This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Special treatment for Aboriginal people

Jump to new
B

BradK

Joined
30 January 2007
Posts
729
Reactions
1
On another thread, there was a comment about dealing with special treatment for Aboriginal people in the formation of a new political party.

Boognish said:
no special treatment for minorities, including Aboriginies
Click to expand...

What is this special treatment for indigenous Australians?

Lets have a look from the 2006 Census:

Income: Av. only 62% of whites
Life expectancy: 59.4 males, 64.8 years females - similar to those in developing countries
Health: Hep A. 11 times more than non-indigenous population.
Mental Health - 3 times more likely to self-harm than other Australians. 5 times more likely to be hospitalised because of substance abuse.
Education: only 23% go onto Year 12
Housing... Criminality... etc. etc.

You can cherry pick the figures for yourself here: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/statistics/index.html#Heading331

Not to mention the ongoing psychological effects of forced removal from parents.

I am not being vicious when I ask exactly what this special treatment is? Could someone point it out for me?

Brad
 
From the look of it, "special treatment" would not mean being treated equaly with or better than non-indigenous Australains but would mean being treated worse.
 

I think it is reasonable to say that any special treatment is not working. Obviously, there is some differential treatment - the NT intervention, alcohol bans etc. I am a director of my child's preschool and we offer reduced fee places to indigenous children, although we do not have any attending - reality is that there are not many indigenous children in my part of Sydney. I know of one indigenous family in the area, but the mother is a high profile magistrate so able to pay full fees. You can argue this type of treatment is "special" in that all indigenous families receive the subsidy not just those that need extra help. So this type of subsidy can be argued to be too broad and not targeted enough. However, IMO, given most indigenous families are disadvantaged, this type of broad brush approach is appropriate.
 
gooner said:
However, IMO, given most indigenous families are disadvantaged, this type of broad brush approach is appropriate.
Click to expand...

Especially when it helps create or show that there are other paths and options to life other than sitting it out on home lands drinkin green bottle and beating the wife.

One of the biggest problems to helping any group of disadvantaged is showing that it is possible to make choices and reach outcomes like the rest of the 'outside community'.

Shame though that most solutions are based on the disadvantaged groups rather than the disadvantaged individual.
 
BradK said:
I am not being vicious when I ask exactly what this special treatment is? Could someone point it out for me?

Brad
Click to expand...

In some cases it can mean new halls, libraries, buildings built on the footy oval in community schools.

Which really does wonders for attendance.

It's another equality v equity debate. You can't have equal access to education if there aren't any teachers able to or have the skills to teach in certain communities. You can't have a teacher who doesn't speak the local tongue as English is a second language in a lot of the most disadvantaged places.

So in this little microanalysis for instance, a lot more money needs to be spent on skilling before you can have a case for equality, rather than equity.
 
BradK said:
What is this special treatment for indigenous Australians?

Brad
Click to expand...

1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal." Why?
2. On seeing a fisherman fishing in a closed area I told him it was a prohibited area for fishing. I was told "It's OK I'm aboriginal. I can fish". I was also told that they have no bag limits or size limits.
3. The local ranger was told he was not allowed on "aboriginal land" when he was attempting to catch a dog that had bitten a visitor on a beach.
4. Free bus transport to sporting events and funerals.
 
nioka said:
1. A sign at a hospital "On arrival please tell us if you are aboriginal."
Click to expand...
While we continue to treat any minority group differently in either direction the underlying problems will never be solved.
 

OK. But, it is hardly white victimhood in comparison is it? Let's get things in perspective.
 

How about all non-indigenous people give all the stolen land back to indigenous people and they can rent it all back to us. Then they might not need any special help, financially.

Many of the indigenous problems are due to being treated as second class citizens, having their children stolen etc. IMHO, about time, everyone else tried to help them to redress past injustices. I have three kids - can't imagine anything worse than having the government come and take them away just because of my race.
 
gooner said:
How about all non-indigenous people give all the stolen land back to indigenous people and they can rent it all back to us. Then they might not need any special help, financially.
Click to expand...

This is one of the most insane arguments continually put forward.

Are the British government in a position to offer this Gooner?

Or will the picts and others indigenous to Britain need to take this up with the Romans, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Moors, etc first? To the victor go the spoils as it was at the time.

I did not displace a single living indigenous person. I feel no remorse for the actions of people born over a hundred years before me and from another country.

Zimbabwe is a fantastic example of the possible outcomes of returning a country to its original owners.

gooner said:
I have three kids - can't imagine anything worse than having the government come and take them away just because of my race.
Click to expand...

