Racism is the assertion that one race is superior to another in some way.

This is a perfectly valid assertion to make, and the invention and demonization of the word is another huge backward step for society, achieved by the left.

The word did not exist before th 1970s

Not only is it “racist” to assert the truth, but one can only be guilty of racism if one is white.

American blacks call each other "n*g*er" all the time, but if a white uses the word, it is "racist".

Because of the ridiculous “anti–racist” legislation inflicted on us, by the activism of the left, it is possible to be prosecuted, if you are white, and you tell the truth about a non-white person or group. If you are not white, you may tell the truth, or lies about a group with impunity.

Describing Darren Clark as the fastest white man over 400 metres implies that he is slower than the blacks. This is not “racist” even if it hurts his feelings.

If there were any black swimmers, and one was designated the fastest black man over 50 metres, he could be offended by the implication of this expression that whites were superior, and he could take Court action.

Some words are taboo, where they are deemed offensive, and “racist” should be one of them.. It is a deeply offensive word, with no valid basis.

True Leo, Anti Racism is just a code word for anti White.
Even the statement "I have no interest whatsoever in Aboriginals" can be seen as "Racist".
"Racism" is the only non dialectical concept in the Communist lexicon, calling someone a "Racist" is putting them beyond the pale, someone who is either, too stupid, too evil or too crazy to converse with.
Here's an interesting discussion between two people who know more about the issues of Aboriginal disadvantage than I do:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/politics-suffering-peter-sutton-marcia-langton-1891

Anthony Dillon : "Further, the view promoted by some activists that people who identify as Aboriginal Australians are culturally different, spiritually different, and have a distinctly different view of the world to non-Aboriginal Australians, and hence require different rules from the mainstream to live by, needs to be questioned. This solution is simplistic, but I believe it is a good start. "

Hypocritical racist.

Almost all of the racist problems experienced in the community directly result from previous and ongoing government racism.

The Commonwealth claims to be addressing through its "NT Intervention" policies are the direct result of earlier Commonwealth racism.

The Commonwealth with leases it organized itself still refuses to issue leases to resident tenants in most of these communities.

Commonwealth in it's Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 exempted the landowning corporate Land Trusts from being required to issue leases to its tenants.

Result from this Commonwealth wishful thinking are our corrupted communities, where residents/tenants do not have basic rights.

Where you do not have the right to work, to live, to have visitors, do not have the right to protect property you purchase in what the Commonwealth purports are our homes.

When we go to court to seek protection otherwise available the court says without a lease you do not have the right to exclude others from entering your home and trashing your property.

With the right to exclude you can prove they were on your property unlawfully at the time the damage was done so can seek compensation....

Those against racism are the racists.

Might be heading into a battle zone I don't need at the moment but I think the previous posts have over simplified the issue.

Real racism does exists and it's hurt real people often enough to not dimiss. It does not mean that any time someone from a larger or nominally "more" successful racial group suggests that cultural practices of some other group may be hurting members of that group that the person making the comment is racist nor does it mean that members of the smaller or "less" successful group are incapable of racism.

I largely agree with what I've taken from the points that the author has made that over emphasising racism and trying to explain everything bad for some groups in terms of racism is counter productive, that the talk can become self fulfilling.

I'm guessing some will be wanting a battle of race, a chance to sling some barbs at others but I also think that the author has made some good points worthy of discussion.

R0bert

Close to the mark, RObert. The author has hopefully initiated a vital discussion that too many are happy to avoid.

Hi Polpak,

I can't understand why you accuse the author of being a "hypocritical racist". His implication that people are broadly similar rather than fundamentally different seems perfectly proper to me, and long overdue. Too many people - Black and white - have traded on the myth that Indigenous people are inherently and irremediably different: many Blacks have made a good living actually from the racist expectations of whites; and many whites are developing lifelong careers providing services to Indigenous people which they could just as easily do for themselves.

The rest of what you write may be accurate, as Aboriginal councils, Land Councils and other organisations are helping to perpetuating racism by keeping people in remote communities ignorant of their rights, under the guise of 'culture', and keeping people there in a state of Apartheid and segregation, illiterate and powerless.

Individual, I think many forms of racism are alive and well out there, especially the racism of low expectations - what you might call the racism of the Left: no nasty name-calling, no blatantly racist gestures or language, but never any praise for successes, only demands for a softer safety-net for people who want to stay on lifelong welfare.

Now, THAT's racism - that under-estimation of people's capabilities, with the implicit threat that Indigenous people should not try to get above a certain level, the level of society which is reserved for whites.

Cheers,

Joe

1. I checked with the university and he does not have a doctorate so don't know how he gets off on claiming this.
2. There are just so many things wrong with this piece of opinion that it would take forever to unpack even its most glaring mistakes let alone the more subtle or simply ignorant declarations.
3. This man is either suffering from a mental illness or is on the verge of a breakdown - and is clearly in denial about it.

Dr Dillon,
as you are a man who identifies as Aboriginal, you would know the literature and research on how racism, overt, covert and structural, combine to negatively affect Indigenous Australian health outcomes.

Sure, not all foot-in-mouth statements and meant to be racist but the socialisation of mainstream Australia to look down on Indigenous Australians is a fact of history and can be interpreted as racism. When racism is so pervasive, due to the historic social structure of racist laws that enabled colonisation, and it being such an everyday experience for many of our mob it is easy to understand how some people's actions are seen as racist - rather than them just being an ignorant mean so-and-so.

Racism directly affects an Indigenous people's (and probably other ethnic minorities) prospects of gaining employment. When educational outcomes are the same or better, and still sidelined in employment it is pretty obvious that education is not the panacea. So education is not the only answer - racism needs to be discussed and addressed. Education is just part of a complex set of issues that need to be addresses in order to achieve equality.

I find it interesting that you deny the cultural and spiritual differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians when there is considerable evidence to the contrary. On what basis do you make these claims? Have you researched Indigenous theory and mainstream theory to the extent that you can make such a statement? If so I would very much like to see your research.

Rainier,

1. Look a bit more closely.

2. What ? So you're just too busy to actually spell out the issues that you want to complain about ?

3. So you resort to personal attack ? That's usually a sign that you have nothing else to say, only p*ss and wind.

'The rest is silence' ?

Rainier, if he doesn't have a PhD how is it that he is a Post Doc and has a Discovery Grant, according to his university's website http://www.uws.edu.au/cppe/postgraduate_study/anthony_dillon.

My mistake Graham, I retract. I'm even more disturbed by his opinions now.

I suppose what I find disturbing is that Dillon generalizes and uses the (un cited) words of 'activists' without ever saying who they are. He then makes a quantum leap and uses this to 'suggest' all Aboriginal people share these views and that "Aboriginal people" do not have a nuanced and critical understanding of racism and when it is (or is not!) a factor in social and cultural interactions with other peoples or institutions. He sets up this straw man arguement from which he then emerges as the voice of reasonableness and clarity. Clever yes, but absolutely lazy in every other way.

Not good enough rainier, you lied, then say you retract after being caught out in a disgusting lie! Not good enough mate. You are an absolute disgrace! YOU LIED! try and be a man and just wander away from all this, everything you now say should be just ignored.
Do not retract, apologise you craven coward! Disgusting behaviour!

I've considered doing a thorough textual analysis of the techniques Dillon uses in this piece of 'opinion' but its Friday night and I've got a movie lined up to watch. I will however offer the following observation on one of the most revealing paragraphs from this clever polemic.

After some lame rebuttals of racism being a sociological factor in Australia's race relations Dillon qualifies his moral credentials by declaring:

"In a country the size of Australia, there will always be pockets of people who are racist, as racism is an expression of the racist's deep-seated insecurity, and, there are always insecure individuals. I am sickened when I hear of accounts where an Aboriginal person is refused service or asked to sit somewhere not of their choice, simply because they are Aboriginal."

Here Dillon reduces racism's effects (and acts) as being acts of deliberate deprivation and thus coming from deep seated insecurity of 'individuals'. The left over effects of past government policies and laws of segregation and assimilation are bypassed completely in this re-ordering of how racism impacts on the lives of Aboriginal people. Dillon's call for Aboriginal to adopt a "rugged invidualism” allows him to deploy and refute simultaneously, any suggestion that racism is a mitigating factor. Washed clean of any impurities, any reference to the historical effects of racism on the lives of Aboriginal people is denied any agency or purpose. This egalitarian approach to neutering racism is not new, it’s a well known approach used by black Afro American Conservatives who victim blame and argue that from a position that "dovetails quite nicely with the longstanding white supremacist notion that the unequal position of Aboriginal people is due neither to racism nor to systemic
economic conditions but to the inappropriate behaviour of Aboriginal themselves. This is not only lazy scholarship, quite simply, it’s just plain embarrassing.

JBowyer, give over, Rainier made a mistake and apologised. End of story. I also checked as I had not been aware that Anthony was doing his PhD as he has never mentioned being a PhD candidate in all his writing. Congratulations Anthony.

I agree withe Rainier though that having completed his doctorate Anthony should know that the his assertions are not supported by the literature. Indigenous Australians generally do have a different worldview from mainstream Australians. Our spirituality is a significant aspect of this worldview and if Anthony is not very conscious of this he has a problem - disconnect from the spirituality can lead to the problems Rainier mentions. I did my PhD on this topic and it is very clear. (Graham Y can verify my Dr status).

Racism is very real and it permeates the halls of our universities as the NTEU showed. Employment can often depend on assimilation and acceptance of Western mainstream values and culture and the suppression and or denigration of Indigenous culture.

To suggest that racism is just a hollow catch-cry shows Anthony's ignorance or assimilation.

Rainier,
Good point, I only know one Aboriginal person and she's never mentioned racism in the five or so years I've known her, like most people it's not something that is high in the queue of topical conversation. She talks about how busy she is, her kids, her artwork, her involvement in Koori Art projects and other community groups.
I know one other person "of colour" and being South African he does talk about race a lot but he's dismissive of "Racists" as simply ignorant and will always point out that his success in life is because of his own single mindedness and will to succeed (he talks about that a lot, to the point of being annoying).

A lot of people are pretty good at making excuses for the failure of "Minorities" to thrive, the vast majority of poor, homeless and disadvantaged people in this country are White, the so called "White Abos", what excuses do they make for them?
Are there any racial or culturally specific problems relating to the White underclass? There must be, low status Whites are the most visible and publicly vilified group in society, the "Bogan" is a veritable folk demon, you only need to look ant the vicious way in which the Corby family has been treated in the media, websites like The Anti Bogan. or filth like the SBS program "Housos".
Nobody in the media dares portray Aboriginals that way, look at the coverage of Liam Jurrah, he's accused of an extremely serious crime, far more serious than anything a White footballer has done in recent times, but in contrast to the coverage of say Wayne Carey or Ben Cousins who were pilloried, slandered and vilifed the excuses for Jurrah's behaviour come thick and fast.

The questions raised by this article stir up reactions, because the Aboriginal question is so frustrating.

No matter what is done, both sides remain unsatisfied, at best, and quite often, angry, which simply exacerbates the situation.

The article is quite reasonable in its terms, and appears to be seeking solutions. It is a shame for it to be taken the wrong way.

Obviously, the activists, in this sorry mess, have done more harm than good, but the author does not seem to me to be an activist, and is inviting reasoned discussion.

What is the “cultural gap”, that seems basic to this impasse?

A Stone Age people were suddenly confronted with people from the Age of Science.

They are the same species, but there is a huge gap in their respective development.

This is an opportunity for the Aborigines to come from the marginal existence of hunter gatherers using stone and wooden implements to a civilization based on cropping and herding, harnessing of energy, conservation of resources and access to stored knowledge; all completely foreign to the natives.

Initially, attempts were made to effect assimilation, with much success, for those lucky enough to be part of it, but with the difficulties and failures which always accompany such efforts.

Then came the activists, who did the Aborigines the disfavour of concentrating on the failures, and magnifying them to develop a victim mentality in the Aborigines instead of a pride in the assimilation of the modern world which so many of them achieved. The abhorrent nonsense of invention and constant use of the anti-white pejorative of "racist", has played a great part in ensuring that no progress was made.

How do we rid the Aboriginal movement of the activist element which has so degraded it, and get back to a sensible assimilation movement which previously did so much good?

The Aboriginal culture is not amenable to the world in which we now live, and an appropriate way has to be found to let it go. The separation of people by race has to cease. We have to be one community.

I have formed my own definition of racism & those whom I explain it to agree.
Racists are people who very quickly condemn wrongdoing by someone other than their own.
When the wrong doer is one of their own then & someone not of theirs points the finger than the person pointing the finger is the racist. Or so they try and twist it.
Presently there's huge resentment at a video about the method of killing turtles & dugong in Nth Qld. Now the wrong doer is the white bloke who filmed it not the black blokes who did the killing. They now accuse the bloke with the camera of being racist.

"We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as we are" What we see with our eyes is entirely neutral until WE give it meaning. All perception is an interpretation. This second level of 'seeing' is with perception's 'I' and we 'see' at this level is WHAT WE WISH TO SEE! And what we wish to 'see' is a reflection of the unconscious judgement we make of ourselves. If I say "I thank you God, that I am not as other people" I will be deluded! And the 'snake' of the ego will bite me very badly. However, if I 'look at the snake' without self-righteous denial and admit "I am just as other people are - for we are ALL bitten by the egoic 'snake'" and then forgive ALL - the egoic 'snake' will have no power over my life and I will not 'see' racism everywhere. To really 'forgive' and realise the 'truth' of that what Einstein stated ""Everyone has two choices. We're either full of love...or full of fear" - and the rest is just 'fate of birth' - then we will be truly FREE.

I have just read Anthony's [an Indigenous who does not 'see' racism everywhere] article after reading the article by Bruce Haigh [who gives no indication of Indigenous identification] http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9017 - it was an interesting comparison!

The judgement we make of others is the judgement we make of ourselves - even if we deny it. All are bitten and dying of the 'egoic snake' but few acknowledge this universal condition, for it they did they would forgive and become free - and free of racism.

Wrong,wrong,wrong.
We're not all the same, Race is real and it matters, I can never walk in a mile in the shoes of someone from Yuendemu or Hermansburg, how could I?
This reliance on the crutch of universalism is a uniquely WASP trait, those of us who are outside that ethnic group can only look on and shake our heads.
This "Anti Racism" is very much in group/out group behaviour by a segment of the WASP's, they love everyone but hate anyone who doesn't love everyone, they love the brown skinned victim of the system but hate the White skinned victim of the system.
I'll give you a recent example, last month in Sacramento a small group of pro White activists including women and children held a rally at the state capitol to draw attention to the attempted Genocide of White South Africans, they were met by a group of about 100 "Anti Racists" (mostly Whites) who stood and screamed "Kill Whitey", then attacked the demonstrators with rocks and bottles, the Police intervened and were themselves attacked, last I heard four of the Anti Racists were still in jail on felony assault charges.
This happens all the time.
Peter Sutton is right when he calls the White "do gooders" the second generation of idealists, they're carrying on the work of the original missionaries and by all accounts failing miserably.
I regard "Anti Racism" as a moral failing in some WASP's, xenophilia, just like xenophobia is a character flaw, not an asset.

Jay,

I don't think anybody is saying that all humans have the same experiences, or histories, or relationships with others - just that 'race' may have little or nothing to do with it, except of course, the effects of what people may perceive as 'race'. In other words, there is bound to be an alternative explanation to a superficial attribution of 'race' to any situation.

So 'race' is the smoke-screen behind which other forces work.

You're on the right track, though, when you point out the futility of much of what 'white do-gooders' have been doing: what is always missing from almost any policy suggestion is 'What are the people doing about it ? What are the people doing for themselves ? Are they incapable of actually determining their own lives ?'

As Anthony writes, one great danger in focussing on racism is that it can disarm people. It can provide excuses that nothing can be done.

But nobody has to be a victim. You pick yourself up and get on with life as best you can. And let's face it, given that the 1967 Referendum is now forty five years in the past, one has to be middle-aged at least to remember first-hand about living conditions that Indigenous people had to tolerate up to then.

Yes, the grandparents and great-grandparents of young Indigenous people of today endured great hardships and privations - but they would also be pretty appalled that many people today refuse to take up the opportunities - the multitude of opportunities - that are available nowadays, and prefer to wallow in lifelong welfare, as act if all the negative stereotypes were true.

Since 1980 or so, around eighty thousand Indigenous people have, at some time or other, studied at universities around Australia. Nearly thirty thousand have graduated, and another thirteen thousand or so are currently studying. So let's not lie about opportunities and disarm Indigenous people by pretending the situation is worse than it actually is. Nobody has to be chained to the past, or to their 'destiny'. Or to their 'culture', Aka :)

Cheers,

Joe

Jay of Melbourne
You have exactly demonstrated what I was saying – even though you entirely missed what I was saying. Of course we are not “all the same” in terms of ‘form’ – i.e., in terms of difference in genetics, socialisation, background, circumstances, etc. But we are “all the same” in terms of the ONE CHOICE that Einstein was talking about - i.e., the ‘choice’ we all make at the core of our very being, and through which we ‘interpret’ and give ‘meaning’ to all that we ‘see with our physical eyes’ – ‘FEAR’ [the motive and interpretive ‘filter’ that arises in our psyche that drives all our attempts to ‘protect our separated vulnerable identity’ (even if that identity is based on ‘race’ which we never chose in the first place!)] VS ‘LOVE’ [the opposite motive and interpretive ‘filter’ that arises in our psyche when we get beyond ‘separated identities’ and ‘separated interests’ and therefore feel no need to protect a vulnerable ‘bounded identity’]. Everyone, without exception, will be motivated to protect their ‘I’dentity. If that ‘I’dentity is separated from others (whether that boundary is individual, family, tribe, nationality, gender, etc) it will result in negative conflict – interpersonal, inter-tribal, inter-national etc – FEAR drives ALL negative conflict.

If all you are is a physical body you think that ears hear, eyes see, bodies feel, and brains can actually think and choose their own independent path in life – this idea is the grand egoic delusion that gives rise to all the racism and every other form of defensive attacking behaviour we see in our world. Karl Gustav Jung understood that there was another ‘mind’ that was ‘observing’ but was never ‘observing itself’ – he called it the Collective Unconscious. This is the deeper Mind that we share – whether we are aware of it or not – and this is the Mind that can ‘choose’ to accept a ‘shared common Life’ and life in harmony; or reject it in order to cling to the separated egoic vulnerable, and potential ‘racist’, self with all associated intractable conflicts.

For Aka

"as you are a man who identifies as Aboriginal, you would know the literature and research on how racism, overt, covert and structural, combine to negatively affect Indigenous Australian health outcomes."

Well actually, most of the literature I have come across offers very little evidence in terms of racism being a problem. Much of it relies on people claiming that they have been the 'victim' of racism - a badge to be worn. Now if you have a source that shows convincingly that this racism you refer to causes health outcomes, then please share it.

"When educational outcomes are the same or better, and still sidelined in employment it is pretty obvious that education is not the panacea." How often does this happen? For some people it may be a conveneint excuse "Oh the did not hire me because I am Indigenous."

"I find it interesting that you deny the cultural and spiritual differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians when there is considerable evidence to the contrary."
Well please give some evidence to support your claim. I have often sat in meetings with Aboriginal people saying "Yeah Aunty, deadly cuz, mother earth, etc." and telling you how spiritual they are. Leave the meeting with them, sit and have a meal with them and it is a different story. I do not see this spiritual or cultural difference in the vast majority of Aboriginal peopel I deal with. When they truly embrace their spirituality, they will see that there are more commonalities than differences.

For Aka
Congrats on your PhD. But a PhD is of little value in these sorts of discussions. Anything I discuss, I certainly don't do so on the basis of having PhD.

"Indigenous Australians generally do have a different worldview from mainstream Australians. Our spirituality is a significant aspect of this worldview and if Anthony is not very conscious of this he has a problem - disconnect from the spirituality can lead to the problems."
Well please give some examples of this different worldview. Many claim to have it, but again, I rarely see it. It would seem that many of the Aboriginal people (particularly those boasting about their spirituality) are disconnected from their spirituality , which has 'lead to the problems.'

Racist remarks are a 'fact' - but, nobody is ever disturbed by a 'fact'. What 'disturbs' a person is the interpretation they give to the 'fact'. If the person on the receiving end of 'racist remark' believe's that the remark really is an attack on them (i.e., the remark may possibly have some validity attached to it) then the reaction will automatically be "how dare you attack me" --- however, if the person on the receiving end of the 'racist remark' really believes that the remark says more about the state of mind [ignorance, or fear, or both] of the person making the remark than about the person receiving the remark, the person on the receiving end may have an entirely different response - pity, or even compassion for such a person who is so 'fearful' of their own 'status in life' that they feel the need to 'attack' another.

Offence is never 'given' - it is only ever 'taken' - and when offence is 'offered' and 'refused', any offence intended returns to the one who offered it. This is a psychological law that is as fixed as the law of gravity - but it is a law that is much harder for the fear driven egoic mind to really accept.

Thanks Joe,
your last point made me smile, maybe we need to explain to the WASP Anti Racists about being chained to their culture and point out the boundaries of their ideological prison.
I'm trying to change the way I discuss these issues, simply focusing on what I know to be true about White people rather than what I assume to be true of others.
There's presently a lot of discussion of the WASP problem withing the Alternative Right milieu, the feeling is that these extreme xenophiles and protestant revolutionaries actually are a different ethnic group, that the East Anglians are descended from the early immigrants from Jutland and that they still retain much of that Northern European hunter gatherer mentality.
Hunter gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian, this supposed racial trait would seem to be backed by the observation that the Scandinavian and Northern European societies are more "open" or"progressive" and southern, or Indo European peoples order themselves along hierarchical, aristocratic or caste lines.
The example often given is that the WASP's protestant revolution reached maturity in the American Republic and triumphed once and for all on that continent with the war between the states, when protestant egalitarianism defeated the Indo European, Southern Aristocratic/Slavery state model.
It's an interesting idea, the WASP, "do gooders" certainly behave like a tribe or ethnic group, you can go to certain areas of our society and see it in action, Fitzroy North or Castlemaine are two areas in which you can find concentrations or "tribes"of such people, it's actually valid to make certain broad assumptions about the character and belief system of those communities.

For Rainier
There is no problem in believing I do not have a PhD for which you acknowledged the mistake. But it was your opening statement and you went down hill from there. By the way, I have never met a person who knows much about race relations, Aboriginal people, because they have a PhD. So the PhD means little to me in this context, and never ever do I introduce my self as Dr Dillon.

"I suppose what I find disturbing is that Dillon generalizes and uses the (un cited) words of 'activists' without ever saying who they are."
Well I don't say who they are by name for obvious reasons. Could you imagine if I did. Many of them would say "I have been emotionally wounded, and it is all Anthony's fault."

"He then makes a quantum leap and uses this to 'suggest' all Aboriginal people share these views and that "Aboriginal people" do"
I do not suggest what I applies to all Aborignal people. Just like when i say that Aboriginal people have poorer health, I am not sugesting that it applies to all Aboriginal people.

"He sets up this straw man arguement from which he then emerges as the voice of reasonableness and clarity. Clever yes, but absolutely lazy in every other way."
Can you please point out this straw man argument and I will respond accordingly. I am always happy to be corrected.

For Rainier

"The left over effects of past government policies and laws of segregation and assimilation are bypassed completely in this re-ordering of how racism impacts on the lives of Aboriginal people."
I 'bypassed' them deliberately because they are not the cause of the inequalities we see today, though people like yourslef like to believe that they are. If they were the cause, you have to ask yourself why it is that so many Aboriginal people (despite having this past that you feel we need to be reminded of), are doing exceedingly well in terms of health, well-being, happiness, etc. they make great contributions to society. Perhaps instead of hanging on to the past and making it an excuse for everything they don't like about their lives, they have replaced this self-defeating mindset with the attitude of "I can do it!" An Aboriginal woman (who was removed rom her mother and raised in an orphanage) recently told me "We don't live in the past, the past lives in us." And if it does live in us (which it does as a memory), then we can do something about it. Rainier, we are never victims of the past, but only ever victms of our view of the past. Yes, the past did happen, but we can never change it, but we can change the present.

