Don't turn away from the history of Indigenous disadvantage

So the particular instance of the Aboriginal problem we are living through today contains traces of all the instances that went before, all the way back to 1788. We cannot pretend that we can break the continuity of the Indigenous condition and deal only with its present instance. This continuing obsession with the present is denying the historical nature of Indigenous disadvantage, and by so doing is ignoring the only effective means of addressing it.

To eliminate Indigenous disadvantage we must understand and acknowledge the Indigenous experience of colonialism, however ugly it may be. And all solutions we propose must account for the particular experience of Indigenous Australia as a continuous historical whole.

So while solutions to the Aboriginal problem must certainly address the pressing issues of health and welfare, they must also grow out of an understanding of the Indigenous condition. And the only way to understand that condition is to critically examine our collective actions of the last 200 years.

But just such an examination of our colonial past is what led to those apparently foolish symbolic ideas in the first place, it is what has led to concern for the trivial “procedural” matters about seeking Aboriginal self-representation and “an Indigenous owned national voice”, as put by a recent Australian editorial. Symbolic gestures are a consequence of historical acknowledgment, and their condemnation is indicative of the denial of Indigenous people’s post-settlement experience.

It is patently clear that there are significant health and welfare issues in Indigenous Australia. In “proving” this claim contemporary commentators are simply reinventing the wheel. It demonstrates little insight to quote horrifying statistics and prescribe crude “carrot and stick” solutions.

Unsophisticated declarations about the misery faced by Indigenous Australia and the need for “practical” solutions reflect an inability, or maybe just an unwillingness, to confront historical realities. Moreover, these arguments serve to further reinforce assimilationist policies, which, apart from being morally corrupt, are unlikely to improve the lot of Aboriginal people.

What I have written above boils down to this: to promote mainstreaming and to deny the need for symbolic gestures is to sever the present instance of Aboriginal disadvantage from its past. And to do this is to likely extinguish any hope of making real progress in improving the lives of many Indigenous Australians.

The concepts of “symbolic” gestures and “practical” solutions are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are inextricably bound. One cannot consider any solutions to the present manifestation of the Aboriginal problem without first accounting for its past. The appeal for recognition of the past that is embodied in the movements for reconciliation, treaties and an apology represent our clearest window to this history. To sideline them in the name of practicality is to shut our only window to the past and to destroy any hope of a sustainable solution to the Aboriginal problem.

For these reasons, I suggest we embrace those so-called symbolic gestures as our most promising connection to the history of Indigenous disadvantage. If we find the view to be too confronting we must not turn our backs on what we see, but use it to inform our response to the present and future instances of the Aboriginal problem.