Curse of the White Aborigine

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


Pages: 1 2

America is an island of free speech in an ocean of political correctness. American columnists have to worry about deadlines and the future of print media, not about being hauled into court over the sensibilities of some protected group. But conservative columnists in Canada, Europe, Israel and Australia have to write with one eye on the keyboard and the other on the door.

The strangest case of free speech suppressed by political correctness may have come out of Australia where Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt was dragged into court under the Racial Discrimination Act by a group of white aborigines who complained that he had questioned their authenticity.

The first rule of White Aborigine Club is that no one talks about it. Australia has a surplus of white aborigines who hold down university positions teaching aboriginal culture, pick up aboriginal scholarships and receive all sorts of preferential treatment. These white aborigines are not albinos, they are “Ward Churchills” — white men and women who claim to be aborigines because of some ancestor. And to question their authenticity all you need is a pair of working eyes.

Ward Churchill got away with claiming to be Native American by braiding his hair, wearing sunglasses and being so militant that no one questioned whether he was an American Indian or an American Imposter until he had tenure and a nationwide speaking tour denouncing the “white man’s crimes” against his people.

The white aborigine faces a more uphill battle against common sense as it’s rather hard not to notice what he is or rather what he isn’t. This forced the Australian left to play the old game of the emperor isn’t really naked if no one talks about it. Everyone knows that many of the beneficiaries of aboriginal affirmative action are white people with European names. And no one is supposed to notice that or comment on it.

Andrew Bolt did notice and wrote several columns, adding a few photos of the melanin-challenged tribesmen. It was a sore point for the Australian left which has made Aboriginal rights a centerpiece of its identity, and whose “Ward Churchills” benefit from the academic and cultural prizes granted to them by a guilty Australia.

It is still legal in the United States to point out that the emperor isn’t wearing any pants– but throughout much of the world it’s a federal case. In Australia that was literally so as several of the white aborigines took Bolt to Federal Court.

According to the court decision all the white aborigines had to do to win was prove that Bolt had “insulted, humiliated and offended” them and that it was done “because of the race, color or ethnic origin of fair-skinned Aboriginal people.” Or in this case the lack thereof. Since the whole point of the articles was that the white aborigines were not actual aborigines, it was a slam dunk decision against free speech and for criminalizing common sense.

The right to free speech and a free press was held to be less important than the self-esteem of a group of people who would merit howls of ridicule in any rational society. The Federal Court had not only ruled that you could not point out that a white man is not a black man, but it had also created an entirely new protected group—white men who claim to be black men.

“The members of the group referred to are fair skinned Aboriginal persons who, by a combination of descent, self-identification and communal recognition are, and are recognized as, Aboriginal persons.”

Pages: 1 2

  • Larry

    I know of at least one "Aborigine", quite dark of skin, who was nothing of the sort. She was Jamaican, but working for the Commonwealth Public Service she ticked all the "indigenous" boxes and got preferred promotion because of it.

    • SamP

      Im Aboriginal (and show it) and im known in my community, No one can just tick the box, you need whats called proof of Aboriginality only granted by Aboriginal organisation that is the cultural authority for the area. Im still waiting for proof for my six month old. Funny when you consider no proof/documentation exists of Aboriginal people giving up their inheritance or rights to land, This person is misleading people, he has no idea and is an example of how aussies are ignorant to whats happing in communitys on their door step. As Larry said the only Aboriginal he knew wasn’t even, he lives here and doesn’t know a Aboriginal? What drives people like this to slander when so un-educated? Only to promote racism. The fact he choose the public sector shows he’s a LIAR, you cant lie to the commonwealth? Light skin is usually due to rapists, those criminals sent to the colonys, those great men that breed todays rapists and criminals. Andrew (The lying dutchman) Bolt was quoted multiple times by the Norway mass murderer, andy was a hero to him, thats the type aussies love

  • Lachlan

    I'm Australian and I completely agree with this article. All hope is not lost however, as the opposition have proposed they will scrap this law which limits freedom of speech if they are elected, which they most likely will be.

