasp what they meant?

Well considering how little you obviously know about this issue you sure do have a lot to say about it, at least I admit when my knowledge is sketchy. Unlike people like you who prattle as if they are learned about a subjects they obviously know squat about. And anywa, I said i didn't have a strong enough grasp to coounter his arguement and considering he specialises in statistical analysis (or some crap, anyway) that's not really something to be ashamed of, its just stating a fact.

The general community doesn't push Aboriginals away, they simply don't spare them more thought than they would for any other person in Australia. I don't cry about the plight of Aborigines, just like I don't get upset about the hordes of sob stories on current affairs programs on TV every night. I could sit down and think about all these sad things every day, or I could get the fuck on with living my own life.

Out of sight, out of mind 8( Which is exactly the point I was getting at.

The average person elects political parties in hopes that these problems will be dealt with by people who have the time and knowledge to handle it.

Hmmm, until of course it all blows-up in their faces, like it did on the weekend. Then they start getting themselve worked up into a morally-righteous lather, demanding to know just who the boongs think they are and the like. But the more they ignore it, the worse the problem will get

What exactly does "give them a share in the profit" mean?

see below

What policies would you implement? If you were given a position of power what would you change, and specifically how would you go about doing this? If you want there to be less cases of Aboriginals taken into custody, how would you go about improving their situation so they'd abide by the laws of our country (and thus not have high custody rates)?

Well, I'd give the reconcilliation process another shot, remember that? It was getting along relatively well until Howard gave it the proverbial sledge-hammer between the eyes. Even something simple, like SAYING SORRY would probably be helpful. Then I would negotiate a native title deal that actually means something, something more than a token gesture. I'd enforce an implementation of the Royal Commissions recomendations, and then I would abolish all laws that cover victimless crimes. Just that alone would cause a drastic drop in Aboriginal arrest rates, because a large majority of them are made for minor offences such as drug and alcohol crimes (I'm sure it would go down well with most BL'ers too ). I would also grant greater autonomy for Aboriginal communities to manage their own problems with the full support of the government as needed. I would appoint the leading Aboriginal thinkers and political leaders in this country to form a kind of legislative think-tank with the powers to impliment strategies that they feel are needed in their communities. Then I would probably order a massive redistribution of wealth in this country, large pastoral landholders (eg. Kerry Packer) would be forced to give up their land in order to fund a poverty eradication scheme, which would be administered by community groups modelled on the Cape York Land Council. I would ensure that government policy was aimed at fostering the growth of community spirit, and attempt to create a bottom-to-top hierarchial structure, so the people are telling me, the government, what to do and not vice versa. I grant communities the right to form their own police-force that would reflect the needs of individual communities rather than the interests of the state.

But that's all for now, I gotta get me some sleep, it's been a long night. I really do hope someone out there is actually listening to what I have been saying, and not just reacting to what they think I am saying 8(

 

[h@ndo]

Still going strong I see guys keep up the intelectual (spl) conversation.

Anyhoo slightly O/T KAR2D I'm currently reading "Distant Voices" by John Pilger and it's a real eye opener

Do you have anymore books along these lines (inependent reporting without mass media bias) that you could recommend.

Back on topic. I was discussing this topic briefly with my old maths teacher while shopping last night (no I don't hang with ex teachers he was waiting for his wife in a cafe). He said something to me which in effect was........

..... Your never going to solve the problem because the Aborigional way of life is too different from what western culture is trying to assimilate (spl) them too, and at the end of the day they don't want to live like us.....work, sleep, work etc it just isn't their thing. Shit they were happy before westerners arrived what makes us think our way of life is the right way.

I don't agree or disagree just adding a point of view

He went on to say that it's all an idealist way of thinking anyway because Human Nature dictates that everyone looks after number one in the end ................nice idea but ain't going to happen.

 

[Jubas]

By the way Jubas... that was a really good post.

Adikkal

Thanks dude Killarava's have been good as well, and i've learnt quite a bit. i'm just expressing a few which i feel quite strongly about... and i'm sure i'm not the only one, its just a sensitive subject which i think most people would probably prefer not to talk out about. and i agree with you about the way govt's spend money. its paranoia expenditure for lack of a better term

Perhaps, but the fact remains that a large proportion of Aboriginal kids don't get the sort of education as other Australians. In many communities there is very little access to education, quite often as a result of isolation, but if the there were a comprable situation in a white community it simply would not be tolerated. Plus, there are always mitigating factors that hinder the educational process when you are dealing with people of disadvantage. It's hard to remain focused on study when your parents are drunk and violent most nights, or the is no food in the house, or when you get sick all the time because you don't have access to decent health-care and living in sanitary conditions that simply would not be tolerated by the majority of Australians.

