If they try a "new" paternalism, do you think it'll work? Should they try it? What other options do they have that either haven't been tried, or were so badly implemented in the past that now it's worth trying again...only differently.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In whay way will the US and Canada have to face this? Or should I say, how is it going to get any worse (for the US at least) in the future than it already has been in the past with our native population?
China I certainly see your point, though I think Russia may turn out differently.
As for Australia, what do the Aborigines say for themselves? What's their take on previous Australian attempts to 'fix' them? What are their ideas, if any? If they don't really care about holding on to their ways and their history, then I say let the Australians go full bore in trying to assimilate them into society.
If not, then either a compromise needs to be reached, or the Aborigines need to figure it out for themselves.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they should definitely make moves towards preventing aborigonies from getting their hands on coke bottles.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about guaranteed training for employment within the government? in eg HealthServices, Parks&Forestry, the Australian equivalent to the US EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, etc
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He called Australian guilt over past policies and "naive idealisation" of communal life the biggest obstacle to improving the lives of Aborigines.
The Aborigines as far as I'm aware were a somewhat nomadic people. A Nomadic culture is inevitably going to be centered around all the individuals in the group to work together to try and survive. Which in it's most efficient form will be like that of a commune- I don't see the need to completely disrupt their culture.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except their "culture" already has irreparably been disrupted. No society on Earth exists in a vacuum.
A Nomadic culture is not only "centered around" all the individuals in the group working together for survival; such cooperation is absolutely essential to it. And I suspect you can't guarantee such absolute cooperation without also stifling much of the freedom of choice and self determination that are hallmarks of most modern cultures. The article mentions low life expectancy and high infant mortality. Isn't it likely that those two things are inherent in nomadic and subsistance level cultures? What about "abuse" of women? Can a nomadic culture exist if women aren't kept oppressed by today's standards? I don't know, but I suspect not.
My point is this: a lot of what became part of primitive culture was due to the absence of a better technology or better cultural advancement. A lot of "bad things" in the world are a direct result of the cultures in which those things happen.
On some deep level, I have always suspected that efforts to "preserve" a culture are misguided. Cultures evolve or they die, just like plants and animals do. I think the Australian Government has a responsibility to the aboriginies to provide equal opportunity for them to function in the existing culture, but I'm not at all certain they have a duty to "preserve" aboriginal culture itself, except maybe in some "Colonial Williamsburg" sense. If their "culture" can't exist without external assistance, is it really a viable culture in the first place?
You may argue that it lasted for thousands of years without western influence, and you'd be right. However, the west is there now, and the world is different. Short of giving them land and leaving them completely alone to live or die as they can, how can their 'cultural preservation' be assured? Is this even a viable option? I don't think so.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this here in such a respectable and intelligent forum. I wouldn't have brought up an Australian subject like this here, and expected much interest from any of you.
Karl Ed,
quote:Short of giving them land and leaving them completely alone to live or die as they can, how can their 'cultural preservation' be assured?
Short story:
They tried this. They asked for this and we gave it to them, and non-aborigine public money to pay for it. Thing is, most of them live in secluded places, away from the rest of Australian society, and this has caused problems.
---------
Long story:
Most of the recent problems have been happening in the Northern Territory (go find a map of Aus. on google?). NT isn't classified as a State under Australian law because it's population isn't large enough. There's one city in the north (map!) where my brother lives, Darwin, with about a hundred thousand people (less than the Shire I live in in Perth alone).
Other than that there's a lot of small commune towns, where they live just like you'd expect. There's also Arnhem Land, where they live the way they used to as nomads. There's nothing wrong in Arnhem land. But I assume those who don't want to live there, or extend it's land, are more comfortable in a westernised setting by now.
There's violence though, apparently, and rape charges, that are covered up whenever the federal government has made inspections there in the past. Recently, however, one social worker or lawyer (not sure which) lady has convinced a young Aborigine girl to take to the courts the fact that she was raped. Older men "marrying" young girls is customary for Aborigines, except the teenagers there today aren't so happy with it, she didn't want to "marry" him, and he gave her no choice. The community didn't speak out about it because it is indeed patriarchially ruled.
So the Northern Territory government has been neglecting these communities (they don't need to do anything since the Federal Gvernment funds these places, the white people there don't want more money spent on aborigines when aborigines already get more money than any other group in Australia through the governments, and so they don't try to hard to uphold them.
