Note: This post is based on “First Australians”, an article in the June 2013 issue of National Geographic:
Australian Aboriginals have lived in Australia for 50,000 years. National Geographic visited 25 of them living as a large extended family in the Yolngu bush settlement of Matamata on the north coast.
History: Aboriginal history up to 1970 is got out of the way in a half paragraph:
They lived for a couple of thousand generations in small, nomadic bands, as befits a hunter-gatherer existence, moving in their own rhythms about the vast expanse of Australia. British explorer James Cook landed his ship, the Endeavour, on the southeastern shore. The next two centuries were a horror show of cultural obliteration – massacres, disease, alcoholism, forced integration, surrender.
Land: About a fifth of Australia is marked as Aboriginal lands, some of it given back in the late 1900s. Most of it seems to be out in the desert. None of it is anywhere near the big cities in the south-east. The best bit is Arnhem Land on the north coast where Matamata is. But even that holds little interest for whites apart from mining companies: it is a land of dangerous snakes, toads, spiders, sharks, polka-dotted stingrays and, worst of all, huge crocodiles who live in the sea and kill children.
Housing: Most live in towns and cities, though since the 1970s they have been moving back out to the bush where living is healthier. In Matamata they live in long metal boxes provided by the government. Metal because of termites. They are divided into several rooms. They have running water, refrigerators, no flush toilets, no air conditioning. Electricity is solar-powered. Matamata has five such houses. They have two satellite phones, television, DVD players, but no books and no Internet. They cook outside.
Making a living: Matamata lives off the land, hunting and gathering. But they still need money, especially for fuel for their motor boat, which they need for spearfishing (sea turtles are their main form of meat), and for tobacco (they are heavy smokers). Some in Matamata are poor enough to receive government payments, others sell kava, artwork or hire themselves out as labourers.
Health: Diabetes, alcoholism and violence are serious issues. Aboriginals are not allowed alcohol in the Northern Territory. Gasoline sniffing got so bad that a special kind of gasoline is used in some parts. Aboriginals apparently do not live as long as whites.
Religion: Despite the efforts of Methodists, Matamata still follows the old religion of Dreamtime and ancestral beings, complete with ten-day funerals.
Fear-factor food: worms, stingrays, turtles (their cheeks are the best).
Bare breasts: National Geographic is still at it, showing the bare breasts of brown-skinned women. At least in this case it was not a Uwe Ommer / Gauguin moment: the women are not young and the breasts seem matter-of-fact.
Living encyclopedias: It takes up to 40 years to master Aboriginal knowledge, by which time you are considered old. Some groups, though, have no encyclopedias left – the knowledge is dying out.
Source: National Geographic.
See also:
- Melbourne Day 2 – wherein I meet two Aboriginals
- The Tasmanian genocide
- A Hidden America: Children Of The Plains – the Lakota Sioux Indians as seen through the eyes of ABC
- National Geographic:
- The Kyrgyz of Afghanistan – also based on National Geographic
- Tasadays – National Geographic falls for one of the biggest scientific hoaxes of the1900s
Right, same old same old
LikeLike
This blog continues to be the best read on the internet, and Agabond’s writing gets better and better. “At least it was not a Uwe Ommer moment.” Loves it.
LikeLike
They just can’t help themselves can they?
LikeLike
“Aboriginals are not allowed to buy alcohol”
Wait, what? How is this supposed to be helpful? How can this be considered as anything other than discrimination and promoting stigma against this group of people? Are there other Australian laws that single out Aboriginals in this way?
LikeLike
You guys don’t like Uwe Ommer’s photos? What’s wrong with them?
LikeLike
@ Nectarine
That was part of the openly racist Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act of 2007:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory_National_Emergency_Response
The Wikipedia:
LikeLike
I know this is a stretch, but looking at those 2 young ones in the photo, their facial features reminds me of Steve Irwin, the late crocodile hunter.
I always thought Steve had Aboriginal heritage based on his features, which is totally possible since the Australian government stole Aboriginal children from their parents and forced them to marry white.
I found a 2008 story about Steve’s widow, Terri. She made a secret deal with the Australian government to buy Aboriginal land without even including the actual owners of the land, the Aboriginal people…same old BS, different day.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/aboriginal-claimants-left-out-of-deal/story-e6frg6oo-1111117439297
and in the mix is a mining company, who want to mine the land for bauxite.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/cape-aluminar-enews-plans-bauxite-mining-in-steve-irwin-wildlife-reserve-on-cape-york/story-fn7kjcme-1226487608216
LikeLike
Abagond:
When people depend on welfare payments, they are necessarily lacking complete “individual autonomy”. How odd that the act of placing restrictions on a portion of welfare income should generate such controversy.
