tickleandrose wrote on Sep 18^th, 2023 at 1:05pm:



You can self-identify as a lampshade if you like -we  are just not obliged to recognise you as a lampshade.

importantly, there is no preferment of any kind for lampshade- identifying people but there is plenty for Aborigines - that is why their number shoots up every year out of all proportion of natural increases.

Increasingly, Aborigines also demand that we just take them at their words of self-identification and treat any suggestion of verification as outrageous raclism. Perhaps for this sort of reason, nobody ever ask you for any verification in higher education, Abstudy, Mobtix (the latest idiocy) and many other Aboriginal concessions. In your great great great grandfather was Aborigine (and nobody else in the family since him) you are a Proud Aborigine with all the dysfunction, disadvantage and consequential entitlements. Just ask Marcus Stewart.
He is a proud Nira illim bulluk man of the Taungurung Nation and co-chair of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria. Marcus is Brian Aboriginal, and so is his wife, a dysfunctional disadvantaged but proud Muthi Muthi and Wamba-Wamba woman , currently taking refuge from intergenerational colonial trauma in the Federal Senate.


https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/identity/2023/03/a-family-heritage-overpainted-w...

The legal definition of Aboriginality is a complex issue, raising questions that have to do with identity, epistemology and politics. And while "race" as a biological category has been scientifically discredited, it still persists in Australian society, culture and law. So how should Aboriginality be defined? Is it possible to have a fixed definition that avoids replicating colonialist ways of thinking and knowing?

Guest: Taylor-Jai McAlister, clinical psychology registrar, PhD candidate in Philosophy at Macquarie University, Sydney

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/philosopherszone/defining-aboriginality/1...

She 'has issues' with descent, biological descent, as a defining characteristic of Aboriginality, itself a settler colonial construct. She doesn't say how 'Aborigines construct' their identity as Aborigines but believe that the settler colonial definitions gradually define Aboriginality out of existence. Perhaps she means her own case, looking nothing like a descendant of Aborigines.  Complains about 'lateral violence', Aborigines not accepting claims of Aboriginality by people who appear nothing like Aborigines.

But if not descent - what determine Aboriginality?  Should Aboriginality be treated like a religion or a political choice that can be  adopted or rejected?
Philosophy departments, like all other Arts faculties, are now infected with muddy and resentful 'thinking'.

Anyone?  what about that pink little cherub with the red hair and beard explaining some dead language... he made it past the post.... five out of six 'Indigenous' medical graduates from UNSW had not a feature among them - blue eyes, blonde hair... one looked like a fat Greek or something ....

They should just give it up... I like the Canadian system - your parents or grandparents must be pure blood...

Aboriginality needs to be define in a clear and honest way.

No more pretend abbos who are sucking the system dry.

Canada has it right.
Parents or grandparents MUST be full blood toaccess any welfare of benefits.

Others can calltgemselves abbos, but not entitled to any benefits.

If we implemented this, the number of aboriginals would drop like a stone and the welfare would get to where it was needed.

Well - in Oireland I was informed, a person can become any 'gender' they choose by signing to that effect on a piece of paper - and that this now means that MEN are NOT invading women's spaces since they are not now men!!

Well - it seems then that anyone who cares to put name to paper can become whatever they want - so Aboriginal has lost all meaning... well .... more meaning...

Sign here for all benefits etc ......

Aboriginal status shouldn’t hold up adoption:’ teen’s plea
By CHRISTINE MIDDAP
8:09AM NOVEMBER 28, 2023


A young Indigenous man who made an impassioned plea to be adopted by his foster parents has been granted his wish by a NSW court, amid warnings that Aboriginality should never be weaponised in decisions involving children.

The NSW Supreme Court heard that Richard*, now 18, was aggrieved that his Aboriginal heritage posed an obstacle to his adoption by the non-Indigenous family that had reared him since he was two.

An Aboriginal consultant told the court that Richard was “very angry that his cultural heritage is the one component that has impacted adversely on this adoption process’’.

The consultant, who was not identified in court documents, said this could lead to Richard rejecting his Aboriginality in the ­future. “Aboriginality should never be weaponised to the point where it impacts on the long-term decision-making for a child/young person. Everyone learns their culture in different ways...,” the consultant said.

“By weaponising Aboriginality, it could potentially lead to a child/young person not identifying in the future because they associate it with trauma and rejection.”

The court heard Richard’s birth mother opposed the adoption because it was contrary to Aboriginal custom and interracial adoption was not in the best interests of Aboriginal children “in the great majority of cases’’.