    • Stokeley

      You would think these matters could be resolved with a simple DNA test

  • Bamaguje

    Going by the same reasoning, Obama isn’t black.

    He ain’t got dark skin, tightly coiled hair, flat nose and thick rubbery lips like we ugly Nigggers!!

    As a full blooded bona-fide Black, I take strong offence that this half-white is often characterized as “Black”, when he obviously isn’t…”one drop rule” not withstanding.

    • kafir4life

      Did you know that Obama's family (on his father's side) has been invloved in jobs and immigration for generations!! In fact, B-rock's great-great-great-great-great grandfather had met Michelle's family, and arranged for them passage to and employment in the New World. Nobody gives Obama any credit for that. That's the only place he has any connection to the Black experience.

      • screwutoo

        shut up clown.

  • Crass Boersting

    Raging madness. Thanx for informing us about it.

  • Anon

    One of the Fauxborigines mentioned by Bolt in his column was a gay blue-eyed white bloke with ginger hair who snaffled a scholarship meant for black (Aboriginal) women.

    "You go, girl!"

    Tim Blair's take: http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/

    More here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/ind
    Do note the new disclaimer the Herald Sun has to put in front of Bolt's columns…..

    It's probably illegal for me to write this comment now; thus I am proxified and "Anonymous".

    • stern

      Thank you Anon. I particularly enjoyed this quote from the Fulbright Award winner:

      "Impeding my growth from that young person into the adult I wanted to become was the profound issue of identity. I was a ‘white’ black man… I was becoming a victim."

  • kafir4life

    I can actually understand how the White Black folk feel. I myself am a lesbian muslima, trapped in a Jewish man's body.

    • stern

      Genius!

  • http://www.contextflexed.com Flipside

    Those poor people! It’s like they have been taken over by a cabal of Leonard Cohens!

  • stern

    Finally, the much-maligned white man has a way to reclaim everything that has been taken away from him by affirmative action. All he has to do is become a non-white. After all, "self-identification" is apparently all that's required.

  • StephenD

    A Black Lesbian named Gonzalez that comes from A Native American Reservation can be the most illustrious potentate in America by proclamation. Who would dare oppose her?

    • Chiggles

      Reminds me of a Jeff MacNelly cartoon fomr the 80s: "Meet Clydesdell Lopez. She's a Southern Black Hispanic-surnamed lesbian feminist unemployed schoolteacher who's the founder of an abortion counselling service for antinuclear whales in the Great lakes — and she's Fritz Mondale's ideal running mate!

  • sedoanman

    There was a time in the recent past in the US when it was chic to claim to have Indian blood, however little; and like there are no guilty people in prison, these fake aborigines have probably told their story so many times that they actually believe it themselves.

    • StephenD

      You're right of course. And I do have Cherokee blood from my mother. In fact, I've family that has exploited this to the point of getting scholarships for it. I have never nor will I ever benefit externally from this blood. Anything I have is through heritage only. Hopefully, I'll have none of the medical weaknesses that sometimes befalls certain blood lines.

  • mrbean

    Rachel Marsden says: "You know, the genocide of Native Americans, as described by Leftists, that didn’t even take place in Canada. But white guilt and the imposition thereof apparently has no boundaries. Mentioning the words “Native” and “European” in the same column has triggered the University of Starbucks Magna Cum Latte history club to dump lengthy, biased, anti-European rants into my inbox about the “genocide” European immigrants perpetrated on American Indians. In Canada? My response: go throw yourselves into the gaping mouth of a spirit bear the next time one comes charging out of the recesses of your brainwashed skull while toking up. How about some inconvenient facts? The Natives owned slaves in the Americas. Indeed, Mohawk chief Joseph Brant in Canada had a ton of black slaves when the slave trade was abolished by the British, to whom he had previously sold a seven year-old black girl.

  • Joe Y

    The phrase "politically correct human economy" is too broad; "fascist" or "apartheid" economy would be more accurate and specific.

