|
July 14, 2007
After listening to the different indigenous voices at the Adelaide Festival of Ideas I have to agree with Tandberg:

Tandberg
Pat Dodson agrees. He says:
The intervention, and the accompanying headline-grabbing phrase "rivers of grog", was used as the political trigger for an unprecedented use of the military and police to occupy indigenous communities. Their role was to support a regime of coercive paternalism in which grog and pornography were to be banned, medical examinations imposed on children, and welfare payments managed and linked with school attendance.
There is no argument that the urgent immediate priority is to protect children. The welfare of our children and our families remains the key to our lives and future.
He adds that this priority is undermined by the Government's heavy-handed authoritarian intervention and its ideological and deceptive land reform agenda; and the Government has not made a case in linking the removal of land from Aboriginal ownership and getting rid of the permit system with protecting children from those who abuse them.
I concur with Dodson when he says that:
What is becoming increasingly clear is that the Howard Government has used the emotive issue of child abuse to justify this intervention in the only Australian jurisdiction in which it can implement its radical indigenous policy agenda. Reforming indigenous land title is central to the Howard Government's national indigenous policy program: an agenda that has been swept along by an alliance of established conservatives forces that have long opposed Aboriginal self-determination and land rights...There should be no doubt about what is at stake here. The Government's agenda is to transform indigenous larger settlements into mainstream towns and extinguish by attrition the capacity of indigenous people to maintain small homeland communities.
He says that though assimilation was comprehensively rejected by mainstream Australian society as racist, it is now back in vogue as this Government's indigenous public policy direction.This reflects the paucity of intellectual and philosophical discussion about the position of indigenous people in Australian nation building.
|
Well, what can you say?
After a couple of weeks of sober reflection in the wake of all the initial manufactured emotiveness, what alternative conclusion could even a half-intelligent person arrive at, on consideration of the facts.
Actually, this reader for one thinks Dodson's assessment is rather on the kind side.