In this episode, we discuss indigenous spokespersons, grassroots censorship and Scott Morrison’s latest cock-ups.
Feedback from Last Week
From Graeme (Who is a patron)
Disappointed that you indulged in a popular pastime of white fellas, of making sweeping generalisations about Australian Aboriginals without actually involving an Australian Aboriginal.
Do better next time please Trevor.
My response will be
Graeme seems to be suggesting that our podcast was unbalanced and we needed to give time to alternative views from the Aboriginal perspective.
Or maybe … there are issues here which you couldn’t possibly understand because you don’t have the lived experience
But …
The stereotypical indigenous viewpoint is pretty well documented and well publicised and we were basically responding to the position put forward by indigenous activists on QANDA, The Drum and the recent street protests.
The arguments we made don’t get air-time anywhere. The right-wing media takes up some bits but pretty much ignores the nuanced cultural angle.
Having said that …
I actually called for listeners to Zoom in and push back. Based on previous correspondence and his online comments (on Dark Emu) I fully expected Paul to disagree. Any indigenous viewer was welcome to Zoom in and give their 2c worth.
Suggesting an aboriginal guest is insulting to indigenous people. It assumes all indigenous people think the same. If I invited Jacinta Price you probably would have said “not that sort of aboriginal”. A less insulting request would be “someone who is likely to push back against some of your sweeping generalisations”.
Is there a “white person’s” position on indigenous incarceration? No? Why would there be a black person’s?
Is there a black person or white person position on immigration, private health insurance, private school education, drug legalisation?
I would be embarrassed to pretend to speak on behalf of white people. The same should apply to black leaders. They should have ideas that they recommend but not pretend that those ideas have popular acceptance among black people unless they have done some sort of poll of black attitudes.
Why would there be a black person position on anything unless you think of them as a noble savage hamstrung and pidgeon-holed by their skin colour.
We have previously requested pushback and, other than a minor pushback from Bronwyn, received nothing. If you find a suitable guest, we will speak to them. It’s not as easy as it sounds.
The call for pushback carries a condition. To argue the issues we have raised and the positions we have taken. Simply saying “you are white and therefore blinded by your privilege” is not good enough. It may be arrogant but I consider our arguments to be deeper and more intellectual than most people would be used to encountering. We are basically giving our opponents a free look and an invitation to think and reply without being forced to think on the run.
Sweeping generalisations are unavoidable when discussing society and culture. That is the whole point of a study of society podcast.
Where was your disappointment when, in multiple previous episodes, we made sweeping generalisations of Asians and Scandinavians and Americans?
If Graeme thinks input from a black perspective was missing, I remind Graeme we spent considerable time describing the views of Coleman Hughes and he is …. an African-American man.
Having indigenous heritage doesn’t necessarily make you a valuable commentator on indigenous social trends. A few weeks ago we were were going to invite a Chinese lady to discuss China and she admitted later that we knew a lot more Chinese history than she did. I’m not American but I’m convinced I have a deeper understanding of America and its place in the world, than many Americans. An individual indigenous person can offer anecdotes of their li...