Book - Why Warriors Lie Down and Die

By Richard Trudgen

There are not many books that are referred to as definitive guides to indigenous Australians. But if you read articles and books on indigenous issues you will find repeated reference to this book. And for good reason.

When it comes to books written by whitefellahs on indigenous issues there are 2 types - those by whitefellahs who have lived and breathed indigenous culture for years and years, and those by whitefellahs who have an opinion.

The first category is consistently filled with realism as the authors have lived in the communities they speak about. They are desperate to tell the truth - the good and the bad - as they see it as they are looking for solutions. They are also filled with love for indigenous people as they know them as individuals. These authors are not looking for politically correct responses or votes or money. They just want to improve the lives of their friends. Richard Trudgen lived with the Yolnu people for 11 years. He speaks with authority and experience.

I would suggest every Australian shoyuld read this book.......

Racism Aint So Funny

I’ve worked in offices for about 20 years. Most of the people I meet are fairly well educated or at least up to date on what is going on in the world. The sort of people you expect to be politically correct. I say that in a positive way, meaning they would avoid talk that may offend others – whether it be about religion, race or politics.

It comes a surprise then when I sometimes hear racist remarks about indigenous people. And especially as a surprise when the offenders are often those I regard as very nice people.   These comments are usually a snide remark about petrol sniffing, alcohol abuse, glue sniffing or stealing. The comments are intended to gain a laugh. They are supposed to be funny. They are not said with hatred or vicious contempt. It’s probable that the offender’s only interaction with indigenous people is via bad news stories in the media, or maybe via a friend of a friend. But none of that excuses it. And none of that reduces the impact such statements have.

Sometimes I think the hurt or the pain associated with these sorts of comments isn’t recognised.  It’s why many indigenous people haven’t identified as indigenous over the years – their perception of what whitefellahs think about their race tells them that it’s better to keep quiet. Better to not even admit who they are. What does that say about the impression we have left with our indigenous neighbours?

It’s not hard to put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine you are a white Australian living in Zimbabwe. And imagine that every time Australians are mentioned someone cracks a joke about them being lazy or alcoholics. And everyone responds by laughing. And the only stories of white Australians on TV were of those who lived in extreme poverty and had high rates of alcohol abuse? What would that do to your self-esteem? To your respect for your family and community? To your respect for your traditions and culture?

And there’s another danger – every one of these remarks fuels racism in those who hear them.  If your friend has some sneaking suspicion about people of some race or colour and you tell a ‘joke’ about that race, your friend's racist views have just been validated. It’s OK for them to hold these views because you think the same. It must be true. A ‘soft’ racist has just moved a little towards being a ‘hard’ racist. 

Racism is about labelling an entire race. And you will likely pre-judge the next indigenous person you see. You will think that they are likely to steal something from the supermarket or drink to excess, no matter what you know about them.  In fact the less you know about them, the more likely you will pre-judge, and the less likely you will get to know them as a person.

The onus now is on people who recognise the destructive nature of racism to speak out when these comments are made. Not judgementally or self-righteously but with determination that such comments won’t be left unchallenged. By all means let’s retain our sense of humour and laugh when we have the chance.

But let’s speak up when we have to in a way that educates and establishes empathy for others of all races.

Liam Jurrah Behaving Badly - April 2013

An excellent article on theroar.com.au about the reaction to Liam Jurrah's court appearances and recent arrest. Yes, it would appear that Jurrah is currently out of control given that he escaped one  charge for unlawfully causing harm, only to be charged with assaulting 3 females in Alice Springs. Don't miss the reaction of the author's mate - "It is the way they live" - implicit racism that you and I have to challenge whenever it appears.

And it's great to see that reported on a sports website where average Aussies will be challenged to think about their own reactions to the story.

Eddie's Big Blunder - May 2013

The AFL has been a leader in tackling racism head-on , ever since Nicky Winmar took a stand against racist abuse and told the crowd that he was proud to be black. Now they are back in the spotlight due to 2 incidents. Firstly a 13-year-old girl called Adam Goodes an 'ape' when he came over near the boundary line. Goodes heard the abuse and identified her. That caused a massive reaction with most supporting both Goodes response and Collingwood President Eddie Maguir for his swift apology.

