A policy of assimilation rather than separation First and Second I believe will tend to engender common cause rather than accentuating difference which tends to create increasing prejudice as the rhetoric fails as in the past to match reality.
“By
despising himself too much a man comes to be worthy of his own contempt.”(Amiel, 1909, p. 180)
Australian
citizens of indigenous ancestry already have more voice to power within the
existing National and State parliamentary frameworks. They have their own
National Ministry for Indigenous Australians run by an Australian citizen of
indigenous ancestry as well as State equivalents. There are already expensive
extensive bureaucracy plural.
How
will further embedding of an already failed voice close the Gap, other than an
elite indigenous and non-indigenous doubling down on failed policy demanding
further scarce resources belonging to all Australian citizens to fill their
bottomless pit policy failures.
The
claim more voice to power is required when there is clearly much more already
in existence than granted to any other citizen or group would rationally
determine the Gap has nothing to do with the lack of voice interaction of
Australian citizens of indigenous ancestry in policy which affects them.
I
argue the voice or any increase in its power relative to every other citizen or
group simply changes nothing except further entrench the Gap as the voice
ideas, ideals, precepts, assumptions have not changed the outcomes will not.
Worse
there is another layer of bureaucracy from local to national level inserting
increased power to a specific group which no other group has in a Democracy to
screw policy and therefore scarce resources in their direction. It is totally
equitably unfair. Equal Voice to Power ceases, we are no longer a Nation of
equals, literally First and Second citizens in power.
Based
upon an assumption no social system will change without an external force,
predicated on a view no one within a system is able recognise how to
resolve systemic internal mindsets imbued by biology/culture ideology
conception to death development process leading to violence and social
dysfunction because they have the same imbued mindset which externalises locus
of control i.e. blame others for their own behavior rather than take
internalised locus of control i.e. accept they are culpable and seek
methodology for change which lie outside their own rationale system precepts.
In
1850 what would you recommend as a Government policy advisor to resolve stone
age indigenous tribal brutality against each other?
“The
place was all surrounded by bush, and hundreds of Gundagai aborigines used to
camp close by. And well do I remember many of the fights in which they
participated.
About the year 1850 a big battle took place just behind where the old brick
mill on Morley’s Creek now stands. One morning we were awakened at daylight by piteous
begging of a blackfellow to be let into our house. My husband gave him entry,
and then he let a number of others in. They told us the Lachlan tribe had
swooped down on them in the night and had massacred some of the Gundagai tribe.
The last black fellow to come in had a long spear sticking out of his
stomach-and, really, I wasn’t sorry as he was a cheeky dangerous man. Next
morning ??? went to see what the damage was, and found two blacks -Motogee and
Mecky, dead while a large number were wounded. A number of gins were speared.
One of them Kitty, escaped by swimming Morley’s Creek carrying her two
piccaninnies, aHund […] the ??? Ark, which stood below where […]. The marauding
band also speared dogs and did other damage. They took away with them the legs
of the dead blackfellows, cutting the limbs off at the thigh. They also carried
away the dead men’s kidney fat. […] After this slaughter the Gundagai blacks
thirsted for revenge. They made elaborate preparations, and, leaving their gins
behind, set out to pay back the debt they owed their Lachlan enemies. After
being away some days, they returned laden with trophies of war-the most prized
of which were the legs and kidney fat of some of their opponents. At night they
made a big fire on the Flat, and roasted the flesh of the Lachlan victims, and
partook of a cannibal feast.
The blacks never murdered any white folk. I recollect the last big fight
between the tribes. An old man named Billy Pemberton was walking down our main
street early one morning when a mob of strange blacks accosted him with,
‘’Where blackfellow camped?’’. Billy directed them the wrong way and ran and
warned the local tribe. A lot of them raced to our place for shelter. My
husband was away at the time-only myself and two babies were in the house. I
let a couple of blackfellows in and they got under the bed. Others planted in
the outhouse; in Turnbull’s store in Lindley's yard and one got under a cask.
