Why are Aboriginals so worse off?

[hongi]

Aboriginals die earlier than other Australians, they more at risk from disease, they're disproportionately represented in crime, they suffer more from alcohol and drug abuse, a greater percentage of them are unemployed and literacy/numeracy rates are still low. Why?

[Stark]

Because they have a shit culture? Alcoholism, violence and ignorance = you die early, you have no money, and your kids end up worse. There's nothing stopping them having a quality life but ingrained social problems.

[adam_grif]

Mostly socio-economic, although I wouldn't be shocked if it was partly brought on by a culture of entitlement and "the man is keeping me down". A better question would be "why" aren't the social supports put up for aboriginal people working?"

[weemadando]

One of the reasons I've heard given is that the close family/tribal culture has made it tough on those who have succeeded. The example given was someone who goes through school, university and gets a good job in a major city. The rest of their family then follow them out because that person is now the breadwinner and is expected to look after the family.

[hongi]

Because they have a shit culture? Alcoholism, violence and ignorance = you die early, you have no money, and your kids end up worse. There's nothing stopping them having a quality life but ingrained social problems.

Why so many though? Obviously Aboriginals weren't like this from the beginning, it wasn't a part of their original culture(s).

[Stark]

One of the reasons I've heard given is that the close family/tribal culture has made it tough on those who have succeeded. The example given was someone who goes through school, university and gets a good job in a major city. The rest of their family then follow them out because that person is now the breadwinner and is expected to look after the family.

Heaps of cultures have strong family ties... that doesn't always lead to violent drug-addled poverty.

Seriously in Darwin there are those who when put in 'work for the dole' programs PAINT THE INSIDE OF THE BOSS'S CARAVAN WITH 20L OF SOY SAUCE because they don't want to work and only showed up to sell drugs to the other workers. In many social problems you only see the worst; unless you're in regional areas, you're actually seeing the BEST of this particular problem.

[hongi]

Well if things work out as I want it, I'll be seeing that first hand. I'm doing linguistics, with a look to studying Aboriginal languages. It so happens the NT has a lot of the surviving ones. My uni is right next to the Block, the Aboriginal housing district. I know what urban areas look like.

[Xon]

Why so many though? Obviously Aboriginals weren't like this from the beginning, it wasn't a part of their original culture(s).

Aboriginals original culture was literially the product of a stone age hunter/gather society. Massive amounts of thier original culture and languages have been lost(by deliberate action and by happenstance), and there has been a lot of 'reconstruction' for the surviving culture/tribes. Aboriginals alcohol tolerance is also lower than most other ethnic groups in Australia. Throw in a lack of cultural bias against drinking as the alcohol beverages they made before where heavily limited by the lack of capacity to make the stuff. And that early companies in Australia cynically payed aboriginals in alcohol and tobaco you have a very nasty recipe for thier future welfare.

Australian Aboriginals had the perfect storm; of prolonged isolation, small tribe/family politics meaning no cultural experiance dealing with massive groups and utterly no industrial capacity to utilize the resources around them compared to white settlers. But the really kicker, nothing of value to white settlers wanted besides the land and with no permanent structures, there was nothing the european colonists would recognise as a claim on the land and it's pathetically trivial to push a few small families out of an area when you have guns and willing to use them and the otherside doesn't. Especially when they couldn't afford to stay in one area for significant periods of time without overhunting.

[mr friendly guy]

Some of the reasons they don't do so well medically with things say, hypertension and diabetes is because of lack of seeing doctors / listening to the advice given. I remember in med school there was a speech about how a remote community didn't want to take a pap smear test until you had to explain it in some "culturally appropriate" way. Now I don't remember exactly how they phrased it to convince them (but I remember a vague sense that the difference was very superficial to how one would expect you to explain how and why you get a pap smear), but you can imagine most medical practitioners just explain what to do. Some will explain the reasoning behind what we do, but I wouldn't even know how to phrase it in a culturally appropriate way, because that would require me to have some deep understanding of their culture. Given that there are many different tribes with differing cultures thats a tough ask.

It kind of reminds me of similar ahem, communications difficulties with convincing the anti vaccination crowd about MMR or the prude crowd about HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. Personally I think we can get around this if we have better education. Or maybe get Aboriginal doctors into their isolated communities.

