Kamis, 14 Februari 2013

THE APOLOGY – FIVE YEARS ON*




On February 13thfive years ago, the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the leader of the opposition, Brendan Nelson, together presented an apology on behalf of the Australian people to our Indigenous brothers and sister.  The apology was offered on behalf also of the parliaments that passed the legislations that led to the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their parents.  http://www.dfat.gov.au/indigenous/apology-to-stolen-generations/rudd_speech.html .  Mr. Rudd explained the reason for the apology.
Let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called ‘mixed lineage’ were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with ‘the problem of the Aboriginal population’.
Mr. Rudd then went on to say:
We need a new beginning—a new beginning which contains real measures of policy success or policy failure; a new beginning, a new partnership, on closing the gap with sufficient flexibility not to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach for each of the hundreds of remote and regional Indigenous communities across the country but instead allowing flexible, tailored, local approaches to achieve commonly-agreed national objectives that lie at the core of our proposed new partnership; a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation.
Let us resolve over the next five years to have every Indigenous four-year-old in a remote Aboriginal community enrolled in and attending a proper early childhood education centre or opportunity and engaged in proper preliteracy and prenumeracy programs.

After Mr. Rudd and Dr Brendan Nelson had completed their speeches they greeted members of the Stolen Generation in the distinguished visitors’ gallery in Parliament House.  The official report of the day http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/indigenous-australians/programs-services/recognition-respect/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples describes how ‘Aunty Lorraine Peeters [then] presented the Australian Parliament with the gift of a glass coolamon [created by Indigenous artist Bai Bai Napangarti].



Peeters

The coolamon contained a message thanking the Parliament for the apology on behalf of all those affected by removal from their families. In the message Aunty Lorraine explained that the coolamon was a traditional vessel for carrying children, and "a symbol of the hope we place in the new relationship you wish to forge with our people".’ 
‘‘The idea of the empty coolamon was poignant;’ said Brenda Croft, senior curator of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art at the National Gallery of Australia at the time. “It reinforced the idea of children being taken away from their communities,’’ she says. ‘‘It’s the indigenous form of the cradle. It was no accident.’’  The coolamon, together with the apology documents, are displayed in Parliament House.






How are we doing?  The Australian Bureau of Statistics offers encouragement. Infant mortality is improving.


INFANT MORTALITY RATES:  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous people 2001–2010





Source: ABS Deaths collection.
It remains the case, though, that we have an incomplete picture of life expectancy of our Indigenous people.  If it mattered to us we would probably do better at measuring it.  At present it is like sending soldiers into battle and not knowing how many are shot dead.  But
‘For those jurisdictions with reasonable information about Indigenous deaths, the median age at death in 2010 for Indigenous males ranged from 50.8 years for those living in the NT to 58.3 years for those living in NSW. These levels were around 20 years less than those for non-Indigenous males, which ranged from 64.9 to 79.6 years. The median age at death for Indigenous females in 2010 ranged from 55.4 years for those living in the NT to 67.1 years for those living in NSW. These levels were also around 20 years less than those for non-Indigenous females, which ranged between 75.2 and 84.9 years.’ http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/health-facts/overviews/mortality
We get the parliament we elect:  that’s democracy.  Neither Mr. Rudd nor Dr Nelson lasted long and our parliament has descended from the mountain top to once again concentrate on the things that really matter to us and to them.  But it is a wonder, a treasured memory, that day, five years ago, when the cant, self-comforting delusion and bluster were stripped off the reality of the way in which we had treated Aboriginal Australians, and we said sorry.  Maybe other great days will dawn.  Maybe the coolamon is not empty after all.

*This article has been published in Australian Doctor






Jumat, 08 Februari 2013

Food Reward Friday

This week's lucky "winner"... an unnamed hot dog-laden Pizza Hut monstrosity with tempura shrimp and mayonnaise!


Read more »

Selasa, 05 Februari 2013

Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. Part VIII

In the (probably) last post of this series, I'll take the pieces that I've gradually outlined in previous posts, and put them together into a big-picture, common-sense framework for thinking about human eating behavior, and why we eat more today than ever before.

Why is Eating Behavior Regulated?

Let's start at the most fundamental level.  To be competitive in a natural environment, organisms must find rational ways of interacting with their surroundings to promote survival and reproduction.  One of the most important elements of survival is the acquisition of energy and chemical building blocks, either by photosynthesis, or (in the case of animals) eating other organisms.  This imperative drove the evolution of rational food seeking behaviors long before the emergence of humans, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and even eukaryotes (organisms with nuclei).

Read more »

Senin, 04 Februari 2013

Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. Part VII

Welcome back to the series, after a bit of a hiatus!  In previous posts, we covered the fact that humans eat because we're motivated to eat, and many things can motivate us to eat.  These include factors related to energy need (homeostatic factors), such as hunger, and factors that have little to do with energy need or hunger (non-homeostatic factors).  These many factors are all processed in specialized brain 'modules' that ultimately converge on a central action selection system (part of the reward system); this is the part of you that decides whether or not to initiate eating behaviors.

This will be somewhat of a catch-all post in which I discuss cognitive, emotional, and habit influences on food intake.  Since these factors are not my specialty, I'll keep it brief, but I don't mean to suggest they aren't important.

Food 'Cost'

Read more »

Minggu, 03 Februari 2013

Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. Part VI

In previous posts in this series, I explained that the brain (primarily the mesolimbic system) integrates various factors to decide whether or not to drive food seeking and consumption behaviors.  These include homeostatic factors such as hunger, and non-homeostatic factors such as palatability and the social environment.

In this post, I'll examine the reward system more closely.  This is the system that governs the motivation for food, and behavioral reinforcement (a form of learning).  It does this by receiving information from other parts of the brain that it uses to determine if it's appropriate to drive (motivate) food seeking behavior.  I covered its role in motivation in the first post of the series, so in this post I'll address reinforcement.

Behavioral Reinforcement

Read more »

Sabtu, 02 Februari 2013

Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. Part V

In previous posts, I explained that food intake is determined by a variety of factors that are detected by the brain, and integrated by circuits in the mesolimbic system to determine the overall motivation to eat.  These factors include 'homeostatic factors' that reflect a true energy need by the body, and 'non-homeostatic factors' that are independent of the body's energy needs (e.g. palatability, habit, and the social environment).

In this post, we'll explore the hedonic system, which governs pleasure.  This includes the pleasure associated with food, called palatability.  The palatability of food is one of the factors that determines food intake.

The Hedonic System

Read more »

Jumat, 01 Februari 2013

Why Do We Eat? A Neurobiological Perspective. Part IV

In this post, I'll follow up on the last post with a discussion two more important factors that can affect energy homeostasis and therefore our food intake and propensity to gain fat: age and menopause.

Age

Although it often isn't the case in non-industrial cultures, in affluent nations most people gain fat with age.  This fat gain continues until old age, when many people once again lose fat.  This is probably related to a number of factors, three of which I'll discuss.  The first is that we tend to become less physically active with age.  The second, related factor is that we lose lean mass with age, and so energy expenditure declines.

Read more »