    • Paddy

      This has come full circle. In fact, under Apartheid, because of the fixation with colour, there were tests for blackness.
      These included sticking a pen in someone's hair and if it stuck they were deemed to be black, and treated as such. There were worse ones, like checking gum colour as well.
      And so the problem is, if we look at this through Mr Bolt's eyes, will we also need a test for "whiteness" and "blackness" in Australia? Would that not be even more offensive?

  • Jim

    One of the best jokes played on the liberals I have ever read about.

    Now, since all humans came out of Africa then all our ancestors are African.
    The natural conclusion is that we all deserve to get the benefits of affirmative action. We are merely pigmentally challenged Afro-Americans.

    Don't laugh. There was a beauty queen contest in India. The two final contestants were cousins and looked just alike. Well except one, perhaps because of a white ancestor , had blond hair and blue eyes. She won and all of India screamed because the winner did not look Indian. What kind of a big tent is that.?

    • sedoanman

      "One of the best jokes played on the liberals I have ever read about."

      Oh? Then you haven't read "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity"?
      http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgre

  • anor277

    The author of this piece has not represented the Bolt case very accurately. Issues have been ignored, presumably because because they do not fit with the popular notion that 'political correctness has run amok'.

    In the case itself, Bolt's lawyers conceded that the aboriginals in question had identified themselves as aboriginals since childhood (why? because they had aboriginal mothers or fathers and had been raised black). Further, the aboriginals in question had chosen not to sue Bolt for defamation of character over his (reasonably) insulting and inaccurate suggestion that they had chosen their aboriginal identity to win special privileges.

    Their victory in this case was a public correction (as well as the quite considerable court costs and counsel fees to be paid by Bolt's employers). An appeal is expected.

    • PaulM

      You also ignore key parts of the Federal Court Ruling where the Judge asserts that Andrew Bolts articles weren't good faith along with a whoe slew of the ruling that was based on the Judges interpretation of Andrew Bolts intent and the meaning of words that the Judge has ascribed to the articles. In essence many of the key determinations in the ruling are based on the personal opinion of the Judge, not on matters of law. One should also take into account the level of contorversy surrounding a number of the plaintifs and the head of the legal team during the case to realise this was nothing more than a witch hunt ably facilitated by an activist judge/fellow traveller. Lastly you should answer the basic question Andrew Bolt posed, are there not equally tallented aboriginals, much more disadvantaged than these inner city artists and academics, with a majority aboriginality by blood rather than identification, who would have benefited from these grants much more than these self serving rent seekers?

    • Andy of Sydney

      Of course he hasn't, Anon277.

      He did not mention the fact that one of those litigious white abos said of a black aborigine "I watched a show where a guy had sex with a horse and I'm sure it was less offensive than Bess Price."

      That clearly shows how much contempt the white abos have towards their black bethren. That is a clear-cut indication of choosing a race because of the benefits of being that race. I sympathise with the black aborigines, whose chances and benefits are pirated from them by white abos and kept perpetually marginalised by white abos so that said white abos can have a cash cow gravy train to moan about.

      • Larry

        He also ignore the fact that none of the claims to be aboriginal were tested by the Court, which just accepted their statements as factual. They sued Bolt because he hurt their feelings, and in my experience when you manage to hurt the feelings of that sort of rent seeker it is because you have come upon the truth, and not their lies.

        • anor277

          "He also ignore the fact that none of the claims to be aboriginal were tested by the Court, which…"

          I ignored this? Well, Bolt's lawyers did not. They accepted that the individuals were bone fide aborigines.

          "you should answer the basic question Andrew Bolt posed, are there not equally tallented aboriginals, much more disadvantaged than these inner city artists and academics, with a majority aboriginality by blood rather than identification, who would have benefited from these grants"

          I should? Well, the answer is probably yes. But so what? As to the controversy this case stirred, it was a controversy of Bolt's own manufacture, as he undoubtedly knew and anticipated.

