The Forum > Article Comments > Defining racism > Comments
Defining racism : Comments
By Anthony Dillon, published 9/3/2012Is a law racist just because it affects one race more than others, or must there be other elements?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Page 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- ...
- 34
- 35
- 36
-
- All
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]