The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > NT Intervention: self-evident need for outside intervention > Comments

NT Intervention: self-evident need for outside intervention : Comments

By Anthony Dillon, published 10/4/2012

Self-determination is an individual responsibility

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
Thank-you, Anthony Dillon for an honest, truthful article. You did not mention that the Intervention was largely in response to shocking incidence of child abuse and neglect and violence in the targeted communities. Too 'sensitive' maybe?

"For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing." Simon Wiesenthal

This is what certain aspects of Political Correctness have given us when the truth is muted, censored and hidden away because it may, in some twisted way, "offend" some minority racial or cultural group.

However yours is the first article I think I've read on this forum which has offered a balanced viewpoint. Like it or not we are all Australians under one law and to deny anyone their rights or relieve them of their resposibilities as citizens is discrimination of the highest order. I'd like to know why some people seem to think that a remnant of aboriginal Australians should live like stone age relics?
Posted by divine_msn, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:58:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
".... the people affected by the problems are Australian citizens, and therefore entitled to the same rights as you and I.... "

Thanks, Anthony, you've put a key issue front and centre. Like anybody else, Aboriginal people are just as entitled to determine their own lives and futures, whether in concert with others or as individuals.

Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to examine their thinking for good old-ashioned racism, the worst form of paternalism. It's quite ironic that, these days, such conservative, reactionary thinking seems to emanate from people who think of themselves as being on the Left. In fact, they are simply recapitulating attitudes that the conservative Establishment held seventy, eighty and ninety years ago, and abandoned after the War.

And it's a relief to read - frm an Aboriginal authority - that

" .... People who identify as Aboriginal can still retain that sense of identity without acting as if they need to reject their Australian citizen responsibilities in order to do so."

And I wholeheartedly agree with you: "Let’s focus on need, and not race."

The first step to solving a problem is to admit that there is one, and to try to work out how it arose, and what are its full dimensions. That seems to be what the Intervention has exposed, and it exposes the scope of what work needs to be done.

Meanwhile, in the urban areas, Indigenous people are enrolling at university at about two-thirds the rate of non-Indigenous people, and at a better rate than the non-Indigenous working class and underclass.

So where are the Indigenous problems ? And where are the Indigenous solutions ? Where, or what, are the 'keys to the kingdom' ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:44:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Dr Anthony that you have shown that some academics do get it. It is rare to divert from the dogma but you are to be commended. A few days ago while buying some food for an indigenous friend I was loudly called white trash by his woman as I proceeded through the checkouts. She was offended that her man was being helped by a white fella.It seemed if I did not help I was a selfish whitefella, if I helped I was white trash. It is good to know some others such as Loudmouth knows the dilemma. If people saw a quarter of the abuse that I have seen in communities they might not sprouting the leftist dogma. Then again I doubt it. I think they remain willfully blind through misplaced guilt or just the plain fact that they can't admit they are wrong.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:44:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, one area often overlooked in the issue of self management is the culture of putting indigenous people in remote communities into very well paid positions they have little training or experience for. Whilst promoting the ideology of self managment this practise actually achieves the opposite. It promotes a sense of entitlement amongst people, some of whom are barely literate, whilst compounding the already heavy burden being carried by non indigenous workers. For example, a local may be appointed manager of the medical centre and paid upward of $60,000 to run the facility, but in reality, the already overworked nurses are doing the actual organization. This situation may well be repeated throughout the community, with health workers, teachers, admin staff etc.
This practise, apart from the presumption that aboriginals are incapable of attaining higher levels of education and training, actually discourages them from making the extra effort. After all, who would commit themselves to years of study and training when the same reward can be achieved with far less.
Self managment will never be achieved until our expectations of indigenous people improve and we cease rewarding mediocre behaviour.
Posted by Big Nana, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 4:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony,
you cite Pollard (1988, p.10) in his book Give & take: The losing partnership in Aboriginal poverty. Thanks for that.

Who are the activists you refer to, and what are their claims? Can you provide citations from these activists also, please.

I am keen to read the names of the activists that "state that one race of people relying on only members of their race to solve problems, provide services, etc., is an expression of self-determination."

I agree that Aboriginal people are "Australian citizens, and therefore entitled to the same rights as you and I". Who is suggesting otherwise, can you tell me where I can read your source?

Where can I find references to the "current ideologies that portray Aboriginal people living in remote communities as not needing education and employment like the rest of the country" you refer to? I have actually been reading and hearing the opposite.

