Do you support Aboriginal nationalism?

161 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 24 2007 09:06
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
John, you are missing the point. Aboriginal land rights are not "historic" but current even under capitalist law. If a government decided that all Jews were to have their houses seized, would you shrug and say "well they bought thier houses using money earned inthe capitalist system which we are against. So screw them?"

You used this example already and someone else took it apart. Last week the Australian government didn't take away all Aboriginies' houses did they?

And your point "well they bought thier houses using money earned inthe capitalist system which we are against" is just nonsense.

I can be involved in class struggles over housing and land, but I'm going to demand "my people's" (i.e. my "race's") land back which was taken in the Enclosures.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
Apr 24 2007 10:05
Quote:
You used this example already and someone else took it apart

.
No, they didn't.

Quote:
And your point "well they bought thier houses using money earned inthe capitalist system which we are against" is just nonsense.

Quite so, John, quite so. That was my point. Just as much nonsense as the specious arguments againtt Aborigines asserting their land rights. The most significant difference, why my example seems like "nonsense", is that it is not restricted to Aborigines.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
Apr 24 2007 10:23

Jason:

Quote:
The fact that the bourgeois judiciary gives land rights should be evidence enough that they are either pointless or reactionary.

I wonder if you have thought this argument through, Jason. The bourgeois judiciary would also support your right not to be, for example, bought and sold as a chattel slave. Or, if you want a less fanciful example, not to be stripped of your citizenship because you are an agitiator. That single dimension again!

What is "Chin" heritage btw? If it involves traditional land somewhere presumably there are not ongoing and current claims on it as there are in the aboriginal case. I'm wondering if you think that people should not in general enforce their rights under capitalist law, or is it just Aborigines who should be so hampered.....? The essence of the Mabo and Wik decisions, why they were important, is that they recognized that land rights could be based in aboriginal law as well as in British law. At core this is really about acknowledging that Aborigines are human.

What, according to you, should Anarchists think about the right of Aborigines to vote? Should we have opposed the enfranchisement of Aborigines on similar grounds to your opposition to land rights? After all, if voting could,change anything it would be illegal, right? And if some populist government decides to strip say Muslims of the vote (and yes, it could happen, I remember when private prisons were just a loony right wing idea) Anarchists should just shrug about that? I say no, and the arguments are cognate.....

Time, must go. "Land rights" very limited demand of course. Probably agree more than is apparent here.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 24 2007 10:27

would you support a movement of dispossessed anglo-saxons against the norman aristocrats who still own 70% of UK land?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Apr 24 2007 14:13
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
Quote:
You used this example already and someone else took it apart

.
No, they didn't.

Devrim wrote:
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
If Parliament passed a law that all Aborigines were to have their privately owned land confiscated I suppose Anarchists would recognise this as a racist attack? Just as if Jews or Lebanese or whoever were to have thier land confiscated? We would go around saying 'well we don't agree with property in land anyway, so screw them". Or would we? (There have been Anarchists who would not defend wages because they opposed the wage system.....but we have in general moved on.)

I think that this would clearly be a racist attack. I think that you are conflating two things here though, privately owned land today, and historic land rights.

I think that Daniel rightly pointed out the absurdity of the historic land rights issue.

Quote:
Quote:
And your point "well they bought thier houses using money earned inthe capitalist system which we are against" is just nonsense.

Quite so, John, quite so. That was my point.

No, jeremy, your point was nonsense because no one has said anything about houses being sold for money as being a reason for not supporting particular races having historic land rights.

Quote:
The most significant difference, why my example seems like "nonsense", is that it is not restricted to Aborigines.

No it's because you're confusing completely different issues, creating irrelevant strawmen and using examples which have nothing to do with any of the things we're discussing. Which now seems to include Muslims being denied the right to vote, and private prisons!

Why don't you answer any of the questions about British people's "historic land rights"? Are non-white people or Aborigines different?

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Apr 24 2007 21:04
Quote:
The bourgeois judiciary would also support your right not to be, for example, bought and sold as a chattel slave.

So its because of the judicial system that there isn't slavery in the industrial west, and not because of the bourgeois revolution needing to free up land capital and promote a mobile labor force? I think your example demonstrates the nature of the judiciary as mere detail and I thank the courts for nothing.

Quote:
What is "Chin" heritage btw?

Short for Chinese. Like I said, I don't get how its fair that I get (potentially) paid for having one set of ancestors, but I don't get paid for having another set of ancestors. I think people should get a pay out regardless of ancestry. Where's the justice goddammit?

Quote:
I'm wondering if you think that people should not in general enforce their rights under capitalist law

Generally speaking, no. And definitely not if it divides the class along race lines.

Quote:
Should we have opposed the enfranchisement of Aborigines on similar grounds to your opposition to land rights?

I don't see why any one should've gone to the effort of opposing the '67 referendum, but I certainly wouldn't have endorsed it. It would have been an opportunity to point out that voting is a wank and the left is getting sidetracked (like usual...). And having predicted back then that it would not change the plight of blacks one iota, we could be drawing capital now from accurate theoretical predictions given that blacks haven't made any significant head way in their material conditions since then. But, oh wait, there's native title now so things should be sweet...

Quote:
And if some populist government decides to strip say Muslims of the vote (and yes, it could happen, I remember when private prisons were just a loony right wing idea) Anarchists should just shrug about that?