You give over AKA! Lying is lying and racism which you have bleated on about is also lying so where do we stand with you two now. Liar and apologist with neither of you able to criticise others now. My suggestion is both of you just creep back under your stones!

Anthony,
if you have not already, I would suggest starting at Yin Paradies work - he has written quite a bit on how racism affects health. I presume you would already have the social determinants of Indigenous health. They are good starters. I am guessing you have already looked at the CRCAH discussion papers etc.

You might also want to look up some of Dr Vicki Greives work. Also the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Taskforce on Violence report chaired by Prof Boni Robertson(Qld).

Spirituality from an Indigenous Australian perspective is more than you describe. Vicki Greives touches on that in her CRCAH paper - others do to.

Also useful relating to racism, education etc is Dr Linda Ford's thesis (Deakin), Dr Shayne Williams thesis (Deakin) and Dr Veronica Arbon's book. Prof Judy Atkinson is also a useful source. I have just touched on a few that spring to mind.

If you are interested in reading my work, you will have to wait until the book is published - you are quoted in it. It covers spirituality and racism in more depth.

Spirituality is much more than you describe, it has far more depth and meaning than your parody implies. I feel quite sad that you have not yet experienced it.

Spirituality is experienced in different strengths but I will tell you though that for some people, when they 'come into their spirituality' it can be a wondrous thing but for others it can daunting if they come into contact with mental health professionals.

You may be right that the people you have met who boast about their spirituality being disconnected from it - thereby leading to problems. People I know who are well connected to their spirituality rarely discuss it, but shared their knowledge with me for my research. Spirituality is not a topic for general discussion, except in general terms, but it is very real and significant to those who know it

Joe,
I am not chained to my culture - it is an integral part of my life that I value deeply. It does not stop me working and valuing mainstream culture, my culture strengthens me - I draw strength, particularly from the spirituality that is central to it.

Just as mainstream Australian culture has evolved from its British/Germanic/Celt roots Indigenous Australian culture has evolved and adapted. This means that I am chained no less to my culture's roots than you are chained by your culture. The European culture, which I presume informs your worldview, needed racism to justify the colonisation of Australia, or how else would ordinary god fearing folk be able to destroy, dispossess and desecrate another people and their land. Some folk remained to the culture of colonialist Britain and Europe - chained to racist notions that they are somehow superior beings.

Racism does not need to continue, but it will continue to fester until it is addressed fairly and its existence is not denied.

AKA,
Wrong,totally wrong, I dismiss your assertions as calculated to be offensive to White Australians and reject the idea that such views can be seen as offered in good faith according to the prevailing interpretation of the current racial and religious tolerance guidelines . Being a more or less tolerant person I'll cut you some slack and put it down to a misunderstanding due to racial differences and move on with my remarks.
As noted in the opening post of this discussion, there was no concept of Racism within White populations before the euphemistically titled "civil rights" era after which time it has been used against White people, Anti Racism is simply a code word for anti White.
God fearing people used no justification beyond their religious convictions to bring their version of civilisation to Indigenous Australians, the fact that in some of their pronouncements the word "Race" was used is always taken out of context, they were God's race.
Today's WASP, do gooders and Anti Racists are the direct descendants of those God fearing settlers, both in spiritual belief and more than likely in a very direct, genetic relationship.
Todays reformers came from a heritage of Protestantism and Liberalism, I call it the WASP tendency but we might also call it the East Anglian movement, it's the cult of suffering, the nobility of victimhood, guilt and self reproach.
You've been assigned a role in this belief system by virtue of your race and educated according to it's doctrine, parroting their rhetoric does neither you nor other members of your race any credit, it merely places you in a supportive role to those who dispossessed your ancestors of their religion, traditions and language via their evangelism and Protestant revolutionary zeal.

Jay of Melbourne,
check out this site.
World Council of Churches Disowns "Doctrine of Discovery"
http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/world-council-of-churches-disowns-doctrine-of-discovery.html

Colonsiation was based on the notion of the colonisers being a superior race and the colonised not being real people.

It was a racist doctrine that justified colonisation.

AKA
What did I say about the Protestant cult of self reproach, guilt and self abasement?
These so called "Churches" are engaged in revisionism (actually re writing history) to wash away their sins, to prostrate themselves before the holy victims, the exalted "other".
The Anglican church is basically run by neo Communists, are you suggesting that a "church" which now ordains women and Homosexuals can give an unbiased view of history, or that it's leadership has any right to speak on behalf of those who have long since passed?

You've made allegations about a specific group of European settlers and their alleged motivations, you are wrong, that's not to say other groups did not see Aborigines as an inferior caste and I don't deny that they still do but it's not acceptable to tar all White settlers with the same brush.
Some of the WASP "do gooders" are supremacists in the sense that they see themselves as MORALLY and ethically superior to those who don't share their egalitarian views, they see xenophilia and the cult of the victim as a MORAL good.
Others of us, that is to say the majority of White Australians do not share that mindset, we are racially pre-disposed to organise in a hierarchy, to compete, to climb the ladder and to value prestige, aristocratic mores and material prosperity.
We are in conflict with the WASP do gooders on a very fundamental. racial level, we are not one ethnic group, there is actually a great deal of animosity, if not hatred on both sides,though multiculturalism, particularly the injection of Islam into the mix has moderated this ill feeling I don't think we can ever be reconciled.
I seriously believe that if not for the moderating influence of other races in the community we could have seen a White civil war along the lines of the U.S War Between The States, don't forget, the whole point of multiculturalism was to break WASP dominance of Australian life, that they had their own strength, their extreme egalitarianism used against them.

Aka or shall we call you Granny,
Yes there WAS a view that supports your claims of white superiority. 300 years ago the europeans were definitely more worldly that the australian indigenous because by that time the european had a view of a World which the indigenous did not. Just as the Chinese, the Phoenicians & the Egyptians had a world view before the europeans. It is neither good nor bad to become advanced sooner or later than another group of humans. On the downside the less worldly becomes the underdog. There's nothing anyone ever has or ever will do to change that. Even in the indigenous population there were tribal conflicts by the more switched-on just as the then more advanced asians & europeans had others under their thumb. The argument of what one lot of humans did to another is as fruitful or pointless to argue that I was born male & you female.
Unless you are extremely religious you'll have to accept the concept of evolution & this includes cruelty, exploitation etc. The better things befall us when people start thinking.

"Better things befall us when people start thinking."

Which is true as far as human ingenuity and comfort are concerned (if you happen to be on the side of the dominant culture)...but all things eventually reach a critical juncture where continuing progress needs to be tempered with wisdom (not our strong point). Who would say that the ever present threat of a nuclear holocaust is a "good thing" for humanity...it's the continuation of a process for a "thinking being" who is clever, but seldom wise.

individual,
if you must anglisise my pseudonym I prefer Grandma - its what my grandchildren call me. All of my children are gainfully employed, and raising terrific children of their own. I am proud to be a Grandmother.

The issue is not what the colonisers did to Indigenous Australians in the past, it is about getting history right and recognising these acts of barbarism in the name of colonisation, and being aware of how they continue to influence the present and future. The social structure of Australia, its laws and social norms of the settler and Indigenous society, are all influenced by past laws, actions and social norms. Cruelty and exploitation was certainly part of the coloniser's culture - they jailed kids, put little kids down mines, exploited workers unashamedly. Barbarians really.

It may well be that racists cling to ancient practices of the early 1900s, or that they just like to be able to have someone they can look down on. Maybe they failed to evolve into thinking beings who can see that a person's difference does not mean that they are less than them.

Racism still permeates Australian society, in overt and covert ways. Racism continues on from the racist foundations of modern Australia. Racism contributes to the ongoing gap in life expectancy and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians.

Anthony,
you might find the 'working together' book useful - it is downloadable.

Poirot

You show a rare depth of wisdom here!

"Idea (i-de´ah) a mental impression or conception."

"[Fixed Idea] -- a persistent morbid impression or belief that cannot be changed by reason."

Every abstract 'idea' that we [rationally] support is retained, not because of the rationalisations that we give for it, but because of the 'value' is has to us -- a value that we are often unaware of, and would take great pains to deny if pointed out! We 'see' what we wish to see and if we don't feel comfortable with the judgement we make of our own sense of self worth [which comes from how we view and treat others, not from how they view and treat us] we 'wish' to 'see' others as 'failing us' -- how else can we deal with the guilt that arises from our own damning 'self-judgement'.

Wisdom is 'seeing' what is at the root of all our difficulties -- and the intellect and reasoning will merely present the 'supporting evidence' for what we have already decided, at the unconscious level, we 'need' to see.

Freedom from guilt only really comes when we stop thinking that we can effectively judge people - ourselves included - on the basis of their manifest behaviour; without taking into account the 'pit' from which they have been 'dug' and the core motive [love or fear - all the great philosophers of life can 'see' this] that gives it all its meaning for them, and us. Freedom from guilt comes when you see mistaken ideas - but without the attribution of deliberate intent. The 'attribution of deliberate intent' is the fundamental flaw in all our thinking -- and the real core driver for ALL our negative conflict - at whatever level - and in any setting.

Hi Aka,

I think we are using the word 'culture' in very different ways. I'm referring to the general way that people live their lives, as either embedded in a hunter-gatherer society, technology, economy, cosmology and ethos, OR living in the modern world, broadly understanding its functioning and processes, its technology, working in its economy, having a modern world-view (more or less scientific-rational, in an open society), and understanding the imperiatives of a work ethic.

In that sense, we are all in the modern world - we all participate in modern cultural practices, including those of us who are aware of alternatives. That is what I am trying to get across by suggesting that nobody has to be bound by a particular set of cultural practices and beliefs - and that, in fact, nobody is. And quite possibly, given that the influences and forces of the modern world and its economy are so pervasive, I suspect that, ultimately, nobody can be EVER AGAIN, solely, utterly, embedded in anything other than a modern society/economy/ world view from now on. That's what rules today.

I guess my ancestry is Celtic (with a bit of Anglo thrown in) and I am aware of the history - and prehistory - of Celtic Britain, its reliance a couple of thousand years ago on slavery (at least of women), its late arrival on the modern stage, thanks to the Romans. I'm struck by how similar (but also how different) social life had been in say, Highland Scotland and in Ireland, up until very recent times, to traditional Aboriginal society, at least down this way in southern SA. Until a few hundred years ago, Scotland and Ireland were, I have to say, very backward societies, with clans forever at war with each other, and a history of pointless and interminable brutality. So I'm sure that nobody would think that Scots or Irish should consider going back to anything like that sort of 'culture'.

[TBC]

'Backward society' does NOT mean 'backward people'. Nobody is born Stone Age, or modern - these are rapidly learnt from a young age. 'Culture' is rapidly learnt from a young age. Nobody has any innate, or inherent, 'culture'. However one lives one's life, daily, embedded in a particular social, economic and cosmological context - this forms the long-term basis for one's 'culture', for the range of one's cultural practices. But that range of practices is protean, changeable, depending on circumstances, on the environment, on what is perceive and known and possible.

In this sense, culture is not a Thing, it's a set of processes, always fluid, depending on what is feasible at any particular time. People can easily adopt more than one suite of cultural practices, and easily move from one to the other, depending on the needs of the situation. In that sense, a person's 'culture' is not only NOT fixed, it is multiple, with alternatives, and yes, often with inconsistencies and even contradictions. That's how we are, all of us, you and me.

We live in this world, and in spite of allegiances to 'another world, this is the one we engage with, daily, in our social relations, our preoccupation with earning a living, finding sustenance, expressing ourselves in art and language, reproducing. This is what i perceive is meant by 'culture' - all those things that we DO, how we RELATE to others - not just what we might be able to refer to in a book, but how we actually LIVE. That's culture. Yours and mine. WE share a great deal of it, Aka, you and me. You have specificities, so do I. But basically, we're not that different, we are very, very similar - and we'll never be the 'same'. No two people are.

[TBC]

But it's not a cookie-cutter world - 'you do your thing there, I do my thing here and never the twain shall meet'. That might have been the rule in the past, when the world was fragmented into thousands of separate societies, but it will never happen again. The world is now, forever, one. One 'culture', with variations, specificities, choices.

I'm not religious in a Western sense, I worship the wonder of human beings and marvel at the indeterminacy and beauty of the world and grieve at its tragedies, like Syria and the Japanese tsunami. Why ? Because those people are human like me, and in my 'religion', they are my brothers and sisters, they are me. If you want to call that 'spiritual', go for it.

As for your suggestion that capitalism needed racism to get going, I don't think so for a moment. It certainly developed and exploited it, but racism wasn't some sort of necessary spark for invasions and colonisation: the profit motive was, racism came along much later.

Most societies in the world have been ethnocentric, most have believed themselves to be superior to all others: at least down this way, at times, individuals from different Aboriginal groups express that opinion about other Aboriginal groups, as I'm sure you would be aware where you are. Whether that ethnocentricism develops into racism is something else. But I have to say that over fifty years, I have privately despaired at elements of racism in SOME Aboriginal people's attitude to southern Europeans, Vietnamese, Africans, Samoans - they are not immune from the toxins of racism.

So as Anthony writes, what do we do now ? What do we do about something that can't be undone ? Wallow and whinge ? Or pick ourselves up, seize the opportunities that are around and get on with life ?

Love,

Joe

Namaste,

Thank you for that - something to ponder.

"'The attribution of deliberate intent' is the fundamental flaw in our thinking." Very insightful - and as intelligent, rational beings we ought to examine that motivation. (It might seem a trite comparison, but I find a similar example when I accidentally step on my cat's tail. I'm aghast at the look she gives me because she 'instinctively' assumes that I have deliberately set out to do her harm - and even more aghast that I have no means to communicate to her otherwise).

And yes, 'love and fear' - or the battle between 'attraction and fear'. For whichever emotion is the more powerful is the catalyst for our actions.

Poirot

The thing about the 'core motives' of 'love' & 'fear' is that 'love' as contrasted with 'fear' is not really related to 'eros' or 'special love' - a biological drive akin to 'musk' in male Elephants that drives us into perpetuating the species and that can become very possessive ("I killed her, because she threatened to leave me, and I cannot live without her"!!). A better definition of the 'love' that contrasts with 'fear' is "Love is the dissolution of separation" - i.e., this is a concept of 'love' in which 'separate interests' are seen as simply manifestations of 'egoic fear' - the preservation of my unshared 'egoic self'.

Everyone seeks to protect their 'identity' and if that 'identity' has a boundary that is 'body based' [skin, tribe, race, etc] it will always be vulnerable and defended against ‘outsiders’. If, however, the 'Identity' is unbounded (and the mystics from Plato down came to understand this notion of the 'unbounded shared Self') it has no need to be 'protected'. And this is why 'love is the dissolution of separation' and hence - at another level of Life - 'all is well' - even though everything appears to be a mess in 'shadow land' [recall Plato's illustration of The Cave in the Republic] at another level - Reality - all is well. But the egoic mind does not know that all is well in Reality because it is asleep and having a 'nightmare' and prefers its 'chains' [again, see Plato's cave] and just as in the story of the prisoners in Plato's 'cave' (who were chained facing the back of the cave so that they could only 'see' the reflections of 'reality', which they took to be reality itself) they would kill anyone who escaped from their chains and attempted to showed them that there was a 'greater reality' than that which the separated, special egoic mind prefers to 'see'. Plato was referring, of course to Socrates, but the metaphor still applies today to anyone who attempts to alert the prisoners of 'fear' to 'another WAY of seeing'

Racism still permeates Australian society, in overt and covert ways.
Aka,
Sadly you're right. I hear that from just about everyone who returns from indigenous communities. From indigenous & non-idigenous alike. I believe it's worse in the urban areas.
I only wish people would listen & learn but alas...
Perhaps if racism wasn't taught it might gradually abate. But then again, you'd need to eliminate jealousy first, Or does that come before racism, I'm getting confused.

Joe,
I don't share your views on universal vs essential racial or ethnic traits, I don't believe those attributes are mutable or can be said to "progress".
You see homogenisation and unification whereas I see only greater and greater polarisation and fragmentation, you've expressed some race realist thoughts but have fallen back into the WASP pattern of simply pretending that egalitarianism is working and that everyone will eventually see things your way (they'll be redeemed in other words).
Current events both locally and globally argue against that rather hopeful yet naive standpoint.
I too am of mixed ethnicity, think of me as half WASP , half Irish, I have the same internal struggle between wanting to sink into the cocoon of the blind, de racinated WASP world but something in my nature holds me back, it doesn't feel right.
I'd take issue with the idea that the Indo European model of society is backward, to my way of thinking egalitarianism is a primitive and uncivilised way of life, you can see it's limitations right before your eyes in communities around the country.
The extreme egalitarian WASP's are forming Tribes and enclaves where their ideas of a formal equality do hold sway but only because they almost totally exclude other ethnic groups from their societies, including people such as myself.
We "Racist Bogans" on the other hand actually do have to navigate a multicultural landscape, we do have to live alongside other ethnic groups and we have to compete against them every day of our lives.
As I said, AKA shouldn't tar all Whites with the same brush, as a morally inferior being, a "Racist" I'm no more welcome in the WASP's polite society than Joseph Kony or Abu Bakr Bashir would be.

Namaste,

I hope you stick around on this forum. I appreciate the clarity of your expression.

'Love is the dissolution of separation....this is a concept of 'love' in which 'separate interests' are seen as simply manifestations of 'egoic fear' - preservation of my unshared 'egoic' self.'

I've been pondering exactly this question in relation to my own life lately. You put it so eloquently and succinctly - excellent - Thank you

Poirot,
I typed in egoic in the dictionary. I got "egoic' could not be found. ??

[Egoic – Google – ‘related to the ego’ the ‘egoic mind’ aka ‘local mind’]

The terms ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ are pejorative terms used to attribute ‘malicious intent’ to the ignorance and fear-driven actions of one party by another party, who are also driven by ignorance and fear!

What would happen if one party, or the other, were to follow the wisdom of the ancient ‘three wise monkeys’ – HEAR NO EVIL – SPEAK NO EVIL – SEE NO EVIL? First of all, it needs to be pointed out that these three maxims are NOT referring to blinding one’s mind to the mistakes and failings of human beings, but rather to shutting-off one’s mind from having any involvement in the ATTRIBUTION OF DELIBERATE INTENT to those mistakes and failings [aka ‘culpability’ – aka ‘sin’ – a particularly, and very dangerous, fundamentalist ‘form’ (vs ‘the substantive mystery of’) Judaeo/Christian concepts showing a deep ignorance regarding the real nature of what the shared ‘Mind’ actually has a ‘choice’ about – i.e., a ‘choice’ between a ‘state of Love’ (Neo) vs a ‘state of Fear’ (Mr Smith) a la The Matrix] – needless to say, perhaps, the little local egoic mind, despite its illusions of autonomy is a compete slave of the combination of its history, circumstances and motive of fear! Love does not condemn!

What would happen, is that the person who attributed no ‘ill-intent’ would no longer engage in negative conflict aimed at inducing ‘guilt’ in the hope that “the sooner you can see how GUILTY you are the sooner you will change for the better” [which never works in changing ‘attitudes’ even though it may be able to force a modicum of ‘guilt driven’ tokenism] but rather, if they were serious about change, would allow them to begin to work on solving the ‘root cause’ of the problem. Racism is not a ‘root cause’ but rather an effect of a common root cause to all such problems – ‘bounded identity’ vs ‘unbounded identity’ – ‘separate interests – separate solutions – separate outcomes’ vs ‘shared interests – shared solutions – shared outcomes’.

individual,

From the Merriam Webster:

'egoic (adjective): - of or relating to a sense of separate self or individuality; relating to or dealing with states of consciousness confined to the limits of personal identity.'

Your point was?

Your point was ?
Poirot,
Just a simple enquiry because it did not show up in the 2012 computer dictionary.
You can remove your hand from your private area now.

For Aka
“you might find the 'working together' book useful - it is downloadable.”

What is the central message and assumptions of the book? Does it assume that today’s Aboriginal people are culturally different from non-Aboriginal culture and hence in need of ‘culturally specific programs’?

“Racism still permeates Australian society, in overt and covert ways. Racism continues on from the racist foundations of modern Australia. Racism contributes to the ongoing gap in life expectancy and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians.”
Those are statements that will always win you a popularity contest. Again, are you able to offer any proof that the racism you refer to exists to the degree that you believe it might? And are you able to offer any proof that the racism you refer is a significant contributor to the ongoing gap in life expectancy and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians? I have been down this path many times before. Sadly, when trying to prove that the racism is as pervasive as they suggest, all they can do is quote somebody else (such as some prominent person form the social justice commission) who makes the grand (though vague) statement “Racism is a big problem in this country.” I recently read somewhere where somebody said “Racism is very real and it permeates the halls of our universities as the NTEU showed.” Sounds impressive but it is empty and only ever discourages Aboriginal people from focusing on what they can do in the present to improve their lives.

“The issue is not what the colonisers did to Indigenous Australians in the past, it is about getting history right and recognising these acts of barbarism in the name of colonisation, and being aware of how they continue to influence the present and future.”
So why do we need to recognise it? How does recognising it help Aboriginal people? Are you as keen for Aboriginal people to recognise how they treated their own before colonisation? Are you keen for people to know what life was like for woman in traditional Aboriginal communities?

For Aka
“Cruelty and exploitation was certainly part of the coloniser's culture - they jailed kids, put little kids down mines, exploited workers unashamedly. Barbarians really.”
Now tell us how this knowledge will help close the gap? Perhaps the motive behind such statements has nothing to do with closing the gap. I suspect another motive.

“Racism does not need to continue, but it will continue to fester until it is addressed fairly and its existence is not denied.”
Poor health and social well-being does not need to continue, but it will continue to fester until the underlying problems (remoteness, low self-esteem, education, etc.) are addressed and that these problems are not denied. And if you feel it is important that people to believe that racism exists to the degree that you believe it does, then offer some proof. And don’t just quote people who agree with you and say that it exists. Yes, I agree racism exists, but not to the degree that you (and the authors you have quoted to me) believe it exists. Nor do I believe it is the major barrier to achieving equality. If racism (and colonization) is such a big problem, can you please explain why there are many Aboriginal people who have worked hard and are well respected and are doing very well for themselves. I will quote to you the words of Uncle Jimmy Little (and it is rare for me to use the title ‘Uncle’ but I do for Uncle Jimmy) – “Racism has never been a problem for me. I know who I am, and if others don’t, then that’s their problem.”

For Aka
You quoted some authors. Do any of them give proof (or at least a reasonable argument) that racism significantly affects health, etc. For one of the authors you quoted I have read a lot of their work. It was extremely complex and convoluted. He/she tried to get readers to see evidence for racism for which the average person would never see it. For this author, racism, in their opinion was around every street corner. Aka, to just simply quote someone who agrees with me as evidence that racism is a huge problem, is like finding people who claim they have seen (or even just believe in) ghosts to prove that ghosts exist. It does not prove anything. Only a desperate person uses that sort of logic.

Often the ones screaming that racism is everywhere use the following as evidence: they always moan and groan as if a death in custody is evidence of racism without ever acknowledging that Aboriginal people on average are no more likely than non-Aboriginal people to die in custody; or they believe that the higher jail rates are evidence of racist police, and never that just maybe there are higher crime rates amongst this cohort of people. Is it possible that these are racist claims?

I am happy to read your work. Will I be misquoted, or taken out of context? Are your writings in this discussion an example of your academic skills

For Aka

“Spirituality is much more than you describe, it has far more depth and meaning than your parody implies. I feel quite sad that you have not yet experienced it.”
I agree that spirituality is more than just mumbling “I am one with mother earth.” But that is often as much ‘spirituality’ that I see amongst those who claim to be experts on Indigenous affairs simply because they have some Indigenous heritage (and sometimes that heritage is so minimal that it is a joke). If they realised what spirituality was (the recognition that we are all one) they would not be so upset evertime someone disagreed with them.

“To suggest that racism is just a hollow catch-cry shows Anthony's ignorance or assimilation.”
A nice opinion, but you fail to offer any justification for your claim. I could just as easily say something like “To suggest that racism is pervasive and a significant cause of disadvantage shows Aka’s ignorance or self-serving bias

Relax Anthony, I have not misquoted you. Something you wrote fit in well with something I was working on, it gave me a bit of inspiration that I elaborated on. It is not a critique.

I find it odd that you disbelieve the effects of racism. At the Indigenous Academic doctors forum in Canberra, Nov 11, racism was raised as an issue by many of the 90 odd that attended. Your stance puts you at odds with the majority, have you never wondered about that? Indigenous people from all walks of life, well off and destitute, talk of racism affecting them. How much more evidence do you need, or will you cling onto your assertion regardless?

Regarding me supplying you with more information on the 'working together' book, you are a researcher it is not for me to do your work for you. Like you, on forums such as this I don't use academic writing style.

Namaste the reliance on Platoism is a little odd. Talk about relying on an ancient culture. Plato had some weird ideas, and it seems to me that he expected people to just accept their lot in life which is ok if well off but a bit hard on his slaves.

individual,

Sorry if I assumed you were having a go.

Btw - you're not backwards in coming forwards yourself, as in the charming rejoinder in your parting sentence to me.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13353&page=0#230958

You really are a class act.

AKA

You stated "Namaste the reliance on Platoism is a little odd. Talk about relying on an ancient culture. Plato had some weird ideas, and it seems to me that he expected people to just accept their lot in life which is ok if well off but a bit hard on his slaves."

You seem to have missed the 'use' that I was making of Plato's metaphorical 'Cave' story (i.e., that someone who holds and presents a more enlightened view to that cherished by the majority is not likely to be welcomed) and instead 'read into' what I was actually using Plato's illustration for to suggest that I was using him to support some view on slavery - that I was using him as an 'authority' on anything at all!

With a metaphor - and that is the only use I was making of Plato's story - the reader has to bring themselves to an understanding of the meaning of the metaphor (in other words they must do their part in seeing the 'truth' that is hidden the metaphor, and such 'truth' is only revealed to the 'open mind' that desires to 'see' beyond their existing preconceptions) or they simply 'don't get it' at all.

Metaphor's are useful because they avoid useless arguments (a discussion becomes an argument, when the person become the object - and this always happens the moment the ego gets involved in the discussion) with minds that are unwilling in the first place to 'see' another possible position or perspective. The intellect cannot understand what the heart won't accept. 'Food is for the hungry' - and I would rather present a metaphor as a hint at something deeper, than continue with futile attempts to 'force feed' material that is unpalatable to the receiving mind - 'force feeding' only makes people 'gag' and hate the 'food' even more. And I do recognise that what is 'food' for one mind is 'poison' for another -- ah well.
I assume that your comments were intended to be positive, and I have responded to them with that in mind. Thanks

Namaste,
my comment on Plato relates to the way in which Indigenous Australians are derided for the 'stone age culture'. Drawing on knowledge before colonisation is seen as backwards while the drawing on the likes of Plato's knowledge is acceptable. Why is this?

I refer to your use of Platoism because of the notion of 'turning the other cheek', or racism isn't racism if you don't accept that it is.

You state that "the person who attributed no ‘ill-intent’ would no longer engage in negative conflict aimed at inducing ‘guilt’ ... but rather, if they were serious about change, would allow them to begin to work on solving the ‘root cause’ of the problem." It sounds a lot like Platoism to me - to help a person accept their lot in life be it rich, poor or slave.

Is the thrust of your argument that if one refuses to acknowledge racism it ceases to exist?

Perhaps we are looking at the same issue from different angles, I for one have seen that ignoring racism does not make the perpetrator open to changing their ways. Do you subscribe the same actions to bullying - if it is ignored it does not really exist

For Aka,
“Relax Anthony, I have not misquoted you. . ..”
Thanks for the advice about relaxing (always welcomed). I am often misquoted or taken out of context by people who need to prop up their arguments that oppose mine, hence my “knee jerk response”.

“I find it odd that you disbelieve the effects of racism. At the Indigenous Academic doctors . . . Your stance puts you at odds with the majority, have you never wondered about that?”

People love to make these grand claims “Racism is a major problem.” Claims like that are easy to make, but much more difficult to prove – and you seem to have a bit of difficulty proving your claims. I agree, you are certainly in the majority here. But as you have trouble proving your claims (or at least providing any strong evidence), I would not wish to follow the majority. I think it is extremely weak when a person’s best argument is “many other people agree with me so I must be right.” On the matter of the effects of racism, an equally weak argument is “well people believe racism affects them, so it must be true.” It is a fundamental principle of psychology, that people have no problem finding many explanations (rationalisations) for their behaviours. For example, a student may believe (or at least claim) that he failed the test because the lecturer had it in for him. That is an easier pill to swallow than “I did not study enough.” Just because he describes what he believes to be true about himself, does not make it true.

Are you aware that correlation does not equal causation? Based on your postings, I suspect not. A person may be not doing well in life (may be poor, unhappy, etc.), and also observe (often with extreme subjectivity) that racism exists. To conclude that “it is racism that causes me to be unhappy” is a leap of faith. Again, if racism is the problem, then why is it that so many Aboriginal people seem to be unaffected by it and doing well?

For Aka

“Regarding me supplying you with more information on the 'working together' book, you are a researcher it is not for me to do your work for you. Like you, on forums such as this I don't use academic writing style.”

Asking for a brief summary of what the publication is about is not asking you to do my work. If the publication’s message is the same as your messages given here, and the others you have quoted, then I can guess what the message is. I don’t wish to waste my time reading nonsense that only disempowers Australia’s already most disempowered people.

Yes, I realise that you (like me) use a different style of writing in forums like this. I was referring to the logic you use. Specifically, your claims that what you say (in regard to racism) is true because other people (the majority) agree with you. I do not deny the existence of racist acts and attitudes (though I suspect they are less wide spread than what you would like to believe). But I do not see the evidence that this racism is a significant cause of the problems facing Aboriginal people. In fact I see much counter evidence – which you seem to be in denial of. Why is that? I suspect I will be waiting a long time for you to prove your claims. In the meantime, you may have to just rely on your consensus argument (can there be any weaker evidence to support one’s position?)

You are aware that people like Copernicus and Galileo went against the majority? They did not win any popularity contests in their day. Have you read about Ignaz Semmelwei? I would encourage you to do so. Another man who was not afraid to break with the majority. Now I don’t claim to put myself in the same category as these great people, but just wanted to make the point, that just because a lot of people believe something, that does not make it true.

Aka, imagine you and I sitting in a room together and someone walks in and says “You pair of black cu&^%, I hate you.” I think one of us would laugh and say “Thanks for your opinion, have a nice day” (and recognise that the 'abuser' has low self-esteem) while the other would get upset, moan and groan, and believe that the spoken words have upset her (no prizes for guessing which one of us is the one to easily get upset). The upset person may even possibly boast that they have been a victim of racism! Is it fair to say that one of us values their own opinion of themselves more than other people’s opinions of them? Is it fair to say that one believes others have more power over them than they have over themselves? Now for someone who is “spiritual” they would understand and see the relevance of what I have written here. I think what I am saying here is similar to what Namaste (? – though he/she can clarify if he/she wishes) may have been saying in an earlier post: Nobody is denying that the words were spoken by the person entering the room. And nobody is denying that the words may have been spoken in anger and hate. However, the words have no power themselves to upset another (though people with low self-esteem may choose to express ‘upset’ ‘anger’ etc., in an attempt to protect their poor self-image). To suggest that the words have power is absurd. If the words themselves did have power, they would upset everybody. “Only the weak set out to offend, and only the weak get offended.” Aka, until you can provide some proof that racism is a major cause of problems for Aboriginal, there is very little point continuing this discussion. And as I have said previously, quoting others who agree with you is not proof.

AKA

That there are problems to be solved in society, I don't disagree with. My different view relates to how such problems are solved. “For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root." Henry David Thoreau. I focus on the 'root' of the problem and will leave others to hack away at the leaves.

To the question "who won the WWII?" the answer is clearly no-one! There are no 'winners' in any warfare where both sides use basically the same methods of 'attack' - just degrees of 'losing'. 65 Million people lost their lives in WWII - the majority were civilian - in a 'fight for the right'. Yes, it is easy to look at the Germans as having as the aggressors - until you study what happened after WWI - and if you want to see what pushed people into WWI just look at what preceded it -- and back and back and back.

Attack the 'enemy' and you strengthen the enemy. I feel that Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Gandhi - none of whom were perfect - had somewhat of a better grasp of the psycho-dynamics of social change. You may disagree, fine, but they at least attempted to get beyond 'attacking' the enemy. If you feel there is clear evidence of the success of your approach - list the examples, and I will review my understanding. To ‘escape the cave’ and its 'Shadowlands' of illusion one must fight the egoic ‘dragon’.

Forty years of professional pro bono work in conflict resolution - family, prisons, organisational, and education settings, have given me experiential evidence that the inducement of guilt in the mind of the bullies in the hope of it resulting in positive change is doomed to failure - there is a better way - and it does work. I am an old man now, and still have much to learn, so I am open to new ideas that work better than the ones I have tried to date.

Thank you for your comments. Cheers & Namaste

Hi Anthony,

Of course, there is one major form of racism that has not been talked about - the racism of low expectations.

The racism that allows people to loaf in their jobs, all their 'working' lives, and nobody complains (and surely we all know of many, many people in this fortunate situation).

The racism that allows Aboriginal students to demand softer marking on the grounds that they cannot be expected to put in the same quality of work as non-Aboriginal students.

The racism that excuses Aboriginal people for smashing up their publicly-funded houses and runs to their support when they demand new ones.

The racism that ignores Aboriginal achievement, such as fifteen hundred new university graduates each year ('Real Blackfellas couldn't possibly be succeeding at university in those numbers. They must be ring-ins. Or not really graduates.')

The racism that excuses young Aboriginal kids for vandalising cars and houses, roughing up people in the streets, ram-raiding, car-theft, causing mayhem in other people's lives.

And the racism that tries to excuse Aboriginal people on the grounds that they don't, or can't, know any better ('And after all, they're still Stone Age people, how can they be expected to catch up with the level of behaviour of non-Aboriginal people after only a couple of hundred years ?') Or that they should be 'loyal' to their 'culture' and not even try to seize opportunities - after all, that's aswsimilation.

Those sorts of racism. The racism of double standards. Racism that would never use a nasty word openly - but would excuse Aboriginal people from using, for example, a phrase like 'flop-eared, Dumbo white c*&^' when referring to Abbott. Although I'm sure he can take it.

[TBC]

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away...

When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn’t see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish he’d go away

"Antigonish" is an 1889 poem by American educator and poet Hughes Mearns

And then there is the racism which really does penalise Aboriginal people, such as the expectation that qualified Aboriginal teachers or nurses should, like it or not, want to go out into the sticks for life to work with 'their own', and not to think of standard promotion pathways, or coming back into the city to work - these tend to be reserved for whites, in a sophisticated racist society.

Or vice versa, the racism that consistently excludes qualified Aboriginal conservation managers from having much to do with crucial land issues.

Yes, there is racism, but its forms seem to be way beyond many people's understanding. Sometimes I think that whites, especially academics and professionals generally, have an amazing genius in inventing new forms of it all the time - not because they are particularly racist but in the dog-eat-dog world of competition for position, they will use anything against whoever they need to, racism, sexism, xenophobism, anti- or pro-gay, secret handshakes, whatever, to keep them down, and/or out.

Cheers,

Joe

I have an idea. Why don't WE take the first step in weeding out racism by ignoring it here on OLO ?
That'll soon stop the sad mutts from hijacking very second thread.

Anthony, you presume too much. You assume that you know me, or how I would react to overt racism. Your imaginary scenario is unlikely to occur but I have laughed off worse, I don't let clowns like your imaginary friend get to me.

The issue I have with your article is that you deny racism has a negative effect. Your arguments are merely assertions of your interpretation of the world - you don't want to consider the effects of racism on Indigenous Australians and if you say it often enough it must be true.

I have seen racism's effects on kids at school, people seeking health care (the AMA was shocked by its research into heart disease treatment for Indigenous Australians). Racism is often subtle, and may sometimes be an unconscious act that the perpetrator was socialised in - sometimes with no ill-intent. However, this does not make its effects any less real. It does not make racism go away. Denying racism as a cause of problems does not stop the low education expectations. It does not stop stereotyping by medical staff. Denying racism does not rebuild self-esteem and combat depression and internalised sense of being a second-class citizen. Confidence and pride in identity can lessen the effect of racism but it does not mean that racism ceases to exist and harm.

Your simplistic definition of racism, recognises only overt racism. Your suggestion that because some Indigenous have succeeded in mainstream society they have not experienced racism demonstrates you have a closed mind. Andrew Bolt claims you as a good friend. Are you sure you are not saying what you think others want you to say.

Joe,
I think you might be onto something about new ways being invented.

Anthony,
by the way, in your imaginary scenario I would be highly offended by the cu&^%, it is very profane.

The greater percentage of racism is brought on by those who claim to be the victims. Objectionable behaviour invites retribution which in turn is being twisted into discrimination and, Bingo ! Someone screams racism.

“The issue I have with your article ... deny racism has a negative effect. Your arguments are merely assertions of your interpretation of the world - you don't want to consider the effects of racism on Indigenous Australians and if you say it often enough it must be true.”

Until you give some good evidence (not just the consensus claptrap argument you rely on), then yes, I will fail to see this “racism effect” you keep referring to, though fail dismally to prove. “Aka, it would seem that your arguments are merely assertions of your interpretation of the world - you want to believe the effects of racism on Indigenous Australians and if you say it often enough it must be true.” Yes, like me, you are entitled to your opinion, but when making grand claims, please justify them. How about you try just one more time Aka. Show me the evidence that the problems facing Aboriginal people today are caused by racism. And while you are at it, please explain why this racism you refer to, seems to have no effect on many fine Aboriginal people Australians. And when I refer to these ‘fine Aboriginal people Australians’ I am not just referring to those with 2 drops of Indigenous blood, but those who are very clearly Aboriginal, and have faced examples of what could be considered racism, yet found it within themselves to succeed. Do a little bit of research and you will see that my father is a good example of what I am talking about. It’s not what’s outside of you that matters, but what’s on the inside – a fact that seems to have slipped by those Aboriginal people who claim to be so spiritual.

And judging by your statement “in your imaginary scenario I would be highly offended by the cu&^%, it is very profane”, although I don’t know you, I do have a fair idea of you the sort of person you are – basically a good person, but someone who believes others have more power over you than you have over yourself.

In support of what Anthony has said above regarding 'not seeing' racism, it needs to be understood that 'racism' is word that has no more 'objective reality' that can actually be ‘seen’ than do words like 'jealousy’ ‘disappointment’ ‘bigot ‘prejudiced’ etc. All such words are purely ‘connotation’ not ‘denotation’. CONNOTATION = “the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes”. DENOTATION = “a direct specific meaning as distinct from an implied or associated idea”. The word ‘pig’ has a denotation (the animal itself), and it has a connotation and hence can be used ‘pejoratively’ (i.e., as a “disparaging or belittling word or expression”). The term ‘racist’ or ‘racism’ along with ‘jealousy’ ‘bigot’ are always used as CONNOTATIONS – because they actually have no empirically or objectively observed reality.

Because they are connotations and can only have any ‘existence’ in human minds (they don’t have any real existence outside the human mind) they always relate to ‘perceptions’ or ‘interpretations’ of the entirely neutral facts in our objective world – and these interpretations have deep roots in (i) the core motive through which each mind interprets its world – our ‘state of being’, (ii) the unchosen social programming we have learned through our life that gives the particular ‘form’ to the core motive through which we ‘see’ (iii) the ongoing stream of events and facts that we are confronted moment by moment during our journey since our unchosen birth into a body. Not all connotations are used to ‘attack’ and describing someone as ‘mistaken’ or even ‘fearful’ can give rise to more helpful outcomes.

Again, Einstein’s ‘only choice’ (and in relation to all other factors Einstein was a ‘determinist’) “we are either full of fear [separate interests] or full of love [shared interests]” all the rest is merely the unchosen potentials that we happen to find in our biological history, social history, and present circumstances. Again – ‘racism’ is a pejorative connotation use by fear driven people in their futile attempts to change the conditions of their world – thereby making it worse!

Namaste,

"Because they are connotations and can only have 'existence' in human minds..."

But these are the constructs utilised by humans to act upon the world and to influence those around them.

"..'racism' is the pejorative connotation use by fear driven people in their futile attempts to change conditions of their world..."

Would you deny that the social partition of blacks from whites in America in the past or Apartheid in South Africa were driven by connotations of racial superiority and inferiority by those who were running the respective shows?....and protest against such social manipulation in these instances turned out to be not so futile in the long run.

Discussion like this are great. To faciliate discussions, it is good when questions are asked. However, when questions are not answered by the people they are diected to, then I thnk there is very little to be gained. There have been some good questins asked here, but a failure by some to provide an answer.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, as William Thomas wrote back in the twenties, something may not be real but if people believe it to be real, it can have real consequences. A 'situation' can take on a life of its own.

'Race' is not a valid concept. But many people believe it is real, and act on those beliefs. So this imaginary concept actually does have consequences - for example, discrimination based on 'race', leading to racist policies like Apartheid in South Africa, segregation and discrimination in pre-1960s US, and including 'adapted curriculum' all over the colonial world and in Australia and NZ, almost up the present day.

So a belief in 'race' can have effects, consequences - but the question is whether or not, say, Aboriginal people should let it drag them down, and whether or not they can use its baneful effects as an excuse for not trying to prevail over it. Nobody has to be a victim.

To use another example, witches: As I understand it, the last witch to be burned alive in Europe died in Hungary in 1929 (if she was a young girl, she could have still been alive today).

Traditional 'cultures' usually include some very backward ideas, such as the power of witches to cast spells etc. Today, most of us don't believe in such things, or in the power of witchcraft, except in remote communities. But back then, in peasant Hungary, people did.

So they believed that the only way to rid themselves of this threat was to destroy the woman believed responsible. [After all, most traditional 'cultures' are strongly anti-women, believing them to be unclean, dangerous, of the Devil, etc.] So the poor girl was burnt alive: a false belief certainly did have real consequences.

But - Jay - you can't work backwards from effects or consequences, to 'prove' that there is such a thing as 'race'. Or witches either :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,
Racial segregation is only a negative from an Anti Racist point of view and Anti Racists are a tiny minority of the population.
"Racist" Apartheid South Africa imprisoned black Men at a rate of about 800 per 100,000, and this was in a time when that nation was fighting a brutal internal war against the bloodthirsty Communist insurgents of the ANC and SWAPO.
Since the ANC takeover the incarceration rate of Black men has moved to over 900 in the last few years and we all know the murder rate, road toll, rapes, robberies and fraud have all gone vertical on the charts.

Liberal, tolerant U.S.A in 2006 imprisoned Black Men at a rate of almost 5,000 per 100,000.

Who has the better record from an anti Racist point of view?

A bit of a non sequitur, Jay.

There are so many other factors involved in differential incarceration rates (employment, education/skills, location, 'culture', sentencing systems) that you can't really conclude from one to the other.

Racial segregation was an evil, even if the 'Left' these days see it as the only way to save traditional Aboriginal culture, i.e. by requiring Aboriginal people to stay out in the sticks, not venture into urban areas, which are after all the proper domain of white people, not to seek employment (so bourgeois), not to get any decent sort of education (so assimilationist) - in other words, to live short, but pure, culture-oriented lives.

On those criteria, I am proud to be a thorough assimilationist :)

Cheers,

Joe

>>Racial segregation is only a negative from an Anti Racist point of view and Anti Racists are a tiny minority of the population.<<

Really? Do you think the Warsaw Ghetto was just fine and dandy? Do you think most of the population think the Warsaw Ghetto was just fine and dandy?

I'm with Joe: because of the 'racism of low expectations' Aboriginals have made their own ghettoes. That's never a good thing.

Cheers,

Tony

Poirot

You asked me -- "Would you deny that the social partition of blacks from whites in America in the past or Apartheid in South Africa were driven by connotations of racial superiority and inferiority by those who were running the respective shows?....and protest against such social manipulation in these instances turned out to be not so futile in the long run."

In response to the first sentence - NO, I would not deny that "connotations of racial superiority and inferiority" drove the despotic actions of Apartheid -- WHICH WAS WRONG. However, it was not the deluded connotations (fictions in the mind's of white leaders) that the just protest railed against - it railed against the open and very empirically describable despotic actions of the fear driven white minority. Mandela, in fact, finally realised that treating his white oppressors as 'evil' and to be despised only made matters worse. He became so loving, kind and gentle to his guards at the Robben Island prison that they couldn't stand it and they had to keep changing his guards for fear they one of them may end up releasing him. His actions towards President F. W. de Klerk were so 'non-aggressive' that even de Klerk finally gave in. So, no, I don't agree that engaging in 'war' against 'racism' brought the end to Apartheid - it was 'joining with' the enemy, and seeing 'him' and deluded and fearful, rather than fighting against 'the enemy' that finally won the day, and even many of the fear driven white people who had previously supported Apartheid.

Anthony,
you don't know me. I am a kind, law-abiding, respectable, intelligent, strong person. I do not feel inferior or feel that others have more power over me than I do. I am comfortable in myself as an Indigenous woman, a grandmother. Feminism doesn't make a lot of sense to me as I have never felt inferior or superior to a male, even if they think I should. Equal but different is how I see the gender (and race) issue. My husband and I own our own home and cars, nothing flash but we owe nothing. Don't try to convince yourself that because I disagree with you I have some sort of axe to grind. I just disagree with your dodgy assertions.

Your attempt at high-brow discussion on racism does not take into account that by year 2 an Indigenous child internalises that they are expected to be inferior, with lesser expectations for success and more negative stereotypes to contend with. Try using your random assertions to a kid in year 2. (No this did not happen to me, so no psychobabble please). Try telling a kid going into year 11 that black kids don't do physics in that school - simply because.

Anthony, I think you are trolling with this piece to try to gain approval in the mainstream society you cherish. You use assertions instead of proof. I would like to see what proof you have to back up your stance.


Tony,
for some, the racism of low expectations has kept Aboriginals IN the ghettos where racist policies placed them , at the margins of society.

Namaste,
your main thrust seems to be that the word racism/racist offends some people.

Individual,
the victim card does not suit you.

Good post Aka, You are truly an inspiration sister and I pay homage to your knowledge and warm heart. I just don't have the strength at the moment (or indeed the inclination) to unpack and repack Dr Dillon's delusions, unsupported assertions, twisted contrarian logic, and tap dancing back slapping overtures to white supremacy. This is a man who hangs out with the nutters at the Bennelong society. Kind of sez it all really. I think we've provided more than enough time and effort with him here. “Radicals” like Charlie Perkins and Kevin Gilbert, Mum Shirl and many others (including many non Indigenous people) did not protest against (and then pragmatically negotiate) with the forces of institutional racism and policies in education and other avenues so that people like Dr Dillon can come along (and benefit) - but then churlishly condemn their legacy “against racism” as being ‘extremist’ and wrongheaded and unfounded. He has no shame, just lots of front. Let him stew in his own poo.

Tony Lavis.
Why bring up the Holocaust? I was born in 1967 in Victoria and I'm neither Jewish nor German, so why would I have an opinion one way or another?
Actually that's a rhetorical question, the Holocaust is supposed to intimidate me and make me think of the consequences of "Hate speech", ie it's meant to shut me up.

Oh while we're at it the Boer and White South African Genocide continues apace, nine "Farm murders" in january alone.
Funny how there was no accusation of Genocide in South Africa under this "Racist" Apartheid system but now in the Anti Racist Rainbow nation we have such a level of murder and mayhem being directed at Whites that even the European Parliament is starting to take notice.
Genocide Watch has upgraded it's alert to stage six, preparation for acts of Genocide:
http://afrikanerjournal.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/genocide-watch-upgrades-afrikaner-genocide-to-stage-6/

Then again the basic anti Racist position is "Two wrongs DO make a right" as long as White children are on the receiving end of the violence.

the victim card does not suit you.
Aka,
I'm not playing it but you seem to grasp the feigned indignation card rather tightly.
Let's be brutally honest here and exercise some integrity.
It is so much easier to play the perpetual victim than to admit that so many bend over backwards to make things better. Sadly, too many prefer picking at near healed wounds because claiming victimhood translates directly into continued charity.

Anthony writes:

"Further to the view promoted by some activists that people who identify as Aboriginal are culturally different, spiritually different and have a distinctly different view of the world to non-Aboriginal Austalians..."

Well, yes they do....and if they seek to take part in mainstream consumer society on an equal footing, they will likely be required to shed their particular spiritual and kinship values.

Mainstream Western societal machinations are predicated on the consumerist values of competition, greed and individuality - which, it would appear, are antithetical to indigenous values the world over.

Follow this link: http://esvc000200.wic061u.server-web.com/lrq/archives/200008/stories/col_dillon.html

Here is a Dillon worth listening to and was once AUSTRALIA’S highest-ranking Indigenous police officer. Col declared (and continues to attest) that racism was well entrenched within the upper levels of the Queensland Police Service. Col, in explaining his experience in the force stated that:
“'I experienced the dread spectre of racism from the day I entered the police force in 1965 until this year, when I left the force' (Col Dillon, 2000. Land Rights News)
But according to the logic (?) of Dr Anthony Dillon, Col imagined it all or is simply adopting a victim mentality. I’m proud to call Col my brother and mentor over the years. He’s as tough as nails and does not call a shovel a spade.

So too for Uncle Graham Dillon, much loved and admired Elder of the Kombumerri people, strong salt water mob, like my own

Rainier, given that you and Aka continually fail to substantiate your claims and make silly accusatins about me, I suspect you are one and the same. Anyway, now as for quoting my father (Col Dillon) what you did not quote is that he has never let the racist attitudes of others defeat him, and he has never made it an excuse for any aspect of his life. Further, my father supports me 100% in everythng I do and is in total agreement with me.

"I just don't have the strength at the moment (or indeed the inclination) to unpack and repack Dr Dillon's delusions, unsupported assertions, twisted contrarian logic," well how convenient that is. I put the challenge to you as I have put to Aka: If racism is a major cause of the problems facing many/some Aboriginal people today, then why the hell are so many doing very well for themselves and are an inspiration to the country? Checkmate.

For Aka
“I do not feel inferior or feel that others have more power over me than I do.”
Well that’s good then. So I will assume that if somebody with a racist attitude towards you it has no effect on you whatsoever. I must have misinterpreted you when you make statements like “Racism contributes to the ongoing gap in life expectancy and wellbeing of Indigenous Australians” or “Indigenous people from all walks of life, well off and destitute, talk of racism affecting them. …” or “I have seen racism's effects on kids at school, people seeking health care”

“Your attempt at high-brow discussion on racism does not take into account that by year 2 an Indigenous child internalises that they are expected to be inferior, with lesser expectations for success and more negative stereotypes to contend with”
Maybe what they are internalising is the disempowering trash they repeatefly hear from adults (which includes some grandmothers) that the opinions of others is enough to upset them, make them feel inferior etc. Of course the ‘adult’ in their life does not have to speak this message of victimhood, they can communicate it quite effectively non-verbally. Please google “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

Aka, you keep on pumping out the same poisonous message (which you fail to substantiate) that “Aboriginal people feel inferior, therefore it must be caused by racism”. I can only think of one reason why you fail to support your arguments.

For Aka
“Anthony, I think you are trolling with this piece to try to gain approval in the mainstream society you cherish”
Nice opinion, but like many of your other opinions, they are simply just that – opinions. I submitted this piece (and please check out all my other pieces on The Drum) to help empower Aboriginal people given that they are continually disempowered by members of the victim brigade with the sick messages of “you’re a vicitm of the white man”.

“You use assertions instead of proof. I would like to see what proof you have to back up your stance.”
Too easy. You accuse me of the very thing that you do (this is called projection by the way). I have asked you many times to substantiate your claims, but you fail to. The best you can offer is “well other people say the same as me so I must be right.” I have provided proof to you many times. I shall do it again. There can be no greater proof that people are not upset or disadvantaged by the racism, colonisation, etc. then by the fact that many, many Aboriginal people in this country are doing exceedingly well despite the racism you keep on telling us about. And I notice that you still have not addressed this inescapable observation. “Racism” is just a convenient excuse used by people like yourself.

Aka, I am curious, what is your opinion of someone who thinks “Well it is in the literature, so it must be true”. Or “Many people believe it, so it must be true”

I agree with one of the other contributors here: when questions are asked, then they should be answered.

As you write, Aka, in many cases,

" .... by year 2 an Indigenous child internalises that they are expected to be inferior, with lesser expectations for success and more negative stereotypes to contend with."

And who do they get so much of this stuff from to internalise ? Let's be honest and admit that often, it is directly from the parents and other relations.

I remember one mother on the mission cursing her child for eating her Easter egg, in rather unimaginative but obscene terms, for about two hours. She hadn't bought him an Easter egg, only one for herself.

I recall another mother who was cursing her three-or four-year-old for some minor infringement: "You little Black c$%^, you F&%$@ing Black ape." And be honest, you must know it happens.

I was working one time organising Aboriginal career workshops for school-kids, and somebody in the head office said to me that some parents probably wouldn't like their kids to be getting career advice, and maybe getting more educated or trained than the parents. I promptly said that those kids should be taken off those parents. And I'll stick by that: kids are not the property, the belongings, the chattels, of parents - they are the RESPONSIBILITY of parents. If the parents don't think their kids are precious, then they don't deserve them and they shouldn't have the power to destroy their lives.

Yes, I think I'll stick by that.

So what do many Aboriginal kids internalise ? That it is proper to act the stereotype ? That Blackfellas are low, worthless ? I also recall a couple of brothers arguing bitterly over something incredibly trivial and one calling the other "Well, you're just Black." To which the other brother replied, "Yeah, well, you're double Black." What would kids learn by listening to that sort of talk ? Would this have anything to do with the phenomenally high rate of suicide of Indigenous young people, especially in settlements ?

I'm sure racism and internalisation happens, Aka, but it's not all cut and dried, and from just one source.

Love,

Joe

Anthony,
read my previous post carefully.

I said "by year 2 an Indigenous child internalises THAT THEY ARE EXPECTED to be inferior...", I did not say they felt inferior - they just get the picture of the social script. I have seen kids disengage with school because they don't like the crap they are fed, but most I know are very proud and confident in their identity.

Don't make stuff up - I have not said that Indigenous people feel inferior at all. I have said that racism is real and that it has a negative effect on Indigenous Australians. Don't misquote - it is a sin.

As for 'the literature', as a researcher surely you know that reviewing literature critically does not mean that you can simply dismiss rigorous research undertaken by the likes of the AMA (non-Indigenous research). Their research findings were unexpected and alarming. Rejecting 'the literature' simply because it does not support what you want to find is a serious flaw for any researcher.

Your reasoning is also flawed if you draw on the many Indigenous people who have achieved well in society. Some, as I am sure you will have have heard, is because they assimilated and think 'white' - they are tamed, while others have achieved simply because they worked hard, found ways to overcome or deal with difficulties (like racism), and some saw a break and grasped onto it, worked hard etc.

It is not either or. Being successful does not exclude experiencing racism or other knocks. Just as experiencing racism does not exclude someone from achieving success.

You fool yourself if you think that racism is an excuse. It is a part of the problem facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and it contributes to the poor health outcomes. With your closed mind, rejecting the literature on research, it is very concerning that you are researching Indigenous health and well-being, and mental health.

FYI the working together book is on Indigenous mental health by some significant authors. Researching mental health I would assume you would know the book. Very odd indeed.

>>Why bring up the Holocaust?<<

Because the Warsaw Ghetto is a concrete example racial segregation. Something which you claimed was only regarded as a negative by a small number of people. But I think that nearly everyone in their right mind would agree that the racial segregation which occurred in Nazi ghettoes was a moral travesty.

>>I was born in 1967 in Victoria and I'm neither Jewish nor German, so why would I have an opinion one way or another?<<

So what? I was born in 1982 in New South Wales which makes me Australian with a predominantly Irish Catholic heritage. How does that disqualify me from recognising an immoral act as an immoral act? Is an action only wrong if it negatively effects you personally, or are some misdeeds so immoral that it doesn't matter who the victim is?

I'm not a teenage girl and I'm not a Lebanese Muslim: I still find the actions of a notorious group of gang-rapists some years ago completely sickening even though their crimes have had no direct impact on my life. Ditto the crimes of Jack the Ripper, slavery, the infanticidal practices of the Spartans, the Nazi ghettoes, etc. I think some things are simply beyond the pale even if they happened in the past to somebody else and it doesn't effect me. Don't you?

TBC

>>Actually that's a rhetorical question, the Holocaust is supposed to intimidate me and make me think of the consequences of "Hate speech", ie it's meant to shut me up.<<

Fail. The Warsaw Ghetto example is supposed to demonstrate that there is an error somewhere in this statement:

>>Racial segregation is only a negative from an Anti Racist point of view and Anti Racists are a tiny minority of the population.<<

If you ask nearly anybody who is familiar with the history of the Warsaw ghetto for their views on the subject they will tell you that it was a terrible thing. So either:

a) They're all Anti Racists: everybody who thinks that the Warsaw ghetto was evil, which is just about everyone who knows about the Warsaw ghetto, is an Anti Racist. But somehow Anti Racists are only a tiny minority of the population. Something seems to be wrong with your maths there. Could you please show all your working?

Or more likely:

b) They're not all Anti Racists: people who don't really think about racism enough to bother Capitalising their views on the subject still recognise the Warsaw ghetto for the abomination it was. Even though they are not Anti Racist they can see the negative side of racial segregation and you're wrong that it is only Anti Racists who take this view.

Cheers,

Tony

For Aka
“I have said that racism is real and that it has a negative effect on Indigenous Australians”
So again, please substantiate this claim that the racism causes these effects you continually go on about.

“FYI the working together book is on Indigenous mental health by some significant authors. Researching mental health I would assume you would know the book. Very odd indeed.”
Aka, will you ever think for yourself? Or will you just rely on “well they are very significant authors so what they say must be true.” It would seem that everybody that holds a popular opinion (even if unfounded) is considered “significant”. Very odd (and pathetic) indeed.

“You fool yourself if you think that racism is an excuse. It is a part of the problem facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and it contributes to the poor health outcomes.”
Again, you are unable to support what you say. So I am supposed to believe it (racism) is “a part of the problem facing ...” because Aka and other people who agree with her say so?

“With your closed mind, rejecting the literature on research, it is very concerning that you are researching Indigenous health and well-being, and mental health.”
I am open, but tend to mostly hear people who say “Other people say so, so it must be true.” Aka, with your closed and gullible mind in readily accepting something as true simply because it is in “the literature”, it is very concerning that you are interested in Indigenous health and well-being, and mental health. There are many out there like you. I guess that is one of the reasons why Aboriginal people in this country remained the most disadvantaged group of people.

Hi Aka,

I don't think I'm misquoting you (forgive me if you think I have):

" .... racism is real and that it has a negative effect on Indigenous Australians .... while others have achieved simply because they worked hard, found ways to overcome or deal with difficulties (like racism), and some saw a break and grasped onto it, worked hard etc."

Yes, as I understand it, Anthony would agree with you, that racism exists and it can drag people down if they let it, but other people have prevailed against it, such as yourself, and forged fulfilling lives.

Rainier has praised Anthony's father as an example of this.

So you, Rainier, Anthony and I all agree that racism does not have to hold anybody back - that nobody HAS to be a victim.

Just as there are sexist forces at play in the work-force of probably every working woman in Australia, that doesn't mean that any woman should be cowed by it, or that they should have to put up with it, or let it hold them back.

Discrimination seems to be a very common feature of almost every society, and it probably has been forever. But who wins if people play the victim role ? The perpetrators.

And who wins if people DON'T play the victim role ? The people.

And it's wonderful that we all agree on that :)

Cheers,

Joe

Anthony,
I have given you examples I have witnessed.

I have undertaken rigorous and original research where racism came up as an fact of life for the many people who shared their knowledge with me. It was not the point of the research but people spoke of its effects on their and their family's lives. This is not out of books. Do you expect me to assume that all of the people I interviewed told me lies? Do you question the things I have witnessed? This is simply outrageous.

When I first read your work, I thought you had some interesting and positive ideas - if a little Euro-centric based - and that as you progressed in your studies you would progress to have a more open mind. I think you have restricted your initial potential by pandering to the neo-cons like the Bennelong society and Bolt etc. Your mind remains firmly closed - welded shut.

In your previous work you favour international feel-good sources and make nebulous links, with only the rare flash of insight.

I seriously question your ability to conduct research in your specified area as you do not appear prepared to talk to and listen to people with views other than your own.

In no way have you reflected that your mind is open, you ridicule any literature that differs from your view but provide no evidence of why. By ridiculing and dismissing seminal works in your field, you set yourself up to fail. The irony of it is that your problems stem from racism - you total refusal to consider it an issue.

Anthony, this conversation is at an end. You have proven that you are incapable of accepting any other view than your own. You belittle Indigenous people, academics, researchers, and research participants, you ridicule non-indigenous researchers and academics, under a misguided belief that you alone know the answer.

I suspect Rainier has something in their earlier post "3. This man is either suffering from a mental illness or is on the verge of a breakdown - and is clearly in denial about it."

Anthony, Your OWN father, an ex policeman called it racism, named it as racism, fought against it and survived and prospered. So have I doing my more that 50 years on this world. BUT COL (and I) have no hesitation in calling it RACISM when we feel its required. Theorising it away (as you do) does not make it simply disapear. Your motive here dishonours the words and actions of your father, your uncles, your cousins etcetera. Now, I'm sure they don't get up every morning and say ' I'm going to find some racism and fight it but this is exactly how you pathologise anyone who declares racism as a negative variable in their own personal experience or in analysing a situation for someone else. Its clear to me that you have are not well read on the literature of critical race theory and your attempt here at compensating for this lack of scholarship falls flat on its face. Do the hard yards Anthony, don't be lazy.

Joe (Loudmouth),
you logic is flawed.

First, I have been told by parents (even though I find this really disturbing) that they deliberately cal their kids racially profane names in order to immunise them - to try to stop them firing up if they are called these names by others. It shocks me, but many parents told me of this practice. As one person put it, his sons were unlikely to fire up if they were called a n*#$ or a b*^#g etc, if those words were used as endearments by their parents. (I am not sure this applies in your stories). This is done to try to keep the young people from ending up in fights and in jail. It is a truly tragic tactic to overcome the effects of racism.

Second, Sure it is not good for people to erroneously play victim, as it the non-Indigenous person claiming to be hard done by compared to Indigenous Australians. Nor is it good for people to cry wolf and pretend there is an issue when there is not.

However, your logic stumbles regarding people not playing the victim so the perpetrator does not win. Now I am not a victim, I tend to stand and fight, but I know how to run if needs be.

Your scenario lacks the concept of justice.
If you put the perpetrator as a bully/thief/murderer then surely the victim is not expected to turn the other cheek, or ignore the behavior, or meekly submit.

Why shouldn't racism, and racist acts and legislation, be challenged with an expectation of justice being achieved.

Challenging racism and racist acts is not victimhood, it is a quest for justice

Aka "that they deliberately cal their kids racially profane names in order to immunise them "

You may be proving the point of the article.

That and more moderate conditioning of children to expect racism will create attitudes which generate negative reactions which then get intepreted as racism. A self fulfilling cycle regardless of the actual amount ofracism in the community.

It's more than likely that kid's conditione that way (and with the same message in a more subtle form) will interact in a negative manner with those they've been taught are racist and likely to look down on them because of race. The kid who's been taught to expect racism will more than likely find evidence by the nature of the way they interact with others outside their own grouping, not generally because of racism but rather the way they then interact outside their own grouping.

That does not discount the possibility of actual racism occuring but it does significantly overstate how much actual racism someone comes across.

R0bert

Hi Aka,

When you write, " .... I have been told by parents (even though I find this really disturbing) that they deliberately call their kids racially profane names in order to immunise them .... "

my response is "Complete bullsh!t !" And I DON'T apologise for the rudeness. That is a contemptible interpretation of a contemptible act perpetrated on small children. It is a vile excuse for the inexcusable.

Apart from that, congratulations for snatching defeat from the jaws of a mutual victory.

And no, I most certainly would never advise people to 'forgive and forget', or to turn the other cheek - which, in the quote above, you seem to actually advocate. Or have I got that wrong ?

In the cases I cited, those two kids are probably dead by now: after all they would be at least forty, and guys in communities often don't live past forty. Which is why, if I was in the position to, I would advise people to get the hell out of communities, get to the towns or cities, get skills and never look back. And also never forget who it was who called you foul names.

OF COURSE injustice must be combatted whenever and wherever it occurs - but are you saying that includes within one's family as well ? When one's nearest and dearest call you names as if they mean it, what is one to believe about oneself ? What is the worse injustice to bear - some yob stranger calling you names, or your own ?

You can do better than that, Aka - you surely have not sunk that low ?

Joe

Malcolm X on House negro's (1965)

"If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master, more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigg*ers." And that's what we call them today, because we've still got some house nigg*ers running around here."

Aka, your contributions are valued, as are everyone else's. I am not an academic, but I was taught from an early age not to believe something just because somebody also believes it or asserts it as truth. I was also taught, that if a lot of people believe something or assert its truth, then it should be questioned. I guess the reason is, that consensus is no substitute for truth. I have not read the works of the authors you have quoted (and would likely have difficulty understanding scholarly works given my limited education), but I think it is helpful if you provide some clarification for your claims for simple people like me.

From what I can interpret here, most agree that racism, in some form, and to varying degrees exist. Some claim that any such racism has a direct impact on the person for whom the racism was intended. That is a worthwhile claim, but given the counter examples given in this lengthy discussion (and I see that as good), some are questioning that claim. If I say all swans are black, and you present me with a white swan, then that would be a counter example that casts doubt on my claim.

If somebody, or even many people say something like "Tony Abbott makes me angry," are we to really believe that it is Tony who makes these people angry (and he possibly has never ever met them) simply because they say so?

No R0bert, I do not agree with the article.
My argument is that racism can be so bad that people use the inexcusable tactics I described - in sheer desperation. Mind you it does not work. Just as friends may call each other b*stards, they would be likely to take offense if anyone else called them that. Actual racism can be far worse than reported.

Joe,
I also said bulldust, when I first witnessed the shameful tactic. The kids are now young adults and rightly take offense at those names. It does not work.

I most certainly do NOT suggest turning the other cheek.

Puppydog68,

I am sure your educational status would not hinder your understanding of the articles. Many of the articles are online - google scholar is great. It is good to see you interested.

For the record, if I said that Tony Abbott made me angry, why would you question it? To question is to assume that you knew more about myself than I do. If you do not believe me when I say I have experienced racism, that would no doubt make me angry. Would you then question whether I was angry?

It is patronising.

Rainier, sadly, I know what you mean.

Tony Lavis.
See we're different, you have a biased view of history and I don't, I see the National Socialists through the same lens as all the other power groups of that era, Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Daladier and Moscicki have to be seen within the same context.
Auschwitz sits alongside Gulag, the Warsaw Ghetto sits alongside the misery of the Kolhozy.
Your way of looking at history and your belief system is only useful if you're promoting egalitarian values, I'm not promoting any such thing so it stands to reason that I'd have an alternative viewpoint, I look at the run up to WW2 objectively so it's impossible for me to come to the same conclusions as you do.
But in the end you're just playing the anti Racist game as I've described it, to be admitted into your particular belief system requires faith in and devotion to a series of "truths" as doctrine and a strict adherence to dogma in the face of contradiction or heresy.
I can't remove you from your platform via logic or reason because, like all faith based systems of understanding the world it is neither logical nor rational.

Apartheid was a system ‘separate development’ along racial lines based on the mistaken belief that the cultural histories of each ‘race’ were so different that it would be better if each race took personal responsibility for their own separate development. Needless to say, of course, the fear driven minority race made it virtually impossible for the majority race to fulfil their true potential.

My question is this – was it wrong to entertain and promote the notion of separate cultures, separate histories, and separate interests and separate development – or was it only wrong that the fear driven, but increaslingly powerful minority, would never allow this philosophy to actually work?

'I experienced the dread spectre of racism from the day I entered the police force in 1965 until this year, when I left the force' (Col Dillon, 2000)

"There could well be some rogue coppers out there", (Anthony Dillon, 2012)

According to Anthony his Dad was just imagining racism in the Qld police force and that he should have provided hard evidence to support his claim. Shame Anthony, shame.

Those who exploit racism are even more despicable than racism itself.

I don't even know what google scholar is, but I am sure it's something good. With regard to Abbott, I think the author is suggesting that the person may be angry, but Abbott is not the cause, even though he may not like Abbott. I tend to agree with the author on this point. People can find all sorts of explanations for their anger/frustrations - none of which may be right. For about the first 50 years of my marriage, I used to think that my wife made me angry when she was late (always was let, always will be late). The facts are, she is late (constantly); I would get angry (constantly). My anger could not be denied, her lateness could not be denied. However, through some deep reflections, (and the help of some wise friends) I began to realise, my wife never made me angry, I made me angry. The day I realised this, I ceased being her puppet. Today, if I am her puppet, it is because I want to be. :) I don't question whether or not you get angry if I doubt your experience with racism, but I do question whether or not I am the cause of your anger. I see good points by the author, you and others here. But I do disagree with you on this matter. You are angry, but I am not the cause of your anger, just like my wife has never been the cause of my anger. It always felt good knowing that I had an excuse for being angry - my wife. For me, the most rewarding, and most difficult thing in my life, was to give up believing that others make me angry. We like to assign responsibility to others for our anger. I have to go, the wife is calling.

Puppydog68

Well, I have to say, you're a wise old 'Puppydog' to say the least - good to see such clear thinking with your separation of responsibilities and the end of 'victim-hood'!

Thank you.

Puppydog68,

When you have finished the washing-up, go into Google and type in "Google Scholar" and bookmark it ! A gold-mine !

Cheers,

Joe

Namaste,
Are you saying that the White South African's fear of being murdered by bloodthirsty Black Communists was unfounded?
Everything in context right? Sharpeville sits alongside Cato Manor, tens of Police attacked by thousands of hostile Black communists, what would you have done if you were a White Policeman and you knew what the mob was planning to do to you, ie castrate you, beat and stab you to death and drag your body through the streets.
You can show sympathy for Steve Biko or Mandela but not for Anika Smit, of course poor young Anika never made it to the nightly news over here, just like the thousands of other Whites murdered, raped and tortured to death by Blacks.
http://riverbanker.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/anika-smit.html
Don't lecture us about morality when you promote racial bias yourself, at least I'm objective and I don't pretend to be something I'm not.

Again, nobody accused the Apartheid Regimes of Genocide, but the ANC regime is accused of actual preparation for acts of Genocide and the plight of White South Africans is now becoming impossible to ignore, the European Parliament is even finally starting to stir.
You know darn well that anti Racists do ignore, cover up and downplay crimes against White people in the multiracial societies they created out of formerly White countries.

For Rainier (and I suspect you are possibly Aka, given the racist tones in your messages). As mentioned before, you started out in this forum poorly by doubting that I had a PhD and you went down hill from there to the point where you think that you know my father better than what I know him. Let me point out some facts: he is in 100% agreement with my ideas, he did not achieve what he did in his career by letting racism be an excuse whenever things did not go his way; he strongly opposes the victim brigade, and sees people like you as a major hindrance to the advancement of Aboriginal people. I have not shared your words with him yet, but I am sure his blood would boil if he read your lies. Now I have never denied racism, so stop your lying. And you have demonstrated how week you are when you need to lie. To say something like "According to Anthony his Dad was just imagining.." is plain stupid. Shame Rainier, shame.
For Aka, it is interesting that you accuse me of the very things you do and are. I am not closed minded, but am very open minded. I am open to the idea that racism may be the cause of the problems facing Aboriginal people, but you are unable to provide any evidence and conveniently ignore the counter evidence. As I see it, and I am happy to be corrected here, your evidence is 1) Aka says so, 2) many other people agree with Aka's claims, and 3) racism is the cause of people's problems simply because they say so. Perhaps you need to check the limitations of self-reported data. You remind me of a friend who says she can contact the spirit world, she may claim it, she just has difficulty proving it. I have no doubt that she believes it, but her claim still has no validity for me. Both of you are in a hole and should stop digging.

