Public Address - Club Politique (Home)

The Wood and the Trees | Dec 13, 2004 15:00

I think the most shocking thing I've discovered since getting back here is that there really are still people like Keith Windshuttle around. Much New Zealand's Elizabeth Rata, this guy seems to be a disaffected academic who's decided to stick it to the man rather than admit they have a professional leg to stand on.

A nice irony in this accusation is that Henderson, who's accusing Windshuttle of being a "Marxist turned conservative waging a personal war on the very left-wing interpretation of Australian history that he once embraced and proclaimed", is something of a Conservative and is effectively turning his back on what he might otherwise have endorsed.

This little difference aside, that Windshuttle can even try to claim that the White Australia Policy didn't exist, or is justifiable, is totally beyond me, and smacks of the worst kind of historical revisionism, of which Henderson is guilty (if I remember correctly).

Windshuttle is part of a larger 'culture war' that's been going on and off over here for a number of years now. In brief, the culture war is all about what to do with all that unsightly past Australians seem to not know what to do with. But, sweeping it under the carpet is only likely to make walking through Australian history like a stroll in a bouncy castle.

What Windshuttle subscribes to is a version of Australian history I've heard called 'three cheers for Australia', or the 'white blindfold' approach. He first came to prominence a couple of years back with a book called The Fabrication of Australian History, where he argued that Tasmanian Aboriginals weren't actually killed by settlers, but died of disease and inter-tribal warfare.

I haven't actually viewed the pages of Windshuttle's book, I don't want to dedicate my scant time to being pissed of by it, but it irks me to think that someone is even writing this kind of stuff, but I am pleased it raised enough hackles amongst historians for an entire conference and published reply.

Essentially, his argument is fairly sound and logical. There's simply not enough evidence to suggest that Tasmanian settlers systematically massacred Aboriginal people. He concludes therefore that it never happened, and is instead a myth perpetuated by 'the Left' to maintain their university tenure. Big call, and an explicit attempt at under-carpet-sweeping.

Naturally, this line of reasoning was embraced by 'the Right' as part of their campaign against what in the late 1980s another guy called Geoffrey Blainey called the 'Black Armband' version of Australian history. Blainey was on form during this time in joining with John Howard in his condemnation of multiculturalism and the need to reappraise letting too many Asians into Australia.

This stoush continues to centre on how the individual wants to understand Australian history, either as an ongoing drive to create a prosperous and modern nation, or as a litany of exploitation and imperial domination. Naturally enough, there's all kinds of positions between these two poles, but what both boil down to is the kind of nation-state citizens of Australia want to imagine themselves belonging to.

Certainly, there is a little liberal white guilt in the Black Armband version, and a little cultural Darwinism in the White Blindfold, but both indicate that no-one is really happy with the nation's past.

Accentuating this problem is the ongoing reality of Aboriginal people's marginalisation in Australia. While the comfortable white people argue about what they have and haven't got to be sorry about, Aboriginal people are dying in droves as young as their fifties, and the remote communities are an absolute shambles.

It's interesting therefore that the only real news over the past few weeks has been the Hikoi conducted by an ex-Aussie Rules player named Michael Long, and the acceptance of a new paradigm in Aboriginal policy by several Aboriginal leaders. Interesting because the old 'rights' based arguments of the 1970s and 80s seem to have gone out the window in favour of a new approach.

Now, while any approach that stops Aboriginal kids from suffering pre-WW2 diseases like glue ear is OK with me, but what the new system seems to like is a nicely maternal system where Aboriginal communities are essentially placed on 'good behaviour bonds' in return for Federal money. Some commentators are calling this a paternal system, but this is a misnomer in my estimation. Exactly the same idea was tried in the Mission stations here in Victoria in the early 1920s with the imposition of 'matrons' to teach 'manners' to the inmates.

The new paradigm in this case turns on getting some traction on disparity statistics in remote and rural Aboriginal communities by using a system called 'mutual obligation', which argues in layman's terms that 'you can't get something for nothing'. A prominent Aboriginal social critic called Noel Pearson has been arguing this idea for something like ten years, and it's interesting to see that veteran Aboriginal rights activists like the Dodson's changing their tack to affirm Pearson's ideas.