These are all problems faced by the common white person in australia. There are situations where white people have to travel a great distance to get to education, and the govt is aiming to bridge that gap, in white communities and aboriginal both. the tone that i seem to be getting from your posts which may be misinterpreted is that you seem to think the govt is sitting on its laurels and doing nothing. but i think the govt is doing something, the problem is that all these issues take time to work out. they can't go away overnight.

In 1837 a House of Commons Select Committe found that of all British colonies Australia was the only one to deny its indigenous people their "incontrovertible right to their own soil, a plain and sacred right". Which is why pastoral leases were developed, with the express aim of allowing continued access by the Aboriginals to their land. Howard's 1996 extinguishment of native title means that, in effect, Australia is now offering its inigenous people less than the British imperial authorities 150 years ago.

i'm not really up to date on native title law or the like, and i did a quick google, but to no real avail. if the govt were to give back land to the aboriginals, what happens to people who live on that land and have say, farmed it in their family for 200 years? "oh sorry, it actually belonged to aboriginals, go away". Do you think thats going to help race relations? or maybe the white people have to be resettled somewhere else.. on who's land and with what money? i vaguely remember a case of 'sacred land' being claimed, reclaimed, and then sold to a company. once again, the google gods seem to be hating me again. give me a bit more time on this one And, what happens if the aboriginals claim all of circular quay? what the hell happens then? all of a sudden business have to pay to use land.. that could ruin companies. how many jobs will be lost? how much damage done? the figures could be astronomical. The attitude that we saw in redfern over the last week or so, screams to me not to give them our prime land back. If they have such a blatant disregard for authority, whats to stop them stuffing around with our land? an almost ironic situation would be to give the aboriginals the land they want, at the value it would have had 200 years ago, with constraints on the impact their decisions can have on the surrounding population.

If you took the time to actually read some of the finding released by such you would know that they don't blame police, nor do they accuse them of being inherently racist (the inquiry I quoted from was the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption in NSW, not Aboriginal isues.)

Do you think the name of the commission really makes that much of a difference to the key points? you used as an argument the 'fact' that police were endemically (or something ) racist. I think then that this point you have raised actually weakens your argument. If indeed it wasn't a comission particularly aimed at aboriginals, then if the report is to be believed, the police are racist overall, and not just targetting aboriginals. therefore, the whole police targetting issue seems to be completely overstated, if not false. The fact is, that redfern is a high crime area. what do you do with a high crime area to keep the majority of the popn safe/satisfied? you put police resources into it. Then, you combine with that strategies to remove the reason for crime. The government is doing both. They're pouring money into the area in terms of education, healthcare and a variety of other initiatives. And, they're putting a higher police presence. What more can the government do i ask you?

Well it's bloody convenient that most Aboriginal communities exist far from the eyes of middle-class Australia, because whatever it is you are seeing isn't the whole picture.

we don't see them much, because they dont seem to riot. the reason why the aboriginals riotted in redfern accoring to what you are saying is that they suffer a great amount. then if this were the case across all aboriginals, why aren't all aboriginal communities riotting?
i try to see the whole picture, but the highlights are what i look at most closely. Highlights like riotting.. accosting police officers, taking their guns off them.. all a blatant disregard for the society we're trying to let them enjoy.

Money is being spent (although at a greatly reduced rate since Howard came to power) but it is strikingly obvious that not enough is being spent and it is being directed to the wrong places. There is a serious problem here, pouring money at it is obviously not the solution, but then neither is throwing up your hands in exasperation and blaming the victims for their dilemma.

