Tim
Symptoms of poverty are treated throughout the world, from Ireland, to
India, in most
countries which have some manufacturing base, some degree of labour organisation.
Before the advent of a
secular and state based social security system, they were treated by the religons and
private charities.
This workers and legislators found inadequate, for a variety of reasons, many of which
can be traced in the
literature and popular culture of the period - Professor Tawney, from Britain, for
instance, made a
particularly eloquent defence of state-based social security in his book "Equality".
It was written at a
time of mass unemployment in Britain, of increasing nationalism, and was a fine,
original piece of secular
scholarship. Indeed I think there are things you can say about welfare reform which
are sensible and
rational, and which would empower working-class communities.
Pearson has probably got a very good idea there on empowering communities. But
that is not what made
his speech so troubling to many. It was more the talk about more coppers and more
"rule of law"; whereas
these are exactly the sorts of things which have dropped aboriginal people in the shit
time and time again
throughout history. I would obviously prefer that many of the things you mention about
Pearson's ideas would
come to fruition. But the real world is that people like Herron and even, in spite of
their promises in
history, the ALP, are quite incapable of achieving except in token gestures and
symbolic acts. That's the
historical experience. For instance, the ALP has spoken for years about doing
something about aboriginal
deaths in custody, but in government they do little, if not anything, other than make
speeches about it,
ironically, as they have been doing since approximately the 1940's, under Curtin and
Chifley.
That's why for many years, I perservered with the promises of the ALP. They
promised a treaty between
aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. They promised enormous changes to empower
aboriginal communities at
Mabo. They promised a legal system better for aboriginal people's rights than any in
the world, an end to
children living in poverty, and action on homelessness. And in the end, they achieved
little.
A well-known Perth aboriginal rights activist, said "this country can never claim
it's nationhood until
they give aboriginal people their own". His name I forget, he committed suicide a few
years ago. He was a
damn good secularist and fighter for aboriginal rights in law and politics, a man
worthy of emulation and
respect. Many times the juvenile justice issues he took so seriously were trivalised
on talkback radio by
shock-jocks and in the tabloids, with rare exceptions, ignored him unless something
"controversial"
happened. His warnings about the criminalisation of class, and the folly of spending
large amounts of public
money after the event, have gone unheeded. Time and again he would criticise more
coppers, more rule of law.
And time and again nobody did anything. That is why WA has such a shitty system of
justice today.
The problem is that there are many promises, and very little political action on
them. Perhaps the masses
themselves are cowed and don't see an alternative. I don't think so though - a lot of
people are very keen
on reconcilation, especially when you talk to them. That's the way the
"Reconciliation" business went off
the rails a bit to me, when people constantly appealing to politicians to act, and
still nothing being done.
Cheers,
Matthew Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks to everyone who keep throwing up intelligent and interesting
> comments. Always learning.
>
> There's an old joke: a sociologist is walking along the street and comes
> across a man beaten up and left for dead in the gutter. The sociologist
> rushes up to the man, cradles his head in his arm and says: "Can you tell me
> who did this to you, I think I could really help them."
>
> Isn't some of the argument against Pearson that he is treating symptoms and
> not root causes? But isn't it sometimes necessary to treat symptoms first,
> and then attack the root causes? Pearson is advocating welfare reform, not
> cuts - paying the money to communities instead of to individuals under a
> regime where local law prevails (or along those lines, I think).
>
> What I'm not quite clear on is if the people who criticise Pearson for
> concentrating on welfare reform think that "passive welfare" is a problem or
> not. Is it? Should it be reformed or stay the same? What about the idea
> of paying communities rather than individuals?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