What seems to have occurred is that Aboriginal activists have realised that Howard isn't going away, and a grim determination to work with Him has gelled. The real test though will be whether Howard's 'spritely' version of Australia and the way he wants it to be will actually deliver anything for Aboriginal people.

As it is the new accord is being called a 'new deal' for Aboriginal people, and involves Howard appointing a fourteen member 'council' that is used as a consultative body much like the old New Zealand Maori Council. The threat is of course that this National Indigenous Council will be used as a means to rubber stamp ideas like the 'washing for petrol' scheme that is, as mentioned, essentially a good behaviour bond.

What Pearson really talks about is the need to find means to make Aboriginal people in the remote communities feel that the dole money isn't 'free', but that they've got to give something back to their community in return. Howard on the other hand, is using mutual obligation as a way to appear to give a toss about Aboriginal communities, even though he withdrew untold funding from the former peak Aboriginal representative body, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), and used the behaviour of its Chairman Geoff Clark as a justification for finally abolishing it.

The trick in this instance is the shifting of the onus onto Aboriginal people. By indicating that the need to 'get on with it' is the responsibility of the Aboriginal people themselves, failure to improve outcomes for the minority can be blamed on them. And, yes, this is a very cynical approach, as Chris Pearson over at the Australian points out. But, my gripe with this approach is that it smacks of an 'all care, but no responsibility' approach by White Australians not willing to deal with their own role in putting Aboriginal people in this position in the first place.

And, even worse, I was appalled at the entire panel of Insiders, a current affairs talk show I watch on ABC on Sundays, Conservative and Liberal, agreeing that the privatisation and individualisation of Aboriginal communally held lands was a necessity. Something also argued by Warren Mundine, national Vice-President of the ALP and member of the National Indigenous Council. These people need to read about the Maori Land Courts of the 1800s.

Sure, individual title itself won't be a problem, but in a political atmosphere that specifically wants to see Aboriginal people integrate into the Australian nation as 'dark-skinned' Australians, the threat to what remains of the once-rich tapestry of Aboriginal culture and community is profound.

Finally and on a more positive note, it's interesting that a post of four words gets more mail than anything I've ever written. Maybe we all watch too much TV.

Digg this Scoopit!

Oops. | Dec 06, 2004 15:20

I have an xbox.

Digg this Scoopit!

Fine Feathered Friends | Dec 01, 2004 11:46

It seems that I exited New Zealand just in time to avoid the rampant homo-ism that's likely to overtake the country once that cub thingy I keep hearing about is introduced to the world. Good work there, Tibby.

Now, I don't know whose cub it is (I'm guessing it's the love child of a certain Mr. Hide), but once it grows into a bear I'm guessing it's going to have the time of its life. Mothers, lock up your sons. And maybe your daughters.

Maybe it's time therefore to expand the public consciousness a little and accommodate this new social development. So I'm asking Mikey Havoc over at bFM to do a public service and repeat an old gag I heard a few years back, where, realising that the Inuit had a bunch of words for 'snow', he got listeners to call in with the many, many words for 'pecker' or 'boobie'. It's my opinion that 'the people' will be better served with a better range of words to really label this new section of society. After all, great kiwi derisions like 'mayhey' deserve their place in the sun, don't they?

There's every chance that it's the smoke from that speaker fire that has me coming over all funny, because I also found Sandra Paterson's article a little offensive to even my strenuously assertive and undeniable heterosexuality. I mean, "Making Law a bigger ass"? Why not call the article "Making law wear a halter top and mince in some fine Italian pumps"?

Oh, and thanks for that by the way boys, you've now entered an entirely separate section of the 'gig hall of fame', that is, separate from the wanker who called Jack White a 'fucking poofer' when they played the Dogs Bollocks. Not to mention the White Stripes themselves, or that time I knocked my self out cold stage-diving at a Fugazi gig (my very first mention in a major newspaper? "some fool").

As I may have mentioned in a previous post, Sandra and I grew up in the same town, so I remember her, and her brother from many, many years ago. Oh, and by the way Sandra, you're still a looker. If all of this liberal defence of those pesky homo's hasn't discouraged you.... I'm no bear.

