Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas
On a related note, apparently yesterday was Lurker Day when the usuals shut the hell up and the lurkers tell us who they are and what they want. I for one would like to hear from LP lurkers.
So, if you’re a reader but not a commenter, now’s your chance to make your inaugural comment at LP!
As a follow up to my post about Judith Brett’s Quarterly Essay the other day, I wanted to write briefly about some resonances her argument has with another book I’ve recently read - Bain Atwood’s Telling the Truth About Aboriginal History. Although in part a refutation of Keith Windschuttle (who in any event, John Quiggin informs us is vacating the field of Indigenous history to write a tome on the superiority of Western civilisation), Attwood raises some larger questions about the politics of Australian historical wars and the relationship between national histories and national identities.
As readers may recall, I endorsed this passage from Brett:
But are nations necessarily pathological? Is any appeal to a national “us” a sort of warm-up for an attack on a non-national “them”, a dog-whistle letting people know they really can hate the other? I know many of Howard’s critics think so, and this has in my view shaped much of the Left’s commentary on his prime ministership. It is also the basic reason for its ineffectiveness, because it has made it impossible to devise successful oppositional strategies.
It struck me while reading Attwood that he argues that one of the reasons why the Windschuttle view of Indigenous history has its appeal and why Howard’s claims about “black armband history” ring true is rather similar.
Continue reading ‘Shades of Grey: Towards A New Australian Story’
I meant at the time of his sad passing to write something about the British Labour parliamentarian and former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. Just before his death, I read his diaries of the period leading up to and beyond Blair’s decision to invade Iraq - published in book form as Point of Departure: Diaries from the Front Bench. Cook’s diaries had a real impact on debates about the direction of New Labour, the Iraq War, British foreign policy more generally, and the reform of Parliament and the Labour Party. Cook’s diaries had no salacious material in them, did not appear to breach confidences, and what they revealed of Cook’s personal life warmed you to the author. Yet Cook pulled no punches, described his disillusionment with Blair and other Labour figures, and the direction of policy. He saw the good and the bad in other politicians, wrote elegantly and interestingly, and the book was a page turner that sold well. It’s a tribute to its author, a humanist, socialist, fine Parliamentarian, and fine human being.
There are a lot of commenters here at Larvatus Prodeo who don’t have a blog of their own, but who would make fantastic bloggers. If you’ve ever found yourself hoping someone would blog about something you saw on the news, or typing, “Sorry for the off-topic comment, but here’s an interesting link”, then you really should have a stab at running your own blog.
I’m prepared to help. The creators of WordPress have set up a new hosted blogging service at WordPress.com. It’s essentially what TypePad is to Movable Type — the main difference being that it’s free. It hasn’t been publicly launched yet, but I have a golden ticket to give to someone who would make good use of the service.
Interested? Hit the comments below. If more than one person wants it, I’ll have to come up with an elaborate and possibly humiliating competition to decide who will prevail. (Seriously, you all should think about it.) [Update: Regular LP commenter Rob has taken up my offer.]
And while I’m at it, I should plug another giveaway I’m running — although I’m not sure what the prize is. Listen to this MP3, which is the introduction to ten songs, and email me if you know the titles and artists. The current leader has six correct, so there’s plenty of scope to win. Entries close at an arbitrary time of my choosing. Good luck!
Jason’s just made a comment on the previous Fraser thread drawing attention to a defence of Fraser by a Macquarie colleague published at Online Opinion.
Interestingly, the article contains this revelation:
This cautionary tale begins with Drew Fraser’s invited article.
That’s extremely significant. So James McConvill and the DLR editors weren’t just passive recipients of an article submitted by Fraser, but solicited its submission. Hardly surprising, given McConvill’s seemingly constant need to attract attention through “controversial” op/eds. But it certainly does raise some questions about the integrity of the refereeing process. Having invited Fraser to publish, was McConvill influenced by a desire to find sympathetic referees? Secondly, why did the DLR editors think that Fraser’s article should be solicited given that his views, and the article, have about zero relevance to law, and thus wouldn’t normally be published in a Law Review? Thirdly, had the editors followed the statements that Fraser had been making, including the ones where he advocated racial violence?
