Some Aboriginal People Are More Aboriginal Than Others

Last September (2011) I attended the annual Oodgeroo Noonuccal public lecture at QUT by scholar Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson. Her lecture was titled Race Matters: Representations of Aboriginality in the Media. In it she explored the racialised history of private media in Australia, particularly it's coverage of Aboriginal Peoples and 'issues'. It was a very timely lecture given the judgement of the Pat Eatcock v Andrew Bolt case due at the time.

Last night fellow edu-tweet Luke Pearson sent out the a link to a shortened version of that paper given at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney (October) for the panel session: Some Aboriginal People Are More Aboriginal Than Others. The description for this session:

White Australia has always had a view on what makes a 'real' Aboriginal person. Andrew Bolt is the merely the latest in a long line of commentators who have put forward their views about 'black' and 'white' Aboriginals. Spread across a continent after 200 years of colonisation, Aboriginal people are diverse in a way that is at odds with media stereotypes of 'traditional' Aboriginal people living in troubled remote communities. At a crucial time for recognition and reconciliation, does 'white' or 'black' matter? Who speaks for Aboriginal people and defines who they are? 

Also on the panel was Associate Professor Bronwyn Fredericks who powerfully explored the politics of naming and identity.

When watching the lectures, take time to consider your (Indigenous or non-Indigenous) understanding of identity within Australia. Consider the ways in which you and those around you use language to define others according to criteria you decide. What is the impact of that on other people and the way they're represented?

Image below from someone on Twitter late 2011 during the post-Bolt flurry. You need to watch the video to understand the relevance of the slide below.

Leesa Watego

Avatar - watch with one eye closed

29 January - Update - for more analysis, commentary & opinion on the gender/race/colonising politics/themes of the film, go to Sociological Images (Thanks SRP for the link)
Update 2 - Another analysis on Avatar on the blog - As The Teaching Drum Turns blog.


Just a quick blog to start myself blogging again. Went to see Avatar on Christmas Eve with the kids. It was good. Everyone loved it. Everyone seems to love it. I guess I liked it. But there's a couple of ways I'm reading it - or maybe there's a few different perspectives I'm viewing it from.

The first view is that it was visually very good. You couldn't tell where the animated beings started and human beings ended. The "real landscape" which must have been animated because there are no landscapes like that on earth - was completely convincing.

The second view is that its probably a good text for students who are wondering about the experience of Indigenous people. There are two completely different world views/systems fighting for the same piece of land - they're are and always be completely incompatible. Yes, Invasion Day is coming up soon in Australia - so its kind of fitting - not a bad text for stimulating discussion.

The third and problematic view however is that, do we really need a whiteman to fix the problem again? Just like Dances with Wolves and a host of other movies I've seen. Or its like the movie where despite there being much more capable women & men in the landscape - apparently only this new dude is capable of saving the day? Its actually pretty offensive, though a popular Hollywood/Western theme.

Of course, most Indigenous people are still fighting have their sovereignty recognised and unlike the Avatar ending - there is no happy ending.

I supposed I liked it - but only with one eye closed.