Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard was fond of drawing a distinction between practical reconciliation (which he equated with government policies directed towards improving the socio-economic circumstances of indigenous peoples), and merely symbolic reconciliation (which he equated with the recognition of indigenous self-determination). Howard's aim was to demonstrate that the movement in favor of indigenous self-determination was at best a distraction, and at worst an obstacle, to improving the life circumstances of indigenous Australians. This basic assumption that there is a fundamental disconnect between indigenous self-determination and improved outcomes for indigenous peoples has proven to be popular not only in Australia, but also in other settler states like Canada. In this paper I will offer both theoretical arguments, and some empirical evidence, which together suggest that this assumption is mistaken, and that self-determination and concrete improvements in the life circumstances of indigenous peoples should be regarded as interdependent political objectives.
