Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (13)
Keen observers of race relations in Australia notice that governments and organisations continuously promote the allocation of special rights to indigenous Australians. This practice is wide-ranging and involves the distribution of burdens and benefits on the simple grounds of a person’s race, a characteristic over which people have no control. This distribution ranges from the establishment of race-specific awards, such as the recent decision of the Sydney Film Festival to offer a generous cash prize for indigenous filmmakers to blatant offers of cash payments – payments unavailable to other Australians. This march to separateness is a manifestation of the wokeness of our time.
Anthony Morris KC recently argued that “wokeness offers nothing more than a vacuous, intellectually dishonest, stultifying, and ultimately counterproductive constraint upon any society where it takes hold.”[1] His comment, although it refers to the manifold societal manifestations of wokeness, is especially relevant to an understanding of the contentious world of race relations in Australia.
The distribution of societal benefits on the basis of a person’s race denigrates the principle of political equality according to which benefits should be available to all people on the basis of their individual, as opposed to group, characteristics. Yet, there is a discernible tendency to favour group rights.
A good example is offered by the University of Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2021-2026.[2] Article 19.1 rehashes the traditional definition of an Indigenous person, as “any person who is of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander descent who is recognised and accepted as such by other Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples and who identifies as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.”
The Agreement unreservedly embraces the concept of reverse discrimination when it states “the University will continue to improve the representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees with the aim of achieving population parity in Queensland.” Hence, the Agreement, in promoting employment of Indigenous Australians in accord with their total numerical strength in Queensland (currently 3.6 per cent), mandates the operation of a quota system – the preferment of people on the basis of their race in matters of employment. This results in the abrogation of the principle of political equality and defeats the expectation that the most meritorious or most suitably qualified person for a position be appointed. Although ‘merit’ is itself a vague concept – an empty vessel, the meaning of which has to be filled in, it can however neither accommodate nor condone appointment merely on the ground of an applicant’s race.
In recognition of the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages, Article 19.2 of the Agreement states that, when “an employee is required by the University to use Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Language substantially in the course of their employment or is required to use Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Language as a significant part of their role” the University will pay an allowance of $3,500 per annum. Moreover, the Agreement provides that
Language includes the complex system of communication used in Indigenous culture in all its diversity, which includes sign language, speech taboos, Indigenous gestural systems, ceremonial language, utterances, auditory, visual and/or non-verbal communication.
The concept of ‘language’ is thus defined broadly and, presumably, may well include the ubiquitous ‘Welcome to Country’ ritual, where Indigenous leaders might utter some words in an Aboriginal language or conduct a non-verbal ceremony. As the Agreement indicates, it is not even necessary to actually be involved in verbal communication. Hence, the allowance will almost certainly always be paid to Indigenous employees, thereby offering them an inducement on the basis of race unavailable to non-Indigenous employees. By virtue of Article 44, Indigenous employees will also have access to eight days of paid cultural leave annually to enable them to fulfill their ‘unique’ cultural responsibilities.
The Agreement indicates that the University is committed to reconciliation, which is certainly a worthwhile objective. To that end, the Agreement appropriately confirms that the University is committed to maintaining a workplace environment that values the aspirations and contributions of Indigenous Australians.
However, the Indigenous-only benefits are based on the well-publicised narrative that Indigenous people are ‘victims’ of white colonisation and invasion. Reconciliation is not possible if the victimisation narrative continues to be propagated and embraced with fervour. The point is that, in making Indigenous Australians into perpetual victims of discrimination, which justifies (or even requires) unequal and preferential treatment, it will never be possible to achieve reconciliation. This is because reconciliation, to be effective, requires the implementation of the principle of political equality or equal citizenship.
Hence, the Agreement, by its very language, disembowels the concept of reconciliation. In cementing separate rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and elevating them over the rights of all other Australians, it thus achieves precisely the opposite of reconciliation. It effectively maintains a workplace environment that denigrates the contributions of non-Indigenous employees and artificially elevates the rights of Aboriginals and Torres Straits Islander people.
The outcome of maintaining a policy of separateness is that it fails to support programs that could make a beneficial impact, without resorting to the contentious language and practice of reverse discrimination. Indeed, as I stated in another paper, “a duty to take positive special measures forecloses the debate on how best to assist minorities in overcoming their disadvantages” because it commits people “to a particular ideological position, and it constitutes an interference in societies that seek solutions through other means (such as the operation of market forces).”[3]
But unfortunately, the evidence indicates that Australia is (or is becoming) a racist country, where a person’s opportunities are very much dependent on their racial characteristics. Only the adoption and implementation of the principle of political equality is capable of contributing to an environment that respects the aspirations and contributions of all Australians.
