#that helped australian aborigines reclaim land from the government | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

writingwithcolor · 5 years

Note

I’m writing a story in which a nation of nonhumans, having been trapped in a pocket dimension for two millenia, integrates into human society. Would it be insensitive to have them successfully argue that, as they were indigenous peoples of the Americas, they should be legally recognized as a Native American tribe with tribal sovereignty? Native Americans (specifically of the Ojibwe tribe) magically trapped them in the first place, but I’m hoping that’s ok because all humans have magic, not just

“Native American mystics” or w/e, and the character designs aren’t based off any NA myths. But they’re VERY inhuman, resembling animals, and a subplot is that they’re called “monsters” so often they begin to embrace/reclaim the term. It’s mainly just a device to deal with the logistics of integrating thousands of new people (with their own established government) into the American political system at once, so I can scrap it if needed.

Ancient Monsters Indigenous to America; Should They be Called Native?

So. There are four parts to this question, based off how you’ve worded the question.

1- Native Americans Shunning An “Okay” Group

2- Native American Monsters

3- Imposing Monsters Where None Exist

4- What Makes Someone Native

One at a time:

Native Americans Shunning an Okay Group

If these inhuman people are a genuine threat or were a genuine threat, then this is less relevant. But even if some of them were a threat, and the whole group was shunned, you end up recreating a big piece of racism in modern day:

Natives hate outsiders “needlessly.” If only they gave this group a chance, they’d find out they weren’t that bad. But they’re too mean to do that.

The modern caution around Native and colonizer culture mixing is, as the term implies, modern. Natives didn’t necessarily shun outsiders, and as evident by how colonizers needed us to survive for awhile, they were relatively welcoming early on. In Canada, we even have a whole group of people who were born out of intermarriage between traders and Native people: the Metis.

But non-Natives tend to take this caution as an insult, because they assume they should be welcomed with open arms despite the atrocities committed. Colonizers have far, far, far exceeded the threshold for “general mistrust”, but they don’t realize it. They think everything should be fine, because schools teach only that Natives used to be welcoming, but then turned mean and jealous without saying why.

For example, when I was in my teens, my grandma went on a probably 15-30 minute rant about how my (white) cousin wasn’t allowed to work horticulture on the local reserve because it was taking jobs away from Native people. My whole family spent the next hour agreeing with her, how they really were just so closed off and mean, he was just trying to help.

Now factor in how the largest group of unemployed people in Canada is Native people, because they lack job skills from a lack of opportunity. Now consider how horticulture was actually one of our specialties and there’s still a lot of tradition around how to take care of the land. And how a white person fresh out of college with a degree was being brought in as the “expert.” And how he was doing the work, instead of helping people on the reserve do the work (which would allow them to put landscaping skills on their resume, giving them a foot in the door)

Suddenly that “unnecessary shunning” makes a whole lot more sense, doesn’t it?

I want to know why the Ojibwe sealed them off. Because I highly doubt such a drastic action would’ve been taken if they were truly a benevolent group.

Native American Monsters

And this is where things get touchier.

I want to ask all writers who want Indigenous monsters to ask themselves one question: why do you want to tie Indigenous identity to “monster” so strongly?

It’s a fixation I see time and again: the concept of Indigenous people as inhuman, as having ties to the inhuman, as having ties to creatures who could be feared.

If these monsters are a complex society, are intelligent, are generally… people, then you’ve fallen more heavily into the first point I mentioned (which I’m uncomfortable with) but mitigate this part. They’re shown as people-like and worthy of respect, then it might work as showing Indigenous people aren’t inhuman.

Or it might further reinforce the concept that all Indigenous people are monsters.

Which one it does depends on the writing. Either way, it’s something I’m deeply uncomfortable with, just from sheer exposure. A lot of the questions I receive are about dark, twisted, criminal, or otherwise monstrous Indigenous people. Like, about half the questions. It’s a lot.

Why are we tied so strongly to monsters? What about Native identity makes this such an easy connection? Why just the monsters and none of our healing from them?

Why?

Imposing Monsters Where None Exist

Further, it’s honestly a bit weird to me that they don’t come Ojibwe/Great Lakes legends. Because I’d assume sealing away a whole population of monsters would merit some oral legends and teachings for how to seal them back away should they return. And these monsters would bleed into other peoples’ legends, with how each creature as a concept spread across such a wide landmass and across so many peoples. So everywhere these monsters touched, there’d be some version of the story.

