Token ceremony openings must be brought to an end

James1 says:

01:44pm | 18/03/10

All that does is show you have no understanding of Mr Darwin’s theory.

(another) Peter says:

09:16am | 18/03/10

What, off your shoe do you mean?

If you mean scrapped I agree, but only if the true values of Jesus Christ
are allowed to remain, as opposed to the twisted, man-made construct we call religion.

John A Neve says:

07:06am | 18/03/10

Christian,

May I suggest you read my response to Kit, above us.
You and those like you a perpetuating division, it’s not smart and it does this country no good.

Just about all you responses are tinged with anger and that is self destructive,

Eric says:

03:30pm | 17/03/10

Well said, Will!

Mr Gardiner, will you condemn ceremonies of welcome and acknowledgement for Aboriginals in the same way you have condemned the “Lord’s Prayer”?

Let’s see some consistency here.

Fred says:

03:16pm | 17/03/10

Martin judging by your comments alone you actually have no idea what is needed for this country to move forward.  Do you have any background, credentials, anything at all that gives you the right to comment on this subject matter so freely and thoughtlessly.  Do you actually have any idea what the Indigenous people of this country could use to stop being disadvantaged in nearly every area of life??

Because if you do, the current and every past government would like to know.

All races are equal, but some races are less equal than others.  Get back to me when you know how to fix the life expectancy, suicide rate, mental health, alcoholism, diabetes, liver failure, kidney failure, depression… I could keep going.  How dare you imply that these people are treated more equal than others.

Tom Roberts says:

02:39pm | 17/03/10

Right on Henry. White fellahs mouthing some rhetorical nonsense about people long gone - now thats real catapillar dreaming - what are you people smoking. Instead of words how about better housing, education and health and some real law and order on remote communities. Its like the Apology which made all the white fellahs feel good and left the black fellahs still wondering.

Peter says:

08:55am | 18/03/10

Very smart. I’m just sticking to the facts, and all i get is smart arse responses. If you listen to the Femmes, that is the only line of attack they have and have been getting away with it for years.. Let’s not stick to the facts because that is a poor way to create policy.. I’ll take my hat off to the femmes though, even though they have everything they need and lets be honest, women (quite rightly) are treated like gold in this country, they have this government department which should really be called “The Office of the Downtrodden” and are successfully sucking extra money out of the system. The femmes certainly have been persistant..

bec says:

05:42pm | 17/03/10

Once, a feminist kicked his puppy and made fun of his hat. BONE HARD MEDICAL FACT.

Peter says:

03:44pm | 17/03/10

I am scared, just look at how much they spooked Tony “over my dead body” Abbott.. Mate, I LOVE women, what i don’t like is an entire government department who sole purpose is to create unnecessary programs directed at one group, ask for handouts for a group of privledged women with degrees who think it is their right to welfare money they don’t need. You might say, there are only 20 women in the house of reps, but I can guarantee you, there is not a single man in that place. We are underrepresented….

Nic says:

03:14pm | 17/03/10

You seem to have some sort of obsession with feminists Peter. Why is that? Do they scare you pet?

Felix says:

02:57pm | 17/03/10

Love the 3 year old driving comparison! Spot on, Davies.

Christian Real says:

04:18am | 18/03/10

Robert Smissen of Rural S.A
Robert, all the significent ‘Australians’  appear to come from the decendants of the convicts who arrived in ships on this Country’s shores.
An interesting bit of history that I found on the net was that “Between 1788 and 1850 the English sent over 162,000 convicts to Australia in 806 ships.”
The first ‘Boatpeople to arrive on our Country’s shores’ ?

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

02:21pm | 17/03/10

Christian Real, not only should the flag of Great Britain be proudly displayed on our flag, the flag of New Zealand should be on the opposing corner, that way you will be able to see at a glance where all the significant “Australians” come from & that we acknowledge their tremendous contribution to Australia.

