The White Silence of Black Lives Matter in Australia

Image from Shutterstock

In 2020, the death of George Floyd reignited the #BlackLivesMatter movement across the globe, prompting mass protests calling for a response to racial injustices perpetrated at a systematic and institutionalised level. In the US, the movement shined a floodlight on the narratives told by African Americans of their experiences with racially targeted police brutality — resulting in a global discussion of America’s state of affairs. In Australia, while discussions of injustices experienced by Aboriginal people flickered into community awareness, the public outcry was much quieter and disconnected from the direct and continuing impacts of colonisation. This silence was resoundingly White and reflected the nature of Australia’s reluctance to address deep-seated cultural and political disparities faced by Aboriginal communities. Three years later, Australia’s embedded cultural racism came to the forefront of the nation’s consciousness, with the Voice to Parliament referendum receiving a crushing sixty per cent ‘No’ vote — a number that echoes Australia’s appetite for Aboriginal rights and indicates the moral direction of the nation.

As an Aboriginal woman who is white-presenting, I take a philosophical approach and argue that while the #BlackLivesMatter movement raised global consciousness of racial and systematic discrimination — Australia continues to grapple with racism at a systemic and cultural level that, in turn, inhibits it from developing a level of moral maturity as a nation. To combat this, I argue that there is a fundamental requirement for White Australians to step up, participate and advocate for a cultural change regarding Australia’s relationship with Aboriginal Australians. Racial discrimination is embedded in Australian culture, and it is only when this practice is dismantled can the nation develop the moral order required to enable the realisation of Aboriginal rights.

I. Systemic Discrimination in Australia
A. The Human Rights Framework and Australia
While considered an ideal framework, human rights is at its heart — a Western ideal steeped in the notion of universalism — presuming a singular approach to justice and equity that all nations, regardless of culture, ought to adopt. This framing of human rights, while distinct from colonialism in its intent, perpetrates a form of cultural and legal imperialism by embedding Western human rights standards in societies that harbour their own unique (and non-western) cultural norms and values. In Australia, where a legacy of colonialism continues to form the glue of the country’s relationship with its Aboriginal people, an approach that holds Western values as the dominant standard on which relationships between State and citizens ought to be founded may not be the ideal solution towards reaching reconciliation and obtaining rights for Indigenous Australians.

Further, self-determination while pivotal to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), has historically been a subject of contention in Australia’s relationship with its Aboriginal population. It is important to note that the interpretation of self-determination deviates between nations that have held former colonial powers compared to those whose history is marked by colonial rule. In post-colonial discourses, Western-European states have conceptualised self-determination as a principle that ought to balance alongside notions of state sovereignty. In contrast, those who have emerged from the shackles of colonialism vehemently argue that self-determination is a non-derogable right — one that supersedes all other rights and is fundamental to upholding human dignity. Australia’s position on self-determination for its Aboriginal populous is demonstrated by its initial 2007 refusal to endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and its subsequent refusal to implement UNDRIP into domestic law, policy and practice since the Rudd Government’s 2009 endorsement; in that, while self-determination operates as a principle that underpins human rights, it is not a principle that is attainable or supported in Australia.

B. Australia’s Domestic Policies and Instutionalised Racial Prejudice
Australia’s domestic policies and legal frameworks tell a story of racial prejudice aimed at suppressing the self-determination of Aboriginal people as both a cultural practice and a crucial element requirement for political governance. Australia’s commitment to upholding rights for its Indigenous people becomes further muddied by its ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). While this commitment should, theoretically, be inclusive of Indigenous rights — there exists a discrepancy between international obligations and actual domestic actions. For example, a closer examination of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) provides that it makes no commitment to enacting special measures to advance racial equality within Australia. A commitment that is set out at the beginning of the Convention and sets the tone for the objective of the agreement itself.

This issue of Australia’s institutionalised racism becomes evident when considering case law that deals with issues of racially discriminatory laws and constitutional interpretation. For example, the Hindmarsh Bridge Case brought attention to s51 (xxvi) of the Commonwealth Constitution. While the High Court maintained a dignified silence on the ‘race’ question alleged by the applicant, the Solicitor-General argued that this section of the Constitution enables the government to make discriminatory laws if it so wishes to — an interpretation affirmed by Gummow and Hayne JJ as being supported by constitutional interpretation rules. This interpretation is concerning as it indicates that racial discrimination is not limited to cultural practice but is embedded within the nation’s constitutional framework. For Aboriginal Australians, the resulting situation is one of paradoxical entrapment within a colonial system that both publicly condemns racial discrimination while still maintaining the mechanisms that enable it to continue perpetrating and reproducing discriminatory practices.

