Hear, hear, Megan! I think you've described a hagiographic trend in the public coverage of Indigenous affairs that has greatly contributed to stifling debate in the area (e.g. the issues facing Indigenous people are much broader than can be addressed by the rubric of 'welfare reform' or 'getting off the grog'). The habitual genuflection towards the work of Noel Pearson (which is often narrrowly interpreted or taken out of context, as you've said) masks a poverty of intellectual capital in the Indigenous public policy debate. Now the Coalition government has savaged the area of Indigenous affairs, the wheels are spinning, and even they aren't really too sure what to do themselves.

What gets me is the way that the latte-sippers of yesteryear are now intoning 'and then I read the work of Noel Pearson, and it was the only thing that made sense to me about Indigenous affairs' as if they've had a Damascan epiphany. The whole public debate is very limited because of the lack of general knowledge of Indigenous issues and the collusion of the media on various government bandwagons.

I don't want to get into Noel-bashing, but I think you're right on the mark and that this trend is just plain boring, as much as anything else.

I'm probably misremembering but wasn't it Noel Pearson that described ATSIC as Aborgines Talking Sh1t in Canberra"? It goes with APEC - a perfect Excuse to Chat and GATT - General Agreement to talk and talk - i think its great to see a sense of humour on the record.

One person can't and shouldn't be expected to be a saviour and lead all people out of all their troubles, he can only do what he can do and he comes across like an active, intelligent and thoughtful person and a good spokesman in the public domain.

He also offers a bit of relief for people who don't always treat Aboriginal Australians as though they were museum artefacts who must never change; noble savages who came from utopian societies; miscreants and drunkard recidivists; political victims who will never escape 'the struggle'; or marginal objects of media curiosity etc.

Many of the people I know in the city (not the bush admittedly) are normal, talented, friendly but imperfact people who get on with their lives like quiet achievers. Not everything they do is a political statement nor do they aim to live as constant exemplars of Aboriginality. They eat, they smile, they laugh, they cry, they travel overseas - they have a shared history with the rest of us flawed members of our society but they are also incredibly important as individuals not MERELY as members of a group. It's also extremely tiring and dispiriting to exist as an ad or a badge for an argument rather than just be the person around whom argument swirls.

Finally, noting the author's spelling, I am now but I wasn't previously aware that Noel Pearson was French? Should we now call him Mr Christmas Pearson? :) Season's Greetings then Mr Pearson, you are doing a good job.

As someone who has watched the Pearson StaR rise and rise, I find it difficult to accept Megans' fair handed approach to Pearson which is then cushioned in a call for a much more balanced call for open public debate.

Pearsons response to O'Donahue was predicably full of half baked political theories, mixed with good Lutheran social engineering approaches to Aboriginal welfare and borrowed from god knows where.

This is one of the few times Pearson has ever engaged in one-one debate public debate about his ideas with another 'Indigneous leader'. He has in my view deliberately avoided any call for accountability for his views from those he purports to represent.

His sluttish participation in the indigenous components of the cultural wars (via the Murdoch press) has created and manufactured consent around some of the oldest and most racist myths about Indigeous people.

For those already caught in the trance of Pearson's star qualities consider this.

He has never provided any evidence which suggests that such imposition of obligations makes people better citizens, helps them escape poverty or provides any beneficial outcomes.

Pearson’s chant of ‘Must be the grog, can't be the government’ is a dog whistle to those not wanting to understand the historical legacy of Aboriginal disadvantage or how white Australian privilege came about. Roll up Roll up! Every man and his dog can become an expert on Indigenous issues and policy in this political vacuum.

Does he deserve such a temperate appraisal of his role in creating and supporting a neo-con white discourse of victim blaming and contempt for Aboriginal people?

I say no. If the modus operendai here is to reveal Pearson as a wooden political peg then I would suggest that one ‘just calling like it is’.

Yes easy to say, harder to do I hear some think.

And I suspect Megan would agree with me on the above but she also understands that entry into any public debate these days (in Indigenous affairs) must be cognizant of how ideologically Right wing such public space is. But it has to start somewhere

Pt 1.

True one size does NOT fit all aboriginal communities, yet it has been the approach, both within states and federally, toward aboriginal and islander affairs since the 1800's.

This whole aboriginal leadership debate gives rise, i think, to the question of whether aboriginal people are acting as a 'whole', i.e. aboriginal people of australia united in one voice, and therefore a 'team'. or whether aboriginal people are acting as representatives of a certain area/mob and whatever issues forth from their mouth/hand is representative of that mob/are only.

the danger is the rise of the competition between individual areas to obtain resources to progress development/capacity building in those areas only. something of an aboriginal form of laise-faire - individuals at arms length in competition.

the pilot projects initiated in the cape york area in 2002 were announced at a meeting in townsville for the aboriginal and torres strait islander women's taskforce on violence in queensland.

aboriginal women had been assisted by courier mail reporter tony koch to expose the levels of violence and abuse within our communities and had the state governments ear about what was going on and the need for support to stop it - that was in 1998. four years later and into the second implementation stage of the atsi women's taskforce on violence report came the news of the pearson driven pilot project for the cape. pearson has a lot riding on the success of this pilot project, he's just got to get matching stats.

Pt. 2.

there is no denying that women and children in the cape communities have been suffering intolerable violence and abuse and that something had to happen. so in that context i've absolutely no problems with pearson's solution if it works for those communities. however, in order for that solution to work i think the solution needs to get the full support and consent of the communities which are affected.

im not quite sure if the democratic process is at play here... its whose way or the highway? maybe those community people are not capable of making that kind of decision - now who's asking that question? me, noel, the boss (the libs), the community? the touting of paternalism revisited this decision making business is understandable.

as for the differences in leadership styles, the o'donoghues, the dodsons, the pearsons, the mundines, the yunipingus, the yus et al... its a two-fold line, your mob and your people as a whole - they dont work without each other.

Rainier said ..."entry into any public debate these days (in Indigenous affairs) must be cognizant of how ideologically Right wing such public space is"

Interesting comment which seems to imply that when You enter into public debate, your (non-Right wing) views may be in the minority but are nevertheless preferable than those held by what you see as the majority of those engaging in the same debate. That could well be the case because of course it is not numbers that make an argument right yet you don't provide evidence for either the ideological domination of public space or your argument's inherent superiority.

However, I dont agree with you about this anyway.

I think Australians on the whole are less concerned with trotting out popular political jargon which is delivered up with such barely concealed hate or snideness. They are less concerned with overthrowing someone's perceived conspiracy than they are in just wanting someone/some people to help Australia help its citizens.

Lastly, I dont think the dish of dislike that you serve up at Pearson is terribly useful - I mean he's not going to stop working just because you insult him in public. He's here and so are others who are working hard in their own ways. If "one-size really doesn't fit all" then why the criticism of a person's apparently very different approach? Is everything he does all bad?

The very political style of pretty rude criticism also seems to indicate that you and others are more concerned with his politics than his actions. If Noel Pearson chose to argue against "cancer" would that make you argue for it?