Hi Don
Journalistically speaking it's neither necessary nor conventional to identify anyone by race unless critical to the point being made or story being told. An often argued point, I guess, but it gets a mention in the code of ethics:
15 Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief or physical or mental disability.
The rest of it is at http://www.ijnet.org/Code_of_Ethics2/Australian_Journalists__Association_and_the_MEAA_AJA0.html
Cheers...Christine
----------
From: "Don Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [recoznet2] words
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 9:58 PM
It often amazes me, the wording used by some.
In this article we read of "Aden Ridgeway the Democrat's Aboriginal Senator"
What about Aden Ridgeway the Democrat Senator who is Aboriginal - if you had
to write the latter.
Am I just a little paranoid these days about all this??? And it still seems
to be said by those most talking about reconciliation.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trudy Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "news-clip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 12:06 PM
Subject: The Australian: Reconciliation requires representation
The Australian
Reconciliation requires representation
By DUNCAN CAMPBELL
06feb01
RECONCILIATION is in limbo,
its resurrection dependent on
the new independent
foundation, Reconciliation
Australia. Missing most from
the reconciliation movement's
amorphous aspirations is an overall public strategy to serve as a
touchstone for progress and to expose tokenism.
Before the crowds cross bridges around Australia again their
support should be directed to clearer goals.
To accept that there can be no reconciliation without
representation would be a basic beginning. A century on, the
omission of the first Australians from the compact of Federation
is confronting. They are not yet represented in positions of
substantive strength anywhere.
A welcome was extended to the rest of us in their name at the
poorly attended re-enactment on January 1 of the first swearing
in of a governor-general in 1901 in Sydney's Centennial Park. But
the welcoming role given to an Aboriginal leader was a token
gesture short even of an obligatory piece of official protocol. It
made no amends for the past. Later cultural events on that day
were, as those to follow throughout the year will be, just stage
shows.
Last September, Cathy Freeman's example and the opening of
the Games made us feel and look better, but nothing else
changed. I do not detract from such events by saying that,
unfortunately, they allow us to take pride in Aboriginal
achievement without feeling ashamed to do so.
Australia cannot continue to capitalise on Aboriginal traditions and
performances and then, until the next spectacle, turn away
carelessly from immoral mortality rates among young Aborigines.
If an action undertaken in the name of reconciliation does not
truly make an advance towards the threshold of elevating the
status of the first Australians, it should be seen as tokenism. The
whole "say sorry" episode belongs sadly in this category. It is
doubtful that it changed the state of conscience of any
individuals. Those who said sorry were already so inclined.
On the other hand it diverted much energy and goodwill into
vacuous frustration - all around. When the Howard Government
was promoting practical measures in the bush, who was asking
whether the people in need would respond to what they were
about to receive? Who championed self-government during the
sorry saga, and who wallowed in self-righteousness?
The issue of a treaty is in the same sorry category. Most
argument about a treaty or comparable device proceeds without
reference to possible treaty provisions. The notion generally is
too legalistic. It would steer the future of reconciliation towards
litigation and away from legislation.
Granted that the Aboriginal cause has made recent progress
through the courts, it can only get away from special pleading and
on to a more positive footing through the politics of persuasion.
The treaty course will end as it began, in contention.
Sorry words, of institutional repentance or individual regret, will
turn sour tomorrow unless they articulate the actions of a nation
ashamed.
Surely reconciliation is not a line in the sand or a line of apology,
but a process likely to persist during the second century of
Federation. The challenge to conciliators is to establish practical
machinery for that process. Fred Chaney and Shelley Reys, as
co-chairs of Reconciliation Australia, take up their moral and
political leadership task in earnest early this month. Later,
between February 16 and 18, comes an independently organised
brainstorming poll in Canberra.
The impact of Aden Ridgeway, the Democrats' Aboriginal senator
from NSW, is instructive. His presence in Federal Parliament
automatically provided a dialogue partner for John Howard and
substantive negotiated outcomes ensued. The Senate, with its
symbolic representational status, is the key to the creation of
representation for reconciliation. Several more first Australian
senators would make a difference.
Howard acknowledges the special place of indigenous peoples in
national life. Chaney and Reys are already addressing what that
actually means constitutionally and legally.
Constitutional amendments for reserved parliamentary seats for
Aborigines will take time. The South Australian concept of an
extra-territorial upper-house electorate (Susan Mitchell, Opinion,
January 23) is one conceivable avenue I canvassed earlier for a
national Aboriginal constituency (Opinion, December 12, 1997).
Interim Aboriginal representation in the Senate is, however, in the
gift of the main political parties now.
Why can't the Coalition and Labor in bipartisan spirit each place
an Aboriginal candidate safely on one of their Senate slates in
2001? Such positive discrimination could help atone for 1901 and
animate the reconciliation process.
Duncan Campbell is a former diplomat who comments on current
affairs.
*************************************************************************
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."
|
