National Indigenous Times: Indigenous poverty as
'morally outrageous' as torture: Amnesty head
19 Nov 09: "The poverty experienced by many Aboriginal
people is as morally reprehensible as torture and must be
eradicated, Amnesty International secretary-general Irene
Khan says."  http://www.nit.com.au/story.aspx?id=19020

Also see SMH

Strong words, but is such ‘advocacy’ helpful.  I argue that moralistic bites such as this are in fact dangerous.  While advocates feel that such statements point out government failures, they can actually be harmful to the people they are meant to protect .

First of all, this statement suggests there is a simple problem, “poverty”.  This is not the case. The conditions she saw were in part conditions that people were choosing to live in, because they wanted to live on their home lands (traditional estates) where there are few amenities.  And there are also many aspects of Indigenous lifestyle, such as sitting in the dirt, which are lifestyle choices but are easily interpreted as something negative and used as emotive devices (eg. The opening paragraph to Khan’s edited press speech).  This is not classic “poverty”.  Is it rather the effect of abuses of rights and the outcome of a massive cultural gap, resulting in marginalisation and poor education. Khan does go on to talk about rights and education and marginalisation, but her emotive language creates confusion rather than clarifying the issues to be tackled.  This point was very clearly and insightfully expressed by a reader on crikey (click link and scroll down to read his article)

Second, such language is usually designed to catch attention in order to say more important things.  In this case Khan used such statements to talk about the discriminatory nature of  policies such as income management.  The problem is, what sticks in the mainstreams psyche is not her sensible comments about changing policies that force people to spend hundreds of dollars to drive into disfunctional communities to use their pensions.  What sticks are those words above which label the Indigenous people as having a problem.  Like there is some sort of disease out there that only effects Australian Aboriginal people. People now even refer to the generic “Indigenous problem”.

Lets do some discourse analysis.  This statement defines the situation of Aboriginal Australian’s as:

• living in ‘poverty’.  Poverty implies a number of things, hopelessness, helplessness and a lack of resources.  This objectifies these Aborignal people as victims, suggesting that they need a humanitarian savior.  For most Indigenous people this is unfair. In remote communities they may be depressed, but they are not without hope. They are not helpless, but may feel like they cannot be heard or cannot win, yet they do keep fighting.  They have many resources, but often have difficulty using them.
• a “moral” issue.  This lays blame on everyone suggesting that  Australians are not good people. That while this Indigenous problem exists its like Australians are committing torture. This is unfair.  Many Australians react to this by blaming Indigenous people in return (eg. See comments on SHM).
• needing “eradication”.  Suggesting, that if the right resources are applied, the ‘problem’ could just be removed.  Furthermore, drawing on the ‘moral’ imperative she has established, ‘eradication’ insists that immediate and extreme action is required.

Khans statements are examples of the extreme emotive hyperbole, which is so common today when talking about the difficulties faced by Indigenous communities.  It does less to empower Indigenous people or their voice than it empowers government and other service providers to implement simplistic, rushed and broad brush solutions.  The very kind of policy most advocacy tries to disable after the fact.  It was also this kind of over the top statement that the Howard Government used to force the ‘Intervention’ through.  And it was so effective that most politicians were not even game to touch the subject and the Australian public went all bleeding heart, righteous paternalist.   Since then in the NT even the more sensible “Close the Gap” campaign, is being used widely by NT and Federal Governments as a catch cry to deny Indigenous rights and force things on communities, such as English only education and land leases, without negotiation or real consultation. Why? Because from the politicians perspective the moral imperative of the “Gap” statistics and advocacy slogans mandates Government to act quickly (and thus for some reason stupidly and abusively).  In fact the Governments in Canberra and Darwin act like if they do not force the statistics to improve before the next election, the ‘Gap’ just might be one more hole their election hopes will fall in.  The result- Indigenous people get crushed in the rush and no real solutions are established.

While we continue to advocate by labeling problems we continue to label Aboriginal people and empower the government powered steamroller to run over peoples lives, and enable racist blaming. What is needed is good debate about the real situation faced by people, the underling causes, and the complex solutions needed, rather than more denouncing of the “Indigenous problem”.  Rather than simply highlighting the problems, advocacy must start highlighting complexity, revealing local needs and enabling dialogue between diverse Indigenous and non-Indigenous voices.

“Why don’t you Balanda explain to us what are your plans for us?  What is the Government’s plan for us or the Shire’s or whoever’s plan for us? What do you have in mind for our future?  Someone come and explain it to me? We don’t know? You don’t talk to us.  You just change things. Where is the consultation, where is the negotiation.  We have our own parliaments; our own system of law.  You should be talking to us first.”

His speech demonstrated that Indigenous people in some remote communities feel like all the decisions about their community are being made for them.  Not only do they want to know what is going on, they feel they have a right to know and a right to be part of the decision making process.  Yolŋu have been demanding this right since the Balanda first imposed on them. The jurisdiction that their own systems of law gives them over the use of land and governance of their own society, means that decisions made by the Balanda systems without consulting the appropriate person in their own system are seen as imposing, controlling or illegitimate.  These are not naive thoughts.  Yolngu struggle to understand how our political system really works,  but they are fully aware that their land owners, leaders and elders have no say in the constant changes that complicate their lives, and determine how their land is used, despite a system that is supposed to support them.  The last year has been particularly difficult with the coercive tactics of the intervention, removing the permit system, imposing police forces and compulsory income management all without preliminary consultation.  On top of this the NT government disbanded the local community councils, forming them into super shires and so severely limiting local control of the townships.  The statement summarised above implies an anger and perhaps a fear of the Government and the ‘Balanda’ system’s plans for them.  This is evidence of the lack of information people have about the mainstream Australian system, leaving a big question mark about how the power that Balanda exerts over them will be used.  Just as this Yolngu man suggests, Indigenous communities are dependent on non-Indigenous personnel to keep them informed of the plans of Government and other organisations.  The lack of real consultation also means that Indigenous people are excluded from the debates.  Take for example the debate about bilingual education.  This year at the word of the Minister Indigenous languages are all but banned from being taught and used for teaching in the class room.  On such issues the media presents us with rarely more than a couple of Indigenous people who may or may not represent informed local opinion.  Meanwhile a whole range of non-Indigenous experts get to comment on the issue.   In addition, those Indigenous people that do get to speak in the media must do so in English, a foreign language to them, as a result they sound simple minded and shallow when their experience and meaning is deep. That Indigenous people are excluded from decisions that effect them is a real experience they face regularly ( hear about this directly from an remote Indigenous voice).   We must create ways to consult throughly using the local and traditional systems that the people are using.  Consultation takes time.  But taking that time to listen and include the peoples system is part of the solution to Indigenous problems because it allows for learning, it encourages, demonstrates respect and empowers Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to speak.   In fact, time for good consultation reduces many future complications; but that is another story…

Prime Minister Rudd and cabinet opposite Yolŋu leaders, before the presentation of the Petition for rights

I was in Yirrkala on the 23rd July 2008 when the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his cabinet visited the community. Yirrkala is an Aboriginal Community near Nhulunbuy, a mining town in north east Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, Australia. It is populated by 13 or so different Yolŋu clans from the surrounding region as well as Balanda personnel. On this day about a dozen key Yolŋu Indigenous leaders presented to the Prime Minister a petition mounted on wood and surrounded by paintings and feathers. The petition requested that the Federal Government begin the process of negotiation with Aboriginal people in order to recognise and protect Aboriginal rights in the constitution. The petition specified these rights as:

• Their right to maintain the diversity of their ’systems of life’ (eg. linguistic, cultural and legal practices – my interpretation),
• Their property rights to land and seas,
• Their right to use all the resources on their land for their economic development
• Their right to have control over their own lives.

Although there is much that could be discussed about what these rights might be and the legitimacy of such claims, I would like to consider the Prime Ministers response to this petition. Prime Minister Rudd recognised the importance of moving toward a process to recognise Indigenous rights, but identified this process as secondary to the process that the Government has defined as ‘closing the Gap’. The Prime Minister stated that their first priorty right now was to close the gap in education and health between wider Australia and Indigneous people.  Does the Prime Minister really know better than the Yolŋu leaders what is best for their people?  This demonstrates the arrogance and distance of Government from the Indigenous peoples real experience.  The Yolŋu leaders did not ask for housing, or even better education.  Their primary concern was their peoples rights.  Yet it seems that the Government believes it has the clear view on the matter, perhaps they have an Ivory tower, while the local leaders can only see what is happening on the ground?

From this gentle act of protest  we all should ask the question.  Is ‘closing the gap’ a process that can occur seperate to the real recognition and protection of Indigenous legal and human rights?  The real recognition of such rights must be part of  this process, as dis-empowerment, the devaluing of cultural knowledge and language,  and lack of control over their social space, their economy and their land is part of the real reasons that the ‘Gap’ still exists.

I will look at this question of the role of rights in effecting underlying cause another time.

Australia values indigenous languages as shown in our public art, but in practice it is easy to have excuses. Photo by Superciliousness, some rights reserved

My experience in North East Arnhem Land is that education continues to fail here because cultural and language differences continue to be ignored. We expect Aboriginal people everywhere to learn english but make no attempt to teach them effectively by requiring personnel entering Aboriginal communities to use local languages. … A look at the history shows that in the 60’s and 70’s there were parts of the NT where indigenous people had high literacy rates. In NE Arnhem Land by the 60’s and 70’s the missions of this region trained adults and children using local languages. This changed after the late 70’s as the long term mission staff were gradually replaced by Government personnel who were not required to learn language and rarely stayed more than 2 years. … Let’s do things differently and learn from the past for a change.

The comments received from others about this post were very insightful and they can be viewed here. For some there are a number of concerns about learning Aboriginal languages and educating using local languages that become blockages, or even excuses, that prevent personnel individually or corporately from putting time into learning to use Aboriginal languages. I wish to briefly respond to these common concerns. Common concerns and assumptions about using local Indigenous languages

1. Local Aboriginal Languages are very difficult to learn? – It is true that Indigenous languages are not simple languages and they are a challenge to learn. But they are no more difficult than most other foreign languages. Indigenous languages are in some ways easier to learn than the major European and Asian languages, for the following reasons.
   • Australian Aboriginal languages have consistent gramma and phonetic rules, primarily because they are very ancient and pure languages. Until recently they have experienced little mixing with different languages as has been the case of the major world languages English, French, Spanish and even Chinese.
   • Word order is usually not highly important. Indigenous gramma rules are based primarily on the use of suffixes and/or prefixes. English gramma is based primarily on word order, but also uses suffixes (attachments to the end of a word like; -ed or -ing). So while using only suffixes or prefixes for gramma can take some time to get use to, the student of an Aboriginal language does not need to be greatly concerned about word order which is in some ways the hardest aspect to change for an English speaker.
   • Indigenous Australian languages did not have a written language prior to European arrival, consequently the alphabets developed for Indigenous languages are entirely phonetic and aid in the process of learning new sounds and pronunciation. When learning major world languages often the written and spoken languages are like learning two separate languages.
   • There are no tonal aspects to pronunciation of these local language terms as in some Asian languages, like Thai.
   • There are few gender specific terms and common nouns and verbs are not gendered like in French or Hindi.
2. There are too many Local Aboriginal Languages? – This is the excuse used by many government departments. However, the truth is that there are common ‘linga franca’ languages that cover large regions, courtesy of Indigenous people speaking several languages, before English. This leaves just a couple of small areas such as Groote Eylandt that are linguistically unique. Under current approaches working regionally remains a difficult because departments and organisations often try to centralise services in major urban centre as theses are easier to administer. Such centralisation then requires personnel to work in several different languages areas. Secondly, most personnel do not stay long in a single area. However, if we were to focus more on local approaches this could be overcome. One of the reasons for leaving one region for another is the stress that results from poor communication and a sense of isolation. Learning the local language is a major step toward reducing these stresses on personnel.
3. It takes forever to learn enough language to be useful? – It takes 6- 9 months of intensive study to become effective in communication in your given field, but you can start to work in your field after the first 6 months. By 9 months you will not be entirely fluent, but you will be able to use a large range of key words and phrases in the topic areas of your work. You will understand at least half of what is said (which is more often better than in English only) and you will be more aware of cultural and language issues that are affecting specific situations. You will also be able to efficiently investigate new terms for difficult concepts you wish to communicate. All these aspects improve your effectiveness over English only. By introducing local languages as a medium for communication you allow locals to begin to use their own language in the work place, in your presence, giving them more control in conversations – effectively you are beginning to share the cultural space. This is greatly appreciated, it encourages friendships in the local community and also allows you to continue to learn the language on the job.
4. Most Aboriginal people already speak English? – Across the whole of Australia this true. However, in places were there are still Indigenous languages being used English is the second, third or fourth language. In these places adults often speak English well but do not clearly understand intangible English concept terms, words like ’serious’, ‘contract’, ‘lease’, ‘infection’, ‘responsibility’, guilty …etc. In places where English is the only language spoken the common language used may be an Aboriginal version of English, which uses different meanings for a whole range of intangible English words. Many intangible terms may still be misunderstood or not used at all. Sometimes it is ‘Aboriginal English’ that is the local language that must be learnt.
5. Mixing English and Aboriginal languages produces a bastardised kriol, that reduces literacy outcomes. – English itself is actually a kriol, a mixture of Olde English dialects, a well as German, French, Latin and more. For English, this ‘bastardisation’ actually improved the vocabulary and the accuracy of the language, so that today it is one of the most accurate languages in the world. So the original assumption about kriols is simply not true. However, kriols can result in a loss of linguistic and conceptual ability when the parent languages are not being properly taught. This is happening on Aboriginal communities today due to the exclusive use of English by dominant culture personnel, limiting the ability of personnel to communicate, or teach, intangible English terms to locals.

All together, local Aboriginal languages are no more difficult to learn than any other language, in some way they are easier, but using them in education does require a local/regional approach to education.