Hats off to Rolf Harris for having the guts to speak his mind on the Australian Aboriginal issue. Even if his advice to some Aboriginal people to ‘get off their arses’ might be simplistic and ignores the complex issues behind situations like community apathy it does indicate that Rolf sees Aboriginal people as equal fellow human beings and expects them to take their place beside their fellow Australians by accepting responsibility for their own actions. His attitude contrasts with those Australian do-gooders who seem to regard Aboriginal people as less than equal human beings. Instead of extending Aboriginal Australians equal respect they swamp them with condescending waves of oppressive sympathy and encourage them to abdicate responsibility by thinking of themselves as separate and ‘special’

Heduanna
Everyone is entitled to an opinion even a geriatric self serving ‘entertainer/artist’ who has spent most of his adult life both physically and mentally as far from the realities of the Aboriginal problems as one can get.
His views are like all illinformed generalization regardless of the intentions “one description fits no-one”.

The same criticism can be levelled at your equally ill informed, inaccurate and quasi insulting generalization about “do gooders” especially painting them all with the same limited perspective as your comment indicates.

Again you are entitled to an opinion but you would be wise to think it through beyond Social Darwinist clichés as these are neither accurate nor helpful.

Heduana, Rolf wrote this about fifty years ago…

‘Let me Abos go loose, Lew; they’ve got no further use, Lew.’

It became enshrined in one of Australia’s most popular and iconic songs; Tie me kangaroo down.

While these lyrics were acceptable at the time, they became rather dodgy in the 80s if not earlier.

Maybe Rolf feels the need to occasionally comment on Aboriginal issues because he still feels an enormous cringe over this.

One thing I could never understand is how Rolf Harris, along with other figures like Paul Hogan, Zig & Zag and the Leyland Brothers were Australia's cultural mascots in the 1970s. It was a case of the weirder and the wackier, the better.

Now there's something to cringe about.

Examinator

I'm afraid your comments are ill informed and consequently inaccurate. You would be wise to read my post properly and think it through. I have not made any generalisations about do-gooders. I have referred to a specific group of do-gooders and I quote 'those Australian do-gooders who seem to regard Aboriginal people as less than equal human beings.' Misreading a post is not helpful and leads to false perceptions.

Heduanna,
You did indeed say "those" and “some”.
And if I did misunderstand you then I’m sorry.

In my defence I reasoned:
Logically if not literally a “do-gooder” is someone who does good. Clearly “THOSE” individuals by definition aren’t doing good is therefore a null (meaningless).
Unless, it was used as its general usage which has pejorative connotations with meanings “like left wing ineffectual” and “dilettante fools”.

With all but an extremely small minority of people that work with or for Aborigines needs (do-gooders) are dedicated and are faced with the reality that Aboriginals ARE "a special case", a 3rd world situation in a 1st world country.

The qualification “THOSE do-gooders” and “SOME Aboriginals “ reduces your/his point to that of a meaningless motherhood statement It may as well said “ some Aussies need to get up off their arses and not be pandered to by dilettante ineffectual fools” to that I ask what does that mean in practical terms?

Harris' comments are at best for all practical purposes meaningless at best self serving and gratuitous at worst. They refect albeit obliquely the dubious view that (Some wink wink) Aboriginals are lazy and welfare bludgers. That their problems are self inflicted and should be more like us (what ever that means). Again that statement would apply to almost if not all communities every where.

I would suspect his comments have more to do with his public persona that he’s still a good dinky di Aussie average bloke than any serious input.

He’s entitled to his view but I dispute it is either meaningful or helpful.

I recall the words as " Let me abos go loose , Bruce " [ not " Lew "]but apart from that , I understood , when the song was first released , the reference to the aboriginal people being " of no further use " simply meant that they would no longer be needed in employment by the dying stockman . I can recall employers of mine [ I am not aboriginal ] saying that they would " use " me to do a particular job and no offence was meant . The word " abo " [ but not the word " aboriginal " ] was generally considered to be mildly offensive at the time when the song was written . As to Harris ' other comments , the same could have been said regarding many white Australians .It would have been better to leave them unsaid , given the context in which he spoke .

Thanks for an interesting discussion examinator.

Your comments 'the reality that Aboriginals ARE "a special case", a 3rd world situation in a 1st world country.' reflect the point I am trying to make.

It is inappropriate, and I do find it condescending, to group all Australian Aboriginal people together, on the basis of race, and refer to them as 'a special case'. I want my neice and nephews who are mixed race (Aboriginal Australian and white Australian) to be perceived and appreciated as individuals and taken on their merit. If they have to journey through life labelled as 'special case' and by insinuation 'charity case' because of their Aboriginal heritage they will find it difficult to overcome such oppression. They deserve to be treated as equals and appreciated individually. Some do-gooders (by that I mean people who claim to do good, and probably think they are doing good) fail to appreciate the insiduous tyranny of 'kindness'.

