News

Feb 16, 2012

Aboriginal protests: grassroots activism v boardroom blackfellas

In the wash-up of the Tent Embassy debacle, a few opportunities have emerged. The most important is a discussion – particularly among young Aboriginal people – about a way forward.

Chris Graham

Tracker managing editor

In the months before he died, Chicka Dixon, one of the most loved and respected Aboriginal leaders of the modern era, would host a weekly meeting at his Sydney home with young and up-and-coming Aboriginal men and women. One of the central messages Chicka wanted to get out was this: “The days of marching on the streets are over. You have to beat them in the boardroom.”

17 comments

Leave a comment

17 thoughts on “Aboriginal protests: grassroots activism v boardroom blackfellas

  1. Whistleblower

    The alienation of so-called indigenous Australians is largely self-inflicted because of their unwillingness to adapt to the social requirements necessary to participate in the modern world economy. There are plenty of opportunities for advancement, but these are squandered on the presumption that somehow or other being of aboriginal descent make one a special case. Therefore they theydon’t have to adapt to changing circumstances in terms of education, social and vocational skills, but can gain identity by claiming victimhood.

    There should be no battle in the boardroom or the streets. The battle is in the minds of the alienated. Until they learn to adapt to a different way of living involving integration into Australian society, they will continue to be marginalised largely on a self-selection basis, aided and abetted by parasitical left-wing activists who boost their own self-esteem by promoting indigenous victimhood as a means of self-expression.

  2. Mr Marrickville

    Mr Graham has a habit of referring to non-indigenous Australians as ‘white’ in his articles.

    Considering that a large number of non-indigenous Australians are not white it is not clear who he is talking about when he talks about ‘whites’ and ‘whitefellas’.

    I assume he means people of Irish, Welsh, Scottish and English descent.

    What about people from continental Europe (west and east and the Mediterranean)?

    What about people from the Middle East?

    What about people from Asia and Oceania?.

    What about people from Africa?

    If he is arguing that non-indigenous Australians with white skins are racist but non-indigenous Australians who do not have white skin are not could make that clear and explain the basis for the claim. There are plenty of non-white non-indigenous Australians who have strong views about people of different backgrounds – invariably former neighbours in their or their parents homelands.

    If he thinks that all non-indigenous Australians are racist and racist specifically towards indigenous Australians he should describe the issue as being racism by non-indigenous Australians rather than ‘white’ Australians in particular.

  3. Lyn Gain

    A thoughtful article Chris. But I don’t think you have given enough emphasis to the corruptive effects on the boardroom blackfellas of mixing with the whitefella power brokers. This is a very complex issue, in both black and white society, whether to do ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ advocacy. I teach advocacy and social change, and remind my undergraduates how important it is for the advocates to take the people affected with them, and make sure everyone supports the message. This is, of course, a great deal easier said than done. There seems to be considerable dislocation between the boardroom blackfellas and the grassroots activists. It could be a gut reaction or a thought-through position on the likelihood of achieving real social change through revolution or through reform. I am reminded of a 1999 article by Garry Foley on reconciliation. http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/essay_6.htm. This is still valid, as is an alternative pro reform view – both of which I still use as readings. Working together is certainly the way to go, but how realistic is this, for either blackfellas or whitefellas with different views about what works. Which groups do you think are most likely to be reading Crikey?

  4. Whistleblower

    @Cyndi

    You really need to be more explicit in your question. Let me amplify my position.

    In my opinion, a significant proportion of the the so-called indigenous problem is an intractable issue born out of a desire to cling to a form of identity which is antipathetic towards participation in a modern economy.

    The first main issue is physical isolation. Substantial remnants of so-called indigenous culture are in isolated areas of low economic value in terms of goods and services production. This isolation mitigates against effective healthcare and education.

    Most mainstream Australians understand that education is the key to social dignity and the ability for one to earn a living. Clinging to outmoded tribal customs, non- mainstream languages, and fragmented cultural values must make it difficult for so-called indigenous children to remain competitive in educational environment if they are isolated from a broader peer group.

    Anybody who really cares about aboriginal welfare would be working to physically integrate aboriginal communities into mainstream Australian society. This would require relocation away from tribal homelands into urban centres.

    It would involve exposing aboriginal children to all of the benefits to be derived from vocational employment rather than living on welfare. However anybody trying to facilitate such an arrangement would be accused of creating another stolen generation.

    This reminds me about the old joke about how many social workers does it take to change a light bulb. The answer is of course that the light bulb has to want to be changed.

