Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Legitimising white supremacy

By Irene Watson - posted Tuesday, 28 August 2007


The belief in European supremacy legitimised the violent theft of all things Aboriginal - our lands, our lives, our laws and our culture. It was a way of knowing the world, a way which continues to underpin the continuing displacement of Aboriginal peoples.

The legal foundation of the Australian state was based on the white supremacist doctrine of terra nullius, and the idea of backward black savages roaming over vast tracts of open wastelands. Until the High Court decision in Mabo, terra nullius applied in Australian law. The doctrine applied even though Aboriginal people had been here for many thousands of years; our histories were long. Terra nullius made black invisible; the question of “Aborigines” being free to roam was irrelevant, for in law we were non-existent.

Now that terra nullius is rejected in law and no longer applies as the legal foundation for Australia’s settlement, how visible is the Aborigine and what is our capacity to roam the lands of our ancestors? In the aftermath of terra nullius, what changed and what continues to go on as before? Speaking of colonialism and the possibility of its passing, Franz Fanon saw “the smoking ashes of a burnt-down house after the fire has been put out, [but] which still threaten to burst into flames again”. I ask the reader: in relation to Australia, has there even been an attempt to put the fire out? Or have we witnessed merely the illusion of change?

Advertisement

Is the land post-Mabo peacefully settled, allowing the freedom for all to roam? The answer depends on what space one situates, and we know - or should know - where those unsettled spaces were for Aboriginal peoples, and where they remain today. Look into prisons and juvenile detention centres - what are the Aboriginal statistics? What capacity do Aboriginal peoples in custody even have to posit the question or speak of the answers?

Ziauddin Sardar writes:

Colonialism was about the physical occupation of non-western cultures. Modernity was about displacing the present and occupying the minds of non-western cultures. Postmodernism is about appropriating the history and identity of non-western cultures as an integral facet of itself, colonising their future and occupying their being.

How is the Australian “native” placed in Sardar’s analysis? We can trace a history from the appropriation of our Aboriginal lands, our displacement and movement onto reserve mission stations and into prisons, to a displaced Aboriginal identity resisting absorption. In the process of absorption, we are to be consumed by the state and its citizens and, in their consumption of us, they are to become us. They anticipate coming into their own state of lawfulness through the consuming of our sovereign Aboriginality.

In this colonising process of us becoming white and white becoming Indigenous, white settlement deems itself as coming into its own legitimacy, as whites come into the space of our freedom to roam as Aboriginal peoples over our Aboriginal places and spaces. We become cannibalised. But can we enter into a conversation on the cannibalism of our self, with the cannibal being the cannibal who is yet to see and know itself in its eating of us? How does the cannibal recognise itself? Is there a safe conversational space where we can have a close encounter without our own appropriation?

How is it that we are being eaten?

Advertisement

There are many examples of appropriation since the advent of colonialism in 1492. The most recent appropriation is in the form of biopiracy. Aboriginal knowledge is stolen and Aboriginal resources and knowledge marketed and profited from.

Sadar makes reference to the occupation of our being. This can be seen along with the absorption of our Aboriginal being, and raises the question: how white are we, the Aborigine, becoming? And what is the potential for the indigenisation of a white settled Australia?

Germaine Greer (2003), in her essay Whitefella Jump Up: The Shortest Way to Nationhood, invites a rethinking of Aboriginality and the repositioning of the Australian state as an Aboriginal one. I don’t disagree: it is a thought Aboriginal peoples have held for some time. Greer invokes the idea of Aboriginality coming into being through the sharing of traditions; this is a philosophical tradition that Aboriginal peoples have always lived by. It is a good suggestion for moving forward, but in this process of hybridisation what happens to the Aborigine? Do we become cannibalised, digested and absorbed by a white, settled Australia that is to become embodied in our black Aboriginal being?

Is there a need first to dissolve the borders between white and black? What happens to the overwhelming whiteness of this country and its freedom to roam? How do we, the minority, ensure Aboriginality? If we are cannibalised and utilised to Aboriginalise the majority, how do we as individuals and communities sustain our own vulnerable Aboriginality?

So how white is Australia, and is there any possibility of the blackening of Australia’s soul, as Greer argues must occur? I wouldn’t disagree that there must be an admission that whitefellas live in an Aboriginal country, and for the need to recognise Australia’s “inherent and ineradicable Aboriginality”. But what are its possibilities? The history of colonialism illustrates not only a denial of Aboriginal existence, but also a refusal to embrace Aboriginal society; instead, in the past it has rejected it in all its forms.

So what is Greer suggesting? Is she appropriating Aboriginal history and identity as a site of white occupation? Who is Greer to speak, and who can speak of such things? What is the role of the white “commentator-expert” in the context of the silenced spaces of Aboriginal voice?

