Unweaving the web of Aboriginal welfare dependency won’t be easy

In The Australian today
“It is not easy to imagine a less controversial statement than Tony Abbott’s claim that the arrival of the First Fleet was the “defining moment in the history of this continent”. Nor could it possibly be contentious that British settlement provided the foundation for Australia to become one of the most prosperous societies on Earth.”

About Henry Ergas

Henry Ergas is a columnist for The Australian newspaper and the inaugural Professor of Infrastructure Economics at the SMART Infrastructure Facility at the University of Wollongong. The SMART Infrastructure Facility is a $61.8 million world-class research and training centre concerned with integrated infrastructure solutions for the future. Henry is also Senior Economic Adviser to Deloitte Australia. Prior to these concurrent roles Henry worked as a consultant economist at NECG, CRA International and Concept Economics. Henry's previous career was as an economist at the OECD in Paris, where amongst other roles he headed the Secretary-General’s Task Force on Structural Adjustment and was Counsellor for Structural Policy in the Economics Department.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Unweaving the web of Aboriginal welfare dependency won’t be easy

  1. john constantine

    Look out the window, if there is glass in it, or if it is part of a waterproof windproof building, then you have proof that the first fleet was the defining moment for the australia you live in.

  2. john constantine

    People are money and power to those enriching themselves through the welfare industry.

    To the welfare industry, getting a client to identify as aboriginal is simply a way of getting themselves a pay rise for doing the same work with the same person.

  3. steve

    All I can say is that the Aboriginal community are not making it easy for themselves to get the majority of Australians to vote for recognition in the constitution. Personally, my attitude is, while I feel that they hate us, my vote will be “no”, and I feel that they hate us with a passion.

  4. Tel

    All I can say is that the Aboriginal community are not making it easy for themselves to get the majority of Australians to vote for recognition in the constitution.

    I would have thought such a vote should be decided by principle, not by who got grumpitty this week.

  5. Docket62

    And what point of history is used to define the ‘first, people, considering the aboriginals were simply nomadic tribes who migrated from what would later be Europe across the then land bridge……. On that basis we are all ‘first people’ and I’ll be buggered if that needs recognition in any document. If the activist aboriginal peoples stopped for two minutes to remove the Tasmanian sized chip on their shoulders, they might actually get ahead. They would certainly earn the respect of every other Australian with the notable exception of the tears eyed girls blouse and gorilla (note the use of ape may constitute an offence) – Adam Goodes.

  6. Roger

    Unweaving the web of Aboriginal welfare dependency won’t be easy

    A good place to start would be removing all weight given to “race” in connection with welfare and calibrating its distribution by need. Of course, very many indigenous folk will still qualify for welfare, but very many won’t (and one should include in “welfare” the monetary grants for education and home ownership given to folk who identify as indigenous). That would be significant progress towards a rational welfare system which serves as a social safety net and is not a subsidy to a particular section of the middle class.

  7. Token

    The damage the welfare state inflicted upon the poor and vulnerable mirrors the experience in the US, where groups found themselves locked out of the benefits enjoyed by broaders society.

  8. Ant

    So what would the Left regard as the defining moment in Australia’s history?

    Somehow, I think we would wait an eternity for an answer from these stubborn and brainless throwbacks who despise their own society so much that they simply refuse to acknowledge its greatness.

  9. Alfonso

    The Constitutional Preamble referendum is an attempt to lock in ideologically correct racism.
    Tony is doing Alinsky’s bidding.
    Alas for Tone, the infallible Tradies + Wives poll tells me it has buckley’s.
    Please bring it on.

  10. amortiser

    It does not matter whether you are black, white or brindle. When people understand that they can vote for an income rather than work for it, the society is on an inevitable downward spiral. When “need” becomes the currency of existence personal responsibility become an option to be avoided rather than a virtue to be pursued. As the principle of personal responsibility fades, civilised society fades with it.

  11. Roger

    So what would the Left regard as the defining moment in Australia’s history?

    I suspect the election of Whitlam in ’72.

  12. Token

    So what would the Left regard as the defining moment in Australia’s history?

