Monday 20 October 2014

Bigoted Barry Spurr: Christopher Pyne's racist reviewer

Bigoted Barry Spurr: Christopher Pyne's racist reviewer






Flier for rally held at Sydney University on Friday (Image via Tumblr / jezababes)


One of the Abbott Government’s handpicked curriculum
reviewers has been shown to be a disgusting bigot, however proud member
of the Kamilaroi people, Natalie Cromb, says the problem is much bigger than Barry Spurr.




An academic so apparently linguistically endowed he was appointed as the English curriculum reviewer by the Federal Government, used words such as ‘abo’, ‘mussies’, ‘chinky-poos’, ‘fatsoes’ and ‘bogans’ over at least a two year period, in emails disseminated internally and externally in his capacity as Sydney University professor of poetry and poetics.



This Sydney University professor is none other than Barry Spurr
— an advocate for the removal of Indigenous literature from the
curriculum in the interests of promoting the Judeo-Christian literature
because, after all, that is our “culture”.




This ‘man’ ‒ if I can use that word without insulting all of the fair
minded men that may read this ‒ referred to Tony Abbott as an ‘abo
lover’, considered the royal visit to Uluru was inappropriate and
derides Indigenous neighbours as ‘rubbish’. When exposed, however, he
claimed the comments were taken out of context  and were merely a tongue
in cheek stab at extremist language.




Whilst Mr Spurr has demonstrated a very clear disdain of those who do
not possess the same complexion and outlook on race as he does, I query
how someone who has risen to the position of professor at Sydney
University and Federal curriculum reviewer could seriously be so
arrogant and daft as to attempt to play that weak card.




Indeed, a subsequent more detailed publication of Spurr’s repugnant emails indicates that his defence was nothing more than a blatant self-serving fabrication.





Sydney University has, quite rightly, suspended Mr Spurr while an investigation is undertaken.



Obviously, there is an internal procedure that needs to be followed,
however, the only reasonable outcome is that he ought to be removed from
his position. He does not deserve the position of educating others if
he holds such insular and disgusting views.




But what of the Federal Government?



This hand-picked member of Christopher Pyne’s education review was implicitly supported by the education minister — who refuses to reconsider
Spurr's review of the English curriculum and, indeed, explicitly
supports his reviewer's stance on the supremacy of Australia’s
Judeo-Christian heritage.




Christopher Pyne, appearing on ABC Lateline a week ago, said:



“Before 1788, our history was Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander culture and history almost exclusively. Since that time,
obviously since colonisation, Western civilisation, our Judeo-Christian
heritage has been the basis of our development as a nation.”







And Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia, has also said this year:



The First Fleet was the defining moment in the history of this continent.”




Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has, however, rightly indicated that this is a very serious concern and one that needs to be addressed.



Shorten said the government needs to:



“… reassure Australians that the views of the reviewer and the
disgusting remarks have in no way infiltrated the curriculum which is
taught to all our young Australians.’’





That reassurance is likely never to be made given the Government is
whitewashing the curriculum and focussing solely on the Indigenous
culture as a fixture in history rather than a living, breathing,
developing cultural reality.




In short, it is clear that the Government supports the underlying bigotry and white supremacist views of Barry Spurr.



The evidence continues to mount that this is a government that seeks to divide, not unite.





It seeks to repudiate history by rewriting and sanitising the
atrocities committed against the Indigenous people in order to maintain
their covert policy of assimilation and covert racism.




Barry Spurr is a symptom of this nation’s problem; its disease; its virulent case of prejudice.



We have a culture among a large portion of the majority ‒ that is, white Australians ‒ that accept a certain level of prejudice.



This attitude is supported in everyday conversations where you may hear varying examples of the same recurring themes:



  • I don’t have a problem with migrants, provided they come the right way…
  • Aboriginal people need to get over the past and get on with things…..
  • I don’t have a problem with racism, I just don’t like Muslims, that’s different….
  • Don’t be so politically correct, it’s all in good fun [usually said after racist remark]…
  • I’m not racism my [insert friend, colleague etc] is [insert race reference]…
At no point is racism or religious bigotry funny.



At no point is it “good fun”.



At no point is it acceptable to denigrate a group of people based on
the views you hold — even if there are a group of equally herd-minded
people ready to follow along with you on the path to intellectual
nothingness.




This issue is pervasive.



It is in schools among teachers and students, it is in the workplace, it is in the media and it is in the community.





Racism and religious bigotry is rife and the division in society is being actively contributed to by the Abbott Government.



The Government is asking you to be vigilant (read: fearful) of
terrorism, whilst instructing the media to release images of citizens
that prescribe to the Islamic faith; it is asking us to get on board
with “Team Australia” — meaning assimilate to the Judeo-Christian
‘culture’.




Barry Spurr’s attempt to deflect from the atrocious views he has put into words speaks to his complete lack of remorse.



