Hey, encountered this while I was looking up something else regarding this series. Maybe you've actually learned something in the years since you posted it, but in case you haven't, here's some quick things to consider. I'm Aboriginal Australian, by the way.
1: you make a big deal out of glaring omissions, and the attitudes of characters treating us like we only lived in the NT by that point in time, etc. But this is historically accurate to attitudes these people would have held and expressed. Part of that denial that we had been there once we were dispossessed, the treatment of being relics, etc, was the layered national rhetoric the colony was building and enforcing itself on. Even the humanising of immigrants and other 'undesirables' is accurate; it existed in then-contemporary attitudes to contrast /against/ us. Do you think it provides us any sort of justice to erase that truth and actuality of the time period so white readers like yourself can feel more comfortable? Can see us 'represented' with 'humanising nuance', for entirely your desire, with no consideration towards our truth-telling? (There were not very few of us in Victoria in 1929, by the way. Comparatively to pre-colonisation, sure. Maybe formally per census in Melbourne, sure. Would you like to interrogate for even a moment what that means? Do you care remotely about any of Melbourne's rich history with pan-Aboriginal political presence and activity in the 1920s, or...?)
2: I find it ridiculous that you typed all this and yet managed, with I imagine a straight face, to then purport that you didn't find it unimaginable that a rich white woman like Miss Fisher had never knowingly encountered an Aboriginal Australian before in 1929 Melbourne. A rich white woman. In 1929 Melbourne. I advise you to go look up, I don't know, literally anything about the Protections Acts that were in effect in Victoria at the time, how the state had Guardianship over Aboriginals. Here's some more keywords for you to help point your way: Stolen Generations; (chattel) slavery.
You had a point here. You clearly had very kind, good intentions. And in short: I do not remotely respect them, because throughout the entire post, you have centred your own opinions, your own personal comfort, and most glaringly, your own ignorance. Your voice. Your views. Your truth. Not ours.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2024-04-23 11:06 am (UTC)1: you make a big deal out of glaring omissions, and the attitudes of characters treating us like we only lived in the NT by that point in time, etc. But this is historically accurate to attitudes these people would have held and expressed. Part of that denial that we had been there once we were dispossessed, the treatment of being relics, etc, was the layered national rhetoric the colony was building and enforcing itself on. Even the humanising of immigrants and other 'undesirables' is accurate; it existed in then-contemporary attitudes to contrast /against/ us. Do you think it provides us any sort of justice to erase that truth and actuality of the time period so white readers like yourself can feel more comfortable? Can see us 'represented' with 'humanising nuance', for entirely your desire, with no consideration towards our truth-telling? (There were not very few of us in Victoria in 1929, by the way. Comparatively to pre-colonisation, sure. Maybe formally per census in Melbourne, sure. Would you like to interrogate for even a moment what that means? Do you care remotely about any of Melbourne's rich history with pan-Aboriginal political presence and activity in the 1920s, or...?)
2: I find it ridiculous that you typed all this and yet managed, with I imagine a straight face, to then purport that you didn't find it unimaginable that a rich white woman like Miss Fisher had never knowingly encountered an Aboriginal Australian before in 1929 Melbourne. A rich white woman. In 1929 Melbourne. I advise you to go look up, I don't know, literally anything about the Protections Acts that were in effect in Victoria at the time, how the state had Guardianship over Aboriginals. Here's some more keywords for you to help point your way: Stolen Generations; (chattel) slavery.
You had a point here. You clearly had very kind, good intentions. And in short: I do not remotely respect them, because throughout the entire post, you have centred your own opinions, your own personal comfort, and most glaringly, your own ignorance. Your voice. Your views. Your truth. Not ours.