The nine are suing Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt over articles and blogs including one headlined ''White is the new black'' that suggested it was fashionable to choose Aboriginal racial identity, which brought ''political and career clout''. Earlier articles, ''It's so hip to be black'', and ''White fellas in the black'', had similar themes. Bolt wrote that ''white Aborigines'' were ''people who, out of their multi-stranded but largely European genealogy, decide to identify with the thinnest of all those strands, and the one that's contributed least to their looks''. Bolt will be the only witness in response, his lawyer told the court.
The nine are suing Herald Sun journalist Andrew Bolt over articles and blogs including one headlined ''White is the new black'' that suggested it was fashionable to choose Aboriginal racial identity, which brought ''political and career clout''. Earlier articles, ''It's so hip to be black'', and ''White fellas in the black'', had similar themes. Bolt wrote that ''white Aborigines'' were ''people who, out of their multi-stranded but largely European genealogy, decide to identify with the thinnest of all those strands, and the one that's contributed least to their looks''. Bolt will be the only witness in response, his lawyer told the court.
In this country we have a very sanguine approach to defining who can call themselves “indigenous ” or “Aboriginal”. Essentially the subjective judgement of an individual that they are aboriginal and acceptance by the subculture of that claim is considered adequate for the government and to a large extent the Australian people accept it as well. None the less does this convention have to remain unquestioned? Especially when there are some awards and competitions that are specific for and restricted to those who are “indigenous Australians”?
These are the questions at the heart of a law suit being brought against Andrew Bolt by nine Australians who claim to be indigenous despite only a small part of their genetic heritage being from that ethnicity.
Most of us have a very diverse family tree and from a biological point of view that is very good for the human species, diversity is good. And I also think that it is a good thing that we accept that anyone can self identify entirely as they please, heck I even appreciate what it is like to have that self definition questioned but I also think that when your ethnic identity is largely based upon your subjective judgement rather than any objective measure of your heritage then you just have to wear any question of your ethnicity claims as fair criticism.
There is something of a double standard for this country to be trying hard to “Eliminate Racism” where we quite rightly vigilant about overt expressions of hate from fringe groups but we are also urged to celebrate the winners of awards that have very clear restrictions based entirely on race like “the Deadlys” for indigenous musicians, and Art awards only open for indigenous contestants. As I see it if you are going to eliminate the evils of racism then you have to address the issues where distinctions based on race privilege some individuals as well. If there were any awards or prizes that were only available those Australians who claimed to be Caucasians the outcry would be a cacophony of such magnitude that all of our ears would be ringing with the din. Yet we hear no such din about “The Deadlys” now do we?
I for one am watching the case against Andrew Bolt with great interest because if the appellants in that case succeed in stifling legitimate criticism of subjective judgement and claims of aboriginal identity we will all be forever muzzled by anyone who wants to make any claim at all about who they are. We can all make any claim we please but none of us has a right to insist that such claims represent objective truth.
Cheers Comrades
Update
a great post on this topic here at Sceptic lawyer by Katy Barnett (legal Eagle)
Pingback: Tweets that mention Subjective claims do not make objective truth | IAIN HALL's Sandpit -- Topsy.com
Hey, I’ll be the first to stick my neck out, to be lopped off by the political correctness brigade ?
The term you missed, implied, and perhaps couldn’t think of in your argument Iain, may have been Reverse Racism ? If that be the case, then I agree with you, and it runs rife. We have had this discussion before, some time ago on these pages, and there were attempts to howl me down.
The rush by some, civilian and a government, (terrified to the point of rampaging paranoia regarding bad press in this sort of situation), to appear to be politically correct has resulted in this situation, and it will only get worse. In my previous foray into this argument, I cited an example of two people walking into Centrelink etc. Added to that, the strict rules of entry re Arnhem Land.
You are correct in your assumption as well here though. That suggestion being that if a white person were being equally challenged regarding their heritage or genetic source, and they protested, they would be howled down and probably laughed at.
The question seems to be, when a race becomes so diluted, or mixed, when does it stop being that race ? Whoever has the guts, to finally make that percentile final call, will be open to massacre by one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country. As mentioned, never mind the race issue, there are much larger financial concerns at risk here. Think of the billions of dollars, squirrelled away into the Aboriginal Welfare budget every year ? No doubt there are those out there, that are dipping into these massive funds, that really have no right to do so. Is that racism by me to bring that subject up ? Some out there will probably think so. The bleeding hearts, that don’t question how the millions are sprayed about, to appease a popular and well organised pressure group, think that this incredible amount of dispersement should not be challenged. Yeah right !