He said initially that it was a play on words. He later accuses the journalists at New Matilda of having hacked into his email and makes all sorts of assertions
about his legal team investigating the alleged hacking — however he has
not once come out and said that what he wrote was wrong.




He has not given voice to the concept that to condemn a group of people on the basis of race or religion is reprehensible.



Barry Spurr is not sorry for the remarks he has made, nor the offence
caused, he is outraged that he got caught and was the alleged victim of
an invasion of privacy (as he puts it).




Whilst Barry Spurr clearly deserves our disgust, we must remember that he is the symptom, not the disease.



This problem is larger than Barry Spurr, it is larger than Sydney University and it is larger than some disgusting emails.



Racism and bigotry like Spurr’s is a cancer eating at the core of
Australian society, tearing us apart from within — and will only get
worse while our Government tries to whitewash our history and heritage.




You can follow Natalie on Twitter @NatalieCromb.





Creative Commons Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License



Friday 17 October 2014

Editorial: What We Really Learn From The Racist Rants Of Professor Barry Spurr | newmatilda.com

Editorial: What We Really Learn From The Racist Rants Of Professor Barry Spurr | newmatilda.com

Editorial: What We Really Learn From The Racist Rants Of Professor Barry Spurr



By New Matilda





Professor
Spurr’s views are more than a disturbing case of antiquated thinking in
the ivory tower - it's time to tackle the tough questions on elite
racism and public policy.




Yesterday, New Matilda published extracts from a series of emails sent by University of Sydney Professor Barry Spurr.


Spurr’s career may be devoted to the study of language but the words
he reserves for women and people of colour, to put it lightly, are
lacking in poetry.



He refers to Aboriginal people as “rubbish”, and calls them by the
derogatory term “Abos”, elsewhere referring to “chinky-poos”, “mussies”
and “darkies”.



He makes light of a woman who has been seriously sexually assaulted
and suggests she needs more than just ‘penis’ in her mouth, before it’s
sewn shut.



His language and derision of women and people of colour is shocking and difficult to read.


Professor Spurr says his words were intended to mock the extremity of
his language. Readers can make their own judgments about whether it was
intended as humour, and if he achieved his goal.



But there’s one line in his writing, seemingly innocuous, that is
crucially important to understanding why Professor Spurr’s views are
more than a disturbing case of antiquated thinking in the ivory tower.



Spurr writes that Education Minister Christopher Pyne asked him to
examine the Californian high school English curriculum as part of his
contribution to the government’s recently released curriculum review.



“…whereas the local curriculum has the phrase ‘Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander’ on virtually every one of its 300 pages, the
Californian curriculum does not ONCE mention native Americans and has
only a very slight representation of African-American literature (which,
unlike Abo literature, actually exists and has some distinguished
productions).”



That’s right – the man charged with reviewing the national English
curriculum doesn’t think Aboriginal literature exists in any meaningful,
valuable way.



That is a claim so far beyond the realms of the absurd it barely
warrants a response. The fact an esteemed poetry lecturer could write
such rubbish is itself an indictment of the failure of Australia’s
education system at all levels to reflect and incorporate the
contributions of First Nations peoples.



Professor Spurr may not know of any significant Aboriginal writers
but New Matilda’s senior journalist Amy McQuire sure as hell does. She
considers their contributions here.



It’s worth comparing Spurr’s statements in private correspondence to
what he wrote as a special consultant to Pyne’s education review.



“The impact of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on
literature in English in Australia has been minimal and is vastly
outweighed by the impact of global literature in English, and especially
that from Britain, on our literary culture.”



“Minimal”. But not non-existent.


It’s a tiny tweak, from his private exclamations to his public testimony, but a vital one.


It reveals just how little you have to lie to make your racism
publicly acceptable, and to write it in to a major government review.



Choose your words carefully, hold back ever so slightly, and you’ll get away with it.


Take out your overtly racist language; draft your racist recommendations and implement your racist ideology with subtlety.


When video of a bigot berating bystanders and transit officials goes
viral – as it did earlier this week – Australians pay attention.



We share the images, express our disdain, and pat ourselves on the
back for condemning an act of visible and immediate discrimination.



Yet when a white academic carefully covers his racism in a bid to
strip Black literature from the curriculum, we don’t even notice.



That’s what makes elite racism more dangerous than any one man or woman yelling at a railway cop or someone in the street.


Racists in parliaments, in bureaucracies, in media outlets and
respected cultural institutions are smart enough not to yell down a
blackfella or a woman in a veil on a train.



They don’t need to. They can dog whistle, wink, and draft carefully worded reports.


Looking over Spurr’s letters may leave a very sour taste in mouths of
readers. But it also leaves Christopher Pyne, and for that matter
University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Michael Spence, with some
uncomfortable questions to answer.