Further, Australia’s ‘Closing the Gap’ strategy, while it aims to address Aboriginal economic disparities, demonstrates the Government’s recognition of systematic discriminatory practices and simultaneously reveals a substantial omission regarding the need to shift cultural attitudes of White Australians as part of reconciliation. The National Agreement, with its focus on protecting Aboriginal cultural practices and improving the health, education and employment opportunities of Indigenous Australians, while essential — remains astoundingly silent on any plans to address existing prejudice and cultural alienation experienced by Aboriginal peoples. This resounding silence in a national policy, which forms a foundational step towards reconciliation, signifies both the lack of commitment to address the foundational issues that create racial disparities for Aboriginal Australians; and a systemic blindness to see the ‘race issue’ that operates at the heart of Australia’s relationship with its Aboriginal population.

As such, this situation calls for a, perhaps radical, reassessment of our approach to Aboriginal-White relationships, suggesting that effective change may require a bottom-up approach — starting predominantly with a change in how White Australians perceive and understand Aboriginal Australians and their culture. Cultural change often precedes policy reforms — as demonstrated by changing attitudes towards family violence and women over the past decade — and, as such, is required to necessitate a shift in public consciousness and attitudes towards Aboriginal peoples. However, while racial inequality is a State issue — as the State has failed to recognise unfair cultural patterns that result in distributional inequality — the State has also demonstrated a systematic unwillingness to respond to the higher moral order required to remedy racial inequalities against Aboriginal Australians. As such, the onus for sparking tangible real-world change does not rest with Aboriginal Australians but with the people who benefit the most from the continuation of systematic racism — White Australians.

II. Racial Discrimination and the Moral Direction of a Nation
Daphne Habibis provides the terminology for Australia’s systematic and cultural racial prejudice as ‘the settler gaze’. Within the uniquely Australian context, the settler gaze refers to how descendants of colonisers perceive and engage with Aboriginal Australians. It is a uniquely White perspective, heavily influenced by historical power imbalances and characterised by racial stereotypes, cultural apathy and the exclusion of Aboriginal people as ‘the other’. It is not restricted to individual biases but is institutionalised — impacting policy-making, education and media portrayals, consequently resulting in the perpetuation of a cycle of disadvantage that infringes upon and violates the human rights of Aboriginal Australians. In addition, Axel Honneth argues that recognition is a requirement for people to gain full participation in society, and it is only through recognising Aboriginal culture as part of Australian history and culture that issues of justice can be truly addressed. The continued refusal to ‘see’ and fully recognise Aboriginal disadvantage as a result of White Australian privilege results directly in racial tensions and reduced empathy for Aboriginal people — which compounds Australian disadvantage. Recognising this systematic blindness involves dismantling the settler gaze and dominant white narratives through a shifting of culture — ­one that centres diverse Aboriginal voices and stories that challenge monolithic white-ideals of Aboriginal people. Only through culture shifting can Australia obtain a shift in the moral order of normative state practices.

The moral order of a nation is defined by a code of conduct that, under consideration of specific conditions, would be advocated for by all rational people. Where rationality is defined as being guided by a good reason or strong evidence and where the people who possess rationality operate as moral agents who seek to change those codes. When considering that the foundational principles of human rights are for the good of all people, it is rational to conclude that where Aboriginal people continue to face racial injustices and experience systemic silencing of their narratives — White Australians, who hold power not only in privileges but in numbers (due to genocide) ought to step up and participate as moral agents to right historical wrongs.

The role of White Australians in allyship as moral agents is crucial — White Australians hold positions of political, social and economic power that enable them to wield privileges that are systematically inaccessible to their Aboriginal counterparts. Therefore, it falls to White Australians to use their privilege to amplify Aboriginal voices through meaningful allyship. White, meaningful allyship — that is, allyship that creates long-lasting and tangible change for Aboriginal Australians — involves listening to Aboriginal stories and narratives; it involves a commitment by individuals to educate themselves about the true history of Australia’s colonisation; and it involves the use of one’s influence to inject these narratives into a policy change aimed at cultivating wide-spread cultural change on a national level.

We’ve witnessed such a change happen regarding cultural attitudes towards family violence against women. Where twenty years ago, family violence was often a topic that was subject to a language deficit, resulting in a nation-wide hermeneutical injustice — today, government-led initiatives such as the #CallitOut campaigns in Victoria and #StopitAttheStart by the Commonwealth Government have brought discussions of prevention of family violence to the foreground of Australian culture. And while changing attitudes may take a generation for tangible results to emerge, changing culture is nonetheless the first step in changing policy and preventing future harm. The same efforts can and should be implemented to address white cultural attitudes towards Aboriginal Australians.

Ultimately, advocating for rights and supporting Aboriginal activism through White allyship goes beyond seeking social justice — it is a testament to shared social responsibility and collective commitment to overcoming what has historically been a moral divide in Australian culture. Through White advocacy that centres on a cultural change through the creation of informed awareness of racial injustice in Australia alongside a deep appreciation for Aboriginal culture, the vision of a reconciled Australia that embraces the oldest living culture on earth becomes a tangible and attainable reality.

