Would have been nice to go to the match this weekend and show our Kozzie some love😔 just to let him know he is very much loved player at our club.

 

As an aside, who has gotten around to watching ‘The Ripple Effect’, the documentary included in the club statement on this case? 🤔

I just finished watching again, and thought it was a great introductory primer about a history that has led to what’s been discussed in this thread. Hopefully, it can pique more interest among others on here and elsewhere to find out more about the generational trauma mentioned in the film and the experience of those who aren’t necessarily sports stars. 👍🏻 If it can help to increase greater solidarity and alliance then that is even better.

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

15 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The way racism just keeps rearing up again and again in big or small, obvious or underhanded ways is making Aboriginal people pessimistic. It would make anyone pessimistic in the same circumstance. For every Aboriginal person in Australia it is just that much harder to believe that if you make the effort you'll get the reward.

That's a deep cut.

You could watch Eddie Betts interview on Fox Footy as if it was a short film titled "Typically upbeat man struggles to keep pessimism away."

4 minute video - Link: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-taylor-walker-racism-eddie-betts-video-adelaide-crows-suspension-future/news-story/2df3d11d766ebe3c89b4508a0549c412

Agree however just a point - racism isnt just being called names. It's the systematic dismantling of your culture over centuries including massacres, genocide etc and the continuing policies in government and other organisations that reinforce the oppression.

Edited August 11, 20213 yr by Dr. Gonzo

8 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

As an aside, who has gotten around to watching ‘The Ripple Effect’, the documentary included in the club statement on this case? 🤔

I just finished watching again, and thought it was a great introductory primer about a history that has led to what’s been discussed in this thread. Hopefully, it can pique more interest among others on here and elsewhere to find out more about the generational trauma mentioned in the film and the experience of those who aren’t necessarily sports stars. 👍🏻 If it can help to increase greater solidarity and alliance then that is even better.

Not yet but very keen to watch it before the weekend. 

I’m even more sad about not being able to get to this match following these events. I would’ve loved nothing more than to see Kozzie pick the ball up, zoom towards goal, and nail it with the players getting around him and the G erupting with cheers for him. 

We love you Kozzie!

On 8/10/2021 at 9:53 PM, BoBo said:

You can see how deeply it affects indigenous people from this clip.

Thanks Bobo.

Eddie is right, It is up to us white fellas not to step over this stuff anymore.

For me, it's starts with this nation confronting the truth of the hurt and harm inflicted on First nations people. Also, the truth of what an incredible culture exists here and to truly appreciate and embrace it. There's much for us to learn.

I'd really recommend reading Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu to anyone who wants to learn some more. There's a kids version available too. It's a great read.

Truth, Treaty, Voice 

This thread is a very interesting read. Some very commendable contributions. I’m pretty sure everyone who has commented does not believe racism is acceptable in thought, word or deed.

Regarding free speech. Anyone can say what they want but they are not free from the consequences of what they say. There are laws against liable, slander, hate etc. And the racial discrimination Act has specific provisions against speech which can be construed as “offensive”. Iirc Andrew Bolt fell foul of the provisions in this Act a few years back.

Offensive speech, subject to some exceptions (racial discrimination act noted above) is not against the law. I mean, we offend each on this site every day. If our feelings are hurt that’s just too bad. Policing offence is completely unworkable because its nigh on impossible to define. Everyone will have a different idea of what it is.

Regarding racism, continue to call it out when we see it and continue to support those who have been subjected to it. Anonymous posts on social media can’t be stopped I’m afraid but as others have said it’s the attitude of those that post that’s the real problem. We must continue to change hearts and minds

In terms of path forward I think the aboriginal voice for parliament is the way to go. A historical wrong has been committed. We can’t change history but we can shape the future. I suggest we engage with the Uluru statement from the heart. I think it’s the best way to right the wrong.

I will say there are certain aspects of anit-racist thought and BLM politics that I disagree with. For instance, the notion put forward in books such as “White Fragility” that white people are inherently racist is wrong. The idea that the police should be defunded, no matter how well intentioned, is just a bad idea. Condoning looters and saying they have a right to loot based on historical wrongs is not ok. There are aspects of how we tackle racism that can and should be debated.

And let’s not forget the progress that has been made. Many old prejudices and attitudes are no longer acceptable and that’s a good thing. Let’s acknowledge that as we continue to work on the problems that endure.