But he forgot his dog, which started scratching outside the barrel and when the
“invaders” came along the dog's antics directed their attention to the barrel
and they hauled out the planted man, and I don’t think there was an inch of his
body into which they did not put spears.”
Daily Advertiser (Wagga Wagga,
NSW: 1911 - 1954) Sat 18 May 1912 Page 3 Sixty Years Ago.
In
2022 what would you recommended as a Government policy advisor to resolve
indigenous brutality against each other and social dysfunction.
We
can, and must, stop the violence and dysfunction, The
Australian, NYUNGGAI WARREN MUNDINE, 11:00PM MARCH 18, 2022
I
argue the Voice will not solve the violence and dysfunction existent in
Australian citizens of indigenous ancestry this will only occur if an outside
force of assimilation rather than falling back into the exact same imbued mindset
by separating citizens in a First and Second groupings where the First
determines their children should not be subject to nor removed from them based
on Western developed measures of threat to children’s welfare because
Australian citizens of indigenous ancestry have a different parental criteria.
Having
the Voice claim it will close the gap under such circumstances where such
parental behavior has sufficient evidence to determine not intervening will
create negative outcomes not only for the child but the community within which
they exist will not resolve the Gap, it perpetuates it.
Educating
children without a priority of assimilation into the broader Australian
community traps these children within a dogma of stasis, a petrified tribal
past will not resolve the Gap, it perpetuates it as nothing has changed as the
Voice is the same force driving policy under the same old paradigm,
the colonialist simply do not understand, what is involved in bringing up
children so they are educated, healthy, non-aggressive and relatively confident
in a positive future.
It
can be tested if the assimilation approach above is more likely to close the
gap by collecting data on Australian citizens of indigenous ancestry and
non-indigenous on type and level of
indigenous/non-indigenous education, degrees of tribal-rural-town-urban
residence, levels of income, occupations, industry, criminality, health,
drug/alcohol addiction.
Clearly
the elite Australian citizens of indigenous ancestry have failed to bring the
children out of their relatively higher behavior of violence and dysfunction
giving this elite even more power to do possibly even worse condemns many OZ
children to a continuing cycle of tragedy.
Children
must be given the opportunity to expand their life horizons not delete them.
A
policy of assimilation rather than separation First and Second I believe will
tend to engender common cause rather than accentuating difference which tends
to create increasing prejudice as the rhetoric fails as in the past to match
reality.
Non-indigenous
must take the lead in consultation with indigenous citizens because
non-indigenous have greater resources expertise, non-indigenous citizens are
paying for whatever policy decisions are made and critically having the same Indigenous
elite driving the process who have failed and failed again in providing voice
to power to resolve the Gap simply reinforces the mistakes.
A
different approach is required but it is not the same Voice repeating the same
reasons for failure. It is to be established by analysing the data suggested
above and moving children into the most beneficial social scape context which
may or may not align with the elites dogma. So what? Who are we concerned about
here culture ideological abstracts or the health, welfare and
opportunity for children?
Vote
No.
“Results
indicated that low maternal care was significantly associated with greater
total callous-unemotional traits (CU) traits and uncaring and callousness
dimensions, even after controlling for the effects of various types of
childhood abuse and neglect. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction
between CU traits and care, such that aggression was highest among youths
scoring high on CU traits who were exposed to low levels of maternal care.
These findings draw attention to the importance of maternal bonding to CU traits
and related aggressive behaviors among antisocial youth."
Maternal
care, maltreatment and callous-unemotional traits among urban male juvenile
offenders callous-unemotional traits, ER Kimonis, B Cross, A Howard - Journal
of Youth Adolescence, 2013
"Analyses
provided support for a direct influence of maternal hostile attributions on the
development of child hostile attributions and aggressive behaviour."
A
Longitudinal Investigation of Maternal Influences on the Development of Child
Hostile Attributions and Aggression, Sarah J. Healy , Lynne Murray , Peter J.
Cooper , Claire Hughes & Sarah L. Halligan,18 Nov 2013
“The
culture in which one is immersed influences how one behaves towards others on
all levels: and individual to another individual, as members of a group towards
members of another group, as an individual or group member to the
institutionalised social will. Implicit default assumptions about others
influence individual cultural worldviews and habit which in turn shape the
culture of child rearing that adults provide influencing the next generation
and so on."
Neurobiology
and the Development of Human Morality, Darcia Navais, 2014
“...cultural
acceptance of violence, either as a normal method of resolving conflict or as a
usual part of rearing a child, is a risk factor for all types of interpersonal
violence. It may also help explain why countries experiencing high levels of
one type of violence also experience increased levels of other types. Social
tolerance of violent behaviour is likely learned in childhood, through the use
of corporal punishment or witnessing violence in the family, in the media or in
other settings." Changing cultural
and social norms that support violence, by World Health Organization - 2009
""Culture,
of course, is related to violence in general and not only to structural
violence. For example, culture influences the determination of
"thresholds" which pressure on a person must overcome in order to
move that person from being controllable, or even positive, to being negative
(that is, into violence)." The
Culture of Violence, Chp 3. On the relationship between violence and culture -
Galtung's concept"
"Early
childhood, middle childhood, and adolescence represent the 3 stages of child
development. Each stage is organized around the primary tasks of development
for that period.
Early
childhood (usually defined as birth to year 8) is a time of tremendous
physical, cognitive, and socio-emotional development.
Middle
childhood (usually defined as ages 6 to 12) is a time when children develop
skills for building healthy social relationships and learn roles that will lay
groundwork for a lifetime.”
Healthy
People 2010 (Federal Government Web site managed by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services)"
“Society
rests upon conscience and not upon science. Civilization is first and foremost
a moral thing. Without honesty, without respect for law, without the worship of
duty, without the love of one's neighbour, -- in a word, without virtue, -- the
whole is menaced and falls into decay, and neither letters nor art, neither
luxury nor industry, nor rhetoric, nor the policeman, nor the customhouse
officer, can maintain erect and whole an edifice of which the foundations are
unsound.
A
State founded upon interest alone and cemented by fear is an ignoble and unsafe
construction. The ultimate ground upon which every civilisation rests is the
average morality of the masses, and a sufficient amount of practical
righteousness. Duty is what upholds all. So that those who humbly and
unobtrusively fulfil it, and set a good example thereby, are the salvation and
the sustenance of this brilliant world, which knows nothing about them. Ten
righteous men would have saved Sodom, but thousands and thousands of good
homely folk are needed to preserve a people from corruption and decay.
If
ignorance and passion are the foes of popular morality, it must be confessed
that moral indifference is the malady of cultivated classes. The modern
separation of enlightenment and virtue, of thought and conscience, of the
intellectual aristocracy from the honest and vulgar crowd, is the greatest
danger that can threaten liberty. When any society produces an increasing
number of literary exquisites, of satirists, sceptics, and beaux esprits, some
chemical disorganisation of fabric may be inferred. Take, for example, the
century of Augustus and that of Louis XV. cynics and railers are mere egotists,
who stand aloof from the common duty, and in their indolent remoteness are of
no service to society against any ill which may attack it. Their cultivation
consists in having got rid of feeling. And thus, they fall farther and farther
away from true humanity, and approach nearer to the Our demoniacal nature. What
was it that Mephistopheles lacked? Not intelligence certainly, but goodness.” (Amiel, 1909, pp. 177,178)
“Liberalism,
is then, like conservatism, a state of mind. It is optimistic in spirit. It
looks forward to an ideal state and is always on the search for abuse is to
remedy. Generosity and broadmindedness are the virtues claimed by liberalism.
Vagueness, instability, and insincerity are its defects. It is sometimes so
much afraid of nationalism that its sides with the enemy, out of excess of
virtue, and so much opposed to tyranny that it encourages licence and is unjust
to the ruling side.
There
has always been an “extreme left” party. Formally they were called radicals;
now they are socialists or communists. They're people filled with a strong
sense of the injustice of existing conditions, with a burning determination to
right the wrongs of the “underdog.” they are opposed to the existing order of
things, not content with gradual amelioration, but ready to face revolution, if
it is necessary to accomplish their ideals. They do not accept the categories
of rich and poor, master and man, as part of the immutable order of nature.