[Broomstick]

I don't doubt that prejudice plays into some of this. Quite a few white Australians clearly regard aboriginals as a form of human trash and expect them to conform to all the negative stereotypes. Groups dealing with that sort of prejudice always seem to have higher rates of things like hypertension, heart disease, drug/alcohol abuse, they are less likely to see doctors, less likely to trust doctors, and they tend to die early.

In the US we see this in those of African descent as well as the North American Natives. European Gypsies have comparable problems.

Of course, the bigots will deny that this can be a cause rather than effect. It's so much easier to blame the victim, after all, than admit that your own larger culture is part of the problem and that your culture's past and present oppression really is having that level of bad effect on people.

Naturally, it's more complicated than just bigotry. Isolated tribal groups are more vulnerable to certain types of illness because they didn't evolve the disease resistance Europeans and Asians did by living in crowded conditions. They tend to have less physical ability to deal with alcohol, as well as having cultures that don't have good alcohol and drug control mechanisms in the social conventions. Not all cultures value academic book learning.

In other words the Aborigines are not unique so much as a people that were more isolated than almost anyone else and thus were at a greater disadvantage than almost anyone else when the Europeans showed up. They had less technology, less population, less of everything that would have enabled them to fare well while being invaded, and thus wound up in a more horrible position than anyone else - with the possible exception of the Tasmanians, who were even worse off in that regard and are now gone. The few people that are still part Tasmanian have entirely lost that culture and been assimilated.

[Stark]

Oh Jesus Christ. Do you have any idea what you're even talking about? I live in a country with specific health programs designed with the needs of these communities in mind complete with babytalk education and medical staff. Where is your source of information?

[cosmicalstorm]

I'd expect people who's ancestors were only introduced to modern agricultural foods two or three generations ago to tolerate the stuff far worse than people who's ancestors have been living off the stuff for hundreds of generations.

[Stark]

When you have entire towns that have to ban alcohol entirely because everyone is an alcoholic and people just go drink metho, there's a bit of a problem beyond 'their stomach doesn't like it'.

Amusingly some dry towns have a mayor that owns the pub and sells booze in a dry town because nobody there pays taxes because they're all on welfare. Stupid drug addicts with hostility to anyone trying to help them? MUST BE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE!

[Broomstick]

Some of the reasons they don't do so well medically with things say, hypertension and diabetes is because of lack of seeing doctors / listening to the advice given.

Is there any evidence of metabolic differences between Aborigines and those of other descent? Here in North America a lot of our Native groups are prone to obesity and diabetes on a western diet. My Other Half has run into this, with a family of greater than 50% Native descent (he's somewhere between 50 and 75% Native himself, the ambiguity arising from four centuries of intermarriage between Natives and Europeans) where everyone over 60 has diabetes, even those of normal weight or those underweight. Diet has a huge impact on the diabetes in his family, and in his own diabetes management, with diet seeming to have a greater impact on diabetes in Natives than those of European and African descent. The North American Natives were only separated from Asia for 10,000-15,000 years, I'm wondering if the Aborigines, who were isolated for perhaps as many as 30,000-50,000 years have similar adaptations to the local diet? It's speculated that N.A. Natives had more exposure to famine conditions, especially the desert groups, than the Europeans and Africans did and the thrifty genes that helped them survive such want might work against them with a modern Western diet. I'm guessing the Aborigine groups had similar issues, especially in the harsher environments.

I remember in med school there was a speech about how a remote community didn't want to take a pap smear test until you had to explain it in some "culturally appropriate" way. Now I don't remember exactly how they phrased it to convince them (but I remember a vague sense that the difference was very superficial to how one would expect you to explain how and why you get a pap smear), but you can imagine most medical practitioners just explain what to do. Some will explain the reasoning behind what we do, but I wouldn't even know how to phrase it in a culturally appropriate way, because that would require me to have some deep understanding of their culture. Given that there are many different tribes with differing cultures thats a tough ask.

Over here they sometimes let tribal shamans/witch doctors/healers into hospitals to perform their ceremonies when it makes it more likely to get Natives to comply with modern medicine. It gives a cultural stamp of approval to the medicine, and the tribal leaders don't feel as threatened so they're less likely to organize opposition.

Our hardest medical resistance cases are actually religious nutjobs of European descent, not the Natives.