If you think that the greater popn is throwing up their hands, i think you're sadly mistaken. The only reference for the budget cuts to aboriginal spending you mention came from when Howard came into power in 1996, where he cut $400m i think it was. BUT, we're now spending a RECORD $2.5bn on aboriginals. A record implies that spending has increased. the reference to cutting the aboriginal issues's budget is now irrelevant. The govt has obviously recognised the issue and is trying to correct it. Not enough is being spent? how much is enough? what issue in the world ever gets 'enough'? none! It also annoys me when people finally do get the money they've been asking for to correct their problems. The govt then gives it to them, and the problems don't immediately disappear. All of a sudden they're "oh but you're not spending it right!". you know what that reminds me of? a child.
and i think keej's points re your money wanting/not wanting are very valid

good post btw keej

This amuses me, it is always the people who carp on with the whole "it's all in the past" who shrug off the idea of us being judged badly by history. And it will be the same people (or, their granchildren rather) who will be using the ol' "it's all in the past" in 100 years time. Also, considering your apparent grasp (or lack thereof) of history maybe you need learn a little about history and its importance to us today. As the old saying goes, he who does not know his history is doomed to repeat it

who says we don't know about our history? we have it forced down our throats every time an aboriginal issue comes up. but you fail to recognise my point. the past is the past. you can't change it. i fail to see how being judged badly in history really makes an impact in our current day.

But, the fact that Aboriginal people are being locked up more often, and given tougher sentences than normal, when they already face serious disadvantage as it is, means that unless we find new ways of approaching such problems then we are going to see much more of this kind of thing.

I agree with you here. but your points regarding it i disagree with. You seem to blame the police/prison/judicial officials for the situation that aboriginals get into. they are merely doing their jobs. a crime is committed, therefore charge/arrest. Is there a chance of a repeat if they're let go? This case, high chance, therefore a longer prison sentance. thats what the judges are obviously thinking. There is a higher chance of reoffending, but the problem shouldn't be dealt with in the judicial system, otherwise we send out the message of leniancy if you're aboriginal. We should attack the root of the problems, ie the poverty that aboriginals particularly in redfern seem to be living in. That's what the government is trying to do. yet, it's never good enough is it? $2.5bn is not good enough. Thats what frustrates people.

but the fact remains that there are serious tensions between them and many Aboriginal people

which aren't helped by aboriginals claiming police are responsible for the death of a boy of which they a) were not witness to and b) face contradictory testimony from an actual witness. Just how much do aboriginals want to stop the tension? its a two way street. Once again, the issue comes down to the poverty situation. WHICH THE GOVT IS TRYING TO SOLVE. It doesn't happen overnight, and the actions of riotting etc are just delaying it! you think the aboriginals are frustrated? we're frustrated! we're tired of seeing our govt trying to help these people and constantly being slapped in the face.

I also think that keej's points re profit are extremely pertinant. It's not possible to just say "have some profit". Giving profit to aboriginals means that other people lose money. Its just like another tax. Great, our taxes go up, and we give more money to aboriginals where we just see more riotting and more of a blatant disregard to our society. But wait, wasn't it you who said that throwing money at the situation won't solve it?

TJ was sent to redfern because he was banned from his local community for having caused so much trouble there, primarily with the law. that's why he moved to redfern.. to live with an aunt if i'm not mistaken.

If you had the remotest knowledge of history you might just realise that the British didn't 'invade' countries, it colonised them.

this is a simple case of spin-doctorring (although i'll admit, without much real aim). colonisation is invasion, under a nicer name. The intentions are the same, the outcomes are the same, and in most cases, the method is the same.

I mean that money by itself solves nothing, it also requires the positive engagement of the community.

which community? ours, or the one which was riotting on the weekend?
point made.

If you actually read what I was saying you would realise that my whole point is that Aboriginal people aren't angry about what happened in the past, they are angry about what is going on here in Australia RIGHT NOW.

we're angry about whats happening now.
a) deaths in custody is a sham.
b) police targetting is a sham.
c) we spend $2.5bn a year trying to help aboriginal and indigenous people.
d) our govt is constantly criticized for trying to help
e) aboriginal communities riot
f) aborignees destroy public property (redfern station - not a case which prevails throughout aboriginal communities overall thank god)
g) despite our attempts to help, the aboriginals never seem to be i) appreciative or ii) satisfied.

Where will the buck stop? at what point will aboriginees be happy and satisfied? answer: they never will.

I said i didn't have a strong enough grasp to coounter his arguement and considering he specialises in statistical analysis (or some crap, anyway)

for the record, i hold an economics degree which focusses a lot on statistics, and policy. but yeah, just saying for the record

Out of sight, out of mind Which is exactly the point I was getting at.

this is the point which we keep hearing. how are we meant to put them in sight and in our minds?
it seems a common catch-cry for a pro aboriginal lobbyist. again a case of blame without a solution.