It’s a little too close to playing god with real religions for me. Indigenous oral legends around the globe are meticulous, and when analyzed are as solid as written history. Creating a group of monsters that are not based in our stories, that have no oral histories and legends, just has me wondering how this impacted society.

Monsters have a place in Indigenous society. They are cautions, they are warnings, they are sickness, they teach lessons about how to care for the earth and/or yourself to starve off the monster’s approach.

(And no, this doesn’t contradict the fixation on Monstrous Natives. Why do you fixate on the monsters and not how we heal from them? I specify “we” because there’s a tendency to make the antithesis of Native monsters Christian, which further colonizers the narrative. We had our own ways of healing)

Indigenous people, in general, have history from around the Ice Age (Australian Aboriginals have from during if not before). Two millennia is nothing for the oral history, even if you brought in the angle that the stories were genocided out in the residential school system (Which would be a very touchy subject as well). Because something that big would be spread among a dozen tribes, and would have threads that survived in whispers.

Indigenous religions aren’t a mythology playground where you can free-reign insert or remove whole concepts like sealing away monsters willy-nilly.

I’d run this concept by somebody Ojibwe before proceeding. They might find a way to make it work, or they might tell you that there’d be a much deeper cultural impact than can be handled by an outsider.

What Makes Someone Native

Here’s the thing: being Native isn’t just about how we were here first.

There’s taking care of the land. There’s our language. There’s our unity to each other. There’s our religion. There’s so much nuance to what makes somebody Native that goes beyond just time spent on the continent.

Each tribe has its own definition of what it means to be part of the tribe. The government doesn’t always line up with who we are, but we have our own definition. A lot of basic principles are similar (sustainability, for one), but the nuance for each people will be different.

And the government still doesn’t recognize all the tribes that were self-governing peoples before colonizers got here. That fact alone makes it a stretch to believe these monsters could successfully argue to the government they belong as Native. The only reason I could see it as successful is the government rather overtly assuming Native people are monsters, which codifies the above.

You’ve got to keep in mind that the government wants as few Natives to exist as possible. Because the more Natives exist, the more political power we have, the more resources the government has to allocate towards us, and we are seen as an inconvenience.

Getting off the registry of Native people is laughably easy. Getting back on is notoriously hard. This isn’t a case of “have a hearing and the government gives you full status rights.” It’s “we have petitioned the government to have our claim to this land recognized for literally hundreds of years and now they’re about to bulldoze our sacred land so we have to protest to put a stop to it and suffer the arrests and deaths required to keep our land safe and hope that this protest gets enough pressure on the government to have them back off.”

(True story. The latter describes the Oka Crisis, which thankfully did have the land restored, but not until 1 death on each side, and 75 Mohawk and allies injured. And it was a long, long, long drawn out process).

Natives are, technically, wards of the state. The more Natives exist, the more people the state has to take care of. And history proves the state absolutely hates taking care of Native people.

Overall

This feels off in multiple ways, for me. It’s treating our legends as if they’re just frilly decorations that don’t deeply inform our culture, for starters, then there’s how no matter which way it’s sliced it’s reinforcing some sort of racist idea about Natives: either we shun “good” groups for no reason, or we’re tied to monsters. Then there’s the assumption our identity can be easily expanded to include a nonhuman group when it’s more complicated than that. There’s also the assumption the government would actually work to add more people it has to take care of.

You’re going to need to do a lot more research and reach out to a lot more sensitivity readers. It’s so far removed from who we are and our cultural identity I’d take a good hard look at the concept before continuing.

~ Mod Lesya

COMMENTARY:

@octopodesinmybutt

So the concept of "indigenous monsters sealed away" would actually work really well with Irish mythology about the Fae/Tuatha de Danon. They're considered the real indigenous ppl of Ireland. It's a bit more complex than that, but you could look into it.

#Asks #Native American #monsters #identity #fantasy #representation #Religion #racism #supernatural beings

371 notes · View notes

mylingstudyblog · 4 years

Text

I decided to post my first assignment from last semester...

