Introductory Sentiments
This is a tricky topic, but we should bring ethno-racial politics under a semblance of more reflexive control, for courageous diversity and ethno-racial identity and belonging universally for all, as mandated through the exigency for racial egalitarianism for all peoples, as a social scientific law of ethno-racial identity itself. This is for humane dialectics, promulgated into the future. It is urgent that we intellectually delve deeper into, and arriving at, understandings of race and ethnicity with a complexity which mirrors that of the social reality of race, to inform an equitable race and ethnicity politics.
It is incumbent on us to be highly attentive, in theory and praxis, to conceptions of racial and ethnic (or “ethno-race”) identity as it relates to individual and collective beings-in-the-world. We must pursue this with the same rigour as with sociological concepts of class, gender, and sexual orientation. Close theoretical ancestors and/or descendants to race and ethnicity, but definitely within dialectics between, are currently nationalities and nation-hoods, which intrinsically presuppose social justice questions in relation to immigration(s). Intertwined with the system of nation-states, are notions and politics of inclusion/exclusion, belonging/alienation. However, group-belonging at the level of nation-states, does not preclude equity, as long as every person as an extant-temporal citizenship has equal stakeholder belonging to at least one nation-state, that is irrevocable by design. Thus, we should preclude deportation as a political practice. Regarding Australianism1 once a person is Australian – i.e. they are granted citizenship, they are always an Australian. This gives rise to a ‘rally-cry’: “Once Australian, you are always an Australian!”
Before proceeding in analysis, I would like to substantiate a faith based in the politically progressive potential of nation-states as sites of belonging and full political and civic participation. Integrally, entire nationalities, themselves, can be conceived as their own meta-ethno-race, a meta-category inclusive of all the ethnicities within the nation, which is an integrally equal unifying all their diverse citizens as stakeholders. The system of nation-states, whilst very imperfect, could be captured, not necessarily in a global synchronicity, by the proletariat and down-trodden. A system of nations as political expressions of a united (national) proletariat, would act as a permanent safe-guard on overly centralised world government powers – an extant threat from the Transnational Capitalist Class corporatist oligarchical extremists, who see national sovereignties as threat(s) to their sense of entitlement to endless amounts of surplus value extraction, particularly from the middle and working classes, around the world, favouring hyper-market ‘liberalisation’ – a dubious and inauthentic, narrowly self-serving agenda and ideology.
It is my agenda, which I hope will resonate, to support “a left-wing nationalism” without a strict subscribing to a Leninist or Marxist template for “system change”. Instead, I promote an incrementalist agenda of working class organising. In a nut-shell, a seamless programme for political change, over time, with the next level of progression a political condition for the next level of social and political sophistication, without upheavals2 nor lynching:
- Implementation of a modest unconditional Universal Basic Income, without financially penalising an individual for attaining extra income in the marketplace, primarily due to the increasing capacity to automate production. This will engender and promote (more) social stability, more respectful communities, and helping greatly in alleviating poverty and chronic underprivilege;
- Profit-sharing (tax incentives for businesses implementation thereof)[1];
- Individual income capping (putting an upper limit on greed by capping individual income at $20 million dollars (US) per annum);
- Market socialism (all employees have equal ownership in the business where they work, abolishing human rentals and the distinction between and division of owners and workers)[2];
- Indefeasible and inalienable individual land and housing rights (with government reimbursement for citizens with multiple investment real estate properties), with an upper limit for an individual ownership of parcels of land at 2;
- Abolition of foreign ownership;
- Implementation of Parecon principles at the workplace, including sharing cognitive and menial workloads demanded by economy (see Albert 2003; and Albert and Hahnel 1991);
- The implementation of more democratic and decentralised voting systems to complement democratic state and federal representative democracy;
- Gradual institution and implementation of a ‘resource based economy’ without needing money, by freeing up intrinsic human motivators for socially contributory labour and innovation; in differing from Fresco’s model, law codes of contract, torts, property (real and intellectual), criminal would remain, but evolved and evolving, to promote social accountability to check against “nefarious instincts”.
Here very briefly developed and sketched, each step in the progressive political graduation, socialises for the next the step. I, personally, have far too much respect for the established order than to ‘tear things down’, and am very cognizant of the exigency for a smooth political transition (which has no final frontiers). So, no political upheavals!