    This faux outrage is a great way for the elites to alienate themselves from the majority of society.

    All you have to do is leave the unrepresentative enclaves the media lives in and any person that contested the idea would be laughed at.

  13. duncanm

    So what would the Left regard as the defining moment in Australia’s history?

    Signing the Kyoto protocol?

  14. Viva

    Don’t mention the Defining Moment.

  15. Tim Neilson

    Notice that all the people denying that the First Fleet was the defining moment are speaking their denials in English?

  16. Jessie

    Ergas’ article is excellent.
    Weatherburn gently demo­lishes the claim that those outcomes reflect indigenous disempowerment. As he shows, the differences in incarceration rates actually declined after 1900, with the current gap only emerging in the 1960s.

    Many variables have been tested over the decades. All these require funding, programs and evaluation to remediate. Endless papers. The only variable not tested is that of the concurrent ‘leaders’ and ‘traditional owners’ and that manifestation in every community and agency. This variable developed in the 70s? as the new Indigenous industry was being rolled out in rural and remote areas by urban ideologues. This new industry was based on US and Canada first nations, with little rigour in reporting. Just seen as replicable. Replicable for end goals but for victims of shocking violence little occurred over decades.
    http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/100-120/rpp105/06a.html

  17. the sting

    Perhaps the British should charge royalities to those indigenous ones using the wheel after all they brought it with the First Fleet.

  18. john malpas

    Some might consider it ‘Mabo’ – since then the aborigines seem to own – one way or another – most of Australia.

  19. Supplice

    amortiser
    #1435255, posted on September 1, 2014 at 8:33 am

    It does not matter whether you are black, white or brindle. When people understand that they can vote for an income rather than work for it, the society is on an inevitable downward spiral. When “need” becomes the currency of existence personal responsibility become an option to be avoided rather than a virtue to be pursued. As the principle of personal responsibility fades, civilised society fades with it.

    QFT

  20. Toiling Mass

    If you removed the advantage of being an Aborigine in welfare, grants, and professional preferments, the Aboriginal population of the nation would plummet.

    Just a handful of people with dark skin and most of their ancestors here before the first fleet in all likelihood.

  21. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Tel at 8:02 am:

    ” … the Aboriginal community are not making it easy for themselves to get the majority of Australians to vote for recognition …

    I would have thought such a vote should be decided by principle, not by who got grumpitty this week.

    I’ve already decided Tel, based on the principle that enough of my taxes have been diverted for no return over the 45 year run.

    “grumpitty” – is that how one describes the condition of the infant wandering through Wadeye township this morning, confused, sore and bleeding from what her father and her uncles and their mates shoved into her body last night?

    Pray tell how a “vote” for anything, and a high minded discussion on “principles”, is going to solve her problem, in the context of “immediate”, “now”, “today”?

  22. Baldrick

    Unweaving the web of Aboriginal welfare dependency won’t be easy.

    Goes for all Australians.

  23. Mr Rusty

    I once had a lengthy discussion with some colleagues from India who quite eloquently made the point that, despite the odd mistake here and there, British colonialism was overall a very good thing for their country. It was like the Life of Brian “What have the Roman’s ever done for us” scene in a parallel Universe, the message being that the British had imparted the rule of law, free markets and capitalism, democratic institutions, the English language, female emancipation, science and technology etc. that helped lift the country from an impoverished hell hole to a rising world power. This was not a begrudging admission but a genuine “Thank God for British colonialism” because they recognised that without it the Indian subcontinent would today be more akin to the African subcontinent, or worse. I suspect much of their beliefs came down to education, they knew of the Amritsar Massacre and other negatives but also recognised the invaluable contributions of colonialism. A little bit more of that attitude from the Abo’s might go a long way to reconciliation; if we are to have a “Sorry Day” then why not also have a “Thankyou Day” or perhaps a parallel “Recognise” campaign – i.e. recognise that without benefits brought after “Invasion Day” the Abo’s would have short, brutal, miserable lives – though some still do but that is largely thanks to the complete antithesis of classical Western liberal democracy that reared it’s ugly head at the turn of the 20th C.