Then there's the alternative response from people like Andrew Bolt who focussed on the treatment of the 13 year old girl (for some reason this warranted more comment than the racism and the impact on our  indigenous communities) and then there were those who felt Goodes should 'harden-up'. Some people cannot distinguish between a racial comment that carries 200 years of discrimination and dispossession, and a witty remark intended to bring someone down a peg or two. There's a big difference. The former is an insult that aims at the very heart of the victim, at who they are, at their family and their ancestors.

Goodes just said enough is enough !! And it is only through incidents like this , especially at the footy, that the general public will sit up , take notice and maybe even think about their attitudes. So well done Adam.

Then we had the Eddie Maguire incident. Only a few days after taking an anti-racism stand, Maguire made his own racial slur. Referring to Adam Goodes in the context of the discussion about the new King Kong stage play.

How does that happen ? I have a theory. Eddie knows the difference between right and wrong. As a former Broadmeadows boy he knows about disadvantage and seems to have a reputation as a campaigner against racism. And on Friday night he took a stand to recognise the hurt inflicted by racism.

But then on Wednesday he is in the radio studio with his footy mates. The subject of King Kong comes up and his natural reaction is to look to make a joke out of it. Something to make the 'boy's laugh, something that says even though he gets very serious sometimes, he can also still be 'one of the boys'. Friends from media and football declare Eddie he is not a racist, but he drops a very racist remark that contrasts to his position only 3 days ago.

That's why this story is under my 'Racism aint so funny' topic. It's 'average' blokes like Eddie who should know better. Who must know by now the hurt that is spread by racism. Who need to get over the desire to take a cheap shot at a minority group in order to get a laugh.

If you're not sure about the damage a 'casual' racist joke makes then have a read of Harry OBrien's response to Eddie's remarks. As a white Australian of English descent I feel uncomfortable that an indigenous player is called an 'ape'. But thats only a fraction of the pain an indigenous person feels when they hear that they are still subject to that sort of abuse in 2013.

Australia Day or Invasion Day

January 26th is the day we celebrate 'Australia Day'. It is the day in 1788 when the ‘First Fleet’ moved to Port Jackson in Sydney (after initially landing at Botany Bay) and soon announced that this country was now under the control of the British Empire. Over the next 50 years the British established settlements around the country.

The basis upon which ‘we’ took the land was the doctrine of terra nullius. Meaning ‘no mans land’ as no one seemed to own it. The land was not inhabited in a way we recognised, and there were no identifiable leaders to negotiate with.

200 years later and we have now established that the original inhabitants did in fact have a system of ownership in place. Tribes had identifiable areas where they could hunt and travel – and had to ask for permission to travel across a neighbour’s territory. The Tindale map shows the approximate boundaries for each language group. Sites were visited year after year depending on when they were most plentiful. Food was hunted and collected with a view to a sustaining the supply of food into the future. Houses, roads and fences didn’t define the boundaries, but knowledge held by tribal elders did.

What appeared to us as nomadic wandering with no apparent purpose was a pre-determined journey following the seasons. While we divide the year into 4 seasons the original Australians divide the year into finer detail in order to guide their search for food, water and shelter. Their relationship to the land is well-documented with each landmark across the country having significance in their dreamtime stories of creation. Belonging to the land is another concept that is foreign to us. Indigenous people recgonise a special spiritual relationship with specific places and derive meaning from that relationship.

As we expanded our settlements across the country we inevitably claimed land previously owned and used by aborigines. We set up sheep and cattle runs and put up fences to protect the farm. Local aborigines then followed traditional law which stated that animals on your own territory were your property and available for hunting. So they took sheep or cattle to feed their families. The settlers understood this action as stealing and reprisals followed. Sometimes involving the killing of one or more aborigines as a ‘lesson’, and the cycle of violence escalated from there.

That summary reveals the nature of ‘Australia Day’ to original Australians. The day commemorates the day that another people arrived, took their land and effectively destroyed their way of life by preventing their ability to travel within their homelands. We eventually herded them from their own homelands into stations in foreign places (reserves) for their own protection, removing them from the places that brought meaning to them and their tribe. January 26^th 1788 was the start of a process that brought so much grief, death and dysfunction. How can we expect original Australians to celebrate this as a great national day? Isn’t it an annual slap in the face to indigenous Australia?