Well I’ll surprise you here Iain & Sax by saying I sort-of agree with you that there are many white aborigines dubiously claiming their heritage.
My partner worked for the Koori Heritage Trust in Melbourne some time ago and she was always telling me that there were people working there from middle class families who seemed less aboriginal than she is (and she has no indigenous blood at all) but who still claimed to be aboriginal.
She also said that they were the ones who tended to be the most vociferous and radical, whereas the full-bloods or more distinct aborigines were more ‘comfortable in their skin’, so to speak (no insult intended).
That said, I don’t think this is one of the nation’s more pressing issues or concerns. I mean, aborigines (be they white ones or full bloods) are not exactly an advantaged class of people, in fact the opposite is closer to the truth. Isn’t this argument against them just mean spirited? I think it is.
Geez, we had better not make a habit out of this, but, I agree with you.
I don’t think this country should become that mean spirited either. I think, probably as you, that the “help” should be shared equally, by everybody that needs it, regardless of colour, race, or creed.
Its pretty sad though, that this is not often the case is it ?
The reason why Bolt writes these kinds of things in News Ltd papers is the question you should be asking Iain and Sax. The answer is not one you would like and that is why you focus on the ignorant claims of reverse racism and attacking indigenous only awards like ‘the Deadlys’.
To except the premise that affirmative action for, and practical encouragement of, indigenous people is some how racist, you have to sign on to Bolts other regular claim that the disadvantage that indigenous people suffer is nothing to do with the Europeans who came here 200 years ago or, as some of Iain’s friends claim, that dark skinned people are of inferior intelligence and so we need not do anything to assist them. Bolt is a big fan of Windshuttle and his revisionist history of the Tasmanian genocide and calls the stolen generation a myth.
So a denial of aboriginal disadvantage and any involvement in it by others, is a main theme in what Bolt writes. He has a big problem with accepting Australia’s history and the problems this has created, thus his need to continue to deny the taking of children for no other reason than their ‘race’.
The other reason Bolt writes these opinions is to ‘dog whistle’ up the still substantial parts of the Australian population that are just flat out racists with a fear of anyone different or not of a Western culture. Most News Ltd tabloids play to this audience and the fact that they sell so many papers is proof of the underlying racist attitudes that many Australians still hold, even though they would claim to be just ‘being real’ about the aboriginal ‘problem’.
The simple fact that Sax and Iain think that something like ‘The Deadlys’ is racist is a good indication of the lack of understanding about Aboriginal disadvantage and Australia’s racist history. I am not about to give you guys a lesson in this, you need to read more than just Windshuttle and Bolt.
Ray, you also show a confused understanding of this issue, with your mention of the amount of Aboriginal ‘Blood’ that someone has as being part of the story. Again Ray I would think again about differences of ‘blood’ or maybe you think the South African way of determining the amount of coloured ‘blood’ you have, by looking under your tongue, is how we should determine if someone is a ‘darkie’ or not.
This is not a freedom of speech issue; it’s about a bigot and his agenda and selling newspapers.
How am I confused Craigy? What part of this don’t you understand?:
I think you are confused if you don’t understand that there are indeed *some* people dubiously claiming aboriginal heritage.
Careful you don’t fall off that high horse of yours, mate.
I don’t read either Craigy. My impressions come from my own eyes. Both in the military, as well as now that I am out. I still have a lot to do with the NW Cape of Australia, and regularly fly in and out of the region as tasked. My impressions are just that, MY impressions.
As is the normal genome, there are those that take advantage of the system (and situation), just because those who know otherwise, are too scared of being seen as racist, to stand up and “out” them. It happens a lot.
As Ray said, watch the altitude on that horse of yours. There have been atrocities on both sides. Read the history books. The explorer Stuart was it ? Many others felt the spear as it impaled them on the back.
Try getting into Arnhem Land on a permanent basis ? It would be easier to emigrate to the US !
There aren’t just “some” Ray, there are a bloody lot ! But challenging them, especially by those government departments responsible, they are too scared of the public gaze that would be thrust upon them, and the inevitable racist taunts, (as above) they would have to endure ? Right or wrong.