But the more they ignore it, the worse the problem will get

See, i can't understand your argument because you seem to think the govt is ignoring aboriginals.
THEY'RE NOT. THE PRICE TAG FOR NOT IGNORING THEM IS $2.5BN in taxpayer's money!

and re your policy suggestions.
saying sorry opens your self up to remorse, which opens you up to taking some of the blame for what happened, which opens you up to being liable, which opens you up to LITIGATION. I'm very happy with the stance the australian govt took in not saying sorry, and i know that i'm not the only one! how many people wanted to say sorry purely because they thought the media or other people would label them racist for not saying sorry. Renegotiating native title, as i mentioned above i don't really know much about.. but my previous worries still exist. and i think keej was after realistic suggestions. abolish consequences for victimless crime? damn that'd be good. but think of the society we'd be living in. Some of your points are valid. i like the idea of a think-tank..
a redistribution of wealth?
that's ridiculous. i'm not going to even bother, except to say that 'its not possible' in the light you're referring to it.

I would ensure that government policy was aimed at fostering the growth of community spirit, and attempt to create a bottom-to-top hierarchial structure, so the people are telling me, the government, what to do and not vice versa.

i think the govt is aimed at fostering the community's spirit. people telling the govt what to do. Isn't that what democracy is meant to be? i don't see how your hierarchy could work. The people would form a comittee to represent them, who would get funding from govt.. isn't that pretty much what happens now?

and in regards to your last comment, i have been listening to what you've been saying, but a large number of your points appear to be simply untrue. deaths in custody being one. And as keej mentioned, there aren't a lot of solutions being thrown in.
but overall, i think this is a great discussion, massive props to all involved!

 

[Jubas]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8736547%5E2,00.html

a friend just pointed this out to me.
this is the reason there are police in numbers in redfern. no racism. its because the police have a responsibility to that lady and the others affected by crime.

 

[killarava2day]

i'm not really up to date on native title law or the like, and i did a quick google, but to no real avail. if the govt were to give back land to the aboriginals, what happens to people who live on that land and have say, farmed it in their family for 200 years? "oh sorry, it actually belonged to aboriginals, go away".

Except that is not how native title works. It is about access to PUBLIC LAND and waterways that is held on a LEASEHOLD basis, it is crown land which would remain so, except that Aboriginal people have a legal basis to move about in. This sort of paranoia is a result of the very successful propaganda campaign launced by government and big business. And some of the biggest receipients of Howards Ammended Native Title Act just happen to be closely tied to the National party, Howards coalition partners. Anyway, I find it laughable that any farmer could use the old "but we've been here for 100 years" clap-trap, when we dispossesed people who had occupied the land for in excess of 40,000 years. 8)

Do you think thats going to help race relations? or maybe the white people have to be resettled somewhere else.. on who's land and with what money? i vaguely remember a case of 'sacred land' being claimed, reclaimed, and then sold to a company. once again, the google gods seem to be hating me again. give me a bit more time on this one And, what happens if the aboriginals claim all of circular quay? what the hell happens then? all of a sudden business have to pay to use land.. that could ruin companies. how many jobs will be lost? how much damage done? the figures could be astronomical.

Um... No, as I have already pointed out, Native Title is not the same thing as normal property law, there is no ownership, merely a recognition of the rights of indigenous people to access that land. Provide a link, then we'll talk.

he attitude that we saw in redfern over the last week or so, screams to me not to give them our prime land back. If they have such a blatant disregard for authority, whats to stop them stuffing around with our land? an almost ironic situation would be to give the aboriginals the land they want, at the value it would have had 200 years ago, with constraints on the impact their decisions can have on the surrounding population.

Shit attitudes like this make me sad

See, all people like you do is pass judgement on Aboriginal people when something lke this happens. Meanwhile, you spend your entire life blissfully ignorant as to the positive things going on everyday. Take the Cape York Land Council for example, why not have a look at the sort of things they are doing before you start making outrageous claims like this: http://www.balkanu.com.au/people/organisations/councils.htm

Do you think the name of the commission really makes that much of a difference to the key points? you used as an argument the 'fact' that police were endemically (or something ) racist. I think then that this point you have raised actually weakens your argument. If indeed it wasn't a comission particularly aimed at aboriginals, then if the report is to be believed, the police are racist overall, and not just targetting aboriginals. therefore, the whole police targetting issue seems to be completely overstated, if not false.

