Rod Dreher

Rod Dreher


Paternalism and Australia’s Aborigines

posted by Rod Dreher

Via The Browser, here’s a morally complicated story about how the Australian government, in an attempt to restore moral order to out-of-control Aboriginal communities, stepped in and took substantial control of their lives. Excerpt:

Four years ago Nanette Rogers, a court prosecutor in Alice Springs, gave an explosive television interview. Her interview lifted the lid on a dark world of violence, sexual abuse and alcoholism in some of the territory’s remote aboriginal communities. She told of two babies being raped. She spoke of a “malaise”, “entrenched violence”, and of aboriginal people being “overwhelmed time and time again by a fresh new tragedy”. Once a public defender, Ms Rogers said she became a prosecutor because she was “sick of acting for violent aboriginal men”.
Her words sparked a chain of events that has divided Australia ever since. In June 2007 the conservative government led by John Howard announced a “Northern Territory Emergency Response”, which became better known as “the intervention”. Legislation that had banned racial discrimination in the territory was suspended, troops were sent in, and alcohol and pornography were prohibited in the “prescribed communities”. Half of every welfare payment due to the communities’ residents became subject to a kind of quarantine, obliging the state to “manage” their income.
Human-rights activists were outraged. They branded Mr Howard’s action a return to the white paternalism that had prevailed in this territory 34 years ago, before aborigines won their battle for land rights. Indigenous people comprise about a quarter of the Northern Territory’s population, compared with 2% in Australia as a whole. To those critics’ dismay, the Labor government headed by Kevin Rudd has continued with the intervention. After almost three years in power, it has yet to fulfil its pledge to reinstate the anti-racial discrimination law (although legislation to do so is now before parliament).
Yet the territory’s hidden horrors reflect a perplexing side of the indigenous Australians’ long struggle for self-determination. Why should violence, as Nanette Rogers maintains, be so entrenched in parts of aboriginal society? Some trace it to the nomadic way of life they led thousands of years before white settlers pushed them off their lands. Others put it down to a burning resentment at that dispossession, and a void filled mainly by booze and drugs. As the intervention reaches its third year this month, Hermannsburg is a good place to start testing its results, especially among those it was designed to rescue: aboriginal women.

Read the whole Economist report. Note especially that the intervention is supported by aboriginal women, who are tired of the alcoholism and abuse at the hands of aborginal men. It is, obviously, a shameful thing, fraught with racial history, for the white government to step in and take away many of the aboriginals’ liberties, including most especially the right to manage their own money. But these settlements are not 18th-century New England towns. They are reportedly cesspits of sexual abuse and substance abuse, where there is no moral authority to prevent the powerful — men — from abusing the weak, i.e., women and children.
In such a situation, what would you have the state do? Look away out of respect for individual rights and autonomy, and perhaps in deference to the whites’ ugly history of abusing and exploiting the aboriginals — abuse that included introducing alcohol to their communities, a drug to which, like many Native peoples, they had special vulnerability? Or would you have had the government step in, recognizing that the community was broken beyond its ability to repair itself, and that the feds had a responsibility to protect the weak from the strong?
The way I’ve framed the issue tells you where I come down: on the side of intervention. Nevertheless, given the racial history here, the intervention is an occasion for shame all around. Something like this is unthinkable in the American constitutional context, so I imagine Australia can get away with it under its own form of governance. Still, the intervention raises interesting questions about the limits of self-governance, and conditions under which it is immoral to respect democracy and certain individual rights. It’s also interesting to contemplate the moral position of white authority in Australia and what its moral duty is to address a devastated cultural situation for aboriginals that previous generations of white authority created. What happens when the only effective intervention, given the harsh realities here, requires dehumanizing the aboriginals by treating them paternalistically? Or is it the case that treating the aboriginals humanely, and atoning for past crimes against them, requires treating them paternalistically?
No easy answers here. Whites are basically stepping in and telling these black communities that they cannot run themselves — and doing so on behalf of black children and black women, who are tired of being mistreated by the drunken men there, and who welcome the state’s intervention. I say the state has to intervene to protect the weak, even if it does so with a conflicted conscience.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(35)
post a comment
Rombald

posted June 14, 2010 at 7:15 am


If what is reported is broadly correct, I would come down on the side of intervention, as long as it is genuinely benevolent. I am actually sympathetic to more state intervention for dealing with violent and dysfunctional communities in many countries.
However, your mention of “whites’ ugly history of abusing and exploiting the aboriginals” is, to put it mildly, an understatment. At least during certain episodes of British rule, the policy towards the Aborigines was genocidal, and there were also genocidal episodes after Australian independence. I’ve noticed before how you use the Nazi Holocaust to give the Jews and Israel a blank cheque, but don’t apply anything like the same reasoning to US blacks, or in this case Australian aborigines.