  24. steve

    Tel
    #1435234, posted on September 1, 2014 at 8:02 am

    I would have thought such a vote should be decided by principle, not by who got grumpitty this week.

    You vote the way you want and I will vote the way I want.

  25. David

    Mr Rusty, spot on. You have my vote for the post of the month!!!

  26. MartinG

    The premise of the question was, ‘What was defining moment in Australian history’

    Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s commentated that the arrival of the First Fleet was the defining moment in Australian history

    Now look how Warren Mundine doesn’t even understand the premise of the question.

    The chairman of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, Warren Mundine, has told ABC Radio that white settlement was “a disastrous defining moment for indigenous people”.

    So Warren Mundine agrees with Tony Abbott.

  27. Onlooker

    The whole notion that Colonization by Britain was a bad thing is based on the idea that, had it not happened, Aborigines would have been left to independently “run” the continent right up to the present day; they would still be here and running the show. And this would be somehow better (maybe much better) than how it’s panned out.

    The problem with such fantasizing however is that there have been a lot of much worse things happen to countries and peoples in our region since 1788 which were not grabbed by Britain;, especially during WWII. I’d love to read some Luvvy Academic….or some Luvvy wannabe-Indigenous academic in particular….giving us their insights into how they reckon a non-Colonized Aboriginal Australia would’ve gone against the Japanese in 1941 or so, and then under their rule to the present. Would any Aborigine be alive today? Any?

  28. Grumbles

    We came, we saw, we conquered. Get over it, losers.

  29. Ant

    “…a disastrous defining moment for indigenous people…”

    Really, Mr Mundine?

    Do tell us what the infant mortality rate and life expectancy was for indigenous people prior to white settlement.

    Yes, atrocities did occur here – as they did elsewhere, and these have been laboriously picked at and analysed and grieved over and apologised for and, and, and…nothing bloody useful has come of them for the poor bastards living in Wadeye – have they? Or have they?

    Do tell. But don’t expect me to waste a minute’s sleep self flagellating over the plight of those that suffered in the past. Not when I work and pay taxes so that it can be swallowed up by giant bureaucracies (which sustain you) that are supposed to care and provide for indigenous people.

    Not complaining. But your complaining rightly pisses me off.

    Apologising for this is the ultimate in self gratifying posturing. Wanking, for want of a better word.

    We are here today to do what’s humane and right for those that are living today.

    And seeing that symbolism appears to be so important to some, a simple statement of fact, as that was by Abbott, betrays some real motives in those now loudly whining.

  30. Token

    We came, we saw, we conquered. Get over it, losers.

    Each and every tribe which existed when the first fleet arrived existed in its location by conquering the people who had existed in the space before them. Each & every tribe lived a subsistance life where excess population was removed cultural or via starvation & disease.

    That is the reality of human existance until technology is provided to enable agricultural on a scale which provides enough food for all.

    Which event resulted in the introduction of the technology & species which resolved the regular food crises?

  31. Leigh Lowe

    The chairman of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, Warren Mundine, has told ABC Radio that white settlement was “a disastrous defining moment for indigenous people”.

    It was no picnic for British handkerchief thieves either.
    Get over it.

  32. Token

    …that white settlement was “a disastrous defining moment for indigenous people”.

    So does he want the food security, the modern medecine and education removed again?

  33. Crossie

    So what would the Left regard as the defining moment in Australia’s history?

    I suspect the election of Whitlam in ’72.

    No, it is his dismissal. Just wait when he dies, it will all be brought back in full living colour with that speech playing on a continuous loop on all channels.

  34. Toiling Mass

    No, it is his dismissal.

    Probably right. Posing as victim is their preferred posture. Even while they are gagging your mouth and pilfering your pockets, they insist they are the victim.

  35. Grumbles

    I don’t remember the First Ship in Sydney, can someone who was there tell me what it was like and how it affected their lives?

  36. Alfonso

    Forgive the posturing aggression of Aboriginal elite like Warren. The situation has much in common with the Arab world, where Muslims have a deep shame at the backward, failed nature of their culture and society and lash out to compensate.