On Race and Ethnicity: Integral Foregrounding Conceptualisations
To preface this section, before delving into the definitional complexities, it is necessary to explicate and state a relevant maxim: all people are racially pure, equal, genetically, culturally and individually diverse and all are entitled to a racial and/or ethnic identities or identity.
What is race and ethnicity? They are fundamentally categories of socially arbitrary selected biological points of difference, tied to geographical location of one’s more immediate ancestors[3], and to their cultural achievements and struggles. Ethnicity can be seen or viewed as a micro-racial belonging within a more meta macro conception of group identity of race.
Since humans are a vision-dominated species, racial cues are reproduced through identification of certain socially arbitrarily selected visual characteristics and differences as ‘identifiers’. The visual sense in humans our primary sense and thus responds through a racial or ethnic recognition social reproduction. It is fundamentally both an individual and group identity. It has some elements that seem to be more fixed, and other tenets are more fluid and evolving. Lewontin found there to be more genetic diversity within extant racial categorisations than across them; there has been some scholarship aimed at refuting this claim. However, it is clear that there is great genetic diversity within racial conceptualisations.
Are race and ethnicity territorial ways of being-in-the-world?
A “layman’s” disposition in relation to racial categorisation and belongings has two pillars, with the second as conditional upon an affirmative of the first:
- Is race real?;
- If real, is it important?
If we take for granted, a person’s answer of “yes” to both, then we are socially positioned, to make racial and ethnic belonging a part of an universal humanising project.
By race – there are, at times, tensions between peoples who have different ancestral backgrounds, just as there are irrevocable tensions between all individuals, but a racial or ethnic difference does no automatically procure a clash of conflicting interest(s). Racial and gender equality and equity are paramount, as is equal respect for the races and genders, occupying our earth. Racial tension can be humanising, just as in gender and class (or group) tension(s); there is the difference between a humanising tension, and exploitation: exploitation is unacceptable as a practice, as we select for ongoing substantive and opportunity equality. The more we select for equality and equity, the more pernicious forms gender, race, and class (or group3) tensions are eschewed.
There is the need for racial diversity in the world, and this extends to new novel forms of race and ethnicity, as well as reproduction of races that could be considered to be more ‘ancient’.
I steadfastly believe that all people should be proud of the struggles and achievements of their ancestors, no matter who they are/were. Achievements and struggles of all races and ethnicities should be integrated into a super global culture whilst retaining humanising cultural differences (as tied to ethno-racial belonging).
We need and have racial and ethnic equitable differences under the umbrella of equality: race and ethnicity are closely tied to cultural heritages which are sometimes radically different and diverse, but not superior nor inferior in relation to one another.
Exigency for Racial Egalitarianism
There is absolute necessity for a bona fide politics of absolute racial egalitarianism, integrally and pressingly reproduced now and for the future, as is paramount and totalising. This should and must direct the anthropological inquiry into the deep study of and by a person’s non-Indigenous culture(s), through suspending their own culturally biased judgement, whilst immersing themselves intellectually in a ‘foreign’ field. Racial mores are functional for the system of cultural demarcated peoples to which racial categories are or may be applied.
The Australian Case-Study
It is firstly absolutely necessary to face up to the brutal and inconvenient nature of the truth: racially, in terms of ‘full blood’ Aborigines, they have been victim to racial and ethnic genocide cleansing. From indentured slave-labour, to the Stolen Generation. The cleansing began in an overt way, and has continued covertly through ongoing social economic exclusion and impoverishment. Colonisers often sought the explicit tactic to subject Indigenous populations to genocide of ‘breeding out the natives’. The Aboriginal race has been victim of a racial genocide, not through a ‘miscegenation’, but through imposed underbreeding, of which the Stolen Generation was a part, and through the dismantling of their rightful governance over Mob territories. This is a terrible loss for humanity, and re-seeding their racial population complexion is a worthy task of scientific advancements in DNA technology. For a further much needed and pressing edification and substantiating of the ethno-populationist politics of Indigenous peoples pre ‘Australia’ see my blog post: ‘National Indigenous Day, Australia Day, ‘The Übermensch’, and Racial and Ethnic Justice‘.
However, we are blessed with Aboriginal background peoples, who may, at will, identify as Indigenous. They can choose to identify as ‘mixed-race’ or racially/ethnically diverse peoples, or with a more dominant Aboriginal heritage in their rightful full self-determination regarding identity construction and inheritance.