report abuse
 

Rod Dreher

posted June 14, 2010 at 7:23 am


Rombald, there is a big difference between affirming Israel’s right to exist, and giving the Israelis a blank check. I don’t approve of everything the Israeli government chooses to do. I have avoided commenting on the recent aid ship incident because it strikes me as falling outside the scope of this blog’s purview. It’s true that I am more sympathetic to military actions taken by Israel’s government against its enemies than you are, but that’s not because I believe the Holocaust earned the Jewish people a blank check; it’s because in those cases, I believe the actions to be morally justified. Like most American Jews, I think the Israeli government does some stupid and unjustifiable things (e.g., its settlements policy).
Anyway, I don’t want this thread to devolve into an Israel argument, so let me advise readers that I will delete any further Israel commentary. If you wish to communicate your thoughts to me privately, e-mail me at rdreher (at) templeton (dot) org.



report abuse
 

ilnj

posted June 14, 2010 at 8:04 am


Australian Aboriginals are NOT “black” – many of them have blond hair. They have dark skin, but lighter than many on the Indian subcontinent. They are a distinct race. Calling them “black” ties them in to an American dialog which is not appropriate.



report abuse
 

YrName

posted June 14, 2010 at 8:51 am


My previous comment appears to have been eaten. Apologies for any repeat.
Something like this is unthinkable in the American constitutional context
I’m not sure that’s true. I wouldn’t be that surprised to find something similar in the history of our treatment of Native Americans. And I think those populations either currently do or have had problems with both alcoholism and abuse.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted June 14, 2010 at 9:05 am


My question would be whether Australian government is ready to take on this kind of responsibility. Ordinarily, I would argue that the protection of citizens is paramount, but the last effort to do so, which ended just four decades ago, involved literally taking indigenous Australian children from their homes.
The charge of paternalism, then, isn’t simply a political harangue. It is easy for us to assume that Australia shares our history of racial integration, but the truth is that the nation is (albeit quickly) playing catchup.
A program like this would not be so benevolent in the wrong hands. This is true of any centralized government intervention, and Australia has a demonstrated track record of good governance, and so I am inclined to side with the women who see the governmental intervention as positive.



report abuse
 

Andrea

posted June 14, 2010 at 9:13 am


Ideally, the Aboriginal leaders should play a substantial role in decision making, limit setting and the penalties for any crimes that are committed. I think the intervention may do more harm than good if it’s imposed from the top down. But obviously you must take children away from families that are abusing them in any way and prosecute adults who abuse children or other adults. I’m not sure that I agree with an alcohol ban. Adults have a right to self-governance and to use or abuse alcohol provided they hurt no one but themselves.
The U.S. did practice paternalism with American Indian tribes and there’s still a considerable amount of resentment and a legacy of damage carrying into third or fourth generations. From what I know of history, there are strong parallels between Australians and their treatment of the Aboriginal peoples and the U.S. and its treatment of American Indians. Tribes in the U.S. are now largely self-governing and are technically nations in their own right. By law, children must be placed first with family, then with members of the same tribe, then with members of another tribe, and THEN with white adoptive parents if no other Indian adoptive parents can be found. The law was needed because so many Indian children were removed and placed with whites. There are still a lot of problems on Indian reservations, largely due to poverty, larger numbers of single parent families, lack of employment opportunities, etc. There are higher rates of crime, addiction, child abuse, etc. as often happens in poverty-stricken areas. American Indian students tend to do worse on achievement tests and in school, thanks to poverty, larger numbers of single-parent families and perhaps cultural differences that make the tests biased in favor of white culture. American Indian tribes have tried to combat those problems with culturally based solutions. I’m not sure that well-meaning federal governments will be successful in solving the problems. I think it’s generally better for the people themselves to address their problems using culturally based tools and working with people they know and respect. I’d guess the Australian government’s approach makes these people feel angry and disrespected and powerless and that’s never a good way to empower people or result in a positive change.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted June 14, 2010 at 9:52 am