  37. oldsalt

    Token, genetics and linguistics are telling a different story to your ‘conquering tribes’. The former indicates very small incoming groups of males replaced the previous males but the female line continued. The latter indicates Pama Nyungan replacing the previous Non PN languages with superior technology and ceremonial complexity, not displacing the original speakers.

    My kids have indig heritage thanks to their mum. Welfare hasn’t helped us but it’s helped the extended family. The kids are still too young, eldest 14, and not interested in identity issues, but if we think that future indig programs can help take financial pressure from education costs, we’ll probably do it.

    The pressure to conform is everywhere. The Cadet Officer’s eyes lit up when she saw our eldest, they have a specially funded program for indig kids. We want our kids to make their own decisions when old enough, we don’t want them placed in a box and labelled. Yes, money can drive identity, if you have the choice. Once you sign up for it, it reinforces identity.

    We know some quite prominent people in the north and west who have invented their heritage. We also know some, including a Qantas pilot and a former Uni Vice Chancellor whose families want to keep quiet about their Nannas.

    How would the Japanese have treated indig? The same way they did other indig in SE Asia. NW Kimberley people were taken from country to Mowanjum, Melville and Bathurst people taken to the mainland because we were scared they might collaborate. In Makassar, the Japanese promised the Raja the return of Marege to his Kingdom, in return for his support.

    Mr Rusty. The ‘Abos’ of whom you write were forging transnational relationships prior to Brit settlement. In 1875 the lugger Azelea hired 18 indig divers from Port Essington in Makassar for the pearling season in Cossack. The Dutch Gov made it a requirement of their hire that they be returned to Makassar.

    Ergas’ stats on incarceration are useless for comparative purposes, too many indig people were just killed rather than jailed.

    L.Lowe – get over it? Get over genocide? You vile man.

  38. Grumbles

    Yes, old salt, get over it, you weren’t there, neither were your kids or your wife, I wasn’t there, No one I know was there. Everyone is a person, in their own circumstances, none of us is a statistic. You make your own identity, you should make your own choices and you should suffer your own consequences. I owe no one race or identity anything, especially not for things that happened long before my birth. So, get over it.

  39. Hugh

    From Ch 17 of “A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson” by Watkin Tench. (Tench left Sydney in Dec 1791)

    “But indeed the women are in all respects treated with savage barbarity. Condemned not only to carry the children but all other burthens, they meet in return for submission only with blows, kicks and every other mark of brutality. When an Indian [Aboriginal] is provoked by a woman, he either spears her or knocks her down on the spot. On this occasion he always strikes on the head, using indiscriminately a hatchet, a club or any other weapon which may chance to be in his hand. The heads of the women are always consequently seen in the state which I found that of Gooreedeeana. Colbee, who was certainly, in other respects a good tempered merry fellow, made no scruple of treating Daringa, who was a gentle creature, thus. Baneelon [Bennelong] did the same to Barangaroo, but she was a scold and a vixen, and nobody pitied her. It must nevertheless be confessed that the women often artfully study to irritate and inflame the passions of the men, although sensible that the consequence will alight on themselves.”

    I think Tony Abbott’s defining moment might appeal to all women with a knowledge of history,

  40. gabrianga

    Is Mundine speaking on behalf of his Aboriginal or “white settler” ancestors as he clearly has both?

    I suggest PM Abbott will rue the day he gave Mundine the Aboriginal “jumper” though promotion from former Opposition parties seems to be the fashion these days.

  41. Wozzup

    ” Nor could it possibly be contentious that British settlement provided the foundation for Australia to become one of the most prosperous societies on Earth.”

    Except this is exactly what is part of the contention, at least as far as our sainted, and fragrant smelling Left is concerned.

    As for me, I am 110% with The Australian, I cannot possibly conceive of anyone with brains, the slightest sense of history and a balanced mind regarding this as contentious. But of course there we are, back once more to the members of the Left, spitting vitriol, piss and vinegar at anyone who shows the least admiration for western civilization and its achievements.