III. A Cautionary Tale for White Advocacy: White Guilt and Saviour Complexes
However, the White Saviour Complex is a by-product of colonial times and continues to exist today. With its roots founded in Christian missionary work, white saviourship — aims to implement universalistic ideas of human rights — and has often been used to justify intervention in the lives and culture of Indigenous peoples, as demonstrated by Australia’s history with the Stolen Generation. The very same paternalistic impulse that drove such policies can manifest in contemporary advocacy if it is not critically examined and checked. For White Australians, it is crucial to recognise how and why White Saviour complexes can arise and the historical context it has played in Aboriginal lives to ensure that modern-day support for Aboriginal peoples does not inadvertently replicate these dynamics. Instead, the role of White Allyship should involve an initial amplification of Aboriginal voices and then a conscious step-back to allow Aboriginal individuals and communities to take charge of the central narratives told about their historical and contemporary discourses.

However, with White advocacy comes the existence of ‘White Guilt’. As has been a pattern with any discussion of racial privilege and historical injustices, white guilt has inadvertently become a mechanism that sustains systemic racism in Australia. Colin Simpson aptly clarifies the role of white guilt in Australia:

“Pity over what happened to the Aborigines in the past has become the great Australian excuse for doing nothing” — Colin Simpson, 1951 in Adam in Ochre: Inside Aboriginal Australia

When #BLM came to the forefront of discussions in Australia, the narrative in Australia became disproportionately centred on White Australians’ journey of understanding their privilege — resulting in an overshadowing of the narrative of injustices experienced by Aboriginal people that the movement sought to highlight. It was a stolen moment, with white guilt becoming the overarching focus of discussion centred on racism in Australia — and perpetuating a cycle where Aboriginal narratives were framed around their relationship with white experiences.

The perseverance of white guilt within the national psyche continues to impede Australia’s moral maturity as a nation by continuing to place Aboriginal stories along the sidelines of white narratives and inhibiting Aboriginal voices and perspectives from being the dominant narrative of social conversations, where they ought to belong. And while white guilt manifests itself as an individual emotional response — one that ought to be worked through on a personal level — it has no place in dominating the public sphere. Instead, public discussions of racial injustice ought to be reserved for Aboriginal narratives, which can drive meaningful reflection and change and enable engagement that allows Aboriginal voices to be fully and adequately heard and acknowledged — rather than through a filter of white guilt. Enabling Aboriginal voices and silencing white guilt is essential for Australia to mature as a just and equitable society.

IV. Conclusion
In sum, Australia is hindered in its moral evolution by deeply embedded cultural and systemic racism towards Aboriginal Australians. To move beyond paying mere lip service to international commitments, there is a need for White Australians to step up as moral agents, overcome white guilt, and elevate Aboriginal voices. Only through genuine allyship and cultural introspection can Australia achieve a reconciliation that genuinely respects and upholds Aboriginal rights.

References

Axel Honneth, ‘Recognition or Redistribution? Changing Perspectives on the Moral Order of Society’ (2001) 18(2–3) Theory, Culture & Society 43–55

Daphne Habibis et al, ‘Repositioning the Racial Gaze: Aboriginal Perspectives on Race, Race Relations and Governance’ (2016) 4(1) Social Inclusion 57–67

Gerry Simpson, ‘The Diffusion of Sovereignty: Self-Determination in the Post-Colonial Age’ (1996) 32(2) Stanford Journal of International Law 255

Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (New York: Prometheus Books, 1789)

John Broome, ‘Reasons and Rationality’ in Markus Knauff and Spohn, Wolfgang (eds) The Handbook of Rationality (MIT Press, 2021)

Larissa Behrendt, ‘Indigenous Self-Determination: Rethinking the Relationship between Rights and Economic Development’ (2001) 24(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal 850

Makau Mutua, ‘Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights’ (2001) 42(1) Harvard International Law Journal 201.

Mitchell Rolls, ‘The “Great Australian Silence,” the “Cult of ForgetfulnesS” and the Hegemony of Memory’ (2011) 25(7) Australian Studies Journal 26

Ronald Inglehart, ‘Individual-Level Change and Societal-Level Change’ in Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, 1997) 51–66.

Stephen Darwall, The Second-person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability (Cambridge, 2006).

Tisha Dejmanee and Jeffrey Millar, ‘#Aboriginallivesmatter: Mapping Black Lives Matter discourse in Australia’ (2022) 184 (1) Media International Australia 6–20

Kartiniyeri v Commonwealth (1998) 195 CLR 337

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976)

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature 21 December 1965, 660 UNTS 195 (entered into force 4 January 1969)

Australian Human Rights Commission, Implementing UNDRIP — Australia’s third UPR (2021)

Australian Human Rights Commission, The Declaration Dialogue Series: Paper №2 — Self-determination — the fundamental right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to shape our own lives (July, 2013)

The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Closing the Gap, National Agreement on Closing the Gap (July 2020)