I'm a tiger, baby. grrrr.... tiger.

Anyhow, when I lived in Wellington I had this one flat, well, dive really, I shared with a few suitably 'het' blokes. Actually, no, that's a lie, one of the guys was a bouncer at a bar on Ghuznee or Dixon Street (I can't remember which), but he doesn't count. Snorting excessive amounts of 'Rush', and making statements like 'I could only be a bouncer at a gay bar' doesn't necessarily maketh the man.

This flat was up a huge number of stairs behind Victoria Hall, a studentey, hostelley-type place on the Terrace. As I was leaving the flat one day, I happened to look up at the halls to see a bloke taking a slash out a fourth floor window. Now, the years have clouded the event and my role in it, which in all likelihood means I've put too much of a gloss on my own virtue and my glory days, but I seem to recall the conversation that followed going something like this.

Me: Good sir, please cease and desist this extravagant display!

Him: Nah, go get 'stuffed' ya 'flaming' big 'enjoyer of self-entertainment'!

Me: Why I never! Such language will result in someone calling the constabulary!

Him: Let them call the pigs ya 'fellator'!

Me: My word! Shall I be forced to issue an invitation to a duel with you good sir?!

At which point a second voice issued from the window, and said, "That you Tibby?" Strangely, it turns out that the roommate of the urinator in question was none other than the aforementioned little brother of Ms. Paterson.

To be honest, I found this pretty convenient. I haven't ever kicked anybody's ass, and trying to do so while they tried to shower me from four floors up was always going to be difficult. Following Little Brother's invitation, I found my way through to their room and accepted an invitation to soothe ruffled feathers over a beer at a bar in town.

Now, this is where the story gets a little weird.

The boys were convinced that the place to drink at this time of day was a bar on Willis Street called 'Legends', because it had cheap pints and this great decor of 1950s pop idol prints a-la 'Burger King'. Having heard about the place I was however dubious, and asked the guys if they were sure they wanted to drink there. Asserting that they did, I double-checked just to be sure, and off we ambled.

Seated in the bar I looked around and confirmed my suspicions of the place. Big Marilyn photos, lots of James Dean, and the occasional Elvis, i.e. cliché city. More importantly though, the clientele was exactly what I had expected.

I questioned the boys about this.

Me: "So, you guys like this place?"

The Boys: "Yup, great place! Cheap piss, friendly crowd, close to the halls (etc.)"

Me: "Oh. So you don't think there's anything 'funny' about it?"

The Boys: "Nah. Why?"

Me: "Oh, dunno, except maybe those two blokes over there holding hands."

I don't think I've ever seen two people finish their drinks and exit a place so quickly in my life.

Good het bloke that Little Brother. Must be the upbringing.

PS. grrrr... tiger.

Digg this Scoopit!

Moving Past Rumbling | Nov 26, 2004 11:40

The rundown so far is that I turned around from Auckland pretty much straight away and headed for the Mount. The car trip had been exhausting, but hanging out with some rellies and an amazing curry laksa later (in New Lynn of all places) I was a little drunk and well-relaxed. After dropping off the Avis relocation and catching a shuttle to the Bay of Plenty I was back in the home country.

My first impression? Kiwifruit. One of my first jobs was picking fruit, until I got too tall, and that smell of the vines has stayed with me ever since. In fact, I still find kiwifruit a little unpalatable, so driving into Katikati and 'vine-funk' was at first alarming. You'll be glad to know I recovered pretty quickly though.

The next impression was amazement at how far and fast the Tauranga area has grown. Amazement. There's estates and big shiny houses everywhere. Everywhere. It is, in fact, 'fountain lakes' on the Bay. Whatever happened to that sleepy little town I grew up in?

At least they still dramatically underpay their service workers. It's always good to see consistency in an industry. My brother is a Chef, and he's usually offered less per hour than I was working for as a dishpig in Melbourne. Seriously. The minimum wage over there for any service job is $A16 p/h. But hey, peanuts and monkeys.

