Decolonizing Solidarity Dilemmas and Directions System

Question: Discuss about the Decolonizing Solidarity for Dilemmas and Directions System. Answer: Introduction This speech is retrospective in its approach weaving a fine line between personal sentiments and the official government position on aboriginal affairs. The obvious failure to tackle the problem of discrimination and the disenfranchisement of the aboriginal people is clearly. The PM makes no apology of this fact by saying in the test which so far we have always failed. This would then make the assumption that he is referring to the previous failed attempts of segregation and assimilation, which were a total failure. The above admission is the reality of the race relations that tend to stereotype and disregard the indigenous people of Australia. This is an acknowledgement that the old racism of violence and verbal abuse has been replaced by a new racism of cultural inferiority and is manifested in everyday disregard for the aboriginal people. The media in particular have contributed to this failure by portraying the indigenous people as thieves, alcoholics, prone to violence and law breakers that lead to incarceration. . The policy approach the speech is taking on is that of greater self-determination with reconciliation as the bedrock of this policy. The direct reference to the Torres Strait Island people, the obvious and glaring discrimination is given a human face, rather than generalization of the whole topic. The PM shows the intermingling of racial thought from pre- and post- evolutionist theory and the merging of physical, moral and cultural judgments common in the nineteenth century Australia (Hollinsworth, 2006, p.100). The policy is slowly unwrapped by first giving a historical overview of the historical root of the government shortcomings. The debate that centers on the aboriginal people is the unspoken national shame of the Australian people. The modern nationhood of Australia is founded by immigrant settlers who came in and disposed the indigenous population. The history of Australia is not complete without intertwining the historical injustices against the Aboriginal people. The term aboriginal was first used by the British as early as 1820 to refer to any group of people that were different from the white people. The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed the construction and naturalization of hegemonic ideas of racial exclusivity and superiority amongst British settlers, which remain influential today. (Hollinsworth, 2006, p.79).The difference was based on physical characteristics as well as language. The federal labor government that was led by Gough Whitlam had adopted a policy of self-determination for the indigenous population in the 70s. The problem of this policy was in the interpretation of what se lf-determination entails, with the rejection of the idea of sovereignty and self government. The interpretation that has been used in Australia is different from the internationally accepted definition which is premised on a people deciding their own political status. This speech is written more from a justified position than from the position of a true reconciliation between the two sides which have been contrary. The logos of the speech look good on paper, but are weak in the ethos, in that the person giving the speech is part and parcel of the problem. The presentation of the paper is based on political gymnastics which is propped up by extensive use of semantics and politically correct language, The target audience in the speech is the world media at large and the speech is aimed at showing the position of the government that it is doing something on the ground. It is written with tokenism in mind, trying to throw in bits and pieces of the new found largess from the government. The gathered audience included some diplomats, friends of the aborigine and their social cause as well as the larger Australian community. Knowing full well the speech would be broadcast; the speech is trying to bridge a divide of the aboriginals while at the same time trying to assuage the guilt factor of the mainstream white Australian population. Highlighting the Mabo case is an exercise of displaying a trophy to which the winner did not in any way participate in. Dispossession of land was based on racism on the social construct of Darwinism. ( Hollinsworth, 2006).This case was an isolated case in the greater dispensation of injustice by dispossessing the indigenous Australians of their ancestral land under the guise of terra nullius (Sarra, 2014).The length of time that this case took of ten years is hardly case for any celebration but shows the endemic and systemic institutionalization of discrimination in Australian life. The speech is weak on fundamental deliverables that can be implemented into meaningful action. By citing the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the double-speak intended comes out clearly in the next lines of the speech. First he states that the report was devastating yet with a dismissive off the cuff remark also says I do not believe that the report should fill us with guilt.This brings out the classic posturing that has been the hallmark of successive administrations. This much talked about report is not the first of its kind to have been undertaken and presented with much fanfare, but little substance in action. He opines that guilt is not a constructive emotion, which to the contrary is an emotion that can bring change if well used. The projected improvements he is positing for the aboriginal people are all abstract and cannot be quantified or verified. This is meant to appeal to the emotion but an analysis void of emotion would uncover the emptiness of the speech. It is rhetorically heavy as would be expected of most politicians, but sketchy in substance. The much touted Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation is shown to be the panacea for all the problems facing the Aboriginal people, yet no figures are given as supporting evidence of its ability to deliver. Is there a budget set aside for it, what is the basis for the operation legally and many unanswered questions. The political representation of the aboriginal people is still minimal considering that they account for a paltry 3% of the total population of Australia. This token representation started in both State and territorial parliaments started in 1971 with the election of Neville Bonner as the first Aboriginal person to sit in the Commonwealth parliament. ( Land, 2015).The first attempts to establish representative structures of the Torres Islander and Aboriginal people started in the 70s, resulting in giving them limited executive powers. The obvious miscarriage of justice is pointed out by saying that there is nothing to fear or lose in the recognition of historical truth The historical perpetrators of historical injustice are being given collective amnesty from persecution, in the event that the law might call for custodial sentencing of such offenders. The effort to protect Aboriginal people was half hearted, compromised and ineffectual. (Hollinsworth, 2006, p.99).The status quo is set to continue with the stolen land and resources being forever forfeited by the true owners. Conclusion This speech has managed to validate historical claims that there was a colonial and postcolonial policy of discrimination against the Aboriginal and the Torres islanders. The assertion that it now that they are taking charge of their lives is an admission that the status was different during the colonial and postcolonial Australia. The contributions to sports and culture are muted without specifics. This speech being given almost 70 years after independence is an indictment to the veracity of the claims of institutionalized discrimination as a policy. The institutionalized settler interest is not challenged and the speech takes on a vague and ambivalent tone to this sensitive area. There is a continnum of what Hollinsworth shows is an old mindset: .The general view was that little could be done to arrest their deterioration while they remained among the colonists. Increasingly indigenous people were blamed for their fate.(Hollinsworth, 2006, p.97).The general view was that little an After considerable pontification on how the settlers took the land, brought the diseases, practiced discrimination ad infinitum, the speech comes short in directly challenging the vested interests of the status quo. The settlers interest is not challenged by suggesting that perhaps some Aboriginal tracts of land should be returned, knowing that this is a potential minefield. The speech is toned down so as not to be seen as combative and challenging to the settler interest. The speech offers a glimmer of hope to the Aboriginal people and the Torres islanders in reference to the ATSIC that the speech touches on. The proof is strengthened by pointing out that there are already over 800 selected Aboriginal Regional Councilors and Commissioners working with the greater latitude of freedom. The line that demarcates self-management and self determination is a very thin line. There is an obvious grey line which emerges as the Aboriginal people are left in the dark as to whether they are moving to self-determination or self-management. The personal resolve of the PM in his last concluding words are probably the only take away that the reader will go home with, the rest of the speech having been a long rewinding of history from the perspective of a politician. References Hollinsworth, D. (2006).Race and racism in Australia, (4) 79,97, 99,100.South Melbourne : Thomson/Social Science Press Land, C. (2015). Decolonizing solidarity: Dilemmas and directions for supporters of indigenous struggles. London: Zed Books. Sarra, C. (2014). Strong and Smart- Towards Pedagogy for Emancipation: Education for First Peoples. Routledge.