Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

Could I make the point that, Culture is simply a way things are DONE. What do you consider is Australia's culture???

 

Big question that one. "How we do things around here" depends on where "here" is. In short, we have many cultures. I suppose if you wanted to look for a single Australian culture you'd have to look firstly to our laws and then go from there.

 

Since you only responded to half of my post I'll presume that you have nothing to say on the other topic.

Stark differences in worldview and culture make this a very tricky situation and full-blown egalitarianism would potentially be very damaging to an entire culture and Indigenous group. I'd also argue that the concept of providing benefits to disadvantaged people has huge merit and is highly ethical. Good implementation should be the main focus.

And just a hint but comparing the legal status of Aboriginals to that of a dog or camel is a poor way to spread your noble egalitarian message.

 

Laws are not part of Australian culture, but it would be fair to say that it does depend on where you are. Australia does not really have a culture and seems to want to try and latch onto any culture. Indigenous in Australia has a culture that is extremely quickly being lost and not through racism but more to the fact that the younger generation do not really seem too interested in retaining their culture. Attempts are being made to teach it to them but still the over powering cultural examples of other strong cultured nations seem to drag more appeal. BUT all of Australia can never claim the indigenous culture as they seem far too interested in trying to find its own. Very derisive but reality of the situation.

 

The Aboriginal people are the ones who have publicly made claims that “they” belong to the land, and no one owns the land. That is there cultural philosophy they accordingly live by.

Some Aboriginal people have leased land they control to mining companies, and you cannot lease anything unless you own it.

Therefore, they have abandoned their generational cultural philosophy, and decided that they don't belong to the land, but own the land instead.

I don’t think its morally or ethically acceptable and appropriate for the aboriginal people to advocate they want specific benefits from Australians under certain Aboriginal practiced cultural philosophies, and then ignore other Aboriginal cultural philosophies when it suits their agenda to make a financial profit at the Australian peoples expense.

This is just plain and simply using another culture to further your own agenda.

Under Aboriginal culture, they have to decide on whether they own the land, or they belong to the land. I don’t think its fair or reasonable to have it both ways depending on which way the wind blows.

How the hell can we even attempt to start mending fences between Australians & Aborigines, when Australians are facilitating this kind of contradictory behaviour by not making them answerable for their contridictions.

 

What part of "it's a practical thing" do you not understand?

Your claim that they have abandoned their cultural philosophy simply because they have adapted to the laws imposed by western society/culture is just plain wrong and also silly. This in no way deductively means (as you presented it) that they have abandoned their traditional philosophy, it is simply adapting to a dominant culture that imposes it's own laws, does not recognize their worldview or philosophy and where failure to do so would result in even further dispossession of land. Cognitive dissonance may occur, sure, but it is entirely possible to maintain a traditional view while simultaneously using the law being enforced by the rest of society to prevent further dispossession and injustice. Also, while on the topic, supposedly less than 10% of Indigenous Australians have any sense of legal ownership of their land under western law (Baker & Davies et al. 2001).

More details please. Which philosophies and which instances are you talking about in particular?

Simply put, Aboriginals with a traditional view believe that nobody can truly own the land but have been forced into making legal contracts with the now dominant culture to avoid further damage and dispossession of their culture, heritage and land. You are making a big deal out of nothing. Chill out.

 

For the love of god I hope you're trolling

 

I would disagree with you there, strongly. we gave a common law system after all.

One could no country in the western world has a distinct culture. I'd disagree.

I think thats a very simplistic, shallow and generalized comment of little merit.

I disagree. Seems like your projecting.

 

Yes common law is designed to FOLLOW culture not create it...

one could say that, but what is Australia's culture as you see it???

Really??? So what do you attribute the loss of indigenous culture too??? Maybe the lack of elders who wish to retain it??? Or perhaps the education of indigenous people and the wish to remove their culture from them. Much has been done from indigenous people to have their culture recognised and introduced into the educational system. Many indigenous elders are also taking a proactive move of trying to teach their culture to the younger generation but the culture is still disappearing... So if that is to superficial and general your take on the situation is???