In speaking of the possibility of coming together, what may be required of us (the Aborigine)? To dissolve into whiteness? For that is what is currently required. Has anything altered that position? Have universal human rights found their way into our recognition? Has the purported recognition given by native title rights advanced our struggle to walk the land? How am I, the Aborigine, situated? What spaces do I, the unsettled native, have to roam? In settled native-titled spaces? Or do we continue - as we have since the time of Cook - to dodge from the belly of genocide, resisting digestion and dilution?

Reconciling the burning fires and the ghosts of assimilation

In the Australian government’s current policy shift to the idea of “mutual obligation”, that is, the idea of Aboriginal communities and government becoming mutually responsible for the future development of communities, I see more a concern with returning to assimilation practices of the past. At the dawning of this new century, the Australian government parades its return to assimilation under the illusionary name of “practical reconciliation”. But is it new or more of the same? Have the ghosts of assimilation returned? Did they ever leave us?

The Howard Federal Government has cunningly used the Australian reconciliation movement to subvert and contaminate its own popular force. The return to a more open approach to assimilation was dramatically revealed by Australia’s Governor-General during a speech made while serving as the Governor of Western Australia, where he called for a greater distinction between “full-blooded” and “part-blooded” Aboriginal peoples.

While many Aboriginal people have embraced and supported the reconciliation movement, there have been just as many Aboriginal people who did not, and many who asked critical questions - like what does reconciliation really mean? Will it provide homes for the homeless, food for the hungry, land for the dispossessed, language and culture for those hungry to revive from stolen dispossessed spaces? How can you become reconciled with a state and its citizens who have not yet acknowledged your humanity, let alone your status as the first peoples of this conquered land? In considering moving forward, what lies before us? In looking ahead, Fanon (1971) wrote:

The final settling of accounts will not be today nor yet tomorrow, for the truth is that the settlement was begun on the very first day of the war, and it will be ended not because there are no more enemies left to kill, but quite simply because the enemy, for various reasons, will come to realise that his interest lies in ending the struggle and in recognising the sovereignty of the colonised people.

It is to the question of Aboriginal sovereignty that we are returned: to the question of an imposed and displaced Aboriginal sovereignty. Whiteness, white supremacy and Eurocentricity fuelled, and continue to fuel, the displacement of Aboriginal sovereignty. The end of this displacement is, as Fanon suggests, in its recognition or its reinstatement.

However, in moving the Aboriginality of Australia forward, white Australia has never in its colonial history embraced this idea. Today, the words “Aboriginal sovereignty” have become the unspeakable. Aboriginal sovereignty is feared as posing a threat to the security of Australians and their assumed “territorial integrity”. Instead, we become again the internal enemy.

Is Aboriginal sovereignty to be feared by Australia in the same way as Aboriginal people fear white sovereignty and its patriarchal model of state - one which is backed by the power of force?

Or is Aboriginal sovereignty different, as I have argued in other writings, for there is not just one sovereign state body but hundreds of different sovereign Aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal sovereignty is different from state sovereignty because it embraces diversity, and focuses on inclusivity rather than exclusivity. Aboriginal sovereignty poses a solution to white supremacy in its deflation of power, and here - as I repeatedly do - I refer to the story of the frog.

In the beginning there lived a giant frog, who drank up all the water until there was no water left in the creeks, lagoons, rivers, lakes and even the oceans. All the animals became thirsty and came together to find a solution that would satisfy their growing thirst. The animals decided the way to do this was to get the frog to release the water back to the land, and that the “proper” way to do this was to make the frog laugh. After much performing, one of the animals found a way to humour the frog, until it released a great peal of laughter. When the frog laughed it released all the water; it came gushing back to the land filling creeks, riverbeds, lakes and even the oceans. As the community of animals once again turned their gaze to the frog they realised they had to make the large frog transform into a smaller one, so that it could no longer dominate the community. They decided to reduce the one large frog to many much smaller frogs, so that the frog would be brought to share equally with all other living beings.

The frog celebrates diversity of community and is different from the idea of the homogenous state, with its trend for fast-tracking the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples into a white racist capitalist culture. Aboriginal sovereignty is also different from Greer’s vision of a national process of Aboriginalisation, one which is capable of being led by expatriate white intellectuals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This is an extract from Sovereign Subjects, edited by Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Chapter 1, "Settled and unsettled spaces: Are we free to roam?" by Irene Watson, (Allen & Unwin, 2007). For more about sovereign subjects, please see the Allen & Unwin website.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

74 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Irene Watson is an Indigenous woman of Tanganekald and Meintangk peoples, the traditional owners of the Coorong and lower southeast of SA, a lawyer and academic. She is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow at the University of Sydney Law School.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 74 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy