The word “thither” has a sort of Biblical biblical ring to it:
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
At least Lutheran or King James, though even most modern translations don’t use it. Ecclesiastes 1:7
Advertisement
But it isn’t comparing Aborigines to rivers. It is explicitly declaring, as a matter of faith, that Aborigines are part of Australia’s native flora – vegetation.
Even sessile animals such as molluscs that spend most of their lives attached to the land typically have some period of mobility.
Of course a “generous” interpretation would not take the words literally. They are meant to assert the importance of “roots” in the sense of ancestry and lineage rather than a literal claim that indigenous people, like trees, are born from the land, remain attached to the land and must one day return “thither”.
I’m for modernity, and mobility not “roots”.
Australia has one of the easiest to amend Constitutions. We don’t amend it often because the politicians only propose stuff that means nothing.
The last time they offered anything as preposterously silly as this stuff it included “Freedom of Religion” which had been won centuries earlier.
Advertisement
Naturally it was rejected by nearly 70% including majorities in EVERY State and even the ACT from “whence” it came.
This one is also going down. Let’s not give them any excuse for thinking it is due to conservatism.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
20 posts so far.