I'm curious, is there a history of medical people in Australia either refusing to treat Aborigines or actively experimenting on them? That would account for some resistance, if it occurred. Here in the US the black community frequently doesn't trust doctors and it's not baseless - between slavery days when some doctors bought slaves to "practice" on or experiment on, and things like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study there are actual reasons for this deep distrust. It's taking generations to undo this damage and mistrust.

It kind of reminds me of similar ahem, communications difficulties with convincing the anti vaccination crowd about MMR or the prude crowd about HPV vaccine against cervical cancer. Personally I think we can get around this if we have better education. Or maybe get Aboriginal doctors into their isolated communities.

Because a lot of people are irrational, panic-prone herd animals rather than coolly logical Vulcans you have to take culture into account when talking about either public health or individual patients. This point seems lost on some folks.

[Bakustra]

When you have entire towns that have to ban alcohol entirely because everyone is an alcoholic and people just go drink metho, there's a bit of a problem beyond 'their stomach doesn't like it'.

Amusingly some dry towns have a mayor that owns the pub and sells booze in a dry town because nobody there pays taxes because they're all on welfare. Stupid drug addicts with hostility to anyone trying to help them? MUST BE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE!

Why is there such a rate of alcoholism, though? That seems to be the deeper question. I mean, in the US Amerindians have problems with alcoholism, but that's generally correlated with the high rates of depression and the dismal economic situation on most of the reservations. You could probably draw many other parallels. Most of the reservations are isolated and spread-out, access to public services is dismal... but efforts to get people to leave also are problematic because of cultural concerns, yes, but also a lack of trust towards the government and mainstream society, fears of discrimination, and so on and so forth... So are there any major differences with the Aboriginal situation?

[Stark]

I doubt it; it's just like any culture or community in a bad situation. If anything I'd say the protest movements of the 80s (which were instrumental in improving recognition) has created a victim culture, but that's just because I grew up in an area full of filthy drug-addict scumbags of all stripes. I know plenty of aboriginals who have successful, normal lives, but they are without exception those who have simply ditched the baggage of their families (or their parents did in the past).

It shoudln't surprise anyone that insular communities have problems, especially when they're fueled with infinite white guilt money.

[mr friendly guy]

Is there any evidence of metabolic differences between Aborigines and those of other descent?

I think its been suspected for some time. A quick google search leads to this article about renal disease in Aboriginals vs non Aboriginals and quote other studies talking about how its generally multifactorial, but includes likely genetic predisposition.

Here in North America a lot of our Native groups are prone to obesity and diabetes on a western diet.

That makes sense to me from an evolutionary perspective. You evolved to survive on less so when you get a plentiful diet (brought on my agriculture techniques) you will get fat. Its not just a matter of genetics. Its been well known that poorer people will eat less nutritious foods because its generally cheaper. Aborigines are generally poorer than the average Australian. That same phenomena is also present in Caucasian populations. This can lead to the paradoxical state of being fat but undernourished.

The North American Natives were only separated from Asia for 10,000-15,000 years, I'm wondering if the Aborigines, who were isolated for perhaps as many as 30,000-50,000 years have similar adaptations to the local diet? It's speculated that N.A. Natives had more exposure to famine conditions, especially the desert groups, than the Europeans and Africans did and the thrifty genes that helped them survive such want might work against them with a modern Western diet. I'm guessing the Aborigine groups had similar issues, especially in the harsher environments.

I suspect this as well, although I am not sure how many people are interested in investigating the genetic link, and look for such genes. It will be interesting, but unless you have gene therapy, it most likely isn't useful. At the end of the day, if for example someone has type II diabetes (I see lots of Aborigines with this disease), the treatments of exercise, diet, lose weight, medications, regular follow up for complications etc work just as well provided they follow the advice.

Over here they sometimes let tribal shamans/witch doctors/healers into hospitals to perform their ceremonies when it makes it more likely to get Natives to comply with modern medicine. It gives a cultural stamp of approval to the medicine, and the tribal leaders don't feel as threatened so they're less likely to organize opposition.

Our hardest medical resistance cases are actually religious nutjobs of European descent, not the Natives.

That might not be a bad idea. I do know we have so called Aboriginal case workers to help them and some GP practices design to cater to Aboriginal patients.

I'm curious, is there a history of medical people in Australia either refusing to treat Aborigines or actively experimenting on them? That would account for some resistance, if it occurred. Here in the US the black community frequently doesn't trust doctors and it's not baseless - between slavery days when some doctors bought slaves to "practice" on or experiment on, and things like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study there are actual reasons for this deep distrust. It's taking generations to undo this damage and mistrust.