I think it’s time for McConvill to shed some light on these questions.
Update: More at Catallaxy.
I want to pick up some of the good points made by commenters on ‘The Daily Latho‘ thread in a longer piece reviewing The Latham Diaries, after I’ve read and digested the book. Reading the book is a funny experience, I must say. Often I feel it should have come in a plain brown paper bag. Anyway, Dr Watson, here I just want to pick up a few points on the threshold question of whether the work is a genuine diary. I’ve been puzzling as I read through. Clearly, there has been editing. Is it serious tampering after the events it purports to represent? Below is some early reasoning to consider.
Adding his voice to those of campaigning journalist Luke Slattery and consultant Kevin Donnelly, well dressed cleric about town Cardinal George Pell has entered the education culture wars:
In a speech in Canberra yesterday, the Catholic archbishop said some schools were placing too much focus on texts that normalised “moral and social disorder”.
“While parents wonder why their children have never heard of the Romantic poets, Yeats or the Great War poets, and never ploughed through a Bronte, Orwell or Dickens novel, their children are engaged in analysing a variety of ‘texts’, including films, magazines, advertisements and even road signs as part of critical literacy,” Cardinal Pell declared.
Leaving aside the argument as to whether English curricula promote “moral and social disorder”, who exactly is being an elitist in these debates? Are parents really wondering why their children have never read Yeats (nothing against Yeats - fabulous poet) or is there some sort of faux-democratisation of the canon being advocated?
The golden age where students poured over the literary remains of our civilisational heritage was of course an era where very few students went on to year 11 and year 12, and most who did were private school or selective high school students with a focus on University admission.
There’s no doubt that cultural values can be inculcated through studying canonical texts. And there’s no doubt that studying texts can also encourage students to be “agents of social change” - which Pell condemns as leading to gay marriage and abortion. But there’s a common slippage going on here. The argument about literary value and the argument about cultural and political values are being conflated. More seasoned practitioners of the education war arts, like Donnelly, are usually careful to claim that they are only interested in apolitical literary value. Their opponents retort that severing literature from its political and social contexts reinforces hegemonic and conservative values. Pell has let the cat out of the bag by coming out and admitting that his agenda is more about reinforcing a narrow and traditional morality and culture.
Continue reading ‘Teaching English or Moral and Social Disorder?’
Here it is - by popular request.
Being a Quincelander of a certain age, I know stuff all about AFL but I gather it has something to do with Leda and the Swan. Greek mythology is always a good topic! But discuss away to your hearts’ content.
On the other sporting news, why does Hayden still have his spot (proving I’m not a parochial banana-bender!)…?
Readers of the print edition of the Australian today will notice that the Higher Ed supplement has published an edited version of Macquarie academic Drew Fraser’s now notorious article - which Deakin V-C Sally Walker directed Deakin Law Review editor James McConvill not to publish for legal reasons, as she was advised it constituted racial vilification. The Australian also carries commentary by Macquarie Uni law academic Simon Rice, who argues that there is no explicit case law on the exemption for academic purposes in the relevant legislation.
The Oz seems to be throwing down the gauntlet for someone to sue them for publishing it.
Given that the allegedly scholarly article contains material such as the quote below - is this a responsible action by the newspaper?
Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland. Whether effective resistance to their displacement and dispossession can be mounted is another question. Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity.
Disgraceful, and Deakin Law Review’s actions in defending this vile and inflammatory hate speech as scholarly research also deserve condemnation in the strongest terms.
Elsewhere: Rob Corr tears apart the academic credibility of Fraser’s article at Redrag. Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? tracks Fraser’s connections with fascist groups. Debate continues at Catallaxy, Quiggin, Redrag and Cut Price Commentariat.
Update: And Liam challenges DLR Editor McConvill to comment, now that Fraser’s article is out in the open.
