As human beings, we often act in ways that are contradictory. Little inconsistencies are fine, but when they become major themes in one’s life, that’s a problem. What follows are some examples of inconsistencies that are major themes among the Aboriginal activists – the blacktivists. And by blacktivists I mean that minority of Aboriginal people who publicly claim to be upset by Australia Day and feel everyone needs to ‘decolonise’ – and promote other such nonsense. They give a bad name to Aboriginal people.
While quick to see racism against Aboriginal people around every corner, whether it be in beautiful golliwog dolls or relatively harmless statements like ‘You don’t look Aboriginal to me,’ the blacktivists are blind to their own racism – or at least what could be considered racism according to the low threshold they use to define racism. Consider the examples that follow:
You enter a room full of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. You walk in and acknowledge only the Aboriginal people. Maybe you give lip service to acknowledging ‘whitey’, but your body language shows they may as well be invisible. Surely most would agree that this is racism if only the Aboriginal people in the room are acknowledged. Now consider a person who identifies as Aboriginal but has a mix of ancestries. Is it any less racist if they acknowledge only their Aboriginal ancestry?
Now consider the case of ‘selective outrage’ on the basis of race. The blacktivists go into outrage mode if a white person (or institution) can be implicated in any harm to an Aboriginal person. We’ve all seen this ‘outrage’. Consider those blacktivists marching with their protest banners saying: ‘Stop Black Deaths in Custody’. However, they go very quiet when an Aboriginal person is harmed by another Aboriginal person (have you ever seen a protest march where the banners read ‘Stop Black Deaths in Our Communities’?). Consider the recent story of a former Aboriginal community policeman who was convicted of molesting a seven year-old girl in Tennant Creek. This was reported on few, if any, Indigenous-focused social media websites. Had he been non-Aboriginal, they would have plastered the story all over their pages. Is this inconsistency not a form of racism? So the lesson is: if you are Aboriginal and are hurt by a non-Aboriginal person, you can expect the mob to support you. But if the perpetrator is Aboriginal, then you are on your own. Surely that is racism.
Highlight any social problem that disproportionately affects Aboriginal people and you will likely be accused of stereotyping. Actually, it depends on the problem. For example, it’s okay to talk about high rates of diabetes, but mention high rates of violence or child abuse and expect to be accused of stereotyping.
What’s more, while the blacktivists are keen to accuse others of stereotyping them, they have no trouble stereotyping non-Aboriginal Australians when it suits them. For example, surely making the claim ‘Australia is a racist country’ is stereotyping other Australians – or do they include themselves? Only a minority of non-Aboriginal Australians would be racist against Aboriginal people, so to suggest otherwise is gross stereotyping, and very damaging to race relations.
But the stereotyping is not just attacking non-Aboriginal Australians, they are pleased to stereotype themselves when it suits them. I want to throw up every time I hear some Aboriginal people refer to themselves as ‘natural story tellers’ or proclaim their ‘affinity with the land’ or their ‘holistic view of health,’ or whatever. This may be true for some, but too often it is just more stereotypical BS!
The blacktivists are generally very slow to forgive. Watch a politician or celebrity say something that is dumb and worthy of criticism, or something that is neutral but can be given a racist spin by blacktivists – they will be quick to attack and unlikely to forgive. Quick to blame today’s problems on colonisation, they demand apologies and acknowledgement. My blood starts to boil when I hear ‘We can’t move forward together as one until white Australia acknowledges past atrocities.’ Newsflash – many Aboriginal people already have moved on. The key to moving on is to forgive whoever did wrong in the past (if indeed they feel they are still truly suffering from the past) rather than trying to force an apology and acknowledgement from the whole of today’s non-Aboriginal population.
However, I can think of one person they were incredibly quick to forgive. I won’t mention his name as it may result in a lawsuit, but there was one young man who has a very long rap sheet who was accorded celebrity status because he was portrayed on national television as mishandled by the law. The praise given to this young man in the social media by blacktivists, and their ‘whitefella’ acolytes, had me reaching for the bucket. I wish this young man well, but it won’t be easy for him, given that he is being used by the blacktivists to promote their cause of ‘Whites are evil’.
Those identifying as Aboriginal very often have a mix of ancestries; sometimes the Aboriginal contribution is very small. Of course it is an individual’s right if he or she wants to identify as Aboriginal, but don’t yell racism when someone states ‘You’ve got very fair skin’ because that can be just a simple fact. Those with minimal Aboriginal ancestry are very quick to justify their choice of identity (and make no mistake, it is a choice) with ‘Aboriginality is not in the colour of my skin but about my spiritual connections…’. Well, if you are going to play the spiritual card, then be consistent and play it when discussing land ownership and dispossession. Why is it that for blacktivists their Aboriginal identity is based on ‘spirituality’ but connection to land is based on physical occupancy? I have never partaken in ‘I’ve been dispossessed from the land’ for the simple reason that my relationship with the land is a spiritual one and can therefore never be broken.
Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free