A very senior national Aboriginal leader told me a while back, earlier in the intervention, that remote schools were struggling with having a fly-in-fly-out teacher 1 day a week. I agree with you when you say that people in remote areas are Australians and deserve the same rights as other Australians - kids deserve more than 1 day of teacher time a week. This would not be tolerated elsewhere in Aus. Kids also deserve to be taught in a language they can understand, like many other CALD Australians - gee I am glad we agree on something.
Posted by Aka, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:19:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Aka, so you ask me questions but fail to answer the many, many questions I have asked you in the past. As I have said before, it would be foolish of me to name activists and what they have said (I neither have the time nor money to be taken to court). Yes, we agree on some things, but as previous discussions have shown, we play by two very different sets of rules. When I last checked (which was several days ago), you were still of the opinion that a claim mut be true if several people believe it to be true. You call that research, but I have another name for it. That being the case, there is little to be achived by engaging in a discussion with you - for now at least.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:39:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr Dillon, once again, and I suspect will continue, to refer to these militant Aboriginal activists, without ever once naming names, citing and supporting his analysis with quotes. He invents a rhetorical device of convenience from which he can then launch his description of a left/right ideological war that in fact reflects his own conflicting and internalized psychological problems with his own identity, not as an Aboriginal man, but rather as a white man burdened and disappointed with his Aboriginal heritage. This article is simply another episode depicting his self loathing. Dillon’s self-hatred occurs in the spaces between "how Aboriginal peoples” see the dominant society seeing them, and how he then projects his anxiety about this manner of being seen - onto other Aboriginal people- (those activists) as a means of externalizing his own anxiety. To do this he must invent the Aborigine he thinks he is not. Its self serving rhetoric folks, pure indulgence and narcissism.

You should also note that he does not cite reports, either by government, or by individual researchers, let alone the plethora of news media that has been generated about the intervention launched by the Howard government and supported by the Rudd, Gillard governments.

TBC
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 5:50:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Dr Dillon has the skills one would expect of someone with his tertiary qualifications he would surely have made some reference to the initial 2007 report by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. (Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse 2007)
http://www.inquirysaac.nt.gov.au/pdf/bipacsa_final_report.pdf

One of the key recommendations from this report states:

“That Aboriginal child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory be designated as an issue of urgent national significance by both the Australian and Northern Territory Governments, and both governments immediately establish a collaborative partnership with a Memorandum of Understanding to specifically address the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. It is critical that both governments commit to genuine consultation with Aboriginal people in designing initiatives for Aboriginal communities. (Page 84)

This recommendation hardly reflects the ideas the separatist and self depreciating, hating white people ideas Dillon accuses Aboriginal people (activists?) of harbouring, and indeed it sits in complete opposition to his thesis. Read the report Dr Dillon, then you can make much more informed opinion. Until then, like many Aboriginal people who have read Dr Dillon's commentary,we are too busy dealing with the real issues, don't have time to enlighten this dullard. History will mark him down for his poor opinion making rather than his deeds. I pay my respect to Dr Dillons Elders and ancestors. They deserve better.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:01:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rainier,

Wow, it really gets up your nose that Anthony has doctoral qualifications, doesn't it ? Hence the resort to insults.

As for your strange comment that he should have read Anderson and Wild's Report - what ? out of the dozens of similar reports ? - he obviously has seen it, or some like it, otherwise why would he support the Intervention to protect children ? Anderson and Wild's report did not support separatism, as you say - why should it, quite the reverse? How can the protection of children be improved with separatism ? [Implicitly, at least, the opposite is arguably more likely to occur, abuse would be easier, isn't that so ?]

Far from any contradiction, it would seem that, on these grounds alone, what Dr Dillon writes is entirely consistent. After all, Anderson and Wild's Report was one of the key triggers for the Intervention, as an indictment of a warped and perverted abuse of 'self-determination' by powerful people in very remote, unpoliced [that surprised me] settlements and out-stations. And it was long overdue, too.

Is that the best you can do ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rainier, if you wish to help close the gap, you could perhaps start by examining the large gap that exists between your ears. Keep these posts coming if it helps make you feel good. I (and I suspect others here) love it when you make your unjustified claims (eg, "his own conflicting and internalized psychological problems with his own identity, not as an Aboriginal man, but rather as a white man burdened and disappointed with his Aboriginal heritage", "projects his anxiety"). You are good at personal attacks (which spares you from having to deal with the real issues), so keep them coming. As for naming the activists, like I mentioend to your buddy (Aka), it would be foolish of me to name them. They after all, as frail as you. One only needs to read the Indigenous publications (and I subscribe to them all) to see who are these activists and what are their messages. Some of these activists communicate with me regularly (via email), which helps keep me in the loop in what is happening in their worlds, so I would not want to run the risk of offending them by naming them.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 6:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, surely these activists have written or referable documentation that you can legitimately cite without fear.