Not that I am aware of. But then we were never taught about the Stolen Generation either even in high school. I guess they just focussed in the glorious part of our history, like the commie uprising.

Because a lot of people are irrational, panic-prone herd animals rather than coolly logical Vulcans you have to take culture into account when talking about either public health or individual patients. This point seems lost on some folks.

You are most probably correct. But then I see Chinese companies copying other good ideas and not giving a rats arse that the idea they appropriated is Non Chinese in nature. I am a bit of pragmatist, so from my perspective, if it works, use it.

[Broomstick]

Here in North America a lot of our Native groups are prone to obesity and diabetes on a western diet.

That makes sense to me from an evolutionary perspective. You evolved to survive on less so when you get a plentiful diet (brought on my agriculture techniques) you will get fat. Its not just a matter of genetics. Its been well known that poorer people will eat less nutritious foods because its generally cheaper. Aborigines are generally poorer than the average Australian. That same phenomena is also present in Caucasian populations. This can lead to the paradoxical state of being fat but undernourished.

It's not just that there is a sudden abundance of food, but also differences in the food types. Native diets over here were very high fiber, heavy on vegetables, a mix of animal and vegetable protein, and with a lot less grain outside of zea mays. It's not even a matter of being less processed - some Native foods like pokeweed or acorns took 2-3 hours to make them edible. It's a different diet. I suspect some foods eaten by the Natives (and quite a few of my in-laws) never became popular perhaps because Europeans didn't tolerate them as well as the Natives, not just because they're a pain in the ass to properly cook.

But yeah - the availability of cheap calories in poor quality foods is no doubt also a factor.

The North American Natives were only separated from Asia for 10,000-15,000 years, I'm wondering if the Aborigines, who were isolated for perhaps as many as 30,000-50,000 years have similar adaptations to the local diet? It's speculated that N.A. Natives had more exposure to famine conditions, especially the desert groups, than the Europeans and Africans did and the thrifty genes that helped them survive such want might work against them with a modern Western diet. I'm guessing the Aborigine groups had similar issues, especially in the harsher environments.

I suspect this as well, although I am not sure how many people are interested in investigating the genetic link, and look for such genes. It will be interesting, but unless you have gene therapy, it most likely isn't useful. At the end of the day, if for example someone has type II diabetes (I see lots of Aborigines with this disease), the treatments of exercise, diet, lose weight, medications, regular follow up for complications etc work just as well provided they follow the advice.

Well, the genetic differences would be subtle, as Natives or Aborigines have so much more in common with the rest of humanity than differences.

What's useful, though, is foreknowledge. My spouse knew it was almost inevitable he'd get diabetes if he lived long enough, so when it happened he had a very, very brief denial phase. If the knowledge leads people to screen early and often, to develop good eating habits, and so forth it's useful even without gene therapy. Rather like my family knows we have a familial hypercholesteremia gene loose in our family tree. We now screen kids before their ages reach double-digits, and those affected get medical attention in their 20's if not earlier, and some of it is quite aggressive, more so than you'd normally see in the young and female particularly. There's no gene therapy, but instead of my generation having a 50% mortality rate in the 40's the afflicted are living into their 60's and 70's and on top of it are much healthier than prior generations. This is a gain. Those of us who inherit the bad gene will still have problems, but something can be done to improve their lives.

Of course, while some people will use the foreknowledge to take action, others will see it fatalistically and give up trying.

That might not be a bad idea. I do know we have so called Aboriginal case workers to help them and some GP practices design to cater to Aboriginal patients.

Incorporating, or permitting, Native participation in that manner is controversial over here. There are a definite number of medical people who have an attitude similar to someone contributing to this thread, that of "if they would just give up all their silly culture and become just like us everything would be fine!" which completely ignores a lot of human nature, not the least of which is that plenty of white people are superstitious, ignorant, and reject modern medicine, too.

No, it doesn't fit into modern science at all. For the most part it's woo-woo. But if allowing people their woo-woo gets them in to see doctors and get proper treatment I say let's woo-woo. The control it gives them is illusionary but sometimes that's necessary to get the job done.

The article you linked to on renal failure notes that the Aborigines are more open to ESRD treatments than they used to be. It would be interesting to know why they're more open to it now than in the past.