    So it is with the indigenous community, it has to want to change and has to manage the change itself. Until enough indigenous leaders come to the fore and recommend this type of solution to the rest of the indigenous community as a desirable pathway, a significant proportion of the money being spent on indigenous welfare is being swallowed up by bureaucracy and spinning of wheels. There is very little advantage to be gained from taking an adversarial position which only reinforces the egos of activists.

    I am more than happy to be told that my position is wrong, but I expect constructive debate rather than four word challenges with no substance.

  5. Mark Regan

    Wow Whistleblower you make a complicated social and political issue seem so simple. Thank God for good old common sense hey So, Aboriginals are alienated because of their ‘unwillingness to adapt to the social requirements necessary to participate in the modern world economy’. I get it now. Its their fault! If only Aboriginal people in isolated communities
    WANTED to become hedge-fund managers or chemical engineers. Because there are ‘plenty of opportunities for advancement,’ you said so, but you conveniently don’t say what these are. Well never mind, here’s your second paragraph all steeped in tough love and common sense.

    And what a paragraph! I can tell you’ve really thought about this issue and perhaps discussed it with some of your friends.
    Whistleblower, its as though you are speaking from the year 1890. Since then a man called Durkheim… oh whats the point?

  6. daiskmeliadorn

    This seems like a problematic article for a “whitefella” to be writing.

    I’m not sure Aboriginal activists should really have “media cut-through” as their main objective when the media relentlessly and almost without exception ignore any positively-framed message (as Chris Graham pointed out in his article yesterday – the thousand? 2000? strong rally had zero media presence).

    A lot of Aboriginal people, and I suspect many of those Chris describes being very drunk and abusive, are desperately poor, and we all recognise totally alienated by most of Australia’s institutions. Sure it would be a great media strategy for those people to sober up and be nice and respectable. But they probably have bigger worries – and it’s whitefellas’ responsibility to try and address those. It’s hard to argue it’s our role to police Aboriginal peoples’ behaviour, and encourage some Aboriginal activists to disown those who are obviously struggling.

    Hopefully Chris would argue that’s not what he is suggesting, but it looks to me like the direciton his argument leads.

  7. Phen

    Mark – I think its fair to assume that getting more aboriginal children motivated to want to become mechanics and secretaries would be a good starting point before chemical engineers and hedge-fund managers. Even these modest goals are out of reach when people grow up in a culture of welfare dependency and victimhood complexes.

  8. Lyn Gain

    I think you’re making a valid point Daiskmeliadorn. I, for one, am not an outraged Australian. It is important to understand that the frustrations which lead to what Chris calls ‘disgraceful’ behaviour arise from 40 years plus of inappropriate action, and an attempt to co-opt the well behaved blackfellas into the system. Why is it disgraceful to see real people behaving with real passion. And as for some other comments, I have never heard such patronising eurocentric twaddle in my life. I assume Phen is not a secretary or a mechanic. And, Whistleblower simply assumes that the dominant society’s obsession with competitive economic ‘progress’ is preferable to an indigenous valuing of wisdom and harmony with the land.

  9. Chris Graham

    @ Whistleblower: You could have saved a lot of time and energy (and strain on the environment) by just writing, “Aboriginal culture is shit, and Aboriginal people should assimilate”. Mind you, you would have been rightfully ignored. But then were anyway, so no harm done, I suppose.

    @Daiskmeliadorn: Some fair points you raise. And it is problematic coming from a whitefella. I was very mindful of that when I wrote it. And I normally don’t write that sort of stuff, but having been as involved as I was at the Embassy, and seeing what I saw, I felt obliged to offer an honest assessment. It was a difficult piece to write (and in fact the original is much much longer, and tied together with the piece Crikey published yesterday).

    I’m not suggesting Aboriginal people disown those that are struggling (although I accept it could be read that way). The individuals I’m mostly referring to are not poor – they’ve been part of the Aboriginal struggle for a long time. They’ve contributed a lot, but they’ve often gotten their way through aggression and bullying. In fact several of them have benefitted more than most from it. I saw first-heand the impact these people had on other Aboriginal people during the course of events – Aboriginal people who were there for the same reason as them, but got threatened and shouted down. I also made the point in the article that it was a very small minority, but that because of Australia’s inherent racism, they do enormous damage to the ’cause’. That is a sad reality, whether we like it or not. And granted, it is for Aboriginal people to police, not me. But it’s a discussion that has to be had.

    Overall, I was trying to write the piece from a media management perspective (as I was worked as the ‘spin doctor’ for the Embassy). What I think a lot of people miss is that ATSIC, for example, wasn’t abolished because it was corrupt, or because it lost some ‘political war’. It lost the public relations war.

    All that said, I do take the points you and Lyn have made, and appreciate the thoughts that have gone into them.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...