I also don't think it is helpful to anyone to get bogged down in polarised crap and accuse the police of racism, it is a highly emotive term and probably quite inaccurate, not to mention the fact that it detracts from the power of the word when it is used inaccurately. It is not something I like to have bandied around, but we all say silly things in the heat of the moment

The fact is, that redfern is a high crime area. what do you do with a high crime area to keep the majority of the popn safe/satisfied? you put police resources into it. Then, you combine with that strategies to remove the reason for crime. The government is doing both. They're pouring money into the area in terms of education, healthcare and a variety of other initiatives. And, they're putting a higher police presence. What more can the government do i ask you?

Stop treating a socio-economic problem as a criminal problem, which is something our current police force is not equiped to deal with, for starters.

we don't see them much, because they dont seem to riot. the reason why the aboriginals riotted in redfern accoring to what you are saying is that they suffer a great amount. then if this were the case across all aboriginals, why aren't all aboriginal communities riotting?

Man, those kids weren't political activists, they were a bunch of seriously pissed off otherfuckers. They were rioting mainly because of a perceived threat from police violence. All this other stuff is contextual, its these issues that lie behind the poor police/aboriginal relationship, and need to be understood if we are to solve the problems before us.

i try to see the whole picture, but the highlights are what i look at most closely. Highlights like riotting.. accosting police officers, taking their guns off them.. all a blatant disregard for the society we're trying to let them enjoy.

Take a look at the numbers, this is one of the most seriously disadvantaged communities in the world, I don't think our society is geared towards allowing the Aboriginal people to "enjoy" it. As much as you may want to elieve that the government is actually trying its hardest to do something, it still remains a cold hard fact that we are failing them, miserably. Jesus, even impoverished Sri Lanka has overcome trachoma, yet for some reason Australia does not have the resources, nor the will, to do anything about the fact that 80% of all Aboriginal children have potentially blinding trachoma

If you think that the greater popn is throwing up their hands, i think you're sadly mistaken. The only reference for the budget cuts to aboriginal spending you mention came from when Howard came into power in 1996, where he cut $400m i think it was. BUT, we're now spending a RECORD $2.5bn on aboriginals. A record implies that spending has increased. the reference to cutting the aboriginal issues's budget is now irrelevant. The govt has obviously recognised the issue and is trying to correct it. Not enough is being spent? how much is enough? what issue in the world ever gets 'enough'? none! It also annoys me when people finally do get the money they've been asking for to correct their problems. The govt then gives it to them, and the problems don't immediately disappear. All of a sudden they're "oh but you're not spending it right!". you know what that reminds me of? a child.

The Howard government spent in excess of $3 billion on defence and anti-terrorist measure in 2002 alone, in 2003 we spent an extra $2.5 billion in this area, it is expected that it will rise at a similar rate next budget, bringing defence spending to about $15 billion. That's means spending will have doubled in under five years. Even the Word Bank has condemned defence spending as 'madness', according to them developed countries are spending 20 times more on defence than they are on aid. What the hell are they supposed to be defending us aginst again?(http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,1147889,00.html[). And meanwhile we're spending $4.3 million on detaining a single asylum-seeker as part of the 'Pacific Solution'. I don't know about you but I'd much prefer to see my hard earned tax dollars going towards something a bit more posiive than blowing up, or locking up innocent people who have never done anything wrong to me.

who says we don't know about our history? we have it forced down our throats every time an aboriginal issue comes up. but you fail to recognise my point. the past is the past. you can't change it. i fail to see how being judged badly in history really makes an impact in our current day.

Me, your lack of knowledge in this area is only further compounded by the fact you won't acknowledge your ignorance. And yes, the past is the past, but the thing is that it is living standards TODAY which are substandard, history just puts the issue into context. I'd wager you know very little about how denigrating a disadvantaged socio-economic situation can be.

I agree with you here. but your points regarding it i disagree with. You seem to blame the police/prison/judicial officials for the situation that aboriginals get into. they are merely doing their jobs. a crime is committed, therefore charge/arrest.

Which is why it is such an imperative that we stop treating such matters solely as a crime issue and develop new techniques for dealing with them.

Is there a chance of a repeat if they're let go? This case, high chance, therefore a longer prison sentance. thats what the judges are obviously thinking. There is a higher chance of reoffending, but the problem shouldn't be dealt with in the judicial system, otherwise we send out the message of leniancy if you're aboriginal. We should attack the root of the problems, ie the poverty that aboriginals particularly in redfern seem to be living in. That's what the government is trying to do. yet, it's never good enough is it? $2.5bn is not good enough. Thats what frustrates people.

