Moah colonialism
So, I mentioned at the beginning of my critique of V as colonialism that I was sure PoC who've been subjected to colonialism could talk about it better than I could, and indeed, that's happened.
If you haven't, please read this excellent post by
deepad about colonialism and if you have time,
sanguinity's post (at least) mentioned in it.
I agree strongly with specifically this, and it applies well to V:
I do not believe in SFF produced by the dominant majority to be the key that would unlock its wells of empathy and understanding realisation at its own culpability. I think we are far better served by playing with fantasies that help us practise what it is like to recognise ourselves as oppressors and fight ourselves and our systems. After all, it is not that the colonised did not have enough stories of resistance to inspire them to become heroes. The problem was that the colonialists did not have enough stories of repentance and rethinking to prevent them from becoming monsters.
But it feels ironic and awkward that what
deepad and
sanguinity and
coffeeink are discussing is partly specifically Australian colonialism, which I don't think I've talked much about. I'm a first-generation European immigrant to Australia, but it's only the last few years I've started to understand much about racism and I certainly don't think I can reach "post-colonialism" the way Shaun Tan can (as an immigrant from a non-European country). Most of the time, I do a lot of "passing" - mainstream white Australians can be very racist about non-white immigrants and don't seem to grasp that in that dimension, I identify more as "immigrant" and less as "white Australian" although it's the second I am mostly assumed to be.
But to get back to the real subject, neither group can or should speak for Indigenous Australians.
As I understand it, Indigenous Australians got a particularly hard deal. The British were at least considering overturning their "terra nullius" (land belonging to no-one) approach based on their North American experience, and did so in the case of New Zealand, where for all its flaws, there is at least the Treaty of Waitangi. I don't fully understand what happened and why in Australia, but the British treated Australia as Terra Nullius despite the existence of Indigenous Australians, and it wasn't until 1992 that there was the beginning of recognition of that problem by the European-Australian legal system.
I understand that the land I live on and move across really belongs to people other than myself and the people around me who carry on as though they do own it. I am beginning to understand something about how that belonging or "ownership" has no relationship to European-Australian notions of ownership, and to the extent I understand the difference, the traditional way makes more sense once you think about what land really is. The European-Australian notion that land can transfer ownership with a piece of paper and some money sidesteps every issue to do with what land is, what it means, what relationship we have with it, and whether we have any responsibility to it. I like what I think I understand of the Indigenous relationship to land - that this is the land you know, that has shaped who you are, and that you in turn have responsibilities to.
This is why, as I've mentioned before, removing native people from their land can be extremely culturally destructive, and even a form of genocide. I personally feel it is a loss that this land I live on: I don't know what used to look like, what used to grow and live here, which of those plants and animals might have been used by Indigenous people, whether this particular pocket on the river was one they spent time in regularly, or at particular times of year; and our houses and roads and most of our plants are plonked on top of all that in such a shallow way as a result. (I'm not saying a deeper connection would be an improvement unless it involved the descendants of those who did truly belong here.)
I've done my share of white guilt. I've think I've read/consumed a fair amount of media by other whites who've thought about the situation, but I don't know if I've made bad choices, because while I don't feel like I'm all that far advanced with my self-awareness of racism, white privilege and colonialism, I don't remember reading much that made me think "Here's a white Australian who is (or can) make some progress on this problem beyond white guilt".
Maybe it's too big for me to do much other than lobby politicians etc. (The Northern Territory Intervention still makes me deeply ashamed at its racism, double standards, and continued failure despite changes in government to treat Aboriginal people with any kind of respect, as though they were human beings and maybe even the experts on their own problems.)
This entry is originally published at http://aquaeri.dreamwidth.org/85724.html. Please go here to read comments; here to leave a comment (you can use your LJ OpenID).
comments so far.
If you haven't, please read this excellent post by
deepad about colonialism and if you have time,
sanguinity's post (at least) mentioned in it.
I agree strongly with specifically this, and it applies well to V:
I do not believe in SFF produced by the dominant majority to be the key that would unlock its wells of empathy and understanding realisation at its own culpability. I think we are far better served by playing with fantasies that help us practise what it is like to recognise ourselves as oppressors and fight ourselves and our systems. After all, it is not that the colonised did not have enough stories of resistance to inspire them to become heroes. The problem was that the colonialists did not have enough stories of repentance and rethinking to prevent them from becoming monsters.
But it feels ironic and awkward that what
deepad and
sanguinity and
coffeeink are discussing is partly specifically Australian colonialism, which I don't think I've talked much about. I'm a first-generation European immigrant to Australia, but it's only the last few years I've started to understand much about racism and I certainly don't think I can reach "post-colonialism" the way Shaun Tan can (as an immigrant from a non-European country). Most of the time, I do a lot of "passing" - mainstream white Australians can be very racist about non-white immigrants and don't seem to grasp that in that dimension, I identify more as "immigrant" and less as "white Australian" although it's the second I am mostly assumed to be.
But to get back to the real subject, neither group can or should speak for Indigenous Australians.
As I understand it, Indigenous Australians got a particularly hard deal. The British were at least considering overturning their "terra nullius" (land belonging to no-one) approach based on their North American experience, and did so in the case of New Zealand, where for all its flaws, there is at least the Treaty of Waitangi. I don't fully understand what happened and why in Australia, but the British treated Australia as Terra Nullius despite the existence of Indigenous Australians, and it wasn't until 1992 that there was the beginning of recognition of that problem by the European-Australian legal system.
I understand that the land I live on and move across really belongs to people other than myself and the people around me who carry on as though they do own it. I am beginning to understand something about how that belonging or "ownership" has no relationship to European-Australian notions of ownership, and to the extent I understand the difference, the traditional way makes more sense once you think about what land really is. The European-Australian notion that land can transfer ownership with a piece of paper and some money sidesteps every issue to do with what land is, what it means, what relationship we have with it, and whether we have any responsibility to it. I like what I think I understand of the Indigenous relationship to land - that this is the land you know, that has shaped who you are, and that you in turn have responsibilities to.
This is why, as I've mentioned before, removing native people from their land can be extremely culturally destructive, and even a form of genocide. I personally feel it is a loss that this land I live on: I don't know what used to look like, what used to grow and live here, which of those plants and animals might have been used by Indigenous people, whether this particular pocket on the river was one they spent time in regularly, or at particular times of year; and our houses and roads and most of our plants are plonked on top of all that in such a shallow way as a result. (I'm not saying a deeper connection would be an improvement unless it involved the descendants of those who did truly belong here.)
I've done my share of white guilt. I've think I've read/consumed a fair amount of media by other whites who've thought about the situation, but I don't know if I've made bad choices, because while I don't feel like I'm all that far advanced with my self-awareness of racism, white privilege and colonialism, I don't remember reading much that made me think "Here's a white Australian who is (or can) make some progress on this problem beyond white guilt".
Maybe it's too big for me to do much other than lobby politicians etc. (The Northern Territory Intervention still makes me deeply ashamed at its racism, double standards, and continued failure despite changes in government to treat Aboriginal people with any kind of respect, as though they were human beings and maybe even the experts on their own problems.)
This entry is originally published at http://aquaeri.dreamwidth.org/85724.html. Please go here to read comments; here to leave a comment (you can use your LJ OpenID).
comments so far.