No it couldn't happen and I think a few people have pointed out the difference in trying to redress things that happened in the past and things that could potentially occur. But lets say it did occur for arguments sake, I wouldn't get hung up defending issues like "voting" or "citizenship", but would point how the bosses are trying to pit us against each other where and when I could. The other option would be to join the obligatory liberal-left bandwagon, shoulder to shoulder with trots and social democrats and everything in between. I'd rather watch daytime TV than do that.

frew
Offline
Joined: 5-03-07
Apr 27 2007 02:06

I think that stuff like the right to vote and Native Title have removed legal divisions within the working class. Before the referendum (when aborigines were covered under the flaura and fauna Act) the legalised division of the working class into indigenous and non-indigenous was something that needed to be addressed.
When there is a legalised division in the working class (aparteid in South Africa is a more obvious example), the workers that benefit from this (in the form of table scraps from the Master) will tend to see their interests tied to the ruling class and against the rest of the working class. The ruling class argument goes something like: "If you don't support us, you'll end up being lumped in with the blacks". It keeps the whites fighting to hold on to their scraps against the blacks, which does nothing to build class solidarity. I see the breaking down of institutionalised racism as breaking down divisions within the working class.
In saying that though, I take Jason's point about getting political milage out of critiqueing (no idea of spelling...) the entire process as not changing anything materially for the majority of aborigines (same with Native Title). I just don't see any contradiction in saying that (for example) "I support the aborigines right to vote, but I don't think it will change anything". Comparing the '67 referendum to events in my life-time, I doubt I would have campaigned for it, but probably would have offered lip-service support/critique.
I really think that racism needs to be addressed in order to build working class solidarity.

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Apr 27 2007 06:09
Quote:
I just don't see any contradiction in saying that (for example) "I support the aborigines right to vote, but I don't think it will change anything".

Fair enough. Like I said above, I wouldn't've "opposed" the referendum. Because afterall it was addressing racism within the framework of legal rights and citizenship. But like I also said, I wouldn't've supported it. The same with Native Title. I think someone described ne as opposing it. I'm not sure that this is the right word. I just think its a pipedream. The role of revolutionaries as I see it is to attempt to transcend the terms of reformist debate and present what we think on where reforms will leave the class as a whole.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Apr 27 2007 13:26
frew wrote:
I think that stuff like the right to vote and Native Title have removed legal divisions within the working class.

Note that expanding the right to vote in Australia is the exact opposite (withing the bourgeois political spectrum) of national liberation of the Aboriginal minority in Australia; it is, in fact, integratory rather than seperatist.

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
Apr 28 2007 06:02

I thought this Zmag commentary might be relevant. I usually find Zmag too liberal, but this piece nails some points in my opinion.

eg.

Quote:
But, liberal multiculturalism does as much long-term harm as it does short-term good. Here are some of its problems:

(1) It adopts a narrow view of "culture," seeing it as the property of a "people" rather than a set of resources and traditions that emerge in different parts of the world, filled with contradictions and opportunities.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-04/26prashad.cfm

frew
Offline
Joined: 5-03-07
Apr 28 2007 23:30

treeofjudas wrote:

Quote:
Note that expanding the right to vote in Australia is the exact opposite (withing the bourgeois political spectrum) of national liberation of the Aboriginal minority in Australia; it is, in fact, integratory rather than seperatist.

Yeah, aboriginal nationalism as a concept and as a specific movement within Australia are two different things. There are cultural symbols of an Aboriginal Nationalist movement, the Aboriginal flag and tent Embassies (for example) but there isn't a movement for a separate aboriginal 'Nation". The land rights movement complicates this a bit, but I think everyone is right when they say it will probably just lead to aboriginal capitalists because it just legalises land possession in a capitalist context.

jason quoted:

Quote:
1) It adopts a narrow view of "culture," seeing it as the property of a "people" rather than a set of resources and traditions that emerge in different parts of the world, filled with contradictions and opportunities.

Absolutely. I think there is a tenency for aborigines to guard their culture against appropriation and also a tenency to try to recreate cultural traditions 'as they were'. This has the effect of turning culture into a museum piece, irrelevant except for as a historical curiosity.
There is also a movement against this. Modern aboriginal artists have used traditional techniques with modern theories and paints to create cultural artifacts that represent a synthesis of cultures. My girlfriend is an artist, so I go to more art galleries than I would in normal circumstances and that stuff is the best modern art I've seen.
Same with music. The Didgeridoo is used in a lot of techno, world-wide and Yothu Yindi have blended traditional and modern music really successfully. Beyond that, there have been a lot of projects that blend indigenous forms of music with western forms, from hip-hop to jazz and classical. This has been done with the understanding that the classical musicians (etc) and the indigenous musicians would share without any sense of ownership over the different forms.
I think its the same with stuff like dreamtime stories too. I like that I know stories about people from about 6,000 years ago in my local area. I share the story and it continues to survive. I think that if culture is shared, it will survive, if it remains a property of a 'people' it will die as it loses relevance to the people who need to reproduce it. Culture needs to be continually reproduced in different contexts and go through its own evolution to survive, its not static. It needs to become the common property of humanity, rather than owned by a specific group.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
Apr 30 2007 01:14
Quote:
Why don't you answer any of the questions about British people's "historic land rights"? Are non-white people or Aborigines different

John, I did comment on this briefly both directly and by analogy., Read back.