Thoughtful post, Rod. Those of us who have lived or worked on or near certain Indian reservations in the Western U.S. probably have wrestled with the same concerns. I recall that whenever I drove through Lame Deer, Montana (Northern Cheyenne Reservation) coming home from work on a Saturday night, it seemed as if at least half the population was staggering down the street, thoroughly drunk. And the unemployment, crime, domestic violoence, teenage pregnancy and poverty rates were sky high.



report abuse
 

Neil D

posted June 14, 2010 at 10:24 am


We Americans certainly weren’t shy about saving Iraqis or Afghans from their poor choices. I wonder if there is any differnce between us and the Australians on this point. We invaded those countries to help the good people be rid of bad governments and remove a threat.
Isn’t that paternalism too?



report abuse
 

lancelot lamar

posted June 14, 2010 at 10:37 am


Uh, Rod, it’s not “their own money” if it is government welfare payments that are being garnisheed.
Would that our own government would be as proactive in managing the affairs of our large and getting larger welfare-receiving population, who spend a great deal of the taxpayer dollars they receive on alcohol and drugs. (By welfare I do not mean TANF so much as SSI and SSDI, which is where the welfare caseload has migrated to en masse. And unless you work with that caseload, as I do, don’t tell me what is the case and what is not the case with them.)
This will never happen, of course. The US is too far gone into decadence to demand responsibility or accountability from anyone who is a “victim” of racism, homophobia, sexism, classism, etc., etc., etc.



report abuse
 

The Man From K Street

posted June 14, 2010 at 10:42 am


The same thing is sort of happening in slow motion here in the States. Basically, you can see the gamut of programs geared towards “inner-city youths” (yeah, that’s the euphemism we’ll use since talking about race is both uncomfortable and fraught with danger)–Head Start, formalized after-school programs, free day care, subsidized breakfasts when school is in session, summer lunches when school is out, etc.–as a patch-work mosaic designed to keep them away from their dysfunctional homes as much as possible and under the care of the State for as many hours as can be managed.
No doubt circa 2060 our grandchildren’s elected regimes will be issuing the same sort of ritual apologies and mea culpas for the “Stolen Generation” of inner-city youths that we see the current Australian and Canadian governments professing to the aborigines and First Nations, respectively.



report abuse
 

The Man From K Street

posted June 14, 2010 at 10:49 am


I just find it more than mildly amusing to know that the nanny-state liberals of 2010, agitating for more social spending on these sorts of programs, will be seen, caricatured, and denounced as callous, hateful monsters for their efforts in a few decades time.



report abuse
 

Peter

posted June 14, 2010 at 10:55 am


No doubt circa 2060 our grandchildren’s elected regimes will be issuing the same sort of ritual apologies and mea culpas for the “Stolen Generation” of inner-city youths that we see the current Australian and Canadian governments professing to the aborigines and First Nations, respectively.
Given we haven’t done that for our own First Nation/aboriginal publications, I don’t think you have a lot to worry about K Street. The U.S. is susprisingly inept at issuing apologies for its past treatment of people.



report abuse
 

Neil D

posted June 14, 2010 at 11:03 am


@K Street
I know it’s fashionable to call out “nanny-state liberals.” But what are Christians to make of Matthew chapter 25?
“41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’
We can certainly debate the most effective means of helping people. It may or may not be the “nanny-state” approach favored by us liberals, but I find it striking that we are still debating the moral imperative to help.
And are we really prepared to call Medicare the “nanny-state”? Are we really willing to leave 90 year olds on the street to die?
Aren’t those 90 year olds just as guilty as the drunken Aboriginal men for not properly taking care of themselves? How dare those old people run out of money for food, shelter, and medical care? If they had been better at managing their money when young, we wouldn’t have to help them so much.
I’m sure you’ll think this comparison is unfair, but I don’t. No one is EVER worthy enough for charity. Misfortune is almost always due to some sin or accident and we can always second-guess their actions to justify letting people suffer the consequences.



report abuse
 

meh

posted June 14, 2010 at 11:10 am


http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-australian-pm-offers-apology-to.html
This popular “Stolen Generations” topic was the subject of Philip Noyce’s acclaimed 2002 movie “Rabbit-Proof Fence” about three half-white girls in the 1930s who are forcibly taken from their loving, caring Aboriginal communities by a racist Australian official (played by Kenneth Branagh) and put into boarding schools, from which they run away to go back home by following Australia’s long rabbit-proof fence that divides agricultural land from waste land..
………………………
The bizarrely ironic thing is that the star of “Rabbit-Proof Fence,” an illiterate 11-14 year old half-Aborigine girl named Everlyn Sampi, hated working on Noyce’s grueling movie and kept running away. She’d be found and returned to Noyce.
When it was over, Noyce, who had grown fond of his unruly star, became alarmed at the fate awaiting her if she returned to her alcoholism and sexual abuse-stricken community. So, like the evil Branagh character in his movie, he enrolled her in … a boarding school. Noyce mused, “I found myself thinking, ‘I have to look after her. She can live with us. I’ll send her to school.”
But, she didn’t like Noyce’s boarding school and, just like the character she played in the movie, left for home.



