Indigenous Australians

The problem with #DefineAboriginal

When in conversation with conservative journalist Andrew Bolt, One Nation senator Pauline Hanson questioned the way Australia defined Aboriginals.

“What defines an Aboriginal?” Senator Hanson asked Andrew Bolt.

“If you marry an Aboriginal, you can be classified as an Aboriginal.

“Or if the community or the elders accept you into that community, you can be defined as an Aboriginal.”

In response, the contrived outrage activists have taken to their keyboards and come up with another trendy twitter hashtag.

This time, it is #DefineAboriginal, and it has allowed all the self- appointed high priests of morality to publicly showcase their wonderful talent.

Predictably, the Aboriginals who did promote this cause and produced tweets such as; “Another white person telling us what it means to be Aboriginal. It doesn’t work like that” were among the most Caucasian looking Indigenous people in existence.

As we have seen previously, if a politician makes a courageous yet honest comment on ethnic minorities, the Regressive Left proceeds to character assassinate and pull apart the messenger, rather than the message.

For if the core of what Senator Hanson’s message was actually considered by these Leftists, some uncomfortable home truths might be discovered.

So should there be a more clear legal definition of Aboriginal people established?

Absolutely, when considering the current system that allows particular political, cultural, economic and health benefits to be granted exclusively for Indigenous people.

Is it really right or fair, that persons with 1/16th Indigenous ancestry who may be privileged and live in inner city areas, receive the same entitlements that those living in impoverished, remote communities do?

#DefineAboriginal, is also problematic as it ignores the internal problems of Aboriginal communities.

In fact, the issue of defining what entails ‘us’ and ‘them’, is particularly prominent in such communities.

I have observed this culture in personal experiences.

For example, in my home town if an Aboriginal proceeded to work full time in predominantly white industries, they were often be deemed by the Indigenous community to be ‘coconuts’.

Essentially, this meant that Aboriginals with higher professional aspirations were regarded as being black on the outside, and white on the inside. So to be deemed a ‘coconut’, did mean that you were considered less of an Aboriginal.

Of course, my notice of this shaming culture does not mean it is necessarily emulated in every Indigenous community across Australia. Regardless, it remains an issue and herein lies the problem of #DefineAboriginal.

It might feel fantastic for these SJW’s to proclaim their moral superiority through such a public forum.

However, contemptuous gloating over the perceived ignorance of Senator Hanson’s comments, does nothing to solve issues for real Aboriginals who live in tragedy- laden regions.

If anything, this virtue signalling only makes the problem worse, as it refocuses discussion along symbolic lines rather than on the substantive issues faced by Indigenous Australians.

,

9 thoughts on “The problem with #DefineAboriginal

  1. By defining the term ‘Aboriginal’ I fear will only give the left more ammunition for constitutional recognition. The concern of constitutional recognition is that we will see all minority groups trying to get on the bandwagon and seek change; the homosexual lobby for example will want constitutional recognition given that we have homosexual people in high office; Islamic leaders wanting recognition because we live in a ‘secular’ society therefore given how old Islam is, they ought to be recognised; the list goes on. Whilst I understand the undertones of what Senator Hanson is saying, it is fraught with danger.

  2. Pauline’s ignorance is endless;
    “What defines an Aboriginal?” Senator Hanson asked Andrew Bolt.

    “If you marry an Aboriginal, you can be classified as an Aboriginal.

    “Or if the community or the elders accept you into that community, you can be defined as an Aboriginal.”

    Classification of Aboriginal Australians;
    The section offered the following definition: An Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander is a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives.
    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib10

    No, you cannot marry an Aboriginal or be accepted by and elder and become Aboriginal. You must have ancestry, identify with Aboriginal culture AND be accepted by a community.

    1. It doesn’t matter. The word “Aboriginal” should be struck from the dictionary. Call them what they are, Original or Indigenous.

    2. Perhaps it should be, but I feel that to avoid further drift between peoples change must come from within. Thus, unless you are an Indigenous person I believe and the evidence is out there that outsiders attempting to redefine Indigenous people are not well received.

  3. Aboriginal is a made up word used to justify Terra Nulius. Comprised of the prefix ab in front of the word original, aboribial suggests people are not original to a given place, similar to the way ab in front of normal suggests something or someone is not normal.

    Aboriginal should be struck from the dictionary.

    The people in question should be referred to as “Originals” or Indigenous for that is what they are. How one determines the status of mixed-bloods is anybody’s guess but is perhaps the best indicator that the Australian constitution should reflect that the land was inhabited upon discovery and that all Australians regardless of origin are equal under the law.

    Once such a simple adjustment is made, perhaps we can stop attacking the rich and entice them instead into investing in some basic infrastructure for “Originals” and address the shocking glaucoma and illiteracy that plaques various destitute Indigenous communities that are basically living a disgraceful slow-motion genocide.

    1. Christian Conservatives need to wake up fast. The movement that put Trump in the White House is largely composed of old-fashioned conservative Christian moderates who have not had a political home since the Reagan slide into Neoconservativism and the extremity of the Bible bashing religious right.

      Many of these “lost” political souls have flirted with the Green party, Labor and others as they can’t find their values being spoken to by Liberals in Australia.

      Old-fashioned conservatives MUST take charge of the Liberals now and lead reconciliation with Indigenous Australians to strengthen a common point of spiritual outlook – tending God’s Creation – and take back mislead voters from the Greens and Labor. The Liberals must defend essential Christian values and enunciate them clearly with pride and invite skeptics in.

      Pauline Hanson is correct that Christians will be subsumed, not necessarily by waves of migrants but by take-over from high birthrate migrants as the decades unfold. It is not the lack of whiteness that is the problem but the loss of Christian values. This is where the correct vision must win. The idea everyone must be white is not only racist but retarded and mathematically impossible. The values must endure and spread to spread democracy and freedom.

      This Christmas, make it a Merry one, not a PC “Happy” one. Take a non-white friend to church or invite them in.

Leave a Reply