I will get back I hope to this thread but having (a) a life but (b) not a computer (unlike you maybe) I can't spend a whole lot of time here. I certainly can't endlessly repeat points or spoon-feed.

No offence, love ya.

pariahnt
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 3 2007 03:47

Capitalism has been unable to co-opt the bulk of Aboriginal people into its systemic maw for over 200 years, but some mainly middle-class 'intellectuals' calling themselves 'Anarchists' claim to be able to offer Aboriginal people an alternative system?

I also hear an awful lot of "workers unite" from people with absolutely no idea of what it means to work in the industries that support Capitalism

The lack of understanding and compassion for Aboriginal people who are the true 'anarchists' in Oz, (and suffer greatly for it) - by many of these contributers is appalling

Racism (as I have been explaining for many years) is due to ignorance

---------------------------------

@ Gentle rave @

I just spent a month in one of Oz's black prisons (Berrimah NT) due to an anti-racism protest in 2002

Three of the mob I met inside (one 'family') had served, or were serving time, for spearing NT Police

My mob - (I'm adopted by Aboriginal people and two communities) - recently destroyed their community in a night of chaos

I make these points to demonstrate that the 'energy' so fondly celebrated, when alleged anarchists in black balaclavas throw garbage-can lids at Police vehicles (see - "State/Anarchist ritualism") - is a daily constant, magnified a million-fold by Aboriginal people in Oz

The true (natural) Oz anarchists

Such 'energy' is often self-destructive - (the 'internalisation' addressed by MLK Jr) - but it is time these actions were recognised as resistance (to a dominant, invasive paradigm) that most 'Anarchists" seem incapable of understanding as anything but drunkenness and 'anti-social' behaviour.

A view shared by many people ignorant of the universality of such reactions to cultural and physical oppression/genocide

"Scott (1989:4) argues that studies of resistance have concentrated on formal protest such as ‘petitions, rallies, peaceful marches, protest voting, strikes, and boycotts’. Scott (21-2) argues that everyday forms of resistance have not been seen as political."

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Bill_Day_Thesis_1.htm

The racist stereotypical insults about hierarchies and Elders, eg - "ruling class of 'elders'" - "dodgy-arsed corrupt elders" etc... is offensive and totally hypocritical - given the hierarchies and lock-stepping, peer-pressure servitude that infests the Oz 'Anarchist activist' scene

Aboriginal culture is dynamic and Communities are varied and composed of oppositional groups with shifting ascendancies, that strike me as far more anarchic than the 'experts' proposing "Anarchist' models for them

Maybe some of these 'Anarchists' need to meet some actual 'Elders' and get past the bullshit they generally use as a defence against 'outsiders'

I sometimes have to 'name drop' some mob and family links to get past the tourist/whitey barrier - it's like talking to a different person once that happens

A reality you can observe amongst most oppressed/marginalised groups - from bikers to drug users

----------------------------

The point that most 'Australians' would fight an invasive force seems to be lost when discussing Aboriginal resentment and resistance to the cultural and physical genocide that continues in this country

A genocide we not only benefit from - but now wish to ignore/justify in the name of what seems to me - an ugly form of neo-liberal 'Anarchism'

Few of the 'views' from these so-called Anarchists would cause ruction at a Young Liberal's meet

------------------------------

One assumes the oft purported revolutionary 'Australian' Anarchist, non-State thingy would repel hostile invaders?

Or would that be unacceptable Nationalist chauvinism?

-------------------------------

I'm really not interested in what we intend to do after the great Oz Anarchist revolution...

..as though it were a given

...as though such change could be predicted and planned by non-participants in grassroots politics, with no mass support anyway

I'm mainly interested in wresting the best possible outcomes for oppressed people - surely the point of these airy 'isms we all enjoy espousing?

http://www.pariahnt.org/news/content/view/28/1/

Most of these contributers would do well to learn about real anarchism (collectivity, autonomy, resistance, daily struggle) from Aboriginal people...

...instead of mocking a struggle that has gone on for over two centuries, because it is not neatly formalised as some Utopian 'Anarchism'

------------------------------

Realists work with 'what they got' (an answer to "platformism") - ideally they co-opt/re-interpret (or create their own) paradigms

http://onemiledam.tripod.com/pages/Pensioner_without_power.htm

The www offers unprecedented opportunities to recreate and disseminate ideas, but only if the product is ethically and logically valid - and capable of sustainable evolution

---------------------------------

The trend in some Oz 'Anarchist' circles towards attacking issue-based groups such as 'Food Not Bombs' - PARIAH, etc... is elitist and illogical - which neatly sums up the mentality of these people, unable to work at any useful grassroots level themselves

---------------------------------

Anyone who believes an Anarchist society will emerge in a burst of (universal) revolution, sweeping away nationalism, militarism, sexism, racism, borders, culture, materialism, etc...

...is deluded

Rarely do even the most oppressive regimes achieve such complete ends - (China was probably the most successful, but only in its ability to absorb/co-opt invaders) - but of course Anarchism is a benign 'creed' that we intend to instill with love and the power of logic

---------------------------------

Contempt for the masses and a patronising racism for Aboriginal people - is of course nothing to do with Anarchism, but everything to do with its failure to attract popular support in Oz. Why if asked, I call myself an autonomist

There is so much conservative ideology in these threads (borrowed from mainstream bigotry) - it is hard to see any meaningful future for a synthesis of 'Anarchism' and Aboriginal self-determination

There must be a synthesis with Aboriginal people initially - not more adverse domination by people who know what's best for them

- and everyone else

mick lambe

PARIAH

People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands
______________________________________________

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
May 3 2007 04:27
Quote:
it is hard to see any meaningful future for a synthesis of 'Anarchism' and Aboriginal self-determination

Exactly. Two mutually exclusive categories.