“I have undertaken rigorous and original research ...their knowledge with me.”
I think you mean “they shared their opinions with me”. So people claim that they are upset/offended/hurt etc, and they believe it is caused by racism, so it must be true? That is your idea of “rigorous and original research”? Did your PhD come out of cereal box? Aka, if somebody told you they were upset because it was an overcast day, would you say that must be the truth because they said so? Again, how do you explain the fact that many people who have experienced racism (and overcast days), are totally unaffected by it? I do try to be open. I do believe racism exists. What I have doubts about is that the racism is the cause for people’s problems.
“ Do you expect me to assume that all of the people I interviewed told me lies? Do you question the things I have witnessed? This is simply outrageous.”
You witness what people tell you. I am not questioning that. How do you validate their claims?

“In no way have you reflected that your mind is open”
My mind is open, but I’m just waiting for something better than your consensus argument to come along.
“By ridiculing and dismissing seminal works in your field, you set yourself up to fail. The irony of it is that your problems stem from racism - you total refusal to consider it an issue. “
“Seminal works”? because you say they are? I have never refused to acknowledge racism (just as I never refuse to acknowledge overcast days), I just do not see the evidence that it is the cause of people’s problems.

“Anthony, this conversation is at an end. You have proven that you are incapable of accepting … under a misguided belief that you alone know the answer. “
Such false accusations tell more about you than I. You certainly are in the majority with your thinking. Can you see why Aboriginal people remain the most disempowered group in this country?

“while others have achieved simply because they worked hard, found ways to overcome or deal with difficulties (like racism), and some saw a break and grasped onto it, worked hard etc.”

One of the very few sensible statements you have made in this discussion.

“As for 'the literature', as a researcher surely you know that reviewing literature critically does not mean that you can simply dismiss rigorous research undertaken by the likes of the AMA (non-Indigenous research)”

I could ask you to give some examples of this “rigorous research undertaken” but I already know what your response will be.

“Being successful does not exclude experiencing racism or other knocks. Just as experiencing racism does not exclude someone from achieving success.”

I agree 100%. Did I say otherwise?

In each of your postings, you fail to substantiate your claims and fail to answer my questions. Why not quit while you are behind?

At this stage I should acknowledge your positive points. Usually by now, many of the people I have debated with would have slandered me or suggested that I deny the holocaust.

“Some, as I am sure you will have heard, is because they assimilated and think 'white' - they are tamed,”

More typical Aka/Rainier racist nonsense. Your statements are an insult (which is evidence of your insecurity and sincerity) to the many fine Aboriginal people in this country whose integrity and fortitude has brought them success. Based on this, I refuse to correspond with you any further, so after this post, go ahead and have the last say.

I am left wandering why you do not wish to see Aboriginal people enjoy a life equal with other Australians

Anthony,
I am not Rainier.

I was not going to respond as I feel you are grasping at straws if you cannot see that some people experience/process/react to things differently. Some people may have more or less supports or opportunity.

You have made me cranky though that you dare assume what or how I might think.

You challenge the integrity or capacity of the people I interviewed. It would surprise you that many of those interviewed and who shared their knowledge with me are some of the successful people you like to cite.

These are not people who discussed racism as victims, it was discussed as evidence of ignorance, malice, or just stupidity, but not as victims. Racism was not the topic of my research but it arose as a small side issue. The affects of racism were discussed at a critical level - not the cheap shots that minimise and deny racism you take.

Your derision of respondents in my research is offensive. I assure you, you would not like to tell these people that you don't believe them.

Puppydog68,
the tactic you use, I would call 'owning what you say' and it is a good strategy for communicating in relationships. Most people are lazy and say that TA makes them angry, rather than the more accurate I get angry at TA.

However if I said I was angry at TA I would mean I was angry, and if some clown told me I was not rally angry because anger was all about victim-hood or whatever, I am pretty sure I would be even more angry.
Hope that helps.

Dr Dillon, Aka is not me and I am not her, but we have a common understanding of you're motives and grand standing. Most of all I thank the great spirits that I am not you. I doubt very much that your father would call people on Palm Island part of the 'victim brigade' or any other community where police corruption and their 'racist' actions have contributed to a death in custody. He (unlike you) has a very grounded understanding of the dynamics of institutional racism. Anthony, I can only feel sorry for you, I really do. How sad that someone who could do so much for our people is focused on publically chiding us just to win favour with scum like Andrew Bolt and others. Shame, shame, double shame.

Rainier, you were caught out lying and now add heaping abuse on Andrew Bolt. Mate you are a coward hiding behind your silly nick name. Well of course all liars are cowards it goes with the territory.

Jay of Melbourne

I think you must have been responding to some-else's question, because your response seemed to have no relevance to my simple question - or were you responding to something I had posted earlier - for I don't see how what you had to say has any relationship to what I have asked or written.

Keep this in mind, however, "we do not see the world as it is, but as we are" and "the judgement we make of another's intent - which cannot been seen directly - is a projection of what our own intent would be if we put ourselves in their shoes" - hence when we a judging another's character we are really just judging our own - but are unwilling to really be honest enough to accept it. This is a psychological law and it applies to all - including me.

"the judgement we make of another's intent - which cannot been seen directly - is a projection of what our own intent would be if we put ourselves in their shoes"

That's extremely relevant to the core of this discussion. A perception by someone that they have been the subject of racism does not necessarily indicate that's what's occurred.

There are cases where racism is blatent and can't be confused with much else but my impression (allowing that I can't judge intent either) is that the majority of what's considered racism is about other stuff.
- cultural differences being probably the biggest. Culture often being identified in language by racial characteristics.
- starting from a confrontational position. Someone who is taught from an early age that Australia is an intollerant racist country is going to struggle to interact with others not of their own racial grouping in a positive manner. When that's responded to in kind then it reinforces existing perceptions.

R0bert

• To JBower, up until now I have chosen not to respond to your childish interjections on this topic. When you have something substantial to offer this discussion I may just engage with you on an intellectual level that is worthwhile.

• For the record, nowhere in this discussion has Dr Dillon shown any evidence that racism IS NOT a systemic, societal, institutional, omnipresent, and epistemologically embedded phenomenon that pervades every vestige of our reality.

• Instead he chooses to simply deny it exists, has ever existed, or impacts on the daily lives of many people and shifts the burden of explaining and providing evidence onto those who experience it.

• Indeed there is scant evidence of any sociological framework for discussing this topic from Dillon, just his common sense anecdotal observations and prejudices. But hang on- he wants those who question this methodology to provide him with scientifically approved evidence? Go figure?

• The media construction of Aboriginality over the last decade has been a very public scrutiny that utilizes quasi-psychological methods to demonize 'all' Aboriginal people (except those who have 'made it') as dysfunctional and abhorrent, stuck in a quagmire of self loathing and welfare dependency, unable to understand or comprehend the brave new world that awaits them -where Dr Dillon and other middle class blacks live and prosper every day. Hip hip Horray!

• Be aware that Dillon sets out to target the mainstream imaginings of who Aboriginal people are through his very abstract definition of us as an all encompassing collectively -rather than specific Aboriginal individuals. He uses no examples, data, or geo political evidence, just a pan Aboriginality; devoid of any inter class or ethnic differences, histories or cultures.

• From this approach Dillon’s creates his own dogwhistle,(or borrows’ one from Noel Pearson) and thus creates himself, as a new beaut-aborigine, not like those dirty, good for nothing lazy one’s and especially those noisy race blaming ‘activists’.

• So just what is Dr Dillon’s cure for the Aboriginal problem?

No, Rainier,

Dr Dillon has not denied that racism exists, in its many forms, but he has denied that it MUST keep people down, that nobody can escape its force, and that all Blackfellas are therefore its permanent victims. If you like, he is denying the right of many Aboriginal people to cry into their beer.

Don't try to squeeze something out of nothing. He doesn't write what you would like him to, just so that you can sink the boot in.

I'll repeat: if you were honest enough to admit it, you, Aka, Dr Dillon and I all fundamentally agree that racism exists, but that it need not crush people and make all Aboriginal people its victims.

As for 'solutions', I can't speak for Dr Dillon of course, but I imagine that he would suggest respectfully that he doesn't, and shouldn't have to, propose any solutions - these are up to the Aboriginal people, as long as they put effort into their lives, and if they resist playing the roles of victims or stereotypes.

To realise how complex such a task would be, like the one that you are demanding of Dr Dillon, (and ultimately how inaapropriate it is to ask any one person) try it yourself:

* So just what is Rainier's cure for the Aboriginal problem?

A better question would be:

* What are some of the cures that Aboriginal people themselves might - in the spirit of 'self-determination' - propose to alleviate their problems ?

Cheers,

Joe

So just what is Rainier's cure for the Aboriginal problem?
Joe,
firstly, he can't propose one because he'd have to call himself racist. Secondly, he'll never concede that not all racism is non-indigenous only.

Thanks Individual, I always defer to your obvious commitment and richer experience in Indigenous communities. Stay strong :)

Perhaps what is needed, as a foundation for any solutions to any 'Aboriginal problems', must involve Aboriginal effort, the realisation that Aboriginal people must be responsible for the DOING, not just for the proposing - they themselves must be at the forefront of the application of any problem resolution.

They must be the doers in their own lives - surely self-determination means 'doing it', wearing the responsibility ? That control, or 'sovereignty', or whatever word one likes to use for 'responsibility', if people want any sort of power, then they cop the effort that goes with it. It's their baby, they carry it.

Ultimately, in my view, self-determination - away, away down the track - means that people, on the whole, have their own trained people carrying out all the functions of community life, service provision and governance.

A corollary of that is that, in a healthy and self-determining community, there would be almost no people whatsoever who are dependent except pensioners, invalids, children and mothers looking after kids - that everybody else has skills of one sort or another and is working. Of course, if everybody is working, then there would be very little need for social workers, or Centrelink workers. As people's health improved, there would be less need for health workers, nurses, etc., etc.

But the bottom line is that if people can gain skills and work, they should do so. Why should somebody else carry them ? A community with few actual workers is a very unhealthy community - a pathological 'community'. A community where pretty much everyone who can, works, is more likely to be a healthy community.

But this might take a huge change in people's mind-sets, from an expectation of dependence and leisure, tied to outside financial support, service provision and expertise - to an expectation that whoever can put the effort in, does so or buggers off.

Is that likely to happen soon ?

Joe

Joe,
your joke cracks me up.
Like anyone would believe that Indigenous people are the only ones not working, leading productive lives (in your opinion).
Absolutely hilarious.

Do you also find it funny that of all Anthony's supporters, none of them identify as Indigenous, because I do.

I like your sense of humour.

>>I look at the run up to WW2 objectively so it's impossible for me to come to the same conclusions as you do.<<

So in other words: the Warsaw ghetto was just fine and dandy. Dude: that's messed up.

>>it stands to reason that I'd have an alternative viewpoint<<

Yes it does: because you are one sick puppy who is under-endowed with conscience.

>>Auschwitz sits alongside Gulag, the Warsaw Ghetto sits alongside the misery of the Kolhozy.<<

Because it's not immoral if somebody else did it first. Dude: that's messed up.

>>Then again the basic anti Racist position is "Two wrongs DO make a right" as long as White children are on the receiving end of the violence.<<

Hoist with his own petard.

Cheers,

Tony

Straw man, Aka.

I'll repeat: some eighty thousand Indigenous people have been enrolled at university over the past twenty years or so.

And I'll add: another hundred thousand have been enrolled, for many years, in TAFE/VET courses over the same period, sometimes the same courses for years at a time.

That's a majority of the roughly 300,000 Indigenous adults.

The great majority of the welfare-dependent population and other parasites are non-Indigenous.

There: it's on the record.

Now, what were you saying, Aka ?

In my view, nobody who is able-bodied should be getting carried by the taxpayer: if they are temporarily unemployed, they shoud be assisted to either find employment, or be assisted to enrol in a course which will most likely get them back into employment. i.e., 'most likely'.

Aboriginal communities need skilled people. Those skilled people should ideally be Aboriginal people from that community.

Aboriginal people are not halfwits. They can gain skills, especially those skills that their communities need. I'm not saying it might be easy or quick, but it can be done and, if communities are to survive, it must be done.

[Come to think of it, why hasn't it been done already ?]

Will some Aboriginal people who gain skills leave their communities and go to the towns and cities where opportunities are more plentiful ? Yes.

Is it their right to do so ? Yes.

Could that threaten the viability of some communities. Maybe.

Should people be denied any sort of education or training just so that they might not be able to leave the communities, just so those communities can sort of survive ? No.

What come first, the rights of people or the viability of communities ? The rights of people. Aboriginal people.

So, are education and community, to an extent, at odds with each other ? Yes, possibly.

Do I give a toss ? No, not really: I'll support individuals' rights to a decent life any day.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmoth/Joe, I don't for a momment wish to dictate what anyone writes, thats up to them, but I do stand by my point that Dillon does deny racism agency, an agency and influence that is much more than simply denying someone to "cry in their beer", an analogy that I find very superficial and thus catorgorising any defiance to racism as being an 'emotional' reaction, which is what many white racists (in my experience) love to use in minimising any complaint or accusation of racism. "You've got a chip on your shoulder" "We are all just human beings, I'm not racist but... go cry in your beer. Walk a mile in our shoes Joe Loudmouth.

** And your celebratory statistics on higher education access and participation only confirm the rise and rise of a middle class strata of Aboriginal people, many of them recent identifiers, many of them with no inclination whatsoever to plow their skills back into the grassroots where its badly needed, many of them adopting the same elitist / assimilationist stance as Dr Dillon. Its easy for those at the top of the mountain to look down and provide comment on the splendor, not so easy for those at the bottom to look up.

"...there is a widening gulf between the 60 percent or more Indigenous people working and living in mainstream Australia and the minority living in welfare-dependent urban ghettos, country towns, or remote settlements."

p://www.cis.org.au/publications/issue-analysis/article/788-indigenous-participation-in-university-education

And this acknowledges that you agree Joe, so why don't you use this as a great example to illustrate how disconnected Dr Dillon is from the the majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

60%? I think its around 25% and this piece by Dillon is actually a good example of the class war happenning within this 25 %.

Hi Rainier,

Thanks for spelling out your case so civilly. But with respect, I must dispute the finality with which you write that it is " .... not so easy for those at the bottom to look up."

The opportunities are available for them too: ask at any university's Indigenous student support centre if they could have taken in more Indigenous people, and the answer would be 'yes', if they had applied.

I'm not saying that preparation for university, and study at university, is easy, but it has been done by tens of thousands, so I don't recognise the justification for anybody to cop out and complain 'into their beer'.

My wife and I came down from a rural community to start university as mature students. It was a struggle, with two young children, but each year for about six years, 1977-1982, we used to go apricot-picking and -cutting immediately after our last exams in order to have something towards the rent for the following year. One year was so good that we earnt enough to pay for the whole of the next year's rent. You do what it takes, 46 degrees and all.

'Walk a mile in our shoes' ? I'd like to see that.

And what's the alternative ? To pretend that there aren't any opportunities to break out of one's situation, to curse the world and cry into your beer ? To play the victim ? To let the Man win ?

Your choice, Rainier :)

Cheers,

Joe

>>The opportunities are available for them too: ask at any university's Indigenous student support centre if they could have taken in more Indigenous people, and the answer would be 'yes', if they had applied.

I'm not saying that preparation for university, and study at university, is easy, but it has been done by tens of thousands, so I don't recognise the justification for anybody to cop out and complain 'into their beer'.<<

Because the only way for Aboriginals to get ahead in life is to get a degree. After all, what remote Aboriginal communities need more than anything is a bunch of Arts and Aboriginal Studies graduates and nobody with any real skills.

A community populated mostly by university graduates may be more erudite than one populated mostly by layabouts: it will still be dysfunctional. There is no value in understanding the health benefits of modern sanitation if there are no plumbers to lay the piping. There is no value in understanding Maxwell's laws if there are no licensed electricians to put in the wiring. And so on.

Aboriginals should be encouraged to obtain the skills they need to improve their own lot in life as well as those of their communities. It's nonsense that this can only be achieved at university.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony from memory Joe has posted some interesting material on another thread outlining a shift in the nature of the studies undertaken by indigenous people. My recollection of the material is that there has been a significant shift away from indigenous studies type courses into ones which provide mainstream skills. Hopefully Joe can expand on that (or correct me if I have it wrong).

Some of this discussion reminds me of some discussion I saw on flack that Obama was getting from some civil rights leaders in the USA prior to being elected. Those who's lives and careers have been built around negro disadvantage and who really didn't want him to be president, a coloured man being president is off message.

What's left for those who've embraced fighting racism as their life mission when those that need to feel kept down start to realise that they have choices.

There will be hurdles, they may do it tougher than someone else but they don't need to be kept down by skin colour (gender, sexual orientation, etc).

R0bert

"And what's the alternative ? To pretend that there aren't any opportunities to break out of one's situation, to curse the world and cry into your beer ? To play the victim ? To let the Man win ?
Your choice, Rainier"

I made my choices, which followed the path of decisions my parents for me, a long time ago and they were good choices, ones that have sustained me, made me into the self reliant advocate for my people. I'm not living at the periphery of my community but at its centre because its where I choose to be, would ever want to be. I often come across missionaries, mercenaries and misfits like you Joe, lots of big opinions about what we should or should not do, always ready to tell (brag?) to other white folk about their expert knowledge and experience. So thanks but no thanks, I'm fine and I don't drink beer or any alcohol by the way, so there's another one of your sublime assumptions blown away. Why not retire from "researching us" and take up another 'hobby'. Lawn bowls?

Half-right, Tony :)

Most Indigenous people live in urban areas, and can be expected to spend their working lives there. So the full range of study and career fields would be relevant, certainly not useless degrees, as you note.

But if we are talking about the small minority of Indigenous people who survive in remote areas, then what sorts of skills do remote communities need ? What would the skills configuration of a community with full employment look like ? Completely hypothetically, of course.

First off, economic-oriented skills, depending on the economic potential of the area. Certainly accounting, human resource management, agrosciences, agribusiness, as well as teachers (Primary, Secondary, TAFE), perhaps a nurse, maybe even a social worker for the elderly and invalid; as well as mechanics, plumbers, masons, electricians, refrigeration mechanics, builders, gardeners, etc. If the community had a population over three hundred, it might even be able to support a shop-keeper.

I agree, there is little place for Arts and Ab Studies degree-holders in remote communities. Instead, I look forward to the day when there is somebody at every community who can change a light-bulb or replace a tap-washer. Live in hope, I guess.

But really, I would assume that the great majority of people from remote communities who gain skills of any sort, would find work in towns and cities. There's no automatic or compulsory return to the sticks. Some would, of course, as some do now, but the majority would seek their career paths in the cities, just like anybody else.

So you really are putting up a straw man, Tony. As it happens, the proportion of Indigenous graduates with science, business, teaching or other useful field of expertise is growing rapidly, at maybe 10-12 % p.a. Graduate numbers in Ab Studies-type fields are shrinking even more rapidly: I wouldn't be surprised if they amount to less than 10 % of all graduates from now on, even less than 5 %, fading away to nothing.

[TBC]

Rainier you are an abusive,lying bully but I will still offer you a word of advice.
Presenting your arguments in a circuitous strangulated way with lots of long words which you think makes you appear intelligent, does not! Change your nick to Merchant banker as this would be far more appropriate for you and your actions.

JBowyer; another profound and deeply moving contribution to discussion here, you're simply awe inspiring, how long did that take you to think up..mmm?

Rainier,
It would be greatly appreciated by most of us here on OLO if you could actually put forward your views on how you would start to make the indigenous self managing & shortening the life expectancy gap between them & every other people.
How would you go about enticing indigenous people to get employment in fields which would benefit their own communities. What employment do you suggest ? Why do you think so many indigenous do not appear to perform their work on a regular basis.
Is it because they don't feel it necessary or is it because they have different values, what is it ?
I'm somewhat puzzled about the different values side because I witness a lot of desire for western commodities but these desires do not mirror the western practice of earning the desired commodities.
I know you'll be tempted to just call me racist but just for once I would appreciate it if you could put integrity before indignation & give us your solution/ideas for either good self management or successful integration for the indigenous of Australia.

Tony,

[to continue]

I'm only a one-trick pony, Tony, focussing on the contributions that university-level education can make to the overall Indigenous employment picture. Each of us can perceive only a particular part of the elephant, (my bit is at the back, half-way down) but I try to think of higher education as a sort of surrogate for Indigenous success and skills-development generally.

As if happens, the growth in employment for unqualified Indigenous people seems to keep pace with that of qualified indigenous people, of professionals and trades (although I suspect that there aren't anywhere near as many of the latter as there should be.)

I don't think there is much future in remote communities, so I don't really think much about them any more. They're not beacons of hope, but sinks of despair, in my view [come on, Aka, come out fighting!]. The sooner people voluntarily get out them, the better for them.

As far as I am concerned, the future for Indigenous success AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE lies in the cities, in the full range of urban employment. That's where the great majority of the Indigenous population will be in the next decade and that's where they will stay.

The cities belong to Indigenous people, as much as to anybody else. So people need the appropriate range of skills, not rubbish, not phony skills, but real skills, for real jobs, in the real world. And they're getting them at an increasing rate. In spite of the various racisms from Left and Right.

Cheers,

Joe

Individual,

Good questions, but don't forget the luxuries of powerlessness - the self-defined powerless don't have to come up with anything, all they have to do - in their powerlessness - is to bitch and whinge, and demand that others solve their problems. After all, they shouldn't have to do anything for themselves: terrible things happened to their great-grandmothers.

Rainier,

Speaking of bitching and whingeing, I'll repeat my questions:

".... what's the alternative ? To pretend that there aren't any opportunities to break out of one's situation, to curse the world and cry into your beer ? To play the victim ? To let the Man win ?"

Yes, you might be right about my being something of a misfit, but I wouldn't have it any other way. If it wasn't for ratbags like me, who would you have to rip into ?

Yes, you're right, better education opportunities are inevitably creating a much more varied Indigenous class structure, that goes with the territory. And as for 'plowing their skills back into the grassroots where they are badly needed', let's not forget that those 'grassroots' people are their own relations, with similar opportunities to get off their backsides and do something for themselves, for once. [Come on, Aka!] There aren't two separate species of Blackfella.

And as some of us have written over and over again, what jobs can many Indigenous graduates do back in small communities ? Not to mention the disruption that they would represent to existing power structures.

And why should it be their responsibility for whatever either history, or the people themselves, have done to get them into their predicament ?

[TBC]

Thanks, RObert,

In relation to the fields of study of Indigenous university students: at least here in SA, Indigenous-oriented courses have always attracted only a minority of Indigenous students. Their heyday was in the nineties, but I wouldn't be surprised if nobody commenced study in such courses in SA this year: it is rumoured that the numbers were already well down back at one nameless university back in 2007-8, when 'continuing' students in one course code were shuffled into a different course code and called 'commencing' students in order to give the impression that the courses were still slightly popular. But I couldn't possibly comment on the veracity of that rumour.


On skills needed in communities: there is a childish assumption that the smaller a community, the fewer skill needs it has. But think about it, no matter how big or small a community is, it needs a wide range of essential skills. In fact, here's a hypothesis: that the smaller a community, the more skilled and versatile each adult needs to be.

And even if everyone in some communities was skilled, someare just too small to be viable. Not only because there might be too few adults, but how on earth does each 'expert' get an income ? Who would fund a mechanic or plumber with two jobs a week ? Or a teacher with only five or six kids ?