    Such people apparently lack the ability to understand that the position they occupy, their relative wealth and comfort, their ability speak out (in the invariably vile and self righteous way that they do) without the threat of physical violence or legal repercussion is courtesy of this civilization they apparently despise.

    They are properly labeled “self hating”.

    And of course then, on cue, when Abbott’s statement was reported, out came a professional Aborigine to whine about what he actually never said (although she claimed he did) , then to add insult to injury to also attack him for not saying what he should in her view have said (which in fact he had said). Having got it wrong on both counts, it was quite apparent that she had never heard his statement but seemed intent on taking offence in any event. Such is the Left, their minions and their pet commentators who will reliably trot out the right ideological garbage at the slightest opportunity.

  42. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From oldsalt at 3:34 pm :

    “L.Lowe – get over it? Get over genocide? You vile man.”

    Genocide? What genocide?

    The aborigines knocked off whoever was here when they arrived and then each other when intruding on each others patch – a bit like the Comanches or the Mongolians or the Aztecs.

    They sat about wondering how to get that wheelbarrow from place to place, other than by having four blokes carry it; thinking about knocking up dot paintings sometime down the track, in the 1930s (invented by Rex Batterbee of Warnambool, a white fella); and not doing smoking ceremonies ‘cos Ernie Dingo hadn’t come up with that one yet.

    Someone else turned up, there was a fight and they lost, just like happened to their predecessors.

    That’s how it happened way back then and they didn’t call it genocide.

    You know that, don’t you.

  43. Tel

    Pray tell how a “vote” for anything, and a high minded discussion on “principles”, is going to solve her problem, in the context of “immediate”, “now”, “today”?

    It isn’t going to make a difference, but that’s a given, so we could bring all sorts of irrelevant heart rending tragedy into the picture and the principle would remain.

    The question is whether property rights (i.e. the original owners of the land) or equality under law (i.e. not creating two arbitrary classes of Australian) should be stronger.

  44. Docket62

    @ old salt. “L.Lowe – get over it? Get over genocide? You vile man.”

    No, ‘old salt’ … Just because you choose to become a victim, doesn’t mean we treat you like one. Genocide? I don’t think so… Yes there were massacres, like every society. I’ve got Scottish heritage, so let me tell you about a variety of Scottish intra tribal massacres… But genocide? No, you go too far,

    You choose to use a system that may financially benefit you because of the your heritage. I have the option of using a system because of a medical condition that my daughter has. I CHOOSE not to because I have pride, and I don’t want the stigma attached to her

    Suggest you get some of that for yourself and your family, have some pride and don’t allow the stigma of welfare to infect your family.

    That’s what makes people strong.

  45. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From Tel at 8:27 pm:

    ” Pray tell how a “vote” for anything, and a high minded discussion on “principles”, is going to solve her problem, in the context of “immediate”, “now”, “today”?

    It isn’t going to make a difference, but that’s a given, so we could bring all sorts of irrelevant heart rending tragedy into the picture and the principle would remain.

    The question is whether property rights (i.e. the original owners of the land) or equality under law (i.e. not creating two arbitrary classes of Australian) should be stronger.”

    Fair enough, dismiss the bruised brat from Wadeye as irrelevant heart string tugging nonsense – there’s an earnest discussion to be had. That’s been a given ever since Gordon Bryant got the guernsey in ’72 and had that attitude embedded in Department of Aborigines mission statements from that day forth.

    “Original owners” is a fanciful lie. They didn’t keep title deeds and faithfully record land transfers in a great big First Nations Peopleses Registrar Generals Office/humpy yet, a couple of centuries later, they want to borrow a “principle” from a culture they hate ‘cos its profitable. Nice try.

    They got done over by a stronger force, as was fashionable for lots of cultures/races/clubs/genders in those times, and they lost the lot and secured the dole for life.

    Bad luck and the most fabulous good fortune all at once.

  46. Grumbles

    It was the failure of the then Indigenous government to defend its peoples property right. That is the primary purpose of government.

  47. .