report abuse
 

Ian

posted June 14, 2010 at 12:37 pm


I think some of it is aimed at social control of a marginal population. The grandees of post-marxist liberalism get scared when groups, some of which they have previously idolised, do not conform to their social ideas.



report abuse
 

celticdragonchick

posted June 14, 2010 at 12:55 pm


No easy answers here. Whites are basically stepping in and telling these black communities that they cannot run themselves — and doing so on behalf of black children and black women, who are tired of being mistreated by the drunken men there, and who welcome the state’s intervention. I say the state has to intervene to protect the weak, even if it does so with a conflicted conscience.
If you break it, you buy it.
Yeah, the government really did have to step in, but they started the chain of events that led to the problem in the first place.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted June 14, 2010 at 1:09 pm


“Uh, Rod, it’s not “their own money” if it is government welfare payments that are being garnisheed.”
Quite true. Maybe they should simply dip into that great sum of money they were paid in exchange for giving up their land. Kind of like the compensation we paid the natives in this nation when we purchased the land and helped them relocate to better.



report abuse
 

daisy

posted June 14, 2010 at 1:19 pm


The Australians would be wise to steer clear of this. Aboriginal life is pretty nasty in private but it is their life.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted June 14, 2010 at 1:29 pm


“I think some of it is aimed at social control of a marginal population. The grandees of post-marxist liberalism get scared when groups, some of which they have previously idolised, do not conform to their social ideas.”
Yes. It is a terrible shame that when the Europeans came to their shores they simply didn’t just vacate the land, move into some remote part of the desert, and summarily commit group suicide. Of course, such an act would be considered irresponsible since it would leave that part of the land needing a clean-up, but at least it wouldn’t be costing the descendents of these Europeans any pocket change these days. And they wouldn’t be troubling society with their alcoholism, drug use, sexual abuse, and general self-destructive behavior.
Perhaps if they had borne up to being displaced as well as the Celts or Scots had done, they wouldn’t have been in this mess today.
Interesting Captcha: mnemonic Nationalist



report abuse
 

Marvin

posted June 14, 2010 at 1:39 pm


Exactly the same situation with Native people in Western Canada. Chiefs are corrupt, pocketing all band money, blowing it, and then getting more due to whatever sob story they make up. Other band members, women and children live in poverty, and that is somehow the governments fault. Nobody can say anything because they would be tagged as a racist. Native crime rates are through the roof, and victims are almost always other Natives. Most youth are in gangs for self protection, and this breeds more violence. Self government was touted 15 years ago, but it died a quick death on protest of (as Rod suggested) women, who prefer a flawed but more-or-less fair family serivces department than Native justice run by the chiefs. Hollywood keeps cranking out “noble savage” movies, so policy makers and general public opinion see problems as “what did white people do wrong to make this happen”.
Intervention would work, but it would be a big political cost, and any problems would be blown up by the media, so no one wants to do it. Police and social workers are all racist by today’s definition because they deal with these problems every day, so they keep their mouths shut to keep their jobs.



report abuse
 

Cecelia

posted June 14, 2010 at 3:12 pm


It seems like native people both in Oz and the US are neither here nor there – they are not integrated fully into contemporary society but they are no longer nomadic hunter gatherers. What are the goals of the aboriginal society? To preserve ancient traditions when the context of those traditions is long gone? That welfare plays a large role in their lives seems key to understanding why their communities have become so dysfunctional. Perhaps because the men are deprived of their traditional roles their only way to experience control and power becomes subjugating the women and children. Or were women and children at a disadvantage even in traditional aborigine society?
I find it interesting too that in both the case of Canadian Native people and the aborigines – it is women who support state intervention so they can be protected from their men. What does this say about our own beliefs about the value of community and localism?



report abuse
 

BobSF

posted June 14, 2010 at 3:57 pm


I always find the use of the word “paternalism” odd in cases like this. A father, in theory at least, would do anything for his children. Well, a good one anyway.
The Australians and we do the very least we can. We, and they, could start by recognizing treaties (flawed and tainted as even they are).
Instead, maybe the Aborigines will get casinos!