The Federal government has taken over the process, with the Aborigine Affairs Minister setting up research to fix the problem, and making the court system directly federal and trying to urge more Aborigines to speak out.
Tony Abbott (mentioned in the article), is the Health Minister. He's not that great at his job, but health is a major problem in these communities, and so they're trying to fix that up. Currently most money spent on aborigines is direct welfare payments and land title issues.
Aborigines, when the white people first came here, were given plenty of alcohol, to make them less responsive as an attempt to destroy their society, make the males out to be irresponsible alcohol addicts, and to have an excuse to take their children away from them. It worked, by force at least. KarlEd said:
quote:What about "abuse" of women? Can a nomadic culture exist if women aren't kept oppressed by today's standards? I don't know, but I suspect not.
That's true enough of aborigine cultures, but I'm sure it's made a lot worse by the alcohol addictions they've inherited.
So anyway, the Federal Government has now stepped in and is trying to redirect money for lands rights and welfare payments to aborigines into directly funding health and education facilities in the communes, only giving out the welfare payments when the aborigine children fully attend school (which is a serious problem here), etc. Yes, it's centralising, which isn't that great a way of dealing with economic issues, but it's a last resort.
It's being adressed, finally, though I suspect it's going to take quite a while to make any real change. The media is doing what it's doing to raise awareness to the rest of Australia and attract public opinion, which is always a good thing.
I've probably got some facts wrong, but that's the gist of what's going on. Just thought I'd have a go at explaining it from an Australian point of view.
Imogen will no doubt explain it better if she comes to this thread...
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, I don't believe there's much that can be done at this point. Aboriginal languages are on the verge of death, and the cultures seem to be close behind. I think they've been broken past the point of being repaired.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:They tried this. They asked for this and we gave it to them, and non-aborigine public money to pay for it. Thing is, most of them live in secluded places, away from the rest of Australian society, and this has caused problems.
I don't understand why seclusion would cause problems. What I'm saying is that seclusion is the only way to "preserve a culture" in stasis. If there is any contact at all, there is going to be influence and change is some degree. Now another answer is to grant autonomy, but this has to be done or not done. You can't do it halfway. You either let them rule themselves and offer help when and where you can (or respond to diplomatic requests for aid) and live with the consequences.
Now if it's not an issue of cultural preservation, but of cultural self direction, then you grant them certain rights to rule themselves as a culture within the federal and/or state structure (the same rights every else gets, by the way) and enforce all the same limitations on those rights that are enforced with everyone else.
quote:There's violence though, apparently, and rape charges, that are covered up whenever the federal government has made inspections there in the past. Recently, however, one social worker or lawyer (not sure which) lady has convinced a young Aborigine girl to take to the courts the fact that she was raped. Older men "marrying" young girls is customary for Aborigines, except the teenagers there today aren't so happy with it, she didn't want to "marry" him, and he gave her no choice. The community didn't speak out about it because it is indeed patriarchially ruled.
This illustrates my point. You either respect their culture or you don't. You can't say go live your way, but only according to our laws.
quote:So anyway, the Federal Government has now stepped in and is trying to redirect money for lands rights and welfare payments to aborigines into directly funding health and education facilities in the communes, only giving out the welfare payments when the aborigine children fully attend school (which is a serious problem here), etc. Yes, it's centralising, which isn't that great a way of dealing with economic issues, but it's a last resort.
The problem here is trying to allow a primitive culture but also provide all the benefits of a modern one. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to support a group that isn't part of that government. If the aboriginies are supposed to have schools, hospitals, etc, then they're also going to have to have jobs and taxes and such just like the rest of us. Otherwise, in my opinion the government is at best perpetuating a substandard living for a large class of people, or at worst actively trying to keep them in their place. If their culture is so great save for modern governmental meddling, then the government should stop meddling. Period. If their culture (regardless of how it got that way) is not able to support itself, then they need to be assimilated into the larger culture, bringing with them any parts of the old culture worth saving. I think this should largely be the same case with America and the "native" cultures here.