[1] Anthony Morris KC, ‘Woke is revoked’, The Spectator Australia, 7 February 2024, at https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/woke-is-revoked/.
[2] Available at https://staff.uq.edu.au/files/20908/enterprise-agreement-2018-2021.pdf.
[3] Gabriël Moens, ‘Post-Lecture Discussion’, Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 66(5), 1347-1350.
What percentage of those who identify as Aboriginal speak any Aboriginal languages?
I expect up near 100%, given the breadth of the definition of language in the university EA and the extra $3500 pa. Any university administrator brave enough to knock back any application for that payment should automatically receive an OA.
A good past article and primer from Quadrant on the role of race politics is: “Saul Alinsky and the Politics of Hell” (21st April 2021)
In Australia, the pot of racial politics is relentlessly being stirred and kept on the boil by Trotskyites like far left PM Albanese and his far left cohorts. A prime example being the recent, profligately costly referendum based on dividing Australians into opposing racial groups. This destructive ‘us and them’ polarisation is straight out apartheid and produces an elite, ignorant of history, who appropriate the persona of ‘noble savage’, like the clown in the wallaby skin loin cloth emulating a kangaroo as shown in the photo accompanying this article. This type of behaviour is typical of self-styled Indigenous who have no experiance with reality. In my experiance, most Australians, especially those from the ‘bush’ aren’t interested in colour or race. They are too busy getting on with real life.
I disagree that race matters in modern Australia. What really matters is that you can claim some kind of connection to the Aborigines. In no other circumstance is race considered to be important, and no other race is considered important at all. Every other race is considered equal. In this case, equal beneath the Aborigine, because nothing says “racial equality” like one race being more equal than all the others.
–
The real question is why the Australian governing class has fallen in love with this race. Is it just because of white guilt? Is it because they are totally clueless not only about Australian history, but about human history as a whole? Is it because, having gone to university by the boatload, they are taught that they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else, and this is a way they can demonstrate it, by some twisted logic? Or, is it all of the above and some other things?
–
I personally believe that they lack something in their life, and they fill the hole with this kind of rubbish.
That is my question as well. What surprises me is many Australians in the media protesting Anglo-European settlement and development are children or grandchildren of immigrants. It seems lost on them that their ancestry left, or lost their rich culture to be here. If only these pioneers could see today how their legacy is defaming the blood, sweat and tears they lost building this country!
I have always believed that Aboriginal Australians would benefit from travel overseas outside of Australia to experience other lands and culture. See the rich culture that most Australians no longer have because they left their country (and hemisphere) for good. Then maybe this hatred and blaming of Australian people would cease.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. Common sense is becoming rarer and rarer in this modern brainwashed population.
That’s a good point, Paul W. But I would add that in our post-Oct 7 world, the other race that matters, in inverse proportion to the Aboriginal race, is the Jewish race. The former matters too much, the latter too little.
I think Aboriginal race has become a surrogate in the minds of many people (including Aboriginals) for being disadvantaged and/or being subject to injustice and/or being marginalised. This has the undesirable effect of undermining evidence-based assessments of the actual problems as they affect specific individuals. Some Aboriginals, no doubt have been treated unjustly. But this is not a racial issue. It may be the result of failures of government policy, or failures in the justice system. The solutions, then have nothing to do with race, but with addressing those failures.
Likewise, Aboriginality becomes a surrogate for needing special treatment, and for being aggrieved if you do not get that special treatment. Thus it affects adversely the perception people of that race have of themselves. They come to believe that, purely because of their race, they have a legitimate complaint against society, or deserve privileges not accorded to others.
This use of race as a surrogate for social status, justice and entitlement is a serious mistake in my view. It is a result partly of misplaced compassion and a zeal for reform, partly of the need for simplistic political massaging, and partly of sheer intellectual laziness. We need to expect more rigour from government in defining its objectives and developing policy. And we certainly should not accept race-baiting, in the form that has become all too familiar from politicians.
I agree Stephen. It is inherent in the nature of Homo sapiens to evolve, adapt (modernise if you will), and seek out better living environments. This inevitability should not be used to berate the Australian people, nor used as a justification for disadvantage. Modern government, media and corporations who force apology and perpetual regret are taking an ignorant, and dare I say it, arrogant stance. It serves no benefit to anyone, and rightly as you mention, obfuscates the circumstances of the individual.