report abuse
 

John E. - Agn Stoic

posted June 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm


I do not have the slightest idea what the ‘right’ thing to do is in this situation, but the paternalistic program as described does seem good from a utilitarian standpoint.
captcha: on dominica



report abuse
 

stari_momak

posted June 14, 2010 at 5:31 pm


As always, the ‘two state solution’ is the best. Give the indigenous some land, let them run it totally by themselves, clear whatever whites are there out.
Notice how are paternalism — a la ‘Blind Side’ or now bullock’s real life ‘Blind Side’ is playing out. Whites stop having children — or forego spending their resources on additional biological children — and instead adopt others’ children. Quite the trend, and not only among celebs. I recently an article about a young Montreal couple who adopted five black kids — maybe they had problems conceiving, but both looked youthful and vigorous. Such a shame.



report abuse
 

stari_momak

posted June 14, 2010 at 5:42 pm


I’ve noticed that those who gnash their teeth the loudest about ‘our’ treatment of the ‘native Americans’ are people whose ancestors arrived on these shores long after old stock Americans had made the country safe for civilization and immigrants. Sometimes, however, they are African Americans who, naturally, don’t see themselves as part of this supposedly ‘shameful’ past.
Here’s another view, by a pretty smart American:
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted June 14, 2010 at 6:19 pm


“I’ve noticed that those who gnash their teeth the loudest about ‘our’ treatment of the ‘native Americans’ are people whose ancestors arrived on these shores long after old stock Americans had made the country safe for civilization and immigrants.”
Because as we all know there was no civilization on the continent prior to the arrival of the Europeans and Christianity. Why, the very idea that these people existed here for some few thousand years prior to the arrival of those first explorers is absurd!
As stari so aptly points out, civilization was the gift of the European. That it was presented on the point of a bayonet is merely an aside.



report abuse
 

hlvanburen

posted June 14, 2010 at 6:34 pm


Honestly, Stari, the discussion is pretty much useless. What we saw play out in the past in Australia, North America, and for that matter Europe and the Middle East is a cycle that will repeat itself over and over, with varying frequency, as long as humans inhabit this planet. The salute you make to those old guard Americans who made this country safe for “civilization and immigration” is the same song what will be sung by those who inhabit this nation in 100 years. The difference will be that they will likely be darker in color than you and I, speak some form of Spanish language, and hopefully will treat our descendents better than our ancestors treated them.
Now I can almost hear you talking about taking up arms to protect your way of life and people. Go ahead..do it. It will get you pretty much what it got the Navajo, Mesquawkie, and Cherokee.
Teach your kids how to run games of chance, Stari. It might help them in the times to come.



report abuse
 

Scott Lahti

posted June 14, 2010 at 6:42 pm


Long as they don’t give them blankets: Smallpox Is Not Beautiful…



report abuse
 

meh

posted June 14, 2010 at 10:15 pm


BobSF: “A father, in theory at least, would do anything for his children. Well, a good one anyway.”
The Anglo-Saxons managed to hit the sweet spot between the kind of cut-throat individualism seen in a handful of cultures (most notoriously the Pushtuns of Afghanistan, who subscribe to the extraordinary proverb “When the floodwaters reach your chin, put your son beneath your feet”) and the more workable extended family cultures seen in, say, Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.



report abuse
 

Hector

posted June 14, 2010 at 11:32 pm


Re: I just find it more than mildly amusing to know that the nanny-state liberals of 2010, agitating for more social spending on these sorts of programs, will be seen, caricatured, and denounced as callous, hateful monsters for their efforts in a few decades time.
K Street,
If it means helping a child to get adequate nutrition, shelter, education, medical care, socialisation, and the chance to grow up with good examples of character and a healthy value system, then I’d be happy to pay the price of being called a bigot two decades from now.
The Australian indigenous people were treated abominably of course, including through genocide, especially in Tasmania. Nevertheless, ultimately if we have to choose, we should choose the physical and emotional well being of a child over the right of the parents to maintain their culture. Children don’t choose their parents, and they need to be protected.