As per academic standards, if you misquote someone then there could be an issue but a direct quote is not likely to land you in court unless you are deliberately misleading.

I am confused by your claim to be doing research. You clearly dismiss the research I have quoted in the past, including one from the AMA. So how do you do your research? Is there any literature you do agree with besides the few you have cited? Do you dismiss any view that is not compatible with yours regardless of the gravitas of the the researcher? Are you using an unpublished methodology, if so can you share it please? I do like unique methodologies.

I am becoming increasingly curious.
Posted by Aka, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 9:58:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, I just reread your post to Rainier and I am guessing that a lot of readers on OLO may not read the Indigenous publications you subscribe to so are unlikely "to see who are these activists and what are their messages". Perhaps citing from the newspapers could provide more depth to your article and give the 'activists' you berate a right of reply.

I find it a little disturbing that you note that "Some of these activists communicate with me regularly (via email), which helps keep me in the loop in what is happening in their worlds, so I would not want to run the risk of offending them by naming them." Are your email correspondents unlikely to read your publications on the Drum and OLO, and aren't you concerned that they may realise you are belittling them as the unnamed 'activists'
Posted by Aka, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not being able to speak the truth for fear of reprisals is exactly what keeps the truth from coming out from academics. The main losers are people on the ground. Again Dr Anthony is to be congratulated for his courage. No doubt he is aware of legal action taken by the industry against Bolt for expressing an opinion most would agree with.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 10:48:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, thank you for your thoughtful contribution. I am well aware of what happened with Bolt. Have you read the reviews of Anita Heiss' book on Amazon? OMG.

Aka, why do I have to keep repeating myself with you?
"You clearly dismiss the research ... one from the AMA. So how do you do your research? Is there any literature you do agree with besides the few you have cited? Do you dismiss any view that is not compatible with yours regardless of the gravitas of the the researcher?"

I don't just "dismiss any view that is not compatible with mine regardless of the gravitas of the the researcher?" I dismiss it when it is flawed. When someone makes a statement like "The earth is the centre of the solar system" or even worse "Aboriginal people are suffering because of colonisation" that is not research, it is simply a statement. Only a fool would believe it to be research. When statements of a causal nature are made (eg, colonisation causes problems today) then causality needs to be established. And most importantly, counter examples that would seem to debunk the claim need to be addressed.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Tuesday, 10 April 2012 11:18:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are a lot of alternative, strengths based approaches that people have presented to redress the significant concerns that exist in the Northern Territory.

I would suggest you start with ANTAR Policy Paper "A Better Way: Building Healthy, Safe and Sustainable Communities in the Northern Territory through a Community Development Approach. This is available here http://www.antar.org.au/issues_and_campaigns
Posted by Emma S, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 11:30:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emma,

"ANTaR's A Better Way: Success Stories in Aboriginal community-control in the Northern Territory" publication, released in 2010, which calls on governments to empower Aboriginal organisations and communities to drive solutions to the challenges they face.

A publication "which calls on governments to empower Aboriginal organisations and communities to drive solutions to the challenges they face."

Gee, what a brilliant, new idea. But ....... isn't this precisely what governments, Federal and State, have been trying to do for nearly forty years now ?

To " .... empower Aboriginal organisations and communities to drive solutions to the challenges they face" ?

So why hasn't it worked yet ? It may well do, perhaps at Wadeye, but I wouldn't want to put my working career on it.

Simple question: what if people, communities, elders, etc., simply don't have the expertise to 'drive solutions to the challenges they face" ?

Would you expect the people, elders, etc. up and down your street to have all the know-how and expertise to "drive solutions" to every challenge that they face, in electricity supply, sewerage disposal, garbage disposal, school and clinic administration, road maintenance, etc., etc. ?

No ?

Then why expect it of people with limited education in small, remote settlements ?

Having just visited a community where we lived for some years in the seventies, a village of thirty or more houses, mostly pretty new, and now all but one abandoned, a community which once had a thriving economic base, equipment and sheds galore, and a set of council chambers fit for a town of a couple of thousand, I'm keen to have a good look at what AnTAR is proposing. Well, sort of.

Should I expect anything startlingly new ? Or more of the same ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 3:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Dillon has earned a reputation for using unscupulous academic methodology to prosecute, as Rainer notes, his self-loathing and conflict with identity. He once claimed atrocities committed against Aborigines were the outcome of a love affair gone wrong.