3 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

What percentage of Australian's do you believe are racist and how do you think that percentage has changed over the last (say) 10 years?  What role do you think the AFL has played in any change?

Putting a percentage on it is fraught with danger however I will say that there is a clear undercurrent of racism that is embedded in our culture.

16 hours ago, sue said:

In response to those saying we should be free to say what we like and too bad if some people will be offended, surely it depends on the nature of the statement and who it is directed at.  IMO there is a clear line - make nasty statements about a person for things over which they have no control (like the race they were born with) and you have clearly crossed the line.  

Free speech does not mean you can say what you want. With freedom comes responsibility and if your speech impacts on the freedoms of another or contributes to the victimisation, oppression etc of a cohort in society then it likely falls under hate speech which should not be allowed in a civil society. This is particularly true when you are discriminating against a group based on a characteristic they have no control over (eg gender, race, sexual orientation).

There are extremely good historical reasons for this although @Cranky Franky might be uncomfortable receiving a history lesson.

This does not mean you cannot criticise - I criticise religion all the time. But I don't criticise one particular religion above others, I think they are all outdated.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by Dr. Gonzo

15 hours ago, I'va Worn Smith said:

That's the point.  We no longer have 'real' politicians.  No leadership, no conviction of principle.  Both sides are more worried about the 24 hour news cycle and reactions on social media.  Politicians mouth platitudes, which deplore racism, yet at the same time, they proffer policies which appease the xenophobes.

Unless, we, as the great 'unwashed', drive change,the politicians and the political machine, will not heed, nor listen.  Change will only come from us - the citizenry.  If we have the will to drive it.  Racism is intrinsic and those who remain silent give it currency.  As CBF said in an earlier post, we no longer have bipartisanship and until such time as we do, the political machine will cause little change, if any, in this area.

At the risk of sounding like an old hippy, it was 'people power' which changed the then popular opinion on the Vietnam war, which killed millions; not the politicians or their apparatchiks.

Politicians are driven by the news cycle, focus groups and the next election because all they are worried about is getting re-elected. The citizenry is dominated by self-interest which is why politicians appeal to that. Self-interest is bred from being fearful, lazy and uneducated. It's a vicious cycle.

9 hours ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

As an aside, who has gotten around to watching ‘The Ripple Effect’, the documentary included in the club statement on this case? 🤔

I just finished watching again, and thought it was a great introductory primer about a history that has led to what’s been discussed in this thread. Hopefully, it can pique more interest among others on here and elsewhere to find out more about the generational trauma mentioned in the film and the experience of those who aren’t necessarily sports stars. 👍🏻 If it can help to increase greater solidarity and alliance then that is even better.

I found it very moving, devastatingly so. One of my best friends from school days - who was a Truancy Officer in East Gippsland in the 80's - has unfortunately allowed his perceptions that the Lake Tyers Aboriginal camp was a place of bludgers and alcoholics and degenerates to poison his mind towards the Aboriginal people in general. He still comes pout with the line that 'these people' need to leave their primitive ancient ways behind and enter the twenty first century and he is always sprouting on about the money they are given by the government. He, in my mind, represents what was/is a common perception of Aboriginal Culture in Australia, I.E. it comes from a place of ignorance, rampant prejudice and total disrespect for something they are not familiar with. It's the basis for the notion of White Supremacy. For the record, I tried to point out to him that bludging, alcoholism, substance abuse and domestic violence occur in the society he believes Aborigines should aspire to. 

14 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

Deanox I don't know if you are intentionally obfuscating or not.

I'm simply saying that people have different levels of tolerance and sensitivity and how they take offence. What offends one person is water off a ducks back to another and I have given concrete examples of this.

If you do not understand this we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

It also depends on the context - one of my close mates calling me a wog I find hilarious. If it comes from moron at the pub or down the street then it takes on a different meaning.

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Thanks Bobo.

Eddie is right, It is up to us white fellas not to step over this stuff anymore.

For me, it's starts with this nation confronting the truth of the hurt and harm inflicted on First nations people. Also, the truth of what an incredible culture exists here and to truly appreciate and embrace it. There's much for us to learn.

I'd really recommend reading Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu to anyone who wants to learn some more. There's a kids version available too. It's a great read.

Truth, Treaty, Voice 

Indigenous history/culture should be a mandatory education subject throughout primary and secondary school.

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Thanks Bobo.

Eddie is right, It is up to us white fellas not to step over this stuff anymore.

