October 20, 2011

"Pet Aborigines" - that's ok, right?

Addressing the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education conference in Darwin, Dr Sarra accused supporters of the intervention of holding low expectations of Aboriginal people.

Dr Sarra, executive director of the Stronger Smarter Institute at the Queensland University of Technology, described indigenous leaders who backed the intervention as "pet Aborigines" telling white politicians and bureaucrats what they wanted to hear.

"The NT intervention continued the pattern of signalling a lack of belief in the sense of capacity and worth of Aboriginal Australians," he said.

"It failed to acknowledge and honour the humanity of Aboriginal people in the NT . . . (who) were considered so incapable that the army had to be sent in from the outside to fix them."
NT policy displays lack of belief

Elsewhere, and presumably from the same disingenuous and dangerous speech, Chris Sarra was also quoted as saying:
the intervention dehumanised Aboriginal people and was the latest in a history of government policies that "engineered the impoverishment" of indigenous communities.
 That "engineered impoverishment" would be the $100K per year spent on Aboriginal programs. (Yes, we could throw out the bureaucrats and just give every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander a tax free six figure income each year, so do with as they will ... although that $100K each should, mostly, I assume, go to the 25% who do not live and work in the developed cities and regions, along with the rest of us).

Any member of the Aboriginal community who has gained a significant tertiary eduction should not - ever - begrudge food and a primary school education for the most woe begotten children.  And if that requires the army to enforce, so be it (for the food and schooling I mean; not the begrudger).  There is no honour in denying a decent and safe upbringing to Aboriginal children.  None.  At. All.

If only someone would deal with the execrable Dr Sarra.  I believe there is legislation to deal with such things, non?   Isn't "pet aborigine" a tad insulting, offensive, humiliating and intimidating; perhaps, one could argue, intended to silence the Aboriginal people to whom he has directed his comments and with who he disagrees.

Meanwhile, no surprise that News Ltd/ Andrew Bolt will not be appealing the recent court decision.  A correction will be duly published - twice - citing the finely crafted words of the judge, and the legal fees incurred by the winning parties will be paid.  Case closed. Barely worth the newsprint.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/herald-sun-to-run-correction-over-bolt-case/story-e6frg996-1226170492978

And Fairfax just won't let it go ... still banging on as if Bolt (a devil-like creature) has been generally flogged and publicly humiliated, which he hasn't.

Controversy is one thing, getting it wrong should be another



2 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:38 PM

    Sarra is the same bloke who blamed shortcomings in Indigenous education was due to "white trash" school teachers. About the time that Gillard appointed him to the Australian Government Social Inclusion Board. What a joke. Sarra is Gillard's "pet aboriginie"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:39 PM

    Yeah why doesnt he get sued like Andrew Bolt did?

    ReplyDelete