It is fantastic that Aboriginal background peoples are continuing to embody their ancient cultures and also immortalising the ancient culture through novel technological memorialisation and reproduction and immortalisation. Culturally they are still doing well with reproduction of their ancient rituals, ceremonies and sacred sites. This is along with native title and land rights, and technological memorialisation through art, artefacts, history, and cultural information.
I would like to explicitly develop a racial intellectual property (‘Racial IP’) conceptual framework for equitable racial and ethnic ways of being in the world, substantively equal, with Australia as the case study in point:
The mob territories are the racial intellectual property of the Aboriginal race, with their ancient spirituality and spirituality infused governance and stewardship over the lands. Not only did they mix their labour with the land4, giving their race a just form of property ownership over those lands, but were First Peoples on what is now called the Australian continent. At British contact, ‘Australia’ was not empty land (‘terra nullius’) as the High Court has found5, as it was pre-occupied: the land was occupied by tribal territories (mobs). In a radically different racial way(s)-of-being, the mapping of the Australian continent and the erection of a centralised nation state is some kind of a racial intellectual property shared with the White race by First Nations Peoples since inception. Please see my related blog post: ‘National Indigenous Day, Australia Day, ‘The Übermensch’, and Racial and Ethnic Justice‘.
Regarding the hot-topic of racial intellectual property: it should not be conceived as a totalising concept, but can be invoked, in socially sophisticated and cultivated ways, to bring forth collective rights and claims to land-governance, with different nuanced types and styles thereof.
For example, we have ‘Native Title’ and ‘Indigenous Land Rights’ which are based on an ethno-racial and cultural ongoing ancient ancestral connection with land and sea territories/territory. This practice is pre-extant and present proof of humanising forms of really-existing racial intellectual property, as a proof of the merit of my “intellectual property” synthesis. Implicit in this type of property, is the right to exclude other individuals or groups of people, here, based on a humanising conception of race as tied to culture(s) and territory.
One of the ways to legitimately inherit/establish Racial IP is to for an ethnic group to mix labour with the land, over a protracted political timeline. The original Indigenous Australian populations politically organised into Mobs (territories), not only were the first inhabitants of the Australian continent, but they mixed labour with the territories at least 65,000 years ago[1]. Thus, as a race and ethnicity they made and make very strong claims to land based on their racial and cultural heritages. To further this needed conception of racial intellectual property (of a group) is based on the said racial group, being formed and re-enacted through mixing labour with lands for and over a protracted historical period of/in time. Indigenous Australians have an ancient lineage to the land, mixing their labour and spirituality fused with the land. And they may say and know that they lived in their Mob territories since the dawn of time, which can be a part of their spiritual episteme.
Upon white ‘settlement’, peoples of European descent began to mix their labour with the land. On this point, the Indigenous have a vastly more ancient ethno-racial infusing with the land. White or Caucasian Australians established a centralised continental government in 1901[2] – i.e. the legal creation of a centralised modern-day nation-state for the Australian continent. This was before the era and political epoch of postcolonialism: “[t]he post-colonial age refers to the period since 1945, when numerous colonies and possessions of major Western countries began to gain independence, in the wake of the end of World War II”[3] . This is a declaration of the post-colonial age. The Australian nation-state needs to decolonise itself, as here down-under currently so-called ‘Australian post-colonialism’ is, in many ways, colonialism’s myth to perpetuate itself as colonial, but in a more covert and clandestine manner. In order to rectify this inauthenticity, racial and cultural autonomy of Indigenous Australians needs dire attention. I would say that Australia has de-colonialised itself with the resurrection of Indigenous governance over territories6 as instituted via treaties, as a fourth tier of government, the hybridisation of the national flag, and Indigenous word annexation to the name of the political continent and nation-state itself. This is in addition to the impetus to resurrect its racial population to 1.25 million, as an upper-estimate[4], pre-white ‘settlement’, as needed to prevent a racial (but not ethno-racial-cultural) genocide.