Socialism
is primarily an economic doctrine, but it has become something like a gospel for
many. It holds that all our evils of unequal wealth, some men too rich, and
many to poor, spring from unchecked individualism, or competition, which
encourages self-seeking and greed. It, therefore, proposes to nationalise the
means of production, transport, and exchange. This means that the bulk of the
population would be civil servants, drawing standardised wages. Socialist
believe that civic patriotism would be a sufficient substitute for the motive
of individual gain, and that a great deal of waste might be illuminated by
abolishing competition. […]
Socialists
are strongly opposed to war and militarism. […] In its intermediate stages it
resembles an advanced liberalism; it places more burden on the rich and fosters
trade unions. Its attitude towards royalty and state religion is tolerant
rather than friendly. Its chief danger would seem to be a levelling down to a
drab mediocrity. It does offer a remedy for many admitted evils, but many
people think it's full aims to be unrealisable in an imperfect world.”(Stobart, 1933, pp. 101,102)
“Criticism
become a habit, a fashion, and a system, means the destruction of moral energy,
of faith, and of all spiritual force. One of my tendencies leads me in this
direction, but I recoil before its results when I come across more emphatic
types of it than myself. And at least I cannot reproach myself with having ever
attempted to destroy the moral force of others; my reverence for life forbade
it, and my self-distrust has taken from me even the temptation to it.
This
kind of temper is very dangerous among us, for it flatters all the worst
instincts of men,--indiscipline, irreverence, selfish individualism,-and it
ends in social atomism. Minds inclined to mere negation are only harmless in
great political organisms, which go without them and in spite of them. The
multiplication of them amongst ourselves will bring about the ruin of our
little countries, for small states only live by faith and will. Woe to the
society where negation rules, for life is an affirmation; and a society, a
country, a nation, is a living whole capable of death. No nationality is
possible without prejudices, for public spirit and national tradition are but
webs woven out of innumerable beliefs which have been acquired, admitted, and
continued without formal proof and without discussion. To act, we must believe;
to believe, we must make up our minds, affirm, decide, and in reality prejudge
the question, He who will only act upon a full scientific certitude is unfit
for practical life. But we are made for action, and we cannot escape from duty.
long as we have nothing but doubt to put in its place, or laugh at Let us not,
then, condemn prejudice so long as we have nothing but delta put in its place,
all laugh at those whom we should be incapable of consoling! This at least is
my point of view.
Beyond
the element which is common to all men there is an element which separates
them. This element may be religion, country, language, education. But all these
being supposed common, there still remains something which serves as a line of
demarcation namely, the ideal. To have an ideal or to have none, to have this
ideal or that,-this is what digs gulfs between men, even between those who live
in the same family circle, under the same roof or in the same room. You must
love with the same love, think with the same thought as someone else, if you
are to escape solitude.
Mutual
respect implies discretion and reserve even in love itself; it means preserving
as much liberty as possible to those whose life we share. We must distrust our
instinct of intervention, for the desire to make one's own will prevail is
often disguised under the mask of solicitude.
How
many times we become hypocrites simply by remaining the same outwardly and
towards others, when we know that inwardly and to ourselves, we are different.
It is not hypocrisy in the strict sense, for we borrow no other personality
than our own; still, it is a kind of deception. The deception humiliates us,
and the humiliation is a chastisement which the mask inflicts upon the face,
which our past inflicts upon our present. Such humiliation is good for us; for
it produces shame, and shame gives birth to repentance. Thus, in an upright
soul good springs out of evil, and it falls only to rise again.”(Amiel, 1909, p. 88)
Amiel, H. F. (1909).
Amiel's Journal: The Journal Intime of Henri-Frédéric Amiel; Tr., with an
Introduction and Notes. Macmillan and Company.
Stobart, J. C.
(1933). THE GOSPEL OF HAPPINESS. GEOFFRY BLESS.
Comments
Post a Comment