report abuse
 

Milangka

posted June 15, 2010 at 1:06 am


Aboriginal communities were neglected for decades by the Country Liberal government in the NT and the last decade of the Howard era. Poverty, overcrowded and/or substandard housing, inadequate education, lack of resources – you name it. The research and subsequent report that initiated the ‘report that the ‘Intervention’ – the Little Children Are Sacred report – had 97 recommendations. This report was ignored by the Howard government who used the takeover of 73 Aboriginal communities as a political ploy. The current Rudd government has continued on this path, blindly repeating mistakes of the psst. Until Aboriginal people are empowered and enabled to find their own solutions the situation will not improve. Some Hermannsburg women (and indeed a handful from other communities) say they like income management. Many women are Hermannsburg and elsewhere are worried at the illicit or absent drinking that now takes place. Many Aboriginal communities prior to the Intervention did not have alcohol in their communities – or pornography for that matter. All Aboriginal people are continually to be stigmatised and treated in an unequal manner. Racism in the Northern Territory is on the upsurge, aided by the NT Intervention. Lives are not improving.



report abuse
 

Karl G

posted June 15, 2010 at 12:14 pm


I definitely come down on the side of intervention here, but not the kind of intervention that was chosen, which basically amounts to punishing people from the crime of being poor.
The intervention that they need is economic- pay them to build a future for themselves and they’ll start acting like the future matters. Create jobs in their areas- even if, for the short term then need to be make-work efforts. Try to get the kids to go to school, but more importantly provide care for the kids and pay to send the _adults_ to school. Seed businesses and industries for them to work at, train locals on the job to take over ownership and management of them.
Make good behavior possible in the first place, and provide tangible rewards for it; the other abuses will be impossible to control until the people actually have something to lose if they commit them.



report abuse
 

Karl G

posted June 15, 2010 at 12:20 pm


(On this general matter, people would do well to not only watch District 9, but then to watch the deleted and unfinished scenes from it as well. The behavior of the people becomes even more starkly cruel and paternalistic when you see it being done to a normal looking white guy reading the alien lines.)



report abuse
 

MMH

posted June 15, 2010 at 5:00 pm


Cecelia (June 14, 2010 3:12 PM) is right: along with so many traditional peoples, the Aboriginal people of Australia have for the most part lost their traditional way of life, which doesn’t fit well with a contemporary western model, but are not integrated into the latter, either. So they have the virtues neither of their culture nor of the modern west. It’s not wonder they’re lost and their society is so problem-ridden. The question then is, is it realistic, is it possible, to revive their old traditions? If not, will forcing them into compliance with outward good behavior offer them anything lasting? It’s not enough to tell people to say no; we all need a good reason to do so.



report abuse
 

SAM

posted March 4, 2012 at 9:42 pm


all the stats have been shown as over stated, they are actually better then major centers and citys, we have had a commisioned report, once again ignored by the government, out of 140 recommendations they have implimented 4 recommendations, the only negative recommendation to come out of the report, it has more to do with the mineral rich land, not Aboriginal issues, but as always they blame Aboriginals when they have never had the chance to get something wrong, the government control Aboriginal peoples lives and they have a failure rate of 100%, then when they ask why to the government the murdoch media will run a smear campain and the dumb majority eat up the lies dished to them, I wish the typical aussie was smarter but its easier to be told then to think for your self, to many myths like Aboriginal culture is lost, no it isnt, its just hidden from view, has anybody had the respect to talk to an Aboriginal about your thoughts, or to comment like its fact when you dont know an Aboriginal, thats a huge part of the problem, stop presenting things as fact, ask the ones who know, or have enough respect to not comment when your dont know out of respect and to not offend



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Rod Dreher. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Most Recent Scientology Story on Beliefnet! Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:25:02pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Mommy explains her plastic surgery
In Dallas (naturally), a parenting magazine discusses how easy it is for mommies who don't like their post-child bodies to get surgery -- and to have it financed! -- to reverse the effects of time and childbirth. Don't like what nursing has done to your na-nas? Doc has just the solution: Doctors say

posted 10:00:56pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Why I became Orthodox
Wrapping up my four Beliefnet years, I was thinking about the posts that attracted the most attention and comment in that time. Without a doubt the most popular (in terms of attracting attention, not all of it admiring, to be sure) was the October 12, 2006, entry in which I revealed and explained wh

posted 9:46:58pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

Modern Calvinists
Wow, they don't make Presbyterians like they used to!

posted 8:47:01pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »

'Rape by deception'? Huh?
The BBC this morning reported on a bizarre case in Israel of an Arab man convicted of "rape by deception," because he'd led the Jewish woman with whom he'd had consensual sex to believe he was Jewish. Ha'aretz has the story here. Plainly it's a racist verdict, and a bizarre one -- but there's more t

posted 7:51:28pm Jul. 21, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.