Quote:
I make these points to demonstrate that the 'energy' so fondly celebrated, when alleged anarchists in black balaclavas throw garbage-can lids at Police vehicles

Sorry, you wont see fond celebration for the balaclava brigade on these boards.

pariahnt
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 3 2007 17:05

Aboriginal self-determination is exclusive of Anarchism?

Guess our definitions differ - but that is hardly a shock amongst autonomists

As I've argued above - just the concept of 'self-determination' puts Aboriginal people out in front of most non-Aboriginal people in the 'Anarchist stakes'

______________________________

Education - is what we should be offering as a solution to the Aboriginal predicament - and ours

Intellectual revolutions have plausibility and are far less messy

Education is also why I'm not dead or in prison - despite some heavy flirtations with both states of being, during my less educated period

-------------------------------

Even the State cannot discount the reality of Aboriginal sovereignty - despite the obvious gap between 'land rights' and collective control of the land

That is a win if we are talking about redressing past wrongs and poking a stick in the State's eye - so I do not understand why we would not foster that condition

The State are certainly keen on co-opting Aboriginal people into their imperialist, militarist model

http://www.pariahnt.org/news/content/view/23/1/

A topic I intend to expand on

----------------------------------------

Exercising the sociological imagination is a must if we hope to exercise change - so I'm pleased the hackneyed cultural imperialism of 'black balaclavas' is absent here

Most anarchist forums in Oz do not appreciate oppositional (independent) thought - as they are run by our (middle) class enemies who believe sabotaging mass protests and attacking genuine grassroots activists will somehow enhance their blatant political, ethical and intellectual inadequacies

So this is a refreshing change - so far

___________________

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
May 3 2007 21:19
Quote:
Aboriginal self-determination is exclusive of Anarchism?

He's saying anarchism is one thing, aboriginal self-determination quite another. Two seperate paths. Two seperate goals. Nothing in common.

Nobody has yet answered me why it is that in england normans shouldn't throw blacks out, saxons shouldn't throw normans out, bretons shouldn't throw saxons out, etc. ? National self-determination, isn't it? The day I except the right of cultures, races, peoples or whatever to "national self-determination" is the day i become either a "white nationalist" (e.g. Nazi) or Zionist. The fact is that, as Joe Hill pointed out, the working class and 'the people' have nothing in common.

Actually, about the white nationalism thing. Compare this to the situation in australia. The working class whites who went to australia mainly did so as convicts (e.g. against their will). There is no way you can see them as imperialist land-grabbing settlers. On the other hand, non-whites have come to Britain mainly on their free will. Add up the numbers. If aborigional nationalism is okay and can be "critically supported" or some such, white nationalism is okay and lefties should be rushing forward to "critically support" the NF and the BNP. Right? wall

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
May 3 2007 22:14
daniel wrote:
Quote:
Aboriginal self-determination is exclusive of Anarchism?

He's saying anarchism is one thing, aboriginal self-determination quite another. Two seperate paths. Two seperate goals. Nothing in common.

Nobody has yet answered me why it is that in england normans shouldn't throw blacks out, saxons shouldn't throw normans out, bretons shouldn't throw saxons out, etc. ? National self-determination, isn't it? The day I except the right of cultures, races, peoples or whatever to "national self-determination" is the day i become either a "white nationalist" (e.g. Nazi) or Zionist. The fact is that, as Joe Hill pointed out, the working class and 'the people' have nothing in common.

Actually, about the white nationalism thing. Compare this to the situation in australia. The working class whites who went to australia mainly did so as convicts (e.g. against their will). There is no way you can see them as imperialist land-grabbing settlers. On the other hand, non-whites have come to Britain mainly on their free will. Add up the numbers. If aborigional nationalism is okay and can be "critically supported" or some such, white nationalism is okay and lefties should be rushing forward to "critically support" the NF and the BNP. Right? wall

Do aboriginal nationalists advocate the forced relocation of ethnic Europeans from Australia back to Europe? Do aboriginal nationalists advocate the systematic genocide of other ethnicities? Do aboriginal nationalists propose special mandatory schooling in which people who have cultures different than the aboriginal ones be forced to assimilate, changing their religion, language and customs? Do aboriginal nationalists argue that the traits that make them distinct as a nation entitle them to power over other people?

I don't know so much about aboriginal nationalism, but I do know some "indiginists" here in the U.S. and Canada and they don't advocate sending the white people back to Europe.

In the ideology of white supremacy, white convicts are higher on the ladder than most blacks. Also, you shouldn't look at Australia during the colonial period as an isolated situation, but rather a portion of Britain's empire and as such the ideology of British supremacy that determined that convicts would be sent to Australia to work for the crown's interests... was coming from the crown, not necessarily the ideology of convicts.

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
May 4 2007 00:47
pariahnt wrote:
As I've argued above - just the concept of 'self-determination' puts Aboriginal people out in front of most non-Aboriginal people in the 'Anarchist stakes'

I really don't get Aboriginal 'self-determination'. Most communities have been shunted off into quite isolated places with not much economic potential. How do you see autonomous indigenous communes self-perpetuating, a return to hunting and gathering?