There are maybe a couple of thousand Indigenous 'communities' across the country, 90 % with population under fifty. i.e. completely unviable. Somebody smarter than me should be calculating threshold numbers for different services, say -

[TBC]

Individual, to answer your question, I don't have all the answers to all of the complexities and problems that beset us as Indigenous peoples and I'm growing tired of the plethora of snake oil merchants (black and white) that rise to prominence through putting forward yet anothe 'solution to the Aboriginal problem', indeed much of hyperhole around at the momment is more about marketing "self esteeem" or is informed by other spin doctored solutions where t-shirts, slogans, water bottles and badges and one off funding for any number of mindless BS programs. Nothing long term or informed by actual evidence based research, just whatever some PR company dreams up to address 'disadvantage'. The close the gap rhetoric is a farce - everyone knows it is but no one is game enough to declare it so.

I'm from the old school of thought that believes our legal and constitutional rights need to be recognised and that special provision for positive discrimination be included in the Australian constitution. This will be as close as we can get to a Treaty.
Most, if not all debates about policy these days assumes that Australia liberal democracy is rigorous and flexible enough to include our rights. Self determination was never really given the legal or political clout required over the past 40 years. Instead what we got was "self management" of government designed programs for access and participation. So for me there is a big picture story and narrative that needs to occur, until then we will be debating little fish stories forever.

the smaller a community, the more skilled and versatile each adult needs to be.
Joe,
Thanks for that statement, it's precisely what I have been trying to get across but you came up with the words, cheers.
There are such people in the communities but idiotic bureaucrats keep insisting on their idiotic policies on idiotic selection criteria which 99 times out of a hundred burdens the communities with idiots utterly unsuitable for building up the communities.
Idiotic consultants who only award jobs to people from outside rather than from the local pool. Their excuses are that locals don't meet the standards. Who's standards I ask. I have yet to see these bureaucrats showing enough cajones to let the locals strut their stuff. The reason they don't is that they're too crap scared to be upstaged.

".... what's the alternative ? To pretend that there aren't any opportunities to break out of one's situation, to curse the world and cry into your beer ? To play the victim ? To let the Man win ?"

Loudmouth / missionary bean counter:

Give me your email, find out who I am, learn about my work history and then you might STFU.

[contd.]

Sorry, lost it.

Rainier,

When you write,

" .... Self determination was never really given the legal or political clout required over the past 40 years. Instead what we got was "self management" of government designed programs for access and participation .... "

surely you would be aware that those were precisely the policies that people asked for ? People got what they asked for ? And that those 'communities' have gone comprehensively belly-up ? Barely a single vegetable garden in two thousand 'communities', when people are supposed to be crying out for fresh vegetables ?

Self-determination + vegetable gardens = fresh vegetables ? or did I get that wrong ? What would a piddly vegetable garden cost, say half an acre ? A half a dozen shovels and forks, a truck-load of fertilizer, and away they go, for maybe a thousand bucks. Most settlements have water laid on - they have flush toilets, after all, and it's only the white fellas who have to pay for water usually. And electricity. As they should. So should everybody.

I'm not saying that people are innately lazy, or parasites - they seem to have misunderstood what is meant to be in the modern world. Do people in remote settlements and out-stations think that all Whites, for example, get free houses ? Free cars ? That they also never have to work ? In other words, is it the case that they have no idea what living in the modern world requires ?

The best article I know on all of this deals with Wadeye, a comparatively large 'community' of three thousand, a 'community with 'scale':

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/12/wadeye-failed-state-as-cultural-triumph

This article is from Quadrant magazine, which is edited by Keith Windschuttle, so it doesn't pull any punches. Read it if you dare, Rainier:)

Hetre's a suggestion: if people are so close to their hunting and gathering roots, why not give people the option - they are often on their own land, after all - of re-embeddingthemselves in a hunter-gatherer economy and give up all the Whitefella contaminations like welfare payments, school, etc.

OR

[TBC]

As a easy example to explain the diff between self determination and self management, if I held free hold title to my Traditional lands I would not need government hand outs, indeed my whole family would now be as wealthy as the Rineharts are now, or very close. Access to the real economy was never going to be handed over by successive governments in the form of substantive land rights. The history of policy of Self determination was bereft of any real commitment to reparating the economic foundations for us to compete equally in the market place as land owners. In other words, the effective expression of Indigenous self-determination is intimately connected with decolonisation as a general political condition. The actual process of decolonisation requires significant institutional change. The relationships created between institutions of the nation-state and us as "Indigenous peoples" have been forged within the context of a colonial political process and a colonial ‘mentality’. More recent and current debates about self determination failing rely on a very flimsy understanding of the history of Aboriginal policy develop from the Whitlam years onwards. Self Determination (as per UN rights and definitions) was an aspirational and guiding perspective of our autonomy and thus a view held by many of our leaders from the Whitlam days onward, it was never actually declared as a legal, economic or political right based on Aboriginal soveriegnty. Howard and now Gillard rely on this popular and convenient belief that self determination failed because it justifies their own retreat from justice.

if I held free hold title to my Traditional lands I would not need government hand outs, indeed my whole family would now be as wealthy as the ......
Rainier,
I have thought of this a lot. How much land is presently in indigenous titles & how much of it is freehold ?
How could island communities support themselves the way aboriginals could ? I am made to believe that DOGIT was brought in by Joh before he was ousted. He did it to protect the indigenous from exploitation such as tempting them to sell off their land.
Native title is still overruled by housing & infrastructure departments.
What would you do if you could have it your way ? Perhaps the bureaucrats could learn something from you.

Individual, the debate now being given some media coverage relating to the Wild rivers legislation (Qld) is a good example of how our economic disadvantage is being further entrenched in a welfare dependency model of wellbeing with limited or no ability for us (I'm from Cape York) to throw off the shackles of government. Noel Pearson’s fight against the Wild Rivers legislation is fundamentally driven by his (and my) belief that our lands are our economic base and that we should have the legal right to make decisions about its resources, natural or otherwise. The Deeds of Grant in Trust were basically a deed (held in trust) by the Qld government which meant that that the Qld government reserved its rights to the mineral rights or other land based economic assets. Native title is not land rights and the complete absence any reference to Aboriginal land rights by the Gillard government has not gone unnoticed by those of us who have a good knowledge of the history of self determination policy and the legal and constitutional white washing of our land rights – and thus- the complete disenfranchising of a fundamental plank to uplifting our future prospects.
[You may notice I did not utter or write 'racism' in the preceding explanation] - Just in case Anthony is reading this and waiting for an opportunity exorcise me with his Andrew Bolt holier than thou ‘stop using the word racist’ water :)

Joe Loudmouth,
why are you trolling for me to respond to you? I think you have ceded, and admitted defeat, when you quote articles in Quadrant and cite Windschuttle. You write for CIS, the far-right winged so-called-think-tank funded by big businesses. Some of these big businesses, like miners, would do very well if small Indigenous communities were gone, their population absorbed into cities - where they will not find a welcome mat unless they are able to learn to think white. Tragic.

Individual,
when you refer to Joh, ex premier of Qld, as some sort of benign benefactor towards Indigenous Australians, you have likewise ceded.
Please don't bother with the lie that Joh did anything to protect Indigenous Queenslanders from exploitation, particularly when he put the likes of Pat Killoran (who in past posts you admired) in such a powerful position. Joh did not curtail Killoran's immoral exploitations and power.

Like I say, you have ceded.

Rainier,
Forgive me but I thought the mining on Cape York is paying royalties to the indigenous ?
So far as I understand it all is the situation was that the indigenous didn't have the expertise nor means all these years ago to make an economic base out of the land they occupied. When outsiders realised the land's potential they then made a deal to compensate the occupiers with mining royalties. Some could argue not enough compensation or other discrimination but nevertheless compensation is being provided. This compensation is significant & if managed better the indigenous could have turned this into an enterprise of its own by now.

Aka,
We could argue until we both change colour on this but it is my view that Joh nor Killoran were as bad as many would like to see them portrayed as. Under the D.A.I.A. the indigenous made progress as measured by australian standard. This progress was paced by the people themselves but it was progress undeniable. There were indigenous people working in just about every field of enterprise. After Goss dismantled the D.A.I.A. many lost their employment much along the lines as employment was lost by amalgamation recently. Local people are walking the streets dwindling their thumbs because of the sudden job losses. All thanks to Labor. 99% of the work in communities is now done by contractors from outside. Not a very successful economic model at all is it ? The Bad,bad Joh & Killoran spin by Labor has conned the indigenous people & now no progress is is made at all. Yes, fancy infrastructure & pretend positions are flashed around but at what stage are the communities now ? If that is your idea of successful community building then all I can say is good luck.

[contd.]

Rainier,

OR

stop pretending that they don't in any way live in, and depend on, the modern world, and throw themselves wholly into a modern lifestyle, with obligations to their kids, with kids' obligations to go to school, with parents' obligations to gain some minimal skills and look for work (it's there, Twiggy Forrest says so), and to get off the outside tit.

To use their royalty money - what is it ? $ 15,000 p.a. per family ? - to actually buy a house so that they can wreck it to their heart's content ?

No, you're right, Rainier, nobody is going to go off the life-support welfare system, with tubes in and out of every orifice, and people barely a few days away from destitution if the public tap was ever switched off. Except for hunting and gathering, of course :)

Nothing positive will come from 'communities' although people will stay there in misery and boredom. Let's admit that and move on. By the way, my email address now is: joelane94@hotmail.com

Aka,

Great to hear from you ! Yes, I have also had an article published by the Bennelong Society (available by email). Yes, I know it seems strange for a Leftist to associate with the CIS, or Bennelong, or Quadrant, but they are broader churches than people think. As for Mr Windchuttle, I have read very little of his work that I don't agree with, it all seems more or less fair dinkum.

Open your mind, Aka, examine what people actually write or say, not just what clothes they seem to be wearing :)

And you can rest assured that 'communities' will never be emptied - there will always be older people, invalids, unemployed, single-parent families and a handful of people employed, even enterprises, all at settlements.

So the question is: should every Indigenous person have the opportunities that you and I take for granted, no matter where they are from ?

Cheers,

Joe

Rainier,

In relation to your discussion of 'self-determination' and 'self-management' and 'autonomy' and 'sovereignty' and '100% decolonisation': forgive me but I can't help suspecting that the goal-posts are always being shifted.

Well, I do recall that - at least here in SA, in the early seventies, under Don Dunstan - communities were given X, full community control of all their lands, houses, management, economic enterprises, etc. and it was called self-determination. Only Aboriginal people could vote in council elections, stand for council or take part in council deliberations.

Of course, the councils themselves pretty soon, themselves, voluntarily, of their own accord, back-tracked from this and got Whites to come in and more or less run their affairs. They didn't have to, but they did, and they did so deliberately.

I remember one young guy coming through school who expressed an interest in becoming the council clerk. He was rubbished to the point where he left school, in fact by his own relations. It seemed as if REAL jobs had to be filled by Whites, as far as the Council was concerned.

I guess they thought that those Whites could be sort of quarantined, safely locked away and kept out of the community's affairs apart from just doing the books - while an actual local would know too much, would be too subject to pressure from his family, etc. Either way, they stuffed up their own self-determination, nobody else did it to them.

I'm intrigued by your statement that " ... if I held free hold title to my Traditional lands I would not need government hand outs ... " - do you mean because you and your family would work the land ?

Or do you mean that you would flog it off to the first mining company that knocked on your door ? Is that what Land Rights meant all those years ago ? Sit back and gather in the feudal dues from producers ? If only we had known ....

Cheers,

Joe

Your obviously very tired Loudmouth, too much time on your hands, plus lots of relevance deprivation?

What I and my people would do with out lands would be up to us, would you ask such a paternalistic question to other land 'owners' , pastorialists, farmers? Of course you would not - because in your eyes they are seen as legitimate and therefore normal in your eurocentric world view.

Are you in full time employment now Loudmouth? Besides writing poorly researched papers for right wing think tanks, what else do you do? Many have complained over the years about the 'Aboriginal industry' and rightly so as its infested with the likes of you who under the false pretence of 'helping Aborigines', make a tidy living, not from actually doing something constructive, but simply offering so called expert 'opinion' about us.

As for the example you provide from SA, I too would have employed whites because all that government was offering was an opportunity to act and think white inside "their" paremeters of administrative deligence or 'self management'. There are other values about looking after country, kinship, and general well being that are completely ignored in government approaches to recreative themselves inside communities. Here are the key difference between SD and SM.

Self-determination refers to the right of a culture, society or region to decide for itself whether its future will be as an independent sovereign entity in the world, or whether its people accept association with or integration in an existing national constitutional order.

Self-management is a delegated function whereby a group or some type of formal authority carries out tasks with funds and program design determined by others outside the group or region. A welfare office on Indigenous land may be staffed by local people and may hand out the cheques and carry out other welfare functions within the guidelines of a higher authority.

Its very clear to me that people like you have made a living out of SM and your have to hide to call us welfare dependent?

Hi Rainier,

Wow. So much vicious slagging.

No, I worked for my money: I was a labourer at one community, plus the emergency night-driver, plus working a vegetable garden on the side for free, at least for about three seasons until it was clear that nobody was ever going to reciprocate. Reciprocation is for mugs, I learnt.

Then I worked for my money, after many years of study, to build up a student body at a university campus from eight to forty. Then I was pushed out, since the campus where I was at didn't have any Indigenous-focussed courses - a deficiency which seemed to be fine by the students.

A bit more study. Then I set up an ATAS/ITAS scheme at another university. Then I copied out three thousand pages of old archive documents.

A bit more study. Then we tried to go back to my late wife's community to help with building it up. Milking, and planting trees. Total futility for both of us, and very devastating for her.

Oh yes, I got paid to be returning officer in the community council election: I noticed that, on a small community, every single voter DROVE to the voting point. Up to 200 metres. Such dedicated people. I could hear people getting ready: "Cyril, get in the car!" "But I don't ... " "Get in the fecking car!" Slam ! Then it all again, in reverse.

Would I do it all again, working for Aboriginal land rights, etc. ? No. I would leave it up to Aboriginal people to do their own running, apart from a bit of ra-ra demonstrating once a year or so. Maybe not even that. Apart from that, if I had my time over again, I would rather work in a dog-food factory: after all, one might get more sense out of a can of dog-food than a community of Rainiers :)

No, I worked my money, Rainier. What are you doing, now that we are exploring each other's contributions ? Have you ever wiped your own

Hi Rainier,

On Saturday, you wrote:

"Loudmouth / missionary bean counter:

"Give me your email, find out who I am, learn about my work history and then you might STFU."

and I replied as soon as I could on Sunday: "By the way, my email address now is: joelane94@hotmail.com "

It still is :)

No rush. Take your time. What does 'STFU' actually mean ?

Whenever you're ready :)

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Rainier,

On Saturday, you wrote:

"Loudmouth / missionary bean counter:

"Give me your email, find out who I am, learn about my work history and then you might STFU."

and I replied as soon as I could on Sunday: "By the way, my email address now is: joelane94@hotmail.com "

It still is :)

No rush. Take your time.

Bean-counter - I liked that. When I was working for free in the vegetable garden up on the 'mission', I had a patch of ripening sweet corn, maybe 200 plants. One guy asked me if he could take some for a party, I said, 'sure', and he took the lot. Every cob.

Would I do all of that again ? No.

Those archives: missionary's 600-page journal 1859-1879, another 600 pages of superintendents' letters 1884-1899, 1912-1915, Royal Commissions of 1860, 1899 and 1913-1916, etc., all typed up voluntarily, for free. All available to anyone who wants any of it.

If I had the energy, I would love to go into the State Records and type up all of the correspondence of the Protector, 1840-1920 or so. That would be a fascinating gold-mine. Might take about a year.

Whenever you're ready, Rainier :)

Cheers,

Joe

If anybody is serious about combatting racism, they could learn a lot from this Paper by my friend at the CIS, Sara Hudson, about the employment of barely literate people as Health Workers:

http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-127.pdf

If it isn't racist to inflict under-trained and well-paid time-servers on Aboriginal people, I don't know what is: I thought that Aboriginal health was a very serious concern, a matter of life and death, certainly not something to put in the hands of completely unqualified people, and just so that they can have some sort of employment.

Would white people put up with this ? Actually, would Aboriginal people in the cities, or would they have too much sense and self-respect ?

Disgraceful.

Loudmoth.
Jenny Macklin taps $400m Aboriginal fund for running costs

Paul Cleary
The Australian
January 10, 2012

INDIGENOUS Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin is increasingly using a burgeoning $400 million indigenous fund to pay for running costs and short-term financial fixes - actions that have attracted a warning from the Auditor-General.

The mining boom has given Ms Macklin growing financial clout as she presides over the little-known Aboriginals Benefit Account, which last year collected $155m in mining-related income and has quadrupled in size since 2004 to $412m in equity.

While the minister has been calling on Aboriginal groups to safeguard their future and build financial assets, documents obtained by The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show that for the past three years, Ms Macklin has either ignored or rejected her department's advice to develop a long-term investment plan for the fund - although her office now says she has recently done so. The ABA was named last month by the Auditor-General as one of a number of federal agencies that had made payments that "do not accord with conditions included in relevant legislation". As a result, the ABA risked non-compliance with section 83 of the Constitution, which states that all monies paid by the commonwealth must be lawfully appropriated.
The Northern Territory's opposition indigenous affairs spokesman, Adam Giles, said the federal government had spent "hundreds of millions" from the fund on services and capital costs that it should have been providing anyway. He said the ABA should be used exclusively for "economic infrastructure" in the Territory's Aboriginal communities.

The ABA was created in 1976 to promote Aboriginal economic development in the Territory and has in the past provided capital grants to remote communities and seed funding for emerging enterprises.

The federal government uses consolidated revenue to pay the ABA an annual amount equivalent to the royalties that mining companies pay to the NT government for mining on Aboriginal land.

But Ms Macklin's department recently removed any reference to the ABA's purpose being specifically for the benefit of Aborigines, contrary to what is stated in the Aboriginal Land Rights Act.

TBC

The department's latest annual report now says the ABA "is structured to meet one outcome: to support the provision of engagement and support for individuals, families and communities to improve wellbeing and capability". The department declined to comment on the change.

The ABA had until recently a balance of $100m, but its annual income has in recent years ranged from $150m to $200m.

The ABA's funds are used in three ways. A fixed 30 per cent share is paid to areas directly affected by mining. It funds the operations of four territory land councils, which cost $82m in 2010-11. And a third element, known as "beneficial grants", is paid to indigenous communities and organisations that make specific requests.

It is this third tranche that is subject to the greatest ministerial discretion. These grants totalled $70m in 2010-11, three times the previous year.

Accusations that the ABA has been used to fund discretionary or short-term items date back at least to 2007, when then Coalition indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough defended a $20m drawdown for Aboriginal housing.

The ABA's 2010-11 annual report shows that total grants paid out of the fund nearly trebled from $24m to $70m, a rise that largely reflected the $50m cost of a community stores program that Ms Macklin chose to draw from the account. Payments to land councils for administrative purposes more than doubled to $47m.

The increased cash burn meant overall equity rose by just $14m to $412m, despite income of $155m.

Last financial year, Ms Macklin drew $9.5m from the ABA to pay for township leases in two NT communities, while the account provided $4.75m to the Office of Township Leasing, which included running costs.

Last month, Ms Macklin used the ABA to bail out an indigenous organisation that provides services to remote communities.

The Laynhapuy Homeland Association faced a shortfall of about $1m, but Ms Macklin's department cancelled 14 capital works projects worth about $6.5m in order to fund the bailout. The surplus monies went back into the account.
TBC

The axed capital projects included women's hygiene facilities and a mud-brick operation aimed at reducing the exorbitant cost of home building in the territory.

The government's much vaunted Indigenous Economic Development Strategy, launched by Ms Macklin in October, emphasises the accrual of trust funds. Ms Macklin said when launching the strategy that Aborigines "need to build financial independence", while she has been urging communities that have signed royalty agreements with mining companies to save a substantial share of their income in trust funds.

But Aborigines in the NT have no such independence with the ABA, which has grown substantially in recent years as a result of the mining boom. While an advisory committee of Aboriginal representatives gives advice to the minister, Ms Macklin has final say on how much money is spent.

FOI documents show that Ms Macklin has been reluctant to raise the ABA's own financial management standards. From late 2008 onwards, she ignored or rejected her department's advice to appoint a financial analyst to put the ABA on a sustainable financial footing, though she has done so very recently after The Australian obtained documents proving these facts.

The spokeswoman said Ms Macklin had now approved a financial consultant to produce a 10-year outlook for the fund. While work will begin early this year, this is three years after the department first urged the minister to appoint such a consultant.

Following a 2008 audit by the Office of Evaluation and Audit, the department told Ms Macklin the report had been "critical of the transparency, accountability and operation of the ABA". It urged her to appoint a financial analyst because it lacked "in-house expertise", according to a December 2008 minute obtained under FOI.

The minute shows the department asked the minister to approve $50,000 to pay for a consultant to advise on a "minimum investment amount", but it appears to have had no response.

Two years later, it repeated the request, but in March last year Ms Macklin rejected the proposal.
TBC

Mr Giles, a member of the opposition Country Liberal Party for the Alice Springs seat of Braitling, said he feared the federal government's control of the ABA and its use of funds acted as a disincentive for Aboriginal communities to approve mining developments.

Indigenous leaders have been reluctant to speak out about the fund's management.

Mick Gooda, the Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner, criticised Ms Macklin's use of the ABA to pay for township leases earlier this year. He said it was "outrageous" the government negotiated just compensation and then paid for it with "Aboriginal money".

A spokeswoman for Mr Gooda said he subsequently received a "briefing" and as a result would not be making any further comment.

The Central Land Council's chief executive, David Ross, declined to comment. The Northern Land Council did not return calls. The land councils in the NT rely on their funding from the ABA.

*Yes Loudmouth royalty is paid but not like you think. This harks back to the stolen wages stunts govts did. Macklin is just carrying on what Mal Brough started.
This is an example of structural racism that seems entrenched in Australian society.

G'day Aka, nice to hear from you,

I'm not sure where this discussion is going. Mining royalties are not like as wages - they accrue with no effort on the part of Aboriginal people, after all, but as a result of minerals being dug out of the ground, with Aboriginal people as spectators, sometimes as workers on good wages. And I would support Macklin when she said:

'.... that Aborigines "need to build financial independence", while she has been urging communities that have signed royalty agreements with mining companies to save a substantial share of their income in trust funds.'

Sounds good to me. If royalties go into some sort of fund, then why shouldn't those funds be expended for the benefit of Aboriginal bodies ? We can argue about whether or not the Land Councils should have received so much, for so little, I would agree with you there.

But if royalties funds are used to assist people with housing, and as payments to councils for leasing land for housing, who gets the funds ? Nobody but the councils, and their bureaucracies ? Sounds okay to me, apart from the bureaucracies, on the face of it.

Why aren't royalties sort of notionally individualised, and set off against the purchase of houses, on land leased from local Aboriginal councils ? This is hardly rocket science.

Frankly, there are so many far more important issues which genuinely touch on real, substantial, fair dinkum, self-determination, i.e. the ability and responsibility of people to manage their own affairs themselves, with their own skilled personnel, and then get onto the business of actual enterprises, staffed and managed again by their own skilled personnel ? With all able-bodied 'community' people either working, or studying to get the skills to work ?

If that's not what people want to do, then don't waste my time. As a pensioner, I've got sunshine to sit in and birds to listen to. In the time I've got left, I'd rather focus on people who are actually trying to do something with their lives like you, Aka.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth states,

"...if royalties funds are used to assist people with housing, and as payments to councils for leasing land for housing, who gets the funds ? Nobody but the councils, and their bureaucracies ? Sounds okay to me, apart from the bureaucracies, on the face of it.

Why aren't royalties sort of notionally individualised, and set off against the purchase of houses, on land leased from local Aboriginal councils ? This is hardly rocket science."

Once again you show how much you don't know about the deeper signifance of land rights and economic rights as they relate to Aboriginal people.

More than 60% of minerals operations in Australia have neighbouring Indigenous communities. Swan/Gillards/ Macklins passed the Minerals Resource Rent Tax in both houses the other day - but this legislation does not recognise Aboriginal land rights to mineral deposits or will not give any direct benefit to these communities. Instead these communities can only rely on and use agreements which are not founded on recognistion of Aboriginal land ownership beyond the weakest set of usafructory rights that native title law provides.