Perhaps this illustrates an inherent incongruity in left-orienting thinking on welfare states.
The narrative often appears to go like this:
Left: “The poor need welfare payments.”
Right: “Why don’t they pull themselves up by their bootstraps?”
Left: “The poor are powerless due to their circumstances, both current and historical. Making good choices is something only privileged people can be expected to do.”
Right: “OK, then. We’ll give them welfare but dictate that they must use the funds productively.”
Left: “No. That would infringe on their autonomy.”
Right: “Firstly, by definition someone can’t be autonomous if they require welfare. Also, you’ve stated yourself that their circumstances overwhelm their ability to use free will to make good choices. So which is it? Do they have the free will to be accountable for their choices or not?”
Left: “Um, let’s change the topic.”
LikeLike
@ Randy
Really? American Anti-Leftist propaganda here? I don’t think your analogy applies to this situation. You can’t relax that shiitake for one minute? It’s not all about America, you know.
LikeLike
@SomeGuy
My comment applies to criticisms of actions taken by the Australia government to address social problems within Aboriginal communities. America was not mentioned, though the form of the debate applies to it and other welfare states.
LikeLike
Randy,
I am sure neither of us are familiar with Australia and it’s policy towards Aboriginals…but from what I’ve read, since the Australian government had a policy of Genocide against the Aboriginal (which was similar to Native Americans in the US) — they practically Destroyed the Aboriginals way of life and had programs designed to educate them into the white European way of life.
So, I would say the Australian government deliberately destroyed the Aboriginal culture and deliberately made them “dependents” as a form of control and to continue their assimilation programs.
Australian Aboriginals are NOT black Americans, no matter how dark they are, who live in a US capitalistic society that offers everyone a “fair chance”. So yes, you are mixing orange with apples.
LikeLike
I meant to add to my above comment the fact that:
Aboriginals were granted Reservation lands (like Native Americans), so it’s not the same case of black Americans living in the US.
“While living on Aboriginal stations, many people experienced forced confinement, the imposition of strict religious observance, separation from and removal of their children, the breakdown of traditional values and the banning of their languages and cultural practices. Despite such hardship, Koorie people formed and maintained strong communities and used their confinement as the impetus for political campaigns, human rights movements and the fight for the return of their land.”
http://www.abc.net.au/missionvoices/general/missions_and_reserves_background/default.htm
That’s why I said you’re mixing apples with oranges.
LikeLike
and after reading this website, the Aboriginals, who embrace the term “black” have had to fight for their civil rights on their own Native land and country
almost similar to how black Americans had to fight for civil rights in their own country (a country settled by the same greedy British invaders who went to Australia and went about exterminating the original Native people — same tactics on 2 different land masses)
LikeLike
A very innocent question, Abagond, because I am not a National Geographic reader (or rather I actually stopped reading it years ago when I realized it was a lot of racist propaganda).
What’s wrong with bare breasts ?
You seem to be mentioning this because they show bare breasts only when it’s “black” women involved. Is that what one should understand ?
Has National Geographic never made articles about Germans in city parks and swimming pools parks in the summer ? (And in their case it’s not only the breasts that are bare, and not only women…)
Or the French and other Europeans on French beaches ? There are a lot of bare breasts without any particular meaning to them.
Sure, ethnology is for “ethnics”… What was I thinking.
LikeLike
Randy. Hypocrite.
LikeLike
Welfare states !!! LOL
LikeLike
@ peanut
Do you mean why do they only show black women’s breasts when they are in Africa, the jungle, etc, But not in modernized places? I notice they only show black women’s breasts who are old, small, and/or saggy. It plays into the mammy stereotype. I’ve never seen them do a story on a white woman being naked and showing everything without censoring it. I watch national geographic channel and they do show tribes and show the womens and mens privates without censoring it, but on that same network they have a show called taboo and they censor the white nudists. Its like black and poc’s sexuality and privates can be on display for the world to see for free, but a white man/ woman’s privates are private. Its the same thing with youtube they allow vids showing black women nude or twerking but a white person doing the same thing is flagged for only 18 and over to see or it is removed.
LikeLike
In the eyes of the average European descendant:
Black breasts = animal teats, very clinical
White breasts = sexual appealing and taboo
LikeLike
@ Cornlia, etc:
It is rare to see photographs of women’s bare breasts in non-pornographic American magazines. National Geographic is the main exception, presumably because they are being “educational”, showing how other people are – in the name of science. Or something. Yet they never show male genitals even though they are not covered in all human cultures at all times. And breasts are only shown on brown-skinned women from “primitive” societies – Africa, New Guinea, Australia, etc. The first time I ever saw bare-breasted white women in a non-pornographic magazine was in a FRENCH magazine. National Geographic does not show those beaches in France, nor that park in Munich nor the saunas in Finland Sam spoke of.
