Growing up white - some experiences & science - John Strong

Race, as a definition of human “types”,  is a term made up in the 16^th Century when more Europeans interacted with a wider selection of populations across the world. It has little Scientific validity. Thus “Racism” is more properly called “discrimination” based on differences in visual or auditory clues. However Racism is a term commonly understood by most people as discrimination against a large group of people who look and sound different to the dominant population of an area. As such I will use it in that context.

Why isn’t “Race” a Scientific term? Scientifically there is only one human species and the variations within that species are mainly mild variations in the DNA that affect skin and hair colour, body size to a degree (though much of that can be diet based), facial features and little else. The colouration differences are mainly due to selective variation from long periods of isolation from other Human groups in different environments, though hair colour is often a specific mutation of one or two genes. Basically this means there is no meaningful difference between humans across the world. There are cultural differences but that is learnt, it’s not through genetic “racial” differences.

Recognition of Facial features appears to be different in a significant way. It is embedded in our genes. Humans have a special function in their brains that instantly assesses facial features in a part of the brain called the Fusiform Gyrus. It interacts closely with our brain’s threat assessment system, the Amygdala, even before the image of the face is generated in our visual cortex. In our evolution it appears that the instant assessment of a face for being friend, foe or other is exceptionally important in human survival. This instant “friend, foe or other?” assessment of other humans shows how important recognition is to humans. More on that later.

I grew up in the Sutherland Shire in Sydney which included the landing site of Captain Cook. Statistically back then it had a 94% Anglo Saxon/Celtic descended population. At my High School we had a bit more variety including, from memory, Hungarian, Italian, Greek and Lebanese children. As a group we recognised they were different and they copped some extra grief in the bustle of the playground. Most were resilient and coped quite well, but there were some who ended up withdrawn and to a degree traumatised. That was my first memory of “racism” where, as part of the dominant culture, we picked on people who looked and sounded different to us.

I do remember often wondering where were the descendants of the Aboriginal men that met Cook? At that stage I didn’t know one of Cook’s first actions after landing was to shoot an Aboriginal who confronted him and denied him permission to land. The teachings I remember, that tried to explain their disappearance, were explanations of a failed “race” who just faded away. That didn’t make sense to me even back then, especially as the TV still showed their Mobs in the outback. At that time I didn’t know there were records of Aboriginals camping within a kilometre of my home only 20 years before my family moved into the area. I was eventually to learn many were living around me but were loath for very good reasons to identify as Aboriginal.

It wasn’t until I was 18 and just out of school in 1974 that I had the chance to work in North Queensland and met a man who I now assume to be a Mbarbaram man of my age, though then I only knew him as a local Aboriginal. I was quite excited to meet and talk with someone who was part of a culture that had been in Australia for an estimated (at the time) 5,000 to 10,000 years. Our conversation was very convivial and we had an instant rapport. I had basically found a new friend. I do wish I remembered his name to give him more dignity in this retelling.

This is when I had my most confronting experience with racism. My new friend invited me for a drink and we entered the local pub. Little did I know I had caused great concern and mirth in the town and embarrassment for the man on who’s cattle station I was staying and working and who had brought me into town. I had my first experience of apartheid and had entered the wrong side of the pub, the “Black’s” side. My new friend and I were castigated by the Station owner and dragged out of the pub. The aboriginal man was then dressed down in the street, loudly and angrily in front of the whole town. The terms used were the most derogatory names many non-Aboriginal Australians used freely when referencing Aboriginal peoples at that time. The accusations of stealing and bludging and being no good, flowed freely and loudly. I watched my friend’s head drop in his utter embarrassment and I wondered why he stood there and took it, rather than tell the Station owner to go get knotted or even use hasher pejoratives. Me? I had to suffer only the indignity of a lecture in the Land Rover on the way back to the station. I was told how I would have been robbed blind, they only bludge off people and how embarrassing it was for him that I was under his care and I had made such a naive mistake.