Hence, the burden of negotiating with extractive industry bodies falls disproportionately on Aboriginal organisations such as NTRB's (Native Title Rep Bodies) who are not funded to properly negotiate with mining interests.

And to date, the Australian government has used the High Court decision in Western Australia v Ward whereby property rights in subsurface minerals are vested in the crown – thus denying native title groups’ access to Statutory Mining Royalty Equivalents (SMRE’s)

TBC

There is no legal standardisation or recognition based on the actual wealth/ market price of the minerals extracted, just an ex gracia payment decided through ILUA’s, (and other promises of employment etcetera)

The fund that Macklin has been dipping into echo's the bastardry and theft of Aboriginal stolen wages right across the country.

And I playing victim here? No just pointing out the facts as I know them. I seems that every time we point of these facts you turn them against us and somehow attributes this as a defect and inadequacy we have acquired through our poverty, injustice, slum life, and racial difficulties, advocacy, eduction, protests and of course calling it racism.

Your neoconservative approach allows you to cleverly shift the stigma that marks us as 'victims of these facts' But the stigma, the defect, the fatal differences - though derived from the immediate past is something you choose to locate within Aboriginal people.

It's a clever card trick that allows you to justify your perverse ideas of social action designed to change, not society, or law, as one might expect, but rather those who are trying their utmost to change these situations, that is, Aboriginal people like me and AKA who you so boldly hold in contempt. Why?

Hi Rainier,

Still waiting for your email :)

I'm not sure that we are disagreeing - if the Minister is misusing the funds that accrue from mining royalties for Aboriginal people, then that is reprehensible. But if funds are going towards housing, i.e. the public provision of housing for Aboriginal people on their land, IF that is the case, then that seems reasonable.

Yes, you are right that people have been conned into signing " .... use agreements which are not founded on recognition of Aboriginal land ownership beyond the weakest set of usafructory rights that native title law provides."

From 1851 right up to the nineties, in the Pastoral Acts of each State and Territory (even Victoria), the rights of Aboriginal people to enter, travel over, hunt and gather on, collect water on, carry out ceremonies on and camp on, every pastoral lease (except about four or five that were issued in the NT between 1911 and 1924, and they expired at least fifty years ago), 'as if this lease had not been made' were recognised. i.e. on all pastoral leases and on all Crown land. As you say, usufructuary rights; effectively all of the rights that they ever enjoyed over their land, except the right to exclude others from their land.

After Mabo, at a time when people were so 'sure' that they actually had no recognised rights at all - remember "We got nothin' ! We got nothin' !" ? - and their lawyers did such a poor job of checking the actual, existing situation (surely something they learn in Law I?) that ILUA negotiations started from that foundation, a foundation of nothing, and inched their way painfully towards the present-day situation whereby Aboriginal people now have to front a committee and get a permit, before they can go on a pastoral lease (and probably crown land, I don't know), i.e. onto their own land. In other words, less than they already had. Brilliant.

I certainly hope that there are plenty of Aboriginal lawyers now being fully trained up in Land Law.

[TBC]

[contd.]

.... and all the ins and outs of all the laws pertaining to mining, mining tax, royalties, etc. etc.

I am interested in anything which ENABLES Aboriginal people, gives them more strength through skills, knowledge, experience and expertise. To me, self-determination means doing more and more for themselves, capturing more and more of the powers over their lives from the well-meaning hands of outsiders. Making their own decisions, making their own mistakes and correcting them, taking direct, day-to-day control. I'm not interested in anything which makes people more dependent, which disarms them, or infantilises them, even if sugar-coated. In other words, anything which takes away their human responsibilities, which treats people as if they are inherently incapable. Surely to treat people that way is racist ? The racism of soft expectations ?

I don't agree with your easy insult, but if you define all that as neo-conservative, I'm happy to wear the tag :)

Cheers, Rainier,

Joe
joelane94@hotmail.com

Check your email Joe /Loudmouth.

Thanks, Rainier,

I'll take on-board everything you write about royalties and their abuse.

Cheers,

Joe

In the Australian's Weekend Magazine section this week, is a very interesting article on Aboriginality and how it is variously defined. The author of this article features in it.

It raises some very difficult issues, especially that of entitlement: if someone discovers that one great-grandparent (we each have eight) or great-great-grandparent (we each have sixteen) was possibly Aboriginal, to what extent is that person entitled to the benefits which have been earmarked for Aboriginal people on the grounds that they need them ?

And in a society with a racist past, in which - on the whole - the paler a person, the wider the range of opportunities were available, the fewer barriers were erected, and on the whole the better education one would have received, then it does seem a little unfair that very pale people can hop in and take benefits that may be implicitly intended for much darker, more 'Aboriginal-looking' people ?

Especially if those darker, more 'Aboriginal-looking' people have been raised in the bosom of Aboriginal families from birth, who have been reminded daily, by both Black and White all around them, that they are Aboriginal and nothing but Aboriginal, and who have copped so much more of the negatives of our society ?

So, as Anthony has written many times, here and in articles on The Drum, why not distribute benefits on the basis of need ?

One other point: during the nineteenth century, local-born Whites - as opposed to blow-ins from the home country - formed 'Natives' Associations e.g. the Australian Natives' Association, etc. Many people of those times, 1860-1930, had 'Australian Native' recorded on documents, such as death certificates.

Something similar happened in South and Central American countries - they were 'criollos', 'creoles', whites born and embedded in the colonies. Some were aristocrats, San Martin in Argentina for example: his ancestral colours were light blue and white, adopted later in the national flag. Bolivar was another Criollo aristocrat.

So how many 'Aboriginal' people are there out there getting benefits on the strength of a 'Native' ancestor ? Perhaps of aristocratic English ancestry ?

Joe Loudmouth, your premise on Aboriginality is incorrect, there a thousands of Aboriginal people that do not atypically Aboriginal (whatever this means). Some look like Anglo's, other show their Chinese or Malay ancestry. I have many stolen generation family and friends who we rediscovered over the past 3 decades. Andrew Bolt's and Dr Dillon's covert attempts to revive the quantum racist sceicne of the measurement of Aboriginality is a disgrace. Aboriginal affairs is the longest race experiment in history. John McCorquodale (legal scholar) analysis of 700 separate pieces of legislation dealing specifically with "Aborigines or Aboriginal matters" - or other seemingly non-Aboriginal matters - found no less than 67 identifiable
classifications, descriptions, or definitions have been used from the time of European settlement to the present.

Question: What does a typical white Australian look like? John Howard, Pauline Hanson, Wilson Tucky?

Of course this is a silly question because 'white people' can rightly claim to having diversity of appearance. Why then do not Aboriginal people have the same claim?

The simple answer to this is that most white people don't have to think about what it means to be white and for me this is highly unusual given they only represent less than 8 percent of the world population.

The three part definition used by Aboriginal people and organisations to define Aboriginality is:

three-part definition requiring all 3 parts to be established for Aboriginality to be recognised:
•descent (the individual can prove that a parent is of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent);
•self-identification (the individual identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander); and
•community recognition (the individual is accepted as such by the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community in which he/she lives).

Hi Rainier,

I agree with almost everything you write, but my points were:

* should people who discover that some distant relation was Aboriginal or 'Native', but who have never suffered the slings and arrows of living in formerly-racist Australia, be able to claim the benefits that were intended for people who have known them, and copped them, all their lives ?

* that people who don't 'look' Aboriginal have a much easier time of it than those who do, in a still-racist society. Yet, I was trying in my clumsy way to say, those who claim some Aboriginality on, if I may say, technical grounds are often the people who have the means (and the hide) to hop in and claim the benefits which are supposed to accrue to people who have lived the Aboriginal experience, i.e. those who combine Aboriginality and need, as I'm sure Dr Dillon would agree.

To have lived the experience of being Aboriginal, and of being treated as Aboriginal, one does not have to 'look' Aboriginal. Back in the bad old days, the dead hand of policy reached out to many people to drag them back down, no matter what they looked like. People were stigmatised, no mater what they looked like, and they knew damn well exactly who they were. Assimilation was pretty impossible in those circumstances, so if that was really the policy, it failed dismally.

[TBC]

Rainier,

My wife Maria would have had, I suppose, Italian and Chinese ancestry, as well as Anglo and Celtic (yes, she was beautiful, flashing dark eyes, black hair - as Charles Darwin would say, she inherited the best genes from many sources, what he called 'hybrid vigour'). But she was raised as Aboriginal, with Aboriginal parents (certainly an Aboriginal mother, an incredibly feisty woman), and nine strongly Aboriginal brothers and sisters. And a multitude of Aboriginal relations who stayed in the sleep-out on their way through, sharing all their yarns. And their port, as I discovered.

In the small country town where she grew up after they left the 'mission' (as a baby, she was carried around the mission by her grandfather, Wiltshire Sumner, a gun shearer, in the pocket of his WWI great-coat, peering out), and where they were the only Aboriginal family, she was reminded often that she was Aboriginal: the school bus never picked them up, for example: they lived just on the edge of town - that was called 'assimilation'. The boys all individually wanted to root her but collectively threw rocks at her instead.

She left school at not quite fifteen and, as the eldest, had to go to work on a sheep station to take the financial burden off the family as an unpaid house-maid. (I suppose she could have put her hand out as one of the mythical 'Stolen Generation'). A bloody hard worker all her life. She finished up as a Senior Lecturer and acting head of SA's Aboriginal Education Advisory Committee. From her beginning on the Mission to her goodbye, she was Aboriginal, nothing but Aboriginal, and fiercely proud of it.

How are people raised ? Who have been their formative influences, not just who might have been their distant ancestors, who they never knew (and neither did their parents, or grandparents) ? Is the definition merely biological ? What have been their connections to the community, one of the three parts to the definition, after all ? And what are their needs now ?

Cheers,

Joe

For Aka
“I think you have ceded, and admitted defeat, when you quote articles in Quadrant and cite Windschuttle. You write for CIS, the far-right winged so-called-think-tank funded by big businesses.”
“Do you also find it funny that of all Anthony's supporters, none of them identify as Indigenous, because I do.”
Typical classic statements by Aka. I love it! I think you have ceded, and admitted defeat, when you make statements like that one. And as for my supporters, who cares? Well actually I care on one aspect, that my father is my greatest supporter

For Rainier
“I'm from the old school of thought that believes our legal and constitutional rights need to be recognised and that special provision for positive discrimination be included in the Australian constitution.”
“And this acknowledges that you agree Joe, so why don't you use this as a great example to illustrate how disconnected Dr Dillon is from the majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?”
Typical classic statements by Rainier!
“He (unlike you) has a very grounded understanding of the dynamics of institutional racism. Anthony, I can only feel sorry for you, I really do.”
And you still think you know my father better than I do. Dad and I had a good chuckle over you recently. Both of us feel sorry for you! Let me repeat, I am in no denial that racism exists. But the point remains, that people have a choice how they will respond to racism. For some, they are totally unaffected by it. For others who moan and groan, it becomes an excuse for all their misery and they end up seeing racism around every corner. I am sure you know the sort of people I am talking about here Aka. Sorry, I mean Rainier.

On 15 March, Aka said "You have made me cranky though that you dare assume what or how I might think." Well I think that pretty much sums up his world view - others are responsible for my happiness! On a serious note, I do not doubt the integrity of the people who give you their response when you speak with them. However, people are able to find explanations for their behaviours/feelings that are not correct. For example, I recently encountered somebody somewhere (can't remember where) but he actually believes I make him cranky. Can you believe that? If people truly understood their problems, they would realise that a solution entails looking within first.

Joe, There have been many occasions where I have confronted this issue with individuals who suddenly discovered that one of the predecessors was Aboriginal.

In fact there are many who claim to be Aboriginal now on the basis of this historical evidence but whose siblings (brothers and sisters) do not and it’s interesting to learn about why they disagree.

Some just think it’s unimportant; others want to deny it because they hate blacks. And quite often these same individuals believe in the myths about the free car, house & other concessions they learnt (before they discovered their Aboriginality).

In my capacity as a board member of a community organisation we often have people requesting a confirmation of Aboriginality form & for those known in our community or through our networks these requests are often not a problem.

Note: (We are the only people in Australia that must provide proof of legal ethnicity & hence the reason for explaining the long legal history of this legalised racism in my previous post.)

However, from my own observation, there are a younger generation coming through now, and these are youth who don't engage or socialize within community who don't understand what it means to self identify as Aboriginal/TSI, and they are very different in attitude to their peers who strongly identify with community along with their traditional clans or language groups.

TBC

Continued from previous post:

We have on a number of occasions refused to confirm their requests for confirmation of Aboriginality, checks and balances are there & we often point out that fraud is a legal matter that can be prosecuted if need be.

Hence the reason why constitutional recognition would provide an overarching legal framework that allows us as first nations people to once & for all time, self determine ourselves in the first instance, & then to others.

Other readers of this post from me to Joe - should also note the total absence of this history in Dr Dillon's article. Dillon brushes off criticism by declaring that the history of white privilege & racist policy and law has no bearing on contemporary circumstances. He is totally at odds with the knowledge and perspectives of the majority of scholars in the field of Indigenous studies, and knows it

Dr Coconut wrote: “And you still think you know my father better than I do. Dad and I had a good chuckle over you recently. Both of us feel sorry for you! Let me repeat, I am in no denial that racism exists. But the point remains, that people have a choice how they will respond to racism. For some, they are totally unaffected by it. For others who moan & groan, it becomes an excuse for all their misery and they end up seeing racism around every corner."

I don't purport to know your father better than you, but he would agree with me that police racial profiling exists in the rank & file of the Qld police force. My personal response to institutional and personal racism over the years is something I am very proud of, it has not overcome me, but there are others in our community who cannot protect themselves by wearing a police uniform or have the ability or resources to combat it as well as you and I can Dr Dillon. But instead of acknowledging this you prefer to throw us all in one pot and pathologize us as having a victim mentality. Once again this is just lazy thinking and it’s clear your ulterior motive is just a self serving gameof a coconut.

That your father served as policeman during the most sickening and volatile period of Bjelke Peterson era, especially in terms of police relations with Aboriginal people & communities did not go unnoticed by those of us fighting the good fight.I don't recall seeing you as part of any community organisation during this period? It would have been easier for a son of a policemen to hide? mmm?

There are people that need to be defended against your pseudo intellectual BS & disconnected perspective from the realities of everyday life for the most disadvantaged. You're lack of intellectual maturity in discussing this practically or theoretically is here for all to see. No need for me to unpack it & reveal it to you. One day it will return and haunt you.

Rainier,

It's quite unfair of you to accuse Dr Dillon of not writing about something which was not the subject of his article, but which very well be the subject of another controversial thread entirely. And it really is reprehensible of you to insult him in such a cowardly way.

Yes of course, we would all be aware of how complex the issue of identity, of identifying, can be - from young people who are not as committed as the older generation, to Whites who want to claim Aboriginality on the flimsiest of grounds, or none at all, to other Aboriginal people who are quite comfortable with a multiple identity, who are, say, Maltese and Aboriginal, or Fijian and Aboriginal, or PNG and Aboriginal, etc., etc.

As I understand it, Dr Dillon is writing about racism and its effects, but also how it cannot, should not, be allowed to drag people down, to condemn them to the powerless position of 'victim' - that people can rise above, and prevail over, any such pressures, which are surely there, no doubt about it.

So it is quite pointless for you, Rainier, to attack him for what he has not intended to write about: that's material for another article. Stick to the topic, my friend :)

And frankly, I have very little faith in the knowledge, beliefs or competence of very many Indigenous academics in the field of Indigenous Studies. Very few of those that I know of have any Indigenous Studies background, and I know of only one who has a degree in the field and is also working in the field. Are they relying on their 'innate knowledge', what they were born with ? i.e. nothing ? Christ, how racist is THAT ? It's a field ripe for blow-hards and big-talkers, bigshots who know that non-Indigenous students cannot answer back. Not all are like that, of course, but enough.

Cheers, Joe

Hi Rainier,

You whinge that:

"Note: (We are the only people in Australia that must provide proof of legal ethnicity & hence the reason for explaining the long legal history of this legalised racism in my previous post.)"

Too clever, Rainier. We are all free to call ourselves whatever we like - the problem comes when you then demand some sort of benefits be available for those who claim a certain identity. Claim all you like, just don't expect that when you put your hand out, nobody will question your right to that identity, and therefore those benefits.

I know that some people tried this during the Hindmarsh Islander 'Secret Women's Business' scam - that people's religious beliefs were under attack. No. Why it was up for questioning (not attack) was because, on the one hand, it was going to cause a great deal of financial disruption to some developers (and in fact the Brown state government), and, on the other hand, would, if true, force the complete re-writing of Ngarrindjeri cultural history. People and governments had every right to question its authenticity when so much was at stake.

White people can call themselves whatever they like. Just don't expect, if substantial benefits are on-tap, that your claim won't be investigated.

On that subject, I do recall that at the time of Mabo and the Native Title legislation, I said to somebody that a comprehensive Register would have to be set up, to record whoever wanted to be involved in a land-claim, and that thorough family trees would have to be constructed, to locate every Indigenous person in relation to everyone else.

Here in SA, to give credit where it is due, Doreen Kartinyeri put together a dozen family trees totalling about three thousand pages in a dozen volumes, often going right back to before 1800.

Using those, it was not difficult to discover, for example, that most of the 'proponent' women in the Hindmarsh Island scam, if one went far enough back in their genealogies, had a non-Ngarrindjeri maternal ancestor - mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, and therefore

[TBC]

[contd.]

would never have been told anything about 'secret business', even if it were true.

People don't realise how much data there is around on Aboriginal people - missionary reports, superintendent reports, birth, death, marriage and school registers, police records, Protectors' records. From all that, it isn't difficult to construct family trees, right down to the present. And from there, to rule people in or out - who is, and who is not, eligible for benefits.

Non-Aboriginal people are trying it on all the time: it's a simple matter for a genuine person (and please don't weep on my shoulder about the 'Stolen Generation') to be verified or not. In my limited experience, whenever I asked a person who they were related to, I could locate that person within seconds, as related to someone or other, no problem. When someone hedged, and hummed and ha'd, I knew I was in the presence of a non-Indigenous liar. They usually picked some very distant place, like Tasmania or WA, thinking it was impossible to check, but hey, there are Aboriginal organisations all over Australia, with phone numbers.

So in the case of Dallas Scott, in yesterday's Australian Magazine, how hard would it have been (even presuming he didn't have a birth certificate which would have recorded his mother and father), for him to be asked to produce a family tree, something which would slot him in to existing databases of family trees ? Christ, it's not rocket science.

Oh, I see, they haven't thought of starting to use that procedure yet in Victoria ? Or anywhere ? If they had, this guy would have been on half a dozen family trees, the Scotts and the Carters for a start. Christ, he must have relations galore all over eastern Victoria and south coast NSW. Bloody absurd.

Here's another story, from the brilliant Caroline Overington, on a similar theme - it just shows how ridiculous this all can become:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/court-sees-an-aborgine-with-white-parents/story-fn59niix-1226219436990

Cheers,

Joe

To loudmouth:

1) Dr Dillon has criticized anyone who uses the descriptions racism when describing &“believing that the over-representation in prisons by Aboriginal people is due to police targeting Aboriginal people.”
2) He then made a supporting statement (once again in total absence of any evidence) that
“There could well be some rogue coppers out there, &it is certainly the case that judges &juries are human, &therefore subjective.” This is clearly his own opinion (unsupported by evidence) but in response to AKA &my challenges to his assertion he wants us to provide hard evidence. We can only direct him to read the many reports surrounding deaths in custody, the royal commission &hundreds of other evidence based research that often conclude that institutional or personal racism was a mitigating factor in these cases. His refusal to cite them or even acknowledge their existence is not a valid defence of his original assertions. He simply refuses to acknowledge them as being credible examples. Why?
3) Dr Dillon denigrates activists (whom he refuses to name) who believe Andrew Bolt is racist because the courts concluded that he was. From my understanding many people were labelling Bolt a racist without any reference to the courts findings &well before it was even litigated. Once again, he defends Bolt without any reference to the case or the Judges findings. Why?
4) Dr Dillon then goes on to state” I am not denying that there is racism in Australia, but there is a danger that every inequality between Aboriginal &non-Aboriginal Australians will be seen as the result of racism.” Once again, by passive insinuation, he implicates everyone that protests inequality as believing that its primary cause is racism. But he does not provide examples of whom &where this has occurred for which he can then test his thesis. Why not?

TBc

5) Finally, in Dr Dillon’s uses the convenient label ‘activists’ to demonize all & sundry he states “the view promoted by some activists that people who identify as Aboriginal Australians are culturally different, spiritually different, & have a distinctly different view of the world to non-Aboriginal Australians, &hence require different rules from the mainstream to live by, needs to be questioned.” The door is wide open for Dr Dillon to begin his crusade against these ‘activists’. No one is saying ‘how dare you question these people’, indeed I have previously asked Dr Dillon to name these so called “activists” & to stop hiding in the shadows but he’s obviously too afraid to go public with his views. I ask myself surely with his education he is capable of doing more than writing obscurantist opinion pieces that dog whistle rednecks? But sadly I suspect this is all he is capable of doing.

Rainier,

Deaths in custody:

At the time of the royal commission, 23 % of prisoners were Indigenous. 22 % of deaths in custody over an extended period, had been Indigenous.

[Notice that this does not say, in any way, HOW MANY people had died in custody, only the PROPORTION who were Indigenous.]

What proportion of deaths in custody would you expect to be Indigenous - 2.5 - 3 % ?

Or 23 % ?

Okay. I'll go slowly.

IF 80 % of prisoners were Indigenous, what percentage of prisoners who die in custody would you expect to be Indigenous, 80 % and no more than that ? Or 2.5 - 3 % ?

IF 1 % of prisoners were Indigenous, what percentage of prisoners who die in custody would you expect to be Indigenous, 1 % and no more than that, or 2.5 -3 % ?

You still don't get it ? Okay. Suppose there were no Indigenous prisoners at all in a hypothetical incarceration system - what proportion of prisoners who die in custody would you expect to be Indigenous ? 2.5 - 3 % ? Or none ? 0 % ?

Suppose, in some other system, ALL the prisoners were Indigenous: what proportion of deaths in custody could be expected to be Indigenous ? 100 % Or 2.5 - 3 % ?

Still don't get it ? Ask a high school student who has done basic statistics.

As for your idiotic attack on Dr Dillon, in your last posts, do you know the difference between argument and ad hominem attacks ? He pointed out that neither cops nor the justice system was perfect, and you rip into him ? You're a fool, Rainier.

And he uses the word 'activists' ?! Good heavens !

So what ?

I think you are the one who is dog-whistling, Rainier ;)

Joe

The exaggerated date usually given for the first Australian’s arrival (possibly by a factor of 10) may add to the mystique when marketing Aboriginal art or souvenirs (and sometimes even Aboriginal rock music.) Unfortunately, it also serves to separate Aboriginal history from the rest of world history and detracts from our common humanity. It has been widely known for decades that scientifically speaking the concept of race means very little. Biologically there is only one human race and the genetic diversity found between the so called 'races' is somewhat arbitrary. The differences between two varied individuals found within one 'race', for example, the Swedish race, can be greater than the difference between average measures of disparate 'races'. In other words, all so called races are closely connected with much overlap.

Our failed paternalistic strategies on Aboriginal welfare have served to reinforce racist attitudes towards Aboriginal people. We should be committed to services and incentives without distinction to race, such as adequate medical provisioning, home ownership, discouraging unnecessary welfare, and strict community-policed alcohol controls where needed. We must aim to promote certain patterns of behaviour without falling into the trap of making different rules for different races

Hi Danny de Meringue,

Thank you, I think in your last paragraph you have paraphrased precisely what Dr Dillon has been consistently writing: services on the basis of need, not 'race' which is, as you point out, not a useful (or scientifically valid) concept.