          Lastly, I ask those who replied to me to read what I actually wrote. It is (as far as I know) factual, unlike Bolt's original article and the opinion piece above (you can certainly correct me). Bolt was NOT sued (he may well have been, he might still be). He wrote an article that was found to be factually inaccurate, reasonably insulting, and was asked to issue a public retraction. This is a matter of opinion sure, but it is now also a matter of law.

          • PaulM

            But so what? Well there's the whole point of Bolts articles, individuals who are genuinely disadvantaged are being denied these grants because of well off inner city artists and academics hoovering up all the money supposed to be to help break down barriers to entry. You are correct that there were some minor factual errors in the articles, none of which change the overall intent or meaning of the articles. You are also correct, Bolt wasn't sued, that's the point, he should have been, that is what defamation laws are for. And so what if they were insulted, they should take a teaspoon of cement and harden up. I am insulted and offended by alot of what activists and the Canberra Press Gallery say about Australian History and ordinary Australians as a whole, but guess what, that's what free speech is about.

          • PaulM

            Lastly, Andrew Bolt wasn't asked at any time nor ordered in the Federal Court Ruling to print a retraction, his employer, The Herald and Weeklt Times has been required to include a correct on his blog. And yes whilst there hasn't been a sucessfull apeal against the ruling and whilst the particular section of the Racial Discrimination Act remains on the books it is a matter of law. But a sucessful appeal or the almost certain election of a conservative government in the next 18 months will see that error rectified.

          • anor277

            So are you saying that a successful appeal or the possible election of a conservative government in the next 18 months justifies Bolt's comments? Of course you're not. And I wouldn't be so sanguine that a conservative government will rectify any errors of law; they would likely be unwilling to open such a can a worms.

            The idea that there exists a cabal of inner city artists and academics that siphon off all the grant money is also not sound. The granting of government money for art or research projects is always fraught with contention. In my experience (limited!) those who complain most loudly about the awarding of grants are those who never applied for them in the first place.

            In fact, everything you've said to me, you could also say to Bolt. 'Harden up; if you can't take it, don't give it; don't stir poo if you can't deal with the consequences.' At any rate, thank you for addressing my arguments; we seem to agree on most of the issues – we don't agree on which are the substantive ones.

          • PaulM

            The coalition has already said that when elected they will repeal those parts of the Racial Discrimination Act under which this judgement was made. You are correct, I have never applied for any Government Grants, even those that I was ellegible for as I believe that if the success of any enterprise or idea of mine is dependant on taxpayer support or subsidy, it isn't worthwhile. Taxpayers moneys are for truly disadvantaged persons and for the provision and maintenance of public facilities, infrastructure and services.

            My main contention with the decision was that it is based on a judges interpretation of Andrew Bolts articles and his opinion on the motives behind them, those are subjective assesments best suited to redress through civil truibunals such as the Press Council, not The Courts, and in a court a Judge is required to rule on points of law and evidence, not on his opinions on an article or his assumption of the level of umberage of the plaintiffs.

          • SamP

            No, I live in a town of 25,000 and due to my Aboriginality I could not get a job? Then moved to Melbourne and got employment straight away, this isn’t a one off I have plenty examples of how racism directly effects my ability to engage in society, inequality, racism, exclusion and all disadvantages are felt strongly by Aboriginal people in so called areas (major citys and towns) with advantages, Speaking from experience I feel it is made more difficult because we should have a chance with things right there but still get excluded due to racism, Racism is real and strong

    • Ha ha ha now be honest

      You just neglect to mention the the sister of one … from the same parents identified as white, that they were all bought up in cities where they faced no discrimination and only one had an Aboriginal parent. Typical leftie, don’t let fact get in the way

      • anor277

        "You just neglect to mention the the sister of one … from the same parents identified as white………"(Ha ha ha)

        For the third time, the same point. Bolt's counsel also neglected to mention this'fact' (and I have no idea as how factual it is). Bolt's counsel accepted that the individuals in question were bona fide aborigines, and this was apparently a crucial issue in the judge's ruling.

