|
Shayne Blackman In Australia today, there still exists many a divide between Western and Indigenous ideologies regarding what constitutes progress. From the very beginnings of human society, assimilating the minority into the mainstream has been the norm.
2007 marks ten years since the publication of the “Bringing Them Home Report” into the Stolen Generations of Aboriginal children. It also marks 40 years since the referendum which gave Indigenous people the same citizenship rights as non-Indigenous Australians. So, as part of our special “Sorry Day” edition, The Transit Lounge invited Uniting Aboriginal and Islander Christian Congress (UAICC) national administrator, Rev Shayne Blackman, to share his thoughts on the state of reconciliation in Australia. Shayne regularly writes for the Koori Mail, as pat of the UAICC’s commitment to communicating with an Indigenous audience, and the following column has been published previously. In Australia today, there still exists many a divide between Western and Indigenous ideologies regarding what constitutes progress. From the very beginnings of human society, assimilating the minority into the mainstream has been the norm. Why? Because such an approach was regarded as the most efficient and effective way for creating societies in which all citizens supposedly will enjoy equal rights, privileges and responsibilities. It is argued that the goal of ‘utopia’ is best achieved by applying a common governance framework for all people, regardless of their identity or cultural heritage. While the perception of this perceived goal, through the broader non-Indigenous community, might appear to be commendable, the process is inevitably flawed as it ends up as assimilation. This is adverse to national progress, as assimilation is unable to accommodate the desire of minority groups such as Indigenous people to have their rights and responsibilities recognised and respected through a degree of autonomy. What we are increasingly confronted with in Australia today is a move toward mainstreaming and its consequential outcomes arising from assimilation. This is becoming more evident in the range of moves to assimilate Indigenous people into all the major mainstream programs. For Government to adopt such an approach has to be based on the premise that Indigenous culture has little to offer wider Australia and therefore is best incorporated into mainstream Australia. The abolition of Australia’s only national Indigenous representative body without finding a more satisfactory replacement is but one example. What we are experiencing today is the gradual incorporation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ideals into existing institutions and political systems — administrative, legal, educational, economic, and political. These measures can only produce an outcome that will eventually aim to homogenise Australian and Indigenous culture. There is no doubt in my mind that the current assimilatory pressure and forced embrace being placed on Indigenous people presupposes that one day we will all speak the one language, have one ideal, be educated in the one type of school, eat the one style of food and adopt the one ‘imported’ culture of Anglo Australia. As a nation we can and must embrace each others culture and ideals. We must never lose sight of aspiring to pursue our own goals in a manner consistent with our cultural roots and aspirations. So how can this work out in practice? Theologist Miroslav Volf reminds us that when we embrace another person we both open our arms to provide space for the other and then close them when they come. The offer of an embrace is a sign of our discontent at being just one and of a desire to include the other. Open arms are an invitation to another person to come and join in an embrace — not one that crushes and assimilates the other forcefully, but gently, suggesting to the person receiving the hug that the other wants to be a part of them. Embracing another person should signal to that person, that their independence and identity are true, but by partaking in a hug they are enriching the other person. Sadly, the present Government, through its mainstreaming measures, is crushingly embracing Indigenous people in a manner that does not value their independence, identity and rich cultural heritage. All progressive societies must allow and encourage their Indigenous identity to full autonomy — not superficial autonomy as we see today but true and unfettered autonomy on the matters of real importance to Indigenous people, such as health, education, nutrition, cultural preservation and legislation. I doubt if there is one Indigenous person who would not want to see their son or daughter competent in English and numeracy, enjoy good health, be able to succeed in a job, establish and form friendships with non-Indigenous people or reach for their goals in a predominately Anglo-society. But at the same time, most Indigenous people are determined to maintain their cultural identity and integrity. Indigenous people more than ever wish to demonstrate their energy, skills and judgement for the benefit of themselves, their families and wider society. These good outcomes are what we all desire; however, what are in contention with so many Indigenous people are the present mainstreaming methods of attempting to achieve this outcome. Australia has an unenviable history of paternalistic assimilation toward Indigenous people that has failed repeatedly. My fear is that this general policy direction is once more being revisited through the current Government’s moves toward ‘mainstreaming’. Forty years ago, a meeting with Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility for Aboriginal matters reached an agreement in principle that the object of assimilation should be: that all persons of Aboriginal descent will choose to attain a similar manner and standard of living to that of other Australians and live as members of a single Australian community — enjoying the same rights and privileges, accepting the same responsibilities and influenced by the same hopes and loyalties as other Australians’. (1965) This move as far back as the sixties greatly mirrors today’s move towards mainstreaming. It failed to take into account traditional Indigenous ideals and aspirations. These ideals are in direct contrast to the present Government’s move towards assimilation through ‘mainstreaming’. This is none more evident than in Shared Responsibility Agreements (SRAs) which in effect have been placed upon some communities. In keeping with Indigenous cultural tenets, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will not feel morally or legally committed to resolutions in which they are not fully involved and that unilaterally impose certain conditions upon them. At the most, Indigenous people will be begrudgingly forced to accept the conditions in an environment that disparages their right to a full and unfettered voice in their future. This condition is not unique to Indigenous people; it is a fundamental human preference for having one’s rights heard and valued in the decision-making process. Critical to this autonomy is the degree to which Indigenous people feel they are enabled to develop and to the extent in which they can control their destiny free of coercion. The Government must realise that a conflict exists between the assimilationist objectives of Anglo-Australian policies and deeply imbedded attitudes and pattern of behaviour of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. This conflict is apparent in the way Indigenous people seek to have the mainstream embrace and deliver a governance framework that is compatible with the values and purposes of Indigenous society. Education provides an apt example of this. There is strong evidence that Indigenous education developed from traditional social practices is based on different principles from the prescriptive style of European education. It follows that Indigenous people yearn to have the authority to choose not only the curriculum but also the teaching styles and methods by which it is presented. The Government has a responsibility to respect the richness and diversity Indigenous ideals can bring to the Governance process. I believe that if the nation can embrace the vision, values and diversity Indigenous people can offer, while still respecting the framework for self management and self determination, then, collectively the nation will move forward in a more mutually respectful, harmonious and inclusive fashion. This can and must be achieved if Australia is to be respected both domestically and internationally on its record of Indigenous governance and associated outcomes. “The poor man and the oppressor have this in common: The LORD gives sight to the eyes of both.” Proverbs 29:13. My question is to what extent is the Indigenous vision being respected?
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