[Darth Fanboy]

Yo Broomie, I know you hate Stark and just looooooooooooooooooooove talking at length but why don't you answer his question about where you get your information from? Or is there some reason why you don't have to back up claims made when asked even though I'm pretty sure it's a board rule?

Is there any subject that you don't have a fourteen thousand page dissertation on for that matter?

[Stark]

Incorporating, or permitting, Native participation in that manner is controversial over here. There are a definite number of medical people who have an attitude similar to someone contributing to this thread, that of "if they would just give up all their silly culture and become just like us everything would be fine!" which completely ignores a lot of human nature, not the least of which is that plenty of white people are superstitious, ignorant, and reject modern medicine, too.

I'd love to hear who made these claims. Amusingly, since the GP down the road has medical programs and documents CUSTOM DESIGNED for this target, BY THEIR COMMUNITIES, it seems that you have no idea what you're talking about

[mr friendly guy]

Yo Broomie, I know you hate Stark and just looooooooooooooooooooove talking at length but why don't you answer his question about where you get your information from? Or is there some reason why you don't have to back up claims made when asked even though I'm pretty sure it's a board rule?

Is there any subject that you don't have a fourteen thousand page dissertation on for that matter?

Uh, perhaps Stark should then clarify which claims he wants Broomstick to back up. Since in her preceding post she made lots of statements.

[Broomstick]

Is there any subject that you don't have a fourteen thousand page dissertation on for that matter?

Very few.

As I've stated many times I frequently don't bother to read Stark's posts because they make me stabby - perhaps in this case I will make an exception. What, precisely, would people like backed up here? Or is this another instance of Australian exceptionalism on his part where the situation with Aborigines is sooooooooooooooo unique that no other group could possibly have comparable or relevant experiences?

[Broomstick]

Since I have been asked to answer Stark's requests I did go back and reread all his posts in this thread.

Because they have a shit culture? Alcoholism, violence and ignorance = you die early, you have no money, and your kids end up worse. There's nothing stopping them having a quality life but ingrained social problems.

This was not directed at me so I did not feel obligated to respond to it.

One of the reasons I've heard given is that the close family/tribal culture has made it tough on those who have succeeded. The example given was someone who goes through school, university and gets a good job in a major city. The rest of their family then follow them out because that person is now the breadwinner and is expected to look after the family.

Heaps of cultures have strong family ties... that doesn't always lead to violent drug-addled poverty.

Seriously in Darwin there are those who when put in 'work for the dole' programs PAINT THE INSIDE OF THE BOSS'S CARAVAN WITH 20L OF SOY SAUCE because they don't want to work and only showed up to sell drugs to the other workers. In many social problems you only see the worst; unless you're in regional areas, you're actually seeing the BEST of this particular problem.

Again, not directed at me, so I feel no obligation to reply.

However, now that I have read it I do have to ask – Stark, can you provide a cite for this alleged painting with soy sauce? I don't really doubt you because people do fucked up shit but since Darth Fanboy wants sources of information backed up I'd hate to leave you out of the fun.

I also want to know on what you base the statement that the Aborigine problem is worse in regional areas than other places. Again, I don't really have a reason to doubt this statement on your part, but since the rules are apparently changing to “back everything up” please provide your source on this.

Oh Jesus Christ. Do you have any idea what you're even talking about? I live in a country with specific health programs designed with the needs of these communities in mind complete with babytalk education and medical staff. Where is your source of information?

I'm going to assume, since this one directly follows one of my posts, this was directed at me. Do I have direct experience with Australian Aborigines? No, I don't. However, my statements about minority groups who experience prejudice experiencing higher rates of illness has been backed up by scientific study in North America, which is why I referred to such groups as Native Americans and African Americans as examples.

As for the isolation of the native Australians prior to Europeans arriving... well, they had a stone age technology, do you deny that? Do you dispute they had a low population density? Inferior weapons? What exactly are you disputing here?

You know, in other places societies also have “specific health programs designed with the needs of these communities in mind complete with babytalk education and medical staff.” I don't know why you think your special medical programs are so unique. Sure, specific details need to be adapted to a particular native culture but this sort of basic outline has been adopted in many places to deal with minority groups with long standing social and health problems.

When you have entire towns that have to ban alcohol entirely because everyone is an alcoholic and people just go drink metho, there's a bit of a problem beyond 'their stomach doesn't like it'.