For me, it's starts with this nation confronting the truth of the hurt and harm inflicted on First nations people. Also, the truth of what an incredible culture exists here and to truly appreciate and embrace it. There's much for us to learn.

I'd really recommend reading Bruce Pascoe's Dark Emu to anyone who wants to learn some more. There's a kids version available too. It's a great read.

Truth, Treaty, Voice 

Sorry to tell you that Bruce's book has been pretty much debunked & shown to be poorly researched & full of errors - see Farmers or Hunter Gatherers- The Dark Emu Debate by Sutton & Walsh.

 

56 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Indigenous history/culture should be a mandatory education subject throughout primary and secondary school.

‘tis in New Zealand. 

57 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Indigenous history/culture should be a mandatory education subject throughout primary and secondary school.

Aboriginal history is Australian history so i don't know why it wouldn't be thought in school

3 minutes ago, BDA said:

Aboriginal history is Australian history so i don't know why it wouldn't be thought in school

I studied Australian history right through to year 12 in the 1990's and there was almost no mention of Aboriginal history except as a side note to European colonialism.

I sure as hell hope it has changed.

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Well said Goody. Well done MFC. 
 

19 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Sorry to tell you that Bruce's book has been pretty much debunked & shown to be poorly researched & full of errors - see Farmers or Hunter Gatherers- The Dark Emu Debate by Sutton & Walsh.

Yep, debunked alright, by people like Bolt and Windshuttle? Yes, both fine examples of objective White Supremacy Dogma.

17 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Sorry to tell you that Bruce's book has been pretty much debunked & shown to be poorly researched & full of errors - see Farmers or Hunter Gatherers- The Dark Emu Debate by Sutton & Walsh.

Hey @Cranky FrankyI haven't got around to reading this work yet. I've read both Bill Gammage's Greatest Estate on Earth and Dark Emu. They tend to align quite closely in that aboriginal people managed the landscape very sensitively to their advantage. I would call it farming. I guess part of it is your definition of what agriculture or farming is.

I do know that Bruce's heritage and work has been systematically attacked by a small number of influential people.
I know its taken a heavy personal toll on him (via friends I have who know him). 

I wouldn't say his work has been dunked and is full of errors. Not from what I've read and some of the first nations people I've listened to. This seems to be a balance view: https://theconversation.com/book-review-farmers-or-hunter-gatherers-the-dark-emu-debate-rigorously-critiques-bruce-pascoes-argument-161877

I do find it interesting they've written a book about another book, but it I'll probably look to read it to get a balanced view. Everyone has a different truth I guess.

It's why I think truth is so important and some in this country aren't willing to embrace it yet.
It's not about getting over it, its about facing up to it and owning it.

Anyways, Go Dees!

1 hour ago, Cranky Franky said:

Sorry to tell you that Bruce's book has been pretty much debunked & shown to be poorly researched & full of errors - see Farmers or Hunter Gatherers- The Dark Emu Debate by Sutton & Walsh.

Without realising it, you've just demonstrated how partisan you are on this topic. It implies you haven't read these books, or if you have you didn't understand.

Pascoe's work is not an academic text to be debunked. It references historic sources that have been omitted from the general conversion deliberately as part of the terra nullis claim. He questions much of the narrative that white Australia teaches itself about our First Nations people (that they were completely nomadic, never built any structures, didn't do any agricultural work).

Sutton and Walshe don't "debunk" anything. They argue that First Nations people should be called "hunter gathers plus" rather than Pascoe's suggestion that they deployed a type of farming/agriculture.

That seems petty semantics when Pascoe's main thesis was that the modern western academic criteria for farming was Eurocentric, and therefore was too tight and restrictive to consider other cultures' approach to farming.

Just as Sutton and Walshe critiqued Pasoce, others have since critiqued Sutton and Walshe for omitting evidence, for relying too heavily on colonial census data (probably skewed) and for sticking to outdated academic concepts. Have they been debunked?

 

People can have conversations and discussions without being offensive to each other. But if you think the work was "debunked" and can therefore be dismissed, this might be why you keep finding that people take offence in discussion.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by deanox

That's a thoughtful post, BDA. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but you clearly have reflected on your opinions before expressing it. Apologies for the VERY lengthy reply, but there is a bit to unpack (both parts that I can agree and disagree with).

4 hours ago, BDA said:

Regarding free speech. Anyone can say what they want but they are not free from the consequences of what they say. There are laws against liable, slander, hate etc. And the racial discrimination Act has specific provisions against speech which can be construed as “offensive”. Iirc Andrew Bolt fell foul of the provisions in this Act a few years back.