As usual, in his state of utter confusion, Tony misses the point altogether. The essential problem of Aboriginal disadvantage is the misogynist fraud which passes for governance in Australia, leadership appointed by a majority of men, a Cabinet comprised of seventeen men and a token five women, a parliament women attend by male consent, law without a women's jurisdiction, and so forth, all of which can be fixed simpy with the provision of the Aboriginal tradition of governance by agreement between women's and men's legislative assemblies, presided over by elders.

When Tony and his colleagues decide to address the cause of Aboriginal advantage instead of blowharding incessantly about their own self-righteous concerns, all Australians will be better off, not that their purile rants particularly effect anything anyway.

While it's sad to see the perpetators of male privilege swoop like vultures on Tony's excruciating public pain to further their insidious cause, his commentary also speaks volumes to the depth to which tertiary standards have descended in the death throes of the discrimination Europeans introduced.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 4:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
* When Tony and his colleagues decide to address the cause of Aboriginal disadvantage ...
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 4:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow Mr Arts, are you going to give an examples of this "unscupulous academic methodology"?
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 4:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whistler,

I think we've been down this road before ......

Actually, as a left-hander, I've always had a sense of alienation, that society was run by and for right-handers. I really am sick and tired of being told what to do by bloody righthanders.

So, to take your point, it might be understandable if some people think that there should be separate parliaments, not only on the basis of electorates, and state representation, and gender, but handedness as well. Gender-handedness, by the way: separate chambers for lefthanded women, lefthanded men, righthanded women and righthanded men in each jurisdiction.

Of course, we already have eight State/Territory legislatures with (I think) thirteen chambers, as well as a two-chamber federal legislature. But fifteen doesn't sound too much. If we had gendered houses of representation, this would double the number of chambers only to thirty, still not too many. Handedness would kick this up to sixty.

In that case, each of us would be represented in sixteen chambers (twelve in Queensland and the Territories: four times in each of their State/Territory parliaments, and eight times in the Federal Parliament).

With elections every, say, four years for each chamber, that would mean an election for each of us every twelve to seventeen weeks, upper and lower houses, etc. It would be up to elected representatives to work out how to balance the powers and responsibilities of each of the eight (six in Qld and the territories) houses to contribute to effective government.

Surely that's not too much to ask in the interests of more representative democracy ?

You might be onto something, Whistler.

Now for proper representation for grossly obese people, such as myself: I'm sick and tired of being told what to do by miserable, thin b@stards. Do I have your support, Whistler, is it worth giving it a go ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 4:24:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi again Whistler,

You conclude:

"While it's sad to see the perpetators of male privilege swoop like vultures on Tony's excruciating public pain to further their insidious cause, his commentary also speaks volumes to the depth to which tertiary standards have descended in the death throes of the discrimination Europeans introduced."

This raises a few queries:

* who are you talking about ? Which perpetrators of male privilege ?

* what do you mean by 'Tony's excruciating public pain' ?

* what insidious cause are you referring to ?

* what do you mean by the death throes of discrimination ? Which 'Europeans introduced' ?

* in what way does Anthony's commentary speak volumes about 'the depth to which tertiary standards have descended' ?

Or is this simply a jumble of negative-sounding phrases dog-whistling for appropriate responses from an unseen, but presumably appreciative, audience ?

You may need to be a bit more specific, Whistler :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 4:48:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't post comments to do other people's thinking for them Loudmouth, figure it out for yourself.
Posted by whistler, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 5:12:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Whistler,

I'm still trying to make sense of

"While it's sad to see the perpetators of male privilege swoop like vultures on Tony's excruciating public pain to further their insidious cause, his commentary also speaks volumes to the depth to which tertiary standards have descended in the death throes of the discrimination Europeans introduced."

But to get back to your extremely conservative and segregationist notion of separate legislations for men and women, I'm still puzzled how it could possibly work in a world in which men and women are actually occupying more or less the same space. And maybe liking it.

How do you imagine different legislatures will operate in the same space, about the same issues, especially if they come to different decisions ?

Or are you proposing that they dealing with the same issues in two different (to use a current buzz-word) and segregated spaces, one for men and one for women ?

The men, say, all re-located to Queensland and NSW, and the less fortunate to Victoria, and the women to the rest of the country ? Coming together (oops, bad word, naughty word, implying similarity of issues and aspirations) once a year for fertility festivals ?

Or are you proposing that men and women deliberate and make decisions over different (there's that buzz-word again) issues, in different spaces, being so fundamentallydifferent from each other ?

