Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (21)
The Australia-wide “No” triumph in the Referendum was mud in the eye for the woke corporations (QANTAS, banks etc), the ABC, the education and the charity sectors and the poobahs of sports management. But one element of the defeated YES phalanx has had no scrutiny – the elite science, research and professional bodies.
These collectives have floated away from mainstream Australia in a froth of virtue-signalling. Why our alleged brainiacs have separated from the mostly silent majority is quite a question. I do think leftist woke lunacy (support for Hamas, hate speech against CO2, gender confusion and Disneyland take on Aboriginal culture) correlates well with years spent at university.
None of these bodies has paused to ask the elementary questions, a small sample being
♦ Who is an Aboriginal?
♦ How much of pre-colonial Aboriginal cultures was admirable?
♦ Whose Australian history represents “truth-telling”?
♦ Do the 80 per cent of Aboriginal-identifiers who live and work in suburbia really possess ancient wisdoms and why do they get special privileges?
♦ What rent per squ metre should the academies pay their first-nation landlords? and
♦ What does “Reconciliation” mean and how will we know when we get there?
The peak of peaks in the elite-experts scene is the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA), representing five academies. It dived in head-first, backing Voice, treaty and so-called truth-telling to (supposedly) reconcile us with Aboriginal needs and aspirations. It described the Uluru committee statement as involving “momentous effort and significance” notwithstanding the Prime Minister labelling it as just a modest idea redolent of good manners.
ACOLA claims with some justice that Aborigines have often in the past been “the target for racialised and exploitative research discourse.” ACOLA and its five institutions then beat themselves up as “product[s] of Australia’s colonial history” with research being “an enabler and tacit supporter of colonialist values and logics [and] built on false, racist and entrenched assumptions”.
Continuing its orgy of self-loathing, ACOLA says its research and scholarship “have come to represent a tool of suppression, marginalisation and subjugation. Whether intentional or not, research and its collective institutions and communities have often served to dehumanise and devalue Indigenous peoples, their knowledge and their aspirations. We must reconcile with those harmed by this history of systemic injustice.” [I’d be interested to learn the names of any living Aborigine-identifier so harmed].
ACOLA believes itself to be on a crusade against racism and bigotry. It announces its leadership role and responsibility “to expose actively and foster dialogue about racism and bigotry in all of its forms, as a key action in reconciliation and truth-telling, to help create the future to which we aspire.”
ACOLA then talks about its respect for the “ancient wisdom and knowledge systems of our first peoples”, overlooking the less-pleasant ancient cultural facets of sorcery, payback, misogyny and – dare one say it – infanticide and cannibalism, sometimes jointly.[1]
ACOLA pledges to beef up Aboriginal perspectives and contributions across research:
“We urge our Fellows, industry, academia, all levels of government and fellow Australians to support meaningful inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives.”
This reminds me that Aboriginality is one of those three cross-curriculum priorities enforced on Australia’s four million schoolkids.
Concerning ACOLA’s “first peoples”, it needs to deploy some of its claimed wisdom and knowledge to check whether pre-colonial Aboriginals were actually “first” or merely descendants of the latest wave of prehistoric arrivistes. It would also be interesting to hear ACOLA’s view on whether the Uluru statement it pledges to is 440 words on one page or 26 pages pushing for things like sovereignty and reparations as a percent of GDP.
In places ACOLA’s virtue-signalling burbles to incoherence, as in (my emphases),
We seek to engage with and learn from, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems, histories, ecosystems and ways of being into and alongside collaborative research and policy endeavours with the goal of creating solutions for all people.
Getting further carried away, ACOLA then claims indigenisation of Australia’s research sector will “create a better future for all humanity” – who knew we Ockers are so influential?
It comes as no surprise to learn that ACOLA subjected its draft policy to vetting by “Indigenous leaders … to ensure ACOLA moves forward in a constructive, respectful and productive way.”
Specific stuff from various elite institutes makes for creepy reading. Here are some samples:
Australian Academy of Science (June 2023): Going off half-cocked as usual, the Academy’s YES backing was fixated on the “terra nullius” canard.
The Council recognises that this continent was falsely declared terra nullius, or nobody’s land, to legitimise British settlement, and this was corrected only in 1992 when the High Court of Australia recognised the continuous connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to the land.
The Council observes that the adoption of terra nullius was profoundly detrimental to generations of Indigenous peoples.
[This inter-generational trauma thesis was rejected by the NO advocate Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who’s closer to the issue than the Academy Council].
The Council, therefore, supports the establishment in the Constitution of a Voice to Parliament and to Executive Government – enshrined to provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with an enduring means to influence policies that specifically relate to them and is safe from political whim. The Council will work with our Fellows and the science community to promote and facilitate evidence-informed conversation on the Voice and Traditional Knowledges.”
The term “terra nullius” was unused when Australia was settled in 1788 and is a relatively recent creation. Nobody can say definitively what it means, but the most likely interpretation is “land without sovereignty” and not “nobody’s land” as the Academy asserts.
The Academy is also wrong to claim the Voice could deal solely with “specifically” Aboriginal issues – only the High Court could have judged whether parking tickets and nuclear submarines were excluded from the Voice’s remit. The Academy’s reference to the Voice being “safe from political whim” is just rehashing the Aboriginal Industry’s semantics. Even if not in the Constitution, Voice legislation could only be restricted by proper democratic processes involving both Houses of Parliament and potentially, an election. If that’s “whim”, so is every legislative alteration.
And finally, there has been no “evidence-informed conversation” on the proposed Voice to date because Prime Minister Albanese refused to release any detail about how the Voice would operate – and disowned the 26-page Uluru backgrounder, which was laden with ominous details.
Science & Technology Australia (STA): This organisation’s interesting take on the defeat of its YES campaign includes, “Indigenous leaders who supported the Yes campaign have called for A Week of Silence to grieve and reflect on the referendum result … Science & Technology Australia honours this call. This week, we give space and silence to mourn and reflect.” STA claims 115,000 brainy members.
Academy of the Social Sciences: In a statement in April it “strongly supported” the Voice, expressing the vibe involving “the clear and compelling request from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander authors of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, including Academy Fellows, to ‘walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future’.”
Lacking any specifics about the Voice, the Social Sciences Academy fell back on vacuities about “reconciliation and moving forward as a nation” while urging members somehow to “inform and educate people” about the [undefined] issues. The educative materials it provided solely backed the Yes case, such as urgings from sponsors Marcia Langton and Megan Davis. After the Yes defeat, it added a reasonable statement that it “respects the democratic process”.
Professionals Australia (PA): These union members plus their national board and committees backed the wrong horse big-time. PA even ran online campaign of “pledging” for YES along with “Conversation Training” to help convince the unwashed that a racist upending of our governance since 1901 was a good idea.
Burnet Institute (medical research and education): Its statement in May
We consider that a Voice to Parliament is an evidence-based approach that will have a positive impact on the health, development and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children and young people.
I don’t know how the Yes case could be “evidence based” when Prime Minister Albanese refused to offer any details about it (and claims not even to have read the 26-page Uluru backgrounder). Likewise the Institute used its crystal ball to discover that most Aboriginals wanted the Voice – which the “No” Aboriginal team of Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine disputed. After 60% of Australians voted No, the Burnet Institute leaders went into teenager-like meltdown. Burnet CEO Professor Brendan Crabb had this to say:
My first thoughts are with the communities that will feel devastated today, scars that are unlikely to heal any time soon… This is a time of mourning for many and we recognise and respect the wishes of the Yes campaigners for a week of silence.
The 58 institutes of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes (AAMRI), March 2023:
As scientists, the AAMRI Board and leadership team support evidence-based [sic] conversations and encourage informed and respected debate on this topic… Leading immunologist, A/Professor Misty Jenkins, a proud Gunditjmara woman and Laboratory Head at WEHI[2], said the upcoming referendum on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament is an important opportunity to build a more just and reconciled Australia [and] address the ongoing impacts of colonialism and build a future based on shared understanding and respect.
It’s a well-worn quote but George Orwell had it right: “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” The Voice was one of them.
Tony Thomas’s new book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95 from Connor Court here
[1] Hesperion Press, Perth, has kindly provided me with the following works: “Cannibalism, Constables and Courts – Pilbara/Murchison 1887-1896; “Cannibals, Cooke and Customs, ed Peter J Bridge” and “Anthropophagitism in the Antipodes, or Cannibalism in Australia”, by James Cooke RN (Rtd).
[2] Walter & Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Chris Kenny has an article titled:
.
Robust public debate is best counter to spin
We must never entrust government with the task of identifying and controlling what is true and what is false.
.
Before deciding whether to read it I looked at some comments, and sure enough it’s laced with VOICE arguments, and his usual attack on commenters critical of that, eg.
****
I’m just saying people should stick to the facts. That’s all. It is not difficult. The Uluṟu statement is one page. The proposed voice was advisory only, etc etc.
****
https://todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=866c0508-0441-4ca4-8f8f-4fee53486dcf
This was one of the biggest worries of the Voice – the way its advocates stated things as “fact”‘ which were not. The “fact” is that prominent Voice advocates, including some of the statement’s authors, had made conflicting statements as to its length. The statement was supposedly 15 pages, 18, 21 or one. Nobody knew for certain what was in or out.