Now, having typed all that out, I'll say that my opinion on this isn't set. I'm totally open to being shown the error of my thinking. (It wouldn't be the first time.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But have you seen Aboriginal art? It is so amazingly good that I feel certain that they are, at least in some respects, our cultural superiors. I understand they do these artworks not at all for the same sort of reasons we make art in our culture. Apparently the making of the art fulfills an active role in making sure the earth goes and the universe holds together and stuff. If they quit doing it, perhaps everything would dissolve and we would discover that western culture was really just an illusory thing that was piggybacking on the aboriginal understanding of how to keep universes stable.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Sadly, I don't believe there's much that can be done at this point. Aboriginal languages are on the verge of death, and the cultures seem to be close behind. I think they've been broken past the point of being repaired.
Death is not the right word. Just about every place and natural lankmark in Australia (not including the capital city names themselves) are named in Aborigine languages.
Edit to add: Native plants are also named in Aborigine language. The owner of the local native nursery here, and most of her employees, and many of her customers all speak our local groups language.
The Australian people (except a few racists and already-bilingual immigrants) recognise that these languages are exceptionally more beautiful than English, and there's no way we'd let the languages die.
[ June 22, 2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: cheiros do ender ]
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Sadly, I don't believe there's much that can be done at this point. Aboriginal languages are on the verge of death, and the cultures seem to be close behind. I think they've been broken past the point of being repaired.
Happily, I don't think this is true (as, I see now, Cheiros just said. )
While many Aboriginal dialects have been forgotten, many are still spoken in a ceremonial sense at least.
Aboriginal culture is by no means on the verge of death. Some of it has adapted to 200 years of colonialism (as is to be expected) but it still exists, both in cities and in the bush. In terms of it existing in cities, a prime example is the use of Aboriginal liason officers in the police force - tribal elders who younger members respect and obey.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: This illustrates my point. You either respect their culture or you don't. You can't say go live your way, but only according to our laws.
I think there's a balance to be struck - or at least a way of preserving aboriginal culture within the wider legal framework of Australia.
An example is the consideration of tribal punishment in sentencing - judges have the discretion to consider what the tribal punishment will be when sentencing an indigenous offender (note: but if the tribal punishment is itself a crime, the perpatrators/punishers will be charged). At the moment the recognition is far from perfect, with some judges going to far one way and others too far the other. But I certainly don't think it's clear cut case of follow our laws and that's it.
quote: The problem here is trying to allow a primitive culture but also provide all the benefits of a modern one. I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to support a group that isn't part of that government. If the aborigines are supposed to have schools, hospitals, etc, then they're also going to have to have jobs and taxes and such just like the rest of us.
First off, I don't understand the suggestion that Aborigines are not part of the government. In what way do you mean this?
Secondly, they do have to have jobs and pay taxes just like the rest of us. The fact that many Aborigines are on the dole (as, I should add are many non-indigenous Australians) doesn't mean they don't have to 'have jobs and pay taxes'. It means they are unemployed. And the fact that there is chronic unemployment in remote Aboriginal towns is, IMO, a social issue that needs addressing.
quote: If their culture (regardless of how it got that way) is not able to support itself, then they need to be assimilated into the larger culture, bringing with them any parts of the old culture worth saving.
I think this is what is happening - the measures that are in place are to protect the parts of the old culture that should be saved.
Or are you suggesting that only the parts that *will* be saved by non-regulated assimilation are those parts worth saving?
If that is the case, and extending the analysis to a wider base, Australia should just become the 51st state and forget about it.
I should add, the fact of the situation is Aborigines are a tiny minority of the Australian population (2% - about 400 000 people). Tribal groups are scattered all over the country, and the culture between each group can vary dramatically.
There is no way that these cultures will survive long term without government intervention. They'll just get swallowed. The reason they have survived so far is, IMO, government protection.
However, as has been stated, an awful lot of harm has been done in this country under the auspices of government protection of Aborigines. People are, understandably, wary of going down that same path again.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: First off, I don't understand the suggestion that Aborigines are not part of the government. In what way do you mean this?
Secondly, they do have to have jobs and pay taxes just like the rest of us. The fact that many Aborigines are on the dole (as, I should add are many non-indigenous Australians) doesn't mean they don't have to 'have jobs and pay taxes'. It means they are unemployed. And the fact that there is chronic unemployment in remote Aboriginal towns is, IMO, a social issue that needs addressing.
I think Karl is speaking somewhat hypothetically here. His suggestion is that the only way to truly preserve the culture is to isolate it from mainstream culture. I tend to agree. For example, think how much of tribal culture the introduction of just one thing, say Western medicine, or astronomy, or climatology, changes.
Therefore, if they are isolated, then they will not have jobs, pay taxes, or be on the dole. They will live as they did 1000 years ago. Yes, there will be disease, famine, high infant mortality, shortened life span, human rights abuses, wars, etc. However, that is part of the culture. Attempts to mitigate these problems would be destructive to their culture.
There doesn't seem to be much middle way here. Either leave their culture alone and preserve it, or allow it to integrate with mainstream culture and lose most of it. Hopefully the parts that would be worth saving would be saved, but honestly I doubt it. Also, who are we to determine what is of value and what is not in their culture? Why should their art be saved but not their patriarchal government? Because we are imposing our own value system on what matters in their culture.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Yes, there will be disease, famine, high infant mortality, shortened life span, human rights abuses, wars, etc. However, that is part of the culture. Attempts to mitigate these problems would be destructive to their culture.
There doesn't seem to be much middle way here. Either leave their culture alone and preserve it, or allow it to integrate with mainstream culture and lose most of it. Hopefully the parts that would be worth saving would be saved, but honestly I doubt it. Also, who are we to determine what is of value and what is not in their culture? Why should their art be saved but not their patriarchal government? Because we are imposing our own value system on what matters in their culture.
I thought I already explained this. We're not forcing anything on them that they havn't agreed to. By living in these communes, and not the way the Arnhem Land aborigines live, they choose to be part of our culture. What they want to maintain they can maintain, including the patriarchy, but that doesn't excuse them raping teenage aborigine girls against their will.
The communities have chosen to be part of western civilisation, Capitalism, Westminster and all. The teenage aborigines have chosen not to be taken advantage of, forced into marriage, raped, abused, etc. You can have patriarchy (most churches still have it) but that doesn't mean you should get horrendous oppression like that along with it.
Most of these problems don't exist in Arnhem Land. The young aborigines there choose to live that way, they all do, and they do a great job of it without being negatively influenced by alcohol and other drug addictions.
These aborigines have chosen these welfare payments and our system, and we're now making sure they start spending these payments, and using this opportunity, responsibly.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I wasn't really trying to argue with you cheiros. What part of what I said rubbed you the wrong way?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Death is not the right word. Just about every place and natural lankmark in Australia (not including the capital city names themselves) are named in Aborigine languages.
Edit to add: Native plants are also named in Aborigine language. The owner of the local native nursery here, and most of her employees, and many of her customers all speak our local groups language.
There are Celtic place names throughout Europe, but the Continental Celtic languages are all very, very dead.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to learn more about the dreamtime. I heard that they train themselves how to dream. I think of Australian Aborigines as something like the Schwartzes in Treason, that they seem primitive but are actually so advanced that they don't need the things we have that we call advancement. I'm sure that's an idealized view, and yet there is likely to be a bit of truth to it. I expect there are precious things we could learn from Aboriginal cultures if we would. That art is really amazing. I will try to link to a few examples.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are those painted on canvas or rock? Those two are both better than I've ever seen before, all those others being on canvas.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I think of Australian Aborigines as something like the Schwartzes in Treason, that they seem primitive but are actually so advanced that they don't need the things we have that we call advancement.
You'll note that the Schwartzes were immune to parasites, starvation, and germs; they were also immortal except by choice. You are seriously suggesting that it's a good thing to go about all day with your ass itching from lack of toilet paper? I thought the noble savage went out with the French Revolution.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the art, ok, they're nice paintings. Got esthetic appeal, sort of. But I don't see where they are so amazingly good that we should all bow down to the superior culture of the people who produced them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, since you seem interested, I went ahead and found the larger versions, and uploaded them herehereand here.Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
These came from a book I have. It's one of a series called "World Art" or "The World in Art" or something like that. They're black paperbacks about 5" x 8", and I get them at Barnes & Noble. Great series! The book is called "Aboriginal Art". and the stuff in there is jaw-dropping.
These three were either bark paintings, or else done on canvas, I can't remember which.
The really fascinating part is when you read about the who and why of it. It's not at all art as we know it in the west. Its purpose is not to look pretty or elicit a response from people at all. It's a ritualized means of literally keeping the world and the universe together and functioning (the worldtime). The subject matter is certain dreamings that belong to hereditary lines of people who are spiritually connected (or spiritual owners, there aren't really good english words for this stuff) to the land to which they are inextricably bound.
When white people moved aboriginal populations around, they broke these links of the people, the land, and the dreamings, and caused untold havoc in the whole spacetime continuum, and the nature of reality, and stuff. Europeans dream like children, apparently. They haven't the faintest clue how to maintain the integrity of reality, so that's why reality is dissolving and cracking up lately, and everything is such a mess.
Still there are enough aboriginals left doing this extremely important work that the universe is still somehow hanging by a thread, I gather.
If you've read Ursula K. LeGuin's books about the dreamtime and dreamings (The word for world is forest, and The Lathe of Heaven) she drew very heavily on aboriginal culture for the understanding of the nature of existence that she depicts in those books.
Realize that this is my understanding and interpretation of what I've read about aboriginal culture, which might not be recognizable to any actual Aboriginal people as anything they know. It's sort of a picture from the outside of what I think they are trying to say in the books I've read, based on my understanding of nature and bringing a science-fictional mindset to what are philosophical or religious or worldview discussions.
None of it translates well to western culture, but I think it makes a lot more sense to a person who has a science fiction mindset than to an "ordinary" westerner.
Anyway, KOM, I didn't at all mean that comparison to the Schwartzes to be taken whole cloth, but rather, as a hint toward a different way of seeing a culture utterly foreign to ours. I too am totally not fond of preteen girl rape, heavily patriarchal cultures, lack of antibiotics, or stone age life. All I'm saying is that there is a whole lot there that we can learn from, maybe levels and levels of great subtlety and complexity and skills and ways of seeing things of which we literally never dream. Don't dismiss them as savages, is what I mean. There are so many precious things there that we can study and come to know. Things that might expand our own culture in unexpected and wonderful ways.
posted
For instance, there was a New York showing of some of these paintings, and the artist had to leave out certain key elements which pertain to fertility, to keep from accidentally having it happen that the entire female population of New York City would become pregnant during the show. Obviously, that would not have been a desireable outcome.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, my favorite is the one with the big snake, too. The little target looking things represent people, so that is one big snake. I think it's a dreaming about a serpent.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As for the art, ok, they're nice paintings. Got esthetic appeal, sort of. But I don't see where they are so amazingly good that we should all bow down to the superior culture of the people who produced them.
I, for one, don't think the Aboriginal culture is superior to Western culture. But I certainly do think it has inherent value, and is worth protecting both for that value and for the sake of diversity.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think any two cultures, when compared point by point, would almost certainly have some points upon which one was superior to the other, and other points upon which the second was superior to the first. I take that as a given. Just as any two people will have different skillsets, and there will always be things each one can do better than the other. It's a good analogy because quite aside from any questions of superiority, each culture has unique insights, and viewpoints which are incredibly valuable, and possibly crucially important to life, even, or survival. So that we should never despise the knowledge we may gain from getting more familiar with other cultures.
I just happen to have read several books which conveyed a sense of the coolness of Aboriginal culture, and became fascinated by it.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like that viewpoint, Tatiana. It's not rose-colored-glasses like the old idea of the "noble savage" that truly clouded some peoples perceptions of native cultures in the Americas. But it's also not dismissive, or...in a very Western way...searching for proof of superiority.
I'm afraid I've neglected to answer some questions that were asked based on my first post.
I see the US (and probably to a lesser extent, Canada) as having to face these issues in relation to some of the tribes. Not all tribes manage reservations. Not all reservations are impoverished. But enough are and improvements are so slow for some, or the cultural and environmental implications of success through things like casino gambling, landfill operations or nuclear waste storage are in some ways even more worrisome than the poverty in other native American areas where those things aren't occurring.
I do see some strong parallels. And I think it may be worse in a place like the US (or Canada) because of the size of area, and the population, and the diversity of the population. There's no such thing as ONE native culture in North America. That means that there's no one solution likely to gain traction, or be acceptable, or work.
I don't wish to insult the tribes or the US government agencies that work in tribal areas. I just think the job is tough and the questions and philosophies clash as much (or more) here as they do in Australia.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I think they should definitely make moves towards preventing aborigonies from getting their hands on coke bottles.
Was I the only one that got that? Cause it made me laugh Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