Considering Stakeholder Engagement in the Evaluation of Indigenous Language Revitalisation Programs in Australian Schools

Introduction

In the landscape of Australian Indigenous language revitalisation, school programs are a promising avenue (Disbray, Barker, Raghunathan, & Baisden, 2018, p.4; Simpson, Caffery, & McConvell, 2009, p.14). Through teaching and learning heritage languages, Indigenous people strengthen their connection to their culture and land and express their identity, which is integral in enacting decolonisation (Disbray et al., 2018, p.3). The success of school-based language programs is contingent on partnerships between schools and Indigenous community members (Lowe & Howard, 2010, p.195), with primacy afforded to the traditional language custodians (Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017, p.5).

Language program evaluation is a way to interpret what is working within a language program and inform improvement efforts (Norris, 2016, p.169). It is a pragmatic endeavour in that it facilitates understanding of the program to serve stakeholder decision making (Norris, 2016, p.170). The effective engagement of key stakeholders in a program evaluation should improve its usefulness, as well as build evaluation capacity (Bryson, Patton, & Bowman, 2011, p.10).

Concerning Indigenous language program evaluation, a participatory, collaborative and decolonising approach must be pursued. In this paper, I will discuss some particular considerations of stakeholder engagement for Indigenous language revitalisation in Australian schools, including historical context, Indigenous self-determination, and collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders.

Context

It is vital to situate contemporary Australian Indigenous language programs within the context of the recent history of invasion, colonisation and genocide. In the past 200 years, successive colonial and Australian governments have forcibly removed Aboriginal people off their lands, stolen generations of children from their families, and undermined traditional lifestyles and leadership through paternalistic interventions (Stockley, 2010, p.91; Simpson et al., 2009, p.23).

Violent oppression and vilification of culture has severed traditional ties between land and language and halted the intergenerational transmission of the majority of Indigenous languages (Stockley, 2010, p.91). Indigenous language revitalisation projects are thus unique amongst second language acquisition programs in that participants are reclaiming and reinforcing their ethnic identity in the face of colonial disempowerment and trauma (Walsh, 2010, p.23).

Types of language revitalisation programs include: school-based programs, after-school programs for children, adult language programs, documentation development and home-based programs (Disbray et al., 2018, p.3). In examining the relevant literature, school-based programs appear to have commanded the most attention. Advocates for implementation of school language programs such as Anmatyerr educator April Campbell and Warlpiri educator Valerie Patterson believe such programs help keep traditional languages strong (Disbray et al., 2018, p.4).

Depending on the local context, the program goals may focus on: revival, for reawakening a language no longer spoken by any community members; revitalisation, for learners who have little to no passive knowledge in a community with some fluent speakers; or maintenance, for learners who use the Indigenous language as a main language, or are situated in a community in which it is a main language for many people (Disbray et al., 2018, p.7; Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017, p.6). As schools are potentially an instrument of assimilation into the dominant culture, the implementation of any Indigenous language and culture program into mainstream curriculum must remain within Indigenous control in order to prevent further harm (Walsh, 2010, p.24).

Issues in Indigenous Program Evaluation

In Indigenous contexts, participatory and collaborative evaluation approaches are commonly employed, involving evaluators, community members and stakeholders who dialogue together to produce knowledge for program improvement (Katz, Newton, Shona & Raven, 2016, pp.8-9). However, partnerships between outsiders and Indigenous people are often characterised by an imbalance of power in favour of the outsiders, with Indigenous participants taking on a consultative role at best (Kelaher, Luke, & Ferdinand, 2018, p.ix). The lack of autonomy afforded to Indigenous participants is often carried through to the publication of results and storage of data, in which the outsiders retain ownership of data and evaluation results are not translated into positive action in the community (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.27; Taylor, 2003, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.18).

Furthermore, operating within conventional positivist frameworks, researchers have historically collected and classified knowledge about Indigenous people according to Western ideas (Katz et al., 2016, p.18). These non-Indigenous researchers and evaluators have often mischaracterised, omitted or maligned Aboriginal people and their cultures, or used gathered information inappropriately (Board of Studies NSW, 2003, p.6). This serves to further undermine Indigenous community autonomy, exacerbate tensions and inflict harm on individuals (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.28). When a conventional evaluation approach is adhered to, following capitalistic metrics of efficiency, performativity and productivity, neocolonialist patterns are perpetuated to the detriment of the community (Jordan, Stocek, & Mark, 2013, p.29). The history of harm caused to Indigenous communities by Western research has resulted in many Indigenous peoples being hostile towards or suspicious of any research attempts (Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.19).

Additionally, conflicts may arise from the integration of Indigenous and non-Indigenous approaches to evaluation, requiring ongoing negotiation. For example, in the New South Wales OCHRE program evaluation, tensions were observed due to: different beliefs about the rigour of certain methodologies, competing claims regarding cultural authority representatives, different views on what constitutes success and how this is measured, and different beliefs about the time commitments required of Aboriginal participants (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.34).

Finally, if the program framework and development has not been oriented to Indigenous community needs from the outset, program evaluation outcomes are significantly less able to align with community values (Kelaher et al., 2018, pp.39-41).

Indigenous Epistemologies

In the view of Katz and colleagues, evaluation is a kind of pragmatic social science research, and can be framed through either a positivist or an interpretive lens (2016, p.3). They argue that as the focus of such enquiry is the meaning and purpose of society and social actions, there can arguably be no objective truth to uncover, but rather a multitude of interpretations according to the ideology of the stakeholders (Weber, 1949, as sited in Katz et al., 2016, p.3). Furthermore, critical interpretive approaches use “research as a mechanism for critiquing the social structures that underpin inequality and discrimination, with the purpose of challenging the current power relationships within society and promoting social justice” (Katz et al., 2016, p.3).

Decolonising evaluation is one such critical method, in which evaluation is conducted with or by Indigenous people themselves, in an effort to combat the ways that Indigenous people have historically been silenced and marginalised (Katz et al., 2016, p.20). Commonalities across Indigenous methodologies include: privileging and legitimising holistic Indigenous knowledge systems; attending to the relational positions of participants and researchers; collective and reciprocal benefits to the community; and legitimising Indigenous ways of sharing knowledge, including story telling (Kovach, 2015, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, pp.20-21). As expressed by one Native Alaskan participant in an Indigenous evaluation capacity building program, “sharing narratives rather than numbers is the Indigenous way to share successes” (Anderson et al., 2012, p.580).

Qualitative data is often most conducive for these purposes, as such data lends itself to emphasising holistic perspectives and narrative interpretations of results (Jordan et al., 2013, p.22). For example, Blodgett and colleagues foregrounded Indigenous perspectives by presenting data through portrait vignettes (2011, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.29). Within this kind of data, context can be made explicit, including: the characteristics of the evaluator or evaluation team, the community context, institutional influences and program specifics (Katz et al., 2016, p.14).

One method of gathering information in an Indigenous program evaluation context is the culturally specific practice of yarning (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.57). Yarning is a valuable practice within research and evaluation, as it “creates a space through which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can voice and infuse traditional cultural knowledge in the creation and completion of research” (Leeson, Catrin, & Rynne, 2016, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.32).

Stakeholder Engagement

Indigenous program development and evaluation from inception must be aligned with community priorities and aspirations, with Indigenous communities afforded equal power, or leadership roles (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.34). As meaningful language revitalisation requires sustained effort (Stockley, 2010, p.99), long-term partnerships should be developed, with the intention of building evaluation capacity within communities (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.x). Stakeholder engagement should take place at every stage of an evaluation, through evaluation planning, design, data collection, analysis, decision-making and implementation (Bryson et al., 2011, p.4). Additionally, Aboriginal people should have data sovereignty over the information gathered during an evaluation (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.43).

The evaluation must be sensitive to the unique local context of the language program (Katz et al., 2016, p.31). One Indigenous Canadian after school program successfully employed “participatory evaluation” methods, which may be particularly suited to small scale language revitalisation program evaluations (Jordan et al., 2013, pp.19-20). Patton (2011) further affirms that action research can form the basis of evaluation due to the cyclical and localised nature of working within and improving a program (as cited in Gruba, Cárdenas-Claros, Suvorov, & Rick, p.24). However, where the evaluation is conducted by a third party, the evaluator should take the role of facilitator, collaborator or participant in the process, rather than assigning themselves a privileged position of “expert” (Jordan et al., 2013, p.25).

The preference expressed by various scholars is that the evaluator should themselves be Indigenous, as “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers are more likely to convey information in a manner that is both culturally acceptable and specific to those participating in the research and benefiting end users of the information” (Kite & Davey, 2015, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.30).

