Native Right To Self-Identify

Reclaiming Indigenous Heritage Can Result In Anglicised Packaging Of Aboriginal Identity And Culture

May 24, 2006

Aborigines have the right to self-identify as Indigenous, reclaiming lost identities. But in the public domain, can this damage Aboriginal collective identity?

Aborigines whose families have "passed" into a European cultural identity should still have the right to self-identify as Indigenous, if they disagree with their families' identity choices. However, this is a hard road with little reward (if genuine), and so motives need to be clear. There is a lot more to this than merely saying, "Now I'm Aboriginal". There are huge challenges associated with re-entry into the Indigenous world, and it takes a lifetime of hard work, unlearning, and relearning.

Many Indigenous thinkers have a problem with this, citing cases of people claiming Aboriginality but still living and speaking from a middle-class Australian point of view. With "new" Aborigines in the public spotlight, such as Sally Morgan (author of "My Place"), it has been argued (convincingly) that this results in a marginalising of "unsanitised" Aboriginal viewpoints in literature in favour of a "white middle-class" packaging of Aboriginality, more easily swallowed by the colonial mainstream without necessitating any real attempts at understanding un-Europeanised Indigenousness.

Cards on the table - I am really conflicted about this issue. On the one hand, I object to the idea that Indigenous realities are somehow exotic and unknowable to people from other cultures, some sort of magical system that defies cross-cultural understanding, thus making Aboriginal peoples a sort of self-marginalising endangered species. However, on the other hand I am becoming convinced by arguments to the contrary from Indigenous thinkers like Jackie Huggins. She states that while, in an ideal world, she should be able to affirm emerging Indigenous identities such as Sally Morgan's, she finds she is forced to oppose them in response to the overwhelming public support of Sally's book "My Place", which has become "the" Aboriginal text for Australia, despite its being written in a "white middle-class" discourse.

I still believe Indigenous cultures are equal to any other world cultures, and as such are equally knowable, however, I am beginning to suspect that for people whose "mainstream" identities have been built upon colonial subjectivities and mythologies presenting Aborigines as "the Other", a truly Aboriginal discourse may in fact be inaccessible. By "the Other", I mean underlying cultural assumptions building identity in this way - "They are uncivilised, so that makes us civilised. They are black, so that is what makes us white. They are governed by passion, so that makes us governed by reason. They are primitive, so that makes us advanced. They are spiritual, so that makes us scientific. They are at one with nature, so that makes us separate from / masters of nature." And so forth.

Truly, the "Australian" identity is intimately linked with colonial constructs of Aboriginality. Aboriginality provides the "proof" for assertions of mainstream identity, ie. "We are not that, so we must be this." But in order for this to be possible, society first constructs a readily understandable and simplistic version of Indigenousness for ease of public comparison. As much as it pains me to admit this, I am starting to see that people like myself and Sally Morgan (not that I'm claiming to be in the same league as that wonderful writer!) are often used by the dominant culture to perform this "white packaging" function. (This packaging phenomenon may account for the popularity of people such as Noel Pearson in the wider community, whose ideas are misused to justify the current "tough choices" assimilationist rhetoric.)

This "white packaging" is very difficult to resist for Indigenous people who are trying to rebuild their identities after assimilation. There are rewards for presenting this view of Indigenousness in this way - mainly, that you get to go to the front of the queue in the public domain ahead of those using non-Anglo Indigenous voices. However, I would warn that this ride can only go so far for those seeking to take career "shortcuts" through Indigenous heritage, who, after the initial acclaim, may suddenly find themselves saddled with an identity that excludes them from any further success in society.

A quick anecdote to illustrate that point. I once took a friend "under my wing", who was wanting to reclaim his Indigenous identity, after his family had "passed" to the mainstream a generation ago. He often pointed out that this should be easy for him, as he had more "blood" than me, and after all, I had managed to do it alright. I spent a year with him, exposing him to experiences and learnings in Indigenous communities and land contexts. However, he had entered upon this journey with a "mainstream" viewpoint, expecting the "benefits", brotherhood and belonging. When he discovered that the reality meant that he would be ostracised (often from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people), abused, ridiculed, impoverished and sometimes placed in real physical danger, he began to back-pedal. The pressure of having to share his assets with others in his adopted community was the final straw for him. With a flourish, he defected back to the "white side" (as he put it). He declared this by screaming aloud in a pub, "I am white! That is my race! I have white skin!" He then led the charge against me with a group of angry European workers who were "fed up" with "political correctness" and wanted to be free to make racist comments about Aboriginal locals without being "persecuted" for it.

Looking back, I think this was more my fault than his. I was naive to think that he could learn to be Indigenous without first unlearning his European colonial subjectivities. The two halves of his identity did battle, and the "mainstream" side won in the end. This shows how damaging and limiting colonial packaging can be for Indigenous worldviews - it can grow like weeds until it chokes the Aboriginality right out of you.

So, although my post-colonial/anti-colonial ideals (and an instinct for cultural self-preservation!) make me want to disagree with Jackie Huggins' criticism of Sally Morgan's "My Place", I find increasingly that I have to acknowledge, and to some degree, agree with her point of view.

But where does that leave me, I wonder? I am currently using the symbols and language from an Anglo education to write the things I am writing in this website. My light skin tone has priveleged me in terms of access to education that other, more worthy, Indigenous writers and thinkers have not had easy access to. So who am I to be saying these things? Some might suggest that my education means that I have a duty to use my skills to fight for social reform for my countrymen. Others might ask, "Who the hell are you to be saying these things?"

And I think that's a valid point. What do you think? Do I have the right to write about my Indigenous experience, when the very act of my writing could be disadvantaging more worthy Indigenous writers?

The copyright of the article Native Right To Self-Identify in Aboriginal Rights is owned by Tyson Woorama . Permission to republish Native Right To Self-Identify in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.