It's not good enough ecause conditions for Aboriginal people have actually REVERSED over the last twent-years, no other developed country in the world has as bad a record as we do in regards to the living-standards of the Aboriginal people. And yet we still blame them for their predicament! Oy vey!! 8(

which aren't helped by aboriginals claiming police are responsible for the death of a boy of which they a) were not witness to and b) face contradictory testimony from an actual witness.

Don't be too quick to jump the gun:

Redfern youth was being chased, witness claims
By Les Kennedy
February 19, 2004

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/18/1077072718105.html

Moments before Thomas "TJ" Hickey was fatally impaled on a metal fence, a female charity worker says she saw him being chased on his bike by police in a caged truck.

The worker's account yesterday supports a statement given to Aboriginal Legal Services by TJ's uncle, Roy Hickey.

Mr Hickey said he saw his 17-year-old nephew seconds before the accident dash on his bike across Phillip Street, Waterloo, through a pedestrian access gate from a walkway between the former Redfern Primary School and a playground. He then saw a police wagon come to a halt.

The woman, who did not know TJ and who asked that her identity or charity not be revealed until she spoke to lawyers, said she had told the Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service what she saw.

Police deny that the youth was being chased.

On Monday Mr Hickey told legal service solicitor Peter Bugden and Ken Horler, QC, that about 11am on Saturday he had been driving along Phillip Street when TJ dashed out of the park on his right. TJ cut across the road on the bike and into a vehicle service road.

Mr Hickey's attention was then drawn to a caged police truck pulling up in the park.

He had driven around the block into Raglan Street where he stopped and saw a group of police helping an injured boy on the ground. He then realised it was TJ.

Yesterday, the charity worker and a colleague told of hearing a police siren. "I went outside and saw the kid ride through the park from Renwick Street and out into Phillip Street and go across the road," the woman said.

"Then I saw a police truck come down and try to get through (to Phillip Street) but it could not get through the gate. They then reversed. They had the sirens on and their lights."

Just how much do aboriginals want to stop the tension? its a two way street. Once again, the issue comes down to the poverty situation. WHICH THE GOVT IS TRYING TO SOLVE. It doesn't happen overnight, and the actions of riotting etc are just delaying it! you think the aboriginals are frustrated? we're frustrated! we're tired of seeing our govt trying to help these people and constantly being slapped in the face.

You do not know the meaning of frustration, please, this is bordering on offensive. You think you have been slapped in the face?!? These people have a mortaity rate that is matched only by India and central-Africa for craps sake!

I also think that keej's points re profit are extremely pertinant. It's not possible to just say "have some profit". Giving profit to aboriginals means that other people lose money. Its just like another tax. Great, our taxes go up, and we give more money to aboriginals where we just see more riotting and more of a blatant disregard to our society. But wait, wasn't it you who said that throwing money at the situation won't solve it?

Profit may have been a por choice of words, to me profit isn't just economic. Until Aboriginal people reap the same benefits and rewards from society as we do then they are never going to participate in the way you want them to.

TJ was sent to redfern because he was banned from his local community for having caused so much trouble there, primarily with the law. that's why he moved to redfern.. to live with an aunt if i'm not mistaken.

which community? ours, or the one which was riotting on the weekend?

The ENTIRE community, but seeing as though we middle-class Australians have the distinct advantage of the privelages accorded to us (ie. decent education, decent living standards and access to equitable employment) it is our resposibility to lead the way. I have lived among disadvantaged people as I grew up in a economically depressed rural community, I know just how debilitating such conditions can be, the sense of general hoplessness is all pervading. Trust me, such conditions are not conducive to fostering a spirit of making the most out of life, it is a downwards cycle that is VERY hard to break. Somehow, I don't think you fully appreciate what it is like to live in a disadvantaged community where you can't even get a job let alone access to comprehensive education or health-care.

a) deaths in custody is a sham.

What? And you surmise that from looking at two charts from one page of a five-volume report?

b) police targetting is a sham.

It's not a "sham", it may have been exaggerated somewhat but the fact remains that:

It is pointed out that Aboriginal people generally spend longer periods in police custody than do non-Aboriginal people, and tend to receive prison sentences no longer than those given to non-Aboriginal people. Finally, Chapter 9 seeks to quantify the extent of disproportionate incarceration of Aboriginal people, concluding that they are taken into police custody at a rate approximately twenty seven times that of non-Aboriginal people, and that Aboriginal adults are held in prison at a rate over fifteen times that of non-Aboriginal adults.