    “Original owners” is a fanciful lie. They didn’t keep title deeds and faithfully record land transfers in a great big First Nations Peopleses Registrar Generals Office/humpy yet, a couple of centuries later, they want to borrow a “principle” from a culture they hate ‘cos its profitable. Nice try.

    I’d be pretty pissed off if I was dispossessed because the land titles office lost a copy of the certificate of title.

    I say we impress on Australia they did own the land, because the meme about the land owning them is communist claptrap pushed by lefties.

    They fought wars over land, altered it and controlled it. That pretty much fits the definition of property.

  48. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From . at 10:49 pm:

    “They fought wars over land, altered it and controlled it. That pretty much fits the definition of property.”

    But they all reckon the wars were only ever over their traditional hunting grounds at Vaucluse, the top end of Collins Street, Melbourne; and Manly Beach. The Noble Savage Elders doing the hunting rosters there must have been the busiest blokes in the Aborigine Peopleses Nation.

    There can’t have been many delicious kangaroos grazing out at Blayney or Wallerawang or Broadmeadows because they’ve shown no interest there. Some blow in tribe from Africa have taken possession of Dandenong and they don’t seem real keen to front them to demand they give it back.

  49. rebel with cause

    I say we impress on Australia they did own the land, because the meme about the land owning them is communist claptrap pushed by lefties.

    When it comes down to it, the left don’t trust Aboriginals. That’s why native title in Australia is a load of bollocks as it doesn’t allow Aboriginals to actually do anything with the land they are meant to be traditional owners of. A simple rule of thumb is that if you can’t sell something, you don’t own it. Ergo, Aboriginals do not own the land they have been given native title to.

    Now I’m not suggesting that we give Aboriginals Perth or Melbourne, but Australia has plenty of undeveloped tracts of land and national parks. Let’s hand some of them over lock, stock and barrel to tribal corporations to use as they see fit, be it for mining, tourism, housing development or just selling the land to the highest bidder and splitting the money.

    This would be a good way to kickstart development in the topend of Australia and do it right under the noses of the left. Of course there is the potential for a bunch of undesirable characters to get rich off this, but that happens already with land release and development right around Australia anyway, so hold your nose and get on with it I say.

  50. Leigh Lowe

    Here’s the thing.
    The 18th Century was an unmitigated shit-hole for great swathes of humanity.
    I repeat, get over it … or not … I really don’t care.
    They are no better than a maudlin drunk with 1/8 Irish heritage sitting in a bar in Brunswick gulping down Guiness and bemoaning the “great pertater famine”.

  51. .

    Myth no 1 busted:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yirrkala_bark_petitions

    The bark petitions asserted that the Yolngu people owned the land and protested the Commonwealth’s granting of mining rights to Nabalco of land excised from the Arnhem Aboriginal Land reserve.[2] The son of one of the Yirrkala plaintiffs, a Gumatj clan leader, Munggurrawuy, was Galarrwuy Yunupingu who assisted in drafting the petitions.

    The petitions stated that “the land in question has been hunting and food gathering land for the Yirrkala tribes from time immemorial” and “that places sacred to the Yirrkala people, as well as vital to their livelihood are in the excised land”. They expressed the petitioners’ “fear that their needs and interests will be completely ignored as they have been ignored in the past”. The petitions called on the House of Representatives to “appoint a Committee, accompanied by competent interpreters, to hear the views of the people of Yirrkala before permitting the excision” of the land for the mine and to ensure “that no arrangements be entered into with any company which will destroy the livelihood and independence of the Yirrkala people”. Thus, the petitions are the first formal assertion of native title.

    We should look back to this as the source of what native title ought to be.

  52. .

    Let’s be very clear about this:

    The bark petitions asserted that the Yolngu people owned the land

  53. .

    Wars?

    Just as common and as brutal as anywhere else in the world:

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2013/05/the-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/

    TRIBAL warfare and paybacks were endemic. In “Journey to Horseshoe Bend”, anthropologist T.G.H. Strehlow described a black-on-black massacre in 1875 in the Finke River area of Central Australia, triggered by a perceived sacrilege:

    “The warriors turned their murderous attention to the women and older children and either clubbed or speared them to death. Finally, according to the grim custom of warriors and avengers they broke the limbs of the infants, leaving them to die ‘natural deaths’. The final number of the dead could well have reached the high figure of 80 to 100 men, women and children.”[26]

    Revenge killings by the victims’ clan involved more than 60 people, with the two exchanges accounting for about 20% of members of the two clans. (When Pauline Hanson, then member for Oxley, quoted this account in 1996, an Aboriginal woman elder replied, “Mrs Hanson should receive a traditional Urgarapul punishment: having her hands and feet crippled.”)[27]

  54. Grumbles

    Dot, land ownership rights are a fleeting thing unless there is a government to protect them… how can any libertarian not understand this as the primary function of Government.

  55. .

    Did I say this wasn’t the primary purpose of government?

    Belief in self ownership is a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy.

  56. There is a deeply implanted belief that Australian Aborigines not only have been very badly done by, but are the only people in the world to have suffered.

    There is nothing quite like a belligerent never-had-a-job yet morbidly obese middle aged cultural studies graduate who has ridden the “aboriginal quotas” gravy train, ranting in the bar to a backpacker about “what has been done to” aborigines blah blah blah and “you white europeans” have no idea what it is to be oppressed and now here you are taking jobs my kids could have.

    The backpacker, from East Germany, gazes at the overweight self-entitled blob in mystification. Then, after a brief reference to how said blob is still living on ancestral land, and all the bad stuff she refers to happened 100 years ago, goes on to give a quick list of stuff that has happened to his family during the lifetime of his parents;
    Genocide on an Auschwitz scale, military conquest by Russians (rape, looting, scorched earth etc) expulsion from homelands, forced marches with what you can carry, settling in a rubble strewn smashed city, communism etc etc etc.

    Then goes on about how easy aborigines have it compared to “us white Europeans” and how “your kids” could easily have had his job cleaning Australian pub toilets, coz they have the freedom to answer the same job advertisment he did.

    But he lost her right at the beginning, coz this overweight slug of a woman cannot conceptualise any race/group/religion (other than Australian Aborigines) being oppressed, her eyes went glassy. He wasted his breath.

  57. Token

    Interesting to see more of OldSalt’s history and background fleshed out. I love how he opens a discussion disagreeing with my premise, then proceeds to validate it.

    Token, genetics and linguistics are telling a different story to your ‘conquering tribes’. The former indicates very small incoming groups of males replaced the previous males but the female line continued. The latter indicates Pama Nyungan replacing the previous Non PN languages with superior technology and ceremonial complexity, not displacing the original speakers.

    Strangely enough a firm grasp of history. One might look at any of hundreds of examples. The Saxons in the UK. The Normans in the UK. The Turks in the M-E. I could go on and on and on. Each ultimately involves a small tight group of males taken possession of a territory and keeping the women for breeding stock.

  58. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    From . at 9:19 am:

    “Let’s be very clear about this:

    The bark petitions asserted that the Yolngu people owned the land …”

    Just as I can assert I am a descendant of Cleopatra, a proud Nile man of the Cairo Clan, registered proprietor of a Sffincks and a pyramid or two.

    “The son of one of the Yirrkala plaintiffs, a Gumatj clan leader, Munggurrawuy, was Galarrwuy Yunupingu who assisted in drafting the petitions.”

    … and went on to own the money, all the money, a teeny weeny little bit of which he cast about for his impoverished subjects. He controlled $5 million per annum gifted by the evil white man to the aborigines he controlled. $5 million every year!

    I wouldn’t believe a word of what that common thief, spiv, urger and wife basher said or wrote.

    Kev Gillett revealed the noble character of the Black Prince a decade ago.

  59. .

    Just because a spiv stole their wealth doesn’t mean the theory is wrong and the leftist claptrap where Aborigines cannot develop their land is correct.

  60. Grumbles

    True, however with no government, there was no land rights other than those that they could directly protect. They tried and failed, case closed.

Comments are closed.