To claim it was “fact” that the statement was one page, was false and most people knew it. That damaged the credibility of the Yes case.
I am always amused when otherwise intelligent people start talking about anyone who identifies as aboriginal, having special/magical powers when it comes to conection with land and spirits. Our non aboriginal ancestors would have had the same level of skills and knowledge in the stone age. The way they carry on, it’s as if they believe we’d all be better off if we never advanced beyond the stone age.
” The Council observes that the adoption of terra nullius was profoundly detrimental to generations of Indigenous peoples.”
“The London Missionary Society (LMS) mission, led by Rev. Samuel Macfarlane, arrived on Erub (Darnley Island) on 1 July 1871. After the Anglican Church took over their mission in the 20th century, they referred to the events as “The Coming of the Light”, and established an annual celebration on 1 July.[7]” Wikipedia
Subsequently “In 1872, the boundary of (the colony of) Queensland was extended to include Thursday Island and other islands in Torres Strait within 60 miles of the Queensland coast….In 1879, Queensland annexed the other Torres Strait Islands. They were classified as part of the British colony of Queensland and, after 1901, of the Australian state of Queensland.” Wikipedia
The annexation of the Islands and the adoption of Christianity meant the end of inter-island head-hunting raids. I don’t think the end of these raids could be viewed as profoundly detrimental to generations of Torres Strait Islanders. And I don’t think the arrival of modern medicine, education, law and order etc was profoundly detrimental either. The Islanders were not displaced and there were no “stolen” generations.
About 60 000 Australians claim Torres Strait Islander ancestry, of which only about 5 000 live on the Islands.
The Council should also have noted the fatuousness of the anatopic notion of ‘terra nullius’. Michael Connor puts us on the right track: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2005/12/the-invention-of-terra-nullius/
Reader Kevin Loughrey has emailed me as follows:
Much of what you are saying here I unequivocally agree with but there is a factual error in your dissertation that you might like, in future, to correct. That is the statement:
‘The term “terra nullius” was unused when Australia was settled in 1788.’ This is definitely not true. Terra Nullius is a corruption through language evolution of the concept which existed in Roman law called “res nullius”, meaning nobody’s thing. In this case the “thing” was made specifically to pertain to land, hence “Terra”. In Roman law, things that were res nullius, such as wild animals (ferae bestiae), lost slaves and abandoned buildings could be taken as property by anyone by seizure.
This concept sanctified advanced civilisations settling countries that were not developed sufficiently to have common laws, including the codification of those laws in writing. It also pertained to countries where there was not established governance, ie, a State, in the form or a King or tribal chiefs overseeing large tracts of land and the people’s therein.
By that definition, Australia fully qualified as “Terra Nullius”.
If the colony of Queensland hadn’t annexed most of the islands in the Torres Straits, they would most certainly be part of Papua New Guinea today, and I don’t hear Torres Strait Islanders wistfully lamenting what could have been! I am pretty certain that the PNG government would not tolerate any talk of seperate nationhood or flag waving from the TSI! Today there are a few islands next to the PNG mainland that are under PNG sovereignty, where the standard of living is dramatically different from that in those islands under Australian sovereignty, within sight. Apparently, the former named Islanders and coastal people sneak into the Australian islands for medical care, such as for T.B. etc, as the health care available in PNG is woefully inadequate. Another benefit for the islanders under Australian sovereignty is they get to live in Cairns, Townsville, Brisbane or anywhere else in Australia, as a lot of them do.
They have managed to annex a whole continent by guilt-tripping. Their flag flies from Hobart to Broome.
Love this nitty gritty article listing the many practical questions that were never answered by the Voice proponents which we the voters wanted. There were only nebulous and cliched words from YES, which until October 14, one questioned at one’s peril. Hopefully the overwhelming NO vote has emboldened organisations to contemplate whether ethically they should back the government narrative, even if it means foregoing lucrative grants. Consumers also affect their financial bottom line. Blackmores, to their credit were one of the few companies who backed No.
Replace ACOLA with a can of Coke.
Red on the outside and acid within
Chris Kenny is a true Liberal, ok with limiting free speech, on-boards with Human Rights Commissions and supportive of imposed top down solutions by our “betters”.
In the end he is supportive of the idea that we are defined by the “group” we are in not as individuals.
Kenny looks to big government/big business are correctly the ones to impose their power and dominance against the votes of millions of individuals because in the case of The Voice because they agree with his personal view.
Kenny is a weak intellect.
