Thread by @joshuabadge

A thread: I'd like to go over the *worst* take from the white guy who sat quietly while #KAK used the suffering of Indigenous people to dismiss Invasion Day: "History was pretty horrible so colonialism wasn't that bad. Also nobody is racist" #auspol

news.com.au/entertainment/…

So right off the bat there's a switch: the "unheard side of the Studio 10 debate" is actually a think piece about #changethedate with no explanation for why Hildebrand stayed silent while Kerri-Anne went off on one. Not an important topic, I guess

This is already on shaky footing because #changethedate is old news and the only people still talking about it are, unsurprisingly, probably white. What's needed is substantive policy, not celebrating genocide on another day #fuckthedate #changeAustralia

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

Right, anyway, so Australia Day... no wait... the Gallic War and the sacking of Rome in 390 BCE? Something about the Goths... something something the Saxons, Vikings etc. What's the take away?

"History is not a very nice place"

All of the POC in the room can probably tell where this is going but let's just take a *really* close look at the next step of the argument. So: the past is a violent place but "it is a fact that we cannot change" 🤔

First off, since historical conquest is "almost always" wrong I'd love to hear Hildebrand's examples of where it was just peachy. More importantly though, this is an apology for colonialism: well it's in the past, everyone was violent etc

The reality is that colonialism is not in past. Indigenous people still suffer from the theft of their territory and from the oppression of a carceral state. That's right now, today and every other day. What the argument is meant to do, however, is to sweep aside criticism

The underlying argument is that since we personally didn't perpetrate violence that we're not responsible, which seems true at first glance but completely overlooks how we still benefit from violent settlement i.e. we live and make money on stolen land

This is an abysmal argument on it's own but the next step is worse: "Sure, Hildebrand says, Indigenous people were here before us... but really they're migrants as well"

This is another apology for colonialism and violent settlement. The implied argument here is: well sure we rocked up and stole everything, killed folks, but so did they... so it's not really theirs. Let that one sink in for a second

More importantly though: there's evidence of Indigenous habitation in Australia potentially going back 80,000 years. That's thousands of years *before* humans were even supposed to have left Africa

theguardian.com/australia-news…

Just want to pause for a second and recognise that Indigenous culture, science and society might just outdate the earliest estimated human migration by thousands of years... like...

The next little bit is a pseudo-rant about how settlement wasn't *really* an invasion... for reasons. Phillip not allowing the murder of "the natives" apparently proves the benevolence of the English colonists, apparently?

Since Hildebrand brings up definitions though:

invasion | ɪnˈveɪʒ(ə)n |

An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity; an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain

"Sure, there were unspeakable atrocities committed by 'some settlers' and disease and grog have been devastating for the indigenous [sic] population... but the government didn't *really* mean it"

*Camera pans to Tasmania*

In 1830 Solicitor-General Alfred Stephen shared his solution for dealing with “the Aboriginal problem” where he literally said "I say boldly and broadly exterminate!"

theconversation.com/explainer-the-…

In fact the Tasmanian government literally offered bounties to encourage colonists to capture Indigenous people: £5 for an adult Aboriginal person and £2 per child. These bounties were later extended to the dead

Similar violence occurred across the country. New research has uncovered hundreds and hundreds of massacres, potentially as many as 500 extending well into the 20th century often with the full knowledge of police and Government

c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassac…

All things considered Hildebrand couldn't be any more wrong. Also, Indigenous is capitalise dude (casual fyi, you're very much giving away your ignorance)

Here's the rub: #KAK wasn't racist because... she was just speaking up for Indigenous women? This is *the* most whitesplainy defence imaginable for a couple of reasons. Firstly, women of colour don't need you to speak for them, they need you to get out of the way

Secondly, that's not what happened. #KAK didn't bring up the higher rates of violence or the lower life expectancy out of concern, she brought them up to dismiss Invasion Day protesters and shut down that debate. The suffering of women and children was a rhetorical device

And as the final icing on the cake Hildebrand closes with an absolutely incredible take, arguing that the *real* racists are the people accusing #KAK of racism. That one doesn't even need analysis, it's objectively and insanely stupid

In conclusion: stop asking white people and the token Liberal MPs what they think and start actually including Aboriginal folks in your discussion, in your workplace and on your shows. It's not rocket science

Update: noticing qwhite the pattern about who is reading, promoting and praising this hackneyed apology piece lmao