IME experience it seems the No. 1 thing that black communities currently aspire to is decent health care and housing. How is "self-determination" going to address these material issues? What exactly does the concept entail?

Quote:
Even the State cannot discount the reality of Aboriginal sovereignty - despite the obvious gap between 'land rights' and collective control of the land

That is a win if we are talking about redressing past wrongs and poking a stick in the State's eye - so I do not understand why we would not foster that condition

But how is it a win? You talk about a gap between land rights and collective ownership of the land, implying that the goals of land rights are unfulfilled. I'm skeptical in the extreme that "collective" ownership of the land was ever a goal of land rights, or ever could be fulfilled under the paradigm of land rights. Nevertheless, whatever goals are assumed to be desirable (I would propose better material conditions for black communities) all of us accross the board, from left to right, radical to conservative, have to concede that land rights isn't producing the goods.

So how is it redressing past wrongs? It looks like just a big pipedream to coopt black discontent. And how's it poking a stick in the State's eye giving some isolated black communities land that no one else wants? And even if it is a poke in the eye to the State, why is this a priori a good thing if it dosn't produce the goods on the ground for us?

daniel's picture
daniel
Offline
Joined: 8-04-06
May 4 2007 17:36
Flint wrote:
Do aboriginal nationalists advocate the forced relocation of ethnic Europeans from Australia back to Europe?

I dunno.

Quote:
Do aboriginal nationalists advocate the systematic genocide of other ethnicities?

No. Neither do most fascists.

Quote:
Do aboriginal nationalists propose special mandatory schooling in which people who have cultures different than the aboriginal ones be forced to assimilate, changing their religion, language and customs?

No, neither do most fascists, particularly third positionists.

Quote:
Do aboriginal nationalists argue that the traits that make them distinct as a nation entitle them to power over other people?

No, neither do most fascists as far as I know, at least in theory. That's why "white nationalists" helped African-Americans re-locate to Ethiopia and other African countries with Marcus Garvey. That's why the NF supported seperatist black nationalism and the Nation of Islam in the U.S.

Quote:
In the ideology of white supremacy, white convicts are higher on the ladder than most blacks.

Yup. Having been quite interested in Native american nationalism at a younger age, I can assure you that whites are painted as racially inferior, inherently evil blue-eyed devils quite often. It just so happens the Europeans won. I don't know about aborigional nationalism, but I'd be surprised if their isn't some myth about their own racial supremacy and white racial inferiority.

Quote:
Also, you shouldn't look at Australia during the colonial period as an isolated situation, but rather a portion of Britain's empire and as such the ideology of British supremacy that determined that convicts would be sent to Australia to work for the crown's interests... was coming from the crown, not necessarily the ideology of convicts.

Yes definitely, which is why nationalism makes no sense for the working class. Working class aborigionies could only survive by fighting alongside white workers on a class struggle basis. Ultimately, I'm sure, the white working class also suffered. In the US, white guilt is used to stigmatise and keep white working class people in their place. Racism is used to weaken the class, etc. etc.

pariahnt
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 4 2007 19:41

Flint makes some excellent points about the difference between Aboriginal self-determination and an unrealistic Black Nationalism

-----------------------------

"As I've argued above - just the concept of 'self-determination' puts Aboriginal people out in front of most non-Aboriginal people in the 'Anarchist stakes'"

The right of a community of people to determine their own future - as opposed to State control

The reality is that no-one has faced as much interference in their lives in Oz as Aboriginal people - and now we see "self-determination" blamed for the failure in Aboriginal communities

It is a sick irony

__________

"In a comment that may illustrate the extent of the Howard Government's agenda, he said the "old shibboleths of self-determination" were now recognised to have failed, and "it really has to come down to integration".

"The next phase should be integration," he said. "Giving Aboriginal people the opportunity for education and then allowing them to integrate as part of a unified Australian society, rather than talk about self-determination. That has failed."

http://www.country-liberal-party.com/pages/Integration.htm

--------------

The argument by Jason is totally flawed - "Nevertheless, whatever goals are assumed to be desirable (I would propose better material conditions for black communities) all of us accross the board, from left to right, radical to conservative, have to concede that land rights isn't producing the goods."

How would a lack of land rights, (removing their greatest source of bargaining power) have changed anything for the better?

It is the 'birth to grave' State interference in Aboriginal lives - the exploitation, the racist neglect, the lack of opportunity - the reality of the lowest health, educational ... (name any social outcome) - that sees Aboriginal people disadvantaged - PM Howard's idea of "self-determination'

And generations of it - mounted by a genocidal invasive horde who (and many still do) considered Aboriginal people to be sub-human

I also include the convicts who were also products of their time - despite the romanticism and nationalism of so-called 'anarchists' in Oz

___________________________________

This is a community - http://onemiledam.tripod.com/pages/Photo_gallery.htm - I lived on for 10 months - in the heart of Darwin NT - you can see how urban living produces radically different social outcomes <bitter sarcasm>

___________________________________

Jason - "It looks like just a big pipedream to coopt black discontent. And how's it poking a stick in the State's eye giving some isolated black communities land that no one else wants?"

Whereas your overthrowing global Capitalism with no grassroots activism or mass support is just another incisive email/critique away?

