Its ok to be white?

I disagree.

It leaves people with room to move. If you also assume that other people may know things that you don’t, then you’ve also left room for yourself to move.

This turns out to be even more important if you think you are dealing with people who do not have good intentions. It’s subtle. Try playing out a few scenarios in your head and see how they work out. I described one such scenario earlier in relation to the handling of the Hanson bill itself.

Dear Andrew, no offence taken, I just wanted to clarify that it does take ongoing effort and I am by no means an authority on issues I do not live on a daily basis and only occupied myself with in recent years. I’d like to add that, as much as I can empathize with some of the experiences that are demography-specific, I will never know what the experience is like in the same way they do, just as you can’t feel what it was like for me to fear imminent death by drowning for me and my brother if you haven’t had a similar experience. You can try to imagine and have a conceptual understanding of it, probably some feelings arising from that, but it will always be an outsider’s perspective.

Dear @jedb.

He remembers the fact in the same way that I remember that in 1789 the Bastille was stormed by the French poor to find only one or two prisoners. He doesn’t claim to have been there at the time. Your misinterpretation seems to show lack of a good faith approach already from the start.

I thought in a monarchy, only the queen (or king) is technically sovereign. But in any case, expecting colonized peoples to happily take on the identity of the colonizers and ditch their centuries-old struggle for self-determination is a bit rich to say the least. Remember that a few decades ago, Aboriginal people weren’t even considered human by the authorities, let alone Australian. In much the same way, I wouldn’t expect the Irish to be suddenly happy to be British either, even if there are some who jumped ship.

It is a riddle to me where you read anything about an ethnostate in Foley’s statement. I see no racial hate either, rather defiance against an oppressive government that insists on continuously taking charge of Aboriginal affairs without their consent (closing Homelands, stealing children, and still not reducing Indigenous deaths in custody, which are still disproportionally high), while it also has an increasingly oppressive attitude towards the general population.

With regard to rebellions, I was hoping you could find common ground in the recognition that the Australian government is illegitimate because it works against the interests of the people, which I’ve heard you say before.

2 Likes

I am excited about this.

I’m inclined to think otherwise. What we need is dialectic thinking about individual & group, seemingly contradictory concepts.

I have to agree with this analysis.

2 Likes

LoL, exactly what I wanted to write until I realized I was a less than 2h new user :smiley:

2 Likes

I’m game if you are.
Maybe in a new thread.

1 Like

Oh dear, no Jedb, that is the opposite of what i have said. I think there is a failure of comprehension at play here. Let me try one last time, just for you.

My claim is that biology can directly impact lived experience here in 21st century Australia. Therefore, in order to identify and dismantle structures of racism and patriarchal domination, lived experience, of racism and sexism, is a valid and important resource that can be harnessed for the purposes of deconstructing inequity which may not be otherwise discernible by those with no direct experience of either, for example, white males.

If that makes me in your eyes a racist, and presumably sexist too, then in the words of my teenage daughter…whatever.

Yes, lets return to the original motion. Andrew, i do not think you get to extract these words from context. Out of context, ‘it’s ok to be white,’ is a mundane and trivially superficial statement akin to saying ‘its ok to like the taste of apples,’ or ‘its ok to be 167cm tall.’ You cannot grasp the meaning of the words when they are decontextualised.

Pauline Hansen’s entire political career is built from racism. From ‘being swamped by Asians’ to wearing a burka to parliament. Barely a month ago, Fraser Anning called for a return to white Australia immigration. Add these recent utterances to our two hundred years of attempted genocide of first Australians - this is the context of ‘its ok to be white.’

That would indeed have been a preferable response to the coalition voting in favour of the motion but it woefully misses the point, again! It would have neutralised the statement to a degree but done nothing to address the underlying fact of white privilege. To say it’s ok to perpetuate white privilege, oh and it’s also ok to perpetuate black, brown and yellow privilege, when they don’t exist, is laughable.

Hansen is a racist and bigot and she represents a small portion of Australian society, i expect her to produce stuff like this. The best case scenario would have been for the government to laugh it off and vote against the motion, which they did not!