I agree Gabriel. There cannot be reconciliation while this constant victimhood and permanently-sorry attitude is imposed upon innocent Australians. The universities are hypocritical racial profilers who perpetuate this. While setting up a student profile, the ubiquitous ‘are you Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander’ question is inescapable. Therefore, each time I logged onto the university intranet, I saw listed under ‘My Cultural Details’ tab: ‘None’. What relevance is ‘My Cultural Details’ to me, if there are only two choices: ‘Aboriginal/TSI’ or ‘None’? This is an utter affront to all Australian students. Most young students would think nothing of it I assume, but for a mature age student, it was still demoralising each time I saw it. According to the uni, I have no culture!
I was not taught the languages of my descent, can I be compensated every year to the amount of $3,500 x 2 ?
Another university profiling exercise, was the encouragement to join their affiliated employment application. You know, the new type, whereby one advertises themselves and waits for an employer to contact them? Well once I had inputted my details, the interface formatted to show them as ‘My Diversity Details”. I was sick to my stomach when I saw this. I deleted my account and wrote/phone-called the developer of this new application, that I wanted no part in their social experiment. I want to be employed based on my experience and credentials, not by my sex/disability/cultural status. If one has any sense of dignity, one must push back against this.
“If one has any sense of dignity, one must push back against this.” I congratulate KemperWA for her stand.
.
The problem is that most people who are offended by it do nothing. That includes many Quadrant commenters who by their silence are actually encouraging these things.
.
I respectfully suggest that the next time you hear a “welcome” or “acknowledgement ” that you don’t agree with, you should say so. A simple “I don’t agree” would let those around you know that you have not acquiesced in the BS. You don’t have to disrupt the meeting, just loud enough that those around you can hear.
.
More importantly, if the statement includes “we respect elders”, and you object, you will not have included yourself in lauding rapists and pedophiles. (For example, the likes of Robert Bropho.)
.
Group dynamics, if no objections are raised, will lead members of a group to accept such statements, so it continues. On the other hand, if a member or members protest, then others in the group will question the statement.
.
Let us all now pledge, as KemperWA says, to “push back” and no longer acquiesce.
.
Dr. King famously said to the cheering masses gathered in Washington, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”.
People today, who seem to think they are wiser than Dr King say, “we live in a nation where people will not be judged by the content of their character, but by the color of their skin”.
It is not ‘reverse’ discrimination. It is plain, discrimination…anyone is capable of prejudice, racism, discrimination, naive bigotry, etc.
The “Tasmanian Aborigine” displaying pretended Aboriginal culture is, in reality, cultural fraud.
The Tasmanian Aboriginals refused to accept as members of their race children born to parents of mixed race and did not pass down any cultural details. G.E. Calder commented that the Aboriginal women were passionately fond of their full blood children but detested those of mixed race.
Molly Mallett, in her book “My Past, Their Future – Stories From Cape Barren Island commented “Culture is taught but what has been written about us was mostly written by Europeans back in the 1800s. Our culture is an oral tradition, passed on from one generation to another through story-telling and watching and learning. There’s only shell-stringing, story-telling and muttonbirding left” (all learned by observation, not orally)
She says “The other cultural things being taught are not Cape Barren Island traditions as I remember them.”
In the film “The Last Tasmanian”, Annette Mansell says of Aboriginal traditions “It’s just history. I don’t know anything about it and I honestly don’t think there’s anybody alive who could tell you anything honestly and truthfully about the old Aboriginals. It’s only history, what we’ve learnt as you’ve learnt.”
Dr. William Crowther was a much loved and respected politician and doctor in his time, and after his death a statue was erected by a grateful public. But Dr. Crowther is alleged to have entered the mortuary, removed the head of William Lanney, sending it to the Royal College of Surgeons in London.
The body of Lanney is alleged to have been further mutilated on the night of burial by the Royal Society of Tasmania.
Today, Crowther’s achievements are forgotten, obscured by his actions in advancing science at the time. Pressure is being applied to have Crowther’s statue removed out of respect for Lanney, particularly from those who treat with contempt Lanney’s claim to be the last Tasmanian Aboriginal man.
As for the “aborigine” pictured, he will be of predominantly white ancestry, with no knowledge of the culture and traditions that he pretends to demonstrate.