But that is from the Royal Commission which you have disproven merely by glancing at two seperate table of figures... Man, your a fucking genius! 8(

c) we spend $2.5bn a year trying to help aboriginal and indigenous people.

d) our govt is constantly criticized for trying to help

Our government was responsible for extinguishing Native Title, it has all but destroyed any efforts towards reconcilliation, it appropriated the reactionary populist policies of One Nation in a cynical politically motivated attempt to win the racist vote, it has decimated Aboriginal legal aid through funding cuts, it has refused to acknowledge the vast injustices suffered by Aboriginal people outlined in the Bringing them Home Report on the stolen generation, in the spirit of denialists such as David Irvine the government has steadfastly maintained the notion that Australia was peaceably settled without any major conflicts with the indigenous inhabitants.

e) aboriginal communities riot

AN Aboriginal community rioted, there is no need for the plural.

f) aborignees destroy public property (redfern station - not a case which prevails throughout aboriginal communities overall thank god)

So do drunk white teenagers, so what's your point? Especially seing as the rioters were drunk teenagers, shit if you didn't destroy your fair share of public property as a teenager then you must have had a fairly sheltered upbringing.

g) despite our attempts to help, the aboriginals never seem to be i) appreciative or ii) satisfied. Where will the buck stop? at what point will aboriginees be happy and satisfied?

Maybe when trends like this are reversed:

Mortality rates from all causes in Maoris in New Zealand and Native Americans have fallen substantially since the early 1970s. Comparable mortality rates for Australian Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in 1990-1994 were at or above the rates observed 20 years ago in Maoris and Native Americans, being 1.9 times the rate in Maoris, 2.4 times the rate in Native Americans, and 3.2 times the rate for all Australians. Circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, injuries and endocrine diseases (mostly diabetes) are responsible for almost 70% of these excess deaths. Mortality rate trends in indigenous populations in other countries suggest the feasibility of substantial and rapid reductions in mortality rates of Australia's indigenous people

this is the point which we keep hearing. how are we meant to put them in sight and in our minds?
it seems a common catch-cry for a pro aboriginal lobbyist. again a case of blame without a solution.

I though it was the catch-cry for the Bush administration...

See, i can't understand your argument because you seem to think the govt is ignoring aboriginals.
THEY'RE NOT. THE PRICE TAG FOR NOT IGNORING THEM IS $2.5BN in taxpayer's money!

Well, how do you explain the disparity in conditions between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians? All you seem to be saying is that they are somehow blame, as if they are somehow inherently inferior to us. How else do you explain it if you dismiss so many of the points I have raised? Everybody expects me to provide answers, well i'm puting the onus back on you. What would YOU do about the massive socio-economic disadvantage faced by Aboriginals today?

and re your policy suggestions.
saying sorry opens your self up to remorse, which opens you up to taking some of the blame for what happened, which opens you up to being liable, which opens you up to LITIGATION. I'm very happy with the stance the australian govt took in not saying sorry, and i know that i'm not the only one! how many people wanted to say sorry purely because they thought the media or other people would label them racist for not saying sorry. Renegotiating native title, as i mentioned above i don't really know much about.. but my previous worries still exist. and i think keej was after realistic suggestions. abolish consequences for victimless crime? damn that'd be good. but think of the society we'd be living in. Some of your points are valid. i like the idea of a think-tank..
a redistribution of wealth?
that's ridiculous. i'm not going to even bother, except to say that 'its not possible' in the light you're referring to it.

Yes, well, my politics are probably very far removed from your own. If you want a more moderate approach why not check out the ACOSS recomendations: http://www.acoss.org.au/info/2002/info326_BPS_Indigenous.pdf

i think the govt is aimed at fostering the community's spirit. people telling the govt what to do. Isn't that what democracy is meant to be?

It's meant to be, but as an economist i'm sure you can appreciate the fact that monetary matters are what motivates governments these days.

i don't see how your hierarchy could work. The people would form a comittee to represent them, who would get funding from govt.. isn't that pretty much what happens now?

Personally, I would like to see an end to centralised state control, but thats a matter for another thread entirely.

and in regards to your last comment, i have been listening to what you've been saying, but a large number of your points appear to be simply untrue. deaths in custody being one. And as keej mentioned, there aren't a lot of solutions being thrown in.
but overall, i think this is a great discussion, massive props to all involved! [/B]

At least I provide sources to back my claims up, rather than basing them opinion as you seem to do

And yes, this is one of the best threads ever IMO, I have learnt a lotfrom it, someone ought to archive this tar-baby.