I’m returning to this point.

For starters, the government did not reject the motion but what I find horrifying here is your implication that identifying and calling out racism only works to recruit racists. What the fuck! Let’s not say anything about white racists because it will upset people and they might join the Nazis? Name one time in the last 120 years when this type of thinking worked out well.

‘First they came for the socialists…’

1 Like

Looking at it again I can see how that interpretation is valid, although I would still argue that talking about “memories” and then immediately saying “I remember” implies otherwise. But consider that comment withdrawn.

Maybe I’m just annoyed that I started out considering that he could actually have grievance from the 1950s, then looked him up and discovered that he grew up in the 1980s, had successful family, and was apparently raised as an activist.

Australia is supposedly a democracy, so in practice the citizens are sovereign regardless of a vestigial royalty that doesn’t actually do anything. The aborigines have just as much say in their own affairs as anyone else here. (Which isn’t anywhere near as much as I would like, of course.) It has nothing to do with identity and everything to do with the structure of how best the Australian people can fairly manage their affairs.

Everything about the aboriginal sovereignty movement that I’ve read or heard about involves trying to create an aboriginal nation or claim that there still exists an aboriginal nation separate from the rest of Australia, complete with territory disputes and the need for treaties. Foley’s statement is no exception.

Never mind that sovereignty is something that can be taken and defended by force, and does not have to be voluntarily given up to be extinguished. Never mind the large overlap of the distribution of people of aboriginal and non-aboriginal ethnicity. Never mind that, as you said, aborigines weren’t even considered human in the first half of last century.

This instance of the Australian government is arguably illegitimate because it isn’t doing what the people want. But as far as I can tell Foley isn’t talking about that. He’s arguing against the entire structure, corporation, organisation of government that exists at present. To throw it all out, pretend that non-aboriginals just got here and start over from there.

On the subject of whether Australia should keep or dissolve the monarchy, I agree with him. Although I don’t think it’s really worth caring about since they don’t really do anything these days.

On the subject of the current government acting against the people, I agree with him.

On the subject of stealing children and deaths in custody, the conversation would quickly get complicated.

It’s the idea of holding aborigines as separate from the rest of Australians for whatever political purpose that I find so objectionable. We are all here, most of us were born and grew up here. What ethnicity and identity we have should not matter in democratically determining how to run Australia and the various parts thereof.

:neutral_face: Would you like me to go back and quote you? Because I can do that.

I do agree that there is a failure of comprehension here, however. Probably a very deep failure. Some questions to begin with that may illuminate some things:

What is racism, to you?
What is patriarchy, to you?
What is privilege, to you?

Feel free.

It is many things. Including, but not restricted to, the experience of disadvantage due to skin pigment, race or ethnicity.

It is many things. Including, but not restricted to, the experience of disadvantage due to not being male.

In the context of this thread, it is many things. Including, but not restricted to, advantage derived from a particular biological fact.

Not really sure that’s what he’s saying but…doesn’t sound too bad to me.

OooK. So, how would you describe your preferred system of government? From that remark, I’m guessing straight up Marxist? Define everything in terms of oppression and power struggle, then proceed from there. Is that about right? (FYI, you wouldn’t be the only one)

So, I didn’t understand many of the big words … or larger concepts, and I love that smarter Pirates are discussing this, respectfully and logically (I guess).

Have at it.

I’ll go back to cleaning septic tanks and cleaning up rotten old shearing sheds …

2 Likes

The government did rejected the bill. It failed by 3 votes. Not a resounding rejection, but it was rejected.

Name one time? How about just all the time?

Calling people out, calling them names, labelling them, telling them that their success is due to corrupt white privilege rather than the life of hard work they put in … this does not get people on side. It places them directly off side.

When we just declare that everyone should have the same opportunities and consistently act on that, then everyone wants to align with that, because it invokes the inate sense of fairness built into all social species.

