25 June, 2007

Native Title Myths

I'm still working on my other post, a response to current issues, but in the mean time I think it would be beneficial to go through some myths about Native Title, and what it means in Australia. These myths and misconceptions I have heard from speaking with other people, listening to the media and from reading a number of articles. It is by no means a comprehensive list of misconceptions about Native Title in Australia. If anyone has any questions about Native Title, I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability (I have some cultural heritage management knowledge, but I'm not a lawyer).

Myth 1: Native Title means that all our land can be taken.
Native Title is only applicable over land which has a demonstrated continual connection with land for Indigenous people. When this connection has been demonstrated, Native Title will only apply on land in which that Title has not been extinguished. This is the result of the Mabo decision.

Myth 2: Aborigines can take over our backyards.
Most people's backyards are freehold properties. Freehold land has had all Native Title extinguished. That means your backyard is safe and it is impossible for Native Title to ever be successfully claimed by and a claimant group.

Myth 2.1: But Aborigines claimed Perth.
Aborigines claimed the land over Perth for technical reasons. All freehold land, and other land in which Native Title has been extinguished, will never be part of the claim. The claim was simply a claim over all "claimable" areas left in Perth, meaning all non-extinguished land.

Myth 3: Aborigines are going to force farmers from their land.
The Wik decision found that Aborigines were able to claim Native Title over pastoral lease land, when that claim does not impinge on the land-holder. This court case decided that Native Title is a bundle of rights, and as such Aborigines can claim Native Title over pastoral leasel land, and will be given Title and Rights over the land for only a segment of the entire Title which does not conflict with the land-holder. This means that Aboriginal parties can undertake traditional activities, such as hunting, clearing, and traversing the country, when these activities are not in contradiction with current activities.

21 June, 2007

While we are waiting...

I'm currently working on a new post regarding the Aborigines of Australia. There is a lot in the news lately, a lot of misleading statements, false remarks, and racist representations. I hope to deal with these issues and hopefully convince whoever reads my post that we should take a step back from brink, and look at the Indigenous People of Australia as the genuine owners of the Land and treat them with the respect that they deserve.

In the mean time, I will leave you with a single part of the Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse "Little Children are Sacred" (this is the report on which the government is basing it current reactive approach to dealing with child abuse in Aboriginal communities) - take into consideration how this issue has been portrayed by government and the media. Note: Emphasis mine.

Myth: Aboriginal men are the only offenders

While the incidence of sexual abuse of Aboriginal children
is a significant problem, it does not follow that all
Aboriginal males are offenders, or that Aboriginal males are
responsible for all offending against Aboriginal children. It is
the Inquiry’s experience that the sexual abuse of Aboriginal
children is being committed by a range of non-Aboriginal
and Aboriginal offenders – and these are a minority of the
overall Australian male population.

As would be expected in any community, most of the
Aboriginal men the Inquiry spoke with found the idea
of child sexual abuse abhorrent and advocated severe,
sometimes fatal, physical punishments for offenders.
The Inquiry recognises that Aboriginal communities, and
Aboriginal men, must be supported to better address the
abuse and violence in their communities, but remains
concerned that, at times, Aboriginal men have been
targeted as if they were the only perpetrators of child
sexual abuse in communities. This is inaccurate and
has resulted in unfair shaming, and consequent further
disempowerment, of Aboriginal men as a whole

The entire report can be found here (note: pdf document).

Update: Just to make things more clear, I put the emphasis in that quote, it is not found in the original document (contrary to what some blogs said when they misquoted my emphasis of the quote). Its not important, but I'm a stickler for details.

05 June, 2007

Another list of films

Here is a list of films that I have found to be very good, but also quite intellectually stimulating. I know that sound really pretentious, but for the sake of description and categorising, that is how I perceive these films. To be on this list, I have actually had a discussion of each of these films with someone else who has seen the same film.

The New World - A film by Terrence Mallick. It tells the story of Pocahontas. It is a huge movie, with wide open shots. It instils a sense of tranquillity, the calm before the storm of European colonization of the New World. It deals with Pocahontas and the clash between civilizations. My only gripe? It is too far embedded in the notion of the Noble Savage.

Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) - A film by Ridley Scott. The original film is boring, confusing and messy. The director's cut is neat, nice and epic in scope. I recommend watching the director's cut. It deals with the Crusades, largely from the perspective of Balian of Ibelin who is somewhat an active-observer to the entire Crusades. This film asks about religion, the nature of our faith and of God. At about 3-hours, it is quite lengthy. It is important to watch the Director's Cut, the original film does not make sense.

Fantastic Planet (La Plan├Ęte sauvage) - I've talked about this film in a previous post.

Silent Running - Again, I've talked about this film before.

Ten Canoes - A story within a story. The story of a young man and what happens when he listens to his elders, or when he doesn't. It is a description about the nature of story-telling in Aboriginal society from a white director's (Rolf de Heer) perspective.

Ashes and Snow - An art film from Gregory Colbert, narrated by Lawrence Fishburne. A poetic description of the connection between people and animals. Highly evocative visuals, film score and narration.

The Prestige - What is magic? What are secrets? How far would people go to find the answers to these questions.

The Last King of Scotland - A young doctor's slow decent into realising that a charismatic leader is more monster than human.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada - A sad movie about people who are distant, emotionally and socially. The disconnect between us all and how modern society doesn't seem to be quite well when it comes to interpersonal connections.

The Mosquito Coast - Peter Weir film, starring Harrison Ford. Ford goes anti-capitalist, goes bush and lives with a notion of the noble savage. He takes his entire family along for the ride. As they detach themselves from the world, they become more desperate.

Incident at Loch Ness - A fake documentary by Zak Penn, starring Werner Herzog. Its a funny film and get more and more sillier as the film progresses.

Grizzly Man - A documentary film by Werner Herzog. Timothy Treadwell is a grizzly bear activist. This film focuses on his relationship with the bears, which ends with an attack by a grizzly.

04 June, 2007

My T-Shirt Design

I have had a request about what is written on the T-Shirt that I have designed. Truthfully, nothing really has been written, it is just a long paragraph of nothingness. I designed this shirt as sort of a satire about university, where university and the related work is just reiterating and rehashing everything, which is largely meaningless. Anyway, without further ado, here's the full text. It is in an image format, and the colours have been changed so that no-one can steal my design!

To see a larger version, click on the image.

I might make some other designs. They will be linked through the cafepress banner on the side of the blog.

01 June, 2007

Inherent cultural relativism in the interpretation of the Bible

I've heard people talk about the Absolute of the Word of God. That may be so, but at what point does the Word of God cease being an absolute concept and is altered/changed/adjusted into a relativist concept? Some people talk about the Bible as the Word of God, does this mean the Bible is absolute? How can it be absolute when you have different translations of the original text?

This is my starting point for arguing that inherently the Bible is a cultural relative phenomenon that must be approached as such to understand the relevance and importance of its message. On the issue of translations, if the Bible were originally written in Hebrew (Old Testament) or Classic Greek (New Testament), how can we who read the translated English versions argue that what we are reading is the "truth"? Doesn't the actual process of translation make the end product an exercise in cultural relativism? You see the different translations, King James, NIV etc., why are these different? A translation will need to be approached in the context of the culture that it was written, and only then can a more-correct translation be made. If the text was an absolute, would it not require only a simple literal-translation of the words?

Language changes through time, this often is a reflection of reality or the way that reality is perceived shapes the language. If language is a direct reflection of our culture wouldn't the manifestation of The Word in our own language(s) be a step in the alteration of the Absolute into the relative. Cultural terms, phrases and sayings must be used to explain concepts that may not be fully understood in a different cultural context. So when the Bible was first written down, that would constitute an act of cultural relativism, whereby through its very nature as a written document, any Absolutism is lost. Therefore, we must approach older texts and even cross-cultural modern texts in the context of the author and the cultural setting to understand its meaning.

I'm not arguing that the Absolute cannot exist, but I argue that the Absolute does not exist in the context of people/human. It cannot exist in our minds, because we are cultural beings and will therefore be shaped and moulded in that form. The absolute can only exist in a non-cultural framework, but this can never exist. If people were a-cultural (without culture), that would make us just like the animals.