Interestingly we’re not seeing any of the ‘Asia’ prong emerging in the socialist fork being poked into the school curriculum. The curriculum is now little more than a dreary and pointless worship of climate and aborigines that sends the kids into a deep depression of boredom and hopeless despondency. But Asia doesn’t get a mention, presumably because there aren’t currently any society-destroying causes attached to it (yet). Somebody messed up there.
Why should decent patriotic Australians suffer for these woke, self-loathing boffins? If these demented boffins loathe themselves to much they should leave the blessings of Australian life to go to some other country where misery is a way of life. Failing that, the least they could do is parade themselves in public in a display of self flagellation.
In recent years successive Governments and academic elites have done everything in their power short of direct treason to promote the illegitimacy of the foundation of Australia, They have been cheerleaders for every confected anti-white narrative that any lunatic with a background in Stalinist-era propaganda can come up that undermines those who built this nation from the ground up. (from the Stone Age up)
And now, vote or no vote, they have effectively authorised Aborigines to seek their own Nation States within Australia (Next stop, the UN).
And yesterday they have authorised the followers of Hamas to lecture us on war crimes! From the Australian yesterday …
“We say to every individual who said Hamas were terrorists, did you (Australia) really forget your own dark history,” he said.
“Did you really forget what your ancestors did to the native people in this country, how they killed them, how they chained them like dogs… did you forget that you celebrate every year a massacre you did to the native people. … You want to come and teach us about morals?”
The destruction of the Australian nation state is necessary for the advancement of global control by the elites and our governments and elites are well up to the task. .
The difference between the British treatment of aboriginal peoples and the treatment of the Palestinians by Zionists/Israelis is that the historical facts clearly show aborigines were not treated as Palestinians have been and still are.
The British did not wage a war of terrorism prior to settling Australia and neither did they arrive with armies determined to dispossess and kill as happened in Palestine. The fact is, they did not even arrive to colonise but to find somewhere to dump excess criminals. Settlement grew out of a penal colony and the arrival of half-starved convicts, many of them children, and their gaolers, did not an army make.
Aborigines were and are citizens. They had and have human and civil rights. They have had apology for any sins inherent in the nations’s foundation, they have had reparation, compensation. There was never an official policy of genocide as there was/is in Palestine.
There is simply no comparison regardless of what the radicals in the aboriginal industry might say. The facts make that very clear.
The thing that always amuses me is the persistent argument in the media that “Yes” voters consisted overwhelmingly of “the better educated”, and that “No” voters were predominantly of the Great Unwashed. If there has ever been a better example that much University.”higher” education is, more likely, more indoctrination than education, I’ve never seen it.
I doubt that it’s true anyway. Wokism can affect people from all walks of life, but I think those who allow themselves only limited contact with information (live in a bubble), have a little more free time than most (bored), and have slightly higher levels of narcissism (hubris, privilege) are the most likely to be infected. That is younger people, the idle wealthy, and apparently senior civil servants. Such types tend to be more population dense in the ACT and inner cities.
I would guess that many academics and white collar professionals, even the leaders, secretly voted no.
Not on this particular Woke topic, but even Anne Frank has been “cancelled”; how woke is that?:
.
A daycare centre in north-eastern Germany named after Anne Frank, one of the most well-known victims of the Holocaust, is set to be renamed in accordance with the wishes of parents from “migrant backgrounds,”
.
German media outlets reported. The kindergarten in the town of Tangerhütte has been named after the Jewish girl for fifty-three years but parents launched a petition to change it because they find it difficult to explain Frank’s significance to their children. Employees also allegedly took issue with the name, saying something more “child-friendly” was needed, something that was “better suited to their concept.” Anne Frank is apparently no longer aligned with the “new focus on diversity.”
Times change. The town is still debating it. It was in 1970 the name was changed to Anne Frank. If the town does decide to change the name for the Kindergarten it would be a nice touch to name something else after Anne Frank which was more suitable like a park or even an art gallery. The Germans are touchy about the issue so will probably find a compromise.
A better fit under Tony’s other article, “The ABC on Gaza: Exactly as Expected, Except Worse”, but comments on that are sensibly closed.
.
One of the panellists set to appear on Monday’s Q+A is Nasser Mashni, Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) president who founded a charity that is sending money to a Gaza-based health organisation accused of being affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist group, known as the PFLP.
The PFLP, responsible for hijacking planes, assassinations and suicide bombings, is a designated terrorist organisation in the US, EU and Canada, while Australia has the group on its consolidated list of organisations subject to financial sanctions.
.
https://todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au/infinity/article_popover_share.aspx?guid=36e23981-3db3-4610-bed6-402261375e39