What’s in this edition of Brisbane Blacks? NEWS Community fights back, demanding justice for taser attack (P3)
COMMUNITY The real issue is Whiteness, By Gregory Phillips (P10)
NEWS APG supports boycott of UN Indigenous Conference (P16)
NEWS Black activists plan to disrupt G20 celebrations (P3)
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE Black liberation is a global struggle, By Runoko Rashidi (P11)
EVENT APG to meet in Adelaide, (P17)
EDITORIAL Treaties are agreements between equals, By Callum Clayton-Dixon (P4–5) INSIGHT Invasion Day, Survival Day or Australia Day? By Woolombi Waters (P6-7) INSIGHT Young people must create their own way of thinking (P8) INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE Language revival is an act of resistance, By Chehala Leonard (P9)
INSIGHT Amendments to RDA are an attack on free speech for Aborigines, By Michael Mansell (P12) INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE We must pursue dual strategy of resistance and survival, By Gord Hill (P13) INSIGHT What is Black Nationalism? (P14–15)
INSIGHT Aotearoa’s Constitution Conversation (P18) POETRY Do Not, By Steven Oliver (P19) LET’S TALK Treaty (P20) INSIGHT Caring for Country and Caring for Kin, By Mary Graham (P21) NEWS Kunibidji sisters demand recognition of sea rights (P22)
Support BASE Food Program Each week, the Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy (BASE) Community Food Program provides food parcels to over 150 families across Brisbane’s Black communities. The Food Program relies entirely on volunteers and there is much more work to be done in 2014 to continue expanding service delivery. If you want to be part of this initiative, there are many ways you can support – from organising distribution in your area to making a financial contribution to help the program grow.
basefoodprogram@gmail.com
Brisbane Blacks is an independent non-profit Aboriginal publication with the sole purpose of awakening the Black CONSCIENCE, raising Black AWARENESS and articulating the Black RESISTANCE.. Our core philosophy is Aboriginal nationalism. We thank all interviewees, contributors, distributors and unions for helping to make Brisbane Blacks a reality. if you would like to subscribe, have any questions about Brisbane Blacks or would like to contribute content, call 0428 152 777 and send an email to brisbaneblacksmedia@gmail.com
Community fights back, demanding justice for taser attack
More than 100 people converged on Logan City police station in February to demand justice for an Aboriginal woman who was tasered in the eye at her Woodridge home. Demonstrators faced off with a massive police presence, all of whom were equipped with tasers. 36-year-old Sheila Oakley was attacked on February 6 by four
police officers, one of whom was a qualified taser instructor.
She now has 12 months of treatment and surgery before doctors can establish whether she will regain any sight in the damaged eye.
Ms Oakley handed over a petition to police, demanding the officer responsible be publicly identified, suspended from duty,
charged and investigated by an independent inquiry.
“The police have to be stopped, because the next time they do this to another Blackfulla, they’ll kill them,” she said.
Mounted police tried unsuccessfully to prevent the crowd from marching on from the station through the streets of Woodridge to a family gathering at Ewing Park.
Black activists plan to disrupt G20 celebrations
If Newman thinks he can throw a multimillion dollar party on the proceeds of genocide and stolen land, he’s got another thing coming. This presents an opportunity for us to once again raise our issues on the world stage.
A national gathering of Aboriginal people is planned to coincide with the G20 in Brisbane later this year. The overall purpose of this gathering will be to reignite the push for self-determination and decolonization. Leaders of the world’s most powerful nations, from Barack
Obama to Vladimir Putin, will converge on the Queensland state capital in November. The summit will take place from November 15-16 at the Convention and Exhibition Centre in South Bank, just 200 meters down the road from Musgrave Park.
QLD Premier Campbell Newman claims the G20 “will be another
defining moment of our history” and says Brisbane should prepare for a “party bigger than Expo” in the lead-up to the G20 summit. “We’re putting on the biggest celebration since Expo 88 to showcase our amazing state not only to the world’s media, CEOs and leaders, but to the very people who call this great state home as well.”
Treaties are agreements between equals PICTURED: Treaty of Waitangi signing, 1840
A recent headline in The Australian newspaper read ‘Abbott open to treaties with Aboriginal nations’. This might shock, confuse and cause many Aboriginal people to be justifiably suspicious. In 2014, Treaty is back on the political agenda. But what does the word actually mean, asks Callum Clayton-Dixon (Nganyaywana).
All of a sudden the conservative coalition government is welcoming discussion about something we have demanded for decades, something Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised to deliver by 1990, and a proposal the current Labor opposition has labelled “stupid”. While Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt claims treaties will cause “racial division”, Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion says they are “agreements between equals” and considers this to be one of the issues Abbott’s Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC) should be looking at. However, many would dispute whether a handpicked government advisory body has the mandate to control such a debate. The nature of any treaty process must be owned by Aboriginal people on the ground. WHAT IS OUR STATUS? Before going any deeper, it’s probably a good idea to take a step back and have a look at what exactly is our status as First Nations peoples. Kombumerri philosopher Mary Graham says Aboriginal people “are reduced to negotiating on a very unequal basis to see what concessions can be wrung from a process, the terms of which have usually been pre-determined by colonial governments”. “We have always been treated as a client of the welfare state.” University of South Australia academic Dr Irene Watson (Tanganekald/Meintank) believes it is imperative for us to “decolonize the way we think about who we are today”.
“We’re largely dealt with as one homogenous group that is being harvested for the colonial project,” says Dr Watson, an advocate for Indigenous peoples in international law. “It’s not going to work if we continue along that line, because it very much goes against who we are as First Nations peoples.” The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) was adopted by the General Assembly in 2007. Although the UNDRIP is not a legally binding agreement under international law, the Declaration is an indication of accepted international norms in terms of the rights and status of Indigenous peoples. Article three of the Declaration states that we have the right to determine our own political status. According to the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), this means Indigenous peoples have a choice “ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state”. Does this mean each Aboriginal nation can decide to establish themselves as states?
Threats of a major boycott by Indigenous delegates have emerged in the run up to the 2014 UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. Representatives from the International Indian Treaty Council, the Continental Network of Indigenous Women in the Americas and the National Congress of American Indians are insisting that Indigenous peoples should be permitted to participate on a full and equal basis with states. Those in opposition to this proposal including China, Russia and India, argue that the conference should be run by UN state members alone. Mohawk man Kenneth Deer, representing the Oneida Nation Council of Chiefs, claims that these states “view this as an incursion of nongovernmental organizations into the UN” but that many Indigenous representatives themselves “are heads of governments of Indigenous nations”. RECONSTRUCTION
• a permanent population; • a defined territory; • government; and • capacity to enter into relations with other states
It would be quite easy to argue that prior to colonisation our nations satisfied all four criteria with regards to whether we qualified as states. Hundreds of autonomous and interdependent nations covered the continent now known as ‘Australia’. Due to the destructive process of colonisation, the sovereignty of our nations was ignored and denied, and our governance structures undermined. The British Empire did not enter into treaties with the first peoples of this continent. Australia remains the only former British colony yet to do so.
Perhaps the notion of measuring ourselves as First Nations peoples up against states may seem rather abstract. But disputes over this question are becoming increasingly relevant in the international arena.
Our nations still have defined territories and permanent populations. However, as a result of genocide, dispossession and assimilation, our systems of governance have been dismantled while our capacities to enter
When it comes to qualifying as states in international law, contenders must fulfil the following criteria:
into relations with other states have been left in tatters. These are factors that must be taken into account. Reconstruction and decolonisation are routes that Indigenous peoples across the globe have had to take post-invasion. It seems rebuilding our governance structures would be vital to any kind of treaty settlement process. NATION TO NATION CONVERSATION Although far from perfect, dealings between other Indigenous peoples and the colonial powers occupying their lands are largely based on nation to nation, government to government relationships. Native American academic Dr Shaawano Uran defines sovereignty as “a type of political power, and it is exercised through some form of government”.
“American Indian treaties are important to understanding sovereignty. Treaties are agreements made between sovereign entities – usually called nations. The US has signed several hundred treaties with Indigenous nations and other nations around the world. International relations occur through, and are often defined by, international treaties. Therefore, by signing a treaty, both sides are showing that they recognise the sovereignty of the other, and the treaty spells out how each nation will relate to the other. The fact that some nations lack power, or may be dependent upon other nations, does not detract from their status as sovereigns. The US Supreme Court once defined tribes as ‘domestic dependent nations’, but this does not prevent the use of the term ‘sovereignty’ to describe tribes. The treaties between tribes and the US federal government are recognised as being equal to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land. So what is the defining aspect of sovereignty? It’s not independence. It’s not absolute power. The defining aspects of sovereignty are the international relationships carried out as sovereign nations. Treaties are the most obvious evidence that one nation recognises or acknowledges the sovereignty of another nation.” So where does our own ‘sovereignty’ stand? Goenpul man and Aboriginal rights campaigner Dale Ruska acknowledges that “we can no longer enjoy full and perfect sovereignty”. “200 years of colonial development on our lands can’t be reversed. It has to be sovereignty in consideration of all that has happened. But we should still be entitled to enjoy many aspects of our nationhood.”
ONE OR MANY? There has already been debate over whether the process should involve a single overarching treaty or numerous treaties with individual First Nations. Why not have both? There could be some sort of structure established, similar to New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal, which would serve as a platform for initiating treaty negotiations between each nation and the Crown. An overarching treaty could guide and facilitate the settlement process with what Mary Graham calls a “charter of principles”. “A charter of principles would be a legal Constitutional protection for all these treaties. We could also have a standard treaty – several things that are in all of the treaties.” Signed on the May 11th 2000, the Nisga’a Final Agreement could be a model to consider regarding how treaties with individual Indigenous nations can function.
negotiations between Māori and the Crown, and has given the Treaty substantial influence over the workings of both national and local government. ABORIGINAL ASSEMBLY Currently there are no national Aboriginal bodies with the capacity, independence or mandate to negotiate a central treaty. With the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples on the chopping block, does opportunity beckon? Who could set the terms of the charter of principles? Who would develop the platform by which individual nations can begin the treaty settlement process? The idea of a national Aboriginal assembly, a Black parliament, is not something new. Mansell says “a national Aboriginal assembly would seek to take away the authority of Australian governments to make decisions on behalf of Aboriginal people”. “We don’t need the permission of Australian governments to setup such a body. There’s no reason why in 2014, we can’t have this Aboriginal assembly up and running in its infant state.”
The Nisga’a Final Agreement provides certainty with respect to the nation’s right to self-government and their lands. Signatories to the treaty were the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Canada, and the Nisga’a Nation. Along with a 200 million dollar settlement, the treaty recognized the Nisga’a Nation’s ownership over 2000 square kilometres of land, authority to operate their own government, the ability to make laws, and funding to deliver health, education and social services to Nisga’a citizens.
JUST A DOCUMENT? Aboriginal lawyer Michael Mansell says without legislation, a treaty “would still only be a piece of paper and wouldn’t be enforceable against anybody”. “But if the Commonwealth government passed legislation and the terms of the treaty were in that legislation, then it’s enforceable against the commonwealth, the states, the territories and anybody else.” In 1975, the New Zealand government legislated to give the Treaty of Waitangi bearing on the nation’s legal system for the first time. The Treaty of Waitangi Act paved the way for recognising Māori as an official language, continues to facilitate settlement
In light of the current Constitutional review taking place in Aotearoa, there has been talk of establishing a separate Māori parliament. Co-editor of the Māori Law Review Dr Carwyn Jones has proposed “an assembly that is like the United Nations where states retain their own autonomy, but they come together to make agreements on matters that affect them all”. Could we see the same kind of system operating for us? WHERE TO NOW? Seeing how treaties have worked for Indigenous peoples internationally, it can only make our own aspirations seem less and less like we’re chasing pipe dreams. In the year 2014, we have the privilege of being able to learn from the experiences of others around the globe. When we set out to draft a model that will suit our own situation, what’s stopping us adopting positive aspects of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the Nisga’a Final Agreement and the USA’s treaty federalism? Treaties are about land rights, reconstruction and power sharing. This process has the potential to shift the social fabric of the society we live in as we seek to end the domination of one people by another. Some will claim treaties are instruments of a bygone era, but does justice have an expiry date? *Callum Clayton-Dixon is Editor of Brisbane Blacks, 3rd year journalism student & co-founder of the Brisbane Treaty Collective.
Invasion Day, Survival Day or Australia Day?
Invasion Day 2014 saw hundreds of First Nations people rally outside QLD Parliament and a march through the streets of Brisbane City to Musgrave Park. Demonstrators set fire to the Australian Constitution after police blockaded the entrance to the South Bank Australia Day celebrations. Dr Woolombi Waters (Gamilaraay) reflects on the debate surrounding January 26.
I’m sitting at home, its 10:45am Sunday the 26th of January and I’m chasing up my gaaynggal [kids] to attend Invasion day at Musgrave Park. I know that today many now call it Survival Day but I still have to call it Invasion Day and I’ll tell you why. Let’s not mince words here. Yes, we have survived and yes we should celebrate that, but who is let off the hook when we stop referring to invasion and start talking about survival? That’s right, the answer is the colonialists and the moderate Aboriginal leaders who appear to use a strategy of non-conflict and appeasement over all else. Let’s be clear. This country was colonised through a forceful and aggressive invasion. People were massacred, their land and children taken. Yes, we have survived. Yes, we should celebrate this survival. But we cannot deny the past and stop paying respect to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in ensuring this survival. That’s why I call it Invasion Day. It’s been really interesting this year reading the social media, Facebook and Twitter accounts from people debating Jessica Mauboy’s decision to celebrate Australia Day by headlining the Australia Day Concert. Outside of social media the papers have also reported the news.
“Territorian Jessica Mauboy is quickly becoming not just an Aussie pop star but a star the world over. From humble beginnings, Jessica has captivated Australia
with her great voice, infectious personality and captivating acting performances. She makes no secret of her love for Darwin and being Australian. ‘I think Australia Day means where all families and cultures get to come together and really celebrate Australia – the history of Australia and the present time right now’, Mauboy told The Daily Telegraph.” Territorian, Aussie, love for Darwin and being Australian and coming from humble beginnings, everything that identifies who she is other than saying she is Aboriginal.
against the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous they are seen as alien or as a troublemaker – they are seen as ‘either with us or against us’. It is what we call in the academy ‘desensitisation. This is where you introduce the concept of ‘the other’ without it being confrontational or threatening. This is why we never hear our people who are in the public spotlight speaking out against the disparity of our people.