When I first noticed this at age 11 I thought for sure National Geographic would see the obvious racism of their ways and do something about it. If I, an 11-year-old, noticed it, surely they would with all their science and stuff. Instead it got WORSE. The pictures of bare-breasted women became more artistic, less matter-of-fact, the breasts less saggy. Thus my reference to Uwe Ommer and Gauguin, white men who do artistic nudes of non-white women, made to look more “primitive” than they are (since they arrive way after the white missionaries).
The way I took it at 11 and still take it now is that they do not regard black people as fully human. You know, like they are part of the flora and fauna, as Bulanik pointed out.
LikeLike
@ Randy
It was not like they put controls on ANYONE who wasted their welfare money. Instead the law applied ONLY to Aboriginals and to ALL Aboriginals, regardless of how wisely or foolishly they spent their benefits. THAT is racist.
LikeLike
Everyone should see the film Rabbit Proof Fence. It is quite moving. Aboriginal culture is both an enigma and fascinating. White supremacy is quite prevalent through out this film. It is a very poignant and I learned quite a bit about the lives of these three young girls. I enjoyed the film Austraila as well. The Aboriginal people are like a puzzle to me. I have always been fascinated with them. Maybe for my bucket list I will do a walk about.
LikeLike
This is very sparse info.rmation I wanted more. I will do my own research. But thanks for this thread Abagond.
LikeLike
Abagond, I’ve been a long time lurker (and enjoyer) of your blog. Most of your posts are insightful and I’ve learnt a lot about racism from them – I’d even go so far as to say that you’ve actually helped open my eyes about the systemic racism that still permeates most Western societies, including Australia.
In this post, however, you have made a number of factual errors.
Firstly, Aboriginal people are NOT forbidden from drinking alcohol. This restriction was only applied to two standalone communities that had been torn apart by sexual, drug and alcohol abuse. I agree that the root cause of these problems was most likely the breaking of Aboriginal communities and culture by the British invasion and settlement. But you have mischaracterised the alcohol ban, which applies to only a few hundred people and which was applied, in one community, by the Aboriginal elders themselves.
Secondly, I think the record on Indigenous treatment in Australia is much better than in the US and in any other post colonial nation except Canada. Aboriginal Australians are given twice the unemployment benefit and a range of other services in recognition of their disadvantage and as a form of reparation.
Please do your research a little more carefully next time.
LikeLike
Linda:
I don’t think that the cause of a group’s problems makes a difference in how a welfare state might wish to put limitations on income payments.
Here’s why:
If the purpose of welfare income is to allow poor people to provide for their basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, etc, and the people are not using this money to provide for these needs, then why shouldn’t the state have the right to insist that a portion of these funds be used for necessities?
That the Aboriginals were forced into such a radical culture change over a relatively short period of time suggests that it’s more likely that they’d need additional assistance before being able to be sufficient with only cash supplementation.
From the National Geographic article: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/aboriginal-australians/finkel-text
LikeLike
Cornlia:
Your comment is at best Level 2 of Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement. You’re capable of better.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg
LikeLike
Abagond:
You may be entirely correct that the law was racist. But let’s see if we can consider a situation where it might not be.
What if the rates of substance abuse, domestic and sexual violence, and other social pathologies are vastly greater in certain Aboriginal communities than the rest of the territory / country.
Further, as discussed in the article, there is an acknowledgement that Aboriginal people face a unique challenge in having to adapt to western culture over a very brief period of time.
Are laws which target a significant locus of social pathologies such as these communities necessarily about “race”? Again, I’ll acknowledge that you may be right, but I think that one can consider that a non-racist explanation is quite plausible.
LikeLike
@ Randy
When I mentioned America, what I was implying was that it is a very “American” to boil an issue down to “Right vs. Left”. That is a very narrow approach to a complex issue.
LikeLike
I agree with commenter Someguy’s assement on the bare chested women. I always felt some kind of way about that. When it’s a black woman or a woan of color it comes off like they are portraying them as animals. White women are viewed as desireable and beautiful.
LikeLike
Oops, (woman) forgive the typo.
LikeLike
Not that I really care about Aboriginal people. I feel if you are unable to fend for yourself, perhaps your chapter in the novel of planet Earth should be short. To me, consolidation of power is not inherently evil, but a necessary part of life. I simply don’t agree that this is an issue of “incongruity in left-orienting thinking”.