        The point made earlier, that the individuals in question should have sued for defamation of character rather than rely on racial discrimination legislation is a valid argument, but then again the Australian public do have an opportunity to change this legislation.

  • Ghostwriter

    The ridiculousness continues.

    • Fred Dawes

      For people who don't want to see what is coming down this evil road to hell.

  • VenerableBede

    This reminds me a documentary where the BBC interviewed a white woman, a black man and claimed they were Native Americans. Sure they may have had an Native American ancestor back down the line, but they sure did not look like Magua. But I suppose it is like the American tradition of claiming to be Irish on March 17th.

    Oddly Mexicans are not classified as Native Americans, even though they sort of are, considering they usually played the Indians in the movies.

    • Fred Dawes

      My real Grand mother was so called Native her Good father. my great grand father was a civil war vet in the CSA And was not happy with Mexicans he was shot to KILLED by mexcans in 1899 my grandmother really hated mexicans Many of my people would love to take down the evil mexicans for God and country and old times if you know what i mean?

      • Fred Dawes

        lkrjngierhgjtgdfmvlekjtt9j. code book J

  • Fred Dawes

    What happens when we are no longer a nation but just a Race area Ruled Nation and that is coming not in 50 years or 20 years but within 10 years, here in the southwest we will see 135 million hispnics all calling for self-rule and determination or autonomy but want all the welfare coming in from the low life Americans many say the hispanic is the master-rule and many more say that hispanic is the new Bronze people I call hispainc little indian people from mexico being ruled by the white spanish for race and political REASON of evil.

  • Tecumsehmoe

    It's Israel's fault!

  • Joe

    The author is naive about the U.S. being a sanctuary of free speech when it comes to political correctness. While there may be no official laws on the books prohibiting politically incorrect speech, there is no shortage of people in the U.S. who have lost their jobs or reputation for uttering what some deem 'insensitive'.

    Moreover, the phenomenon of pseudo-minority isn't limited to Australia. In fact, absurd as it is, a white Australian claiming to be 'black' by claiming unverified remote aboriginal ancestry (a cotton swab and DNA test could settle the matter) is comparatively compared sane compared to the situation in the U.S., where white Spaniards are classified as 'oppressed people of color', and not by application of some presumed Amerindian or black African admixture, but by virtue of bring Spanish itself. In fact, a new sort of 'one-drop rule' has been effectively embraced whereby white persons claim to be 'people of color' by virtue of having some European Spanish ancestry. The late Walt Disney (part European Spanish) and blonde haired blue eyed actress Cameron Diaz ( also part Spanish) have been described as a 'woman of color', as has the 100% European Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem.

    In fact, the City University of NY goes so far as to classify Italians as 'oppressed people of color', and they are elegize for affirmative action as 'non-whites'.

  • R.L.

    Of course, the whole idea of recasting white Mediterraneans as 'people of color' is perhaps even more entrenched in Australia, where the guilt tripped Anglos regard southern Europeans (Greeks, Italians, Serbs, Croats, etc.) as 'people of color' whom they tremble in front of for fear of offense; they more or less fill the 'niche' that white 'Hispanics' do in the US.

  • James

    It's worth pointing out that the late, notoriously racist, white supremacist Jim Crow judge Leander Perez of Louisiana would by today's standards be classified as a "Latino" and therefore 'oppressed person of color' eligible for affirmative-action.

  • steven l

    If you Google "political correctness" OH my! it was created by Marxists to shut off dissent! OH Yes!!!!!!!

  • Irene Bolger

    Your ignorant racism is an indication of your lack of intelligence. None of you even know these people. This ridiculous notion of white suppression is just as silly a notion that there is free speech in the USA. How many of you have read the judgment? This is not about free speech but about lying about people in print and racial vilification. I note that the writer of this disgraceful article (I can't call it journalism) is Jewish. I guess he has forgotten about the vilification of the Jews as he is engaging in exactly the same behaviour. Would he be upset if someone vilified him because of his Jewish background or is he really not wholly Jewish and only part, pretending to be Jewish?