It's not the fact that mining and pastoral interests do not have total control over Aboriginal land that has produced this racist inblance in "Australian' social outcomes

What do you suggest? That I only work with contented Aboriginal people, workers and interest groups? Obviously the IWW got it all wrong too

Maybe we could call it - PARIAH - People Adjusting (to) Racism In Aboriginal Homelands?

___________________

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
May 4 2007 23:05
Quote:
Flint makes some excellent points about the difference between Aboriginal self-determination and an unrealistic Black Nationalism

No, Flint mafe useless points. His argument boils down to: nationalism is bad when it hurts other people. Any moron should be able to see that "Aboriginal" politics in oz has got blacks nowhere.

Quote:
The reality is that no-one has faced as much interference in their lives in Oz as Aboriginal people - and now we see "self-determination" blamed for the failure in Aboriginal communities

I'll ask again: what do you mean by self-determination, specificaly, how do you see it operating in practice? Sounds like an extremely vague term to me, and I imagine to most other people too.

Quote:
How would a lack of land rights, (removing their greatest source of bargaining power) have changed anything for the better?

The point is that land rights have changed nothing for the better. I'd have say it looks like a hell of a lot of wasted time for very little return, which would make anyone with some clues start asking some questions. It is impossible for me to demonstrate how things would be 'better' had history been different, and that really misses the point. But I do like to think that in lieu of some vague celebration of aboriginal traditon more demands would've been made for health, housing, education and infrastructure.

Quote:
Whereas your overthrowing global Capitalism with no grassroots activism or mass support is just another incisive email/critique away?

You've been hanging around the dregs of the Australian activist swamp too long. Therefore I forgive your charicature of revolutionary thought.

Quote:
What do you suggest? That I only work with contented Aboriginal people, workers and interest groups?

I think this last statement reveals a lot. Very typical aussie leftism. Do really think you're doing blacks a favour by being so patronising? I really don't care who you "work" with. Do you think black communities need activists like you?

pariahnt
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 5 2007 08:03

Feel I've answered these points already

The idea that Aboriginal people have some say in their future is one I endorse - "self-determination"

The form it takes is dependent on it actually occurring - see argument above

So if Aboriginal people had only accepted generational genocide and land theft and asked for better Health and Educational, etc... facilities (think they have) - everything would be cool?

Is a doctrine of State and cultural servitude - your solution?

Jason - "Do you think black communities need activists like you?"

They seem to believe so (and two communities have adopted me as family) - but then who listens to blacks in Oz?

______________________________

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
May 6 2007 00:35
Quote:
Feel I've answered these points already
The idea that Aboriginal people have some say in their future is one I endorse - "self-determination"

No, you haven’t even come close to addressing these points. All you’ve done is repeat the term ‘self-determination’ like mantra. I find it an extremely vague notion, and I assume most other people do to.

Quote:
So if Aboriginal people had only accepted generational genocide and land theft and asked for better Health and Educational, etc... facilities (think they have) - everything would be cool?

But it’s not really a matter of ‘accepting’ genocide and land theft, though, is it? Clearly, these things have already happened, leaving some black communities in a woeful state. Clearly too, land rights and assorted black politics hasn’t fixed anything. So yes, maybe a focus historically on tangible things like universal services would’ve left blacks on slightly better footing. Who knows?

You say Aboriginals have asked for these things. I agree, but only to a limited extant, and have constantly side-tracked themselves with vague notions of tradition and culture and have taken isolationist, psuedo-nationalist directions, and so undermined themselves by not linking struggles. I’m not blaming blacks for these trends, merely observing them. I see it mainly as a reaction to white racism and I can understand certain directions black politics have gone in. But my understanding does not equate with approval. And I also blame the Left a lot for promoting this kind of thing so they can keep black politics a separate thing to be exploited and controlled as their liberal program dictates.

Quote:
Is a doctrine of State and cultural servitude - your solution?

Did I say that somewhere? We’ve advocated all ethnicities linking up in the demand for services, how’s this state servitude? As for cultural servitude, I dunno. I think clinging to ‘culture’, paradoxically so loosely defined whilst simultaneously essentialised as something real, is in general a bit of a wank.

Quote:
Jason - "Do you think black communities need activists like you?"
They seem to believe so (and two communities have adopted me as family)

So patronising. Believe me, only a very few left-liberal emotional retards will be impressed by the fact that a couple of families dig you. I’m 100% confident I could round up a couple of families who think you’re an annoying, meddling activist.

Quote:
- but then who listens to blacks in Oz?

Depends what you mean by blacks don’t it? I’d hate to essentialise the term and unconsciously suggest that all blacks share interests in common by virtue of skin tone and ethnic decent. Like, I certainly don’t listen to the chiefly milieu harping on about native title and restitution. And the left-liberal activist milieu certainly doesn’t listen to the 9 out of 10 blacks who think aboriginal politics are a wank and are just trying to get by like everyone else.

pariahnt
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 6 2007 07:16

Nothing "vague" about "self-determination" - as opposed to the reality of State control and "birth to grave" negative interference. Rather a stark contrast, as most people would agree and one I'd like to see occurring. "Self-determination" is best defined by its practitioners (see autonomy) in my opinion, as Communities tend to vary all over Oz

Note the use of your inclusivity ("most people would agree") debating tactic

Quote - "Clearly too, land rights and assorted black politics hasn’t fixed anything."

Clearly you have been unable to support this statement (and conceded that when challenged previously) - Jason "...It is impossible for me to demonstrate how things would be 'better' had history been different..."