In discussion later with other locals, I learnt that if my friend had confronted such a well regarded white man and embarrassed him further in front of the whole town, my friend had a strong chance of being picked up by the local lads and taken bush for a beating. And, if they got too carried away, he might not even make it back. It wasn’t stated and I didn’t ask, but I had the impression that no one would have investigated his disappearance, he would have been deemed to have just gone bush.

The other interaction I had was again when working in North Queensland in one of the CSR sugar mills a few years later. I was one of over a thousand casual workers who came to town, working during the mill maintenance shutdown period at the end of the crushing season. I stayed in the Mill’s single men’s quarters with many of my co-workers. Conversations occasionally turned to their personal conquests of women and or failures and they would focus on me to try and embarrass me as blokes do. At the same time, they wanted to make sure I was “getting enough”. They were concerned there weren’t enough eligible young women available in town with so many itinerant labourers about. They gave me the sage advice that I would be looked after if I turned up at the local Aboriginal camp outside the next town with a cask of grog. My second most confronting experience with discrimination. I didn’t take their advice and still struggle with the concept of classing Aboriginal women as a convenience to be bought by grog.

Over the years I came to see this same attitude existed in many townsfolk across country towns in all states of Australia. This spilled over to Australians from major cities who had never met an Aboriginal but were experts on how bad they were. These two deeply racist attitudes were endemic in Australia, i.e Aboriginal men were, to put it politely, no good and the Aboriginal women were a sexual convenience easily bought by grog. This was held as a truth by many non aboriginal Australians just over 30 years ago and obviously for many, many decades before that. That was not long after we voted overwhelmingly in the 1967 referendum to recognise them as part of the Australian population.

I am no innocent in this regard. Whilst not ever believing you can define hundreds of thousands of people just by saying anyone of a certain culture must be bad, I did have a repertoire of Irish, Polish, Jewish, Aboriginal, Islander and other “racist” jokes that got me laughs or groans in a Pub or at the family table. I have learnt to behave better.

The recent attacks on the Voice referendum has prompted me to review my experiences and also match the claims of both sides of the referendum argument to as much Science and logic as can be applied to the information.

I do not attempt to speak for Aboriginals in this analysis. I have little experience with all their different cultures and countries, the 400 or so that made up Australia in 1770 when Cook is deemed to have declared Australia empty. Without claiming any expertise as a Historian, I have had a great interest in understanding early Aboriginal interactions with the colonists and the slowly emerging truth telling that PM Howard tried to hide under his “Black Armband history” lie.

As a very early counter to the terra nullius rubbish, I was impressed that Governor Phillip appears to have been tried by an Aboriginal Law Council for breaking their country’s laws. I’ve read a few versions of why Phillip was speared and I’ve attempted to understand it. I read it as evidence of a complex Aboriginal culture with their own moral guidelines and institutions. Trying to put it into an English Law context, it appears Phillip was found guilty of abduction and illegal imprisonment of Bennelong. To paraphrase one reference (with some interpretation), an Aboriginal law man named Willemering the Garigal (clever man) (equivalent to a Supreme Court Judge?) then applied capital punishment by way of a non-lethal spearing through Phillips shoulder. This was accepted by Phillip and no actions against the Aboriginals were allowed.

If this was the case then the highest representative of the British Government allowed himself to be punished without retribution and appeared to accept the primacy of the local laws over his actions. I accept this interpretation will horrify many European supremacists but it’s hard not to see this as evidence that the country was inhabited by a sophisticated culture whose local laws were respected by the first Governor of the colony.

The smallpox epidemic that broke out soon after destroyed over half the people of that local culture and thereafter, from many accounts, the remnant of the Eora people were in a deep and long depression and mourning. We will never know, given Phillip’s wise interactions, whether a better understanding could have developed between Aboriginals and colonists if that suspicious outbreak hadn’t occurred.

Before I look at the science of why the Voice could improve the capability of Aboriginals to Close the Gap I’d like to examine the logic of the two No campaigns.

Lydia Thorpe 

I can’t fault the logic of Lydia Thorpe’s main reason for opposing the Voice. Her position, that Treaty should have come first, makes sense. This to me is true. But it should have happened 200 years ago. Working in the “now” any Treaties (and there are multiple treaties needing negotiation) need to weather the attack by conservatives who abhor the concept and will mount significant challenges. So, will voting NO to the voice now, get treaties earlier than Voting YES? It doesn’t seem likely. Given the other No campaign is saying the voice should be stopped because libertarian values dictate it’s “every person for themselves”, I can’t see the first Treaty being allowed to happen by the Conservative libertarians without many, many years of further delay.

Whilst not a perfect answer to Lydia’s point, the Voice gives a clear platform for the eventual discussion on Treaty and Truth Telling that can help manage the Conservative attacks.

The other reasons Lydia Thorpe puts forward to vote no is that the Voice will be a toothless gabfest. This is conjecture and I am convinced that if the Voice gets through Lydia Thorpe will use it (eventually) to further her cause, making sure it isn’t toothless. She is an impressive proponent of her cause and I cannot see her letting such a chance go to waste.

The Conservative No campaign 

Listening to the No campaign from the Conservatives and ignoring the obvious misinformation that “there aren’t enough details of how it would work”, their main proposition appears to be that “if all Aboriginals applied themselves, they could lift themselves out of poverty” etc. This is obviously true and they are correct. However it is definitely magical thinking to be expecting or even demanding that all Aboriginals behave as the Conservatives behave and then the problem would be solved. The desire is admirable but I doubt many people are convinced this is a viable pathway. Potentially with a solid platform like the Voice, the environment could be built where this can start to occur but voting NO now certainly delays, if not destroys the opportunity to develop the psychological preparedness to ‘apply themselves” as the Libertarians demand.

The second Conservative proposition for voting NO is that the Voice is racist because it makes Aboriginals “special” and is therefore racist. Given race doesn’t actually exist and it is really about discrimination this is a hard argument to believe. Aboriginal peoples have been treated separately from the first writing of the Constitution and as far as I can see the Voice is part of the process of continuing the correction of errors that are embedded in the Constitution. These started with Cook shooting the first aboriginal who challenged the British landing and who, according to Terra Nullius, wasn’t actually there and was followed up by the declaration of war by Lachlan Macquarie.

So both NO campaigns contain their own truth but they do not appear to provide an answer that is a viable solution of our promise to properly recognise the long Aboriginals connection with Australia in our Constitution. Indeed the Conservative Governments have always promised they’d fix such issues and then often buried the promise once they have power. Why would we believe them now, why would we fall for the “if you don’t know” hook especially after the last decade of lies that covered significant Public Service destruction. This brings me to that particular marketing jingle that covers a lot of fallacies.

Parliament will set the laws based on the Voice being in the Constitution. If you don’t trust your representatives vote for someone else.

“If you don’t know”. Conservatives appear to be trying to tell us parliament can’t be trusted. All laws made by Parliament are based on the Australian Constitution. Saying YES to the Voice does not and should not set out how it will specifically work. This would be determined by whoever we elect to Parliament, it will be debated in the House of Representatives and verified by the Senate. And each time the government changes they will adjust the laws to suit their needs. What it does stop is the conflated set up PM Howard used to destroy ATSIC when, from all reports, the majority of that system was actually working well. The problem he attacked was poor management at the top and used that to shut the whole system. Once in the constitution the Voice to Parliament cannot be closed down but it definitely can and will be modified by our elected representatives. That is how the Constitution works

And as to there not being specific details of how it would work, there are hundreds of pages already exploring the options plus the experience of ATSIC. The politicians will have plenty of choices, all well argued and described.

Now to the Science of how the Voice could aid the Aboriginals Nations being armed with a better platform from which to “close the gap”. Here I have to mention the call to “not everyone”isms that are used to try and negate arguments of discrimination. Any statistician worth their salt knows such conversations do not define every individual’s actions or experiences. They don’t need to continually define the proportionality of the population it covers and generally ignore the lack of continuous explanations to that effect. Only those uncomfortable with the information being explored continually reach out to cry “not everyone”. Take it for granted that is part of my exploration.

1. The sudden decent to the bottom and our modern understanding of PTSD.

The first Aboriginal men Governor Phillip sighted when entering Sydney Harbour were such impressive examples of Humanity that the place where they stood still bears a name from Phillip’s impression of them, Manly.