But it is possible that human beings have been in Australia for far longer than six thousand years. According to the latest, incredibly exciting, genetic research into the dating and spread of our mtDNA and Y-chromosomes, it appears that the population movements out of Africa and eventually (after ten thousand years or more) into our region (the 'Sahul') went something like this:

* about 120,000 years ago (+/- 20 %), a first wave of people migrating imperceptibly slowly through south-east Asia and eventually into the PNG highlands, moving at about a kilometre a year or less;

* about 68,000 years ago (+/- 20 %) people arriving in PNG and Australia (then joined, and to remain joined until 10,000 years ago);

* about 56,000 years ago, +/- 20 %, a second wave of people migrating slowly along the low-lying shores of southern PNG, with some groups moving north and into PNG, and others into Australia;

* About 5-6,000 years ago, a migration, perhaps by sea (since PNG and Australia were separated by then) from southern India and present-day Sri Lanka along the southern coast of New Guinea and into Australia.

That's what the genetic evidence shows so far. There is a slight discordance with the Biblical account, but until equivalent evidence of a 6,000-year time-frame is found, this is what I am happy to run with.

Yes, it suggests that Aboriginal people were not the first humans to 'leave' Africa and migrate either into the Middle East and central Asia, or along the southern coast of Asia and into the PNG-Australian region. And that migrations (at least one) were still taking place as recently as six thousand years, perhaps of Austronesian sea-faring people who at the time were sailing between the PNG coast and the eastern coast of India (the Coromandel coast), and Sri Lanka.

Joe

Aka, I had reason to go back and read some of my Drum articles. I noted your comments in that forum. They were very much appreciated. Thank you.

Anthony,
I am pleased that you appreciated my comments on the Drum.

I try to speak honestly and without nastiness.

When I write on posts sometimes I get a little lax with my English (before I went to uni - straight into a mainstream ug degree I had only been to year 9). So, because you picked up on my imprecise wording (and I know the psychology behind it) I will edit my earlier statement considering your pedantic view.

So Anthony, I get cranky that you dare assume what or how I might think.

I hope that makes it clearer.

Rainier,

I've gone over all of the contributions to this thread from Dr Dillon and I have to say that your vicious attack on him was gutless and completely uncalled-for. Your insults are so off-the-wall that I suspect that you are not Indigenous at all yourself - no genuine Indigenous person would write such hurtful remarks, I'm sure, they are above that sort of thing. They would have more compassion than you reveal, even for someone that they disagreed strongly with.

And your ignorance of what is going on here (apart from what you could easily have read on-line) suggests to me that you don't actually live in Australia, in fact you may never have been here.

So I must ask you to:

* come and visit, but hold your opinions in abeyance until you have learnt enough to comment;

* try to understand the first lessons of civil discourse. If you don't have anything useful to say, or if you cannot find anything wrong with someone's point of view, except that it goes against your own prejudices, try consciously to avoid simply insulting other people and bombarding them with ad hominems, a sure sign that someone has lost their way in an discussion;

* some of your comments really do border on the psychotic ('crazy', if you don't know what that means). I don't know about mental health care (ironically, Dr Dillon's specialty) in your country, wherever it may be, but I would advise you to find out where the nearest facilities are, just in case you need them.

Dr Dillon has simply pointed out that racism certainly exists in Australia, in many forms, but none of those need drag Indigenous people down to the level of powerless victim: we don't have to buckle in the face of adversity. I fullly agree with him.

In fact, the oppressor wins if people give in - isn't that so ? So the last thing we should ever contemplate doing is advising Indigenous people to give in, to policy or to history.

Joe

Loudmouth,
it is you who always seems to be spoiling for an argument, twisting things to suit yourself. Rainier's comments, while sometimes harsh, are well within an Indigenous way of working.

It is you who puts himself up as some sort of great guru on all things Indigenous.

If Rainier chooses to growl at Anthony on some basic issues pertinent to us Indigenous Australians, it is pompous of you to chastise him. I am sure Anthony is quite capable of standing up for himself.

Rainier has consistently portrayed himself or herself as a strong Indigenous Australian. Your baiting and slurs are quite uncalled for.

Let me put it another way. Just because I am married to a non-Indigenous male I do not consider myself an expert on men or non-Indigenous people.

Loudmouth,
Your last outburst went well beyond any civil discourse. Saying someone has lost their way when they use insults and ad hominem comes back on you when you're calling them crazy and ignorant.

Aka,

You know very well how hurtful and vicious some of Rainier's comments may have been, I don't have to go into details.

And yes, Dan, they are a sign that Rainier has no argument to make, so he has to resort to insults, slurs, and contemptible dog-whistling of the worst kind. He is a fool and a bully, and I'm not the first one to point this out.

What has Dr Dillon written ? What is the gist of his arguments ? That is what we should be dealing with, but instead - bereft of argument - Rainier resorts to the dirtiest of attacks. What a gutless wonder.

Joe

Loudmouth,
The slurs and insults against Rainer: 'crazy'', 'ignorant', etc. are coming from you.

'simply insulting other people and bombarding them with ad hominems, a sure sign that someone has lost their way in a discussion'. (Loudmouth)

Hi Dan,

Thank you for attempting to defend the indefensible, but I'll stick to what I wrote above:

" What has Dr Dillon written ? What is the gist of his arguments ? That is what we should be dealing with .... "

These are important issues that he raises. He also is attempting to broaden the discussion with his article yesterday on The Drum on identity, 'race' and need:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3915412.html

I recommend it to you, Dan. Although some contributors even there attempt to side-track the issues by insulting the author, they are thankfully in the minority.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
I wasn’t attempting to defend anyone. I was just hoping you might read some of your own words to yourself. Can’t you see the insults and ad hominem you’ve emitted? They’re weren’t subtle.

Thanks for the link to Dillon’s article.

Well, Dan, Rainier and I and our mutual slagging match go back some years, so I am used to his way of 'arguing', his shifting of the goal-posts whenever the ball gets too close. I'll stick by what I wrote:

"Dr Dillon has simply pointed out that racism certainly exists in Australia, in many forms, but none of those need drag Indigenous people down to the level of powerless victim: we don't have to buckle in the face of adversity. I fullly agree with him.

"In fact, the oppressor wins if people give in - isn't that so ? So the last thing we should ever contemplate doing is advising Indigenous people to give in, to policy or to history."

Rainier may try to shift the discussion, for example, to a demand that Dr Dillon put forward his solutions to all of the problems of Indigenous people - when that clearly was not the subject of Dr Dillon's article. And then, when this was pointed out, to shift to a personal attack, using the most despicable slurs which he (and, I'm sure, Aka) know very well are extremely hurtful - which is what Rainier meant them to be, of course.

In other words, an attempt to 'win' an argument by destroying one's adversary rather his or her argument. In my view, a person who does that, and does it as viciously as Rainier does, is either evil or an idiot.

And 'crazy' ? Read again how, in one post, Rainier praises Col Dillon, and then a few days later, attacks him for working as a policeman in Bjelke-Petersen's Queensland, with a rant against cops. Tell me that doesn't verge on 'crazy' ? Again, not to mention grossly insulting of a fine Indigenous exemplar, one of the few who had the courage to actually ruin their careers by confronting Bjelke-Petersen.

To repeat, Rainier seems to believe that he is some sort of victor when he is 'simply insulting other people and bombarding them with ad hominems, a sure sign that someone has lost their way in a discussion'.

Thank you,

Joe

Rainier, I am not afraid to name the activists as you suggest, you can see for yourself who they are if you pick up any Indigneous publication. Given their fragility (much like your own) I think you know the outcome if I were to name them - I don't have time to go to court.

Now the comments for my latest drum article has closed (where I notice Aka mader her usual senseless comments), but the ABC have placed the article on another site. I will give you the link and perhaps you and Aka go there and do what you do best. Now if you do decide to address my arguemnts as opposed to attacking me, just let me know first so as I can prepare for the shock.

http://www.abc.net.au/indigenous/stories/s3465847.htm

Rainier is now doing an 'Aka' when states "He is totally at odds with the knowledge and perspectives of the majority of scholars in the field of Indigenous studies, and knows it" which again suggsts to me that you and Aka are one and the same. Your logic of the 'majority must be right because they are the majority' is very weak but is the strongest argument you have. It is because of the view held by the vocal majority that keep Aboriginal people at the lowest rung on the social ladder. Why do you wish to keep them there Rainier/Aka? Significant change often comes from the minority. However, if you able to provide a good argument that supports what you and the majority beleive, then I am happy to hear it. You have had plenty of opportunity to do so but have not and preer to attack me. Mmmm, your reference to me as "Dr Coconut" tells a lot more about you than me. According to your philosophy I should not be hurt, upset, etc. and I guess a vicitm of - wait for it - "lateral violence" Sorry to dissapont you, but I am in fits of laughter. Thanks.

Rainier

I find it interesting that you called Anthony "Dr Coconut"?

The term is generally used to denigrate someone who appears 'black/brown' on the outside but who has the audacity to say something that is out of alignment with, and therefore contradicts, the precious 'party line' views of a small minority group seeking to retain their 'special separationist status' within a majority 'white' population - and is therefore considered to be 'white' on the inside, rather than 'black' on the inside!! "How dare Anthony suggest that special help should be given on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of race or preferred identity"!

In the same vein, I wonder what derogatory term you would use to describe someone who was 'white' on the outside' and 'black' on the inside - I certainly cannot think of one, can you?

I wonder what would have happened to Andrew Bolt if he had used the term 'coconut' - would it have been seen as a 'racial slur' - or a compliment?

Fortunately, it seems that Anthony is rather 'Teflon Coated' in his reaction to insults! Indicating by example that 'offence cannot be given, only taken' and when an offence is 'offered' and rejected it returns to the one who 'offered it'. As the Buddha said, when asked why he never took offence, "when someone offers you a gift, and you refuse to accept the gift - who has the gift" - perennial wisdom indeed.

Anthony, enough of the neurotics. I repeat - I am not Rainier. Your fixation on the idea that I, or Rainier use another pseudonym makes me wonder - what are the other names you use?

I do note that you fire up at any opinion that differs from yours and display a very negative and rather nasty style of retaliating. This saddens me as I hoped that, from reading some of your earlier work, you would learn more and become less judgmental and more inclusive and understanding.

I hope that you will one day succeed in achieving your sense of connectedness and contentment.

For Aka. “I do note that you fire up at any opinion that differs from yours and display a very negative and rather nasty style of retaliating.”
Actually, I fire up when people misrepresent me the way you are doing with this quote. I also fire up when people use pathetic logic like “It must be true because a lot of people claim it to be true.” And I fire up when people leave many questions unanswered, as you have done. Opinions that differ from mine are fine.

With regard to suggesting that you are Rainier, you may not be, but given the racist comments ‘each of you’ make, there is the strong possibility that you are one and the same.

“This saddens me as I hoped that, from reading some of your earlier work, you would learn more and become less judgmental and more inclusive and understanding.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but will not accept racist opinions, slander, misrepresentation, etc. when discussing such important topics.

I hope that you will one day you will either be able to engage in honest discussion/debate, or simply admit that you lack evidence to justify your claims.

I just spent a weekend of singing with my Sing Australia group up in country SA, and went out to an Aboriginal settlement, a 'community', XXXX, where we lived in the seventies. Back then, it ran sheep and wheat, and had 90 acres of grapes, stone fruit, citrus, lucerne, etc.

In the late seventies, the council was having trouble with the dogs getting into the sheep, so of course, they got rid of the sheep. Thirty years ago, on the pretext that there was a glut of one variety of red-wine grapes, the council there ripped out everything (except the citrus, which a family of Torres Strait islanders from forty km away used to pick each year) and put in three hundred acres of almonds, with a loan from the old Aboriginal Development Corporation (later, I'm sure, converted to a grant).

(Of course, it could have done both - kept all the previous production going AND put in almonds, it owns eight thousand acres of land after all - in fact it could have gradually paid for putting in the almonds with the income from the other production. But that's all water under the bridge now).

Back then, the population there was around 120. Yesterday, I saw two people there, and it looked like maybe three houses, and maybe only one - out of about thirty - were occupied. I hadn't been there for fifteen years, and quite a few houses had been built there since then, but they were all abandoned, derelict.

One house were we used to stay while we were fruit-picking in the early eighties - it was new back then - was gone, just a bare block overgrown with weeds and a couple of young trees. The cemetery and the football oval looked well cared-for.

But the three hundred acres of almonds were dead, a vast graveyard of trees, with a few trees struggling to survive, and it looked like they had not been looked after - great banks of weeds, saltbush, bluebush - for about five years.

So much for self-determination.

[TBC]

[contd]

I saw one white fella driving in as I was driving out. He probably does the cemetery and football oval.

I'm glad that my wife didn't see it - her pre-school had been demolished, our one-bedroom flat was gone too.

I have a suspicion what might have happened - about five years ago - and it may involve the closing of the CDEP scheme:

* I think that, on many communities, some bright spark passed the word along that when the CDEP program at their community was to be closed, that everybody should get a pay-out for the years 'served', 'long service leave', back-pay, superannuation, etc., and that the resultant debt - at another community, YYYY, it amounted to a million dollars - should be set against the farm, or whatever enterprise they were supposed to be running. So DEEWR would pick up the total debt, as the funder of projects and final guarantor of debt.

And I think that DEEWR people said, 'Okay, you b@stards, two can play this dirty game, so we'll take back what you have got us into debt for.' So they took their million dollars' worth of plant, equipment, Pivots, new dairy, etc. at YYYY and - probably because they had been paying for the water for the almonds at XXXX - told the council that they wouldn't do that any more. So the XXXX council decided not to pay for water, and didn't water the almonds ever again, so they promptly died.

So, if that is a common story across the thousands of Aboriginal communities, there must be billions upon billions of housing stock, roads, power-lines, water reticulation and sewerage systems, Telstra phone-boxes, schools, clinics, council offices, mechanics' workshops, airfields, etc. etc., lying vacant across Australia, or certainly massively under-used.

But the cemeteries are probably neat and well-cared-for. And the foopball ovals too. Gotta have foopball.

[TBC]

[contd]

Meanwhile, the population at XXXX moved off once the CDEP program had been closed and are now scattered in towns across eastern SA. The population at XXXX is probably now down to single figures, maybe one family. My wife would have been devastated: we were both very dedicated to the notion of self-determination, of building communities' economic capacity, providing a basis for the use of a wide range of skills, and for employment, not to mention community income. All down the bloody drain now.

But many on the pseudo-left would somehow defend the council there and go on about what terrible things happened to their great-grandmothers. That approach is what's called a non sequitur.

What seems to be horribly possible these days is an end of 'community' - at least, in the sense of remote or isolated settlements. That's hard to come to grips with.

But on the other hand, it highlights the glaring reality that it is up to people, as individuals, one by one, to make their own decisions - to be self-determining - to get a decent education, get into employment, look after their kids, to stand up and join Australian society.

And I think that the great majority of Indigenous people are doing just that, even if they still keep talking about 'community' and 'culture' and 'spirituality' etc, and articulating their identity that way.

Joe

Anthony,
I tire of your lack of evidence to justify your claims. You attack me and refuse to consider the peer reviewed literature I have put forward. You reject these by merely asserting that all are wrong and you are right. I have provided evidence that you dismiss offhandedly. Hardly and academic attitude.

That a person can refuse to let negative experiences like racism put them on a negative path is a point I agree with you on - to a degree. Sometimes a person's negative life experiences accumulate and can become unmanageable, either temporarily or chronically. However, your stance of refuting peoples' experience of racism and its affect on their lives remains merely your belief - you arrogantly dismiss people's difficulties.

You have not provided any substantiated reference to support your assertions. You chuck a tantrum and address anything other than substantiating your stance. Where is the literature to support your view? Personal assertions do not make for a legitimate academic argument, it is more akin to a bar-room big-noting session, or a primary school spat.

Having attained a PhD, you should know you have provided no evidence supporting your argument. This article is merely and opinion piece, a personal rant. Your refusal to provide evidence underlines your closed mind and lack of academic rigour. It is outrageous that you suggest the references I posted are not legitimate.

Back up your argument with legitimate empirical evidence, and then I will begin to take you seriously. At the moment you are behaving like a privileged child, with a juvenile half formed opinion.

Finally, you have not answered my question on what other pseudonyms you use on posts. Why is that?

Hi Aka,

I was wondering how you would turn Anthony's praise for Indigenous people who resist being victimised, who fight for their place in the sun, as you have done - into some sort of defeat. But you have managed it.

And it puzzles me why some Indigenous people, who have risen above whatever policy and history could throw at them, attack others who try to exhort their own people to do the same.

ALL indigenous people should have the opportunities to resist being treated as victims, by Left or Right, and to build prosperous and comfortable lives for themselves, that's their right. So the task is to broaden those opportunities, to every community and location, to all Indigenous people.

So why do some Indigenous people, who are doing okay themselves, seem to want to sugar-coat the situation for so many of their own people and find excuses for why Indigenous people should drop in a heap, cry into their beer and stay on lifelong welfare ?

Who is the enemy ? Who encourages so many Indigenous people to buckle and give up, to stay on welfare and give up the fight ?

Who provides that comforting arm around the shoulders, to give so many people the excuses they 'need' not to struggle, not to try to rise above their victimisation ?

Who make their livings from keeping Indigenous people in a victimised condition ?

Then Anthony comes along and says that people don't have to put up with being victimised. And who 'growls' at him ? Who tries to sink the boot into him ? Who attacks him in the most despicable ways wit hall manner of personal insults ?

So who is the enemy of Indigenous people, Aka ? Looked in a mirror lately ?

Think about it.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,
you cherry pick what Anthony has said. You transfer some form of illogical view onto what I have said.

As you are fully aware, I am sure, the issue in contention is not about whether it is good that Indigenous Australians claim victim status, or if they have a positive way of coping with racism. Anthony refuses to accept that racism is a lived reality for many Indigenous Australians.

Racism can be internalised, and this is where Anthony's early work is very useful in helping victims become challengers and non-accepters of racism, but first it has to be acknowledged that racism exists. Racism is insidious and has many negative flow on effects that have been studied and documented internationally. Anthony rejects this work.

Anthony's stance places the full onus on Indigenous Australians as being so foolish as to believe racism exists - it is all their fault. This is a typical neo-con view favoured by Bolt and co, but it does nothing to challenge or address the issue of how racism by mainstream Australians continue to negatively affect Indigenous Australians.

By refusing to accept research by the likes of the AMA (Australian Medical Assoc) that found racism was the most likely cause of Indigenous Australians receiving far less intervention for cardiac health. This research shocked the researchers and the AMA as they expected to find lifestyle etc. For Anthony to dismiss such research is a poor reflection on his academic ability.

Alternatively he just likes to belittle Indigenous people's research, putting his own view forward as the ultimate truth.

While rejecting significant research literature Anthony does not put forward any evidence to support his stance - relying on his assertion alone.

Lets face it Loudmouth you know nothing about my research, or the work I do regarding promoting health and well-being. My work has been peer-reviewed by Indigenous colleagues. I am very comfortable with my identity and the positive work I do - it certainly does not promote victim-hood, that is a figment of your imagination

I am old enough to growl at sloppy work.

Aka

"but first it has to be acknowledged that racism exists." I agree 100% and have never said otherwise. I have suggested that racism does not have to be the cause of people feeling miserable, upset, devalued, etc. Unfortunately, members of the vicitm brigade keep promoting thier gospel of "any negative feelings you have are due to racsim." And sadly, many believe it. And when I point ot examples of people achieving despite racist attitudes, all I hear is a racist response of "Well they must think white." (can't remember who said that)

"Racism is insidious and has many negative flow on effects that have been studied and documented internationally. Anthony rejects this work."
This is where you have painted yourself into a corner, and stuck your head in the sand. It has not been studies based in strong research, only (weak) opinions offered. I have read the works of the people you admire, and all they ever do is make the claims "racism hurts and damages us" without any justification. As I have said before, some people claim that overcast weather upsets them. Yes there are people who are upset, and yes there are overcast days. To suggest a causal relationship is ridiculous.

The weakest argument a person can use to suppor thei claims is "it must be true because others have said the same thing'. Your flat-earth attitude keeps ABorignal people back.

“I tire of your lack of evidence to justify ...”
The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and you have not provided any proof other than “other people say it is true”.

“You attack me ...reviewed literature I have put forward.”
I have read it, again, all they do is make the claim. This is much like my other research area – mental illness. You get many people saying chemical imbalances in the brain cause depression, but unfortunately, there is no science to back up the claim.

“You reject ... all are wrong and you are right. I have provided evidence that you dismiss offhandedly.”
I have not merely asserted others are wrong. I have asserted that others have not provided any evidence (other than consensus). You’ve provided evidence? Are you sure it was not just the writings of people who have the same opinion as you? I am more than happy to look at this ‘evidence’ again.

“ Sometimes a person's negative life experiences ... become unmanageable, either temporarily or chronically.”
Okay, now you are starting to think. That’s good. We need to ask ourselves why the experiences accumulate to such a point.

“However, your stance of refuting peoples' experience of racism and its affect on their lives remains merely your belief - you arrogantly dismiss people's difficulties.”
I do not dismiss their difficulties. And your assertion that the racism causes their negative experiences is merely your belief which after all this time you have been unable to justify.

“ You chuck a tantrum and address anything other than substantiating your stance. Where is the literature to support your view?”
In Peter Sutton’s excellent book “The politics of suffering” he said that truth is not always popular. The “I’m a victim of others” doctrine is both false and popular. I have you cornered so it woudl seem you are the 'tantrum chucker'.

“Having attained a PhD, you should know you have provided no evidence supporting your argument.”
I can say the same to you. All you have done is quote people with the same opinion as yourself.

Aka, if you like, forget all the previous posts. I will spell the issue out for you as simply as I can. Consider this? I was recently referred to as “Dr Coconut”. That is a term many would consider racist and many have called me that before (but without the 'Dr" bit). With respect to this term, I share the same feelings as my father – only idiots use it. Some people are upset when the term is used to describe them, claiming that the term upset them, while others, like myself just laugh. Why are some upset by it and others unaffected by it? Perhaps the ‘upset’ is not caused by the term coconut? Please don't be like the fool who recently said "because they think white", or words to that effect. And the logic I use here is applicable to more extreme forms of events you would consider racist. Also, have you ever wondered why Aboriginal people can make racist jokes about each other and it is considered okay, yet a white person say the same joke and suddenly .... I will leave you with the words of Epictetus -
Men are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them

So, Anthony, what are the other pseudonyms you use

Hi Aka,

Forgive me for bringing it up - it could be embarrassing for someone who goes only by the pseudonym of Aka' - but I think Anthony Dillon uses only the name 'Anthony Dillon'. Because that's his name.

Some people don't need pseudonyms :)

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Aka,

When you write:

" .... the issue in contention is not about whether it is good that Indigenous Australians claim victim status, or if they have a positive way of coping with racism. Anthony refuses to accept that racism is a lived reality for many Indigenous Australians."

And then Anthony responds,

" .... 'but first it has to be acknowledged that racism exists.' I agree 100% and have never said otherwise."

That pretty much resolves that issue.

Now, let's get back to the gist of what he suggests: that regardless of what history, or policy, or economics or whatever throws at Aboriginal people, they don't have to take the advice of their social workers and buckle under it. They can rise above it. People have done that throughout history.

I would add: who wins when people DO buckle under the pressures of history or policy or social workers or whatever ?

You know the answer.

Who wins when people say 'NO' and RESIST buckling under the pressures of history or policy or whatever ?

The people.

Am I wrong ? And isn't this what Anthony is saying ?

So, with respect, Aunty, whose approach are you supporting, inadvertently, when you defend people who buckle, who give in to the pressures of racism that Anthony talks about ? We can all understand why they might, but where does it get them ?

I'm sure that both Anthony and I have great respect for you, your expertise, your experience, and your good heart, but what do those aspects of your life tell you that people should do, in spite of their pressures on them, on the one hand, and the opportunities available to them, on the other ?

Respectfully,

Joe
joelane94@hotmail.com

Anthony,
while working, I found the quotes I have used of yours from 2008.

Forgiveness does not mean forgoing the right to justice, or forgetting past wrongs, (Dillon, 2008) …
forgiveness does not mean forgetting, nor does it mean absolving, but it is “about spiritual or emotional healing” which can lead to physical healing (Dillon, 2008, p6).

I do not mis-quote your article.

Like I said, your earlier work, while hinting at the hard-right path you have taken, was softer and more inclusive and understanding.

I hope you rediscover your younger self.