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

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.

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

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.

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.

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'