Colonialism's gifts and beneficence

I remember Uruguayan historian, thinker and writer Eduardo Galeano joking that when the Spanish galleons arrived to what we now call and know as America, the natives living there were absolutely relieved to learn that they and their land were discovered. 

From that perspective that Native Americans could now begin to exist, their history could begin to unfold as the Spanish conquistadors bestowed them with the gifts of expropriation, theft, slavery and genocide. They could begin to be civilised as their identity, language and culture were suppressed in order to Christianise them.

There was no previous history, no previous identity or existence before empire, colonialism and genocide. The Spanish empire bestowed all these gifts on them and they should eternally be grateful.  

I was reminded of this again with the recent news of colonialist countries moving towards recognition of Palestine, as if Palestine and Palestinians do not exist, or did not exist, until the colonialist powers of the developed world in their generosity and beneficence suddenly turned the switch on and brought them to existence, mimicking god and giving them life with their breath. 

Nasser Mashni, president of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, put it nicely when he said: 

Palestinian rights are not to be gifted by western states. They are not dependent on negotiation with or behaviour or approval of their colonial oppressors. What I want today is for Palestinians not to be slaughtered. What I want as an Australian is our government not to be complicit in that slaughter. What happens after that will be upon the Palestinian people when they have their agency to determine their self determination. It’s not my job or Anthony Albanese’s to determine how Palestinians might seek this opportunity.

The absolute and utter mess of the Middle East was manufactured by the UK, France and, to a lesser extent, Russia. In summary, as they fought the Ottoman Empire in WWI promises of freedom and independence were made to Arab countries to rally their support. When the Ottoman Empire was defeated, the UK and France argued that the Arabs were not ready to govern themselves(typical colonialist, racist belief) and they draw the borders in straight lines. Their existence, their identity, lives and independence were denied in the by the colonial powers with the excuse of not being ready for self-government, so they could exploit their natural resources. Others have written about this better and in more detail. Here's a pretty decent summary by the BBC. But here we are, more than a century later and nothing has changed.

Geography of the Sykes-Picot (UK-France) agreement.
By Ian Pitchford at English Wikipedia here. 
Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Sumerophile using CommonsHelper.

January 1919 British Foreign Office memorandum summarizing the wartime agreements between Britain, France, Italy and Russia regarding Ottoman territory.
By Stanfords Geographical Establishment London, Public Domain here.

This is something that I thought about during the misguided and deeply hurtful campaign for an Indigenous voice to parliament in Australia. A question I discussed with several people was my view that the way the government was going about it was totally wrong. It seemed wrong to me that the government was going to a referendum asking Australians if they would be willing to give a voice to Indigenous Australians, the original inhabitants of this continent. That was wrong and hurtful in itself but there was more to it than that.

The bigger issue to me was that the government was imposing a process and a recognition to the First Nations of Australia. It was, once again, a colonial-settler power intending to give recognition, to allow their voice, to bring First Nations people to some sort of existence within the colonial forms of power. 

Instead, I thought, shouldn't there be a process of truth telling first? Lay it all out on the table, hear from everyone and establish what really happened here. Then, once that is all out and settled, to sit at the table as equals to work out a treaty. To work out, as equals, how they should proceed to living together as one. And, finally, after all that work was done and a treaty was signed, to change the constitution or legislation to conform with the treaty.

This would be a far more respectful process. One that truly recognises the history, identity and sovereignty of Australia's First Nations. Instead, what we had was a process that was hurtful and disrespectful to the core. A process that allowed racists to run a campaign of disinformation, hate and division. A process that, I can understand why lots of Indigenous Australians supported but also had misgivings about.

It was fascinating to me that a lot of people I talked to couldn't see or understand this and saw it as good, positive and natural that the Australian government would follow such a process. Essentially, imposing their power and law to Indigenous Australians.

I think, perhaps, I could see this because of my background. I come from Europe, I live in Australia. From that perspective, I'm a white settler. But I live another reality too. I was born in the Basque Country. I'm Basque. Neither Spanish, nor French. 

My whole life, I have seen how the French government refuses to recognise to even recognise the Basque language as co-official within the Basque region. How it refuses to teach Basque in public schools while it imposes what we now know as French - a language that when France formed as a republic was only spoken by about 14% of the population and was not even the most spoken language in France.

My whole life, I have seen Spanish governments continue to try to divide and drive a wedge between the Basque Autonomous Community and Navarre, when to us our Basque language and culture are inherently linked to Navarre, where the Basque king resided.

And then, there's the Statute of Gernika, which was established after Spanish dictator Franco's death. The Statute of Gernika was approved in a referendum. Ostensibly it was meant to give the Basque region autonomy and independence through the transfer of various powers and competencies back from the Spanish government in Madrid.

Front page of theBasque newspaper
Deia announcing the results 
of the referendum. 

The similarities to other processes where a colonial power imposes a process are clear to me. That referendum was carried out after 40 years of fascist dictatorship in an environment where democracy was only just restored and the new Spanish constitution established. While the referendum was approved by the majority of voters (90% voted yes, out of a total of 58% of the population who voted), it's important to bear in mind that Basque citizens had very limited options. If the statute, however inadequate, was not approved. Then what would happen with them and their aspirations for independence? 

The majority of Basque people voted yes but the Statute of Gernika was not what they wanted. Nowhere near. Regardless, the referendum passed. The Statute of Gernika was approved and nearly 45 years later most of the competencies and powers still have not been transferred to the Basque Country.

This is what happens when colonial powers are allowed to dominate and run the process. But sovereignty was never ceded and the right of self determination is in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of all peoples.

Palestinians will not be given the right to live in peace and with dignity when their inalienable right to exist and be free was taken away from them by the same powers who now pretend to care by giving them recognition. 

Palestine will not come to existence when recognition is given by the UK, France, Canada and Australia. 

What Palestine needs is for these countries to stop supporting the genocidal aggressor and then, to make amends with reparations and support for a free and independent Palestine.

Books don't need a classification system

My son's 14 years old. This morning he's seen the headline of an article on ABC News from the Behind the News team by reporter Michelle Wakim: Films and video games have age classifications. Should books? 

His voice dropped a couple of octaves immediately. "Books don't need a classification system!" He said, with a calm but firm voice. Clearly a visceral answer to a headline.

But here's the thing. I agree with him. 

They've tried book challenges and bans in Australia but it hasn't worked. I feel like conservative forces are pivoting now. We saw the success of an Australian group in putting pressure to credit card companies to erase lots of games from Steam and itch.io. The success in manufacturing a frenzy through Newscorp's media and the government responding with the ill conceived Social Media Child Protection Act. And I feel they'll be attempting a 'debate' on books and their content next. They may present this as 'concerns about domestic abuse' in books or simply wanting a debate, not bans but I don't buy it. The result of all this will be that some books exploring themes outside the established norm will not be published or will be rendered invisible. That is their goal.

“Caution” by Quinn Dombrowski is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (via Flickr)

I haven't given this much thought. This is a gut reaction to the article above after all but I feel there are a few things to consider. 

First of all the system that we have works well. There may be little issues here and there that we could nitpick(for example, books classified for adults such as American Psycho and The Boys, being totally banned in Queensland), but it works. Let's be honest, how would a formal classification system work? It would be impossible to read every book. Simply not feasible and there are other signifIcant problems with a classification system for books. 

A classification system would result in some books not being able to be sold in Australia. Indie, niche and self publishers would not be able to afford the classification fees. Without a formal classification, they would not be able to sell the book. And the book industry can't compare to the amount of money and profit margins of the film and video game industries. A classification system would be an unbearable financial burden to the industry.

Classification would also act as a deterrent for publishers with texts that deal with themes that could be a challenge. This would result in soft censorship by publishers to authors and self censorship from authors themselves. We've seen this play out in movies and video games before. I would hate to see it happen in books.

The system we have may not be perfect but it's worked for so long. We can't let conservative forces precipitate a debate like this and we better stay vigilant. We definitely don't want to go back to the Australia of censorship, the Australia that banned all horror movies and set up Literature Review Boards to censor books and comics, just to cite two examples. Hopefully, those days are over. But we cannot be complacent. 

In the meantime, this is the only classification system for books that I would support: 

On lessons from history we seem determined not to learn part 1: Warnings not heard

I've always loved history. It was one of the very few subjects that I really enjoyed all throughout school. Of course, some teachers were better than others at making it exciting but I was always curious to learn about history and always found it interesting.

We learn history, to learn from it and not to make the same mistakes. Variations of this common expression are often heard when people talk about why history is important and while I believe that to be true, I also believe that we continue to ignore history's lessons.

When I went to Uni to complete my Bachelor in Contemporary Arts: Media Studies course, I chose history as my minor. This was not only because I enjoy reading history but because I believe that they're both connected. 

In the study and reading of history it's absolutely essential to evaluate the sources critically to read between the lines and to get to the bottom of it all. History also teaches us that there is never one factor, one simple answer, there are always multiple factors at play. 

I believe a similar approach and skills are needed when it comes to media studies. Journalists, like historians must gather information from various sources, assess critically those sources, evaluate what information has evidence to support it, what doesn't have evidence, where the holes are in stories, what the vested interest (if any) are and how they impact the credibility of a source, to cite a few, and get to the truth of a story.  

With journalism evolving into reporting (reporting not being the same as journalism) and media concentration into big corporations encroaching critical and investigative journalism, it's clear that mainstream media is more interested in endless talk of this one said and that one said, than informing the public about what's really happening. 