Your continual harping on about how Aboriginal people have neglected to ask for services etc... is just plain wrong on a couple of counts

1. They have - stridently of late - (Why I am asked to assist in campaigns by people who trust me)

2. Why would they have needed to make requests for services other Australians take for granted? I know the answer to that one - because Aboriginal people were considered subhuman and about to (conveniently) die out, after generations of racist State policies designed to facilitate that goal. You are talking recent history regarding "land rights" and the "assorted black politics" you seem to blame for the shocking plight of Aboriginal people

I am a little tired of repeating that "self-determination" was strangled at birth - and took pains to point out that your views and those of a paternalistic racist State are as one

http://www.pariahnt.org/news/content/view/28/1/

Your personal attack is a bore - because I have heard it so often from both racists and wannabe "Lefties" (often interchangeable) who would not last a day in the cultural and political minefield in which we have dwelt for the past 15 years

You would have had a short shelf-life of comfort in Berrimah/Roebourne Prison (70's) - with such attitudes

It would be great to see your energy directed against the true oppressors of Aboriginal people - instead of emulating their views and attacking people prepared to fight them

'Australian' Nationalism (our culture) is far more damaging (see Global warming, imperialism, etc...) than some Aboriginal people's communal desire to retain access to - and control of their land - an oppositional paradigm/culture we should be fostering along autonomous lines

The only political blueprint I can offer you is respect and commonsense - which works for me, in an always complex and sometimes dangerous milieu

cheers anyway

mick - PARIAH
____

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
May 7 2007 05:02
Quote:
Nothing "vague" about "self-determination" - as opposed to the reality of State control and "birth to grave" negative interference. Rather a stark contrast, as most people would agree and one I'd like to see occurring.

Yes, definitely, most would agree there is a stark contrast between self-determination and State control on an abstract level. I would like you to move beyond this abstract level and say what you mean by self-determination.

Quote:
Note the use of your inclusivity ("most people would agree") debating tactic

Noted, and I stand by it. If you are going to use an abstract term, it is only fair that you should elaborate on it when questioned.

Quote:
Quote - "Clearly too, land rights and assorted black politics hasn’t fixed anything."

Clearly you have been unable to support this statement (and conceded that when challenged previously) - Jason "...It is impossible for me to demonstrate how things would be 'better' had history been different..."

The fact that land rights hasn't fixed anything is generally recognised right across the political spectrum, even from land rights' supporters. My inability to predict alternative histories for the human race does not distract from this observation. It is a failure of your logic to suggest so.

Quote:
Your continual harping on about how Aboriginal people have neglected to ask for services etc... is just plain wrong on a couple of counts

1. They have - stridently of late - (Why I am asked to assist in campaigns by people who trust me)

2. Why would they have needed to make requests for services other Australians take for granted? I know the answer to that one - because Aboriginal people were considered subhuman and about to (conveniently) die out, after generations of racist State policies designed to facilitate that goal.

Now you are misrepresenting me. In my previous post I recognised that blacks have made demands along these lines. I questioned the content and context of these demands, buried as they are under a mountain of aboriginal nationalism, isolated from black's real allies.

Exactly what services do most people take for granted nowadays? Surely the attack on services in the cities, coupled with the woeful state of services in remote communities, provides an opportunity for a united front?

Quote:
You are talking recent history regarding "land rights" and the "assorted black politics" you seem to blame for the shocking plight of Aboriginal people

Hmmmm, not sure if "blame" is the right word. Its not really a concept I spend a lot of time with. But yes, assorted black politics is very isolationist and does nothing to change the situation.

Quote:
I am a little tired of repeating that "self-determination" was strangled at birth - and took pains to point out that your views and those of a paternalistic racist State are as one

So you should be tired of repeating yourself. Your failure to detail a vision for self-determination leaves you with nothing to discuss. But you can, howecer, repeat the mantra...

Quote:
Your personal attack is a bore - because I have heard it so often from both racists and wannabe "Lefties" (often interchangeable) who would not last a day in the cultural and political minefield in which we have dwelt for the past 15 years

Get over yourself. I don't know what I said that could've been construed as a personal attack. You were implying that the fact that a few families dig you somehow vindicates your politics. I was merely calling you on your dodgy logic...again.

Quote:
You would have had a short shelf-life of comfort in Berrimah/Roebourne Prison (70's) - with such attitudes

Again, how does this vindicate one's politics?

Quote:
'Australian' Nationalism (our culture) is far more damaging (see Global warming, imperialism, etc...) than some Aboriginal people's communal desire to retain access to - and control of their land - an oppositional paradigm/culture we should be fostering along autonomous lines

Now we can rate nationalisms on a scale of good to bad? Deary me. And just because aboriginal nationalism is a reaction to dodgy aussie nationalism it should be fostered? That 's pretty specious reasoning.

Quote:
The only political blueprint I can offer you is respect and commonsense - which works for me, in an always complex and sometimes dangerous milieu

Advice from a leftist expert in guilt politics. Now I've seen it all.