    • M.L.

      There are no lies in the article (he never said the 'white aborigines' don't have some aborigine ancestry), he merely pointed out the absurdity of whites with minimal aboriginal ancestry making a big show of it. Race is an accident of birth, not something to be either proud or ashamed of.

      Sure, it might be interesting at a dinner party for an ostensibly Northern European man or woman to point out that they have some aborigine or other non-European ancestry. But to for a white woman with a smidgeon of aboriginal ancestry to get an award intended for 'indigenous writers' is perverse ( indeed, racially exclusive awards of any sort are divisive).

      This is essentially just a left wing, politically correct version of the "one drop rule" of the US.

  • Irene Bolger

    Wikileaks is the only source of free speech and look how much that has upset the conservatives in the USA because we can all see what they wanted to keep secret.. Stop being such hypocrites you right wing pure whites.

  • Irene Bolger

    R.L. You are showing your complete ignorance about Australia. We do not use that term "of colour" in this country and never have. All of these people mentioned have contributed to a great multicultural society which only a small group of rednecks would complain about. Stop trying to pass your own terrible prejudices from the USA onto us.

    • R.L.

      Irene:

      (1) A little googling reveals oodles of examples of the term "people of color" used in Australia.
      (2) in your self-righteous zeal to pronounce me racist you have seen things in my post which simply aren't there but are products of your own race obsessed imagination. Kindly indicate where in my post I have said anything 'prejudiced', or where I suggested any group in Australia do not contribute to Australian society? It's not in my post, it's in your head.

      I happen to be an American of Italian ancestry and my grandfather lived for years in Oz. It is from him that I first learned about how the Ozzies think of southern Europeans as 'people of color', subsequently confirmed by my own research.

      The fact is many Anglo Australians do look the swarthier people from southern Europe as 'an other'. In years past this 'otherness' was often viewed contemptuously (characterized as 'wogs'). In more recent, PC times, many Anglos still see 'wogs' (swarthy southern Europeans) as 'an other', but rather than express contempt, they are more likely today to feel guilty or awkward around 'wogs' and try to indicate they like them, lest they be suspected of harboring the 'anti-wog' prejudices of their grandparents generation. In my opinion, however 'well intended', paying so much attention to one's ethnicity (whether to hurl invective or to coddle) is prejudiced. Most Ozzies are perfectly fine of course and neither pander nor express contempt to 'wogs'; this tends to be a habit of the race preoccupied white left. I think my comparison of white 'Latinos' in the US to southern Europeans (and Lebs) in Oz is quite apt, not 'prejudiced'.

      Incidentally, the US has a black president and currently the leading contender to oppose him in the next election is also black. When Australia has never had a non-white head of state; Oz could learn a lot about racial and ethnic harmony from the US.

  • Cam

    What gives any of you the right to claim your surname? It only belonged to one of your two parents, one of your four grandparents, and one of your eight great grandparents. That’s one eighth. Seven eighths of your great grandparents don’t share your surname.

    You share your surname with only one sixteenth of your great-great grandparents. So too do I share my Tasmanian Aboriginal ancestry with one of my great-great grandparents. That makes me one sixteenth Aboriginal. To most, I look white. So because I look that way, I am not an Aboriginal?

    It’s statistically quite unlikely that you would look like your great-great grandfather Greenfield, but you use his name all the same. You didn’t choose it, you were born with it. So too was I.

    In fact, there aren’t any Tasmanian Aboriginals with a greater percentage of Aboriginal blood than me any more. Their genocide was meticulously carried out by people who thought that they were better and more deserving of the land than my people. And still it continues.

    Aboriginality is not about appearance – it never has been. It is about acceptance, culture and family.

    • RoyStone

      1) You can chose whatever surname you want. It is traditional to take the surname of your father, however many people these days chose not to.
      2) Welfare benefits are not handed out on the basis of surname. They are if you call yourself Aboriginal, even is you look and are predominantly Caucasian.
      3) If aborigines are the victims of genocide, how come there are far more Aborigines today than before European settlement?

