Re: [recoznet2] SMH article re anthropology
draft of letter to SMH (slightly shorter version currently being considered by them) The Editor The Sydney Morning Herald GPO Box 3771 Sydney 2001 Fax 02 9282 3492 Wednesday, 7 July, 1999 Dear Sir / Madam, The difficulties which Australians, black and white, must confront if we are to resolve the problems resulting from the last two hundred and eleven years of our continent's history, are too great to allow room for articles as ill informed and inaccurate as "Trouble in the myth business" to pass without comment (SMH Saturday, July 3rd). Hills' portrays Dr Ron Brunton as a maligned whistleblower, shunned by his peers because he dared to be critical of indigenous interests. If, as Ben Hills claims, Dr Brunton left academia became he had become"tired of the "politicisation of anthropology" he had an unusual way of showing it. His next job, after leaving Macquarie University, was as research officer for the Victorian branch of the Liberal party! He followed this up with stints with two right wing think tanks, the Institute of Public Affairs and the Tasman Institute, both of which are funded by Western Mining company and other mining interests. (Brunton has difficulty with the description "right wing". He prefers to describe the Institute of Public Affairs (with whom he worked from 1990 to 1994 and from 1995 to at least August, 1997) as a body "committed to a free market, a free market philosophy in a classical liberal sense". (Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim transcript, 13 August, 1997, p 7942)) Hills examination of the Yorta Yorta Native Title claim beggars belief. Far from attacking the "credibility of various expert witnesses", Justice Olney specifically indicated that his decision should not be seen as in any way disparaging "the qualifications, experience or integrity of the witnesses concerned." (para 54 of the judgement). Even Hills description of the claim itself is misleading. Neither Shepparton nor Wangarratta were subject to claim, and the area of land actually involved amounted to approximately 10% of the total traditional lands of the groups concerned, not the "enormous piece...of 20,000square kilometres" referred to in the article. As the anthropologist who bore the brunt of the process of undertaking field work and presenting expert evidence on behalf of the applicants in the Yorta Yorta Native Title claim I was somewhat bemused to find that Hill saw fit to focus on the role of Dr Deborah Rose. The involvement of Dr Rose (an anthropologist of the highest repute, with wide ranging experience in Aboriginal Australia) was sought to deal with various important theoretical issues raised in the claim. It was never intended that she deal with local ethnographic issues. Nor does Hill note that both anthropologists called by opponents of the Yorta Yorta claim lacked first hand experience, not just in the claim area, but in the region as a whole. Ken Maddock, referred to elsewhere favourably by Hills, agreed that he had not undertaken field work in south eastern Australia. The other of the two , in fact, went further than this. Despite his high profile in the Australian media as a commentator on Aborginal matters, Dr Ron Brunton admitted that he had "not done anything that I would call fieldwork" anywhere in Aboriginal Australia. (Yorta Yorta Native Title Claim transcript, 13/8/1997, p 7939). One might have thought that this would have placed him at something of a disavantage when discussing such matters! Yours sincerely Rod Hagen Anthropologist Rod Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hurstbridge, Victoria, Australia WWWhttp://www.netspace.net.au/~rodhagen --- 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] SMH article re anthropology
Rod, I thought you might be interested in the letter appearing today(there was another, ill-informed one but it wasn't online in it's entirety.) Trudy SMH - Letters Page http://www.smh.com.au/news/9907/08/text/letters.html Myth and memory The sloppiness and bias which make Ben Hills's "Trouble in the Myth Business" (Herald, July 3) so misleading is well illustrated by the ludicrous suggestion that Coronation Hill was protected because some of the local Jawoyn people "convinced consultant anthropologists that the area was occupied by a Dreamtime spirit named Bula, who would wreak apocalyptic damage if Coronation Hill was disturbed". It is Hills, not "most Australians", who suffers from the "faulty filter of memory". They will remember Prime Minister Hawke making it clear that protection was not given because the Government believed in Bula, but because it thought the religious beliefs of Jawoyn people who did, and who would be anguished by desecration of the site, were entitled to respect. If Hills does not appreciate the difference between respecting beliefs and sharing them, he is hardly qualified to comment on public affairs in a democratic country. The same applies to Ron Brunton, who, Hills tells us, based criticism of the ban on the absence of "adverse reaction from Bula" after previous mining. Such trivialisation of beliefs held in another culture is hardly the mark of a professional anthropologist, however "dissident". It adds to the piquancy of Brunton's claim that he became a consultant (to the Institute of Public Affairs) because "he was tired of the politicisation of anthropology". - Hal Wootten, Glebe --- 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] SMH article re anthropology