It maybe projection, but the comments on this thread and previous have clearly demonstrated my point. BUT I am assuming you consider Australia has a culture.

 

Yes but it reflects culture none the less.

A mixed bag.

I think it's gained ground in some areas. For the most part it's long ground because of broken social order. Consumerism probably has had an effect but no more than it has on all cultures.

It's a society that retains it - not a group of pensioners.

See above. your view is too generalized and simplistic.

See above. It's essentially the collapse of basic communal, familial and social structures that facilitates the cultures to begin with. This experience have been varied and in some cases reversed.

Again see above.

 

So what I stated is correct??? Then why comment as such???

Would that be a mixture of other cultures???

However, indigenous culture is of communal ownership (per say) and while the elders try and teach much to younger many are turning their back on their own heritage...

Well if you think elders of the indigenous are the pensioners then I guess I should have said the indigenous community leaders.

considering you believe the indigenous elders are simply pensioners I guess to you it is simplistic.

much see above.

Again much see above, but not much in the way of understanding.

 

But the comment you criticized had a lot of truth to it.

The law? Partly.

What is your evidence for that?

 

I take your point. And I hope I'm not being argumentative when I say that I do believe that indigenous people who hold to their relationship to the land in the manner you've described are honest in their claims. But I think they're also realists. I'm pretty sure that most mining companies under state and territory law can prospect just about anywhere and can also mine just about anywhere and fighting them would cost a lot of community dollars which might well be wasted. I am aware that some communities have done just that but I'm also aware that some have come to an accommodation for compensation and other benefits such as employment. A mix of spirituality and pragmatism perhaps?

 

Once the Aboriginal people abandoned part of their cultural idologies for Australian cultural ideology, they can never claim they are not part of Australian culture again. They can no longer publicly claim they arë: "The Aboriginal People" but Australians. This country is called Australia, not Aboriginal, and anyone born here regardless of race or colour is legally identified as an Australian citizen. If you don't want to be recognised as an Australian citizen, then move to another country - thats what I have been told to do on numerous occasions. Aboriginals accept Australian citizenship when the welfare benefits get handed out.

 

Your view is, well, wrong. Culture is what the individual decides is their culture. Aboriginals generally have not 'abandoned' the culture they originally had. It is certainly different within the modern context and to that extent it has certainly developed and evolved/been modified, but it's still aboriginal. All cultures change day by day. This is a fact conservatives fail to grasp with culture. They attempt to preserve that which is inherently progressive in its nature. As for no longer being called aboriginal people, they have every right to say that when many were not only not recognized as humans let alone members of the australian community but were even forcibly taken from their homes. They can certainly call themselves Aboriginal people AS WELL AS Australian citizens. Most cultural/ethnic minorities do.
I don't think there is any real point in having an independent aboriginal state, but the rest I have mentioned seems entirely reasonable and sensible.

 

Oh I see, you believe I was attacking the other poster. IF you consider that then they must as well and I must point out my statement was not meant to criticize but to set the record straight.

So in other words Australia's culture is a mix of other nations culture???

Well if the comments in this forum and others concerning indigenous traditions and ideals then I cannot defend my comment as it is from personal experience of people who are heavily involved with trying to bring the young people back to the indigenous culture.
I think if you look to one area of this debate to understand what I talk about it would be CD's comment about not owning the land yet selling it, leasing it and mining it. I don't think I can state it better than

This is an erosion of their culture but truthful to their predicament. Imagine what would have occurred if they remained to their culture for mining rights, The government would have stepped in (as they threatened on the past) and nothing would have been achieved. Unfortunately the cultural ideals of the past will die but much of the indigenous culture can survive and adapt leaving the rest of Australians culturally lacking barbarians.


By the way, where you say "Culture is what the individual decides is their culture." that is actually incorrect. Individuals do not decide culture, communities, nations or simple groups of people evolve a culture. Tradition can be individual but culture cannot.

 

Right

Every culture today is a mix. Unless the culture exists under a rock

I think you've missed the point there.

Can you elaborate a little on that?

What I mean is the individual influences culture by their action and contribution. So whilst culture is defined by a group, yes, it is determined and shaped by individuals.

 

'Culture' is a term used to categorise the behavior of groups of people to contrast and compare them to other groups of people.

Behavior that is common to all human beings is not part of a groups culture it is only the variations in behavior that create cultural groupings.

Subculture' is a term used to describe certain behaviors common to parts of groups that have already been categorised as cultures although it engeders problems as those groups often cross cultural lines themselves. For instance 'Goths' are a culture of mainly young persons who dress in certain ways and listen to certain music. The culture is a sub culture of 'the English' but has since been adopted by sub groups within other cultures such as Japan, Germany or the USA.


Almost all cultures are creoles of various other cultures. Only in the context of prolonged isolation from other cultures could a culture claim to be completely distinct. So one could say that Aboriginal culture was a distinct 'pure' culture (but with internal variations WITHIN it) from 35,000 BC until 1688 when the first contact with Europeans took place. However drawing a line between cultures is difficult in that there is a continuance of settlement of the Torres islands people from New Guinea to Australia and difficult to ascertain at eaxactly which point you would find Aboriginal australians NOT affected by in Influx of Melanisian culture from the North.

So really cultures are descriptions of tendecies of certain groups to certain types of behavior noting that there is variable adherance to group norms.

 

I obviously have

Elaborate on the erosion of culture???

The indigenous culture had the people being part of the land. Not owning it, with the realisation that they must live with what is happening. They have continued to hold these ideals and the way things should be done in a world that is closing in around them. The intention to retain culture and protect their lands (place of acceptance to them) is admiral with overpowering number of people who value land as ownership and not natural resources. As small tribal amount of people could well survive in tradition and cultural activities taking only what they need and leaving what they don't. Obviously this does need to change as the population grows but the culture of the indigenous does not need to be lost.

Fact is by trying to return the younger generation to an earlier culture has brought many back to respecting their tradition and elders, giving them an identity and assisting in cohesive and beneficial joining into society with pride. However, due to much erosion (by necessity as FN points out) many are beginning to turn away. With many examples of people such as Mundine and few others the younger generation looks to what they can have rather than being part of what they are. Don't get me wrong, Mundine's public life is what I point out as many do not get to see his personal life. But with great examples in public and private of people such as Cathy Freeman and others of her ilk many younger generations want to learn their culture and traditions it is just they have seen the rest of the nation and their nature.

Well fair enough, I had that wrong then.

 

I can't see how this point contradicts what I have said.

 

What point do you consider I am contradicting?

 

My point that Aboriginal culture has not died and is not dying out just yet.

 

I never claimed it was, I stated that they are trying to educate the young but the rest of Australia can never attempt to claim it as their own. I am not sure where you got that idea... after all it was you who decided to comment on what I said.

 

I stand corrected then

 

I have to disagree with you opinion.

The individuals are “Identity Markers” of a society within the “Social Construction” of a community. Aboriginal elders/leaders being the “identity markers” have abandoned their ancient, traditional, generational social construction that teaches them a “person” belongs to the land, in favour of Australian “social construction” which advocates that a “person” can own land.

Yes, you can modify a culture, and change the social construction, but that also represents culture “A” and integrated and adapted culture “Bs” philosophies and social construction into their own. Therefore, culture, “A” cannot stipulate they are independent and separate from culture “B”.

I noticed your fleeting comment regarding Aborigines being: “ forcibly taken from their home” alluding to the stolen generation.

This is a commendable comment, but I also noticed you never made any reference to the white stolen generation in your comment - the tens of thousands of white children that were also forcibly taken from their mothers during the same era.

I believe Aboriginal people and Australian people share a common bond in regards to the crimes that occurred against them as individuals, and their families, during that tragic era.

I also don’t believe one particular group effected by these tragic circumstances needs to be singled out for any special attention or focus, as they are equal.

The point is: some Aboriginal communities seem to want to have a foot in Aboriginal culture and a foot in Australians culture depending on the agenda, and that’s confusing the hell out of everyone. Either these communities want to be part of Australian culture, or they don’t, because they cannot have it both ways and still look credible.