colonialization

National Geographic had a show on last night about prisons, the episode airing was on a maximum security prison in Perth, Australia.
I was struck by the humanity of the prison several times. One scene showed aboriginal inmates barbecuing kangaroo tales (a delicacy) while a woman looking on explained that due to their different culture, language, and lifestyle the prison systems tries to accommodate their aboriginal population as much as they can.
But how many must they have to go to such great lengths? For the incarcerated U.S. citizen had nothing to remind him of home. Though (tangent if I may) he noted clearly that he prefers to carry out his life term in Australia (for drug trafficking) rather than do a prisoner exchange and serve his term in a U.S. prison which, he noted, lacks the humanity of the Australian prison system.
But back to the aborigines - Australia incarcerates their aborigines at a higher rate than any other nation* incarcerates their native populations. (Clearly blacks are not native to the U.S. otherwise this statistic may be a little different).
According to Wikipedia (b/c I couldn't remember the stats) aboriginal people currently make up 2.6% of Australia's population, 21% of the prison population, and are 20fold overrepresented in the juvenile corrective service.
Now while some live in cities and are accustomed to the "Australian" lifestyle and laws, clearly a good number of those in prison live in rural communities remote enough that English is never learned.
The absurdity lies in that many of these people are being incarcerated for tribal laws and lifestyle they have lived by for generations.
Now granted I don't support violence, not by westerns or natives, or Bedouins, or anyone else.
What I find absurd is that these people have been living on their land for thousands of years. Along come white people, create a great nation on their land, set up institutions and laws, and then hold the natives accountable for the laws they set up.
Do I think that a tribal leader should be able to deem a crime punishable by stoning? No. But I don't see how it's much different from a judge (or governor), a sort of tribal leader, if you will, deeming a crime punishable by lethal injection. Sure we have laws set up, and we know to abide by them, they create order. But so did natives worldwide before their colonizers came along.
Another example. Native cultures all over use different types of plants, cacti, even bugs as drugs in different cultural and spiritual practices, or simply as part of their lives. We arrest them for it.
Yet we allow the use of nicotine and alcohol, and see it (at least alcohol) as totally normal.

According to the American Heart Association, "Nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break." The pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine. (from wikipedia) [3]

Not to mention it causes lung cancer as well as other complications.
As for alcohol it is addictive, lethal, it changes mood and behavior, and destroys vital organs. Yet we use it ritually in celebrating everything from weddings to happy hour.
So really? What are the differences? And who are we to judge?