The proposed change to the national anthem from "young and free" to "one and free" is another example of how symbolism dominates proposed solutions to indigenous issues. It is ridiculous to think that removing the word "young" from the song will result in any improvement for indigenous people but obviously Scotty from Marketing thinks it is a great way to kick of 2021.
As if that isn't bad enough I must commence 2021, with gritted teeth, agreeing with Mark Latham that this proposed change and all the fuss about the national anthem reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept nationhood. Australia is not dirt. It becomes rather difficult to define a nation but given the modern concept of nation very much derives from Europe if we're going to define it then referencing the constitution, the form of government, the rule of law, and other concepts that have been founding principles for modern nations is sufficiently accurate. So Australia is a young nation because it came to exist on January 1, 1901. Some may perceive that as pedantic but oh I don't know, definitions matter.
The opposition leader Anthony Albanese has entered into the debate endorsing the change as common sense. I am tired of people referring to common sense because so often the term is a reference to ideas that people uncritically endorse. Perhaps they should read "Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science".
Albanese accuses Morrison of using marketing as a key feature of his leadership style. That's a comical accusation because nearly everything in politics is to some extent a marketing exercise. Albanese goes deeper in the symbolic quagmire than Morrison with his own marketing strategy:
Albanese says Morrison has unveiled “a commonsense change of one word in the national anthem, but hopes no one notices there has been no progress on recognising First Nations people with a voice to parliament enshrined in our constitution”.
The voice to parliament idea arose out of the Uluru Statement. Like the one word change at the coalface it has no practical import. It will be a huge benefit to indigenous activists because the the voice to parliament will require a number of positions representing that entity and a bureaucratic machine behind that voice. So many high paying roles to occasionally address parliament and complain about how racist Caucasians are and how more money will make the lives of indigenous people better.
My attitude towards indigenous issues reflects my personal interests. I think Gillard's Closing the Gap is an excellent approach because it provides a set of quantifiable objectives that directly measure the welfare of indigenous peoples. I believe a big problem in addressing indigenous issues is that the activists are trained in law, politics, and media, and hence do not appreciate the power of addressing concrete issues like education, health, and incarceration rates that remain a huge problem for indigenous peoples.
The one key variable relevant to the Closing the Gap metrics is the home environment. Research makes it abundantly clear that adult life outcomes are strongly affected by the quality of the home environment. For example, if a parents wish to improve educational outcomes for their children a very good start will be going to the library, reading at home, and taking an active interest in their children's education. Let me know when that idea is aired on the mainstream media. It probably will be mentioned on Sky News but the ABC will never go there.
Once every year the Closing the Gap report is issued and then shelved. The coalition and ALP then address indigenous issues by engaging in the quest of symbolic supremacy. I have a bigger symbol than you! That's the tragedy of modern approaches to indigenous issues and at the very beginning of 2021 we witness the same farcical and hopeless approach being amplified and perpetuated.
No comments:
Post a Comment