Howard's Practical Reconciliation Might Work

Published on June 17, 2005 By Champas Socialist In Politics

When Johnny Howard abolished ATSIC and replaced it with a board of coconuts, I expressed scepticism. The Labor Party still maintains the Aboriginal board should be democratically elected. I argued at the time that ATSIC should have been reformed rather than abolished. Let’s have a look at how “practical reconciliation” is going, as it is the issue most dear to my heart.

The new board got off to a bad start with the petrol bowser initiative Link. It was quite clearly a case of the coconut board negotiating with coconuts out bush to impose white culture upon those blackfellers who had supposedly no idea of how to even wash their faces. It smacked of telling the darkies how to live, as Toblerone put it. It was paternalism as much as any assimilationist policy of the past. The proposed mutual obligation negotiation with mining companies is quite possibly the same Link

However, the board has shown its potential to do some good. Aboriginal health is a national shame, as Howard acknowledges. That’s a complex issue, resulting from a variety of factors. It needs desperately to be addressed. As Aboriginal tribes have moved away from a nomadic lifestyle, and they have lost knowledge of bush tucka, nutrition has gone downhill. Diabetes has flourished as Aboriginal people have not had the knowledge of how to construct a balanced diet using European ingredients, and so many have instead eaten an unbalanced European diet. That is why education about nutrition is vital.

The board have since negotiated with one Aboriginal community to reward them if they agree to create a vegetable garden. This is an excellent initiative. It shows that “practical reconciliation” can actually do some good. It empowers the people of that community to make a better future for themselves. It gives them something positive and productive to do with their lives that will help their community. And the Government agreed to fund aspects of Aboriginal culture in return for it. So the rewards keep on coming, because Aboriginal culture will be strengthened.

The next issue was native title. Some in the Liberal Party talked about a new phase of native title where Aboriginal people could own their own land under native title Link I stressed out at this prospect, and I empathise with Pat Dodson’s scepticism about its potential to work Link It sounded like they had found a way to make even native title an assimilationist policy. Native title was not meant to be about individual Aboriginal people getting stuff. That’s how our culture works: on a very individualist level. Native title was about the Aboriginal peoples regaining their spiritual connection to the land. (That was why I opposed Howard’s earlier change to native title that stipulated that only tribes who could prove an ongoing connection to their land since 1788 could claim native title. Why shouldn’t Aboriginal people who were forcibly removed from their land, or whose ancestors were be allowed to try to regain that spiritual connection?).

But since then, Howard gave a speech that acknowledged the importance of communal ownership in Aboriginal society and said that he would not extinguish this aspect of native title Link This is an important step forward for Howard. As he grows older I think we are seeing the racism of his younger years soften as he learns to understand other people and cultural differences. Vanstone and Howard are learning that practical reconciliation is not about helping darkies to become better whities.

We are yet to see how exactly he is going to balance these ideas, and words are easy, words are cheap, much cheaper than this priceless land, as Yothu Yindi said. But I would not be opposed to an appropriate balance between communal ownership and some level of individual ownership, as long as inidigenous communities were in favour of it. There are many in the Reconciliation movement (the types who are still obsessed with the sorry issue only) who live in a purist dreamland when it comes to the Aboriginal peoples. They want to believe that Aboriginal cultures can still exist as they did 250 years ago. The simple fact is that all cultures are influenced over time by lots of factors, including contact with other cultures. Aboriginal cultures have been shaped and influenced by 200 odd years of racism, assimilationism and the occupation of the land by Balanda (Yolngu for white people). Aboriginal tribes do not live in the same way as they always did. The connection with the land is different. Tribes that used to have nothing to do with each other now do have contact with each other. Aboriginal people do not do everything for themselves anymore, they do at times rely on modern technologies to help them. They don’t all live off the land and many live in fixed homes rather than homes designed to suit their once nomadic lifestyles. And the communal aspect of their culture is not the same as it always was. What is left should be encouraged and maintained. But a certain level of individualism has crept in, and while that shouldn’t be too encouraged, it is a reality of Aboriginal life. And if native title can help communal ownership coexist with individual ownership, and this improves living conditions for Aboriginal people, then that is a good and realistic way to deal with a real problem.

