What are you on about JG?

In the context of Australia there is no such thing as “cultures that lack writing.�

Obviously, John, traditional Indigenous cultures did not write down their law before contact with white settlers. Therefore the only evidence of what that law is, and what their customs were, which is the key legal issue, is oral tradition.

If you’re happy to support a system of jurisprudence which effectively renders most native title claims impossible, just say so. You don’t have a methodological point to make.

Since you refer to barely competent barristers, you might also look at the degree to which oral evidence is given weight by courts in general matters over written evidence. It is, in many instances, because it can be interrogated and cross examined, and also, in many instances, because it is the only evidence available.

In the context of Australia there is no such thing as “cultures that lack writing.” So, if oral history is all the evidence they have, it must be subject to the same standards of validation as any other evidence.

Those standards may differ among the courts, history writing, social science, etc. but critiqued they must be. It does not surprise me one bit that oral history alone is dismissed as lacking credibility.

But we do not need the High Court or professors of Anthropology to tell us this. Perfectly sophisticated and sound reasons can be given by any first year Psychology student or barely competent barrister.

Either way, Mabo 2 is not relevant to the issue of the validity of oral evidence versus written evidence.

John, it’s very simple, and I’ve explained it a number of times.

In order for native title to be recognised, the claimants have to establish a “connection with the land”.

This has been interpreted to mean that they need to show that traditional custom has continued unbroken.

This was an issue last year with the claim over Perth foreshores, as you might recall, where the Federal Court found against the claimants.

In order to provide evidence of traditional customary law, a comparison has to be made with the customs which were practiced before the land was alienated. For this, the only evidence available from the point of view of Indigenous people themselves is oral tradition. The written evidence (usually dating from the nineteenth century) was not collected with a view to a scientific description of customary law, but for other purposes, and often relies on observation of people whose language wasn’t understood, and whose customs were seen in terms of various then prevalent views.

I’d make the further point that you could hardly do anthropological fieldwork at all if you were to insist that only written evidence be taken cognisance of. In cultures that lack writing, if you want to understand the way they view their own culture, you very clearly cannot rely on written sources.

It isn’t difficult to grasp.

Just for once? Hmmmm…I have not been made aware of any discussion we have had where I have displayed such a want of learning. Perhaps if you had inserted a warning in the thread title that only those who had read and deconstructed “Mabo. 2″ were welcome on this thread…

Either way, Mabo 2 is not relevant to the issue of the validity of oral evidence versus written evidence. Again, think of your students. Nor does it shine any light on your own rhetoric re “colonizers” and “dispossession.”

You know Mark, continually redrawing the parameters of a discussion will ultimately result in a very lonely discussion; one that will mean three-fifths of fuck all to the people you are allegedly advocating for.

Nah, you were a lot better off when you were choosing real words from the actual English language, not these kooky made-up ones.

And please, for once, talk about something after trying to learn about it. You might care to study the High Court’s decision in Mabo no. 2.

As to cultural anthropology, further up the thread you inveighed against “anthropologizing.�

Perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I’ll substitute “othering”.

Clearly this idea underpins your entire point, so some clarity would be helpful.

The issue is one of native title law, John. Dispossession occurs when forms of leasehold or freehold title either extinguish native title rights in part or absolutely. Native title law requires Indigenous claimaints to prove a “continuing connection with the land” and that traditional custom is observed. The difficulty with this is that the observation of traditional custom is clearly impeded either by being removed from the land, or from falling under the supervision and control of missionaries and/or government officers. The Act fails to recognise this, and effectively freezes culture in time, and prioritises, as I’ve said, the written evidence of the colonisers from many years ago (often quite inadequate as anthropological evidence) over oral continuing tradition and customary law. Thus, native title is difficult to claim because of the results of dispossession.

Well given that those “dispossessed” are long dead, the point is surely moot? I think your position would be greatly advanced if you could clarify what you mean by “dispossession.” Clearly this idea underpins your entire point, so some clarity would be helpful.

As to cultural anthropology, further up the thread you inveighed against “anthropologizing.”

Also, I am not persuaded that oral evidence would shine any truth on the issues, ipso facto.