Anyhow, other than family the highlight was a day trip to attend a Political Science conference in Hamilton. It's been interesting watching the regulars develop in skills and theoretical sophistication over the years, from the early days when I myself could barely talk in front of a seminar or lecture.

I presented the usual and obligatory paper on 'nation-building', which regular readers of Club Politique may be familiar with. Fortunately, I managed to have the involuntary freak-out meter only ratcheted to 'half piss-scared', and not 'gawping fish-mouth paralysis', and delivered most of the info I wanted to get across. I also drew some useful criticism, so thanks to the academic community for that.

Much to my surprise, and despite my ordinary delivery of the paper, I was invited to attend a caucus of academics involved in the study of media. An interesting group, I must say. Since writing Club Politique I've let the vanity of the leash a little and started calling myself a 'commentator', mostly because 'weblogger' draws blank stares in places like Tauranga, so with any kind of luck might be able to tap this group for comment on occasion. We'll see.

The remainder of the conference was, to my mind, characterised by what I saw as a bit of a positive movement away from 'older' methods of talking about and theorising politics in New Zealand. I should add that this is only really in my field, but the movement was fascinating all the same.

Although I only attended that one day of the conference, and missed an interesting discussion of constitutional reform in New Zealand, the papers I did see were a fascinating reappraisal of the means to understand Treaty politics and indigenous governance. I'm happy to be corrected on this impression, as I was concerning my comments about that student protest trip to Wellington, but I thought I noticed a pronounced movement towards an 'engagement' and 'negotiation' style of understanding the topic.

A few years ago, actually more than a few years ago, many papers I attended centred on concepts like 'social justice', 'rights', or a 'fair go' for indigenous people. The drive behind the things being discussed was always that Maori or other minorities were being short-changed, ripped off, or marginalized, and that something had to be done about it.

I'm forming the opinion though that New Zealand is moving past this, both academically and in practice. There's been sniffs of this development in the literature for years, and 'negotiation' seems to have been a mantra in Wellington for a fair while now. Again, this is mostly based on an impression from a mere five or six papers, but if conventional wisdom is actually moving towards this new model it is, in my most humble of opinions, a good thing.

The centre of this issue is the way people all too often perceive minorities as 'bitching' about their status. Much of the effort to 'close the gaps' on the part of the majority stems from an acknowledgement that minorities like Maori are or were clearly disadvantaged, and that something needed to be done. It was also because having a minority able to indicate that it's being hard done by is internationally embarrassing. The old mantra that 'our Maoris' are better off than 'their Aborigines' is proof of this.

Unlike Aboriginal people though, Maori are slowly escaping the poverty trap and the gap between minority-majority is closing. Which, to my mind, leaves us as a society with the question of on what grounds preferential treatment of Maori by Government or educational institutions (for example) can continue? As I said, the old argument was essentially, 'give Maori a fair go', so now that they have a fair go, what's the basis for their difference itself? There's nothing to bitch about, so lets all get on with the business of being New Zealanders then.

Why engagement and negotiation seems to me to be important is that it acknowledges the continuing reality of 'Maori' as an identity distinction from 'New Zealander'. Look, if you're the sort of person who'd like to see a single identity dominate New Zealand, you're either a dreamer or a fool. Even back in the bad ol' days of the hard-core assimilation policy a separate Maori identity continued to survive, and the warm-fuzzy social justice days have only reinforced this difference.

And the conference reinforced my impression that the upcoming generation is thinking new, and ways are being devised, fleshed out and argued to make New Zealand work as an authentic and ongoing relationship between two peoples, and not the scene of a gradual decline of the minority. As I may have said before, maybe one day New Zealand might turn into a single people, but it will be because it happened cooperatively, and not because Maori were dissolved into the mainstream.

Anyhow, made it to Auckland again the day before yesterday, and enjoying the sights and sounds of the extremely picturesque Mt. Eden. Back in Melbourne on Monday, which with any luck will be thirty-five degrees, and I'll probably be wearing my new Tino Rangatiratanga t-shirt. Only ten bucks from a shop on Dominion Road. TEN BUCKS! Excellent.

Digg this Scoopit!