Opinion Adam Goodes

[The Anchorite]

I can tell you that living in Africa and northern India for long periods have exposed me to racism on many incredibly personal levels. I Lived there as the son of a midwife (mum) who was trying to train midwives as 1/4 children in Africa die at birth from complications that could have been avoided if there was a trained midwife. My mother and many others were treated both amazingly well and at times with a cruelty that goes beyond what is mentionable on this board. And despite that continued too and still work to practically sustainably help. I was not aligning myself with anyone but simply trying to promote discussion. In order to promote discussion one must listen to others. As for proof of any of this pm me mate and you can visit or come on a trip with me to Orissa or now Mozambique where our clinics are.

That sounds awful mate and I'm sorry it happened. I've no doubt you and your mum are doing good work. I don't know why you'd want to call it racism though - surely you're part of a privileged group, which is why you're able to try to help?

 

[Stronzo]

Only if that is the deliberate aim. For example, full blood Tasmanians basically went extinct because white settlers kept abducting and raping their women until there were hardly any full blooded kids being born. But it wasn;t a deliberate act of genocide - they were doing it because there were no other women in Tasmania.

Yes, but the breeding out of Indigenous people from the quotes I've given you does pertain to a deliberate act. As does child removal.

 

[ydraw]

Yes, but the breeding out of Indigenous people from the quotes I've given you does pertain to a deliberate act. As does child removal.

But where did that happen?

IIRC that was a deliberate policy by the English towards the scots and Irish, but never towards aboriginals. The stolen generation involved taking usually half-caste children from their single mothers. They didn't take away children from married couples or from full blood couples. And it was done out of concern for child welfare rather than the deliberate intention to destroy the race. Despite what one guy might have written in his journal.

 

[jmadrox]

Only if that is the deliberate aim. For example, full blood Tasmanians basically went extinct because white settlers kept abducting and raping their women until there were hardly any full blooded kids being born. But it wasn;t a deliberate act of genocide - they were doing it because there were no other women in Tasmania.

i just dont have words....

i'm done.

Thanks for the good discussion.
/unsubbed.

 

[Borderline]

That sounds awful mate and I'm sorry it happened. I've no doubt you and your mum are doing good work. I don't know why you'd want to call it racism though - surely you're part of a privileged group, which is why you're able to try to help?

If they were targeted due to their race it was racism. If a poor white man attacks a rich black man for his race that's still racism.

 

[The Anchorite]

If they were targeted due to their race it was racism. If a poor white man attacks a rich black man for his race that's still racism.

And if a poor black child insults his rich white owner based on the colour of the latter's skin - is that still racism too? It's just obfuscating the actual structures of power in effect.

 

[Stronzo]

But where did that happen?

IIRC that was a deliberate policy by the English towards the scots and Irish, but never towards aboriginals. The stolen generation involved taking usually half-caste children from their single mothers. They didn't take away children from married couples or from full blood couples. And it was done out of concern for child welfare rather than the deliberate intention to destroy the race. Despite what one guy might have written in his journal.

Trying to breed out the colour of Indigenous people was the stated claim from what I quoted for you. And part of the motivation for removing children.

 

[Borderline]

And if a poor black child insults his rich white owner based on the colour of the latter's skin - is that still racism too? It's just obfuscating the actual structures of power in effect.

Yes? Racism is racism.

 

[The Anchorite]

Yes? Racism is racism.

Huh.

 

[Square Peg]

And if a poor black child insults his rich white owner based on the colour of the latter's skin - is that still racism too? It's just obfuscating the actual structures of power in effect.

Of course it can be racist, it all depends on context
A colleague of mine spent ten years working as a doctor in and around the pintinjarra lands, he went there because of his deep affection for aboriginal people and their culture though he has now returned burnt out. He is way more materially (though perhaps not culturally) privileged than any of the people he treated, but he has pretty open about the racist attitude of some of the lands people. As he put it, there are different connotations between being told to "f**k off" and "f**k off you white c**t"

 

[Righteo]

Get your parting shots in soon folks, after 28 pages I think most people have said what they needed to say and the arguments have become rather circular.

Further debate can be found in the AG thread on the main board.

 

[The Anchorite]

Of course it can be racist, it all depends on context
A colleague of mine spent ten years working as a doctor in and around the pintinjarra lands, he went there because of his deep affection for aboriginal people and their culture though he has now returned burnt out. He is way more materially (though perhaps not culturally) privileged than any of the people he treated, but he has pretty open about the racist attitude of some of the lands people. As he put it, there are different connotations between being told to "f**k off" and "f**k off you white campaigner"

Sure, and there are different connotations - and material impacts - between your doctor colleague being told to "* off you white campaigner" and one of his patients being told to "* off you black campaigner" by a white policeman.

I doubt he thinks that what verbal abuse he might have received is really on the same level as the economic and political disenfranchisement that his medical practice was working to alleviate or counter.

 

[pavsbootlace]

Let Ross have the last word.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-07-31/ignorane-is-no-excuse-lyon

 

[Square Peg]

Sure, and there are different connotations - and material impacts - between your doctor colleague being told to "**** off you white campaigner" and one of his patients being told to "**** off you black campaigner" by a white policeman.