LikeLike
@ wordynerdygirl
This post is based not on my research or point of view but the National Geographic article, as stated in the first paragraph and implied in the title. Perhaps I misunderstood the article at times, but the research, fact checking and general viewpoint is theirs. This post is as much about Aboriginals as it is about National Geographic as it is about the white lens.
LikeLike
They are celebrities a.k.a. “Honorary Whites”.
LikeLike
@abagond but the fact remains that your post should be amended. Aboriginal people are NOT banned from drinking alcohol. As stated in my response the ban applies only to two communities. I find it strange that you did not acknowledge this in your post, particularly when a simple Google search and perusal of Aus Govt websites reveals the facts.
I’m not debating whether or not the ban is an overly paternalistic measure. I actually agree that the welfare restrictions (which do not equate to any reduction in welfare received – they involve sequestering a proportion of the payment for basic expenses such as housing and food) should be applied across Aboriginal AND not Aboriginal communities, if at all. Predominantly Caucasian communities in Minto and Mount Druitt, for example, have some of the same issues as the “intervention” communities and would probably benefit from a similar intervention.
Australia still has many problems with racism. My husband is Vietnamese Australian so I have witnessed this first hand on several occasions. I do think that you are characterising Australia somewhat unfairly, however, particularly when our current Govt is actually taking enormous strides toward closing the gap for Indigenous Australians.
LikeLike
@ wordynerdygirl
If I got the National Geographic article wrong, I will gladly correct my post. Otherwise it stands. The post is “according to National Geographic”, not me or you or Google or God. I completely understand that it might be wrong, maybe way wrong.
I have other posts like this, mainly of the form “Black people according to x”. The posts are, in fact, about x, about stereotype and misrepresentation, not about blacks:
I love that you are pointing out errors, but so far they are not the sort I will correct.
LikeLike
Okay, point out where National Geographic states that all Indigenous Australians are banned from drinking alcohol? The article does not state this. It states that the alcohol ban applies to the intervention communities.
I gather from your response that you’re annoyed that I’ve pointed this out but as a fellow sociologist I think it’s important to get your facts straight.
LikeLike
@ wordynerdygirl
I will check the article and make any necessary corrections. But I am hardly annoyed nor am I interested in getting my facts any straighter than they are in the Geographic. For me in this post National Geographic is the gospel truth!
Just to be fair, though, I will do a post on Aboriginals, my own, one where facts matter.
LikeLike
@ peanut
Co-sign.
LikeLike
@ peanut
Great link. I also think what they are trying to say by showing black women’s breast only in this way is that we are like animals. They show dogs and other animals suckling their young and don’t censor the teats. Its a part of nature and imo by them not showing white women’s breast in the same way they are saying they are more civilized and less natural. At the same time I think it is also a culture thing, in America people get offended when women breastfeed in public or start giggling when people mention penis. People in other countries don’t have these reactions because they see it all the time. Here’s how I see it :they don’t have a problem showing women who they see as uncivilized and savage naked and not censored, not deserving of the same protection as women from developed places.it is the same thing they used to justify the tricking and killing of native inhabitants. So basically black women / women of color living in nature are on the bottom of the hierarchy, then black women/women of color living in developed countries are next, then at the top are white women.
LikeLike
@ wordynerdygirl
Here is what National Geographic says:
While it does not contradict what you are saying, most readers, myself among them, would suppose that the law applies to all Aboriginals throughout the Northern Territory. I did not say “Northern Territory” in the post. I will correct that.
The full text of the article is here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/aboriginal-australians/finkel-text
LikeLike
@Peanut, and others:
Regarding the question of “why can black women be shown topless in mainstream magazines but not white women?”
The reason is has to do with the presence of cultural sensitivity, not a lack of it.
From what I’ve observed, where magazines like National Geographic show topless women, the culture being discussed does not consider female toplessness to be inherently sexual in nature.
Since industrialized cultures tend to view female toplessness in a more sexual context, in many cases there is a taboo about its display, and so that display is restricted.
In the same manner, mainstream magazines may show women from industrialized countries breastfeeding, as that context is not considered within the culture to be sexual in nature.
LikeLike
But it doesn’t apply to the whole Northern Territory. It applies to a few hundred people in two extremely small and remote communities in the NT, one being the Matama. The above paragraph makes this clear, as does the legislation itself.
I understand how you may have made this error, given that you would have to be aware of Australian geography to make the distinction.
LikeLike
@ wordynerdygirl
Where does it make that clear? I do not see it. Nowhere did National Geographic say it applied only to two communities. It sounds like all of the Northern Territory.