I still think that Howard is wrong to not deal with the symbolic aspects of reconciliation. Howard has always had difficulty with understanding other cultures. He still views things through Anglocentric glasses. To the Aboriginal peoples, symbolism is very important. They value ceremonies and they don’t just do things, but they do a lot of symbolic things around things they do. As such, an apology would have been a right thing to do and would have helped the process of reconciliation better. It would have eased the tension between our cultures and shown the stolen generation a level of goodwill on our behalf which might have made them more trusting of us. I can well understand their desire to hold on to their anger. But many many Australians have expressed that goodwill and I find it disappointing that Aboriginal leaders have not really acknowledged and thanked those people who participated in that show of goodwill. The time has passed where we dwell on that issue. Those of us who believe it was appropriate have apologised. And now it is time for us to move onto the next issue facing Aboriginal people. And if John Howard is part of that, then good, let’s work with him.

This coconut board may just work. It is in fact Labor’s Anglocentrism that prevents it from seeing why. 250 years ago, Aboriginal leaders were not democratically elected. They did not vote for the next head of the clan. Democracy is a value introduced by the Balanda. But look at our democracy. Do us whities vote in the right people? Do we vote in good people who are out to do good for the Australian people or do we vote in self-interested people who are easily corrupted and who lose touch with the people they are supposed to represent but instead just rule over? Our democracy is corrupted, and Aboriginal people dealt with democracy no better than we have. They wound up with a lot of red tape that stopped the right things from getting done. They voted for rapists and self-interested dictators, like we do. And ATSIC didn’t work because of that flaw in democracy.

If the board of coconuts is prepared to work at a grassroots level to help empower Aboriginal communities, then it can work. We must move away from a handout metality, which is simply imposing a white value (money) upon the Aboriginal people. We must instead move towards encouraging and helping Aboriginal people to do things for themselves that they have always done for themselves. Reconciliation is not about allowing Aboriginal people to collect the dole more easily. That is a patronising attitude that implies that Aboriginal people can’t do things for themselves, as Noel Pearson has long said. We must move away from a mentality that thinks of one Aboriginal people and move towards the idea that different tribes and communities are different and always have been. As such, we must move towards smaller projects that work with specific communities. It may just be that this new board could be on the right track. But promises can disappear just like writing in the sand.

Comments

dynamaso

on Jun 19, 2005

I too had a problem with the dissolution of ATSIC. With allegations of corruption and nepotism ruining a lot of the good work the organisation was doing, I believed a better solution would have been, as you suggested, to reform ATSIC rather than dispose of it. All the disbanding has done is leave a minority without a real voice, which is something I strongly oppose.

Howard is wrong to not deal with the symbolic aspects of reconciliation... To the Aboriginal peoples, symbolism is very important. As such, an apology would have been a right thing to do and would have helped the process of reconciliation better

I agree. I found it to be rather sad that Howard couldn't see the damage he was doing by not saying sorry. Howard is still stoically clinging to and perpetuating a colonial mentality that should have passed 50 years ago.

if John Howard is part of that, then good, let’s work with him

Again, I agree, although the 'petrol bowsers for hygiene' initiative is, at best, degrading for Aboriginal communities involved. I think we all, as a nation, need to put an end to the sort of social categorising typified by this initiative before we can ever really move on.

We must move away from a handout metality, which is simply imposing a white value (money) upon the Aboriginal people. We must instead move towards encouraging and helping Aboriginal people to do things for themselves that they have always done for themselves. Reconciliation is not about allowing Aboriginal people to collect the dole more easily. That is a patronising attitude that implies that Aboriginal people can’t do things for themselves

Well said. The sooner we recognise and develop a proper level of respect for the cultural significance and differences of our Aboriginal population and work together to move forward, the better off we will be as a nation.

Great post mate,

Cheers,

Maso

Champas Socialist

on Jun 20, 2005

Thanks maso. I was beginning to worry that no one cared.

But can I ask you, what do you think about Howard's new approach? Don't be afraid to disagree with me. The petrol bowser initiative was as we have said, fairly archaic, but do you think Howard has shown improvement since that idea? If not, what do you suggest he needs to do? There are after all, practical elements of reconciliation that need to be considered as well. Is Howard dealing with the right ones, or what and how should he be dealing with it?

dynamaso

on Jun 20, 2005

Champas,

To be quite honest with you, I don't know enough at this stage to give you informed answers to your questions. However, I do see Howard's approach as a move in the right direction, although why he couldn't have made the apology is still beyond me. I will do some further reading and get back to you.

Cheers,

Maso

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!