Re: The CPA and Aboriginal Activismwas RE: Scholarship and politics (was Re: Proyect v Woods)

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gary, I agree with what you have added. The social darwinist strain never
quite disappeared though it did transform itself in latter years.

There is a distinction that must be also maintained which is the diversity
that existed within the CPA, it was not a case, as I can make out that
social-darwinist views were so much promoted but that a rather superficial
understanding of Engels tended to guard against a thorough critical
disposing of social-darwinist ideas which were not only widespread in
Australia but officially promoted.

The latter transformation of this same political disposition came as a
point blank refusal for any discussion of social evolution (that is in its
historical sense rather than in the social-darwinist sense) an artificial
elevation of aboriginal struggle (placing it on a pedestal which was
rightly seen by aboriginals as patronising), topped off by a certain form
of "whatever they say is right", an attitude which for me means not taking
what the aboriginal activist say seriously, nor treating them as comrades
either.

The old CPA had plenty of warts, but a great many gems as well - my point
is not to elevate the past but criticise the present - the points of view
that Gary refers - such as Blake's (I do not know the full context so it
might be different than it appears) were real (though I only saw them in
their transformed "politically correct" apparel). So I take Gary's point on
board and confirm it in general as yet another aspect of that history.

Could I add that writers such as Pritchard and especially (later) Elenor
Dark played their parts (in reference to the role of writers) and that
there was a long history of support going back to the 1930's as Gary said,
and moreover he is also historically right that Wave Hill did represent the
pinnacle of this struggle by the CPA.

At the risk of becoming a total bore (and not disputing with Gary), the
successes of the old CPA (to be used as an example) were built on a rank
and file activism which listened to workers and translated what they heard
into political demands/reforms which engendered more activity. Lord knows
the official line was not much use to them except in the most general and
eccentrically interpreted way.

We cannot create activists on the ground where there are none, we are
removed, we are small and weak, so what needs to be done?

I ask this as a theoretical question demanding theoretical answers, it is
not a demand that we all pick up and go to the nearest factory, what I a
saying is make your theory productive, use it to advantage and take this
question seriously (if Jim reads this I hope this covers some of the same
ground you were striking at).

I have tried to make a few suggestions, perhaps I have been wrong headed,
put the purpose of theory is to inform, so my challenge is to apply the
theory to ourselves self-critically and produce something that has some
likely hood in getting us out of the present mess.


One clue in this - the problem is not objective circumstances.


Greg Schofield
Perth Australia

At 11:57  22/05/01 +1000, you wrote:
>Greg is correct we should pay tribute to the work done on behalf of the
>Aborigines people by Australian communists.  this began actually in the
>1930s and peaked around the strikes Greg refers to.
>
>Frank Hardy's friend Cecil Homes made at least two films about aborigines
>and Torres Strait Islanders. (the subject of another brilliant  chapter in
>my thesis BTW.; also available on request).
>
>There was however in CPA thinking a strain of Social Darwinism which is
>also present in Marx and Engels' own writings on aboriginal cultures. thus
>the Cultural Commissar Jack Blake tried to discourage a CPA influenced
>artist from painting aborigines as it was too"depressing" a subject.
>
>regards
>
>Gary
>
>