Just a quick note to wish everyone the best for the holiday
season and to thank you all for an enlightening year of discussion, argument and
info-sharing. Hope things can continue next year!
And thanks in particular to Trudy for all her work, especially
the invaluable clip service, a
Hi Chris,
This is a great account and I thank you for it. The
problem you mention - depoliticisation - is an ongoing one that faces mass
movements of any sort I reckon. To get the broad appeal you seem to have
to, on one level, remove any of the sharp edges that might "scare the horses"
In addition to what Tony asks below, has anyone got a copy of
the Pearson speech where he endorses the Libs, Hitler and fishnet stockings (or
whatever it was he's said this time)? Any help much
appreciated.
Cheers
Tim
-Original Message-From:
TONY SPIERS [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
Hi Laurie,
You wrote:
The difference as I see it, is that Dr. Perkins was saying that 'burn baby
burn' could happen if non-Indigenous Australians did not give proper
recognition to the problems of Aboriginal people---he put the
responsibility
for "burn ,baby ,burn" onto the perpetrators of
Hi Laurie:
You wrote:
Sorry Tim, the issue is not ''simply what is said."
The issue is the difference between criticising the enemy and giving
comfort
to the enemy.
Okay, so the difference IS between what he said and what the enemies said he
said. So you're back to arguing he shouldn't have
Trudy wrote:
I disagree, Tim.
Noel Pearson is an intelligent man and I'm sure that from his
experiences as an Indigenous person he would have known how his words
would be used.
And he said them anyway. I wonder why?
Tim
--
RecOzNet2 has
There's nice Turkish saying that maybe applies to Pearson?
"When the axe came into the woods, the trees all said, 'Well, at least the
handle is one of us.'"
Or maybe that's what Pearson is saying about "progressive" solutions?
Cheers
Tim
--
Jason - nice summary.
One additional point: when you say
"His argumentsare a plea to find new - perhaps even
old tradional ways - of combating the'confusiojn-producing mechanisms of
the contemporary social and economicorder" I don't think there is any
"perhaps" about it.
He IS looking
I agree with you, Trudy. But that is because his words are constantly
mis-represented (as is that of Marx, Jesus, Charles Perkins and any number
of other people). But that doesn't mean they shouldn't say things, or that
they should carefully try to anticipate any misuses that their words will
Susanne - I really hope you do get a directory together. It is a wonderful
idea to use 'country' names in our addresses. Maybe you could interest the
post office?! Good luck.
Tim
-Original Message-
From: webweave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Trudy wrote:
As it is, it appears he has done them a disservice.
Well, maybe it's too early to judge. Hasn't the Qld govt implemented some
version of his 'plan' in Cape York? Has this involved a cutback in
"welfare" funding? Is that even the question? Is it
Laurie wrote:
This emphasises the danger of people like Noel Pearson inferring that
Aboriginal people are getting too much welfare --they are not getting
nearly enough assistance, financial or otherwise.
Laurie, Pearson infers no such thing. He writes: "So when I say that the
indigenous
Tony,
Can I take it from what you write below that you were at the Quadrant vs
Reynolds debate? I was unable to go and have yet to hear a decent report.
If you did go, I for one would really appreciate any summary you might like
to give.
Thanks a lot
Tim
-Original Message-
From:
Title: Re: [recoznet2] Re: ABC News: Maggots in patient's ear worry coroner
Christine wrote:2. the media is quite likely
(ABC or not) to latch onto the idea of maggots - in any context - really I
suspect a lot of this debate is pointless without knowing a little more about
it...my 2
Laurie wrote:
I suppose the bottom line is, would any of us be "settled down" or as
Sandy
says, ''relaxed and comfortable", if our own child or sibling died under
such conditions?
But I don't think this is the bottom line. Your concern, quite rightly, is
whether the maggots are an indicator of
Well I guess you might be right about this, Laurie. But it does say there
was brain damage after a car accident which suggests a head injury which
suggests there might be blood. It certainly doesn't seem like a far-fetched
conclusion that someone would bleed in the ear after sustaining a head
Thought people might appreciate this piece. Although the
figures that underpin it are American, it might be interesting to dig up the
equivalent local stats.
Tim
Getting Serious About White Deviance:An Open Letter to the
Pioneer FundBy Tim WiseTo Whom It May Concern:With great
Hi all,
Thought some might be interested in this NZ site I happened
upon.
Cheers
Timhttp://www.kennett.co.nz/law/indigenous/index.html
MINISTERIAL PRESS RELEASE
The government is pleased to announce the return of
Immigration and Reconciliation Minister Mr Phillip Ruddock to Australia.
Mr Ruddock, who arrived early this morning on a plane that
wasn't invented by Aborigines, declared his Woman's Weekly tour of European
From the same European Newswire Service:
Reconciliation Minister Phillip Ruddock, on a whirlwind
Woman's Weekly tour of Europeanhuman rights' stop-overs, again today
piqued historical curiosity by excitedly telling an Italian newspaper that he
suspected that the great monolith in the middle
From a European Wire Service:
The European Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Monsieur Phillipe Ruudeocker,
today said that ancient Europeans were clearly "pretty dumb" because they
had not invented the boomerang. "This is not a moral judgement, merely a
statement of fact," he added. "Sure they
Kasey wrote:
There are proper channels by which to
target grievances and they are not by battling those who just happen to get
caught up in the protest.
Can you give us some examples of these 'proper channels'; ones that would
allow opponents of corporate globalisation an equal voice with those
Hi Tony,
Another great post.
I've always been pretty convinced by arguments for a legislative bill of
rights, as opposed to a constitutional one, mainly on the grounds that it
allowed ongoing scrutiny by the duly elected parliament. I have a bias in
general for open discussion in a forum
Hi Laurie,
I agree about the lack of media coverage - all the more reason to be
grateful for forums like recoznet2 where 'unmediated' information gets
circulated.
Clarke's discussion of sovereignty is fascinating and I only wish I knew
more about it - but at least he points me in the direction
Hi all,
I agree with Kasey - I don't follow the logic either.
The constitution contains racist elements, therefore we are all racist? Was
that it? On that logic, as the constitution is monarchical we are therefore
all monarchists.
There are a million similar examples: I have Microsoft
Hi Laurie,
Interesting comments - I've interspersed a few in return.
Laurie wrote:
Very true, Sandy.
Problems seem to arise when we are unprepared to recognise or unable to
understand that others also have the same rights.
Hence the necessity to not only have a Bill of Rights but also be
Hi Trudy,
You're right, and I take the general point - withholding money can be
another way of influencing outcomes. It is also true that US hasn't paid
its regular fees for a number of years; however, it does contribute
voluntary funding to particular bodies such as UNESCO and it has provided
Hi,
Thought people might be interested in this, given the basis of
Howard's current whinging. There's two extracts below - Sorry its a bit
long.
This is from an article in today's paper where Mary Robinson
rejects Howard's complaints.
begin extract
Prime Minister John Howard's attack on
Brooke wrote, referring to the article below:
This is really terrible!
My question is, why? I am showing my ignorance of the protocol in question
but would appreciate if someone could explain its function and therefore why
the govt's behaviour is terrible - I don't find any self-evident
Hi Tim,
Surely it is terrible that a government would return someone to a place
where they claim they were tortured without first ensuring that any such
claims are false.
Hi Laurie - yeah, it is beyond obvious that it is, if, as you say, the claim
is true. My question is really to do with
Thanks a lot, Sandy. I'll do some research on some other points - the UN
site isn't much help actually, well, so far. I guess I'm also interested in
the idea that the UN should be some sort of court appeal over and above
those in any given state. We used to do that to the Privy Council in
Naomi wrote:
I resent that the world gets this lovely more often than not anglo cheesy
version of how wonderful and multicultural our nation is, when it is far
from being an accurate representation.
Just a quick comment on this. Rest assured, the world has no such "anglo
cheesy version of how
Sorry if this is cross-posted, but here is Noel Pearson's
speech in full. I've had to post it in two parts because of length.
Part 2 is on its way.
Tim
==
THE LIGHT ON THE HILLNoel PearsonBen Chifley
Memorial LectureBathurst Panthers Leagues ClubSaturday 12 August
Um...sorry...looks like it will be 3
parts
===
When I consider the history of your people, I am
struck by the ironies. FewAustralians today appreciate their
history. They do not realise that thecertainties they yearn for were
guaranteed
Our society and our culture is not a conspiracy. There
are no cynics at thetop of the pyramid who use their power to maintain an
unnecessarily unequalsociety. Stratified society is perpetuated
because of the self-interestthat everybody has in not sinking down.
People believe what it is in
Bad guys win when everyone starts playing by the bad guys' rules. The
justification that 'it was political' doesn't wash - unless we defend the
right of John Howard or whoever to use the same excuse. It was a political
decision that stopped the Lib backbenchers crossing the floor on mandatory
Hi Laurie,
As I've followed the argument, Clarke isn't refusing to play according to
the bad guys' dictates, he's using exactly the same justification - this is
'political' and I therefore won't stand aside. Just like Howard's
minister's wouldn't. He's not making a principled stand against
Hi Laurie,
Laurie wrote:
Hi Tim,
I don't accept the comparison between Clark and Howard and his gang.
I think that's fair enough and would be at pains to say the comparison is
rather one dimensional - that is, both refused to follow the procedural
expectation (not law, not even necessarily a
Isabella wrote:
I oppose the calls for Clarke to stand down until his trial. It's clear
that community standards have changed and it seems to me that that is
something we should be extremely concerned about. With the rule of law
increasingly under attack the principle of innocence until proven
Trudy,
Of course Howard wouldn't stand down - and I, too, was thinking of the
example set by him and his ministers during the various rorts allegations
(though Labor doesn't come out with much cred on this score either).
Why pick on Clarke? I wasn't, though Karen might have been.
Hi Trudy,
you wrote:
I agree with you, Tim, that ALL in those kinds of situations should
stand down.
Okay
Trudy:
It seems, however, that society has accepted - in general -
what has become the standard behaviour of this government.
Including Geoff Clarke and those who support him staying.
Tony wrote:
1. About a month ago, Sandy Sanders put a question to me after I had
written that ATSIC has no mandate to speak for indigenous law. That was in
response to the news that Pat Dodson has proposed that ATSIC negotiate a
treaty with the government. I'd like to apologise for not
Brendan Nelson was in Moree with the PM, but Herron
wasn't? Sounds like those rumours of an new Aboriginal Affairs minister
are correct. The more things change...?
Tim
The Sydney Morning HeraldIn Moree, a visit by the PM is as
rare as an apologyDate: 14/06/2000By ANDREW CLENNELL in
Judi wrote:
Dear Jim,
Like yourself I felt a little cynical about the Sydney Harbour march but it
has at least raised awareness.
Howdy all,
I don't really understand people being cynical about Sunday's walk, though
I'm sure people have good reasons. I understand people's frustration, and
Hi Trudy,
Glad you liked it. I hadn't seen it. One of the more profound
contributions (not). Here it is:
Dear Editor,
Michelle Grattan reported (SMH 17 May) that the PM wouldn't allow his
ministers to walk across the bridge for reconciliation. Then she reported
(SMH 18 May) that he would.
Jim wrote:
Yup, only three years ago the Mayor of the shire in which the Bindjareb
Massacre was perpetrated suggested that it was not a massacre, and if it
was
not a battle, perhaps we could describe it as an altercation. Yeah!
Right!
Just like like the Second World Altercation?
God, or
Graham wrote:
While I am often of the view that a gently gently
approach is the best way to proceed, this is not one of those cases. If
John Howard wants to be the odd man out on this, then he has to be visibly
left out there on his own. If he doesn't think that Reconciliation is the
right
47 matches
Mail list logo