 

[Macksta]

You guys are seriously nuts. If you don't all agree to disagree this is going to go on forever, or until someone cracks the shits and takes his ball and goes home.

Actually, I wonder who is going to crack first

 

[killarava2day]

^^ I thought about it, but I know I'm right so there's no way I'm giving up, anyway I believe this is an issue that is more important than any other in Australia today and must be thrashed out at any cost. What would you prefer, that we discuss the issue in its entiety, or we as a society ignore it and hope it goes away? That attitude is almost worse than the ones I have been arguing against.

However, this thread does reaffirm to me that this redneck wonderland isn't worth shit, I'd sooner burn it down than participate in the insidious racism that pervades in Australian society.

Today, no living Australian can claim innocence, because Parliament has enacted the Native Title Amendment Act on behalf of the majority of this country, and that is the biggest single act of dispossesion in our lifetime.

Mick Dodson, chairman of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

...It's simple, unless you give us back our nationhood, you can never claim your own

Rob Riley, Cheif Executive Officer, Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia

 

[Raz]

I've been following this whole thing with great interest, and haven't really jumped in a lot...my feelings towards the whole issue of Aboriginal rights and social justice are pretty much fuelled by having grown up in a low-income area with a large Aboriginal population so I'm pretty emotionally involved in all of this. That having been said, a lot of what's been said in this thread frankly is head and shoulders above anything I'm capable of delivering in terms of intelligent debate...and for the most part it has been intelligently delivered, with a lack of personal attacks etc, so good work people. This stuff is easy to get heated about, I'm glad everyone's keeping a clear head.

I guess there were only two points I wanted to make...it's come up a couple of times that we should forget the past and move on. I've got my own feelings about that anyway, but the fact is we're not just talking about the past. We're talking about ongoing issues, and I think that's part of the reason that Aboriginal people feel so dispossessed; they're not even allowed to own their present, it's taken away by a greater society which is always telling them they're bitching about the past and which fails to see that a lot of people are angry and feel powerless to positively change anything in the present.

The other point I wanted to make was that I don't know any single race in this country which is systematically treated as though it isn't a part of the larger Australian community. Whenever stuff like this comes up, it always comes down to what "we" as a community have or haven't done for Aboriginals, as if they're a separate entity from our community alltogether. I think again, that's something that can only fuel feelings of dispossession and helplessness...Middle Eastern, Asian, European; any other racial grouping in Australia is automatically considered a part of the larger community, and when crimes occur against those races the greater community for the most part unites to show our support for them. We're going through some pretty nasty times as far as attitudes towards race go anyway (see:refugees, "War Against Terror"), but generally speaking I honestly think there's an underlying feeling that Aboriginals are Other...not a part of our community with a grievance against it, but an entity outside of our community with a grievance against it. And that can't help at all.

I'm not really sure how to change this on anything other than a personal level, just thought I'd throw that out there...

--Raz--

 

[killarava2day]

Still going strong I see guys keep up the intelectual (spl) conversation.

Anyhoo slightly O/T KAR2D I'm currently reading "Distant Voices" by John Pilger and it's a real eye opener

Do you have anymore books along these lines (inependent reporting without mass media bias) that you could recommend.

Only things I can think off the top of my head is Pilger's 'The New Rulers of the World, and Colin Tatz's 'Obstacle Race: Aborines in Sport', and 'Genocide in Australia'.

Back on topic. I was discussing this topic briefly with my old maths teacher while shopping last night (no I don't hang with ex teachers he was waiting for his wife in a cafe). He said something to me which in effect was........

..... Your never going to solve the problem because the Aborigional way of life is too different from what western culture is trying to assimilate (spl) them too, and at the end of the day they don't want to live like us.....work, sleep, work etc it just isn't their thing. Shit they were happy before westerners arrived what makes us think our way of life is the right way.

I don't agree or disagree just adding a point of view

He went on to say that it's all an idealist way of thinking anyway because Human Nature dictates that everyone looks after number one in the end ................nice idea but ain't going to happen.

Actually, this kind of thinking is somewhat dangerous because it has been used in the past to imply that Aboriginal people are not capable of functioning in society and thus there they are beyond help, read 'The New Rulers of the World', there it is short and there is an arguement about it in the chapter on white Australia.

Plus, as a (somewhat frustrated) existentialist I reject the notion of there being a human nature