So if the same space, who decides what is a men's issue, and what is a women's issue ?

How is this different (to over-use that buzz-word) from the most extreme Apartheid ?

What about men and women who are happy and comfortable to operate in the same space, together, deliberating over the same issues ? (Or is 'together' a boo-word these days ? Has Apartheid become popular on the Left again ? Or areyou onthe Right ?)

What if some men and women want to build a democratic system, together ?

Yes, we HAVE been over this same tired old ground before, I remember now. Remind me, what was concluded ? Or did it all fizzle ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 6:50:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Anthony,
I am stumped. I have reread your post, other comments and your article. I then reread my posts and I am at a loss as to how you can possibly believe your article and posts are anything other than your personal assertions. You are becoming increasingly irrational.

You state that you don't just dismiss any view only those that you find flawed, yet you offer no basis on dismissing research like the AMA one I referred to. (have you not read it?).

You offer criticism on random statements like "The earth is the centre of the solar system", rightly stating that it is not based on research.

How can you then expect anyone to take your opinion pieces as anything other than your personal rant as you provide no substantiation whatsoever of your stand. Rambling on about causality needing to be established, you fail to provide any attempt to back up your stance. You use unsubstantiated assertions of what some unnamed/unverifiable people are alleged to have said/written.

In no way can this or your previous opinion piece be classed as an academic work.

Anthony, your articles are poorly researched (no references) and your comments are losing any thread of reason. You are just pandering to your far-right followers.
Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 9:35:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka, at no time were my pieces ever intended to be academic pieces. This is called online opinion. Only a person with manure for brains would think that they were academic pieces. I have read many 'academic pieces' including some of the stuff you have listed, and it is not of a good quality for the reasons I have stated many times before - such as making emotive statements without any support. It is not academic writing that is going to solve the problems facing Aborignal people. And I feel sorry for the person who thinks that acadmeic writings are the solution. I notice that after all this time, you still fail to answer my questions. Here's another question for you. I just want make sure that I understand you, and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong. When a high profile person, or a researcher/acadmic makes a statement like "Aborignal people are suffering today because of colonisation" then you believe it must be true because it was spoken by an academic or a high profile (Aborignial) person in a journal?
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Wednesday, 11 April 2012 10:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony,
you are wrong on many points. You continue to insist I answer your questions yet remain stubbornly silent on my questions.You state that your articles on OLO are opinion pieces yet I am sure you count them as publications in your acquittal of the publicly funded ARC research grant you receive.

I will answer your question this time in spite of you ignoring mine. Unlike you it seems I like to look at all of the facts and opinions from all sides, before making up my mind. It is poor form to do research with your mind already made up. In the case of the statement "Aborignal people are suffering today because of colonisation" I make up my mind by looking at the supporting evidence from the beginning, and prior to, colonisation. The scientific papers of the time demonstrate scientific racism underpinned colonisation and enabled settlers to disregard the dispossession and depopulation of Aboriginal people. I also examine the policies of respective govts since colonisation, and how they relate to modern day policies and attitudes. If, with all the evidence, I agree with a certain line I am confident that I have made an informed decision.

Of course this is a very short answer but this is why I continue to challenge your ill formed assertions. Go back over your work Anthony and you will see that it is you who rely on emotive statements.

PS, your use of 'manure for brains' is purely juvenile.
Posted by Aka, Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:27:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have talked a couple of times to a young man from the Central Desert whose father was a Policeman (indigeneous). The father was so hated by his own family that he could no longer stand the pressure. Even the son lost friends just because his dad was a policeman. The father is now a drunk along with many others in that town. He is however again accepted by all the bros. If the need of outside intervertion is not clear one has to be in absolute denial.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 12 April 2012 11:36:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka
“you are wrong on many points”. Well I am happy for you to point out where I am wrong. But just to point out to me somebody who holds a contrary view to me does not necessarily mean that I am wrong.

“I answer your questions yet remain stubbornly silent on my questions.” You are kidding right?

“I am sure you count them as publications in your acquittal of the publicly funded ARC research grant you receive.” Totally wrong. I cannot think of anyone who would count an online piece as ‘acquittal of the publicly funded ARC research grant’. This is just a hobby for me. Again, you can guess what I think such a person must have for brains if they think my online opinion pieces are in any way connected ARC grants.