Even if they were being mistreated or raped by other members of your "community"? Authorities are slammed if they do anything and slammed if they do nothing so which is it?

cheers
Surly
 

You can't really compare the Scramble and the period of British colonialism with the Saxons, Moors, etc. That is like comparing apples with oranges. British colonialism has explicit links with capitalism, using science and religion as so-called 'civilising' forces. The Aboriginal body is the most legislated in the world - see opening scenes of Rabbit Proof Fence where Neville is explaining the idea of 1/16th Aboriginality. Pretty offensive stuff when you realise that rape perpetrated by white Australians was responsible for many of the 'half-castes' . As Ian Anderson says, the two core dictums were 'Breed 'em right, or f*$* 'em white.'

Hmmmmm... special treatment.
 

All of us benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land. You may feel that this is irrelevant and you may enjoy being the victor. The reality is that indigenous people were the victims. Do not you not feel any moral obligation to assist?

Surly said:
Even if they were being mistreated or raped by other members of your "community"? Authorities are slammed if they do anything and slammed if they do nothing so which is it?
Click to expand...

You might want to read up on the stolen generation. Children were stolen as a matter of course to "Australianise them", not because they were being ill treated. And it was not long ago that this was stopped - this is not an ancient crime. It is a recent one.
 

Exactly right Brad just as you can't apply the morals and values of now with those of the 1700's or 1800's or even the early 1900's. At what point does yesteryears problem cease to be todays obligation?

If my great great great grandfather did something to yours or shot at him in a war or vice versa or whatever else it would be of interest but would not change how I feel about you or create any perceived obligation towards you.

cheers
Surly
 
gooner said:
All of us benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land. You may feel that this is irrelevant and you may enjoy being the victor. The reality is that indigenous people were the victims. Do not you not feel any moral obligation to assist?
Click to expand...

Absolutely none gooner!

I believe they deserve the same rights as any other person born to this fine country. Not more and not less. I am not sure how I "benefitted from the theft of Aboriginal land." personally or what I owe for this crime?

cheers
Surly
 
And it's one of the reasons aboriginal children are presently being left in abusive situations, i.e. because child protection agencies are afraid of being accused of "stealing children".

If you read some of the philosophy of Noel Pearson, you might understand more of how continuing to treat aboriginal people as victims is increasing their disadvantage.

I know you feel you're in some way redressing some of the past wrongs by being sorry for indigenous people, wanting them to receive more services than whites etc., but until they are allowed to feel that they have the same potential as white people, and are prepared to cast off the mantle of victimhood, nothing will change.

Just consider if someone consistently says to you: "my goodness, it's just terrible that you lack the potential to succeed, just look at all the disadvantage you have to overcome: really, it's hopeless, and the government should be doing much more for you because it's just unreasonable to expect you to take any responsibility yourself for getting an education, taking basic hygiene and health measures, etc". Particularly if you lack even a basic education and you hear this over and over again, you're simply going to have this as your basic belief about yourself.

But if someone says to you: "I can see you have immense potential to do the necessary work to get an education, and that you understand how taking basic care of yourself and your property will increase your sense of self esteem" and other positive messages, aren't you going to be more likely to see yourself as pretty damn OK instead of a victim?

We have all at some stage in our lives had to take responsibility for our own outcomes. Indigenous people should not be treated as though they lack the same capacity.
 
Surly said:
Authorities are slammed if they do anything and slammed if they do nothing so which is it?
Click to expand...
Authorities are only interested in applying dollars as this is the simplest solution that offers the appearance of doing something.
 

Exactly - I am not trying to judge yesteryears morals by todays standards. But, can you identify the point when the poor relations between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians stopped?

Is there a full stop to this past? Death of Truggernanner? 1967? 1992? Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Royal Commission... the failure of Reconciliation?

I argue that there is NO BREAK in colonialism and that relations are still very much colonial.

Anyone care to guess at a break in colonial relations?


Also, on another point. We were NOT responsible for dispossession, but we have very much benefited from it. Whether there is a case for compensation is another point altogether.

Brad
 

The current issues with indigenous Australians is pretty much unsolvable IMHO
Work with and lived in Aboriginal towns in the NW of WA in the 80's and the complexity is beyond most white Australians thinking particularly those that have never met the various groups of which there are many.

I don't think today the colonial bit can be applied across the whole spectrum of groups and their issues.
 

Julia, I think your argument is about HOW we best address the disadvantage faced by indigenous people, rather than WHETHER we should address it. The Government tries to address all disadvantage, whether it is getting unemployed into jobs, rescuing abused children etc. Indigenous people are disadvantaged, so IMHO the key thing is that we work to address this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...