And while we consider that, how attached to January 26^th is the average whitefellah ? We might love our country but do we retain any pride or fondness for the original settlement of Sydney? Aren’t there other events in our history that we could all celebrate?

Introduction to In Black and White

This blog is an honest reflection on indigenous issues in Australia today. It attempts to call a spade a spade - that is, to describe issues as they really are. Without political correctness but with a goal to discovering constructive and thoughtful responses to issues impacting indigenous Australians.

It is written by a layman. My expertise is limited to my own experience and research of indigenous issues. I do not claim to be an expert. But I do read widely on indigenous issues, and work part-time with indigenous people and part-time in I.T. in an inner city office. I try to get a feel for how average whitefellah Australians feel about indigenous issues.

This blog is an attempt by me to record , review and develop my thoughts on various indigenous issues. I want to have a coherent well-reasoned, well-researched opinion so the next time I hear or read a racist or ignorant opinion I can at least provide food for thought.

Is that a Racist Comment ?

Racism is a very emotive word in Australia. Because nobody wants to be labelled racist the term is now used widely. It has become the definitive way to end an argument – if the other person is classified as racist you have won the argument and the debate ends. It’s similar to the way we invoke a link to the Nazis or Hitler. It’s the ultimate insult.

But when is someone really being racist and when is a person a racist? Does one racist comment make a person a racist? And how does racism impact indigenous people?

I often hear that ‘Asians are bad drivers’. Clearly this is racist as it labels an entire race. The justification for this is that there is a perception that the number of bad Asian drivers on the road is disproportionate to the total number of Asian drivers on the road. Could it be true? Is it a matter of the chaotic driving we see in Asian cities being practiced on the roads of Australian cities? I think that’s possible. But is it racism? What is the impact on Asian-born Australians when people espouse this view? Does this comment bring shame to Asian people? Does such a comment make it harder for Asian people to participate fully in the wider Australian community?

My impression is that even if the comment is merely understood as ‘Asian drivers are proportionally more likely to wander into my lane’ , there is still a danger of how the comment is taken by the audience and by Asian people in general.  Some people hear such a comment as confirmation of their racist views on Asians.  For many it may be something  to joke about with their Asian friend, but for some it will help to keep them separated from having any Asian friends.

Research has tried to explain the dominance of black athletes in sprinting. A low centre of gravity and longer limbs have been postulated as reasons for their success. To then say that black people are fast runners is obviously another stereotype, and labels all black people. But is it racist? Isn’t it actually positive racism? Are there negative outcomes for black people if I say ‘black people run faster than white people’? Surely in most cases it’s said in admiration.  And is this offensive to the black people of the world?

So what about John Elliot referring to indigenous people as ‘abos’? Isn’t it just an abbreviation? Australians use abbreviations all the time. And a nickname is usually a sign of acceptance. Aren’t there many whitefellahs in the outback who live amongst indigenous people and might refer to their ‘abo’ mates?  Well not all abbreviations are acceptable. Some are said with affection, some are said with contempt – it’s all about how it is said.

So how it said and what was is the impact? Firstly the commentator – John Elliot isn’t known as someone with affectionate view towards indigenous people. In fact you would suspect he would be anti-indigenous based on his outspoken views on other topics. So it is likely he is not saying ‘abo’ as a term of affection, but rather as a derogatory remark.  A remark with a distinct lack of respect.  It may be unfair but I suspect he would have said ‘bloody abos’ if interviewed 40 years ago. If I refer to Lebanese as ‘Lebbos’ I know I am not being complimentary. In fact I know I am being derogatory. It’s rarely ‘just an abbreviation’.

Secondly, the wider audience.  Any existing racism is reinforced by Elliot’s very public statement. Here’s a successful business man referring to ‘abos’ as if it’s acceptable.  If he can say them I can say it too. And given what I know about  John Elliot I’m pretty sure it wasn’t complimentary.