I find the Latham story important and extraordinary and far from put away, and thus distracting (OK, and funny). I’m therefore grateful for access to LP to blog ongoing reflections. Apart from irresistibly challenging the knowledge and imaginations of labour movement historians, it’s an important political story because of its destabilising effects on the opposition, and how these may or may not figure in the important task of changing the Australian government next time around. Kevin Rudd’s interview on the 7.30 Report last night supplied an example of the difficulties Labor now faces. As many folks are Latham-saturated, I’ll post my take under the fold.
Update: “Dear diary, I lied my head off again today, and again no-one noticed. This is so easy.” Yes, guess who else is keeping a political diary? Meanwhile, Peter Beattie channels LP in also alluding to Noddy, and Mungo makes some useful points.
We love enlightenment here at Larvatus Prodeo. And I feel that it’s my duty, as a friendly sociologist to reach across the 46 year old divide to the ‘other culture‘ and extend a smile and nod every now and then.
I stumbled across this terrific Op-Ed piece by Lisa Randall in the NY Times via Sean at Cosmic Variance (get it free while you can)
I want to leave aside, for a moment, Sean’s oddball deduction humourous quip that anyone writing on the Public Understanding of Science (itself a formidable concept in sociology literature) must be reading their blog. One needn’t contend with several decades of sociological literature on “how scientists communicate with the public” to realise that this problem has existed long before that inimitable blog started and even before Dubya was elected. 12 years after Snow’s “Two Cultures” thesis was published, Jerome Ravetz publised this landmark text. In this sense, it’s probably just the airplay of pieces like this one on the ‘theory/law/fact of evolution’ that’s increased.
But, of course, they’ve also been put on high rotation for good reasons.
A consistent theme in press reports has been that the British occupying forces (or whatever the technical legal term is now) in Southern Iraq are somehow much better attuned to the Iraqi population and generally more successful than the Americans. I guess this depends on your point of view, particularly whether or not you think it’s good news that the Brits have in effect turned much of the Shi’ite area over to an Iranian influenced theocracy and the institutions of the Iraqi “state” barely function in many provinces.
However, the superiority of the ancestral colonists of Mesopotamia must be called into question when “the rule of law” descends into smashing down a gaol with tanks after two British soldiers had been arrested for shooting at an Iraqi police vehicle.
John Quiggin is exactly right:
It’s increasingly evident that the coalition forces have become one of the array of armed militias in Iraq, all pursuing their own overlapping agendas and all claiming not to be answerable to anyone else.
Note: Can it be a total coincidence that Chrenkoff’s Good News from Iraq site is closing down?
Nic White blogs at The 52nd State.
Lost in the 70s
Once upon a time there was a man named Glen Larson, who had the bright idea of creating a science fiction series upon the premise of a rag-tag band of human holocaust survivors racing across the galaxy, pursued by an army of killer robots. It was a corny, campy space opera featuring dashing young heroes, wise old leaders and treacherous politicians. This adventure was called Battlestar Galatica.
It lasted only one season in 1978 before ratings and expenditure forced it to be cancelled, despite an embarrassing and short-lived attempt to revive it in 1980. 25 years later, in 2003, after some of the original team had campaigned for a revival for decades, former Star Trek writer Ronald D. Moore commissioned a higher budget “re-imagining” or “reboot” of the series — much to the dismay of many older fans and actors from the original series, who spoke against it.
One of these actors was Dirk Benedict, who was cast as Starbuck — the cigar smoking, death-defying, high-flying fighter ace with a girl in every galaxy. The re-imagined Starbuck, while holding on to many of the original’s characteristics, is female. Benedict and his fans were more upset about this than any other part of the series. In May 2004 he wrote an article for Dreamwatch Magazine, slamming the new series and, more disturbingly, revealing truths about himself that horrified many fans.
It’s one thing to criticize a television show, but it’s another to do it wallowing in your own prejudices. After first lashing out in a fit of bitterness at the network executives (or “Suits” as he calls them) of the 1978 production for their disenchantment with his portrayal of Starbuck the First, he bursts out with a critique of Starbuck that would make Evil Pundit blush.
John Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts decided to write to Brendan Nelson regarding his public comments on Intelligent Design. Lo and behold John received a reply.
John makes two excellent points regarding the reply from Nelson’s office. First is the idea that we must somehow accommodate and teach a “wealth of ideas.” The trouble with ideas is that they are not equal. Just because someone has an alternative point of view, having such a view doesn’t mean they automatically have the right to be heard. I call this the fallacy of balance.
If an opposing idea should be heard then it gains the right by presenting a well supported, well presented logical argument. Having a contrary position means nothing without such support. Also presented in a context without the basic elements of critical thinking this is not education. It is wishy-washy mealy mouthed appeasement that accomplishes nothing except to sow the seeds of confusion.
The wealth of ideas can only be supported if ideas are prepared to pay the price of admittance via logical argument and evidence in the social/political spheres where they originate. When generally accepted then they can enter education.
John’s second point is regarding the nature of science. Science is imperfect, but as John points out by way of the Australian Academy of Science, that imperfection is balanced by the weight of successful testing of the ideas central to a theory.
The initial part of the response from Nelson’s office, that he does not advocate teaching ID as science is welcome. However the letter then descends into equivocation which is disappointing and confusing. Nelson seems to be trying hard not to offend the religious right trying to push ID. In doing so one questions the the ability of the Education Minister in understanding what his job entails.
And to enter the Fraser v Deakin stoush, a comment at John Quiggin’s blog compares the saga to the ID debate. I had a similar thought today. There was controversy last year when the editor of a scientific journal bypassed the usual peer review process to get an ID friendly paper published. The parallels are very interesting.
Kate wrote last week about the disgraceful nature of the work to welfare changes as they impact adversely on people with disabilities. There’s more to be revealed, it seems. I haven’t seen this reported anywhere else but the weekend Fin [no link available] reported on the abolition of the pensioner education supplement and a move to force disability pensioners and single parents with children over 6 off the already lower Newstart allowance and onto the even lower Austudy allowance, should they choose to study full time:
For a single parent, the Austudy payment is at present $61.10 less than the single parent pension and $10 lower than Newstart. For a single disability pensioner with no children, the fortnightly payment would be $162.40 lower than the pension now and $78 lower than Newstart.
The report fails to mention that Austudy recipients are ineligible for rent assistance, and face lower limits on earnings from casual or part time work before their allowance begins to be reduced.
This is absurd. I know from personal experience as a tertiary lecturer that many single mothers in particular go to Uni as mature age students, do very well, and often study disciplines such as Nursing and Education the study of which Brendan Nelson states that we need to encourage. Both single parents, and those displaced from the workforce by injury or disability should surely be encouraged to do University or TAFE qualifications in order to upgrade their skills, their earning capacity and the contribution they can make to society.
And this comes at a time when the labour market for unskilled jobs is contracting.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
Recent comments
Lefty E, steve at the pub, consumer, David Rubie, Katz, Katz [...]
Steve Edwards, Andrew Reynolds, wizofaus, Andrew Reynolds, wizofaus, Andrew Reynolds [...]
BaudoinBaldwin the Crusader 162parton, Cliff, steve munn, FaceLift, Cliff, Cliff [...]
Stephen Hill
Brian, Mark, Mark, dk.au, danny, Paul Burns [...]
Brian, Helen, Al Grassby, Ambigulous, Careful With That Axiom Eugene, Helen [...]
Chumpai, billie, Graham, Craig Mc, Robert Merkel, Craig Mc [...]
David Rubie, Ambigulous, Pavlov's Cat, Ambigulous, Pavlov's Cat, Adrien [...]
David Rubie, Careful With That Axiom Eugene, Careful With That Axiom Eugene, Don Wigan, joni
David Rubie, Ken Lovell, carbonsink, Ambigulous, Paul H, wizofaus [...]
steve, Tyro Rex, dj, Stephen Hill, Nick Caldwell, Down and Out of Sài Gòn [...]
steve, adrian, erliner, Robert Merkel, Huggybunny, Robert Merkel [...]