These are powerful, sophisticated psychological techniques used by the media.
The problem is that when Blackfellas coexist with non-Indigenous people as inoffensively as possible, they will eventually diminish any real opportunity for meaningful change.
Strategies that manipulate through persuasion and propaganda that we’ve all seen and been affected by over the years but never understood what was really happening.
In other words just because you accept me in the room does not mean you will change your value systems against me, only that I have become acceptable to you.
Why else is she quoted as saying “and the present time right now”, as surely this refers to us all being one happy melting pot, living together rather than focusing on the past.
Again, you like my music, I may win a premiership for your local team but most of all I never speak against you or your belief systems. This of course opens the door towards assimilation and strategic balance in fighting culturally for recognition.
Sorry Jessica and others, but focusing on the present does not excuse or dismiss the past. The language is written to enhance the idea that Jessica is Australian above all else and at the same time the article denies her Aboriginality. It just doesn’t rate a mention. The constant repetition of such articles eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people. It is a message that coincides with our footballers standing with hand over heart singing the national anthem when playing State of Origin football and for Australia. Therefore when someone does speak out
The problem with desensitisation is that for those who remain outside the room, denied access, it just takes too long. You can’t expect the engine of prejudice to grind to a halt by simply running out of steam. There needs to be a more active process - what we refer to in social theory as a system of ‘jamming’. As the name implies, ‘jamming’ involves sabotaging the engine or source of the problem gridlocking its mechanism. In other words you confront the problem of institutionalised racism at its core.
‘Jamming’ as an approach is more active and aggressive than desensitisation. By the same token, it is also more enjoyable and heartening. You feel alive and active and remain assertive in your expression of identity and culture. ‘Jamming’ makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning turning it and Direct Emotional Modelling against the institutions themselves. We ‘jam’ by sabotaging some part of the mechanism and therefore generate an incompatible emotional response from those who rely on it. Those who feel superior because they live in cultural isolation and don’t have their ideology challenged. The consequent internal confusion when their world has been infiltrated has two effects: first, it is unpleasant – we call this ‘emotional dissonance/or conflict’, after the work by social theorist Leon Festinger. The second internal confusion will tend to result in an alteration of previous beliefs and feelings so as to resolve the internal conflict. People become aware there is an alternative way of seeing the world – not wrong, just alternative and different. We saw this with Pauline Hanson as people didn’t want to be associated to her politics, as they didn’t want to be perceived as racist or backward. Until it became public dialogue many Australians agreed with her statements, but once they become aware how ignorant and, yes, racist these views were perceived by others they changed their acceptance of her values. Nobody wants to be seen as a racist in a free and tolerant society. It’s only a racist, oppressive society that would allow such people to feel comfortable. Just think of the above statement the next time you see one of the following bumper stickers “we’re full” or “if you don’t like it just f*ck off ” or “there’s no room”, or my favourite “not racist, not violent, just no longer silent”. The ‘incompatible emotional response’ is directed primarily against any idea of solidarity. Again it comes down to ‘us’ and ‘them’. The question is who is ‘us’ and who is ‘them’? Well, let’s be honest. The ‘us’ see themselves not only as proud Aussies but also feel protected in displaying such offensive slogans. So what does that say about Australia? What I am getting at is most people feel shame when they perceive they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack. So we have to change the pack rather than join it. People may dismiss such slogans as not speaking for all Australians, but the point I am making is that this group, no matter how small or big or representative they
are of other Australians, feel safe, justified and proactive in identifying their sense of Australian identity the way they do. So again what does that say about Australia? This is why it is important Aboriginal people in the public eye like Jessica Mauboy and Jonathon Thurston speak out because people will listen to them. You only have to look at the life of Muhammad Ali and the change he made in speaking out, the music of Sam Cooke and others, which changed a generation through the civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s. And yet our public faces remain quiet with only Anthony Mundine speaking out. Yes, Adam Goodes has been named Australian of the Year but his stance was against a 13 year-old girl with 80,000 people backing him in his own arena. The power balance here is completely different from an Aboriginal child looking for a voice in an education system that denies his Aboriginality. It’s what Goodes does over the next year having received this recognition that is really important. Will he speak out for those who don’t have a voice highlighting the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people? Will he highlight the discrepancy in quality of life of Indigenous Australians? Will he speak out about the number of our people sent to prisons around the country and suicide rates or the Northern Territory Intervention? We will wait and see. The sad thing is if Adam Goodes and Jessica Mauboy and the others were to speak, out the people of Australia would listen. Could you imagine what would happen if a unified approach took place including Blackfellas on an international stage like Chad Reed and Patrick Mills speaking out on these issues?
a racist sees such a thing, they are unlearning a little bit of the lesson of prejudice taught them by their parents and peers.
They would speed up the Aboriginal movement in this country by decades and people would begin to change because of the social capital these Blackfellas represent and yet they remain silent, leaving it to those under resourced and without the profile our national and international stars have to gather at parks with loudspeakers to represent the most vulnerable. But please don’t think I am hating on these mob. I’m only being real.
Think also of South Africa as another example. Nelson Mandela, born into poverty, jailed as a terrorist and then buried as a hero and father of the nation that imprisoned him. Success depends, as always, on unity and a shared vision and this is where we as an Indigenous community have continually let ourselves down in the past, which means unifying our community is a must.
What protests do achieve is what we refer to in social theory as Direct Emotional Modelling. When someone sees themselves being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary people because their belief systems are seen as racist and backward, Direct Emotional Modelling ensures they will feel uncomfortable. Again, remember Pauline Hanson – even a racist bigot seeks approval and liking from ‘the crowd’. In a very real sense, every time
Both Desensitisation and Jamming, though extremely useful, are mere preludes to our highest and long range goal of which is conversion. It isn’t enough that anti-Aboriginal and racist individuals and institutions should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us or even accept us. In the long run we need to change their belief systems. Conversion aims at just this. By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the Australian way of life, without which no truly sweeping social change can take place. And you know what, this change is not a bad thing. In fact it has to occur for Australia to grow and mature from its past. So to put these theories together briefly, if Desensitisation lets the watch run down and Jamming throws sand in the works, Conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backward. Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does. In Conversion, the Aussie, who holds a very negative stereotypical picture of the lazy Blackfella who gets too many benefits, is instead exposed to the kind of people he already likes and admires. Adam Goodes, Greg Inglis and Jonathon Thurston who are telling ‘the Aussies’ these ideas are not only incorrect, not even ignorant, but that they are fuelled by racism. So again please, speak out you fellas. Australians will listen to you. We mentioned Muhammad Ali and Motown Records and their contribution to social change and civil rights.
Let’s be blunt. Those who focus on mainstream acceptance rather than our Culture, because they believe we are wasting our time or because they think we’re wrong politically, are in reality working against the advancement of First Nations peoples and are against unification and against the best interests of our community. *Dr Woolombi Waters is a Gamilaraay language speaker and writer, and a lecturer at Griffith University.
Young people must create their own way of thinking
GARY FOLEY
They should stay out of the public service, they shouldn’t work for the government and they should think for themselves. Too many young Blackfellas these days are working in the Aboriginal industry. If you work in the Aboriginal industry, you’re not about change, you’re about looking after yourself. It’s about time young people started thinking like we were thinking in the old days – about everyone in general rather than themselves. The process of assimilation is well on track, we’ll all be wiped out in 50 years, the genocide project will be over and there’ll be no Blackfellas. But it won’t worry me because I’ll be dead and gone. It’s essential that people start thinking again. The key to what happened back in the 60s and 70s was that the younger generation thought for themselves, analysed what was going on around them, and took action that was suitable to the times and was effective. In the late sixties, we rejected the political strategies and tactics of the older generation because they had failed. The same can pretty much be said about my generation, that our tactics and strategies have essentially failed over the long term. The younger generation has to find a new way. Go and set up your own outfit, create your own bodies and structures, create your own way of thinking. *Dr Gary Foley is a historian & veteran Gumbayngirr activist
Language revival is an act of resistance the very act of learning Indigenous languages is a long overdue act of resistance and reviving the strength our peoples carry...
By Chehala Leonard, cree
Tân’si nitôtemtik! Nitisiyihkâson Chehala Leonard ekwa ninehiyaw’îyihkâsowin wâpanâcâhkos iskwew. Asiniwaciya ochi nîya Kanatâhk. Mekwâc emâcikakwekiskinohmâkosiyân kanehiyaweyân osâm kiskinohamâkosiyâni nehiyawewin, nimisken nîya. ^TRANSLATION - Hello my friends! My name is Chehala Leonard and my Cree name is Morning Star Woman. I am originally from the Rocky Mountains in Kanata (Canada). Right now I am starting to learn my native language Cree because as I learn my language, I find myself.
Cree student Chehala Leonard flies the red, black and yelllow at a rally (October 2013) in solidarity with the Elsipogtog First Nation’s fight against shale-gas mining
Indian Affairs (1913-1932) Duncan Campbell Scott said that he wanted to get rid of what he called “the Indian problem”. The official solution to the so-called Indian problem focused on language destruction. Indians and Indian children speaking their native languages was forbidden and punishable, while English & French became the new official languages of Canada. Just like in Australia, the Canadian Government forcibly removed children from their families on a mass scale. According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this constitutes an act of genocide.
Language revival is a necessary component of decolonization. It is important to ask why Indigenous languages were lost in the first place. The act of reviving language is an act of resistance – resistance to the colonial policies that originally tried to decimate Indigenous languages through forced assimilation. These assimilatory policies led to the creation of Canada’s residential schools in the 1840’s, with the last of such schools closing in 1996. In these schools, children were forced to remain away from their families, were stripped of their cultures, values, languages and ways of life. Residential schools were put in place to “kill the Indian in the child”. Head of the Department of ISSUE #4
“
Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question. Duncan Campbell Scott
”
international perspective
The residential school system saw children exposed to psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, along with poor living conditions that led to high mortality rates. These institutions were detrimental to our native languages as children were often beaten if they spoke anything other than English or French. Loss of language has an intergenerational effect that can be seen today in many Indigenous peoples across the globe. It is a struggle that we Indigenous peoples share together. Language is one of the most fundamental elements that shape how we see ourselves, our relations, and understand the world around us. What does this mean for Indigenous peoples around the world whose languages have been robbed from them in this onslaught of assimilation? It means we need take action to revive our languages – for every individual to take the time to begin re-learning the stories, the words, and the sounds of our peoples’ languages. For me it’s nehiyawewin – Cree language, but for you it may be Gamilaraay, Pitjantjatjara, Inuktitut, Gitksan, Yanyuwa, Tlingit or Salishan. These are just a few examples of languages that are fighting to survive, with hundreds more already ‘extinct’. The very act of learning Indigenous languages is a long overdue act of resistance and reviving the strength our peoples carry. Ay-ay nitôtemtik – Thank you all my relations! P9
The real issue is Whiteness
“We’re caught in the lie that we must just creep forward with incremental, hollow aspirations that one day Whiteness might start sharing real power of its own accord...” - Gregory Phillips, medical anthropologist By Gregory Phillips waanyi & jaru Something is on the nose in the state of Australia, a fundamental stench. Though we might acknowledge and even apologise for wrongs, we have done nothing to address the fundamental power imbalance that remains in Australian statehood. Reconciliation without the truth is rubbish. A treaty without dual sovereignty is trash. And Constitutional recognition without rights is foolish. Reconciliation in Australia is based on a false notion of ‘inclusion’ – it promotes a White polite version of reconciliation, where people get to gloss over the truth, and we all get to ‘just move on’. There is no discussion about a ‘Truth and Reconciliation’ agenda. There is no vision in the reconciliation movement other than corporate do-gooding. It is based on a false premise that if Aboriginal people just get good jobs, then everything will be OK – we never have to address what caused the terrible statistics in the first place. Of course I agree that race relations must be improved, but if we are honest about what really happened, then we should more correctly be talking about peacemaking. Peace-making refers to overcoming and healing the effects of war and genocide. Why are Australians so scared of that word ISSUE #4
when war was clearly enacted here? Denial is not just a river in Africa. While I agree with the basic goals of a treaty – acknowledging sovereignty between two equal parties – this cannot be achieved if one party is subsumed into the apparatus of the other, thereby reinforcing rather than addressing the fundamental power imbalance. Treaties in New Zealand, the USA and Canada have not alone produced better outcomes. They are important, but not if the more powerful party, the nationstate, chooses to ignore or water them down. The real issue here is Whiteness. Whiteness as a term does not refer to ethnically caucasian people or skin colour – Black and other peoples can have Whiteness too – it refers to a mindset of power, of privilege and of ‘White is always right’ – the mindset of colonization, which is still alive and well today. This is the kind of thinking where a nation can give a heartfelt and meaningful apology, while at the same time allow the disaster of the Northern Territory Intervention to unfold. Because of course, under Whiteness’ terms, Black people can’t do anything for themselves. Apparently all Aboriginal people are drunkards, violent, abusers, and can’t manage our money. Because there are no alcohol, violence or gambling problems on King Street in Melbourne on a Friday night, are there? Negotiating policies or strategies like insight
Close the Gap or employment covenants, while very worthy, without also negotiating the inherent values, beliefs and power imbalances implicit in them, is absolute rubbish. For example, Marcia Langton is running around the country saying mining companies are our best friends because they ‘include’ us and just because they hand out a couple of traineeships to Aboriginal people.
“
Whiteness allows a fundamental power imbalance to go unchecked and disregarded, never discussed.
”
On whose terms are we being ‘included’? Whose interests are really being served? We’re caught in the lie that we must just creep forward with incremental, hollow aspirations that one day Whiteness might start sharing real power of its own accord. But the opposite of Whiteness is not Black separatism. The opposite of Whiteness and colonisation is White and Black people figuring out how it has affected both of us, and both taking steps to get out of the unhealthy violent colonial relationship we’re still in. *This article is an adaption of a speech delivered by Phillips in 2013 during a debate on the question of ‘Does true reconciliation reqire a Treaty?’ held at The Wheeler Centre in Melbourne and broadcast on the ABC. P10
BlacK liberation is a global struggle Runoko Rashidi is a historian and anthropologist working to build bridges with Black people struggling for liberation all over the world. He has visited Aboriginal Australia on six occasions from 1998 to 2008. Rashidi is a Garveyite whose goal is the liberation of Black people across the world. Brisbane Blacks: What is decolonization and why is it so important for Black peoples across the globe? Runoko Rashidi: Today, when I think of decolonization for Black people I think of decolonization of the mind. In Africa for example, the decolonization process took place from the late 1950s to around 1980. But the decolonization of the mind is still going on. It is rather like enslavement. In the Western Hemisphere, physical slavery was abolished in the 19th century. But the mental enslavement of our people is far from over. Brisbane Blacks: How can Black peoples empower our own communities? Runoko Rashidi: We must do the basic things that all other peoples do. First, we must marry each other. I don’t think that we can talk about empowerment if we don’t build strong family units. Black men must love, honor and respect Black women. And they must demand that respect in return. We must be willing to build the economic bases of our communities. We have to support Black business ventures. We have to be willing to spend money with each other. Thirdly, we must be organized. The system is too powerful for us to defeat it as individuals. Without organization we can never be effective. Then, ISSUE #4
we must support the conscious artists, scholars and intellectuals among us. We must renew our most positive traditions and renew knowledge of self. As I always say, strategies for Black liberation don’t require rocket science. It is the implementation that is difficult. The other things are intangibles. We must believe in each other again. We must erase self-doubt. We must rise beyond our fear of failure and defeat. Brisbane Blacks: What is Black Power and how can we enact it? Runoko Rashidi: Black Power is the empowerment of Black people. This does not require us to be anti-White. But it does mean that we will not be respected without empowerment. White supremacy will never be defeated through morality alone. White supremacy only recognizes strength. And Black Power is synonymous with strength.
Brisbane Blacks: Why is the concept of ‘Black is beautiful’ so important? Runoko Rashidi: If you don’t think that Black is beautiful you might as well give up. If you don’t think that Black is beautiful you might as well surrender. If you don’t think that Black is beautiful you might as well lay down and die. One of the most important things that we must do is to be aware that other Black peoples around the world have the same histories and issues that we do.
Brisbane Blacks: What is Black Consciousness and how can we raise it? Runoko Rashidi: Black consciousness means knowledge of self. It means Black awareness. It means Black pride. It means knowing our history. It means knowing our history before we were dominated by Europeans. We must remember and we must learn. It means understanding that if we were great once, we have the capacity to be great again. international perspective
“
We must draw strength in the knowledge that we are not alone, that our struggle is not confined to national borders and boundaries. Our struggle is global.
”
P11
amendments to RDA are an attack on free speech for Aborigines Pakana lawyer Michael Mansell has challenged the motives of Attorney-General George Brandis’s proposed amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act. George Brandis claims the amendments to the racial hate provisions are about free speech. There are so many other examples Mr Brandis could have reviewed. If I called Mr Brandis or any other public figure a ‘bare faced liar’, I could be sued for defamation. Nowadays the ‘f ’ word is normal part of everyday language for youth in public, yet State and Territory laws makes this expression a criminal offence. If a happy person wishes to break out in song in a busy street they can be charged with unruly behaviour or committing a nuisance. Why does Mr Brandis not tackle these restrictions on free speech? Then there is the criminalising of expressions of dissent against logging (environmentalists), exploitation of workers (union pickets) or protesting without permission. Aboriginal protestors trying to save a 40,000 year old heritage site at Brighton in Tasmania were arrested, strip searched and charged with, of all things, trespass. Well-known garden guru Peter Cundall was arrested for protesting outside the Tasmanian parliament. Why does Mr Brandis not tackle these restrictions on free speech? Then there are the examples of media censorship where the views of particular sections of ISSUE #4
society are blocked while others are promoted. Neither The Australian nor The Age, as a matter of practice, if not policy, will publish any Aboriginal views different to those that espouse assimilation. The public broadcaster, the national ABC, likewise censors Aboriginal viewpoints so that only ultra-conservative black voices are aired. When did Aunty last give any left leaning views an airing? Why does Mr Brandis not tackle these restrictions on free speech? All of these examples are blatant breaches of free speech. Why has Mr Brandis missed these obvious examples while supporting a right-wing columnist who is free to publish anything, subject to the law? The answer must rest in ideology and pay-back for the Herald-Sun’s support of the conservative politics of Mr Brandis’s government. We all acknowledge that free speech is not absolute. Distributing child pornography, deliberately behaving offensively, and deliberately targeting minorities by widely distributing venom likely to promote further bigotry against Aborigines and migrants, are justifiable exceptions to free speech. To allow absolute freedom for Andrew Bolt to vilify fair-skinned Aborigines (as representatives of their people) is to shut down insight
their freedom of speech. It is an Australian cultural prejudice that, in the past, led journalists to demand Aboriginal representatives justify their bona fides on the degrees of dark skin. Bolt is a throw-back to that era. When White people are interviewed, their identity is never questioned. It is discriminatory to ask some Aborigines whether their skin colour justifies their right to be heard. Being continually distracted by questions of identity, by people outside the Aboriginal community, discourages a class of Aborigines from speaking out. That is not freedom of speech - it denies free speech.
“
Free speech is about ensuring that everybody has a right to their say, not just those who have privileged positions to dominate.
”
There is nothing wrong with Mr Brandis or Andrew Bolt attacking my views about an Aboriginal future. It is wrong to prevent my views being aired because of the colour of my skin. The Brandis amendments make it virtually impossible to contain racial vilification inside reasonable limits. The amendments mean that unless racial vilification puts a victim in fear of ‘physical violence’, racial bigotry has a free hand. P12
We must pursue dual strategy of resistance and survival
in the face of multinational mining companies and Canada’s military police, the Mi’kmaq people successfully resisted exploratory testing for shale gas deposits in New Brunswick - 2013 By Gord Hill Kwakwaka’wakw
Although Canada and Australia appear to be worlds apart in both distance and environment, they actually have much in common thanks to colonialism. Both countries were established through British colonization and remain firmly a part of the ‘Commonwealth’. Both countries occupy large areas of land, with relatively small populations and economies based largely on resource exploitation. And both are among the most advanced industrialized nationstates in the world, with the highest standards of living on the planet. But not for everyone. Indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia share a similar history under British colonization – genocide, biological warfare, theft of land and resources, displacement and oppression. In both countries, tens of thousands of Native children were abducted and forced into residential schools and other institutions run by government and the church. Today, Indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia share similar living conditions. Despite being among the wealthiest countries in the world, Indigenous peoples in both countries suffer from the highest rates of poverty, imprisonment, suicide, violent deaths and poor health. Indigenous peoples in both countries are also a minority of the overall population (2.5 % in Australia, 4.5% in Canada). ISSUE #4
Both states also rely on a large bureaucratic system to maintain control of Indigenous peoples, including government agencies, courts, prisons, police, as well as Native collaborators. Due to these similarities in history and current social conditions, there is much we can learn from each other’s struggles to defend our peoples, territories, and ways of life. Perhaps most importantly, our peoples share a rich history of anticolonial resistance. From the Aboriginal Embassy and the Black Power movement of the 60s and 70s, to the ongoing Invasion Day demonstrations, Aboriginal peoples in Australia have shown that the genocidal policies of the colonial regime, including the goal of assimilation, have failed. The same is true in Canada. Most recently, the Mi’kmaq in New Brunswick successfully resisted exploratory testing for shale gas deposits. After months of protests and scores of arrests, Mi’kmaq warriors blockaded the company’s vehicles in a parking compound in September, 2013. On October 17, hundreds of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) including heavily armed tactical/riot units, raided the blockade and arrested over 40 people. In response, warriors set six police cars on fire. This resistance continued into early December, with tire fire blockades and the sabotage of seismic surveying equipment. At this time, the company (SWN Resources Canada) announced it was ending its exploratory testing. Today, it is vital that Indigenous peoples pursue a dual strategy of international perspective
resistance and survival. This is because the industrial high-tech system of capitalism is on a course of selfdestruction, its only logic being the accumulation of ever-greater wealth while it destroys the very foundation of all life on earth – the natural world. Resistance is necessary to defend what remains of our ancestral territories, for without clean land and water, our future generations will be unable to survive. In addition, campaigns of resistance can also strengthen our communities and instill confidence as well as a fighting spirit among our people. Through our struggle we can also establish or strengthen links with non-Indigenous sectors of society who sympathize with, or support, our goals. In this way we can build networks of solidarity that extend into the colonial settler society while at the same time dividing that society, strengthening the overall resistance against the system. All these aspects of resistance are vital to our survival. But survival also means being prepared spiritually, psychologically and physically. Survival can also be a part of our decolonization – learning traditional skills such as hunting and trapping, building shelters, navigation, fire making, acquiring water, relearning herbal and plant medicines. In conclusion, I would like to wish you a vibrant and sustained anti-colonial resistance over the year to come. Gilakas’la! Gord Hill is Editor of Warrior Publications and author of 500 Years of Resistance P13
What is Black NATIONALISM? Black Nationalism is not about being anti-White. Black Power is not Black supremacy. And these concepts aren’t confined just to the struggles of African Americans. Malcolm X was one of the foremost advocates of Black Nationalism, and the following is an excerpt from his Ballot or the Bullet speech of 1964. I’m a Black Nationalist freedom fighter. The political philosophy of Black Nationalism only means that the Black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community. We must understand the politics of our community and we must know what politics is supposed to produce. We must know what part politics plays in our lives. And until we become politically mature we will always be misled, led astray, or deceived or maneuvered into supporting someone politically who doesn’t have the good of our community at heart. So the political philosophy of Black Nationalism only means that we will have to carry on a program, a political program, of re-education to open our people’s eyes, make us become more politically conscious, politically mature. The economic philosophy of Black Nationalism only means that we should own, operate and control the economy of our community. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation – all of them from the same enemy. This government has failed us, and the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us.
When we look at other parts of this earth upon which we live, we find that people in Africa and Asia are getting their independence. They’re getting it through nationalism. It is nationalism that brought about the independence of the people in Asia. Every nation on the African continent that has gotten its independence brought it about through the philosophy of nationalism. And it will take Black Nationalism to bring about the freedom of 22 million African Americans here in this country where we have suffered colonialism for the past 400 years. America is just as much a colonial power as England ever was. America is just as much a colonial power as France ever was. In fact, America is more so a colonial power because it’s a hypocritical colonial power. What do you call second-class citizenship? Why, that’s colonization. Second class citizenship is nothing but twentieth century slavery. They don’t have second class citizenship in any other government on this earth. They just have slaves and people who are free. Well, this country is a hypocrite. They try and make you think they set you free by calling you a second-class citizen. No, you’re nothing but a twentieth century slave.
Just as it took nationalism to remove colonialism from Asia and Africa, it’ll take Black Nationalism today to remove colonialism from the backs and the minds of 22 million African Americans here in this country. I’m not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor an American, and got sense enough to know it. I’m one of the 22 million Black victims of the Democrats, one of the 22 million Black victims of the Republicans, and one of the 22 million Black victims of Americanism. And when I speak, I don’t speak as a Democrat, or a Republican, or an American. I speak as a victim of America’s so-called democracy. You and I have never seen democracy; all we’ve seen is hypocrisy. When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don’t see any American dream. We’ve experienced only the American nightmare. We haven’t benefited from America’s democracy – we’ve only suffered from America’s hypocrisy.
the Australian Black Power movment
Paul Coe, 1972
Australia’s Black Power movement emerged from Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in the late 1960s following the landmark Freedom Ride in ‘65. Some names synonymous with this new generation of Black activists included Gary Foley, Sol Bellear, Lilla Watson, Lyle Munro, Isabel Coe, Dennis Walker, Bob Mazza, Michael Anderson, Bruce McGuinness and Billy Craigie. According to Foley, “this was a movement of young people who weren’t looking to the church or the mainstream institutions for solutions”. Wiradjuri man Paul Coe believed there was a need for Aboriginal people “to take control both of the economical, the political and cultural resources of the people and of the land, so that they themselves have got the power to determine their own future”. Grassroots organizations like the National Tribal Council emerged with this desire to seek self-determination without White interference.
APG call
APG supports boycott of UN Indigenous Conference Boe Spearim, GAMILARAAY apg representative
The Aboriginal Provisional Government (APG) supports international calls for boycotting the 2014 United Nations World Conference on Indigenous Peoples (WCIP). We call for the cancellation of the WCIP until the UN allows Indigenous peoples to participate on a full and equal basis with member states. Those in opposition view our demands as an intrusion of non-governmental organizations into the UN. As far as they are concerned, their nations are so superior that they don’t have to accommodate our needs, obligations and rights as Indigenous peoples. We as Aboriginal nations have the
right to govern ourselves and the responsibility to protect our lands, languages and liberties. Therefore, we call for representation of our peoples that will reflect our inherent rights and responsibilities in any future discussions with the UN and its member states. Preventing us from participating on an equal basis is an enormous insult given the fact that this is supposed to be a conference specifically concerning the future of Indigenous peoples around the globe. Refusing to grant us equal status at the negotiating table serves to prolong the relationship of the colonizer and colonized. As it stands, the WCIP is doing nothing to eliminate this imbalance.
Our relationship with the Australian state should be on a nation to nation basis. If they are truly committed to the rights of Indigenous peoples, the UN should be playing a role in facilitating an internationally scrutinized treaty process between Aboriginal nations and the Australian state. Aboriginal nations have not mandated any individual or group to represent us and our interests at the 2014 WICP. The APG calls on the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples to also boycott the conference. We applaud other Indigenous groups, governments and coalitions calling for a boycott of the WCIP including the Mapuche Nation and North American Indigenous Peoples Caucus.
“This decision is a valiant expression of will in order to safeguard the dignity of Indigenous Peoples and make manifest that we are not willing to continue supporting new forms of colonialism and the domestication of Indigenous Peoples in violation of our rights...” - Aucan Huilcaman Paillama, Mapuche ISSUE #4
news
P15
APG to meet in Adelaide
to all seeking a better future for Aboriginal people 9am-5pm . May 6, 2014 @ Bethany Conference Centre . 4 High Street, Kensington BACKGROUND If we want a treaty, or recognition of our right to self-determination, or constitutional recognition, we need to kick-start a campaign to achieve our goals. The first step is to get a national meeting. Adelaide is a start. We need to discuss what it is we seek, and how we are going to get it. If it is a treaty, what needs to be in the treaty? Could we get the same from being the seventh State of Australia? Is domestic sovereignty a sell-out? What steps do we need to take to gain independence and the right to secession from the Australian state? Would constitutional change set the principles we need, or is it just a distraction?
AGENDA 1) general discussion on ultimate aim of Aboriginal movement 2) which options are best? a) TREATY – what would be in it and how would it be implemented (e.g. through legislation or constitution)? b) STATEHOOD – what are the options (e.g. domestic or external) and what would it look like? c) CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM – what is its purpose, and what would it deliver? 3) establishing a national Aboriginal assembly as a community initiative body a) how will Aboriginal people participate? b) what will be the purpose of the assembly? c) how will the assembly meet (e.g. resources/capacity)? 4) considering models for discussion a) self-determination offers three choices – formation of a new state through secession, autonomy within the Australian State, or assimilation into the Australian State b) the APG is pushing the option of becoming the seventh State of Australia – what does that mean and how could it be a possible solution? c) various models regarding TREATY will be discussed
CAMPAIGNS It is widely agreed that we must run serious domestic and international campaigns to advance our cause. Until we create something tangible ourselves – a loud and constant, and credible national voice, regular forums for Aboriginal communities, delegations to relevant and useful international forums, along with clear, articulated and realistic goals – we will be ignored. We also need to be realistic about how long it takes to make significant progress, and the effort required to do so. In 1974, the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) was a national body with the role of advising government. 40 years later that model is unchanged in the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. We have not advanced. In the meantime, East Timor declared independence the year after NACC was established. In 2002 they got their country back. We need to launch 30 year campaigns, not 3 month stints. Scotland began with limited autonomy, and later this year they will hold a referendum to decide whether to become completely independent from the United Kingdom. This meeting is a beginning. But it’s not a meeting for speeches about how badly off we are. This meeting is about looking at the way forward and seeking solutions.
All Aboriginal people are welcome. We hope to see you there! Michael Mansell Secretary of the Aboriginal Provisional Government (APG) michael.mansell@bigpond.com
Aotearoa’s Constitution Conversation
Both New Zealand and Australia are currently looking at reforming their constitution, that which underpins each nation’s legal system. How do these reviews compare?
PICTURED: Hinurewa Poutu (member of NZ Constitutional Advisory Panel) and the Beehive (NZ federal parliament)
Unlike Australia, Aotearoa does not have a written constitutional document. Instead, the nation’s constitution consists of a number of elements including the Treaty of Waitangi and a Bill of Rights. Both a treaty and bill of rights are documents absent from Australia’s legal groundings. But like Australia, New Zealand is also in a process of reviewing its constitutional arrangements. The Constitution Conversation took place in 2013 and involved a Constitutional Advisory Panel engaging in community consultations around New Zealand. In November 2013, the Panel released its recommendations publicly. Detailed below is an outline of their recommendations (specifically concerning Māori). Compare this to Julia Gillard’s so-called ‘Expert Panel’ and their proposal for a token mention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, to make English the official language of Australia, and to retain the ability of Australian governments to implement racially discriminatory policies like the Northern Territory Intervention. This is yet another example of how backwards and conservative Australian society truly is.
Treaty of Waitangi • developing a national strategy for civics and citizenship education in schools and in the community, including the unique role of the Treaty of Waitangi • affirming the importance of the Treaty as a foundational document • ensuring a Treaty education strategy is developed that includes the current role and status of the Treaty and the Treaty settlement process so people can inform themselves about the rights and obligations under the Treaty • setting up a process to develop a range of options for the future role of Treaty, including options within existing constitutional arrangements and arrangements in which the Treaty is the foundation
Māori political representation • affirming current arrangements for dedicated Māori seats in the New Zealand Parliament • investigating how Māori representation in Parliament might be improved • investigating how local government processes and decision-making can better reflect the interests and views of Māori and whether the processes can be made more consistent and effective • investigating a range of options including Māori political structures, local and international models
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 • setting up a process, with public consultation and participation, to explore in more detail the options for amending the Act to improve its effectiveness such as adding economic, social, cultural, property and environmental rights
Other issues • considering the role of the 1835 Māori Declaration of Independence
dO NOT BY STEVEN OLIVER
Do not think yourself unworthy Do not be brash to bask in shame Do not feel the need to hide your truth Because some others stained your name Do not believe the lies they’ve told you For you’ve greatness still untold And they are fearful of the true you For the power that you hold Which is why they want you to forget And strive to keep you down It’s easier to take from those Who do not stand their ground And sometimes you are weary Because the struggle’s been so long But if your flame no longer burns You make right of what is wrong Embrace the gift within you You are a first child of this land Do not let them deny you Or let fear deny your stand There is truth of fact behind you And it speaks of what is right Let pride be born of knowledge of self Silence their words of fight Then come one day you’ll rise and shine You will not be denied Your truth will strike and clear the haze Of hatefulness and lies Do not think yourself unworthy Do not be brash to bask in shame Do not feel the need to hide your truth Do not let others do the same
OUR NATIONS ARE rising RECLAIM
reclaim our cultural, historical, political and ceremonial practices that have been severed and impacted by colonization, reclaim dispossessed lands in our territories and reclaim our sacred roles and relationships with the land, water, and all living beings
RENAME
place names offer a direct connection to our languages, sacred histories and dreaming stories, and the reclamation of these names is vital for the continuation and revitalization of our unique cultures
REOCCUPY
reoccupy our tribal territories and homelands, reoccupy contentious sites facing urbanization, resource extraction and economic exploitation and reoccupy our traditional hunting, fishing and ceremonial grounds
nationsrising.org
Let’s Talk TREATY
We all know Yothu Yindi’s hit song Treaty. But what is a Treaty? When it comes to relations between Indigenous peoples and colonial powers, treaties are simply formal agreements that set down the terms and conditions by which two or more groups can coexist. The British empire signed treaties with many native trbes of the Americas, and the Maori of Aotearoa. But no such agreements were signed with the original peoples of this land. A treaty process would constitute long overdue recognition that this nation was founded upon stolen land. Secondly, it would provide a framework for self-determination. Thirdly, we have never had a document setting out what our relationship is with the Australian state. It has always been a relationship of colonizer and colonized. A treaty would modernize our relationship of a nation to nation status. Nicole watson Birri Gubba & Mununjali lawyer, academic & author
Evidence from overseas suggests Indigenous peoples thrive when we self-govern. People at the grassroots must have genuine self-determination. Decision making power has to be exercised through competent and culturally appropriate governing institutions. We must have the freedom to design institutions that are effective for us.
We have the opportunity to start the debate from our side. It’s about us getting together and deciding what we want. The government hasn’t got a formal position on treaty, but I think Prime Minister Abbott is open to the idea of an agreement and open to the idea of finishing unfinished business. But we shouldn’t get caught up in Abbott’s politics or Bill Shorten’s politics, this is our politics. A treaty process is more important than Constitutional amendments. It’s about how we finalise things, how we recognise First Nations and our legal rights. And if there are to be many treaties, we do need to have a proper benchmark so that certain groups don’t get ripped off.
warren mundine Bundjalung, Gumbayngirr & Yuin Chair of Indigenous Advisory Council
I’m very sceptical about government taking the lead on this issue. We’ve seen Bob Hawke renege on national land rights legislation and treaty, and John Howard rhetoric of we are all Australians and that there shouldn’t be any specific rights given to Indigenous peoples. The mandate has to come from the grassroots. We also need to enter into a process of decolonization on the ground, and ensure that historical factors are not swept aside. monica morgan Yorta Yorta Aboriginal rights advocate
There needs to be an entrenchment within their system and an entrenchment within ours, so that we come to the table as equals. We need to have our own assembly, and we need to start that work now. To act as sovereign peoples, we must form our own sources of negotiation.
A treaty is a tool that could be used in many ways, but it is essential that we drive this agenda. It must be a legally binding partnership arrangement between Indigenous peoples and the colonizers, and it has to have international recognition. A treaty could also be a good bargaining tool in terms of how government approaches delivering services to our communities. Democracy brings hierarchical structure to modern decision making processes. This has stripped our customary law of decision making and ignores our inherent rights. Now there are different levels of government – federal, state and local. Prior to colonization, there was no hierarchy in how decisions were made on country.
waYNE BUTCHER Uutaalnganu & Kuu Ku Y’au Mayor of Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire
Caring for Country and Caring for Kin
an excerpt from The Concept of Ethics in Australian Aboriginal Systems of Thought BY MARY GRAHAM, Kombumerri & Waka Waka
Land is the source of morality and meaning in Australian Aboriginal society, with notions about the world, human beings and knowledge serving to ground a moral philosophy centred on the relationship with Land and people. This defines the essence of Aboriginal society. Therefore, strictly speaking, it’s difficult to talk about Ethics outside of Land and Kin (‘our mob’, including ancestors), because it is these two fundamentals that underpin notions of conduct (proper way or right conduct); much more than any question like “How shall one live?” which is the individualist, rationalist approach to the subject of Ethics. Also, the moral philosophy of Australian Aboriginal culture lays the foundations for the organising principle that governs the social and political structure, decision-making and conflict management systems developed over an immense period of time, forming the basis of our concept of Sovereignty. Western society, from this perspective, sees Ethics as standards of behaviour that tell people how human beings ought to act in any given situation. That is, human beings as individuals who may or may not be following an ideal taught or passed on to them by family, church and education. Aboriginal Ethics starts as with everything else, from the perspective of ISSUE #4
the Land and the relationship established and maintained with the Land. The Land invents or creates us with the help of Creator Ancestors of particular localities across this country. So immediately, from the beginning, Land is a moral entity with both physical and spiritual attributes manifest in myriad life forms. Our venerable society also manifests itself in human beings patterning themselves into the Land via the Law. So in the broadest sense Law is an understanding of the fundamental nature of reality, both physical and spiritual, including what constitutes order in both these realms; and underlying Law is a very powerful and all-encompassing ethical dimension. The ethic that grows out of the Land/Human relationship could be called a custodial ethic. The custodial ethic is contrary to a survivalist ethos of rivalry and competition over resources, and structural conflicts regarding hierarchies of power. It emerges from an ancient reciprocal relationship with nature; an ethic of looking after, stewardship, caring for, and the obligation to look after Land that nurtures. The result is a well-known term which is both an Australian Aboriginal form of protest and philosophical worldview: The Land is the Law. The concept of a relationship with and about Land leads to the formulation of ethical behaviour, ethical principles and values for insight
engaging with each other; and includes the importance of seeing the spirit within and respecting the autonomy of others, being non-judgmental, walking and talking with others as equals, keeping mindful of their safety and not shaming them. This way Ethics become habituated and made valuable, rather than idealised. Ethical behaviour is the means to a positive approach in partnerships and relations. In contrast, emerging from an unreflective motive, as evident in the cult of individualism, Western societies’ fundamental concept is ownership; which is what makes modern Western economic activity possible and money valuable. This is sustained by inquiry, science and technology, wherein the exploratory impulse, with both an urge to victory and accelerated trajectory towards goal seeking, makes the sought-after Ends/ Gains overwhelm the means. There is an acknowledgement that moral principles are important, but not so important that they prevent achieving preferred Ends/Gains. Western societies’ cultural praxis therefore creates double standards as the norm in both national and international contexts; with Ethics remaining an ideal to strive for perpetually, and to discuss or be concerned about occasionally. This gradually diminishes the importance of ethical consideration in actions and intent; constant wars over resources being evidence of this condition. P21
Kunibidji sisters demand recognition of sea rights Over 40 ocean parcels around the coast of Arnhem Land have now been declared as offshore drilling exploration sites. These mining hotspots are located in sacred waters, untouched until now. Paltar Petroleum has submitted requests to the Australian Government for permission to explore the region for oil and gas.
and wellbeing. There is an epidemic taking place in Aboriginal communities where disease, sickness, overcrowding and malnutrition are all increasing at an alarming rate. The abundant fresh fish, crab, oysters, turtle, dugong, shellfish and stingray that are eaten daily as the staples of a traditional Aboriginal diet are absolutely crucial in combatting this epidemic.
The Kunibidji people have been hunting and fishing in the now threatened coastal waters for thousands of years. The Maningrida community depends on the sea for survival. Also under threat are the ancient songlines, burial and sacred sites that run through the water, all of which have kept the community strong, rich and connected, long before mining companies arrived.
Seismic testing, drilling and fracking are all methods of exploration which threaten the environment and marine life. Crocodile and turtle breeding grounds, coral reefs, rare fish species and sacred sites are just some of the remarkable features of this region.
Coastal Aboriginal peoples rely on the ocean as one of their primary sources. Hunting grounds provide fresh and rich seafood for families. It is a daily ritual and has been this way for millennia, to gather food and use the ocean as a resource contributing to overall health
The NT Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 provides the basis upon which Aboriginal people can claim rights to land based on traditional occupation. In this legislation, ‘land’ is defined as finishing at the low tide water mark. But this is not where the stories, songlines, sacred sites, dreaming and creation stories end. Our connection to waters as Aboriginal peoples is integral to the
definition of who we are. Freshwater and saltwater people define themselves as such and the very essence of their being is compromised if unable to use the ocean and rivers as a resource for their spiritual and physical nurturing and wellbeing. Ancestral beings transformed the landscape and the spirits of these beings inhabit specific sacred sites, usually waterholes in the estates of clan groups. Such sites form the forces of a clan’s spiritual life. These sacred ties Aboriginal people have with their waters are under threat from offshore exploration and mining. Kunibidji women Alice, Grace and Noni Eather will do whatever it takes to save their culture from the threat of seabed mining. These three saltwater sisters launched the Protect Arnhem Land campaign in 2012. So far, the campaign has involved bark petitions, lobbying Australian politicians, collaborating with environmental groups, touring the country, uniting communities and producing a documentary called ‘Stingray Sisters’.
“The Land Rights Act stops at the low tide water mark. We want our sea rights. It’s game on. We must protect Arnhem Land.” stingraysisters.com
The Brisbane Aboriginal Sovereign Embassy (BASE) is a core platform for organizing Black political/protest action and engaging with Brisbane’s Black community. BASE holds meetings around the sacred fire in Musgrave Park every Wednesday @ 6pm and runs a program which provides food parcels to over 150 families across Brisbane every week. For more information on BASE or to assist/ donate to the Community Food Program, call 0424 610 492 or 0408 064 900
The Aboriginal Provisional Government (APG) formed in 1990, a product of the many generations of Aboriginal people fighting for justice. It represents the reality that only we, as Aboriginal people, can forge a proper place for ourselves and generations to come.
www.apg.org.au
The Brisbane Treaty Collective is an Aboriginal advocacy group established in early 2014 to push for and further the discussion about issues of treaty, land rights and sovereignty. Our philosophy is Native Nationalism. Simultaneously reactive and proactive, Native Nationalism finds its foundations in two core actions – resistance and reconstruction. The BTC was founded by Boe Spearim (Gamilaraay) and Callum Clayton-Dixon (Nganyaywana). for more information, call 0428 152 777 or send an email to brisbaneblacksmedia@gmail.com