Thirdly, the indigenous community – the target of the comment.  How offensive is it that Australia allows a prominent businessman to refer to indigenous Australians as ‘abos’ when the term has so often been a term of disrespect in the past? As an indigenous person I imagine I would see that in the paper the next day and ask myself how long will it be before I am no longer publicly subject to that sort of contempt? Here’s the real test of any racist comment. How does the target group or race feel about it ?  How many people are offended ?  Maybe there’s no problem if the only person offended is some activist who happens to be offended by any remark.

That leaves 3 ways to test a racist remark – WHO is saying it and what is their likely intention ? Who is listening to it and how will they interpret it ? and How does the ‘target’ race feel about it ?

Left v. Right

 Left / Right Politics in discussions about Indigenous Australia

Pick up any book about Indigenous Australia, or read any news article and you may or may not identify the author’s political bias. But to me that’s the first task when verifying if a report can be relied on or not. For too long indigenous issues have simply been an extension of the typical ‘Left v. Right’ political debate. Reporters adhering to their ideological position rather than reporting the facts.

This attitude is particularly destructive as it never learns from past mistakes. It never looks at the evidence.

Knowing the author’s position is critical when it comes to indigenous affairs. Usually you can establish whether an author or journalist is left, right, pro-indigenous or anti-indigenous after reading two or three of their writings. By ‘Left’ or ‘Right’ I mean they are more concerned with adhering and proving their political philosophy than achieving positive outcomes for indigenous people. They will always espouse that adhering to their worldview achieves better outcomes. The give away clue is that on every indigenous issue they take the typical left/right viewpoint.

Then there’s the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ authors. A pro-indigenous author can usually be identified by the way they write. Do they have a genuine affection, admiration or empathy for indigenous people? How often do they write about indigenous issues? Do they write with a desire to improve outcomes?

Martin Flanagan is a good example. Try http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/not-all-black-and-white-as-the-goalposts-keep-moving-20120413-1wz1n.html as an example of how Flanagan recognised that while the football world and media screamed ’racism’ there was probably no racism involved. His interest is to resolve issues and improve indigenous outcomes. He has no interest in securing a headline.

A recent book I read is called ‘Aboriginal Self-Determination: The Whiteman’s Dream’ by Gary Johns. It is highly critical of Australia’s self-determination policies that have been in place since the mid 70s. Clearly there has been a decline if you compare health, drug-use, employment and alcoholism in many remote communities over that period. Anecdotal reports confirm this.

But reading between the lines and Johns can’t seem to find one positive feature of indigenous society or culture. Alarm bells ring. Is Johns' main concern reigning in expenditure by facilitating assimilation? Life could be so simple if only indigenous people were educated like whites, found employment and moved into regional centres or cities. He has no interest in retaining any language or culture. 

When it comes to the ‘left’ and ‘right’ a recent episode of Media Watch comes to mind. Russell Skelton is a journalist/author who writes on indigenous issues.  His book ‘King Brown Country’ is critical of indigenous governance in Papunya. The emergent them is that he is upset that the community has not been properly looked after. A recent positive article about Rio Tinto, http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/good-intentions-can-often-lead-to-indigenous-hell-on-earth-20120410-1wmup.html, indicates Skelton celebrates when he hears good news for indigenous people. I’d classify him as ‘pro indigenous’.  Recently however he accompanied Jenny Macklin up to Yuendumu to report on the opening of the local pool. While he was there he talked to locals and received a clear impression that women in particular were supportive of the NT intervention.  He reported that as the case. However within days one of the locals who supported intervention changed her mind and protested at being quoted in support of the policy. Read about it here: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2409170.htm

To me here’s a case of the ABC ‘Left’ adhering to their position. Skelton is interested in positive outcomes for indigenous people. He is dedicated to that cause. He has no agenda to support the intervention. But he reported it as he heard it. The ABC couldn’t let a single comment supporting the intervention slip by. And you don’t need to see the show to imagine the cynical, self-important tone that Media Watch would take.

A real shame. A reporter searching for, and reporting on, the truth. A TV show reporting from a pre-conceived position. 

The intervention is an issue where honest evaluation of the evidence is critical. We can’t afford to be playing political games with it. There are kids whose lives are meant to be improving because of it, plus there are adults who may have effectively managed their finances who suddenly find their income under government control. 

Let’s keep the politics out of it. Look at the evidence. Listen, evaluate before taking a position. It’s the least we can do after 200 years of making decisions for the first Australians.