I agree with examinator.

I think that Rolf Harris's comments are
not ones to be taken seriously.

Harris is a man who's made a career out of
being an "Australain" entertainer. He's spent
most of his life overseas exploiting the icons
of Australia, the Aborigines, didgeridoos, kangaroos,
et cetera.

He's a man who's difficult to pin down (no pun
intended). I just don't get his current remarks.
After all he has apologised for what he admitted
were 'racist' remarks in his song, "Tie my
kangaroo down sport." And, he also signed the "Sorry
Book, at a launch in London which contained the
following apology:

"By signing my name in this book, I record my deep
regret for the injustices suffered by Indigenous
Australians...I offer my personal apology for the
hurt and harm caused by the forced removal of children
from their families and for the effect of government
policy on the human dignity and spirit of Indigenous
Australians.

I would also like to record my desire for Reconciliation
and for a better future for all our peoples. I make a
commitment to a united Australia which respects this
land of ours, values Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
heritage and provides justice and equity for all."

I wouldn't take his current comments too
seriously. Harris seems to vary, depending which way
the wind's blowing.

I think that all who are interested in contributing to raising the welfare of the really disadvantaged aboriginal community ( and they are not the only disadvantaged people in this nation!) should put their hand in their pockets and their other hand to the plough to contribute to the education of aboriginal children. In our local group we have rasied $500 pa to assist the school costs of an aboriginal student at primary school on the basis of merit in effort in learning. It's fine to examine issues in abstract but look around folks and try and help those aboriginal parents who are looking to have their kids off the sit-down money turntable, $500 covers those extras for education and it's only about $1.50 a day. So go down to your local primary school and talk about a scholarship based on merit for aboriginal children and stop looking at your navel for inspiration. Stop talking and do something.

I think the threads author has it right.
I found nothing racist or offensive in the posts he/she has contributed to this thread, but some real truth.
I again expose myself to being called racist.
I have been in this forum for complaining about an Aboriginal mother watching her child steal from a busker in a wheel chair.
Yet it is very true that as a result of a host of issues, shyness, education, just plain laziness, lack of opportunity's, some sit back and do bugger all.
We can not truly talk about the subject without some calling it white mans fault.
Some times it is, no defense.
But like it or not I have mentored many Aboriginal youths in the workplace.
For all the reasons above, every one of them, failures number over 80%
Rolf Harris is no racist, his crime was 50 years ago, at a time we bought a shoe polish named in such a way none of us would buy it today.
Do not judge yesterdays actions by todays rules without understanding how far we have come.
And we should understand some, far too many Aboriginals got little or no education, some learned only to drink.
We surely understand we must understand education is the first step to a better life for these people.

Well said, Belly.

As for your comment: ‘I again expose myself to being called racist.’ This is a serious problem in Australia and the very reason why I applaud Rolf Harris’s straight talk. In my experience many people are quick to label others racist simply because they wish to comment on a negative aspect. This quick slap of the racist tag is a form of bullying intended to stop free speech. In some cases I wonder if the ‘slapper’ is trying to deflect their own latent (perhaps unconscious) racist tendencies.

Those who treat a group of people with kid gloves on the basis of race are not treating them with respect. They are treating them with condescending superiority which, ironically, borders on racism. More importantly however, such treatment oppresses and isolates the group they claim to be helping. Treating the Aboriginal people as a ‘special’ group protected from accountability through the social prohibition of free speech will inhibit their ability to achieve pride, self responsibility and self respect.

Heduana & Belly,

I think there are some people who do not accurately understand the meaning of racism - or indeed sexism or ageism. These concepts are based on the premise of discriminating against others because of race, gender, age: of course everyone understands that. But I think it is the very word "discriminating" that some people interpret incorrectly. It doesn't mean to treat badly. Or to put down. It has no negative connotations whatsoever. In fact the discriminating buyer is often appealed to advertisments for high end of the market buys.

It simply means to treat differently. Thus, the term "reverse-racism" is not just a total nonsense but a furtherance of discrimination.

Of course you are completely correct. We love our parents/lovers etc. warts and all. We are expected to accept people in the main, warts and all. Kid gloves, special treatment etc. is as much part and parcel of discrimination as throwing stones and name-calling.
However, there seem to be many people who find this concept difficult - if not impossible - to understand.

'However, there seem to be many people who find this concept difficult - if not impossible - to understand.'

Indeed there are, Romany - sadly.

Heduanna, your post is typical of the uninformed, unintelligent and harmful nonsense that fills the talk-show airwaves and 'discussion' forums such as this.

