Hi Laurie,
You wrote:
>
>The difference as I see it, is that Dr. Perkins was saying that 'burn baby
>burn' could happen if non-Indigenous Australians did not give proper
>recognition to the problems of Aboriginal people---he put the
responsibility
>for "burn ,baby ,burn" onto the perpetrators of injustice, not the victims.
Okay, so the issue isn't whether the "enemies" might misuse what is said the
issue is simply what is said? At least we now agree on that.
Laurie:
>Noel Pearson , whatever his motives, has been interpreted as putting the
>onus on the victims to improve their situation.
Yes, this is how he has been interpreted, by you and plenty of other
supporters of Indigenous rights and also by Howard and his cronies. I think
it is an unfair interpretation and that Pearson actually blames the racist
application of welfare (not welfare itself) for Indigenous difference
advantage - that is, welfare was applied differently in Indigenous
communities than in white communities. He writes: "The problem of my people
in Cape York Peninsula is that we have only
experienced the income support that is payable to the permanently unemployed
and marginalised. I call this "passive welfare" to distinguish it from the
welfare proper, that is, when the working taxpayers collectively finance
systems aimed at the their own and their families' security and development.
The immersion of a whole region like Aboriginal Cape York Peninsula into
dependence on passive welfare is different from the mainstream experience of
welfare."
He also writes: "Our social problems do not emanate from an
innate incapacity on the part of our people. Our social problems are not
endemic, they have not always been with us. We are not a hopeless or
imbecile people."
None of this sounds like blaming the victim or even suggesting that the onus
is on the victim to fix things up. His real complaint is that all
"solutions" to date have been anything but and we need some new thinking.
He identifies one possible course - welfare reform - by which he means
improving it, not cutting it.
Laurie:
>We all have a right not to be misinterpreted, but there are other ways to
>say, " Our motivation to welfare reform must be based on the principle
that
>dependency and passivity are a scourge and must be avoided at all cost.
>Dependency and passivity kills people and is the surest road to social
>decline. Australians do not have an inalienable right to dependency, they
>have an inalienable right to a fair place in the real economy".
>
>All that is perfectly true, but the inference is there for the taking that
>the villian of the piece is welfare dependency and not the conditions that
>have been imposed on Aboriginal people that have led to their disadvantaged
>position.
>
>Pearson could have said, "Don't think that the miserly pittance of welfare
>that you are handing out goes anywhere near accomplishing a just outcome
for
>my people----you keep this up and it could be "burn, baby, burn."
As usual, I'm not quite sure if I follow this. I think you are saying he
could've said something like your version instead of what he actually said?
But the two statements (his and your prefered version) are not saying the
same thing; they are not synonomous. So I guess he could have said
something different, but I guess he just wanted to say what he did say. I
don't really know. Besides, what he did say, you agree with ("All that is
perfectly true"). So I'm not quite sure what your complaint is? It seems
to be two-fold - that he should've said something else and that, even though
you agree with what he DID say, it had unfortunate implications, though
presumably only for those who chose to read the implications in the way you
do?
The implications, you say, are "that the villian of the piece is welfare
dependency and not the conditions that
>have been imposed on Aboriginal people that have led to their disadvantaged
>position."
I think you are right - or at least, it is a reasonable inference to take -
that he is saying that welfare dependency is a "villian". But I don't think
you are right in inferring that he is saying that we shouldn't care about
"conditions that have been imposed on Aboriginal people that have led to
their disadvantaged
>position." I suspect he knows about this.
Again it raises the question of whether welfare dependency is in fact a
villian or whether we needn't bother about it until "the Invaders who have
the power----they have to change their attitudes
>towards Aboriginal people".
My guess (without really knowing) is that he thinks it might take too long
to get that (changed attitudes) and in the meantime he would like to treat
something he sees as a problem, namely, welfare dependency. I suspect he
probably thinks you are being too optimistic in suggesting that "the
immediate change must
be made by the majority of the non-Aboriginal community". Maybe he doesn't
hold out much hope for "immediate" change in this regard? So I think you
are saying that the invaders "attitudes towards Aboriginal people" has to be
addressed first and that stuff like welfare dependency will then take care
of itself. And I guess he is saying he thinks it might be better to to go
after welfare dependency and its attendent problems (as he sees them) first.
My opinion would be that you probably have to do both together and to the
extent that Pearson opened up the debate into something like welfare
dependency (which is different from the use of welfare for positive benefit)
then he's done a good thing.
Laurie:
>To my eye, Pearson appears to have given this majority a temporary excuse
to
>avoid their responsibility.
Two hundred years of history says they didn't need Pearson to give them that
excuse, and it is therefore a tad unfair to blame him for it now.
Laurie:
>I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
Agree completely.
Cheers
Tim
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
