Friday, July 10, 2009

rudd - insensitive racist

rudd - insensitive racist

So rudd thinks people should walk all over Uluru, well I think people should walk all over him for his insensitive comments about aboriginies. We all know that australia is just a big mess of racism and rudd confirms it. What a sad day for rudd that he is shown in his true colours.

"Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has poured cold water on a plan to stop people climbing one of the country's most treasured landmarks, Uluru.

A draft management plan for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park has called for a ban on people climbing the 348-metre high rock, which is sacred to local Aborigine people and visited by 350,000 people every year.

Mr Rudd, who is in Italy for the Major Economies Forum, said while it was important to properly manage the country's natural landscape it would be a shame if climbing Uluru was banned.

"Obviously it's a question of public safety and managing important parts of our natural landscape," he told Fairfax Radio Network.

"(But) I think it would be very sad if we got to a stage though where Australians and frankly our guests from abroad weren't able to enjoy that experience. . . to climb it."

The prime minister said Uluru was a wonderful part of the country that he looked forward to visiting in the future."


What a joke rudd. You have absolutly no idea, it's about listening to the indigenous people and taking their view seriously. The 'sad' thing is how you and your people have tried to destroy aborigines and their culture. Have some respect.

13 comments:

Gosman said...

Get a grip. From your quote all Mr Rudd said was that he thought "...it would be very sad if we got to a stage though where Australians and frankly our guests from abroad weren't able to enjoy that experience. . . to climb it."

Hmmmm....Isn't he allowed to express his opinion about something?

Are Indigenous peoples views the only one's that are allowed now.

Talk about intolerance.

Marty Mars said...

Fair enough, I accept that i am intolerant, I suppose I find the mindset disturbing where leaders of a country can make bold statements in opposition to an indigenous view, for no obvious good reason. I think other values should be considered and I think the indigenous viewpoint should be given more weight.

I appreciate your comment Gosman. My view is just my view and I decided long ago not to temper my emotional, visceral response - even if it is wrong.

Country Lane said...

I think you're being too reasonable Marty. Rudd didn't say what he said randomly or casually. Gosman is being disingenuous with his comment. Rudd is PM. He doesn't casually say "wouldn't it be a shame". The only reason to make such a comment in his position is to make the point that he opposes indigenous rights at Uluru. So supporters of indigenous rights at Uluru have every reason to be intolerant back.

Gosman said...

If you want to be take seriously I would suggest you stop throwing around allegations of Racism just because people have differing view points about issues involving indigenous people.

Mr Rudd's comments were not racist. The worse that could be stated about them is some could argue that they were culturally insensitive.


To illustrate the difference for you here is an example of comments that he could have made that you would be right to condemn as racist.

"The Abo's have no right to tell "True" Aussies like myself where we can and can't go. They should know where there place is in society and it is certainly not having ownership or any say in Aussie national sites such as Ayres Rock"

Please note that in this example Mr Rudd would be making claims that the Indigenous people of Australia have less rights than other people and were somehow inferior. Now that is racism, not what you have quoted him as saying about the issue.

If we put this issue in the NZ contect. A few years back someone made comments about people on climbing to the top of Mt Aoraki/Cook. If this comment was repeated and John Key stated that he thought it would be sad if NZer's and people from overseas were not able to climb to the top of the mountain then that is NOT a Racist comment.

If you think it is racist then I could equally argue that denying Europeans the right to get to the top of such landmarks is also racist.

Marty Mars said...

rudd, while in Italy and just after the release of the Uluru mdraft management report said it would be sad if people couldn't walk all over Uluru. He said that obviously management and safety are the issues. No mention of the opposition from the indigenous people. is that racist? - yep IMO.

If maori said they didn't want people walking on Aoraki, and key, over in say, the US, after seeing the maori comments in the media then said, "It would be sad if people couldn't climb on Aoraki" - that would be racist too.

Can maori or indigenous people be racist? Depends on your interpretation. Isn't racism a bit more than race? Isn't racism a bit like rape in that it is about power, and similarily just as rape is slightly related to sex, so racism is slightly related to race - but really it is mainly about power.

In my view maori can't be racist to pakeha - no matter how much it looks like they are.

Gosman said...

If that is your view then you are quite wrong.

Very typically leftist view of the world in that everything has some sort of complex power relationship behind it and nothing is simple or straightfoward.

Let's have a look at some examples of Racism shall we where there was a power inbalance in favour of those being discriminated against.

Uganda under Idi Amin. The Asian community there was expelled from the country in around 40 days. The reason for this was that they had all the economic power and many of the African community was jealous.

Fiji after the first coup in 1987. An Indian dominated government was just elected. Many indigenous Fijians were unhappy with this state of affairs. Rambuka was given the unoffical go ahead to reverse this situation.

No wonder people don't take views like yours seriously as they are so objectionable.

Marty Mars said...

Luckily everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Your 2 examples don't make sense to me.

It is simple really. Indigenous people have special rights. That's it.

Those rights are more special than coloniser rights.

When indigenous rights are given back to the indigenous people then all citizens will have a better, higher quality of life.

ALL CITIZENS - it is inclusive not exclusive.

Gosman said...

You state my examples don't make sense but you don't say why they don't make sense.

To help you understand though I will give you some more detail.

In Uganda there was a large South Asian community (Approximately 80,000 strong in the early 1970's). This community had a lot of the economic power as it owneed much of the businesses in the country.

Many of the indigenous African people were envious of the economic power that this community had. Under the regime of Idi Amin the entire community was expelled from the country and the property redistributed to the previously disadvantaged.

I ask you if you think this is racist or not?

The Africanm

Marty Mars said...

How do you know they were envious?

Gosman said...

Because the same attitude has been prevalent in various countries in the past and is still prevalent nowdays. One of the reasons the Nazis were able to get so much support for their racist policies against the Jews were because a large section of the German population was envious of the wealth of the German Jews.

In Uganda Idi Amin redistributed the property he confiscated from the Asians to various of his supporters. Initially his decision to expel the Asians was very popular amongst the indigenous population.

You should read some information about what happened there. Try reading A DISSOLVING DREAM: A NEW ZEALANDER IN IDI AMIN'S UGANDA, by Heather Benson.

Marty Mars said...

I will have a look at it because i don't know much about what happened there. Africa is very complicated.

But back to your question. What I know of amin shows that underneath it all there is the good, bad and ugly within every race. Any dictator, from any ethnic group, that terrifies and murders people, from any ethnic group, should be villified for the monsters they are. And i don't buy the defence of, "I was just following orders" for others involved.

Anyone with power can be racist to those without power.

Gosman said...

When you talk about power then all you are meaning is that someone has the ability to adversely impact someone else.

It doesn't matter whether you are an indigenous group then or not. Therefore your claim that Maori cannot be racist to European NZer's is incorrect.

Going back to the original argument, you feel that it is racist to express a viewpoint that it would be sad if people could no longer climb places such as Uluru. I still don't see why this is racist exactly or if it is then stopping European people from climbing would be just as racist.

Marty Mars said...

Who has the power in this country? That should answer the question about maoris being racist to europeans. Who has the power in Australia?

In fact i have answered the question a number of times, but for closure.

Racism is about power and race.
Those more powerful can be racist to those less powerful.
It doesn't matter what ethnicity you are within either side of that equation.

You ask for simplicity - well there you go! It doesn't get simplier than that.

Rudd is racist because he didn't consider the indigenous view before making his ill-advised statement about walking over Uluru. It might be said that he did consider their view but disregarded it, but i think his response in Italy was quick, so the consideration must have been in nanoseconds.

Who has the power Gosman? Follow that pathway and you can see who is racist or not.

As a side point that might help. In the early days when europeans first came here and couldn't even feed themselves and maori helped the new people. Who had the power then? And could that ethnic indigenous people be racist to others?