Sax, just to be clear here: I do support your view that there are a lot of people who dubiously claim aboriginal heritage. But I don’t support your view that’s they gain any real advantage over the rest of us by doing so. Not one I’d care to have. I think it’s no big deal.
can’t argue with that either
Craigy
I think that you completely misunderstand what the real issues are here , and yes I acknowledge your own previously mentioned experience
The point that I was trying to make with this post is that if you have the sort of liberal system that we have which allows anyone who self identifies as indigenous to go unchallenged that has some pluses and some minuses, on the plus side it takes some of the recriminations out of the issue of “indigenousness” We have a system based upon subjective self classification and any such classification should not be beyond question. and questioning that subjective self-identification. What Bolt was arguing in those posts is analogous to someone like myself calling my car a Toyota because the diff and the front steering knuckles are from a lite-ace van, the fact that the engine is from a Nissan and everything else is custom made suggests that calling my car a Toyota would not be strictly correct now would it?
None of that sort of objection to Andrew Bolt’s argument is relevant I am all for addressing any social disadvantage for any of my fellow Australians and I have particularity disavowed the notion that performance in IQ tests makes an iota of difference to anyone’s humanity and we could argue about the causes of the Balackfellers plight and all of the attendant sub issues but that is not what this court case is about. Bolt has made note of the fact that some people who identify as indigenous in fact have a far more non-indigenous heritage than they have indigenous. They seem to be trying to argue that no one should point this obvious fact out.
But the appellants in this case do not seem to be living in any sort of disadvantage Craigy most seem to be living quite ordinary urban existences. the “disadvantage” of many indigenous people is not the issue nor does Andrew “deny” such disadvantage exists and any historian worth their salt knows that all history is debatable and subject to vastly different interpretations.
This claim is just nonsense, the stuff of conspiracy theories, I really do not think that we have any thing like the problem with racism that so many “latte sippers” think that we do. The failure of multiculturalism is the idea that no culture or subculture should be the subject of any criticism. The problem here is that you seem to think that to criticise an aspect of a cultural group is to demonise its members surely you can see the problem with that sort of thinking?
I like a fair bit of indigenous music and I wish its practitioners nothing but good will but you just can’t pretend that an awards system that has a racial entry qualification is racist to some extent. You just can’t have it both ways
But you are ignoring the whole point that Andrew Bolt has been making, namely we have avoided the inequities of the racial profiling in places like South Africa and the deep south of the USA by accepting the notion of self identification to define “indigenousness” but that acceptance should not be beyond question. I don’t have the details but I do recall that there was a rather nasty argument in Tasmania about just who has the right to call themselves indigenous,
This is not a freedom of speech issue; it’s about a bigot and his agenda and selling newspapers.
Iain, that is spot on. Craigy and his ilk are so wont and ready to drag any and all issues into the debate about multiculturalism, no matter what the actual issue. It’s the kitchen sink, and throw the baby out with the bathwater as far as this lot is concerned. Any attempt at discussion is mooted by their continual and persistent calls of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’.
f the appellants in that case succeed in stifling legitimate criticism of subjective judgement
…then its NOT legitimate criticism Iain.
And ‘Andrew Bolt’ and ‘subjective judgement’ are not two phrases one could generally put in the same sentence. Unless it also includes the phrase ‘lack of’…
PKD
I think that you have a problem with your perceived meaning of the term “subjective” definition here
read that and get back to me
Gigdiary, it is a complex issue, way to complex for you it seems. Read the News Ltd papers, they are good at simplifying issues of racism into black and white, us and them, which is much easier than trying to understand our history and the benefits of migration.
And why do you always try and moot my comments about the racism and bigotry this debate always brings up. Are you feeling guilty?
Iain, thanks for your thoughts. I can’t respond in detail at the moment, and your comments require some thought so I will get back to you when I can.
As always Craigy I look froward to your response.
We have a lot of government and private programs in this country that are designed to overcome the problems that many Aboriginals face – discrimination, poverty, health issues, education etc etc etc. A lot of money is thrown into these programs every year.
Even though we spend an awful lot, our resources are finite. Therefore, they should be directed at those most in need – especially those that are discriminated against because some idiots still have a thing about skin colour.
I’d expect that those most in need would be:
1. Dark skinned and having what you might term “classical Aboriginal features”
2. People living in rural and remote areas
I think Bolt’s complaint, and I agree with it, is that the money is being siphoned off by those who have least need of it – educated, urban dwelling, white looking people. They know how to work the system and fill in the paperwork when applying for grants and funding. They’re milking the system, meaning those who are suffering and in real need will get no help.
If I look at you and it never occurs to me that you are Aboriginal, how can I discriminate against you in a job interview etc etc? They’re modern day carpet baggers, and they should be ashamed of themselves.