FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Other Nations

If we take for a moment the fact that the islands mislabelled ‘Australia’ were never a terra nullius, we might begin to see the paucity of the recognise campaign. The recognise campaign is a left liberal campaign designed to get constitutional recognition for Indigenous people, usually in the form of a non-binding pre-amble statement. It goes without saying, and even better with saying, that I support affirmative action directed towards many of our Indigenous peoples. But for that to happen in a full, true and material way, we must acknowledge the reality of the historical legacy as it manifests today. I will not go down the familiar, and false, rabbit warrens by saying constitutional change is merely symbolic (symbols matter and have real consequences) or talk about how Indigenous people are diverse (even the blackfella bourgeoisie removed from neo-traditional life in remote communities has negative social privilege from its ‘raced’ position regardless of the fact that it can be leveraged into capital now) or suggest that the fundamental divide that exists today is irreconcilable (consider if only for a moment the success of mixed people in public life).

What I want to suggest is that for recognition to happen in a meaningful way we need to re-think both sides. That is we need to need to see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Australia for what it is and we need to see Australia for what it is also, assuming for a moment that they are heuristically separate rather than irrevocably tied. ATSI Australia is magnificently diverse. At the time of colonisation up to 700 languages were spoken, suggesting the possibility of many countries on the landmass. I say countries here rather than the increasingly popular appellation first nations if only to contest the definition of the State, which has been retroactively applied. If one searched these countries for differences one would find them. If one searched these countries for similarities one would find them also. But the construction of a unitary ‘Aboriginal’ Other is a recent construct, an idea challenged even by its parental politico-legal discourse of identity as manifested in Westernised law. By contrast the Aboriginal Self, even as a group self, is autonomously heterogeneous. It is shifting and complex and located and changeable. It knoww its complexity and diversity. All of which is not to make a hagiography of pre-invasion life. It is simply to say it was no singular – there needn’t have been a red, black, yellow flag until 1971 because there was no one thing to attempt to represent. This is why we many begin to speak of treaties in the plural not in the singular. For a treaty to happen there would need be a representative body to negotiate and agree – but how can Yamatji speak for Ngarluma let alone Yorta Yorta or Walpiri or Aranda? It is not then a materialist question of helping out impoverished, sitting crosslegged in the red dirt, bottom of the rung no hopers who spend their days lounging with flea infested dogs getting drunk. That stereotype not only does not exist but needs to be put to rest even as it remains an object of pragmatist policy concern targeting our ‘most vulnerable’. What it means is that today’s expression of Indigenous governance need acknowledge its foundation in pre-colonial identity and law. What that looks like differs from place to place, but Brian Samson of Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corporation carries a lot of political weight relevant to his community which is based on a whole complex of factors every but as sophisticated as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. That both could sign a treaty might mean a genuine dialogue took place instead of imperialist window-dressing. In other words it is necessary to consider treaties that matter to Indigenous people themselves might look like. This includes in their own language, forms of constitutional governance and for the other signatory of the treaty (in this case, and for ease, ‘Australia’ but perhaps the UK or an unnamed, unimagined republic). I think in this regard ATSI people in many places have a firm knowledge of what governmental autonomy looks like because they are rooted in a sense of country, which forms the bedrock of identity and the idea of unshakeable custodianship.

In some respects, the more difficult question to wrangle with, precisely because it views itself as a success, is: what to do with Australia? To my mind this means asking how do we decolonise and what kind of republic do we become? As the two major parties have become closer together we have witnessed not only the bankrupting of the mainstream ideologically but also the artificiality of real distinction and debate. Personality, affect, surface separates them and the leadership tension in both only underscores how fragile their internal ‘solidarity’ is. Yet talk of a republic is muted if not silenced completely because no one can quite imagine what it would be to actually become a State fit for the land. That means the abolition of one level of government and the strengthening of the other two. The federal government need stay in place. But there need be municipalities in between the size of local and state bodies. Why couldn’t ‘Australia’ be a federation of elected bodies that are more responsive to distinct policy needs? Why can’t we be a federation of 20 bodies that look after a million people each? This is brought about by the distinct recognition that Moreland identity does not exist and that the states are antiquated and moribund, even if there are attachments created by the false consciousness machine’s misreading of history. It is also an acknowledgement about the benefits of administering in a more streamlined and capable manner. This is not an anarchist argument about the dissolution of the state, but the realisation that non-Indigenous governance here does not see itself for what it is: colonial, recent, sluggish, failing.

 

I do not mean to say that the Ngarluma people as represented by the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation could or should sign a treaty with the City of Karratha, the West Australian government or the Australian Commonwealth, but rather that the three latter bodies are fundamentally illegitimate. This is not to deny their existence, but to question their standing morally. This does not mean a return to some halcyon days of Ngarluma law, or a contemporary hybrid, the latter of which is what the recognise campaign seems to suggest. It is not a question of self-determination or of assimilation. What it means is that we need to ask: how do we have multiple laws for the same geography? How do we have governance, and services and goods for the same geography? In the daily application of law there are negotiations that happen constantly which not only enact the spirit and letter of the law but revolve around interpretation and application. When a hospital is built that involves local, state and federal institutions at present, sometimes in consultation with the community who may or may not be Indigenous. But more than that it involves people. People in those roles hold a complex intersectionality in their very bodies. That means people are able to juggle multiple roles and conduct complex judgements regularly. The world does not get less messy simply because we say it does. What that means in the ‘Australian’ context today is that we need Indigenous people in positions of power without taking for granted what the definitions of Indigenous and power actually are. The system need doubt itself rather than think that ‘Australia’ only accommodate Indigenous people. That will only perpetuate the ongoing conflict. Only when there is a governmental system relevant to the true situation will treaties be signed and there will be a lasting peace that is constitutionally recognisable in such a way that everyone living here will be proud. Perhaps then we will be able to address poverty, incarceration, safety, access, equity and a whole host of other issues that limit our freedom in daily life.

More articles by:

Robert Wood holds degrees in economics, history and literature from the Australian National University and the University of Pennsylvania. He works for the Australian journal Overland.

Weekend Edition
July 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Atwood
Peace or Armageddon: Take Your Pick
Paul Street
No Liberal Rallies Yet for the Children of Yemen
Nick Pemberton
The Bipartisan War on Central and South American Women
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Are You Putin Me On?
Andrew Levine
Sovereignty: What Is It Good For? 
Brian Cloughley
The Trump/NATO Debacle and the Profit Motive
David Rosen
Trump’s Supreme Pick Escalates America’s War on Sex 
Melvin Goodman
Montenegro and the “Manchurian Candidate”
Salvador   Rangel
“These Are Not Our Kids”: The Racial Capitalism of Caging Children at the Border
Matthew Stevenson
Going Home Again to Trump’s America
Louis Proyect
Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders and the Dilemmas of the Left
Patrick Cockburn
Iraqi Protests: “Bad Government, Bad Roads, Bad Weather, Bad People”
Robert Fantina
Has It Really Come to This?
Russell Mokhiber
Kristin Lawless on the Corporate Takeover of the American Kitchen
John W. Whitehead
It’s All Fake: Reality TV That Masquerades as American Politics
Patrick Bobilin
In Your Period Piece, I Would be the Help
Ramzy Baroud
The Massacre of Inn Din: How Rohingya Are Lynched and Held Responsible
Robert Fisk
How Weapons Made in Bosnia Fueled Syria’s Bleak Civil War
Gary Leupp
Trump’s Helsinki Press Conference and Public Disgrace
Josh Hoxie
Our Missing $10 Trillion
Martha Rosenberg
Pharma “Screening” Is a Ploy to Seize More Patients
Basav Sen
Brett Kavanaugh Would be a Disaster for the Climate
David Lau
The Origins of Local AFT 4400: a Profile of Julie Olsen Edwards
Rohullah Naderi
The Elusive Pursuit of Peace by Afghanistan
Binoy Kampmark
Shaking Establishments: The Ocasio-Cortez Effect
John Laforge
18 Protesters Cut Into German Air Base to Protest US Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Christopher Brauchli
Trump and the Swedish Question
Chia-Chia Wang
Local Police Shouldn’t Collaborate With ICE
Paul Lyons
YouTube’s Content ID – A Case Study
Jill Richardson
Soon You Won’t be Able to Use Food Stamps at Farmers’ Markets, But That’s Not the Half of It
Kevin MacKay
Climate Change is Proving Worse Than We Imagined, So Why Aren’t We Confronting its Root Cause?
Thomas Knapp
Elections: More than Half of Americans Believe Fairy Tales are Real
Ralph Nader
Warner Slack—Doctor for the People Forever
Lee Ballinger
Soccer, Baseball and Immigration
Louis Yako
Celebrating the Wounds of Exile with Poetry
Ron Jacobs
Working Class Fiction—Not Just Surplus Value
Perry Hoberman
You Can’t Vote Out Fascism… You Have to Drive It From Power!
Robert Koehler
Guns and Racism, on the Rocks
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir: Implementation with Integrity and Will to Resolve
Justin Anderson
Elon Musk vs. the Media
Graham Peebles
A Time of Hope for Ethiopia
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
Homophobia in the Service of Anti-Trumpism is Still Homophobic (Even When it’s the New York Times)
Martin Billheimer
Childhood, Ferocious Sleep
David Yearsley
The Glories of the Grammophone
Tom Clark
Gameplanning the Patriotic Retributive Attack on Montenegro
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail