- Thinking About It by Zee Feed
- Posts
- 10 years old.
I know this was a very bad week of news, both international and domestic, and when there is a lot going on it can be difficult to stay across everything. There is one story from Thursday I want to make sure does not get missed.
Content warning before you read on – this story discusses youth suicide.
In WA, a 10-year-old First Nations boy died while under the Department of Communities (and living with relatives) after being removed from his parents in 2020. Initial reports on Thursday and Friday stated he had died by suicide.
Ten years old.
There will be a coronial inquest and the state government is also investigating what happened in the lead up… but I’m worried that, when the time comes to hear their findings, it will be a minor news moment that passes by with little attention. Because even though this devastating news was reported in the first instance by all major media outlets, it does feel like we’ve come to expect stories of Indigenous deaths while under care of or interacting with the state as just ‘normal’. Mainstream media doesn’t signpost these events as shocking, rallying moments for the community the way it does for tragedies that befall other kinds of families.
I want to make sure this child’s story does not slip by, at least not for us Zee Feed readers. The best way to do that right now is to amplify the words of Dr Tracy Westerman. She is a Nyamal woman (from the Pilbara in WA) and is one of this country’s leading experts in Aboriginal psychology, mental health and suicide prevention. Her explanations about why we just accept that removing children is necessary or even normal – entirely ignoring the intergeneration trauma of that choice, and the compounding racism it contains – are helpful to prepare us to think critically about this story as it unfolds.
Why public discourse focuses on justifying removal of Aboriginal children:
“Because if you have a brain, you have bias. The brain perceives blackness as more threatening- it’s called Other Race effect and theres science behind this.
So if you close your eyes and focus on your automatic reactions.
If I say: “Stop removing Aboriginal children”
What is your automatic reaction?
If I say: “Stop removing children from their families”.
Is there a different reaction?
Evidence tells us theres a more extreme reaction when you put black or in this case, Aboriginal in the conversation. The brain threat reaction goes immediately to extremes of abuse, such as child sexual abuse, being the norm… when 79% of abuse is emotional abuse/neglect – the type of risk that warrants a lower-level; family support response.
So the resulting public debate also becomes extreme. There is no discussion about prevention it’s only about removal. Because you are “leaving children to be raped” in every single circumstance.
These are highly complex and emotional issues that require analysis from those, like myself who have dedicated their lives to delivering prevention programs into high risk communities & being educated on child development, trauma, complex attachment and behavioural change.”
– Published on Twitter here.
On re-thinking support for Aboriginal families:
“I was a child protection worker for seven yrs-with a 100% Aboriginal caseload in the Goldfields. In that time I didn’t remove one child. I also didn’t leave a child in an abusive situation. That’s because every Aboriginal family came to attention solely due to struggling with parenting & trauma & attachment from their own removal from family - so I proactively did everything in my power to provide the skills/intensive therapy they needed to stay together.
Aboriginal kids in a horrific 82% of cases are being removed for ‘neglect’ –a very preventable thing. We have a system that provides no opportunities for Aboriginal families to heal – removal is a foregone conclusion once they are flagged by the system.”
– Published on Twitter here.
Just as we are pushing for better alternatives to preventing and seeking justice for sexual and gendered violence, so we should be putting our collective weight behind First Nations leaders doing the same for their communities. That was a promise made by many progressives in the aftermath of the Voice referendum, remember?
Good stuff on Zee Feed rn:
I’ve been sitting on these thoughts for long before Bruce Lehrmann’s ridiculous defamation trial began, and now that it’s over and Brittany Higgins has some justice the time is right to share. CLICK HERE TO READ.
Smart stuff on the Internet 💭
All the stuff I found on the web that made me think, smile, or have an ‘aha!’ moment. Spend your Sunday reading them – you'll be better off for it:
Can beer be better for the planet? on Jack Toohey’s YouTube
Jack Toohey – progressive content creator and friend of Zee Feed – has released his first full-length documentary about regenerative agriculture and it’s possibilities in making… beer! In his own words: “It explores the world of beer production, its environmental impact, and the farmers and brewers working to make this popular Aussie bev a force for good.”
As a US diplomat, I helped circumvent Trump’s Muslim ban – then realised I was part of the problem on Guardian US
“Resistance that shaves off the rough edges of inhumane policy without reversing it is not resistance, it is complicity. As theorist Stafford Beer says: “The purpose of a system is what it does,” and an immigration system with a smoothly running Muslim ban that has generous provision for waivers and exemptions is still an immigration system that bans Muslims.”
Meet Rolling Stone AU/NZ’s Future of Music on Rolling Stone Australia
We need to keep hyping up Australian artists & creatives, so maybe see if there is a new fave on this list for you! “But today’s emerging artists, those that somehow slice their way through the digital fuzz and face a collapsing live circuit, are not to be sympathised with but celebrated, simply by the miracle of their existence.”
Misogyny Is Ideological — So Why Aren’t Gender-Based Attacks Considered Terrorism? on Refinery29 Australia
I wrote this one. “To be considered an act of terror, the perpetrators must intend to ‘advance a political, religious or ideological cause’ and aim to intimidate or coerce either the government or a ‘section of the public’ with an act that causes serious harm, damage or threat… Misogyny is an ideology. It sits at the heart of many other beliefs that police and authorities do categorise as ideological motivations for violence.”