Andrew Bolt, herald sun columnist is currently on trial for 'insulting' white skinned aboriginals who's identity is claimed on the basis of a 3 part test which includes:
1/-Racial/Ethnicity "Bloodline"
2/-Community Acceptance
3/-Self identity.
I would like to suggest that 2 and 3 are meaningless unless there is a healthy dose of "1".
It seems a bit absurd also, that in his opening attack on Bolt's "eugenics" approach, Mr Merkel QC claimed that genetics teaches us that there is no such thing as 'Race'...hmmm if that's so, what's all the fuss and their lawsuit about? Surely makes you wonder.
As I said to 3 white skinned Aboriginals outside the court, "I have 3 mixed race children and an indigenous wife"
If my children embraced an identity which denied my existence and bloodline, I would be very very deeply hurt. If my children called themselves anything other than "mixed..Aussie/Indigenous" it would be hurtful to me.
It seems to me that to deny the bloodline of your father or mother is a very ill considered and insensitive decision to make. Especially when to the unrelated tax paying observer of the benefits situation, the likelihood of pecuniary motives of such a stance is quite high.
Mr Merkels rambling on about how "holocaust" like eugenics is.. does not change the fact one iota that most people define themselves by their bloodline and phenotypal characteristics. In countries where the racial mix is more precarious, such as perhaps Malaysia.. the identity one has is VERY significant in terms of economic and political opportunity.
If you are a Bumi Putera.. you have access to easy finance from Bank Bumi Putera and many land rights based protections as well.
So, in Australia substantial benefits are available to anyone identifying as 'Aboriginal'.
Andrew Bolts articles highlighted the issue of a number of fair skinned people some of whom had very little aboriginal 'blood' in them as we normally understand that term, with the most extreme example being of the 2 people who's great grandfather, who was Indian, but married a half aboriginal woman...and are claiming aboriginality. I suppose if I looked hard enough, like back to the 13th century, I could be 'French' by that method. I tend to agree with mr Bolt..that any 'race' based laws are divisive and in fact produce the sad outcome that we now see in the federal court.
This raises some as yet unanswered questions. What "race" were the spouses of their parents? (the great grandchildren referred to above) We don't know, so we cannot really speculate. All we can do is accept that it is a legitimate public interest issue, that people can claim aboriginality with the most tenuous or remote blood line, and that there are significant benefits available to Aboriginal people. How those well established facts connect to such things as motive and reaons.. only "He" who is all knowing knows for sure. (but everyone else will probably be making a few snide guesses at the local pub-given what we'people' are like.)
As even Mr Merkel for the complainants said "We can have our opinions" but how we express them is the issue. Indeed. Mr Bolt appears to have used perhaps more cynicism than required by the facts, but I don't personally feel he overstepped the mark in terms of the Racial Discrimination Act.
No amount of court cases or law suits will stop people 'thinking' what Bolt openly alluded to, or..to use Merkel QC's words "Inferred, Implied, Imputed". So....what in the world is the value for the community of trying to trample Bolt into the ground ? I can't see any.
Take my own grandaughter. She is "English/Scottish/Bornean/Ngapuhi (Maori)" not that she thinks much about 'identity' at 4 yrs of age. It would be rather sad that in later life she simply chose the one which gave the best financial outcome based on racist government policy. Our extended family raises her as 'a person'.
No comments:
Post a Comment