This is the stance also of the Maori evaluation group Whariki, who consider “by Maori, for Maori” evaluations to be integral to their self-determination (Anderson et al., 2012, p.574). An alternative perspective is that ethnic diversity of evaluators may be positive, as long as Indigenous knowledge and skills continue to form the basis of evaluations, as Indigenous communities may benefit from strong allies supporting their decolonisation efforts (Burnette & Billiot, 2015, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, pp.30-31).

Stakeholders may be broadly defined as “individuals, groups, or organizations that can affect or are affected by an evaluation process and/or its findings” (Bryson et al., 2011, p.1). In identifying stakeholders to involve in the evaluation process, advice may be sought from Indigenous advisory groups or Aboriginal cultural advisors or mentors (Katz et al., 2016, p.29). For Indigenous language programs in schools, key stakeholders to engage may include: Aboriginal Elders, local custodians of Aboriginal language and culture, local Aboriginal community leaders and members, representatives of local Aboriginal community organisations, school principal, school council, program coordinators, assistant teachers, Aboriginal language teachers, classroom teachers, and students’ families (NSW Department of Education, 2018, p.10; Northern Territory Department of Education, 2017, pp.10-13; Simpson et al., 2009, p.13). Engagement and trust can be built between stakeholders through “social yarning” (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.32).

In order to make decisions about program improvement, stakeholders should be engaged to build a shared understanding of the program through the combination of their diverse needs, expertise and perspectives (Kelaher et al., 2018, p.1). Consensus building may be facilitated through the technique of a “talking circle”, whereby participants sit in a circle and sequentially take turns to discuss a topic without being interrupted, continuing until all participants are satisfied with their contribution (Kholghia et al., 2018, p.82). Furthermore, a relaxed and culturally appropriate way of gathering information is through evaluation “topic yarning”, while brainstorming can take place through “collaborative yarning” (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, as cited in Katz et al., 2016, p.32). The evaluation agenda evolves over time through such collaboration (Jordan, Stocek, & Mark, 2013, p.25).

Conclusion

In summary, evaluation of Indigenous language revitalisation programs in schools must take into account the historical and local context in order to effectively engage with stakeholders. Through privileging Indigenous epistemologies, the evaluation process can be an act of decolonisation, benefiting both the program and the community.

References

Anderson, C., Chase, M., Johnson III, J., Mekiana, D., McIntyre, D., Ruerup, A., & Kerr, S. (2012). It Is Only New Because It Has Been Missing For So Long: Indigenous Evaluation Capacity Building. American Journal of Evaluation 33(4), 566-582.

Board of Studies NSW. (2003). Advice on Programming and Assessment for Stages 4 and 5. Sydney: New South Wales Government.

Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning 34, 1-12.

Disbray, S., Barker, C., Raghunathan, A., & and Baisden, F. (2018). Global Lessons: Indigenous languages and multilingualism in school programs. Newcastle: First Languages Australia.

Gruba, P., Cárdenas-Claros, M. S., Suvorov, R., & Rick, K. (2016). Essentials of Blended Language Program Evaluation: Towards an Argument-Based Approach. In P. Gruba, M. S. Cárdenas-Claros, R. Suvorov, & K. Rick, Blended Language Program Evaluation (pp. 20-45). London: Palgrave Macmillian.

Jordan, S., Stocek, C., & Mark, R. (2013). Doing participatory evaluation in Indigenous contexts - methodological issues and questions. Action Learning, Action Research Journal 19(1), 12-35.

Katz, I., Newton, B. J., Shona, B., & Raven, M. (2016). Evaluation theories and approaches; relevance for Aboriginal contexts. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia.

Kelaher, M., Luke, J., & Ferdinand, A. (2018). An Evaluation Framework to Improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Health. Melbourne: Centre for Health Policy - Melbourne School of Population and Global Health.

Kholghia, M. K., Bartletta, G., Phillips, M., Salsberga, J., McComberb, A. M., & Macaulaya, A. C. (2018). Evaluating an Indigenous health curriculum for diabetes prevention: engaging the community through talking circles and knowledge translation of results. Family Practice,, 80-87.

Lowe, K., & Howard, P. (2010). So you want to work with the community? Principles and strategies for school leaders affecting the establishment of Aboriginal language programs. In J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, & M. Walsh, Re-awakening languages: theory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages (pp. 194-209). Sydney: Sydney University Press.