“I make up my mind by looking at the supporting evidence from the beginning, . . .The scientific papers of the time demonstrate scientific racism underpinned colonisation and enabled settlers to disregard the dispossession and depopulation of Aboriginal people.”
No argument from me on this point (which is not the point I have been discussing). Yes, a lot of bad things have happened, but they are not the reason for the disadvantage we see today. This is something you fail to see. Again, I am happy to be corrected here, but your idea of ‘evidence’ is finding someone, documents, etc. that basically agree with what you believe, namely, “Aboriginal people suffer today because of injustices of the past”? Claims like that are fine, but they need to be substantiated with more than consensus.

With regard to the comment about assuming my opinion pieces were more than opinions, what would you conclude about a person who believes that they are more? Further what is your opinion about someone who thinks my online opinions somehow relate to ARC grant money?
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Sunday, 15 April 2012 6:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok Anthony,
If your OLO articles, and I presume your Drum articles, are not academic works, mere opinion pieces, I will stop trying to make sense out of your poorly argued assertions.

I will know in future that, despite your strident demands for academic proof - it is all a bit of showmanship. For you it appears, this is a site that allows you authorship of poorly informed and crafted opinion and your comments mere trolling.

As to your comment on the ARC grant acquittals of publications, I have seen OLO and Drum articles cited in such ARC university acquittals - it is not without precedent - as I am sure you are aware.
Posted by Aka, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 6:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka,

The upshot of all this attack and counter-attack is that there are major problems in remote communities in the NT, and what the hell should anybody - the communities, the respective governments, the bureaucrats, Uncle Tom Cobbley - do about it ?

Kids are dying here, women are dying, while so many people find so many reasons not to do anything about it.

There are chronic problems - what are the reasons, and what are the solutions, step by step, point by point ?

What do you suggest ? Leave everything alone ? And watch more 'communities' go down the drain ? What then ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 17 April 2012 6:17:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka
“As to your comment on the ARC grant acquittals of publications, I have seen OLO and Drum articles cited in such ARC university acquittals - it is not without precedent - as I am sure you are aware.” To be honest, I was not aware (mmm, another one of your wrong conclusions), but it does not surprise me, and I don’t doubt what you are saying (accept as it applies to me like you suggested). Some academics do anything to get published (not necessarily a bad thing) , but it’s not for me. The Australian said they were going to run one of my opinion pieces very soon (and they could change their mind) and I can assure you that the piece has nothing to do with any grant I am associated with.

“For you it appears, this is a site that allows you authorship of poorly informed and crafted opinion and your comments mere trolling.”
Thanks for your opinion Aka. After all this time, I had hoped that you would answer my questions (and I am happy to repeat them if you like) instead firing personal criticisms at me. I am sure that if my opinions were poorly informed then you would have pointed out by now the reason, instead of the usual “what he says is different to what others say so he must be wrong.”

I am happy and confident to go on forums like this (and national newspapers) to use my real name and express my opinion. As I don’t know your real name, you could very well be doing the same. But if the very best you can offer is “What I say must be true because other people agree” then you can look forward to getting some very interesting feedback if you do express your views publicly using your real name
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 6:05:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, I share your frustration, and I thank you for your support. Sadly, what many people are suggesting is "Today's problems for Aboriginal people are due to racism and colonisation" with the suggested solution being "The government needs to take full responsibility adn fix everything, and we need to beleive that many of these Aboriginal people are leading traditional lives, and that Aborignal people should therefore lead spearate lives, etc." Such thinking is extremely damaging, though very popular.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Wednesday, 18 April 2012 6:10:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony,
I do not make personal criticisms of you - I criticise your professional ability.

I have not stooped to suggesting you have 'manure for brains' as you have.

Believe me, I have been very restrained in my commentary - sticking only to your academic credibility. I have deleted many comments that I thought were a bit harsh and refrained from bringing personal issues into this. Perhaps you would prefer it if I did, but it is not my style.

Your bleating about me not answering your questions is belied by your stoic refusal to answer any of mine.

You align yourself with far right folk, belittle educated Indigenous Australians who have had more privileged lives, while you are in the same category.

Anthony, I think you are a hypocrite, trading on your Indigenous heritage to get your opinion into print, espousing the thoughts of the likes of your old mate Bolt.

Lets face it, would your opinion on non-Indigenous Australians be printed? Would an article about the drink, drug and gun culture in Sydney or the Gold Coast get published if it wasn't about Indigenous Australians? I would be interested to see what you could do with the current binge drinking in Melbourne, or the most recent tazer death in NSW.