LikeLike
Nat geo has shown white people at nudists beaches but censored them. Why? because white people don’t want there stuff on display for the world to see and judge, and so it is censored to protect their honor. Lets not forget during jim crow one of the rules was you couldn’t talk about or gossip about a white person. Now why would someone deemed superior care about what someone they deem inferior say about them? I still don’t know the answer to this question other than it was insecurities. So they don’t show naked white people out of insecurity,superiority, and distinguishing themselves from the inferior. Its ok for the inferior to be seen naked and vunlerable because they choose not to live like everyone else or don’t want to make clothes. It makes them feel superior and not threatened by their existence. They feel relaxed because if the people don’t have clothes then surely there aren’t hidden weapons or advanced weaponry so they make an easy target. The other side of this is how they treat black women in America. They want black women here to cover up and try to make us feel bad about our bodies and play to the mammy stereotype because we are a threat. at the same time they try to get us to play into the jezebel stereotype and do things for free.
LikeLike
His is a complex issue. They still try to control our sexuality by shaming us for our figures and expect us to give it up more cheaply and easily than white women
It is why they make fun of beautiful black women like serena williams for her sexy figure and try to shame her into covering up
Then they try to get gabourey sidibe to be our standard of beauty,because she is the mammy stereotype.
They don’t want black women to be sexy if we are we are seen as the jezebel. If we are ugly, overweight, and other undesirable
characteristics they want us to embrace that because then we are not a threat and they don’t see us in a sexual way[competition for white women]
They show black women in nature with saggy breasts because that is seen as undesirable and anything showin us in an undesirable way they eat it up.
I rarely see them do shows on beautiful black women in nature like the zulu women because they are goregeous. SO basically its
cover up if you are a beautiful black woman or you will be harrassed,shunned, and made to feel embarrassed. If you are an
unattractive black then they will feel more comfortable and safe around you and will try to make you seem like the norm.
I see the subliminal things they put out, watch tv. When you watch tv notice how many attractive dark skinned women you, then compare that to how many overweight and/or unattractive dark skinned women you see
Then see how many attractive light skinned women you see and what roles they play. If you pay attention you will see
They use dark skinned overweight women to play the mammy character of today and she usually has no love interest.You see more
dark skinned women on tv who look like gabourey sidebey than dark skinned women like gabrielle union.When they do use a beautiful dark skinned woman her love interest is a white man.
You will see how they put fit light skinned women in roles and play the jezebel character and love interest will be a white male
or dark skinned man
LikeLike
In cultures where breasts are not traditionally viewed in a sexual context — e.g., the Himba people of Africa, among others — going bare-breasted is not a political statement or a means to titillate or a way to get an even tan. In these cultures, the female breast is viewed as an organ meant to feed babies, and this being the case, there is no need to cover / hide them. Bodily parts which are considered sexual are often — but not always — covered in some manner or other.
I recall in one of my anthropology textbooks seeing a photo of a young girl, whom, as I recall, was Melanesian / Papuan, suckling a piglet at her (bare) breast. She looked in no way perturbed in doing this, and, as a matter of fact, her suckling that piglet probably meant not only life or death for the creature, but also the potential well-being of her family as well. Her unclad breast being used to suckle a barnyard animal is a pretty strong indicator that for her people it is simply a source of nutrition.
(Judging a dissimilar culture according to the values and customs of one’s own is called “ethnocentrism”. Most of us do it have done this at some time or other.)
LikeLike
Jesus, what the fuck is wrong with you people? There’s a whole lot more in Abagond’s post than bare breasts and alcohol. Are you all fucking insane? No discussion of the injustice. No discussion of the plight of these people who had their land stolen. No discussion of white supremacy and the history of invaders who took land from people who weren’t white just because they didn’t see them as human. No. We have to have a discussion about bare breasts and how Abagond got one fact about an alcohol ban wrong. Really? That’s the most important take away from everything he posted above. Stfu about it already, seriously.
White people can steal a whole continent from black people and all you get is dithering over bullshit. You all make me fucking sick. Sick to my goddamned stomach with your piety and outrage over a minor error. You don’t deserve the dignity and intelligence that Abagond presents. The level of disgust and anger I feel cannot be described. Why God doesn’t get tired of some people I just don’t fucking know.
LikeLike
You must have had a REALLY bad day.
LikeLike
Exactly!
LikeLike
UMMM WUTT? lol
LikeLike
@Deborah You’re right to say that Abagond’s post shouldn’t be derailed by discussion of trivial issues. If you read my initial response I actually stated (a) that abagond’s blog has been really educational and an important source of information for me and (b) that I agree that there is still a very great deal of racism permeating Australian society.
As (I think) one of the very few people based in Australia who read this blog, I just wanted to point out that while Australian society is still very racist the Australian Government has taken some important measures to address/break down institutional racism.
For example, in NSW it is a compulsory requirement in all public service departments that at least 2.5% positions (in parity with the Indigenous population in New South Wales) are earmarked for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Another example: Larissa Behrendt (a very influential Aboriginal academic – and I’d suggest as really good source for a future post) recently finished a review of the higher education system. In response to her report, the (Federal) Australian Government is now requiring that all universities need to lift their parity targets from 2.25 to 2.5%. Again, if universities fail to achieve their targets they will be stripped of a substantial proportion of their Government funding.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are also prioritised in terms of welfare payments, funding and services. This is how it should be and, as I mentioned, this an important form of reparation for the atrocities that were inflicted. Of course this doesn’t come even close to making reparation for the genocide of thousands of people but in my view they’re good first steps.
Do the US State/Federal Governments have similar policies linked to funding? If so, I haven’t heard much about them.
Whether or not these Government policies will change the mindset of the average Australian is a different story. As I mentioned earlier, Australian society is certainly still very racist.
LikeLike
To Abagond:
Instead the law applied ONLY to Aboriginals and to ALL Aboriginals, regardless of how wisely or foolishly they spent their benefits. THAT is racist.
Supposedly according to this article the ban does not necessarily apply only to Aboriginal people:
“These measures also apply to the non-Aboriginal residents in these communities, who usually comprise at least 10% of these populations. The latter must be special measures which comply with the Racial Discrimination Act and cannot be imposed without community support.”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/02/14/nt-aboriginal-communities-long-demanded-alcohol-bans/
Also the same article claims that multiple communities have requested such bans:
“First, there is a very well-documented history in the Northern Territory of Aboriginal communities that have successfully demanded — as acts of self determination — alcohol bans in nearly 100 communities across the Territory.”
LikeLike
@ phoebeprunelle
I may be down with the “cause”, but I’m a Social Darwinist at heart. Just like I tell my comrades, I’m on your team, but always remember that my core ideology is NOT the same as yours. I believe in NATURE and to me all things are natural and have their place – even what those call “evil”. I don’t accept a dualistic view of the Universe with Good/Evil and Right/Wrong. It’s just the way I am and I don’t expect people to agree or be happy with it, but to respect it.
After all, we’re all on the same side… for now.
LikeLike
housing stipend idea is called “section 8” in the us, it’s very hard to get, i guess when you classify it as ‘more than the regular check amount’ it sounds better than ‘holding some of the total back’
LikeLike
@Abagaond
I read the Nat Geo article. 100% concur with you. In no manner does it mention or imply that it applied only to 2 communities. The implication from the article alone implies that it applied to Aboriginal communities in the Northern territories, not only two.
I 1000% support that you keep that conclusion in your blog post.
@wordynerdygirl
I am afraid that Abagond seems to be right spot on about this issue. The “FACT” that the intervention regarding alcohol usage IN ACTUALITY only applied to 2 specific communities is incidental, almost irrelevant to the blog post. If anything, it is even good that Abagond reaches an incorrect conclusion based on the Nat Geo article to serve as a warning to people not to treat Nat Geo as factual gospel. In other words, making a error is actually a good thing.
Maybe to satisfy both parties, Abagond should leave in the statement as it stands, but add a disclaimer that some of the conclusions based purely on the Nat Geo article may be inaccurate.
LikeLike
@Uncle Milton: The Act was originally introduced to apply the intervention measures (including the alcohol/pornography bans etc) on two remote communities as a pilot.
Other communities have voluntarily introduced similar measures because of some of the positive effects that the original interventions achieved. The Government has also conducted some further pilots since the initial intervention. One of the most important outcomes has been a dramatic drop in sexual based offences, including child abuse.
I think there’s a valid argument, however, for saying that it was a pretty disempowering and paternalistic way of supporting these communities. You can read some good articles about both sides of the debate here: http://theconversation.com/topics/after-the-intervention
Noel Pearson is another very influential, erudite and interesting Aboriginal Australian activist. He’s driven some similar but somewhat different measures in Cape York. You can read more about him here: http://cyi.org.au/about-us/noel-pearson
LikeLike
@someguy if you transcended duality and penetrated interconnected dependency you’d see there’s no ‘sides’
LikeLike
and food stamps here in the us, clearly that is because it is said you should buy food, you know? sometimes, us addicts forget
LikeLike
Jefe:
I am afraid that Abagond seems to be right spot on about this issue. The “FACT” that the intervention regarding alcohol usage IN ACTUALITY only applied to 2 specific communities is incidental, almost irrelevant to the blog post.