Norris, J. M. (2016). Language Program Evaluation. The Modern Languages Journal 100, 169-189.

Northern Territory Department of Education. (2017). Guidelines for the implementation of Indigenous Languages and Cultures Programs in schools. Darwin: Northern Territory Government.

NSW Department of Education. (2018). Aboriginal Language and Culture Nest 2018 Guidelines. Sydney: NSW Government.

Simpson, J., Caffery, J., & McConvell, P. (2009). Gaps in Australia’s Indigenous Language Policy: Dismantling bilingual education in the Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. (2012). Our Land Our Languages: Language Learning in Indigenous Communities. Canberra: House of Representatives.

Stockley, T. (2010). Awakening or awareness: are we being honest about the retrieval and revival of Australia’s Aboriginal languages? In J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, & M. Walsh, Re-awakening languages: theory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages (pp. 88-100). Sydney: Sydney University Press .

Walsh, M. (2010). Why language revitalisation sometimes works. In J. Hobson, K. Lowe, S. Poetsch, & M. Walsh, Re-awakening languages: theory and practice in the revitalisation of Australia’s Indigenous languages (pp. 22-36). Sydney: Sydney University Press.

#language revitalization #language revitalisation #indigenous languages #language evaluation #studyblr #langblr #lingblr #assignment #essay #language program evaluation #stakeholder engagement

2 notes · View notes

gtso9877-blog · 7 years

Text

My Reflections

During my visit, I approached both the Basin and Elvina rock engraving sites with a sense of curiosity. These were sites I had always known of and seen pictures of several times, but had yet to see in person. The extensive number engravings I saw depicted a range of designs including animals such as fish, wallabies, emus, goannas, as well as figures of people, shields and other indeterminable figures. Given the vast area (especially at the Elvina site), I’m certain that there were many more engravings that I did not come across. Like many people, I initially viewed the engravings as individual pieces of art, noting their many intricacies before moving on. However, the longer I spent at these sites, the more I began to wonder what the meanings were behind these engravings.

In the absence of local contested histories, it would be a simple assumption to regard these engraving sites as what Byrne (1996:87-91) and Hinkson (2002:62-64) critically refer to as ‘pure’ or ‘authentic’ forms of pre-contact Aboriginality. However, understanding these as relics of a ‘dead’, ‘traditional Aboriginal culture’ is misleading and perpetuates a shallow, cultural stereotype, a phenomenon that has often occurred in the promotion of national heritage and tourism sites (Hinkson, 2003:296-300). That is, these essentialist views do not reflect the reality of an ongoing lived culture, but rather a colonial discourse perspective.

Instead, with a place-based pedagogy applied, it was possible to see attempts to decolonise the ways of understanding these two sites. This facilitated the development of new place literacies of these engraving sites where a deeper look into the engravings can tell much about local histories of place that stretches back thousands of years. The key challenge here was that the rapid disappearance of the Guringai people following colonisation due to diseases including smallpox, and dispossession has meant that the stories embedded in the rock engravings have been lost through time, with no records preserved. However, through contemporary community engagement, research and interrogating historical records, attempts to uncover the embedded histories are ongoing. Where Somerville (2007: 153-154) suggests that place learning occurs through embodied connections to local places, the material aspects of the Guringai people’s daily lives could then be interpreted from the engravings. For instance, the engravings of animals such as wallabies and fish, may have represented the local food sources that was the focus of their foraging and hunting. Furthermore, my lived experiences of searching for the engravings themselves formed part of the embodied learning experience where found engraved lines could be followed ‘until one can appreciate the drawing of the whole figure and the composition of the groups of adjacent figures’ (Stanbury and Clegg, 1990:132). Somerville (2007: 154) also suggests that relationships to place are expressed through stories. In this context, the engravings serve as the medium for visual expression and may have been used to depict a story or song, as a teaching aid, or as the focus of magical or religious activity (Stanbury and Clegg, 1990:113). For example, several engravings I saw depicted Daramulan, an important creation figure. One well-known engraving of an emu with an egg inside is also suggested to have connections with initiation ceremonies, where the role of men in teaching and initiation are similar to how male emus take care of their young (Norris, 2016:16). Further research also indicates that there is also possible astronomical significance to the engravings. The same emu engraving mirrors the ‘Emu in the Sky’ constellation, while an engraving at the Basin depicts a man and woman under a crescent shape, thought to be an eclipse. Norris (2016: 30-32) suggests that these astronomical associations serve as a cultural bridge by being accessible to the general public, whilst promoting better understandings of Aboriginal cultures by highlighting their depth, complexities and links with science.