This has been the basis of most social progress, until recently, when the “social justice” movement has driven an enormous wedge between everyone in the form of identity politics and language policing in the form of political correctness. So now everyone is walking around on egg shells avoiding connection with anybody not like them.

How about we build everyone up, rather than trying to tear down anybody successful. At least that way we have someone to pay all the taxes.

You know the Nazi party was the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” right?
They were quite into identity. Jews, Aryans etc. They seemed to particularly hate the Jews for being so successful, like some kind of Jewish privilege maybe.
They were also quite totalitarian, demanding rigid compliance to language and thought policing, and just quietly failed to police violent ideological gangs of youths (Antifa much?)

Do you see a common pattern here?

Same shit in the communists countries. Divide everyone. Police attitudes. Turn everyone against each other. Tear everything down, destroy individual initiative or success, killing 10’s of millions in the process, then eventually turn back to capitalism when it all grinds down into squalour.

Relax Andrew, i was being flippant, whimsical.

I’m not a Marxist. I do not know how i’d describe my preferred system of government beyond democratic, controlled capitalism, environmentally active etc… I like the PPAU policy document, that’s why i’m here.

I’m already relaxed. Encountering actual Marxists in politics is quite common, and I’m still happy to have a conversation with them.

More common is people just operating from the same divisive playbook but calling it social justice, even if they don’t recognize it as that.

Thanks, I had quite a bit to do with that.

You may notice that nowhere in there do we declare identity groups or treat arbitrary groups of people like they are victims of oppression. We focus on problems, and evidence backed solutions, typically while considering the whole structure they operate in. It’s not always easy, because these things are complicated.

Oh, ok, sorry. I was referring to ‘government’ as the incumbent party, not the senate as a whole. Ok, yes, in that sense it was rejected.

But what if it is a product of white privilege? What then? Also, you’ve just set up a false binary. You can recognise how you have benefited from certain advantages and privileges, i do, but it doesnt mean i can’t derive satisfaction from hard work. Recognition followed by change, it’s not that traumatic.

This innate sense of fairness you speak of is a curious thing set against 3000 years of recorded history. I don’t really see fairness driving the politics of our species. Fairness, i would suggest, is the exception not the norm. Of course, this type of conjecture is entirely relative and you could definitely mount a case that says liberal democracies over the last few decades are less unfair than every other model we’ve ever tried but obviously, and i assume this is why you are here, there are still major problems with our system…and they seem to be growing.

We can declare that everyone has the same opportunities until the cows hopscotch across the meadow. We can even make laws to that affect. We can write it into constitutions. Hang on…that’s what we’ve done! And yet…we do not have the same opportunities, do we. So…what now?

You have a problem with ‘social justice’? Or a movement’s that demand it?

Andrew, understanding how power diffuses through the social strata and pointing out where it accumulates unfairly does not divide us, it unites us. When a particular identity based group comes together to express and expose an injustice they experience, all those not of that identity can join the cause, and they do. This is why we have marriage equality now. This is why we talk of glass ceilings and how to break them. This is also why we, or some of us, are listening to the experience of first Australians.

You may hate this bogey man called ‘political correctness,’ - it must be terrible having to walk on egg shells but there really is no need, it’s just about growth and understanding, it’s about widening your circle of empathy.

I do not get how listening to the particular experience of a group divides us and makes us, ‘avoid connection with anybody not like us.’ That to me is a very weird thing to say when it seems perfectly apparent that the more we know about a group’s experience the more likely we are to form connections. That’s my experience anyway, i guess it’s not yours, which i find curious.

Well, i agree, but you seem to be suggesting that this is conditional on everyone acting as a disconnected and disembodied individual and when people join together to express their particular experiences based on a biological fact you dismiss it as divisive. There is an irony at work here, there is no thing more divisive than atomising communities.

I was quoting Niemoller’s poem, that begins with, ‘first they came for the socialists…’ I assumed you were aware of the piece. Apologies for the assumption.

You think social justice is a pseudo-Marxian movement? That’s quaint. You haven’t been reading Jordan Peterson by any chance?