If the majority of the community requested the ban as opposed to being imposed from outside, then I would think be similar to a county in the US voting to be dry.
Contrast that approach to operating liquor stores just outside reservations in South Dakota. (which are vehemently opposed by tribal elders..)
https://www.drugfree.org/join-together/alcohol/protests-outside-nebraska-liquor-stores-put-spotlight-on-sales-to-native-americans
LikeLike
^ My point offered no comment about whether or not it was appropriate to intervene with a ban.
My point was that the Nat Geo article, the way it was written, could lead to a conclusion which is factually incorrect.
Uncle Milton’s point is a totally different issue, but one that could be addressed as well, perhaps under another post.
LikeLike
damn, whites are brutal. That sums up the article.
LikeLike
@ v8driver
Oh, there are sides. Just an infinite amount of them.
BTW, I did check out that film that was suggested “Rabbit Proof Fence”.
Interesting. You learn something new every day. Hopefully.
LikeLike
@Bulanink ; Thank you for your research. I appreciate that.
LikeLike
@someguy i got rabbit proof fence didnt watch it yet
LikeLike
“Rabbit Proof Fence” — I saw it about 10 years ago on cable. As the film is said to be based on true life events rather than being purely a story of fiction, I found the endurance and triumph of such young girls to be quite inspirational.
LikeLike
I saw that movie “Rabbit Proof Fence” awhile back as well, and it was really an eye-opener for me as it dawned on me about the lack of (true) Aboriginal representation as a whole in Australia. I couldn’t help but reflect upon how as a child in the ‘States me and many classmates were bombarded with stereotypical images of the “real” Aussies being one that displayed (and also looked) like a clone of Paul Hogan, aka “Crocodile Dundee”!
LikeLike
..displayed characteristics and mannerisms..such as that of Paul Hogan.
LikeLike
here’s a story about current Racism against Aboriginals in Australia:
at a sporting event that was designed to bring unity, a half-Aboriginal player stopped the game to point out a 13-year old girl who called him an “ape” from the stands. Security escorted her out of the stadium.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331441/Moment-Aboriginal-Aussie-rules-footballer-confronted-racist-13-year-old-girl-called-ape-escorted-stand.html
LikeLike
@ Mz Nikita I wouldn’t call Crocodile Dundee a positive stereotype of an Australian at all. If anything, he typifies everything that we don’t like – he’s a bogan (i.e. a chav/red neck etc).
RE: the racist incident at the AFL, the vast majority of Australians (as seen through the news media, via water cooler conversations etc) were absolutely horrified about it. Adam Goodes is an extremely popular and loved football player who is not only famous for his incredible skills on the field (and he plays for my team – the Swans!) but for his work with Australian school kids and junior football league players.
As I’ve said in other posts, Australia certainly does have a racist element but it’s a minority. I don’t believe that our racial politics are as divisive as yours are in the US.
LikeLike
wordynerdygirl:
As I’ve said in other posts, Australia certainly does have a racist element but it’s a minority. I don’t believe that our racial politics are as divisive as yours are in the US.
I posted recently on another thread about the Ten pound pom deal offered to people in the UK to emigrate and assist in boosting the Australian population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Pound_Poms
This was part of the ‘White Australia Policy’ that actively favoured immigration to Australia by white people from Britain and strongly discouraged non-whites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_Policy
This was as late as the mid 70’s so I would say that perhaps as a country, Australia has been much slower to get to grips with any potential racism as there wasnt widespread and diverse groups to deal with in the first place to challenge ideas and issues regarding race. Whilst much of the world is aware of the disparity in terms of the treatment towards Aboriginies, this is not as ‘known’ as racism in other parts of the world.
LikeLike
“wordynerdygirl
RE: the racist incident at the AFL, the vast majority of Australians (as seen through the news media, via water cooler conversations etc) were absolutely horrified about it.
As I’ve said in other posts, Australia certainly does have a racist element but it’s a minority. I don’t believe that our racial politics are as divisive as yours are in the US.”
Linda says,
Australians can be as horrified as they want, but that little girl learned those racial undertones from someone or somewhere– to the point where she had no qualms about shouting it out (they do say children are more honest with their feelings)
Australia tried not to have any racism by Eliminating the majority of the Aboriginals and forcing them to have children with white people in targeted breeding programs… your government did all these things so that white people would not have to share the country with it’s original inhabitants…
They must have been successful, since you say that only a minority of white people in Australia have prejudice against the Aboriginals.
wasn’t this game part of a week of events where: “the AFL celebrated the contribution of indigenous athletes to the game and the weekend ends with ‘National Sorry Day’ which acknowledges the historical mistreatment of aboriginal peoples”
your Government certainly is aware of the extreme racism that the Aboriginals suffered from.