These men and their Mob were obviously well in command of their lands and environment. A Proud Eora man would possibly be the name applied to them now. They obviously had a strong sense of control and

pride and command over their place. They applied their laws to Europeans and actually brought Phillip to justice for breaking their laws in abducting Bennelong. Within a year over half their Mob were dead from European borne diseases and those that were left were reported as completely distraught.

Anyone who has studied the effect of war, famine, plague and other disasters, which devastated large parts of a population, report many years of depression and misery which often includes Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In those populations most of those who have support and are allowed to regain their self-esteem and social position are able to recuperate and the scars of their experience diminish but never completely disappear.

In the case of the Aboriginals at that time, they would have greater difficulty in finding the support required and by the time they could start to regain their social position it had been eradicated and basically usurped by the colonists.

Add to that the “unofficial” declaration of war by Lachlan Macquarie in 1816 and the grotesquely punitive campaign he ordered which resulted in the first recorded massacre in Appin. You now have a population which had no chance to regain any social position or self-esteem back to the levels and heights of ruling their land as they had previously. This system of disease, massacre and stripping of all self-esteem and social position continued across the continent over the next century including the attempted genocide of Tasmanian Aboriginals. From Lachlan Macquarie’s time and onwards Aboriginals have suffered chronic disadvantage, a situation well studied across the world.

Epigenetics and Health effects of chronic disadvantage and intergenerational poverty and denigration When did this denigration finally stop long enough to give the Aboriginal peoples time to gain back self-esteem to allow more control of their own futures? When did they have a chance to do what the Conservative NO campaign demands of them, lift themselves out of their situation? An increasing number have and continue to do so but a significant portion of the population were trapped in chronic disadvantage. The newly discovered science of epi-genetics as well as the studies of intergenerational poverty and health effects of chronic disadvantage defines how hard this is when the opportunity is continually denied to a population. The health effects from chronic disadvantage give each person lifelong health issues.

What is even more daunting to consider is that Epigenetics is a system that changes the expression of our DNA depending on environmental conditions. It doesn’t change the DNA but shuts down some parts and opens up others. Studies have found that the changes to DNA expression from stress and health issues is passed down to at least the next three generations. And if they suffer chronic disadvantage during that lifetime you get to add another generation onto that situation and then another, and then another and on and on.

Taking all that information, I’d like to step back to the Mbarbaram man I met in North Queensland. He would now be a grandfather (if he survived this long) and that’s only two generations. You remember I said I did not understand why he didn’t tell the station owner who was berating him to get knotted? I watch the riotous scenes in Alice Springs or read about crime waves in Mount Isa and all I can see is that man and his descendants doing just that. We set this up, every country town in Queensland who had so many people berating and demeaning generations of young Aboriginal men. There hasn’t been a chance for a reset or long enough break to allow them to regain any self-esteem. Add to this the catch 22 police face in working with this situation. “Racial stereotyping” in this situation carries some truth but just the act of using that in any proactive policing perpetuates the catch 22 and cements in the situation where racial stereotyping continues to carry some truth for generations. I don’t know the answer but it has to be part of why Aboriginals are the most incarcerated people on earth.

Then there is the domestic violence epidemic amongst our first nations men and women. I want you to think back to those women I never met but was advised to buy with a cask of grog. If so many Australians across the country thought of Aboriginal women as a sexual convenience, was there much chance to instil a sense of respect for them amongst Australians in general and Aboriginal youth in particular? We the descendants of the colonists and immigrants are left with a responsibility to help change this situation.

Here I must be careful not to infer there are no people in the Aboriginal communities fighting hard against these pressures. There are plenty of stories of Aboriginal families and Mobs working miracles in their communities under these horrible situations. And there are plenty of Aboriginals who have high self esteem and respect from their communities. As an outside observer and reading the Scientific literature around these situations, I am highlighting how bloody hard it is to succeed from these situations.