I'm loving this. So far you've failed to define and expand on central tenants to your argument, you've misrepresented me, you've talked up your activist credentials like anyone gives a shit, and you've consistently employed specious logic. I couldn't have outlined the Australian Left any better.

pariahnt
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
May 7 2007 09:36

Feedback from Aboriginal people/activists - (I posted this "gentle rave" on a list)

http://libcom.org/comment/reply/14067/188802?quote=1

has been positive

-------------------------

That's all that matters to me

Not the puerile logic-chopping, obfuscation and insults of some resident White Australian Troll (506 posts) who shares Howard's views on 'black armband' politics

"PRIME Minister John Howard has always recognised history and its interpretation as a potent political weapon. Thus Howard appropriated from historian Geoffrey Blainey the phrase "the black-armband view of history", which he used to great effect to undermine Aboriginal native title, the concept of the stolen generations and much of the rationale of the reconciliation movement for his political ends."

"Guilt politics?"

http://news.google.com.au/news/url?sa=t&ct=au/0-0&fp=463ef7d5ac75c8e0&ei=QPQ-RuvyDI_SqQPhp_S1Aw&url=http%3A//www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/worst-in-the-world-for-indigenous-health/2007/04/30/1177788058906.html&cid=0

Stop wasting my time
-------------------------

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
May 7 2007 12:08
jeremytrewindixon wrote:
If Parliament passed a law that all Aborigines were to have their privately owned land confiscated I suppose Anarchists would recognise this as a racist attack? Just as if Jews or Lebanese or whoever were to have thier land confiscated? We would go around saying 'well we don't agree with property in land anyway, so screw them". Or would we? (There have been Anarchists who would not defend wages because they opposed the wage system.....but we have in general moved on.)

I don't own any land, no-one I know owns any land. A few own a flat or small house, that's it. In the UK at least, the only people who'd be affected by land confiscation would be very rich people, unless there was a concerted effort to chuck individuals out of their homes (but even then there's probably thousands upon thousands of repossessions each year that do exactly that). So I don't think it'd be possible for such a policy to be implemented. Obviously in places where there's a bit more space, then it'd take quite a different form.

edit: Devrim's right here:

Quote:
I think that you are conflating two things here though, privately owned land today, and historic land rights.

jason's picture
jason
Offline
Joined: 22-07-06
May 7 2007 23:18
Quote:
Feedback from Aboriginal people/activists - (I posted this "gentle rave" on a list)

http://libcom.org/comment/reply/14067/188802?quote=1

has been positive

-------------------------

That's all that matters to me

I've always considered back-slapping circles a problem...

Quote:
Not the puerile logic-chopping, obfuscation and insults of some resident White Australian Troll (506 posts) who shares Howard's views on 'black armband' politics

Again, quite ingenuous. Do you think Howard would aprove of a call for blacks and whites to unite in a demand for more material gains from capital? I'm guessing that such a development would scare him more than isolationist, alienating black nationalism ever could.

I love how Leftists try and discredit contrary opinions by associating them with the Right. Don't forget comrade, the Left has historically fucked the working class just as much as the Right has, and until we move beyond Left Vs Right nothing is gonna happen.

roll eyes Fuck me. I'm well aware of and have continually stressed the mess that some black communities are in. Further, I've continually made the point that land rights don't address these problems, a fact recognised right across the political spectrum. My main point is that black nationalism hasn't worked for blacks, and that because of nationalisms inherent characteristics, I do not believe it can do anything for blacks in the future and that a paradigm shift is needed: Primarily a rejection of Leftist politics that will be replaced by people, of whatever nationality, entering into dialogue into what they have in common in wanting to make capitalists pay. Posting up a link to health statistics does not challenge any of these points, and actually highlights the failure of politcal channels taken so far. You really do struggle with basic logic don't you?

Quote:
Stop wasting my time

You are wasting your own time, and seem to be getting into a little hissy-fit over it too. Take a chill pill.

jeremytrewindixon
Offline
Joined: 6-03-07
May 9 2007 05:02

Been meaning to helpfully repeat point about aboriginal land rights. Here goes. They only apply to current claims on land, ie where people have never abandoned their claim on a piece of land. That is the distinction between aborigonal land rights and the piece of land an Englishman person's remote ancestor may have owned in Jutland or a Breton's ancestor may have owned or otherwise had rights to in Cornwall. Winning land rights is in effect bringing Aborigines under the umbrella of capitalist law. This is of course unsatisfactory but less unsatisfactory than leaving it undone. Much like the vote.

More interesting is the argument for "aboriginal sovereignty" which is not only separate from the issue of land rights but in fact often counterposed to land rights claims. Counter-posed because land rights claims leave many Aborigines out in the cold, those who have no "culture", are "detribalised" or whatever, have no present connection to ongoing land. These are in the same position as the Breton etc referred to above. It is among Aboriginal militants in this position that I have mainly encountered the sovereignty argument, not the same as the land rigths argument lets get that clear once and for all.

The sovereignty argument can be summarized in the slogan "[All of "Australia"] Always was, always will be, Aboriginal land". It is on this concept that for example the "Pay the Rent" movement is based. And the sovereignty argument is very influential among Anarchists. This leads to some contradictions.

communism_the_new_white's picture
communism_the_n...
Offline
Joined: 13-05-07
May 13 2007 05:41

- hi im from newzealand,
i personally dont think that (aboriginals) maori should be given 'their' 'stolen' land back,
all that does is divide indigeounous peole and colonial people -more than i necesary,

white people own and use the land which was used by maori -(or in au aboriginals) they wouldnt just give their homes and and land to people, just because some one- 180 or so years ago faught them for it-(and won)

generally- maori/ aboriginals don't even use the land productivly when given it back anyway.

instead of fighting eachother- maybe we should unite- to create a better place? sound good?