The use of these sites by different stakeholders has helped enable this development of new place literacies. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, management is shared between multiple organisations including the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council and traditional custodians (such as the Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation) to ensure their protection and preservation. There are also free and paid, guided tours of the area conducted by volunteers from the NPWS’s Chase Alive Discovery Program and tour operators such as Sydney Outback and Guringai Aboriginal Tours (which is owned and operated by descendants of Guringai people). These accessible tours allow visitors to engage with the site and respectfully learn about the art and stories embedded in these sites. Furthermore, informative signs that I saw at the sites, served a similar purpose whilst emphasising its cultural heritage and its preservation, and making it evident to visitors that the traditional land they walk on, these sites and their stories belong to the Guringai people.

Visiting these sites has reassured me that the rich and diverse cultures of Aboriginal Sydney has remained resilient. In understanding these sites as ‘places’ where the past and present intersect, I have come to gain a better appreciation of the engravings. So, whilst they can simply be viewed as art, when we learn about context these were made and used, we can uncover deeper stories and developed new place literacies. As such, I’m pleased at the efforts to reclaim the lost stories of Sydney’s pre-colonial past in the Guringai people through the promotion and preservation of these sites as having recognised cultural heritage value and increasing interest into significance of the engravings (such as astrological). By allowing access for visitors, it facilitates the engagement of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people with traditional country. The explicit mentioning of preserving for ‘future generations’ in the signage gives some confidence for these sites’ survival unlike many in the Sydney region that have been destroyed due to urban development.

References

ABC News. 2012. Rare Aboriginal rock art faces threats. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rare-aboriginal-rock-art-faces-threats/4402252.

Aboriginal Heritage Office. 2017. Aboriginal Sites and the Law. Available at: http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/sites/legislation/

Byrne, D. 1996, "Deep nation: Australia's acquisition of an indigenous past", Aboriginal History, vol. 20, pp. 82-107.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts 2010, Australia's national heritage, Australian Government, Dept. of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Guringai Aboriginal Tours. 2017. Welcome to Guringai Aboriginal Tours. Available at: http://guringaitours.com.au/home/

Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation. 2010. Guringai Tribal Link Aboriginal Corporation. Available at: http://www.guringai.com.au/

Hinkson, M. 2002, "Exploring 'Aboriginal' sites in Sydney: a shifting politics of place?", Aboriginal History, vol. 26, pp. 62-77.

Hinkson, M. 2003, "Encounters with Aboriginal Sites in Metropolitan Sydney: A Broadening Horizon for Cultural Tourism?", Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 295-306.

Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council. 2015. Welcome to the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council. Available at: http://metrolalc.org.au/

Norris, R. 2007a, Basin Track Engraving Site. Available at: https://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Ray.Norris/SydneyRockArt/sites/Basin/index.htm

Norris, R. 2007b, Elvina Track Engraving Site. Available at: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Ray.Norris/SydneyRockArt/sites/Elvina/index.htm

Norris, R. 2016, "Dawes Review 5: Australian Aboriginal Astronomy and Navigation", Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, vol. 33.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. 2016. Chase Alive Discovery program. Available at: http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/things-to-do/volunteer-activities/chase-alive-discovery-program

Pittwater Online News. 2017. Aboriginal Engravings Vandalised at The Basin: NPWS undertakes Program of ‘highlighting’ engravings to Protect Them. Available at: http://www.pittwateronlinenews.com/ABORIGINAL-ENGRAVINGS-VANDALISED-AT-THE-BASIN.php

Somerville, M. 2007, "Place literacies", Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, The, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 149-164.

Stanbury, P. & Clegg, J. 1990, A field guide to Aboriginal rock engravings with special reference to those around Sydney, Sydney University Press, Sydney.

Sydney OutBack. 2014. Nature, Indigenous and Beaches experiences. Available at: https://www.sydneyoutback.com.au/

0 notes