Again, not a problem limited to Australia. There are Native groups in North America that have voted their locales “dry”.

In the case of Native Americans, though, a high percentage of them really do metabolize alcohol differently than Europeans do. Their bodies deal with it much less efficiently. They get drunk faster and stay drunk longer than Europeans do. It's a very real physical difference in their bodies based gene-based differences in enzymes and liver function.

That doesn't mean they're all doomed to be alcoholics and addicts. First of all, not all of them have this trait. Second, even someone with the trait can drink moderately even if they are at slightly greater risk of alcoholism. It does mean that there is a real difference. Do Australian Aborigines have the same or similar genes? I don’t' know that's why I asked Mr. Friendly Guy about it, and about metabolic differences that might have been discovered.

Stupid drug addicts with hostility to anyone trying to help them? MUST BE CULTURALLY SENSITIVE!

Never met an addict that wasn't to some degree hostile to those trying to get him off his favorite poison, so what else is new? Again, nothing special here.

I doubt it; it's just like any culture or community in a bad situation. If anything I'd say the protest movements of the 80s (which were instrumental in improving recognition) has created a victim culture, but that's just because I grew up in an area full of filthy drug-addict scumbags of all stripes. I know plenty of aboriginals who have successful, normal lives, but they are without exception those who have simply ditched the baggage of their families (or their parents did in the past).

It shoudln't surprise anyone that insular communities have problems, especially when they're fueled with infinite white guilt money.

Again, not directed at me, so I feel no need to respond to it.

Incorporating, or permitting, Native participation in that manner is controversial over here. There are a definite number of medical people who have an attitude similar to someone contributing to this thread, that of "if they would just give up all their silly culture and become just like us everything would be fine!" which completely ignores a lot of human nature, not the least of which is that plenty of white people are superstitious, ignorant, and reject modern medicine, too.

I'd love to hear who made these claims. Amusingly, since the GP down the road has medical programs and documents CUSTOM DESIGNED for this target, BY THEIR COMMUNITIES, it seems that you have no idea what you're talking about

What claims? That some white folks think it would magically OK if the Aborigines just gave up their culture and everything else?

How about this quote:

I know plenty of aboriginals who have successful, normal lives, but they are without exception those who have simply ditched the baggage of their families (or their parents did in the past)

Seems pretty clear to me that that person thinks the only solution to the Aborigine “problem” is to strip them entirely of their culture and history and remake them as funny-looking culturally white Australians. Who said that? Stark.

As for what the GP down the road does or doesn't have – I of course have no way of knowing where exactly you live, or what's “down the street” from you. How are you privy to what goes on in the doctor's office, though? Do you work for him? Have access to his records? Have you interviewed him?

I get most of my information on dealing with minority drug addicts from when I worked at Family Guidance Centers in Chicago, just a couple blocks from the Cabrini-Green project at the time (Cabrini-Green was torn down since I left the area) back when the clinic was based on LaSalle street. The location I used to work at is no longer part of the organization. Here is their website As I left the organization nearly 15 years ago it's highly unlikely anyone there would remember me, and it's undergone considerable changes and expansion since then. Among other things, we were required to serve people of all backgrounds and cultures and cultural issues was a part of how to reach people and help them get past the shit in their lives. This is not really news, I've talked about my experience in such a venue many times in the past though I think this is the first time I've linked to their actual website on SD.net.

How much detail I can provide about what exactly I did there is limited by confidentiality laws that exist on a city, state, and Federal level in the US. I will not break the law to win an argument with you.

[PainRack]

Oh Jesus Christ. Do you have any idea what you're even talking about? I live in a country with specific health programs designed with the needs of these communities in mind complete with babytalk education and medical staff. Where is your source of information?

Or broomstick is actually right and that the idea of self-fulfilling prophecy combined with poorer socio-economic status does make for poorer health?

Where shall we start? Perhaps here.

Participation in education by Indigenous Australians continues to slowly increase across
all sectors (schools, universities, and vocational education and training (VET)). The
number of Indigenous people who have attained a non-school qualification has also
increased. Yet despite these improvements, the educational participation and attainment
of Indigenous Australians remain below that of other Australians. This is due in part to
the high proportion of Indigenous students who experience chronic health problems,
such as middle ear infection and nutritional deficiencies, which negatively affect their
school attendance and learning outcomes. Other factors that affect participation in
education include lack of access to educational institutions, financial constraints and
social, cultural and language barriers.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/ihw ... 05-c03.pdf

So, Australian aborgines have poorer access to education and face socio economic problems related to education. Which has a negative impact on access to health care and health prevention.