Some members of this list may have seen the article concerning anthropology in last Saturday's Sydney Morning herald, or obtained a copy of it over the net. This is a truly outrageous article. People "outside" the discipline of anthropology may not know that the "hero" of the article, Ron Brunton was so "tired of politicisation of Aboriginal affairs" (as the article tries to suggest) , that he when he left teaching he took up a job as research officer with the Victorian Branch of the Liberal Party! He moved from there to the Institute of Public Affairs where he was a paid employee until 1994. Most people would regard this as a "right wing think tank". Brunton prefers to say that the "Institute of Public Affairs is committed to a free market, a free market philosophy in a classical liberal sense." (from Yorta Yorta transcript 13/8/1997) After 1994 he worked for the Tasman Institite, another right wind think tank. Both of these organisations are directly funded by Western Mining Company and other mining bodies. In the course of the Yorta Yorta hearing, while giving evidence for various opponents of the claim, Brunton accepted that he had never done any real fieldwork with Aboriginal people. The image conveyed by the article, of Brunton as an "independent whistleblower" shunned by the anthropological profession is simply nonsense. Brunton's background lies in heavily committed work as a publicist for the view on Aboriginal affairs favoured by mining companies and other related bodies. Other aspects of the article are also grossly inaccurate. I'm trying to find time to pen a reply to it. Cheers Rod Rod Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hurstbridge, Victoria, Australia WWWhttp://www.netspace.net.au/~rodhagen --- 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/
Re: [recoznet2] SMH article re anthropology
Thanks to Rod for alerting us to the pedigree of Brunton and the IPA. Further to this, it is worth mentioning that the IPA and the Liberal party are peas in a pod. In fact, it is fair to say that the Liberal party is the political wing of the IPA. Contrary to the usual myththat says the Liberal Party was founded by Robert Menzies, the truth is that the IPA - a collection of conservative, right wing and business interests - sought Menzies out as an appropriate leader for a new liberal/conservative party. One of thekey members was CD Kemp, father of the current Education minister. David Kemp (current minister), in an essay on liberalism in Australia once wrote: "The IPA influenced the new Liberal Party in both its organization and policies...Its impact was readily visible in the Liberal Party's new policy statement. W.H. Anderson, the president of the [Liberal] party, maintained close communication with the IPA." (Ref: "Liberalism and Conservatisim in Australian" in Walter and Head (eds) Intellectual Movements And Australian Society, 1988) Actually, in the same book, there is a great article by James Walter on the role of the IPA as a source of policy and ideas for the early Liberal Party and about its competition with Chifley's policy unit within the Labor govt headed up by Nuggett Coombs. Part of the reason it is so fascinating is that it shows the historical roots of the sort of economic and social policy arguments we are still having today. And the IPA is still at the forefront of feeding ideas into the Libs. Finally, Brunton's infamous response to the Stolen Generations report can be found on the IPA site at: http://www.ipa.org.au/Units/IndigenousIssues/indigenousunit.html Their role is to provide intellectual justifications for rolling back anything that looks remotely progressive in Australian politics, especially in regard to Indigenous issues. And Rod, I'd be really interested to hear your response to the SMH article if that is possible. Tim == Some members of this list may have seen the article concerning anthropologyin last Saturday's Sydney Morning herald, or obtained a copy of it over thenet.This is a truly outrageous article.People "outside" the discipline of anthropology may not know that the"hero" of the article, Ron Brunton was so "tired of politicisation ofAboriginal affairs" (as the article tries to suggest) , that he when heleft teaching he took up a job as research officer with the VictorianBranch of the Liberal Party!He moved from there to the Institute of Public Affairs where he was a paidemployee until 1994. Most people would regard this as a "right wing thinktank". Brunton prefers to say that the "Institute of Public Affairs iscommitted to a free market, a free market philosophy in a classical liberalsense." (from Yorta Yorta transcript 13/8/1997)After 1994 he worked for the Tasman Institite, another right wind think tank.Both of these organisations are directly funded by Western Mining Companyand other mining bodies.In the course of the Yorta Yorta hearing, while giving evidence for variousopponents of the claim, Brunton accepted that he had never done any realfieldwork with Aboriginal people.The image conveyed by the article, of Brunton as an "independentwhistleblower" shunned by the anthropological profession is simplynonsense. Brunton's background lies in heavily committed work as apublicist for the view on Aboriginal affairs favoured by mining companiesand other related bodies.Other aspects of the article are also grossly inaccurate. I'm trying tofind time to pen a reply to it.CheersRodRod Hagen[EMAIL PROTECTED]Hurstbridge, Victoria, AustraliaWWW http://www.netspace.net.au/~rodhagen---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 bodyof the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click heremailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announceThis posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from thecopyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fairuse" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further withoutpermission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