LikeLike
National Sorry Day. .For real? Seriously? I will have to look that up.
LikeLike
They need to have a national sorry day here in America. Saying sorry to African Americans and Native Americans and a host transgressions that it has perpetrated on other nations. That is interesting. I learned something new today.
LikeLike
@Linda as stated previously I absolutely agree that Australia has a shameful history in terms of its treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I’ve also stated that our Government is making a concerted effort to address some of the institutional and systemic barriers that Indigenous people face.
Racism at the societal level is much harder to break down but I think that, again, the Government has taken some important steps toward that. For example, on 13 February 2008 the former PM (Kevin Rudd) gave a national apology to Aboriginal people. You can read the text of his speech here: http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people/apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples. Literally millions of people attended the event and/or watched on big screens around the country.
It was only a small step but an important one in terms of us recognising the injustices and racism that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have historically, and still suffer.
The problem is that we have an election in just a few months which will probably result in the (conservative) LNP being elected. I’m afraid that after the election much of the (current) Government’s good work will be undone.
LikeLike
This is probably far too long but this is what Kevin Rudd said:
I move:
That today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these Stolen Generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.
LikeLike
In fact human race in the beging all over the globe were unaware of the clothing themselves they might have learnt covering there bodies with grass and bushes just to protect them from the heat and cold and this might have evolved gradually to cover their whole body. Those living in very cold environment might have learnt the clothing (covering) their body to keep them warm. As such some races on the different continants might have been jumped to civilization in early ages. Due lack of communication their change in life style there learning could not be communicated to the still backward races even having been in the near nabouring distance. Or they delibratly ignored the backward human races and treating them as infereir to keep them as their slave. And the naked races could not step into the race of human slow civilisation. The example is their in the very recent history. When the North Americans developed the skill of the navigation. The landed on the shores of black Africa. They saw the african black race weaker than those invaders they put them in there ships and selling them in the civilised society and this trend continued for long in the so called society. On the other hand they could stay with them to get them educated to change their life style. And samultaniously they opened their their missionaries to preach them RELIGION. Religion was not their problem. The main problems were their poverty their naked bodies thier ignorance of the civilition. As result the poor black people remained hungary naked uneducated and animal like. Had they been helped by then there would have been no HUMAN ZOOs in the west. The exploitation of man by man is a QUESTION MARK face of the civilised human races the EXPLORER of Mars and the space. The so called Religous Leader I am not an expert of this subject but this what the history of human thiking about human. Of the strong bout weaker.
LikeLike
Haven’t read the articles but National Geographic is apologizing for their racist articles over the centuries, Hmmm……Should make for interesting reading.
LikeLike
The most primitive people in existence, both genetically and culturally. Shame on the Australian government for giving them any land “back”, in the 60s, they controlled no land, which was nice.
LikeLike
I realize this is an old post and that wordynerdygirl no longer actively comments at this blog. But people — even other Australians — may yet stumble on this thread.
So to address one of her questions from way back:
“Do the US State/Federal Governments have similar policies linked to funding? If so, I haven’t heard much about them.”
The US Federal Government has a unique relationship with Native Americans. While I don’t believe there are direct parallels to the Australian examples wordynerdygirl listed, Native Americans and Alaskan Natives do receive distinct federal benefits not generally available to other groups, based on treaty rights negotiated as sovereign nations. A good place to start investigating is this federal website.
One example is the Indian Health Service, which provides federally enrolled tribal members with universal health care, something the rest of the nation still lacks. (IHS is by no means perfect and not always easily accessible in a given locale, especially for non-rez Natives, but it still is an agency that provides a direct benefit specifically to Indigenous people.)
Native Americans and Alaska Natives can qualify for Indian Preference status when applying for federally-funded job positions at Indian Affairs and IHS. (Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians would also be included among those underrepresented groups that qualify for the minority contractors preference, although I’m unaware of any specific quota percentage for Indigenous businesses like the Australian one.)
The Bureau of Indian Education helps to fund the ~30 fully-accredited tribally-controlled colleges and universities in the US. If there are commiserate schools of higher education controlled by Australian Aboriginal groups, I’m unaware of them.
As far as apologies go, Congress officially issued a formal apology to Native Americans in 2009. Apologies mean little without real substantive change.
LikeLike
There’s nothing they* should blame us** for, we’ve done our duty, nothing more.
*various “indigenous” groups
**the White Man
LikeLike