John A Neve says:

02:18pm | 17/03/10

Christian,

The Australian flag is not the Australian flag without the Union Jack.  As to photos in public buildings, who ever looks at them?

But tell us Christian, why do you change the subject every time you have no answers?  Debate too strong for you?

peter says:

12:12am | 18/03/10

Thomas, I take it that when you say “the aboriginal people” you are actually referring to the Aboriginal people who (in at least a tokenistic sense) have a say in this i.e. those on the Board of Management of Uluru Kata Tjuta National Park.

In other words, people who I know personally, who have English as a second and sometimes third language and who are forced by their white administrators to conduct such complex management meetings solely in English. The same people who are used by radical atheists who are top level managers within Parks Australia (I could name them too if I thought it would be published) to incessantly push their own agendas including not climbing the rock, but claiming they are only passing on the views of the traditional owners (TOs). Why don’t you speak to people like Ted Egan about the TOs he knew in the 50s and 60s, the ones who still had a connection with aeons of uninterrupted Aboriginal culture? He will tell you they weren’t offended by people climbing the rock, they merely thought it was mildly amusing.

A “tourist guide” was the single person quoted by a media source that started the whole “pooping on the rock” feeding frenzy. But did the media dig a little deeper and discover that he was not a guide at all, but the GM of a tourism business whose bread and butter comes solely out of a good relationship with Parks Australia?

Did any reporter find any subsequent evidence of this actually occurring? Did they find out that the top of the Rock is full of large indentations that would contain any such poo poo activity even if it happened? Did they talk with a biologist about the rapid sterilization effects of UV on faeces anyway?

Are you talking about the same Aboriginal people who live in the unfortunately dysfunctional community of Mutitjulu whose only opportunity of employment is with the very Park they live in, controlled by it’s regulations as if they’re just tacked on flora and fauna?
Bjelke would be proud, Parks Australia just “feeds the chooks” and the unquestioning media pack lap it all up. Problem is so do the ill-informed public, people like you.

In a country where most people will never visit the outback and where
80% of people will never even meet an Aboriginal person in their entire life, we need to carefully discriminate between what we are told and what we believe to be true.

thomas vesely says:

04:06pm | 17/03/10

and yet,when the aboriginal people ask that people not climb the rock they meet with “its a tourist prerogative”.hypocrisy,big time

Fred says:

04:21pm | 17/03/10

Eric don’t put words in my mouth.  What I asked was what harm is being caused by this?

Eric says:

03:28pm | 17/03/10

Fred,

Why is it so important to you that an AMA meeting should begin with an irrelevant tribute?

Fred says:

01:24pm | 17/03/10

Cricket I don’t know anyone claiming that this situation is unique.  It is unique in the sense that our gap in life expectancy is the worst in any western developed nation but as far as I know that’s about it?

Does it bother you so much that the PM acknowledged the traditional land owners at an AMA meeting?? Does it really?  What harm is being done to you by him doing this?  Please, if he is causing you, or anyone else any harm, let me know.  But as long as this isn’t doing any harm I have no idea why people have a problem with it.  And don’t give me this ‘practical reconciliation’ argument.  Everything begins with words.

Bob says:

12:17pm | 17/03/10

Virtue ethics for individual politicians, with a combination of utilitarianism and Kantian being used for the introduction of laws, with utilitarianism being held as absolutely necessary, but requiring a detailed explanation as to why it should be introduced if it doesn’t meet the criteria for Kantian ethics.

John A Neve says:

10:22am | 17/03/10

Chris,
Do ethics have to be Christian based?
Can ethics have any religious base e.g. Islam, Buddist?

Could not ethics be as a result of human welbeing?  You know do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

DG says:

10:00am | 17/03/10

Bob - I agree entirely.

Like farmers in remote areas and other communities in the sticks - if you choose to live where there are no resources, then that your choice.

A 200 person community does not justify a world class hospital, nor does 2000. If you live in such community, and have no means of travelling 600km to the nearest clinic, you’ll die. 

Unfortunately, going back to a hunter gather existence isn’t really possible any further either. The land has been given, the younger generations have left the community (one way or another), there are rules about hunting and justice, community values have been mixed with western ideals and essentially the Aboriginal way of life has been destroyed.

As an Aboriginal man is hurts to admit it, but that’s just the say it seems to me. Many in the Aboriginal community are not yet willing to surrender the dream of self-determination with the wealth of the western world, and the respect that was once found in traditional communities.

Fred says:

04:17pm | 17/03/10

Ha!  Eric calling someone else ignorant.  Now that is funny.

Kit says:

03:38pm | 17/03/10

Haha, the old “I’m not homophobic, I have tons of gay friends. But seriously, marriage is only for the straights.” argument raises it’s head here. I’m sure your “dozens of aboriginal friends” makes you a total expert on the subject. Using your logic, my indigenous partner clearly gives me like the equivalent of a PhD in aboriginal studies then! Whew. Lucky.
And I speak because I have attended diversity lectures and heard directly from people their want to be validated, I have spoken with colleagues and friends of their desire for their families and their own histories to be acknowledged. I will say again, just because it is not your experience/opinion that this is necessary, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t hold relevance and meaning to others.
And Watty, the ‘Welcome to Country’ was originally exclusively performed by an Aboriginal elder who spoke on behalf of the tribe of that area. Recently, after discussions with a council of elders, it was extended to allow other people to perform an ‘Acknowledgement of Country’ in which you give the verbal nod to the people of that region. Further information is usually available through government and council websites if you’d like to do some reading.

Eric says:

03:24pm | 17/03/10

Kit, you can have my land when you have the ability to take it.

It’s not as simple as a declaration. Some tribes may declare that they still “own” Australia, but the reality is they only own what the government allows them.

That’s the difference between your fantasy world and reality. I suggest you read some history - the real stuff from original sources, not whatever stupidity was shoved down your throat at school.

In a few years, you might overcome your ignorance.

watty says:

01:03pm | 17/03/10

Hi Kit.  Thanks for longwided explanation of what belongs to who .

Just one question…..when did “welcome to country ” become Aboriginal tradition and more importantly who has the right to offer this welcome…an initiated Aborigine man or woman, a part Aborigine with no traditional rights who possibly hasn’t resided within coeee of the region.

I have been welcomed to many Aboriginal homes, demountables even humpies but don’t remember being “welcomed to country”

Is this something new (within past 30 years) or does it date back 60,000 years.

Boomerang Jack says:

12:38pm | 17/03/10

Kit, the tradition only holds meaning for white people trying to allay their guilt. It was started in 1976 by Ernie Dingo (seriously) not because he thought it was the right thing to do for Indigenes, but because some Maori folk in the audience refused to be seated until it was done. The Aborigines present never asked for it and were actually annoyed that they had to wait for the show to start. But you wouldn’t know how the ragibigibles feel because you are not one - I am friends with dozens of them, however, and they all think it’s a patronising load of crap.  So off your high horse and think about how others actually perceive things and not how you think they should perceive them.

Kit says:

11:04am | 17/03/10

Hey Jack, just to let you know, the land your house is on is now mine. Any cars/clothes/other possessions that may have been on this land are also mine. Consequently (if you have a religion) the land your temple/church/etc is on is also mine, as is any land where you may have buried family and friends. You may not ever return to this land, because I say so. I will bulldoze, plough and build upon it as I like. It’s possible I will erect a shopping mall over land you consider spiritual, the sacred place where you bury your dead or perform solemn rituals is now a park where screaming children can frolic noisily. And no, I won’t ever acknowledge the loss for you or your family.
It is possible that you will never understand what it feels like for our indigenous people, but just because you can’t wrap your head around it, please don’t p*ss all over it the tradition which means a great deal to a whole lot of people, who have been fighting for years to be recognised and acknowledged.

Fred says:

08:13am | 17/03/10

Meaningless to whom?  Who are you to say it doesn’t mean anything when clearly these acknowledgements are not being made to you.  They mean a lot to a great deal of people.  The people it’s being directed at.  So who are you to try and take that away from them because you think it’s meaningless??

Eric says:

03:14pm | 17/03/10

DG, I welcome people to my house - but I don’t welcome them to your house.

The act of “welcome” implies ownership. It says that I don’t partake in the ownership of my own country. I reject that.

Felix says:

02:54pm | 17/03/10

What is worse Eric is when it is done by a fair skinned mixed race person for a fee. who charges a fee.

If a welcome is genuine, why is there a fee attached? Other than greed and hypocricy, that is.

Martin G says:

02:24pm | 17/03/10

@DG “Out of curiosity, when someone turns up to your house and knocks on the door - do you welcome them before they enter? “

Well hold on a sec, I was born here and have lived here my whole life. What right does anyone have to ‘welcome’ me to my own country?

It’s all just overused leftist-guilt and tokenism. It’s pathetic.

Where do we stop with this?

To use an example I came across: Should every Brit of Norman, Norse, or Roman descent “acknowledge” those who are descended from the Celts, the Brigantes, etc? How would you even be able to tell anymore?

DG says:

09:16am | 17/03/10

Eric it’s “welcome to country” not welcome to “the country”. It is the different between a country landscape and the country of Australia.

The word country in that regard is a reference to to land of the people (in the case of Canberra, the Nungawal people) who inhabited the land despite the declaration of terra nullius around 230 years ago.

You are not welcomed because of the colour of your skin, you are welcomed because you are not of the Nungawal people.

A simple rule Eric, if the speaker is a local Aboriginal elder it is a welcome to country, if the person is not a local Aboriginal elder is it an Acknowledgment.

And Eric, your response to Fred was highly misleading - when a person from outside of Australia (where the Government represents) come to this country and attends a formal function of the Government they will be welcomed to Australia. Just as a function held in New South Wales may welcome people who have come from other States.

The reason that the Government doesn’t welcome Aboriginal people is because, simply put, Aboriginal people are part of the Australian Community. Australian’s are not necessarily part of the Aboriginal community.

Out of curiosity, when someone turns up to your house and knocks on the door - do you welcome them before they enter?

Fred says:

08:23am | 17/03/10

Eric I don’t understand your question.  You’re using the terms ‘Welcome to Country’ and ‘ceremonies’ as if they’re the same thing.  They are not.  1 is a few quick words to acknowledge the traditional land owners.  The other is a ceremony performed that has great and deep spiritual connections that have lasted thousands of years. 

Are you implying that these ‘white people’ should be doing these ceremonies as well?

Eric says:

08:04am | 17/03/10

If that’s the case, Fred, why aren’t white people giving “welcome to country” ceremonies to Aborigines?

Fred says:

07:58am | 17/03/10

Eric the welcome isn’t just for people whose skin is of a different colour.  Aboriginal people do it when visiting other areas as well.  Everyone does it, despite race.  Therefore your racism argument smacks of stupidity.

Fred says:

11:09am | 18/03/10

Eric you really are a serial pest.  I’m not saying you’re wrong about the changing environment and mammals going extinct, but I’m not saying Kit is wrong either.  The fact is you’re both right.  Yes, the environment did change.  And yes, most tribes did follow rules that meant no hunting young or pregnant animals.

Now do you think you could agree to that?

Eric says:

03:51pm | 17/03/10

Kit, you are extremely ignorant about the history of the Aboriginal people.

Just one example: They did not preserve the environment as they found it - they modified it as radically as we latter-day immigrants did. Australia had large numbers of giant mammals - just like Africa, Europe and Asia. But within a few thousand years of human arrival, all these large mammals were hunted into extinction, leaving nothing bigger than a kangaroo.

Also, the forest coverage was much greater before humans arrived, but the Aborigines set up a regime of burning that radically altered the landscape. Such was the extent of their impact, that some plant species now need fire to reproduce optimally!

You seem to have good intentions, but your knowledge of Australian history is very lacking. You should study for a few years.

John A Neve says:

03:37pm | 17/03/10

Kit,
I thank you for your view, while accepting some of it, I think you are gilding the Lilly with other parts. But I can undrstand you bias.

The maintenance, you mention, was of course adhered to by all hunter/gatherers, it is not unique to early Australians.

In answer to your questing regarding ceremonial openings, oaths, pledges etc. While doing me no harm, they also do me no good. More to the point they can be and are divisive and have been for at least the last 50 years.  We live in a world of greed and envy, to promote difference is to cause division, anger and in some cases hate, we either unite as a people or continue this war of words.

Most Europeans or those of European descent know of invasion first hand, we live with it and have done, for centuries. Early Australians need to learn and learn fast, because the divide is widening.

Kit says:

03:06pm | 17/03/10

John, I offer my opinion not to enter into an argumentative debate, but in the hopes maybe you might be willing to accept another point of view to this issue. I do doubt we’d be willing to even meet halfway though.
“Traditional owners” is actually the name we white Australians have coined, many text books from my high school days refered to Aboriginals as the traditional owners of Australia meaning we acknowledge this wasn’t “terra nullus” when the English arrived. I’m sure you are aware “Aboriginal” literally means the native person of that land. I do find it amusing that in the eco-system here we refer to non-native and introduced species as “ecological pests”. Oh the irony.
When I mention our rich history, I am of course refering to the very first culture of our great country. The religions and traditions that were the first practised on our soil hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years ago, traditions and rituals that still take place today, the likes of which we are lucky to have access to! As a nation, England’s history and culture can’t hold a candle to the rites our indigenous people have passed down through many generations.
By your simple question “what maintainence” you demonstrate an ignorance of the Aboriginal culture and a stone view of what maintainence truly is. Before white settlement, Aboriginals lived from the land with a great respect for nature. In some tribes, it was forbidden to kill young males and breeding females of certain animals, to ensure the healthy continuation of the species. No crops were cultivated as the land provided all without the need to disturb it’s balance and no animals were domesticated until the arrival of white man. This is of course because the Aboriginals saw the earth as mother and provider. It was necessary to treat the land with respect and it in turn would offer shelter, food and water.
And that is precisely why I think it is so important to acknowledge these peoples, to go on a tangent for a minute, remember how distraught the people from the Traveston Dam area were about losing their homes? Not just their homes, land that had been in their families for years. Land on which several generations had been raised, that contained memories and history that no dollar value could possibly match, and they were ultimately helpless against the change. They had just a little taste for what it might feel like for Aboriginal tribes.
So I’ve answered your questions, but you danced around the point I made in my first comment, is this issue seriously going to have a negative impact on anyone? Why can’t we validate these people with a simple preamble at the beginning of a speech?

Felix says:

02:52pm | 17/03/10

The majority of ‘your people’ identifying as aboriginal and claiming ownership are also mixed race. Their aboriginal heritage is often a sliver of their ancestry. Denying your true heritage for political, monetary or other purposes doesn’t change the fact that you are mixed race. It just makes you look like a hypocrite.

The whole ‘our people’ crap is what’s causing division among Australians.

Salt-n-Pepper says:

01:48pm | 17/03/10

Oh come now Robert Smissen of Rural SA ! People of your mindset know full well that if all the fair-complexioned people left this wide brown land the motivation for the Indonesians to invade Australia would be gone too! The Indos and other nations of swarthy villains want for Australia for only one thing they lust so much; access to fair-haired goddesses! Well, that is what blonde women tell me.

*snickers*

John A Neve says:

12:10pm | 17/03/10

Kit,

What makes a “traditional owner”?

“Where is the cultural respect for our rich history”, what history are you talking about Kit?

“These people who maintained the land for hundreds of years”, what maintenance was that Kit?

Early Australians were hunter/gatherers nomadic, are you suggesting other wise?

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

12:07pm | 17/03/10

So Christian you want us “impure” people to leave, so the Oz would have a population of less than 200,000 with nothing to stop invasion from the North?  MATE! ! ! ! The Indonesians would roll in, take over & then bring in about 50,000,000 Indonesian settlers, THEN, mate you would get a taste of reality & you would be BEGGING for the likes of Mr. Abbott to come back & save you.

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

12:00pm | 17/03/10

Christian if all the people like The Honorable Mr. Tony Abbott left Australia all you would have would be King of the fumblers Peter Garret, now there’s a scary thought.

Brian B says:

11:15am | 17/03/10

They are not your lands Christian - the public land belongs to all Australian citizens and my particular plot belongs to me. I paid for it and have the title.

Why do you insist on dividing Australians on a “you and us” basis?

And I am not “putting you down”.

Kit says:

10:45am | 17/03/10

I agree Christian! Although inviting those who disagree to leave their home is a little overly defensive.
For years the white Australians opressed our indigenous peoples, treated them less than human, took their land from them, raped their women and stole the “half caste” children. Some family tribes have never recovered from this, and today we live with a whole generation of displaced people who are cut off from their true culture because the white people thought bringing them into our society forcibly was what was best.
I am anglosaxon, my great grandparents travelled here from germany to raise a family, but my partner is aboriginal, and the stories he tells of growing up in rural Australia are tales of lives that we all (in our middle class suburbia) should be made aware of.
I can’t see how acknowledging the traditional owners of the land, the peoples who maintained the land for hundreds of years previously, is going to negatively impact on anyone. Where is the cultural respect for our rich history? It disappoints me that people would so strongly oppose this decision.

John A Neve says:

09:34am | 17/03/10

Christain,

I thank you for your vote of support. But let’s stick to the issue at hand.
It’s not hard Christain, just concentrate, we are talking about ceremonial openings.
The question being do they serve any usefull purpose?

Christian Real says:

08:19am | 17/03/10

John A Neve, you never cease to amaze me with your comments, it is a shame that a person with an intellect mind such as yours did not get elected to H.B.C Council in the 2004 local government elections.

Fred says:

08:06am | 17/03/10

WKH it doesn’t sound like you’ve ever been to a remote Indigenous community.  Try going there and telling them “Great thing about this country is there is always someone that will help you up on your feet. The trick is you have to want it. Help is everywhere.” - Your words, not mine.

WKH says:

07:55am | 17/03/10

Mixed races? You better open your eyes there Christian. You better have a good look into your gene pool. We are all mixed. I would describe a token jester as one done when you don’t really mean it. I wouldn’t! And why should I? It is something that is only politically correct not morally so. I did nothing that I’m sorry for. Do I recognize that there was a much darker race of people here before the white eyes popped up over the horizon? Sure do. Their army met with the invaders army. One lot pointed sticks (the worlds first smart bomb as it come back if you missed) and the other lot pointed muskets. The battle lasted 5 minutes and the original owners of this land lost. Same sort of thing happened in America (kinder) but they ended up having a rematch and the invaders lost and were sent packing. Instead of grizzling about something that happened so long ago and something that can never be changed why don’t you just get on with it? There is opportunity for all of us out there, you just got to reach your hand up and I’m not just talking hand out. Great thing about this country is there is always someone that will help you up on your feet. The trick is you have to want it. Help is everywhere.

John A Neve says:

07:37am | 17/03/10

Christain,

Sadly, you need to move on, early Australians number about 200,000 in a population of around 22million.
You have the same rights as any other Australian, no more, no less.

As to “mixed races”, I would suggest over 90% of the worlds population are of mixed race, I know I am.

As to “our country”, what country are you talking about Christain, I doubt you would really like to live in your country. After all, it has changed a lot since the arrival of caucasians.

Unlike you, I won’t point out you obvious mistakes, I know you are still learning.

Eric says:

07:20am | 17/03/10

“European and other mixed races”?

If there are “mixed” races, are there “pure” ones too? If so, which ones?