Also, as abstract theory, the bringing of new technologies of large-scale agriculturalism and early industrialisation, to Indigenous benefit, may add legitimacy to ongoing white occupation; however, the onus is on the non-Indigenous to provably and tangibly benefit the Indigenous, who had really existing sustainable living, sustainable population and much more intelligently egalitarian hierarchies; furthermore, the Australian racist exclusionism of Indigenous peoples, denying equal rights, has weakened and weakens, at a personalist and experiential level, authenticity and political legitimacy, in a Marxist alienation of human nature7, of the individuals who are not politically reproducing state redress for inequality and inequity to the degree that they are not. Historical indentured labour, without suffrage rights, and the stolen generation, inflicted on Indigenous Australians, has put the impetus squarely back on ‘settlers’ – their lineages, and migrants, to build inclusivity and equal opportunity, so that large-scale agricultural and industrial technologies benefit Indigenous Australians equally with all Australians, without capitalist classist exclusion. Low-paid and menial jobs would be far more attractive to Indigenous youth, and all underprivileged Australians, if they shared in profits, for example. Capitalist exclusionism needs to be dismantled in a careful and progressive manner, in order for full Indigenous self-determination, alongside that of all Australians.
In summary: in the Australian case, there is dire exigency, based on socially just forms of racial IP, for restoration of Indigenous governance of original Mobs’ territory; and the nation state to become a hybrid, with white ‘settler’ hybridising with Indigenous ancient occupations of lands. White agricultural practices and early industrial technologies, at the point of British contact with the Australian continent, and the biracial and multiracial partnerships within the Australian nation-state post ‘settlement’, have enormous humanising potentials. However, Indigenous ethnic and ethno-racial socio-technological practice along with their population knowledge have been proven and legitimised as really-existing sustainability. This is in contrast to white excessively and runaway expansionist economics tied to colonial and capitalist modes of production: or capitalism as colonialism’s myth. The Australian Indigenous may have reproduced their cyclic and economically steady-state self and collective reproduction of cultural and ethnic-centric technological patterns, and ways of being, indefinitely.
It devastates me to say this, but I believe the Australian Indigenous ethno-races (but not ethno-racial-culture), as a population, has been victim to an historically overt and now a culturally imperial covert form of racial genocide, but not a genocide of ethno-racial-culture Indigineity. Their racial population simply must be restored to pre-‘settlement’ levels. This can be done through genetic/DNA re-seeding of their race, with genetic technologies available to the masses in a matter of decades, but still keeping “mixed” or dual or multi heritage Indigenous / Aboriginal background peoples.
A covert racial genocide could also happen to white Australians, if the politics of global capitalist and state capitalist uneven developments and overpopulation, politically promulgates into the future. People would not wish to migrate on mass to First World countries if their native countries offered them a high, decent standard of living, of which the First World may have been complicit in these inter-national and inter-regional inequalities.
So-called “mixed-race” peoples are special and can choose to identify with any one or more of their heritage of racial ancestors at will, or as drawing from all of their racial heritages based on identification therewith, tapping into congruent forms of racial IP.
Looking more geopolitically, there is a trade-off for the wish to perpetuate racial-cultural heritages, often tied to nation-state historical ways of being, and the need for cosmopolitanism. We should make a healthy compromise between the two. A level of in good faith multiculturalism has countless myriad benefits to life and belongings.
In concluding this section on a positive note, Indigenous Australian culture is being honoured and memorialised, by Indigenous cultural ambassadors, and their non-Indigenous Australian allies. Continually edifying the earnestness, political and social functionality and legitimacy of and in their cultural mores is incumbent of all Australians. Alongside this imperative is calling for and enacting a critically engaged rational cultural synthesis between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian citizens as equal national stakeholders, without encroaching on the individual’s right to identify with ethno-racial group heritages: fostering a humane ethno-racial belonging for all peoples united by their nations, but promoting individual difference.
These Australianism domestic case-study tenets and enunciated core principles can be extrapolated to the rest of the world, all countries.
Ethno-Racial Populations and Demography: The Australian Case
Let us have the courage to ‘face facts’, even if they seem prima facie ‘inconvenient’:
A racial demographic population as tied to its form(s) of intellectual property, are not inferior or superior just because it has more or less people invested in its identity. Minority races and ethnicities are just as sacrosanct as majority races and ethnicities, and vice versa. It is an absolute non-sequitur that level of population of an ethnicity lends it superiority or inferiority.
Without wanting to impose a strict adherence thereto, a sketch of a negotiating ethno-racial demographic population for Australianism is given below:
Indigenous population, in congruence with their sovereign population pre-‘settlement’, should be a constant of at least 1,250,000 peoples, which is currently around 5% of the total population of Australia – 26,000,000.
“Mixed race” (or multi-racial ethnically diverse (“MRED”)) could be around 20%-25%, around 5,200,000 persons, with room to negotiate naturally.
Non-Caucasian ‘non-mixed’ race Australians could account for around 20-25% with room for negotiated, again around 5,200,000 persons.