1 Like

On this, what basically @AndrewDowning is trying to say is that societies don’t put minorities randomly in positions of power anymore. They did that before and the results were not at all disastrous, just psychologically mindf***d people seeing minorities taking position and jobs in power without passing the competitions, just by appointment. We’ve seen that in history a lot, a lot of times, and it didn’t create further division, just that 2nd generations were less hateful towards minorities.

But the thing is, those positions in power were held previously by real institutionalized hateful people, conscious discrimination. Nowadays we don’t have too much conscious discrimination anymore in institutions with positions of power, only unconscious discrimination.

The difference between the two is that one of the stances ( the unconscious discrimination ) can be helped to change, and the 2nd generation is automatically changed.
But the whole problem with unconscious discriminating people in position of power is once you force them out, without them even implying anything about differences between majority and minority, a new problem will arise, and it’s a 99% chance it’s going to be conscious.

Forcing something bureaucratically unfair on unconscious discriminating people and promoting someone’s else historic eligibility to be in position of power creates more unfairness. That’s why @AndrewDowning insists that this kind of forced thing to do is both USA-style and Marxist-style.
Other kind of solutions of some of the radicals is calling-out people that are supposed to be the main conscious discriminators, and forcing them out. But that’s kind of a chance-based. In most cases you will find out that the person is not really conscious discriminating, and you end-up in a false-flag situation, while making other pretty conscious about the radicals’ actions, and stirring up some not-really-nice-feeling about them.

A lot of radicals / extremists rely on trying to force out people’s private opinions about minorities. And once the hateful opinions are out, there’s a legitimate position of power to be replaced and refilled with minority members. The funfact to all of this it is a durable effect with legitimate good benefits, especially at the 2nd generation.
This has always been, with my honest words, staggering to see that it actually defies social logic itself. It’s some sort of social hack. Same social hack has been applied in history even after the U.S. Civil War by replacing conscious discriminators in positions of power with black people. It turn out that we have nowadays hopefully more tolerant americans that actually lived in harmony with one another.

But we must be extremely careful at something, though. In the old days discrimination was a thing in western societies. It was extremely conscious. Nowadays people became hugely less conscious discriminating about different color, race, sex and gender of the majoritan ones. They don’t even realize.
If you start forcing your way through in the positions of power with pure radical propaganda and not education or democratic participation, we’re doomed to create monsters like Europe’s new right-wingers / fascists

Personally, I don’t have a solution (yet) other than educating the ones in positions of power into accepting new members from minorities, or sometimes replace one active&conscious discriminator with one minority member, like in Physics with replacing Ice with Heat, they negate each other and create harmony.
Else, try convincing and educating unconscious discriminators ( generally the grand majority of normal people ) in institutions and positions of power to help out, contribute, initiate and knowledge-share to the affected minorities. I think this kind of participation should change discrimination in institutions.
I actually really hope…

2 Likes

Thanks Stefan, yes, i largely agree and i’m not advocating for some kind of forced minority representation as much as simply calling out bigotry when i see it, especially when it is flaunted in parliament or by powerful people. This is the most effective long term strategy in my view and it has been pretty successful over the last few decades.

Well, that was insipid.

I work with in a well paid professional role in Sydney. I work together with Chinese, Koreans, Taiwanese, Nigerians, Russians, Indians, Pakistani, Dutch, Scottish, British, Irish, Ukrainian, and even a token American.
Some mixture like this has existed in every company I’ve worked for since the 1980’s, and all the companies I’ve interviewed at or partnered with. One in Perth had almost as many nationalities as people.

The Chinese are demographically well over represented. The Russians wildly so, and that’s fine. They’re smart, diligent, hard working and creative.

Where I live, in an afluent suburb, my immediate neighbours are Romanian, Yugoslavian, Chinese and Korean. We get on just fine. Our kids played together, we collect each other’s mail when we’re away. It’s all fine, and normal.

I don’t recognize this world of “white privilege” that you describe. It looks a lot more like a system built on recognition of hard work and competence, and let’s not forget that ultimately the value created like this is what’s paying for all the nice social programmes that we like.