Rolf Harris is an anachronistic throw-back to white colonialisim who gained his profile from the support of ignorant Brits who, like yourself, knew and know, no better. Their, and your ignorance or harmless intentions do not lessent the absurdity and harmfulness of their attitudes.

I can only hope that you learn something from those occasional contributors whose voices of reason and intelligence attempt to highlight the errors in your thinking - thought it's painful to see their pain-staking attempts to explain what should be obvious. I admit that they are more patient and measured than I - I've long since lost all patience with such insipient stupidity as you seem to admire.

mikisdad

You seem to have used many words to say nothing.

You might need to reread my posts in order to fully understand the point I am making. For your benefit I will repeat it here: My point is this: When we treat other human beings as equals we treat them with respect.

What is your point?

mikisdad wrote: "I can only hope that you learn something from those occasional contributors whose voices of reason and intelligence attempt to highlight the errors in your thinking" - Heduanna, clearly you haven't.

I have no desire to be accused of flaming but, just in case you still haven't got the point, I'll just say than this -

Throughout this discussion, from its original prejudiced and ill-considered start to your last response, you have ridden over any attempt at reason with your pompous and supercilious responses. None-the-less, you and those like you need to realise that there are those who see through your nasty attitudes and insidious prejudice and we will not let you get away with it.

Clear enough for you?

yorkshire_pudding

Your post, apart from irrational insinuation, is just as obscure as mikidads. You seem to be responding to something I have not said.

Do you really think it is appropriate to respond with such venom without saying why?

I am very saddened to be called 'pompous and supercilious' but I assume you have your own reasons for perceiving my remarks in that way.

What do you mean by prejudiced?

Perhaps you are referring to my comments about 'do-gooders'? If so please allow me to make it clear here I am NOT using the term'do gooder' as a derogatory label and I am NOT referring to all those who seek to do good. I am a do-gooder myself, after all. I am referring only to those who, in their zeal, are unable to see the long term effects of excessive sympathy and charity so that while they think they are doing good the reverse is the result.

We can see an example of the devastating results of misplaced good deeds in Cape York where Noel Pearson and others are fighting to have the situation reversed. He talks about 'a view of Aboriginal people as hopeless, marginalised victims' and 'we were placed in a position of complete dependency through the social security system' and calls it a 'completely poisonous situation'. You can read one of his interviews at: http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s723570.htm

I have first hand knowledge of the sort of thing he is referring to through my own experience growing up and through my relatives with Aboriginal heritage.

Heduanna,

Language can be very powerful. As you insist on feigning ignorance about the negative attitudes contained in your use of it I will make one last attempt to explain:

'Do-gooder' has become a perjorative term - just as are, 'tree-hugger' and 'bleeding heart'. It is ingenuous to suggest that referring only to particular 'do-gooders'is not abusive - the very use of the term has already set the tone. Consider: "I'm only referring to *ignorant* n--gers" or "It's only the *lazy* abos that annoy me."

Equally, telling a group of people to "get off their arses" is demeaning and abusive. When the speaker's good fortune is built on the promotion of demeaning and derogatory caricatures of that group and it is one of which he has no credible experience, then it is also reprehensible.

The populist logic of Belly and Romany, is not untypical of that which allowed the rise of Pauline Hanson and the repeated election of Howard. Of course 'discrimination' means 'difference', but in this context it means difference which harms or disadvantages. 'Discrimination' here is as readily understood to have negative connotations as 'Quality', when used alone, is generally understood to have positive ones.

Noel Pearson, is as credible an authority about Australian Aboriginal conditions as Rolf Harris is not. His remarks are worthy of note and it is a pity that, if you intended a serious discussion on this issue, you didn't choose to start it there. However, he does speak from a particular ideological position and not a predominant one among his own people.

Improving the lot of the Australian Aborigine will not come about as a result of either/or type solutions - nor will paternalistic, imposed interventions or telling people to 'get off their arse' provide the answer. Aystrakuab Aborigines are *not* equal and 'discrimination' in their favour is as essential as it was to further the lot of women. The weaker will always need the assistance of the stronger if they are to enjoy equal opportunity and equal outcomes. It may be paradoxical but unequal inputs are often necessary to produce equal outputs.

Well thank you mikisdad.

This is a much clearer response even though it shows you have not understood my point.

I find it insulting to be accused of ‘feigning ignorance’. You are right language; is a very powerful tool and when processed through a closed mind can be grossly misunderstood. Misunderstand and misconstrue my posts is what you have chosen to do.

What is paradoxical is that you choose to perceive my use of the word ‘do gooder’ as pejorative (despite my clarification) and yet find it acceptable to make racist remarks like ‘ignorant Brits’.

I think you will find it is your perception that is negative not my attitude