Caucasian, with their ethno-racial attributes fused with large-scale agriculturists and early industrialists naturally have a higher population rate annexed to their racial IP. Thus, they could account for the remainder percentage of the population, at 45-55% of the total population, annexed to the ‘biracial’ construction of a modern-day nation state before the age of post-colonialism, around 11,700,000 to 14,300,000 persons.
The mixed race, non-Caucasian non-mixed race, and Caucasian race could decrease in the above proportions, whilst the Indigenous race justly should remain a constant at around 1,250,000, whilst the other racial categories decrease proportionately.
I believe in the need to drastically reduce human population8, but also the dire need to redistribute wealth more fairly. A nationalist and internationalist socialist politics, will ensure the standard of living in Second and Third Worlds will increase dramatically, thus tending to reduce population organically, as the trends seem to indicate.
[1] Wikipedia, ‘History of Indigenous Australians’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20Indigenous%20Australians,populated%20the%20Australian%20continental%20landmasses.
[2] Parliamentary Education Office, ‘The Federation of Australia’, https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/history-of-parliament/federation/the-federation-of-australia
[3] Wikipedia, ‘Postcolonial Age’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcolonial_Age
[4] Wikipedia, ‘History of Indigenous Australians’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20Indigenous%20Australians,populated%20the%20Australian%20continental%20landmasses.
Avoiding Ethnic/Racial Cleansing
Whilst there is the duty for new forms ethno-race and so-called ‘mixed-race’, as alluded to above, there is overt and covert ethno-racial cleansing in similar yet geopolitical specific ways. In many countries we are seeing, particularly affronting Indigenous cultures, continuation of genocidal politics through an imposed underbreeding reproduction; it is correct to frame this as an imposed underbreeding of persecuted ethnic/racial peoples in an absolute refutation of the ‘miscegenation’ thesis. We should note, however, breeding out other minority races and cultures in the terms of such colonisers, was/is a subjective and objective disgusting and politically-hideous specific explicit tactic at the level of these colonisers’ intentions; for a commentary on an Australian case-history herein regarding imposed breeding policies of genocidal intent, see McGregor’s work: ‘Breed out the Colour’9.
On the Politics of Immigration
In acknowledging the wealth-gap between First World nations, Developing nations, and Third World nations is inherently built on patterns of geopolitical exploitation of workers and natural resources of non-First World nations, a condition of their respective privileges. It is then a fairness corollary that warrants some level of immigration from disadvantaged people from disadvantaged countries are welcomed to the shores and civilisations of the First World, in good faith. Another reason for immigration into the First World is built on the principle that these countries, aside from inter-nation exploitation, is the inequality itself (not just insidious patterns of geopolitical subordination and exploitation).
Assimilated refugees are entitled to ongoing connection with their native cultures. Yet, in some ways, their duty to assimilate or pay respect to, at some minimum level, the host nation’s key cultural mores, should also be apparent. The host country is then blessed with a level of multi-culturalism, which has humanising properties such as delighting in different enculturated peoples. Optimally, the host country will undergo some change itself, for a less insular culture, with a contestation of ideas, ideally selecting for an enlightened memetic contagion, as humane challenge to native fundamentalist belief. This must happen without an entire or substantial replacement or supplanting of racial and ethnic heritages as previously tied to soil.
Under capitalist exploitation, wherein there is the gigantic wealth-gap between First, Second, and Third World nations, we must expect immigration of peoples from poor to rich countries. This is completely understandable.
Against deportation, once a person hailing from a different country has been granted Australian citizenship this is permanent, successfully resisting deportation, and becomes an equal Australian stakeholder, alongside all other citizens.
Also understandable is the people of a nation wanting a level of cultural protectionism tied to racial heritages. The claim of ‘ethnic replacement’ may at times be inflated, yet not without some merit as an idea. Thus, striking a balance for the need for extant protectionism and the need for immigration is needed, and must be balanced in humane and non-reactionary ways, negotiating within a politically holistic and extensively humanist programme for genuine human inclusive progression; this equitable programme is briefly scaffolded above in the Introductory Sentiments of this blog post.
Proximate Geographical Geopolitical Responsibility for Genuine Refugees
If genuinely fleeing persecution, a person is a refugee, and has special protectionist status as such. This to be determined by on-shore screening and subsequent processing. A finding thereof, by immigration experts on geopolitics and ethnicities, determines whether they should be repatriated, sent to a neighbouring nation to their country of origin, and/or full-citizenship assimilation into the country on which they have arrived. Ideally, there should be proximate geographical responsibility of a refugee’s home country’s neighbour, and granting of at least temporary full citizenship rights in the harbouring country, until safe to repatriate, or full and permanent citizenship assimilation.
The Culturalization of Politics
I would like to quote the great Slovenian Professor Slavoj Žižek on the “culturalization of politics”:
“Why are today so many problems perceived as problems of intolerance, not as problems of inequality, exploitation, injustice? Why is the proposed remedy tolerance, not emancipation, political struggle[…?] The immediate answer is the liberal multiculturalist’s basic ideological operation: the “culturalization of politics” – political differences, differences conditioned by political inequality, economic exploitation, etc., are naturalized/neutralized into “cultural” differences, different “ways of life,” which are something given, something that cannot be overcome, but merely “tolerated.” To this, of course, one should answer in Benjaminian terms: from culturalization of politics to politicization of culture. The cause of this culturalization is the retreat, failure, of direct political solutions (Welfare State, socialist projects, etc.). Tolerance is their post-political ersatz:
The retreat from more substantive visions of justice heralded by the promulgation of tolerance today is part of a more general depoliticization of citizenship and power and retreat from political life itself. The cultivation of tolerance as a political end implicitly constitutes a rejection of politics as a domain in which conflict can be productively articulated and addressed, a domain in which citizens can be transformed by their participation.”
(Žižek, S, Autumn 2007, ‘Tolerance as an Ideological Category’, Critical Inquiry, https://www.lacan.com/zizek-inquiry.html)
‘The creed of “tolerance”‘ obfuscates, sullies, befuddles, glosses over and as a smokescreen conceals the more underlying structurally racist and structurally classist reality, as an intentional (de)ploy so that these more serious issues are not addressed, not resolved. It is an explicit political concealing device deployed by the ruling class, ironically and hypocritically intended to divest from their ruled populace the emancipatory politics to solve the deeper root causes of racism and classism – their structural reproduction in the late-capitalist global order.
References
Albert, M and Hahnel, R 1999, The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Albert, M 2003, Parecon. Life After Capitalism [participatory economics], Verso, London.
Wikipedia, ‘Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy#:~:text=He%20found%20that%20the%20majority,account%20for%20the%20racial%20classification.
Wikipedia, ‘Richard Lewontin’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin
[1] This was one of Hillary Clinton’s election campaign promises.
[2] See Dr. Ellerman on the exigency for abolishing human rentals.
[3] Our most ancient human ancestors were all African – the spatial centrism from which all human migration emanated.
- I am residing in South Australia, and am an Australian citizen. ↩︎
- I would like to stress that I do not believe in violent revolution. As a revolutionary I believe in, and am for, an ongoing peaceful revolution in human consciousness and peaceful ongoing social justice political organising. ↩︎
- See, for an adjunct to traditionalist Marxist class analysis and taxonomies thereof, Argument for a Broader and More Nuanced Conception of Class than Marxism, https://henrywilloughbyssocialjusticeblog.com/2021/06/24/argument-for-a-broader-and-more-nuanced-conception-of-class-than-marxism/ ↩︎
- Locke’s conception of just appropriation of personal property that can be established through mixing one’s labour with it, is theory in point here. Please see ‘Labor theory of property’ at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property ↩︎
- See Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) [1992], HCA 23; (1992) 175 CLR. ↩︎
- I believe it is not externally impinging upon Indigenous self-determination, or dictation, to hold that ethnically diverse Indigenous peoples should enjoy equal stakeholder governance status in Elders’ councils, the fourth tier of government I am proposing and for which I am vouching. ↩︎
- On Marx’s argument for equality as a part of our authentic human nature, see Woodfin, R and Zarate O, 2009, Introducing Marxism, Icon Books, London, p. 61. ↩︎
- Through development in economically poorer countries, and consciousness raising of the global citizenry in addressing overpopulation without state populationist mandates, we can move and transition towards a deep ecology, but with a high standard of living. ↩︎
- McGregor, R 2002, ‘Breed out the colour’ or the importance of being white’, Australian Historical Studies, No. 33, Vol. 120, pp. 286-302. ↩︎
Henry Willoughby's Social Justice Blog 
One thought on “A Bona Fide Politics of Ethno-Racial Identities, Nations, and Immigration, with an Australian Case-Study”