| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Indigenous Australians; and welfare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 12 2006, 11:30 PM (199 Views) | |
| Eral | Dec 12 2006, 11:30 PM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Indigenous Australians have shorter life-spans, poorer health, shocking housing standards, suffer greater incidence per community of drug abuse and violence, at way higher rates than the rest of us, and always have. Aboriginal culture is not based on the work ethic: and that seems to be the essential gulf. Over the last thirty years, government policy has shifted from external control of what we call Aboriginal Affairs, to greater control within communities. Noel Pearson, a prominent and respected indigenous leader, has begun a program in far north Queensland to change the way welfare is administered, and to get Aboriginal people into work: and the government has begun the same sorts of programs in other parts of the country. It's a very pragmatic approach, and causes some controversy. Supporters say that taking the work ethic on board is the only way to address the problems experienced, while others have concerns about loss of identity and culture. Jack Vance, in his book 'The Gray Prince' has a character say "The mourning of defeated peoples, while pathetic and tragic, is usually futile." I find this a tad too harsh: just suck it up and get with the program. Aboriginal Australians who have taken on a "whiter" life don't seem to feel any loss of identity. What do you think? |
![]() |
|
| underdog | Dec 13 2006, 04:22 AM Post #2 |
|
Irish Breakfast
|
That someone is trying to get them to work, and do something to improve their life, I don't see anything wrond with that, and just because they are working, doesn't mean they are becoming 'white' and no longer an aborigine. Probably going to get in trouble for this. but some blacks over here will put down other blacks as trying to be 'white' if they do good in school or try to get a good job, same type of thing over here. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 13 2006, 05:18 AM Post #3 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
The idea of work providing release from apathy, and a sense of direction and purpose is seen very positively by most spokespeople: they are pretty desperate to do something that works. Also, getting ahead in 'white society' is seen as a positive action, providing role models and breaking down stereo-types. The question here is more that Aboriginal culture runs on family relationships, and a sense of belonging to a place. The moving away from family and home becomes doubly stressful when those affected come from very isolated areas. For the people who have been living as semi-nomads, being tied down to mortgage payments is a big change. |
![]() |
|
| Joe | Dec 13 2006, 06:51 AM Post #4 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
If they want to be depressed, not work, and die young, that's their choice. You can encourage them to adopt the disease of capitalism, but don't force them. To start, they should each get a house from the government for free if they don't have one already. Then the government should pay for their education and/or job training. Colonial governments have a lot to answer for, no matter how much time has passed. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Dec 13 2006, 09:02 PM Post #5 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Well, I gotta say I'm more in agreement with Joe here than the rest of you. I don't know the Australian side of the discussion, but in Canada a lot of people have accused aboriginal North Americans of all sorts of things - no work ethic, no moral sense, no no no... The only valid one, in my opinion, is about time: Aboriginal North Americans had no clocks and no need to live by one, and that's carried on in the reserves, and for many, learning to follow the clock that rules city life is difficult - if only because they don't understand why people care so much. (Why do we care so much? Well, because it's what we're used to.) I've noted that when it comes to social events (I know little about the business end), Southeast Asian Indians are the same - if a Sikh wedding starts at 8 a.m., according to the invitations, the bride and her family show up first (next to the white folk) - around 10 a.m. It's a cultural construct. So, we come, we most of the strongest men and the leaders, we take away their way of life, we take all the good land and then we force them onto cruddy reserves and ask why they can't make a go of it. Why can't many aboriginal North Americans get jobs? Well, their culture and their families live on reserves where there are very few jobs. And our government promised to house them, to pay for their health care, to educate them. I guess that's what our government has to do. The answers have to come from within. Imposing our will on aboriginal peoples hasn't worked. I think, in Canada, it's time to start making a move toward self-rule on reserves, although there has to be a lot of support in the process, and of course, you don't want independent armies, etc. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 13 2006, 11:19 PM Post #6 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I know some Native American communities generate income from casinos, and tourists: I was wondering do any get money from mining, etc. Land rights have made a big difference here -communities get profits from mines, and Uluru (Ayer's Rock) is very big for tourists. It's the communities that are not resource rich that experience the most difficulties. We had self-rule in communities: the government just rolled back the legislation and returned to direct administration. :( The decision about remote areas has caused a lot of protests: one newspaper editorial pointed out that essential services are just that - essential, not optional - and the government's position reminds everyone of the 'White Australia' policy days. We know that only ground-up programs/policies work. Some communities go "dry", banning alcohol. Most want fume-free petrol called Opal, and that is being supplied widely now. One community said to parents, "if we get 100% school attendance - if you make sure your kids are at school every day, we will apply for funding for a public pool." The paper showed a picture of happy kids swimming in the pool a couple of days ago. Housing, medical care and schools are still shambolic. |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | Dec 13 2006, 11:58 PM Post #7 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Forcing people to do things leads to resentment, and those that want to fit in should be given every assistance in doing so, and those that don't should be left to their own devices. One way would be to give them a purpose that contributes to society for which they would be remunerated, but allows them to remain separate if that's their wish. Clearly a pro-rata system is only equitable those that work more get more in return, those that don't want to work can do so as well. This does not require a work ethic as such, as they will soon make the connection between effort and reward. £0.02 |
| "Well, ‘course dis one’s betta! It’s lotz ‘eavier, and gots dem spikey bitz on de ends. " | |
![]() |
|
| lara | Dec 14 2006, 03:21 AM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
In Canada, when resources have been found on reserves in the past, the government has usually found a way to take them without proper renumeration. That hasn't been the case more recently - enough aboriginal Canadians have learned enough about the system to know how they can prevent such things. The problem is, they really haven't had much time to adjust to a radical, drastic change in their lives, and during that time, they've been subject to endless abuses that haven't helped the process. Patience and sympathy are too often in short supply. Listening doesn't always happen. Belief that people can deal with their own problems, if given proper support and time, isn't always there. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Dec 14 2006, 04:05 AM Post #9 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
Lawyers have always been prominent in Aboriginal rights' groups here: because the shocking conditions people were living in were the direct result of government policy, it has always been a cause many people support. I think the government's blanket application of the principle to everyone is going to cause problems: they really do need to evaluate the needs of different areas. If they could be flexible, people would feel the purpose is to help them. But the government is trying to address a problem, without seeming overly-sympathetic: because that would alienate voters who like Pauline Hanson. Many people are distrustful of the government's motives. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |







7:00 PM Jul 11