In deciding the adoption should go ahead, Justice James Stevenson, who last week ruled in another case that two Indigenous siblings could be adopted by their long-term non-Aboriginal foster parents, said Richard’s best interests must be the paramount consideration.

The court head Richard had vented his frustration over the adoption process, writing to the judge: “I’ve spoken to that many people over the years telling them what I want and what my needs are … to have my adoption to go through; it’s getting to the point where I feel like no one is listening to me.

“I understand I have Aboriginal heritage in my blood and I will identify with my culture as I please; this shouldn’t be something that should hold up my adoption. For the last 16 years, Mum and Dad have been saying the same thing on behalf of me and I’ve been saying for myself for the last nine years yet nothing has changed.”

Richard, who has not been in contact with his birth mother, *Jane, since 2020, told the court that if he wanted to make contact, “that would be up to me to decide and only me’’.

He accepted his Anglo-Australian birth father did not wish to see him.

His foster parents did not learn of Richard’s Aboriginal status until he was seven, five years after he joined the family. His foster parents supported his cultural awareness education but Justice Stevenson said they faced some difficulty to meet his cultural needs, given Richard’s lack of desire to engage in cultural activities.

“I agree that it is important to allow Richard autonomy in relation to his choice of whether or not to engage in such cultural activities,’’ the judge said.

The Aboriginal consultant said that at Richard’s age, he has the capacity to self identify how he chooses “and should be not be pressured into justifying this to anyone.’

“[Richard] has contributed to his own cultural plan, has sought his own mentor and is comfortable with his own knowledge about his culture and is open to learning more, in a time and place that is comfortable for him, and this should be encouraged and valued.”

Justice Stevenson said he understood that for many Indigenous people, adoption of an Aboriginal child by non Aboriginal people “is a contentious matter.”

He said that many peak Indigenous bodies oppose the process, and noted the Aboriginal child placement principle which says that children should, as a priority and where possible, be placed with kin or community.

“The Court respects the views that Aboriginal people have expressed about the process of adoption and I respect the views that Jane has expressed in this case,’’ he said.

“I nonetheless concluded that Richard’s best interests, which are the paramount consideration, required that an adoption order be made and that, particularly now that Richard is an adult, the upholding of Richard’s dignity required that his wish that he be adopted be granted."

Universities are undercutting workplace standards by fast-tracking the careers of some Indigenous academics, a new study concludes.

The provocative Close the Gap Research paper, published by a leading Indigenous organisation, warns that well-intentioned diversity and inclusion targets “can come at a cost’’.

“It is difficult to see how a two-tier system with lower expectations applied based on publicly declared racial heritage benefits the pursuit of high quality scholarship, deep expertise, and research excellence that universities claim to value,’’ it says.

“Political or ideological objectives should not have a bearing on minimum standards for academic performance.’’

The research paper states that “for many Aboriginal academics at senior levels, Australian universities seem to be undermining the minimum standards set out in their Enterprise Agreements, policies, and guidelines’’.


Its research fellow, Samara McPhedran, who holds degrees in psychology and law, analysed the qualifications and experience of 118 senior Aboriginal academics working across 37 universities, and compared them to 118 non-Indigenous academics in similar roles.

Her study found 10 Indigenous academics had been appointed at a senior level before receiving their PhD, including some appointed a decade before completing a doctorate. Only one non-Indigenous academic had been appointed to a senior role before receiving a PhD.

The study found non-Indigenous academics had to wait twice as long as Indigenous academics, on average, for a promotion from Level D to the leadership Level E.

Aboriginal academics had published an average of 39 ­papers, compared to 101 for non-Indigenous academics.

The study found that “diversity and inclusion targets that ­emphasise the appointment and promotion of Aboriginal academics may be influencing employment decisions and creating a culture of low expectations’’.

“Appointment of Aboriginal-identifying academics is associated with lower track record expectations and, particularly in recent years, fast-tracking relative to non-Aboriginal academics,’’ it says.

“This raises serious questions about the appearance of universities not applying equivalent standards to all academics, irres­pective of identity.’’

The study was prompted by The Australian’s revelation that Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil had abolished merit-based appointments in favour of a “more inclusive suitability assessment’’ in hiring policies last year.

The research paper states that “adopting lower expectations for Aboriginal academics appointed to senior levels, relative to non-Aboriginal academics, carries ­notable risks for individuals and institutions’’.

“Do universities wish to create divisions between staff because of perceptions of inequitable race-based treatment?’’ it concludes.

“Do they seek to erode public confidence that the government funding given to universities is being used to appoint the most appropriately qualified individuals?’’

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/indigenous/diversity-targets-cut-univers...