At this point, something should be made very clear about what Bolt got civilly charged with under section 18C. 

The law itself is incredibly generous in that it allows the ability of those charged under it to not be deemed liable if it can be proved that what they were writing, while incorrect,  was done so in good faith and was an honest mistake.

Where Bolt was unmistakably and HORRENDOUSLY in the wrong was that he wrote several clear mistruths about those involved in the case. For example, many of the defendants, Noel Clarke (whose private behavior has been checkered) among them, were accused of lying about their Indigenous heritage and had only identified as Indigenous later in life to gain employment. All Bolt had to do was do some research (i.e. speak to them, people close to them, research articles on them as they were all public figures)  to find out that the vast majority had identified as such since childhood.

The second thing that brought him undone was that he mentioned another Indigenous lady who had been given a broadcasting role on Melbourne community radio in which he said she had used her tenuous heritage as a means to land that 'job. The truth is that she had always identified as Indigenous, and she hadn't pushed someone more deserving out of the way. She was an unpaid volunteer. Pure and simple.

Bolt's insinuations were clearly to push a narrative intended to humiliate, intimidate and offend, and by not even doing the bare minimum of research, he proved that was his agenda all along. It wasn't just that what he wrote was too much for some to accept and he was 'telling it as it is'. It was basically slander. Mordy Bromberg really had no choice but to find him liable.

Sadly, Bolt has a track record as long as your arm on distorting the truth, and that worked against him as well. He was VERY lucky that the Hun didn't have to pay damages. His case was of the former type you pointed out, not the latter.

4 hours ago, BDA said:

In terms of path forward I think the aboriginal voice for parliament is the way to go. A historical wrong has been committed. We can’t change history but we can shape the future. I suggest we engage with the Uluru statement from the heart. I think it’s the best way to right the wrong.

Mostly agree. New Zealand is way ahead of us on this front. 

 

4 hours ago, BDA said:

I will say there are certain aspects of anit-racist thought and BLM politics that I disagree with. For instance, the notion put forward in books such as “White Fragility” that white people are inherently racist is wrong.

I personally, as well as others such academics like Adolf Reed, have had issues with books like 'White Fragility'.

I should start off by acknowledging that it's very important to be made aware of one's implicit biases and is actually quite shocking at times. Confronting one's unacknowledged prejudices and past actions is a very important part of this process, and one I go through regularly. Prejudice to some extent lives in all of us.

However, to me, 'White Fragility' is also a means of corporatizing anti-racism for the benefit of employers. Robyn DiAngelo, as we speak, is doing the corporate training circuit, and implicit in the message in the book is that tackling this issue is one that is solely an individual one. That we have to work on ourselves exclusively, and that solidarity of people of good faith is something to be left unconsidered. It avoids discussion of the material backdrop of history (slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, lynching, the War on Drugs, the Crime Bill etc.) in favor of an almost Scientologist view of 'the more you insist you aren't a racist, the more likely you are'. You can never fully disavow prejudice. All you can do is work to be less prejudiced. 

For a large corporation wanting the whip hand over employees, this is absolute catnip. Say rather than engaging in trade unions where people of all races can find solidarity in collective purposes (though make no mistake, there have been plenty of racist and nationalist trade unions), we can only act as automatons who can only work to be less shiffy. It also allows less scrupulous employers to fire those who have gone off the approved script under the auspices of them having taken 'cultural sensitivity training'.

I do believe in the education process, but I hate the corporatized, individualized approach that big business (the standard bearer of colonialism which in my eyes birthed racism) is pushing.

4 hours ago, BDA said:

The idea that the police should be defunded, no matter how well intentioned, is just a bad idea. 

I would really recommend the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It will show that the calls to defund the police emanating from the US, while semantically not helpful, did not come from nowhere.

