Opinion

Insulting Aborigines

Opposition leader Tony Abbott says the obligatory acknowledgement of traditional owners is paternalistic tokenism and a genuflection to political correctness, and as an Australian of both Aboriginal and European descent I can tell you that he is right. The ode read out by rote at council meetings, civic and government functions, and at schools run by the silliest principals offends my European and Aboriginal parts equally - as a white Australian I don't want to pat anyone, let alone an adult, on the head, and as a black Australian I don't want to be patted on the head.

The acknowledgement of traditional ownership is dished out in the same way the word special is used to lift the esteem of disabled people - usually, thankfully, those who are intellectually disabled. As insulting as this notion of specialness is to Aboriginal people, it may not be the most damaging consequence of the PC ode.

As I write in my column in The Herald today, the undisguised paternalism in that acknowledgement preserves the excuse of victimhood for many people of Aboriginal descent. Newcastle City Council's ode is typical of this absolving people of Aboriginal descent from responsibility for their own welfare: "We recognise and respect ... that they [traditional owners] are the proud survivors of more than 200 years of dispossession. Council reiterates its commitment to address disadvantages and attain justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this community."

The respect I want as a person of Aboriginal descent is the same respect, no more and no less, awarded to every Australian. I don't want to be insulted by being labelled as special, separate and in need of an excuse. What happened 200 years ago has no more to do with me as a person of Aboriginal descent as it has with me as a person of European descent, so let's renounce the paternalism and get on with our lives as Australians together. Don't dump on me any of your politically correct guilt.

Posted By: Jeff Corbett on 17/03/2010 4:58:00 PM | Comments (114)

Share on
Facebook

Tweet on
Twitter

Email to
a friend

comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

A serious question Jeff - How far back should people go to be able to claim descent from a particular race?

Posted by moron, 18/03/2010 9:10:45 AM, on The Herald

It's also, moron, a question that many Aboriginal people who may not appear to be Aboriginal say is offensive. It's how they see themselves that matters, they say, although some people of Aboriginal descent, me among them, say this is nonsense.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 18/03/2010 9:23:44 AM

Well said Jeff. A lot of us white fellas has had a gutful of this pathetic paternalistic piffle. Watch children playing and learn. They all play together, you don't see the poor me attitude in indigenous children, nor do you see caucasian children running around apologising. Treat all people with dignity and respect.

Posted by Well said., 18/03/2010 9:23:09 AM, on The Herald

what do aboriginals call themselves JC? surely there is a better name than this generic label.. we now call ayers rock its correct name -Uluru. why not address people similarly.

Posted by catl, 18/03/2010 9:38:16 AM, on The Herald

The word aboriginal is an adjective and the word Aborigine the noun, but a great many people of aboriginal descent are not Aborigines. The broad description "people of aboriginal descent" is a reasonable catch-all, I think.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 18/03/2010 9:52:29 AM

The whole idea is unbelievably patronising. Each and every time I witness these pathetic, hollow, meaningless acknowledgements, I cringe, and mentally reject the whole notion. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Simply idiotic. I would be interested to know Mick Dodson's personal, honest opinion on this. I reckon he might agree with me....

Posted by Abundance, 18/03/2010 9:43:34 AM, on The Herald

Do your children see themselves as being o aboriginal descent?

Posted by moron, 18/03/2010 10:02:21 AM, on The Herald

I don't know, and I don't know that this is relevant to their aboriginality. You either are or you are not of aboriginal descent.

Posted by Jeff Corbett on 18/03/2010 10:13:00 AM

The apology to the Indigenious nation should have been enough. Reeling it out continually is perhaps a touch patronizing. Simple respect for one another should sufficient. I wonder if the English part of me should apologize to the Scottish half and the Irish quarter.

Posted by suzhousid, 18/03/2010 10:06:40 AM, on The Herald

Of course it is insulting. Any "tick off the checklist" formality that noone really cares about is rubbish. That is why, for example, most weddings do no follow the tired old list of speeches and try to stick with just those that matter. The platitude that is dished out is as relevant as drunk, dribbling great uncle Rupert telling old unfunny stories and proposing a toast to the father of the page boy's next door neighbour. Lets have universal respect, and move on. I'll bet the platitude was invented by a white fella (although the possibility that it was a painful primary school principal fawning for her next promotion also rings true).

Posted by harold, 18/03/2010 10:17:26 AM, on The Herald

Rest assured I don't find aboriginals any more "special" than any other group in our society - the constant wheedling apologists do nothing but drive a wedge between people - I fail to see why anyone should apologise for past injustices unless they were actually the perpertrator of them.

Posted by smithy, 18/03/2010 10:32:09 AM, on The Herald

harold - you gave me a laff re. Uncle Rupert. Nupitals who let people like Uncle Rupert talk should be flogged for making the guests suffer.

Posted by Jaded, 18/03/2010 10:36:50 AM, on The Herald

Whilst ever (collective) WE, continue to pander to the political correctness of the looney set, the aborigines, whole or part will be treated differently. They are handed special treatment and conditions. One of the most perplexing questions I always ask myself, "Where and how have the $billions that have been handed to the people and various agencies been spent. The media is always trotting out images of squallid campsites still around the country. One wonders if it would have been best to allocate each and every person of aboriginal decent, a huge settlement, sufficient to appease the looney set on the condition we would all then be on a relative even footing. But here, I would limit this payout to at least a 25% minimum aboriginal background and would it be too demeaning to insist on some proof of the background in the case of persons of complete caucasion appearance.

Posted by MizJasper, 18/03/2010 10:40:11 AM, on The Herald