  • Charles B

    All depends on how one defines White.
    Here in California if you were 1/8th Black or 1/8th Asian you were denied certain constitutional civil rights for decades. In the 1980's a white woman was denied entry into apartheid South Africa because her birth certificate said Negro. In Louisiana the law was that if you were 1/32nd Negro you were legally a Negro.

    • Rob

      Show us some reliable links to references that back up your claims about these percentages please; I think you're wrong. There actually were no legal definitions of 'blackness' on the books in any southern state until the early 20th century, when few enacted laws that specified how much black ancestry made one 'legally black', and I believe the most restrictive was 1/16th (one black great-great-grandparent) and it wasn't Louisiana. Louisiana was actually unusual in that it had a sizable number of people with some black ancestry who were considered white.

  • Charles

    Some people believe that the only true white people are blue eyed blonde Nordics.
    Everyone else is mixed. Albinos are found on every continent., yet Asian and African albinos are not called white? What exactly is a white person.

    • M.L.

      "Some people believe that the only true white people are blue eyed blonde Nordics."

      Correct; this is the way the far left and racist fringe right (i.e. skinheads) see race.

  • Anonymous

    Ironically this article, like Andrew Bolt's referred to in the court case, only serves to further divide race relations. It also completely misinterprets the outcome of the case – this was never about free speech. Australian journalists are constantly producing engaging and fierce debate on identity in the modern age, which is an extremely healthy one at that and should be encouraged. However Bolt's articles were not just defamatory on the basis of race – it was bad journalism, plain and simple. If the author had read the outcomes of the case and even spoken to any of the complainants, they would have realised Bolt, using Google as his main source of information, completely falsified the background and makings of those complainants. It's a sad day when we mistake freedom of speech for shoddy writing and poor research. Ironically this author seems to have followed in his footsteps.

  • RoyStone

    There is a view that Australian Aborigines suffer from discrimination and disadvantage because of their color. Whether this is true or not is not the point. The point is, there are special monetary prizes, grants and awards only available to Aborigines to compensate for this assumed disadvantage. Bolt's point was these "white" Aborigines, who are not victims of color prejudice, some with highly-paid positions and university degrees, are the recipients of these benefits at the expense of the "real" (my word, not Bolt's) Aborigines who need it.

  • anon

    okay, so, answer me a question, given the context.
    I'm really serious, someone please answer what you think.

    If I have fair skin and blue eyes, yet my sister has dark skin and looks obviously Aboriginal, does that make me less Aboriginal or less entitled to things?

    Sometimes I can't tell who is the lucky one. These articles make me feel terrible. My family think of me as one of them, "black fellas", yet I've gone through life being treated as a typical white Australian and not facing any discrimination. I can't say I'm not Aboriginal because that would be like a kick in the face to my family, like saying I'm denying their heritage, which is like the basis of their identity, many of them looking very black and having been treated as such.

    So tell me, you opinionated people, what the hell am I?

  • Reg Blatt

    …. you neglect of course to mention that the clincher for the case against Bolt is that he fabricated 'facts' to make his point. It's called defamation. If he got his facts straight the case would have been dismissed.
    http://darinsullivan.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/andr

  • Kylie

    It sounds like the ‘cursed’ ‘black’ ‘European’, ‘American’ , ‘Asian’, ‘African’ always ‘right’ ‘left’ ‘Dame’ Edna speaking. Which ‘colour’ sent you on a guilt trip to Australia?

  • John Fisher

    This is a very interesting debate. Should a person who is born here claim to be Irish because they had an Irish ancestor? Well no! Should they learn Irish dancing, learn Gaelic, copy and use an Irish accent? Well no. Similarly it seems to me there is a racial, ethic, cultural combination that decides these matters in that order. Certainly it is absurd to exploit a tenuous link or stress it to gain sympathy or exploit an opportunity.

  • Katie

    It’s like first Europeans took their land, their lives, even their children, and now they’re taking their identity so they can claim benefits meant for them.