I have read your article Sasha and even though I am of Serbian background I completely agree with your points.
Personally I have problem to reveal my own identity in Australia. As i am Serbian from Croatia that does not mean anything because not many people know about the civil war and the history of former Yugoslavia. I struggle to declare my self as Serbian only because it is assumed that I am from Serbia, which I am not. I do not consider Serbia as my country of origin, because it was Former Yugoslavia.
It is important for us to get people to understand that there is the difference and generalization is not good anywhere, so is not here.
Zora

People are entitled to call themselves whatever they like. When they put their hand out for benefits which may accrue to a particular identification, then the troubles start.

I worked for some years in Indigenous student support programs at a couple of universities here in SA. One of our main tasks was to publicise tertiary study in schools and TAFE colleges around the State and in western NSW and Victoria, to test applicants and (at least while we were funded to do so) to run intensive preparation programs for suitable applicants, at first semester-length, then cut down to three-week, programs.

Applicants back in the eighties and early nineties tended not to have standard entry qualifications, so our preparation program and follow-up support over the course of their studies, made up to a large extent for what they might have missed out in school.

But occasionally, non-Indigenous people tried to pass themselves off as Indigenous. Genuine applicants readily outlined their Indigenous links, within seconds of being asked, but the non-Indigenous applicants beat around the bush, or fixed on family links in WA or Tasmania, far away, and they thought, uncheckable. Occasionally, they would get angry and threaten legal action if their claim to Indigeneity was challenged: that was a pretty good give-away.

What was at stake ? Apart from easier entry into university, a guaranteed job at the end of it, and once their Indigeneity was 'recognised', easy-loan housing, and various other benefits.

So currently, quite a few of the non-Indigenous blow-ins are in key jobs in SA. One applicant, who we knocked back, got into another program, was later declared Aboriginal Scholar of the Year, did PG study, and was given a plum job in Education Policy in Canberra.

Come to think of it, with a Calabrian mother (lovely woman too: yes, we CAN check), he was almost 'Black' enough to get past us. The vagueness is what did him: but claiming that his mum was a 'Stolen Generation' child almost got him through.

Yes, it matters.

Loudmouth

The racial discrimination act is to stop guys like you pointing out the hurtful truth.

Hello Zorka,

I'd be interested to know what scheme you entered Australia under:skilled migrant/family reunion/refugee/other?

Oh please, spare us the usual diatribe about difference or what separates us? Enough already. There is no Black or White way, just a wrong or right way. One can understand the reluctance of some Serbs to self identify, given their history of entirely unjustified ethnic cleansing/property theft, mass murder and genocide, which most seemed to agree with; given the years the convicted chief culprits, were able to live in comparative freedom, without fear of justice or even simple identification?
If I had my druthers; all our Serbian migrants arriving here since the last conflict, would be re-examined with the assistance of the very latest non invasive space age lie detection equipment; that not even psychopaths can fool.
And offered unavoidable repatriation if they were found to have deliberately mislead the original enquiry; that saw them being accepted and resettled as genuine refugees?
I don't have a problem with genuinely displaced persons; just those demonstrably unable to let go of and forgive the past; and simply bring their hate filled conflicts and superior ethnic attitudes with them?
That's is all I see in the article; albeit, cleverly veiled, well almost? We don't want or need that segregationist garbage here! All that's really needed to identify aboriginality, is a simple mouth swab and equally simple comparative DNA testing. Rhrosty.

This article simply bounces off a flimsy barb aimed at The Age to really use any excuse to launch into a diatribe about the ultra Macedonian numero uno identity. John Sylvester is an excellent writer and there's really nothing to his quote brought in as the preliminary basis for this article, particularly in comparison to the rightly legally objectionable rascist views of Andrew Bolt. Like comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, the nitpicking appears to come from the author, not the Age, as 'Republic of Yugoslavia' is mentioned in at least 3 of the Wikipedia entries and can hardly be classified as 'offensive'. Most people would understand the general context of this 3 word expression. No need to nitpick. But if we must, 'unable to speak English' makes no mention of a 'Yugoslav language' at all - and it's sloppy of the author to suggest this was said from the quote provided. It wasn't. Can you also please tell me what reference a 'chic looking' Gabrielle Coslovich has to do with anything? How does her appearance help this article apart from seem some slightly misogynist snide at an arts critic whom by appearances knows nothing about Macedonian identity perhaps? Did you describe any other male appearance also to support your argument? ps why should we care? We don't really. Most Australians are sick and tired of the nitpicking about the incredibly complex, intensely divisive politics of the violent ethnic conflicts from places such as the former 'SFR Yugoslavia' being brought to such places as here.