While I doubt Broomstick statement regarding racism, there is the whole self fulfilling prophecy involved with regards to delivery in healthcare. And of course, racial communication which Mr Friendly Guy touched upon.
And elaborated in this paper.
http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/inde ... &Itemid=76

I don't have access to the papers, but there have been articles from Australian pyschologists and social workers regarding the difficulties involved in cultural communication with regards to Aborgines. More importantly Stark, your "complaint" that being culturally sensitive has no implication with improving healthcare directly violates scientific research.

Hey, since you value direct contact with the aborgines so much, maybe this guy will have a much better idea.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... ZHlZbArw3A

The lack of a common language between patient and health professional can have serious implications for
their communication, for diagnostic accuracy and overall quality of care. It can inhibit describing symptoms
effectively, asking questions and talking about fears and anxieties, leading to further distress, dissatisfaction
with care and to adverse health outcomes for patients and their families. Likewise, health providers’ limi-
tations in talking with their patients lead to frustration with treatment regimes, perceived problems with
compliance and negative attitudes toward people from non-English speaking backgrounds. [National Health
Strategy 1993, p.19]

Recommendation from the australian health ministry with regards to cultural communication.
Ooh. Remember Broomstick comment about negative comments? Lookee lookee. Your own government knows that's a potential problem.

But... But... Australia has directed service programmes directed at aborgines? Even though Broomstick has no academic knowledge of said programmes, she's right on the money and so is Friendly Guy with regards to the impact on culture and healthcare. Namely.

The most extensive and up-to-date paper about communication in Aboriginal health care is currently in press. In this
paper, Trudgen identifies disparity in cultural knowledge and world view, as well as language differences, as the sources
of communication difficulty between Yolngu and the dominant non-Aboriginal culture. Such barriers prevent health
service providers from:

• diagnosing patients’ complaints in a normal question and answer manner
• informing Yolngu patients of their condition—sometimes life threatening—and obtaining proper consent
before carrying out medical procedures
• accomplishing health education and prevention in a timely and cost-effective way
• accurately assessing the overall problem and developing culturally sensitive health education programs
• evaluating these and modifying the programs so they become more effective (Trudgen 2000)

Trudgen believes that up to 95% of interchanges between Yolngu patients and their doctor or other health service
providers fail, whether there is an Aboriginal health worker present or not. He suggests that similar levels of miscom-
munication occur in consultations between other government personnel and Yolngu (Trudgen 2000).

Maybe you're upset at Broomstick comments about how Australian culture has negatively impacted Aborgines health. What does the data say?
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/ihw ... 05-c07.pdf

Review of Indigenous people's experience of various illnesses
and health conditions using prevalence data, visits to general practitioners (GPs) and
admissions to hospitals. Specific causes of ill-health are then discussed in more detail in
the following section. Information on prevalence of disability is presented in Chapter 5.

Parsed from that document, amongst aborgines who were removed from their natural family, they had a higher self reported proportion of poor health as compared to aborgines who remained with their natural family. While the statistics isn't actually there to make a valid comparison, does this remind you of something Australian culture did back in the paste?
You know... removing kids from their natural families so that they could be intergrated into Australian culture and be better off?


So.... maybe it shouldn't be you that's trying to act starky here but Broomstick, because she apparently has a better grasp on the socio-ecomonic health issues regarding Australia than you do.

Edit: Unless of course Stark is attempting to argue that things are entirely different now. Most of the stuff I read comes from the late 90s to early 21st century. That's literally an age ago.

[PainRack]

You are most probably correct. But then I see Chinese companies copying other good ideas and not giving a rats arse that the idea they appropriated is Non Chinese in nature. I am a bit of pragmatist, so from my perspective, if it works, use it.

Sometimes, its simply not worth the energy to explain things in the correct manner and its easier to just co-opt cultural beliefs regarding healthcare for the proper health education.

Hence, I have no qualms with co-opting the whole "chemotherapy is toxin" and the abusing the Chinese "strong wine and meat for active recovery, porridge and soup for rest and recuperation" stuff during chemo teaching.

Its easier than explaining that the side effects of cytotoxic agents are accumulative and may react with other medications etc you take.