As I'm looking at it, your comment does cut close to the bone but from a different perspective.
What I and I think many have in mind, and I'll use some examples to illustrate including on other subjects:
It used to be the case that the push was to deal with violence and abuse. So things like people being bashed or raped and so on and I think it's fair to say no respectable person would dispute that's something that needs to be prevented.
In recent times however that push has shifted - no longer are we talking about someone being bashed senseless, now the complaint is that someone called them names. Names yes, words, spoken words not a fist or kick in sight.
It used to be that the environmental push was to save places of special significance eg Fraser Island, Franklin River, Kakadu and so on and whilst some disagreed they could at least follow what the argument was about and that there was some basis to it, any disagreement being one of value judgements about priorities. The value of the resource for human use versus the value of the unspoilt natural environment.
That very rapidly escalated to a broad attack on pretty much any development in regional areas apart from the big mines in WA and Qld. It went from saving a few special places to a broad attack on the regions and ended up completely wiping out entire industries and creating regions of sustained economic disadvantage which remain to this day.
It used to be that we sent people to prison for violent crimes, arson, major fraud and things like that.
Today we hear an endless stream of excuses about hard upbringings and so on to justify not sending someone to prison for doing something most agree warrants it. But call someone names or get their gender wrong and it's off to prison you go. Because yeah, we all know calling someone a rude name is more serious than burning the local shops to the ground or killing an elderly person walking down the street.
It used to be that we had welfare for people who for whatever reason found themselves in trouble. In that context few begrudged the idea that we provide support to help them get back up on their feet or, for those with genuine serious disabilities etc, support them for life. In a civilised society that seems like the right thing to do and, crucial point, there aren't many such people so the cost per worker is minimal. It's a nice reassurance for everyone knowing it's there should you ever need it.
Today we've come to a point where there's a government handout to replace a light bulb and I mean that literally, in some states that is indeed the case. It seems pretty much everyone's getting money for something - meanwhile a diminishing portion of the population is paying tax to fund it all.
And so on.
In principle I agree with the idea that we have welfare for those in genuine need, that we conserve places of genuine high value, that violence is unacceptable and so on. No disagreement there whatsoever.
But it's all gone way too far. The masses are suffering, to the point that even just buying their own home is increasingly out of reach, meanwhile the elites prattle on that someone was offended by words, that there's something spoiling their view and so on.
Those outside the inner suburban media, political, academic, management and activist bubble have simply had enough. This day was always going to come, that sentiment has been rising for many years now, and it's not about Aboriginals. They're just the ones caught in the crossfire.
That's not really about First World versus Third World. In the First World, being able to have a roof over your head is generally taken for granted after all, that it's no longer a given has been the tipping point. Aboriginals might be doing it tough but they're not the only ones.
Assuming a genuine desire for improved circumstances, there really shouldn't be a conflict between Aboriginal people and mainstream Australia. They're not the problem and there's a lot in common there if we think about it. Both want a roof over their heads and neither has been at all well served by a city-centric political system that, apart from Kevin Rudd's relatively brief time as PM, has had the country run by a PM from Sydney or Melbourne constantly for more than 40 years now.
Hawke, Keating, Howard, Gillard, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Albanese have one thing in common. They're all from Sydney or Melbourne electorates. That's a big part of the problem, that since federation we've had just one PM from each of WA and Tas, none from SA or NT, and even Queensland hasn't produced many in recent times, Rudd being the only one since the 1940's and his total time as PM was less than 3 years.
The whole system's far too centred on the big two cities and that explains an awful lot.....