I doubt he thinks that what verbal abuse he might have received is really on the same level as the economic and political disenfranchisement that his medical practice was working to alleviate or counter.

No he doesn't, but political and economic disenfranchisement and racism are not always the same thing. One is not a precondition for the other, though they often co-exist. The anti-Asian racism in Australia of the 80's and 90's was directed towards a group that were hardly economically disenfranchised.

 

[poshman]

That sounds awful mate and I'm sorry it happened. I've no doubt you and your mum are doing good work. I don't know why you'd want to call it racism though - surely you're part of a privileged group, which is why you're able to try to help?

Thanks mate. Privileged in Australia... my parents never earned more than a combined 31k a year. Through the 80's for accuracy sake never more than 19k. They fundraised and saved to give most of what they had.

I say racism because in both Africa and Orissa sexual and physical assaults took place that were targetted at the White aid workers. Two white midwives training 30 Africans/Indians and they were specifically targetted for the abuse. This was and is still sadly a reoccurring problem.

As for me I never went to a private school and was privileged because despite only ever wearing hand me downs or volley shoes which had to last the year (all the rage these days the volkeys) I got to go and help others in a sustainable way.

I have since been able to build businesses and look after my parents and soon will be able to take them off the pension. My businesses now fund indirectly and directly a much more widespread and sustainable approach than my parents ever managed.

This all after my first three businesses failed dismally! Because well at the time I sucked at business!

I have sat with elders and law enforcement with rage in my heart and mind as innocence was stolen and had to learn as i have been advocating here that despite the hurt and sense of grave injustice communication and discussion must be sought. I've also learnt that sometimes it feels like you can try for (literally) years and one act due to consistency and generosity can start to break down the walls between race/class/culture. I understand the anger some here have at what they read.. I would just always encourage patient ongoing open discussion as from what I've been able to discover it's the only way forward. And as its that improvement we are after and not to further hurt or repay it in kind then those of us passionate about the issue should if at all posdible engage the discussion no matter how foolish we think the individual is. Anyway getting essay like now. Cheers!

 

[Malifice]

Only if that is the deliberate aim. For example, full blood Tasmanians basically went extinct because white settlers kept abducting and raping their women until there were hardly any full blooded kids being born. But it wasn;t a deliberate act of genocide - they were doing it because there were no other women in Tasmania to rape. And it certainly wasn't a government policy. It was the action of ex-criminals who had no real fear of repurcussions from the law for doing it. Although a lot of them got speared for it, which led to more retaliatory attacks, etc.

Just because the state didn't order the systemic rapes (that you agree took place) doesn't make the systemic rapes... Not systemic.

Your argument seems to be 'because the citizens of the new state may have taken it upon themselves to kill and rape the inhabitants to extinction, this doesn't amount to genocide'

Which is (of course) incorrect.

What's your view if (for example) Indonesia came to Tasmania today, took all the land off the Tasmanians, settled it with their own people (at gunpoint) denied Tasmanians a vote or any say in the political process, implemented policies and laws that removed children, broke up families, extinguished culture and pre existing laws, customs and religion, all while the Indonesian settlers engaged in systemic rape and mass killings of Tasmanians - and simultaneously imposed a different language, religion, laws and customs on the Tasmanians. Does this (to you) amount to 'genocide'?

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you are wholly wrong in this case.

You might want to argue semantics, but there is more important work to be done in reconciliation and looking at means to address the entrenched disadvantage that a few centuries of the above environment has caused.

 

[Eski3]

I posted my take on the main board but it quickly got swallowed up in the several hundred page megathread.

The fact is the majority of people booing him are not doing it for racist reasons. A very small minority are booing him because they don't like him as an aboriginal man. However, when the rest of the people boo him, they are giving the racist people the go ahead to be racist at the footy. They are siding with the racists and going "Yeah go on, he's a flog anyway". It's that green light for the *******s to be racist that means that although the booing may be for innocent reasons, it needs to stop it when it comes to Adam Goodes.

To me the biggest point to come out is that supporter who got ejected for telling Goodes to "go back to the zoo", then just tried to claim is was part of the banter that was going on. The majority of people obviously weren't telling Goodes to go back to the zoo, they were booing him and calling him a flog. But because of that, he thought it was ok to be overtly racist towards Goodes, and couldn't see anything wrong with it because everyone was calling him a flog and booing him. THAT is why the booing has to stop, even it's for innocent non-racist reasons.

 

[Malifice]

The most common word to describe it in both history texts and in general is "War". The Black War.

War precludes Genocide hey? Far from it, war and genocide go hand in hand.

So you agree that Australia Day really is 'Invasion day'?

 

[Moo]

Get your parting shots in soon folks, after 28 pages I think most people have said what they needed to say and the arguments have become rather circular.

Further debate can be found in the AG thread on the main board.

You're closing the thread?

Booooooooo

 

[Kram]

 

[clogged]

BOOOOO RITEO

 

[Righteo]

You're closing the thread?

Booooooooo

Yes, sooooooooooon



And on that dreadful pun, we are done.