Is there precedence for this, not just in Australia? This isn’t just an Australian problem. Indeed if your read the history of ritual murder, rape, denigration and enslavement of the Helots in Ancient Sparta we realise it is an ancient and widespread problem. To go to a more modern example, here is a report on the Dalit people of India, those we previously called the untouchables and who the caste system institutionalised as being at the bottom of the heap. The system has refused them any chance of significant self-esteem.

“The infant mortality rate for Dalits is 40 percent higher than for the general population, and Dalit children are more likely to suffer from anemia or be stunted than the national average. On the whole, according to Oxfam India, Dalits' life expectancy can be up to fifteen years less than that of other groups”.

Does this sound familiar? Have we made our own Dalits in Australia in just 200 years? Yes I know “not all Aboriginals” but science tells us those that suffer chronic disadvantage fit more with the Dalits than those who have not been caught in that trap. And my greatest respect to the Dalit people who are fighting their own fight to change their situation. I know nothing of their distress but that it exists.

Who are the other castes in Australia? Who were suffering disadvantage and got themselves out of it? In the case of Australia each non Angle Saxon/Celtic group who have emigrated here have suffered discrimination or racism. Their first generation born here often had a higher rate of criminality emulating the “get knotted” reaction I referred to earlier and you'd expect from the casual racism directed at them. As a generalisation, each next generation becomes much more “Australian” and actually change Australia for the better and perform very well in the education system.

How did they do it? Every one of them I met over the years carried a sense of self-esteem and pride and stories of their homes they still loved. They often came from areas of great disadvantage, but nothing like the multiple generations of disadvantage amongst the Aboriginals. They also had their Church or religion and built vibrant close knit communities that supported each other. And there was always someone worse than them, the Australian Dalits. Hierarchy and recognition, pride and self-esteem plus a supportive community matter greatly to humans and the immigrants were encouraged to lift themselves. Unfortunately, in conversations over the years I found many of them were infected by the same scourge of assumption of “Bad Aboriginals” I referred to previously. I’ve heard so many who express the opinions to paraphrase “the situation is the Aboriginal’s fault” so they should vote no. A very tin ear.

Speaking of interesting takes on the Voice I actually heard a Uyghur immigrant from China on TV on the weekend musing about whether we should give Aboriginals recognition and a Voice. He wasn’t as yet sure it would be good for Australia. I was astounded since that is exactly what the Uyghurs of China most desire. The “don’t know” jingle had captured him.

So how does the voting YES to the voice help change this? Sawubona

First and foremost, in voting YES it is RECOGNITION. It is so much more than writing “Aboriginals are

recognised as the first inhabitants”. Remember how face recognition is one of the quickest brain responses humans have. Instant recognition of Friend or Foe. Recognition and greeting is the greatest sign of respect amongst equals and of high importance to all humans.

The Zulu greeting of "Sawubona" perhaps encapsulates what it really is. To quote, Sawubona literally means “I see you, you are important to me and I value you”. It's a way to make the other person visible and to accept them as they are with their virtues, nuances, and flaws. And by incorporating the Voice it is also saying “If you speak we will listen”. That is a sign of great respect.

To me it is Australia saying “Hello” and really meaning it for the first time.

How does this help close the gap? Now they have been recognised as important and valued and the “Untouchable” or Dalit like stigma has been rejected, now they are seen by the world as representing the most resilient culture on Earth, they can truly feel, show and share their pride. It will still take decades but like the Immigrants who struggled to make their way in Australia carrying their pride and determination, the Voice gives the many and varied Aboriginal Cultures access to greater pride and determination. It is Australia saying you are respected and we will listen.

It is Australia saying “Hello, I see you and I respect and value you” for the very first time.

The 1967 referendum recognised them as Australians but added nothing else. This referendum goes so much further in celebrating their intelligence and culture, having survived tens of thousands of years longer than any other human community.

As far as I can see a NO is the equivalent of telling all those who wrote the Uluru statement of the heart to go get knotted. It has no value.

I beleive Australia should say “Hello I recognise and value you” in the Referendum. Say YES. The dividends to Australia will be much greater than most people expect.

John Strong

An Australian who has experienced seeing far too much racism and discrimination.