The misconception of fairness in reporting (insidious and dangerous as it is) comes from a profound misunderstanding of journalism and the responsibility of media. To be fair and impartial is not to give the same equal time and weight to two opposing sources, one of which has clear and sound evidence, while the other does not.

This is how we've ended up in the mess that we are when it comes to climate change for example. While the science is well and truly settled, and has been overwhelmingly clear for decades, the media have continuously given climate science deniers the same air time and weight as the scientists who have all the data and evidence.

It seems to me, that when good journalists have done their job and have warned the world, world leaders and vested interests have attacked them, discredited and persecuted them. Unfortunately, the media have very often followed suit and stayed silent in order not to rock the boat. 

All this has come to mind with the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and a warning to the world that was not heard. 

In August 1945 two nuclear bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, three days apart from each other. 140,000 people were killed in an instant in August 6 and 80,000 others in Nagasaki in August 9. The consequences of the nuclear radiation would kill and deeply affect the lives of countless others in the years after. For generations in fact.

The horror was unlike anything ever seen to that point and those two bombs are still the two single bombs ever dropped in history. 

But dropping those two bombs was not inevitable. Japan was already close to being defeated, the war was coming to an end and a decision was made, a political calculation. As a result of Harry S. Truman's decision two cities were obliterated and all those civilians murdered in a flash of light. 

Wilfred Burchett, an Australian journalist covering the war heard about the bombs and he decided to investigate. In 1945 the British newspaper Daily Express published an article with an ominous headline: The Atomic Plague: I write this as a warning to the world. That article, that warning to the world was written by the first westerner to visit Hiroshima. In the article he described the total devastation of the city and the effects of radiation, which was not really understood or known at the time but which invisibly killed people, animals and fish days after the blast.  

The front page of the Daily Express
with Burchett's warning to the world

It's worth saying it again, Wilfred Burchett, an Australian journalist was brave enough to cross enemy lines, take a Japanese train with Japanese civilians and soldiers and go to Hiroshima just days after the explosion of the bomb to find the truth and gather evidence. 

He spoke to citizens of Hiroshima. He spoke to doctors dealing with the aftermath. Then he posted his article through a Japanese post office, not through the US Army as was usually done, because he knew they would most likely censor and suppress his article. 

Burchett travelled then to Tokyo and confronted the US Army in the middle of a press conference. He described what they had done and what he had seen. He denounced their action and declared that a poison was killing everything days after the blast (he was talking about the radiation). 

Little aside, more Australians need to know this! Burchett is the perfect example of a tenacious and principled journalist.

Predictably, Burchett's warning was not heeded. The US Army withdrew his press accreditation and he was threatened with expulsion from Japan. The hospitals Burchett had visited were declared out of bounds for the press, and a strong censorship of news by the army was instituted. The US and the Australian Government moved to further discredit Mr Burchett at every turn, and he was treated like a traitor. Consequently, Canberra refused Mr Burchett a passport and he had to live in exile until 1972.

Now the number of nuclear weapons and countries with nuclear weapons is on the rise again. The US continues to be the only country to use this monstrous nuclear bombs, but for how long?

There's a lot of western media concern about Iran's nuclear weapons, a country that was signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and that, right now has no nuclear weapons - though you wouldn't know this from mainstream media. 

On the other hand, there's hardly any mention ever of Israel's nuclear weapons even though it's common knowledge that they've had them for more than four decades now. Credit to Matt Bevan on ABC News though, for his recent episode on this. 

Burchett's warning was, clearly, uncomfortable to those in power and that's why it was dismissed. That's why he was attacked and persecuted. 

Interestingly, we had a more recent example with Julian Assange who was treated in similar fashion. Wikileaks was not a terrorist organisation. It did not steal documents, it received them from anonymous sources. It did not publish everything it received and acted with responsibility to warn the world. 

Wikileaks informed the US government of the documents prior to their release and asked which documents were too sensitive to be published, they received no answer. More than 15.000 documents deemed too sensitive to be published by Wikileaks' reporters and analysts were withheld. There was no crime committed, unless that is, the crime of investigative journalism.

Two Australian journalists who were persecuted and punished for reporting uncomfortable truths. So what do these stories tell us? 

That throughout history when things haven't gone their way the people in power have always shot the messenger and refused to learn from history. That mainstream media has often been silent and gone along with those in power.

I still read history books and articles and read mainstream media regularly, but it's important to read with a critical mind. 

Good journalism, still exists, mostly not in mainstream news organisations though. And, sadly, we still seem pretty determined to disregard lessons from history in order to commit the same atrocities and crimes again. Which, I must admit, drives me insane.

I don't have a clear answer at the end of all these words. Just some reflections. But here's another legendary Australian journalist, John Pilger, interviewing Wilfred Burchett. Really worth seeing.