The history of policing in the US dating back to their original role of slave patrols to their progressive militarization in the 80's, the leeway given to them via Supreme Court decisions (See Alexander vs. Sandoval 2001 which basically said it's OK to racially profile), programs like Operation Pipeline (which made it fine to investigate for other crimes in the case of random police stops), disproportionate drug sentencing and arrests of people of color (H.R. Haldeman, Nixon's chief of staff, said point blank off the record that the reason that the administration launched the War on Drugs was to lock up Blacks and hippies) as well as the punitive provisions of the mid 90's crime bill (i.e. once you have been convicted of a criminal offence, you are no longer eligible for public housing and if someone commits a crime in your public housing, you can be evicted) all show that criminal justice reform needs to be undertaken. Furthermore, as the police there are all too often used as a security force for the forces of capital, they are sent to places they are not needed i.e. cases where a mental health expert should be dispatched. And when they are dispatched thanks to them being heavily armed than John Rambo and protected by police unions with inordinate power, they overreact (i.e. Philandro Castile, Breonna Taylor, Eric Garner, George Floyd, Jacob Blake, Walter Scott).

As far as the Australian context, the deaths in custody report is a good place to start. It is misrepresented by some in regards to deaths of Indigenous Australians vs. other Australians as a percentage of population (which to me is a bad metric to use as it doesn't take into other ethnicities born in Australia). However, what has never been disputed is that the report has shown that Indigenous people consistently get arrested for offences that are not applicable to white Australians. The fact that NONE of it's recommendations have been acted on in 30 years is an absolute national tragedy (even the recommendation that points in station cells where someone can hang themselves be removed STILL hasn't been acted upon). 

4 hours ago, BDA said:

Condoning looters and saying they have a right to loot based on historical wrongs is not ok. There are aspects of how we tackle racism that can and should be debated.

The problem is that a minute part of a wider movement often gets used to smear the whole.

Conservative and reactionary commentators these days like to portray Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (my personal hero) as almost like a motivational speaker who disliked racism on the side. So much of what his message was is reduced to one line in the 'I Have a Dream' speech. However, what he said extended so much beyond that. What is also misrepresented is that he was universally loved in his time, and that he wasn't the 'same' as those violent modern day protesters. 

That is simply incorrect. He was slandered in his time, stabbed, written letters by the FBI to commit suicide and pelted with bottles in Chicago when he tried to advocate nonviolent revolution there. And he was one of the touchstones of nonviolent thought.

In 2020, there were events organized by Black Lives Matter of around 8,000 in number in the US. Of all of those,  7% experienced violence of varying degrees. When the term violence is used, this can be what was observed as smaller and isolated outbreaks where individual actors present target businesses, individuals or property or on a larger scale as to what was seen in Washington. That being said, that number cannot in anyway suggest that violence is an accepted part of Black Lives Matter or racial justice activism in any way, shape or form. In fact, Amnesty International found 125 accounts of human rights abuses committed by police during the protests that broke out in the wake of George Floyd's death.

In contrast, during the Capitol riots, the fascists who stormed the congress had one and only one purpose in mind: overturning the results of a free and fair election and shockingly, to abduct politicians and do who knows what to them. Had a Black protest movement promised the same thing, would they have been treated the same?

I've got a fair idea what would happen. Former Republican congressman and morning TV anchor, Joe Scarborough, summed it up best:

“If these insurrectionists were Black, they would have been shot in the face,” he said. “And my god, if these insurrectionists were Muslim, they would have been sniped from the top of buildings."

 

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by Colin B. Flaubert
Clean up

1 hour ago, deanox said:

Pascoe's work is not an academic text to be debunked. It references historic sources that have been omitted from the general conversion deliberately as part of the terra nullis claim. He questions much of the narrative that white Australia teaches itself about our First Nations people (that they were completely nomadic, never built any structures, didn't do any agricultural work).

Having read the book, indeed Pascoe himself makes sure to acknowledge that the evidence he puts forth can be viewed as qualitative (I.e. journal entries, photos, sites that could be interpreted differently) and quite aged in many cases. He is very honest in that sense. Never does he say it’s definitive.

It is, as mentioned, a discussion starter. And those who have critiqued the book fairly have done so without the ideological obsessions of his most vindictive and cynical attackers.

Just throwing this in, you are never going to get rid of racism as long as society keeps segregating people.

We have Indigenous awards, why? Are they not equal to every other players? Are aboriginal people unable to compete with everyone else? 

People want to blend in but also keep their identity without bringing misery to others. You show how this works and you have solved racism.

Edited August 12, 20213 yr by Youngwilliam

38 minutes ago, Youngwilliam said:

Just throwing this in, you are never going to get rid of racism as long as society keeps segregating people.

We have Indigenous awards, why? Are they not equal to every other players? Are aboriginal people unable to compete with everyone else? 

People want to blend in but also keep their identity without bringing misery to others. You show how this works and you have solved racism.