The most difficult to honestly confront, however, is this one: how
many other powerful white men are secretly writing letters like those of
Professor Barry Spurr?





PrintPrint  
 
 
googlepl

Saturday 11 October 2014

Rewriting history. - The AIM Network

Rewriting history. - The AIM Network



Rewriting history.

















Breaking news:  In an exclusive report in the Daily Telegraph, the
Coalition review into education is complete and Christopher was right.
We need to go back to basics, use phonics, and rewrite history.



“History should be revised in order to properly recognise the impact and significance of Australia’s Judaeo-Christian heritage.”


Firstly, how did the Telegraph get hold of a report that has not yet
been released? Could it be because the men who produced it both publish
articles in Murdoch papers?  Always wise to keep in the good books
should the consultancy work dry up.



Secondly, how did two men finish a report into the National
Curriculum in a few months when it took the experts years and tens of
thousands of submissions?



Thirdly, how much did it cost to get them to write up what Christopher Pyne said would be the result before the review started?


And finally, do these guys actually understand what Judeo-Christian means?


In January, Christopher Pyne promised “balance” and “objectivity”
when he launched a two-man review of the Australian national curriculum.
He appointed business academic Ken Wiltshire and education consultant
Kevin Donnelly as reviewers.



Immediately after the announcement, a startling element of
religiosity entered the discussion. Donnelly, who runs a one man
Education Standards Institute committed to “Christian beliefs and
values” which is owned by the K Donnelly Family Trust, announced in an
ABC TV interview that government schools needed more emphasis on
religion and more recognition of Australia’s “Judeo-Christian tradition”



He was chief of staff for Kevin Andrews when he was shadow education
minister and in the 1990s worked for tobacco company Philip Morris on
developing an educational program for school children.



Writing in the Punch in 2010, he warned about the impact of voting Green in the Victorian state election.


“Government and other faith-based schools will also be made to teach a
curriculum that positively discriminates in favour of gays, lesbians,
transgender and intersex persons,” he said.



In 2011, Donnelly argued that Christians and Muslims do not accept
the same values and beliefs, and expressed concerns about a booklet
written by academics to help Australian teachers include Muslim
perspectives in the classroom. He was upset that the book did not
convey:



“…what some see as the inherently violent nature of the Koran, where
devout Muslims are called on to carry out Jihad and to convert
non-believers, and the destructive nature of what is termed dhimmis –
where non-believers are forced to accept punitive taxation laws.”



He is a vocal critic of educational strategies designed to help
students appreciate that there are multiple valid worldviews and
perspectives.



“Add the fact that students must be taught ‘intercultural
understanding’, with its focus on diversity and difference, and are told
to value their own cultures and the cultures, languages and beliefs of
others, and it’s clear that the underlying philosophy is cultural
relativism,” he wrote in the Australian earlier this year.



So what do Donnelly and Pyne mean by our Judeo-Christian heritage?


Quite frankly I have no idea.


First used by early 20th century biblical scholars, as a theological
term it is based on the supersessionist view that Christianity is
regarded as a religion that has superseded its (outmoded and irrelevant)
precursor, and consequently, a redundant Judaism is regarded, in
condescending fashion, as a religious anachronism.



During the early1940s, the term Judeo-Christian was used in America
to show solidarity with Europe’s persecuted Jews, and was recycled after
1945 by Christian apologists anxious to convince surviving Jewish
communities that the Holocaust was a ghastly cultural aberration.



Both scholar and major US Jewish theologian Arthur A Cohen, in his 1969 The Myth of the Judeo-Christian Tradition and US Rabbi and author Jacob Neusner in his 2001 Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition
have pointed out at great length that the idea of historic
Judeo-Christian harmony ignores, amongst other matters, a 2000-year
narrative of theological antipathy and a millennium long narrative of
violent persecution of Jews in the name of Christianity.



Cohen comments as follows:


“I regard all attempts to define a Judeo-Christian tradition as
essentially barren and meaningless … at the end point of the consensus
when the good will is exhausted, and the rhetoric has billowed away,
there remains an incontestable opposition.”



The term was revived by Reagan as part of the Cold War Christian rhetoric against the ‘godless’ Soviets.


In Australia, it rarely appears until 2001. Until September 11, it
appears Australians didn’t give a fig about Judeo-Christian values.  The
political intent driving its use changed from one of inclusion to one
of exclusion in the post-September 11 era, when it most often signified
the perceived challenges of Islam and Muslims.



Monash academic Sue Collins finds that the “Judeo” element is merely tacked on for political expedience:


“The term has become a kind of shield for undeclared conservative
interests which really want to privilege, and actually mean, the
Christian tradition, but are conscious this would be politically
counter-productive.”



Perhaps before they presume to rewrite our National History
Curriculum, these gentlemen may want to do some research into the shaky
foundations on which they want it based.



Share this: