Acknowledgement of Country: My objections
'I begin today by acknowledging the <insert name of people here (e.g. Ngunnawal)> people, Traditional Custodians of the land on which we <gather/meet> today, and pay my respects to their Elders past and present. I extend that respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples here today.'1
Respect matters
I quite enjoy living in a harmonious and cohesive society. Conforming to societal norms, and undertaking the odd civil formality seems like a small price to pay.
One of those formalities is showing respect where due.
I would no more wish to disrespect the elders of a First Nations community than I would any other community.
Vietnamese-, Greek-, Chinese-, Indian-, Bolivian-, or Icelandic-Australian. Doesn't matter.
Despite that, I think that institutionalized acknowledgement of First Nations people is problematic.
I object to the practice for multiple reasons:
- The sentiments expressed are inauthentic, and divorced from common experience.
- The purpose is unclear, without stated goals or performance metrics.
- It is exclusive, and implicitly dismissive of other communities.
- The practical outcomes are pointlessly divisive.
"You're a racist" is the obvious response for anyone disagreeing with my opinion. Though I'd reject that out of hand, it's difficult to refute when the term has become separated from its literal definition. This epithet as commonly used Australia is now a semantic equivalent for the sentiment "you disagree with my view on Indigenous affairs". Defined thusly it may well be applicable in my case, yet helpfully explains nothing.
Kneejerk reaction
Like everyone, I have a phenotype. I have found over the years that there are things I like or dislike without definable reason. Normally it can be traced to some unconscious environmental influence. Sometimes this has been to my detriment. Accordingly, when I have an instant negative reaction to something (like an 'Acknowledgement of Country') I like to examine the causes and evaluate the rationality of the response. This post owes its existence to that habit.
When hearing "I pay my respects to their Elders past, present, and emerging" my visceral response is decidedly negative.
My immediate reaction is to wonder if anyone in the room knows who we're talking about.
These 'Elders' are apparently important people, as the transfer of solemn respect is automatic, and non-optional.
Which is odd given their low profile.
In my 50+ years of knocking about this country I've never:
- met an 'Elder',
- attended a function where one was present, or
- known one to play a role in a community I've been part of.
Ok, my experience is my experience. YMMV.
I don't doubt Indigenous elders exist, and have important roles in certain communities.
But my experience says that the role they play in the lives of ordinary Australians like me is negligible.
So what's with the continuous rote acknowledgment?
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
What's the purpose?
I find it interesting that I don't know why we perform this ritual.
Practices that are pervasive are normally accompanied by a well known rationale.
Can you articulate your own understanding of the reason for ubiquitous and continuous acknowledgements? Perhaps I just missed the memo...
ChatGPT blats out the the following three purposes for an 'Acknowledgement of Country' (AofC):
Respect for Tradition: It honors the First Nations peoples' enduring relationship with the land. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a profound connection to their Country (a term used to describe their ancestral lands), and this connection shapes their culture, spirituality, and identity.
Cultural Awareness: It raises awareness among non-Indigenous Australians and visitors about the history of colonization and its impact on the Indigenous population.
Reconciliation: The AofC is part of broader efforts in Australia to reconcile with its past, particularly the historical injustices faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples during colonization, including dispossession of land and cultural oppression.
If you think ChatGPT is a sketchy source, maybe try one of these:
- Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country - indigenous.gov.au
- Acknowledgement of Traditional Owners - firstpeoplesrelations.vic.gov.au
- Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country - indigenous.unsw.edu.au
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
The problematic bits
The above three purposes seem to me to be a mix of the unnecessary and the inauthentic.
Respect for Tradition
Do we respect Aboriginal traditions? 2 We seem generally impressed by the apparent sustainability of pre-colonial indigenous culture, and the unique and ingenious strategies/adaptations employed. But what significant traditions or parts of indigenous culture have actually been adopted by non-Aboriginal Australians? 3
Is it related more to respecting the people than the traditions? Nothing wrong with that. Except, we don't provide the same bandwidth to other ethnicities and community groups. What's that about?
Cultural Awareness
It strains credulity to assert that the majority of Australians are ignorant of our colonial origins. Does anyone think Aboriginals willingly or peacefully ceded their lands?
There is no crisis of denial. We're all well aware of the devastating effect that colonization had on indigenous communities.
Reconciliation
Do the majority of Australians see "Reconciliation" as an important issue? It's not something that I hear in my day to day conversations (despite the amount of national media airtime it received during the "Voice" campaign). Is this due to a general lack of familiarity with indigenous issues and perspectives? 4 Or is it actually that few of us feel any personal connection with (or responsibility for) the events and actions that accompanied colonization?
Mean spirited?
If even one indigenous person hears an AofC and feels empowered and validated, that seems like a positive. Where's the harm?
If used judiciously and within appropriate contexts, I'd probably align myself with supporters of AofC rituals.
When it is shot-gunned across our entire public discourse, it's a different matter. Frequency and context matter.
People are amazingly tolerant, until they aren't.
Habitual, repetitive renditions of anything quickly lose both impact and meaning.
The insertion of topics unrelated to the purpose of a public gathering is generally a discourteous/disrespectful thing to do.
It is particularly so when your audience doesn't understand the rationale, or doesn't agree with it.
Repeated intrusions of this form result only in irritation and annoyance.
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
Why do we persist?
So why do we perform these AofCs, and with such regularity?
Motivations for AofC may vary. I don't want to dismiss or downplay those with genuine and sincere intent. However, on the whole, I suspect institutional AofCs mostly address the discomfort and empathetic urges of the high minded and good willed 5 non-indigenous community. Perhaps the contentious term "white guilt" has relevance here. Indigenous community benefits (if they exist at all) seem of only secondary or collateral relevance.
Australian vernacular would label this a Claytons solution. The impotent facsimile you offer when you can't or won't supply the desired product 6.
Want to kick the can down the road? Fine, let's implement some perfunctory, performative, virtue signaling 7. At least we'll look like we're doing something...
Perhaps the less cynical see the protocol as having some practical role in manufacturing an alternate and better future. I'd love to hear some explanation of that mechanism.
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
Unity vs. division
Aboriginal disadvantage should not be an "us vs them" issue (Indigenous vs non-indigenous).
Such framing only encourages tribalism.
The recent "Voice" initiative made this mistake. There is an important insight to be gained there:
Indigenous disadvantage in this country needs to be understood for what it really is: Australian disadvantage.
A disempowered Aboriginal is a disempowered Australian. That should be anathematic to all of us.
It's time to rethink and refocus. The fact that our indigenous population would disproportionately benefit from efforts in support of underprivileged Australians is both self-evident and totally appropriate.
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
The risk
We live in a world that is trending back to nationalism, factionalism, and brutal self-interest.
Our liberal and benevolent democracy should not be taken for granted.
Being a nation-continent derived primarily from a common heritage has afforded us certain unique advantages. (Ironically, those who now lament the manner of our nation's creation are afforded that capability by the very success of that which they criticize.)
A nation of continuing immigration, our homogeneity of heritage is decreasing. This trend can be judged positively or negatively only by referencing specific contexts. One of the positive aspects of a mono-cultural ancestry is a high level of unity. Multi-culturalism can challenge this, but only if we reject a pan-cultural identity and a commonality of core values.
To sacrifice unity and harmony while chasing a fairytale Shangri-La where all cultural interests (no matter how antithetical and mutually incompatible) are accommodated is inane. So too the penchant for self-flagellating judgement by application of modern context to historical actions.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
Learning from History
The current proclivity for elevating and mythologizing indigenous culture has benefits. But let us not ignore the single most relevant lesson Aboriginal history teaches. That is, the fragility of a disunified and un-prepared8 society in the face of serious external threats.
Millennia of Aboriginal ascendancy was demolished across 7.7 million square kilometers within a few short decades. It was perfunctorily swept aside by an uncoordinated mercantile cast of shepherds, cattlemen, and miners9. Notwithstanding recent attempts to aggrandize 10 11 the resistance capabilities of indigenous people, it is hard not to conclude that the "frontier wars" had more in common with a state-supported campaign of pest eradication12 than any generally-accepted notion of 18th or 19th century warfare.
Those who seek to extract meaning from the Aboriginal experience in Australia should carefully internalize this lesson.
Our country will face existential threats in the future. It may be a foreign power. It may be climate change or a devastating pandemic. It may be something as yet completely unappreciated. If, as a nation, we let slip our precious unity, we risk internecine conflict and internal fracture. To do so would be to deservedly expose ourselves to the same fate as pre-colonial Australia.
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
Unified Support
One of the take-home messages from the "Voice" was that national initiatives require national support.
To tackle disadvantage at a national level requires the support of the entire population. To get this you avoid the harmful "us" and "them" dichotomy. You focus on commonalities, not differences. Solutions that have broad community support are underpinned by an implicit notion of relevance and self interest within that society. It's hard not to conclude that the divisive, eye-glazing, reality-denying, virtue-signaling charades we currently endure fail that test.
🧍🏼♂️🧍🏻♂️🧍♂️🧍🏽♂️🧍🏾♂️🧍🏿♂️
https://www.indigenous.gov.au/contact-us/welcome_acknowledgement-country↩
The implication is not that indigenous traditions and culture are not valued, appreciated, or are inherently inferior to those of the majority. They obviously hold deep significance within Indigenous communities. The point is simply that in mainstream situations where there has been a choice between the two (law, lore, language, foods, lifestyle, technology, philosophy, religion) the indigenous option rarely achieves predominancy (or even widespread adoption). Accordingly, the continuous AofC claim of "respecting" indigenous traditions, while never actually adopting or participating in them, gives the impression that this "respect" is actually only lip service. Is that not actually the opposite of "respect"?↩
At times, indigenous tradition or practice has been co-opted to legitimize initiatives that would have proceeded anyway. The justification of controlled burns (a well known practice in western society) by association with indigenous "firestick farming" is an example.↩
As I have mentioned elsewhere, due to demographics and geography, most of us don't know many indigenous Australians.↩
Peter Sutton Jun 12, 2021 Good Weekend Talks. 4m12s↩
Sovereignty, reparations, land-back, abolishing 'colonial' institutions, integration of native laws & lore, language, wages back etc.↩
The issue is often raised by indigenous peoples ie.: "Increasingly there are criticisms of its performative function." - Megan Davis.↩
Structurally, culturally, technologically.↩
1835: The Founding of Melbourne & the Conquest of Australia. James Boyce. ISBN: 9781760644802↩
Readers may find the terminology "pest eradication" (in the context of this work) to be highly offensive. I use it for its brutal honesty in summarizing the social and power dynamics in play. It is not used to malign First Nations peoples. There is no challenge here to the bravery, skill, or resilience of indigenous warriors. Nor the justness of their cause. History shows the post-1788 Indigenous experience to be one of violence, dispossession, exploitation, land theft, cultural destruction, and continued trauma. Notwithstanding certain small Aboriginal victories, there was no Isandlwana in Australia, no Retreat from Kabul, no Indian Mutiny, no Little Bighorn, no Dien Bien Phu. The "frontier wars" can only be dispassionately assessed as one-sided campaigns of extermination. British military force, when it was used, appears to have been very limited in scale and extent. The disparity in power, the dehumanization of victims, the massacre of non-combatant women and children, the cruelty of methods, the participation of non-military formations, the dearth of existential justification, and the lack of accountability do not speak to me of wartime military operations. If I have erred here, I apologize in advance. Regardless of appropriateness of terminology, the lopsided reality should give rise to an appreciation for just how unprepared and vulnerable Indigenous peoples were. It's uncomfortable to say it, as it reeks of victim blaming, but the Indigenous population were not purely inactive bystanders in this apocalyptic drama. To characterize them as such would be to strip them of their essential agency. Had pre-colonial Indigenous culture and society operated differently it is possible that the results of European contact may also have been different. This is the point the author is attempting to highlight.↩