I am alarmed that you would relativize “oral” evidence and culture against written evidence. Do you allow such evidence to underpin your students’ essays?

Again I must ask what is your motive?

It’s evident from the post.

My motive is to end the disgrace of Aboriginal disadvantage.

And the way to do that is through repeating belittling stereotypes?

Muhammad Yunus

He’s a “patronising white”, is he?

The whole point of microcredit is the empowerment of people on the ground. That’s what I’d like to see happening, not shrill pronouncements from “patronising whites”.

“If you thought about that for a moment outside your preconceptions, you’d realise that’s nonsense.”

Rubbish. You must have your eyes and ears closed. Let’s take one example. Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen microcredit, which has helped millions of people escape poverty in Bangladesh and elsewhere, is a middle class economist. He was an oustider and he developed the initiative in toto. It fits perfectly into the “patronising and practical frame” that you poo-poo.

Again I must ask what is your motive?

I was in Vietnam in the late 80s. That was before the country opened up to the West. Most of the people I saw there would have been in awe of the comparative wealth of the average Aboriginal welfare recipient.

I hadn’t noticed that the Vietnamese were reduced to a tiny minority on colonisation by the French, nor that their culture was overwhelmed by white settlers.

You’re grasping at straws, and argument by anecdote and worst case scenario. What your motive in doing so is I have no way of knowing. But the whole point of the post is to criticise the past approach of Labor governments as well precisely for not genuinely devolving responsibility and making self-determination real, and to abjure the idiocy of whitefella partisan shitfights over these issues in favour of actually listening to and empathising with Indigenous people. You appear not to want to do that.

Although it will require patronising whites to get such schemes up and running.

If you thought about that for a moment outside your preconceptions, you’d realise that’s nonsense. But that comment says it all really. It’s not worth engaging with you on these issues.

In Victoria, Child Welfare workers are under instructions not to take action in cases involving Aboriginal children UNLESS the situation is diabolical. So Aboriginal children are left in homes that no white child or Asian child would ever be left in.

To my way of thinking this is a crime, and it is the product of the sort of happy-clapper Lefty thinking that dominates this thread:

“Hey, little Kylie may be raped by Uncle Ben and her arm may broken and her eyes blackened, but it would be patronising and imperialistic to intervene, so we won’t. And heh, at least she still enjoys an otherwise rich cultural life. ”

This rather sad fact has been confirmed by my “social worker-on-the-inside”, as well as having been reported in the Melbourne local papers.

“The second point I’d make is that all these pathologies stem from dispossession and poverty”

Does the pathology stem from the poverty or does the pathology cause the poverty? I suspect it is a two way flow but it is more of the latter.

I was in Vietnam in the late 80s. That was before the country opened up to the West. Most of the people I saw there would have been in awe of the comparative wealth of the average Aboriginal welfare recipient. Yet I didn’t see street fights, drunken mobs, glue sniffing and women and children wandering about with hollow eyes and broken souls as per the NT (not only Alice Springs).

But you are right about Aboriginal women being central to the solution of both poverty and pathology. This has been demonstrated elsewhere, by schemes like micro-credit, that focus on women in impoverished patriachal cultures. Although it will require patronising whites to get such schemes up and running.

BTW, definitive proof of Aboriginal cultural dysfunction pre-colonisation is the case of the Tasmanian Aboriginal. These people were sliding into the Stone Age, for example they lost fishing and cloth making skills, BEFORE whites arrived.

What we should be doing is supporting is the Indigenous women who are fighting on these issues. That’s more productive than giving Nowra a medal, or saying that “we” should be the ones taking action. You know full well, mel, that we’ve had these debates on this blog, and that there’s no “great Australian silence” on those issues here.

The second point I’d make is that all these pathologies stem from dispossession and poverty. In many instances, what we are seeing is bastardisation of traditional custom (according to Indigenous women who’ve spoken out on the issue) – and what we see is the sort of pathology that cultural destruction causes.

Lastly, both you and Rob show a continual inclination to generalise from Alice Springs to the whole of Indigenous Australia. Anglo Aussie culture wouldn’t look too pretty if we assumed all of it was like that of Macquarie Fields.

… if it is to END anytime soon.