You tend to castigate Indigenous Australians while placing yourself as a better class - more uptown. It is sad really, very sad.
Posted by Aka, Thursday, 19 April 2012 9:25:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka, I don’t mind being corrected. When you said “I do not make personal criticisms of you - I criticise your professional ability.” I had a brief skim back over your comments, and yes, it would seem that you generally don’t criticise me personally. It is easy for me to get confused over time, especially when others (whom I won’t name but save it for a rainier day) make stupid personal attacks. You do however make dumb statements like “I seriously question your ability to conduct research” , “Do you also find it funny that of all Anthony's supporters, none of them identify as Indigenous, because I do.”, “I hope that you will one day succeed in achieving your sense of connectedness and contentment.” And “At the moment you are behaving like a privileged child, with a juvenile half formed opinion.” And Aka, I really think a person is scraping the bottom of the bucket when they have to say things like “You are just pandering to your far-right followers” or “but first it has to be acknowledged that racism exists”. I have never been in denial of racism, I just don’t support the view that is the big contributor to the inequalities we see today. Am I correct in assuming you do?
Nonetheless, for the record, I happy to acknowledge that your statements are not direct personal attacks. I am just curious though, if a non-Indigenous person made the sorts of comments you have made toward an Indigenous person, would the researchers you have quoted previously be quick to call it racism?
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:47:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka, I still find it interesting that you fail to answer my questions. Let me repeat myself: “When a high profile person, or a researcher/academic makes a statement like "Aboriginal people are suffering today because of colonisation" then do you believe it must be true because it was spoken by an academic or a high profile (Aborignial) person in a journal?” Can you give me your answer please. Also, would you like to summarise the main point of the ‘research’ by the AMA you are very fond of? Did they just express an opinion? I will be happy to respond.
In another post, you said “Unlike you it seems I like to look at all of the facts and opinions from all sides, before making up my mind”. What do you mean by ‘facts’? Someone can say “Aboriginal people today are suffering because of the colonization” and then claim that it is a fact.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Friday, 20 April 2012 8:48:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony,
I engage with you and growl at you as I believe you have more potential than you are exhibiting (maybe I am an eternal optimist).

I did answer your question by explaining how I make up my mind. I do not rely on one person's assertion, instead I will often look up their references, search for my own understanding on an issue such as whether colonisation continues to impact negatively on Indigenous Australians. Put simply, I form my opinion on reputable evidence, including personal observation - often drawing on early coloniser's journals.

Unlike you, it seems that I come from the other side of the tracks, and felt and witnessed the harsher rule of law in Queensland particularly under the Bjelke-Petersen era - the continuing effects of colonisation that still infect the present. I continue to witness how the ideology of colonisation informs policy and people's opinions. However, neither myself or my immediate family have ever been in trouble with the law. My husband, for a brief time in his idealistic youth, was a policeman in the same era you father was in the service, but he left because of the corruption - his accounts I believe.

I do see you as having lived a privileged life if you have not seen the things I have seen.

I am no victim mind you. I am very fortunate as I am happy and have a deep sense of contentment.

I genuinely wish that you one day succeed in achieving your sense of connectedness and contentment.
Posted by Aka, Friday, 20 April 2012 9:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony,
I had to smile when you state "scraping the bottom of the bucket when they have to say things like “You are just pandering to your far-right followers” or “but first it has to be acknowledged that racism exists”. If that is the worst you get you are a lucky person indeed.

As for whether my comments to you would be taken as racist if they were directed by a non-Indigenous person towards an Indigenous person, I don't think so. Even where I comment on your followers being non-Indigenous, it is an observation I made on you positive feedback on the forum. Are you seeing racism when there is none?

I have answered your question twice, now when are you going to answer any of mine?
Posted by Aka, Friday, 20 April 2012 10:15:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka, "Are you seeing racism when there is none?" I don't, but I know that some of the authors you refer to see racism around every corner and underneath every stone.

"I have answered your question twice, now when are you going to answer any of mine?"
Which question was it that you have answered twice?
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Monday, 23 April 2012 3:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Put simply, I form my opinion on reputable evidence, including personal observation - often drawing on early coloniser's journals.”
Mmmm, “reputable evidence”? Do you just mean that a so-called reputable person makes a grand claim like how “colonisation continues to impact negatively on Indigenous Australians” and that gets accepted as fact? Perhaps you could give some examples of this evidence that you often refer to. As I have said before, finding many ‘reputable’ persons who make a statement that agrees with yours, is not evidence. Again, the person who believes that has manure for brains. Perhaps you could also address the counter examples that clearly show some Aboriginal people who are leading positive lives irrespective of colonisation. Actually, I think you gave a response once before which mentioned something about “thinking white”? I could be mistaken, so please correct me if I am.

“Personal observation”? Interesting, there are many activists (and no, there is no need to name them) who will tell you that based on their personal observation, Aboriginal prisoners are more likely to die in jail than non-Aboriginal prisoners. We know that not to be the case, yet they will swear that they have witnessed it.

“the continuing effects of colonisation that still infect the present.” I do wish you would substantiate such emotive statements.

“I do see you as having lived a privileged life if you have not seen the things I have seen.” I probably have seen the things you have seen, but just have a different interpretation to you. For example, I don’t see poverty today (an event) and colonisation (a second event) and draw the unfounded conclusion of “Well one event (colonisation) caused the other event (poverty).” Again, only someone with limited mental capacity (or an agenda) draws such conclusions.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Monday, 23 April 2012 4:08:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka, You like to make patronising statements (eg “I genuinely wish that you one day succeed in achieving your sense of connectedness and contentment.”). It may be asking a bit much (based on my experience with you) but should you ever wish to back those claims up, please do so.

I engage with you and growl at you as I believe you have more potential than you are exhibiting Aka (maybe I am an eternal optimist)
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Monday, 23 April 2012 4:08:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony,
you are truly obtuse. You demand validation etc, yet claim that you don't have to give any yourself.

Your half-baked comments do not make you look good, they just reinforce your far right, better/upper class attitude.

I am finding that Rainier has some pretty accurate analysis of your attitude and thinking. It might surprise you to know that I have read your work extensively so I am aware of the inner struggle you portray in your writing.

If you think that my wishing you well is patronising, it was done with clear good will, but perhaps you should see someone for your paranoia.
Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:36:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aka, “Rainier has some pretty accurate analysis...” by that do you mean that he agrees with you so it must be accurate? As I have said before, given that both you are very evasive and have similar logic (eg, “If a lot of people agree on something, then it must be fact”), I suspect that you are one and the same. This seems to be an ongoing theme with you Aka, and one that is widespread in discussions on Indigenous issues – if a few people hold the same idea, then it must be true/accurate. And to answer the question you have asked me before, I have no aliases here.

“It might surprise you to know that I have read your work extensively so I am aware of the inner struggle you portray in your writing.” With claims like that, it is highly unlikely that you understood my work. Here’s my latest work in case you have not seen it:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/closing-the-gap-must-refocus/story-e6frg6zo-1226335672316

Why don't you post an articel of your own on here or elsewhere and see what response it gets.
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Thursday, 26 April 2012 11:38:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Akam

Anthony's got a point. You can put up a contribution on OLO's 'General Discussion' where you don't have to use your own name, just your OLO name:

* click on 'Forum' up the top of the page;

* then click on 'General';

* then click on 'Start a new discussion'.

And away you go :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 26 April 2012 11:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Posted by Anthony Dillon, Friday, 27 April 2012 6:03:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a social work student who is currently studying the proposed Stronger Futures legislation for a policy assignment. I agree that many Aboriginal people are facing a magnitude of issues currently. However, in order to properly solve these problems we need to work with Indigenous communities through actual consultation. Not the consultation that occurred for the Stronger Futures Legislation. The practice that we use needs to be evidence-based, and most of all we need to listen to what Indigenous people are saying and find a way to integrate Indigenous culture with the intervention we use.
Posted by lara, Monday, 30 April 2012 11:25:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://healthservices.cancer.gov/areas/disparities/supplement.html
Posted by Aka, Monday, 30 April 2012 9:42:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's right, Aka, there may well be discrimination in many places - the question is:

SHOULD YOU LET IT GET IN THE WAY ? SHOULD ANYBODY USE IT AS AN EXCUSE FOR NOT TRYING TO TRANSCEND IT ?

Yes, there is a huge gap between the living conditions of some Indigenous people and others, and (on average) between the living conditions of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

According to the 2006 Census, thirty five per cent of all Indigenous women (288), aged 25-59 and living in the ACT (totalling 812), were university graduates - one in three. At the same time, in the Apatula region, across the NT immediately below Alice Springs, 0.7 % of all men in the same age group were university graduates, usually with diplomas - that's one in 140.

Now that's a gap.

And it immediately raises the question, at least for those who don't think that poor education is a good thing, even for 'traditionally-oriented' men:

WHAT THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?

I know that the role of intellectuals these days seems to be to describe the world, not to change it. But I would have thought that Indigenous intellectuals and academics don't really have that luxury.

The ball's in your court, Aka :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 1 May 2012 9:19:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy