Hello Bruce
Yes, I recognise the importance of (and applaud) initiative which
are beyond the current view.
>As a cultural worker i seek out forms which try to avoid the known problems
>in two very different Ways coming together (such as polar opposition and
>apartheid or domination and assimilation). A partnership is a healthy
>relationship in this situation.
>
>Do you agree with that much? ...
Yes, strongly.
> ... Has an apparently equal partnership a chance
>of success in your opinion. ...
Sadly, very little. Still, if I am to judge from my own
experience, there is a slowly growing awareness of the history.
In the long run, that offers some promise, I think.
I also am in agreement with you when you say:
>First Peoples have to be able to have space to live according to their
>cosmologies/core cultural values - without retreating into the false
>security of separatism. The pretences required to prop up the preferred
>image of many Western people is a source of killing stress.
>
>What do First Peoples require for an equal partnership? Good question to
>put to them in their various forums. I suggest that there is a world of
>difference between a monocultural Western definition of equality and that
>originating with First Peoples.
>
>We could talk here about the difference between superficial equality and
>deep equality. Deep equality is a balanced relationship between two
>galaxies of values. It is unlikely to take the same form as a notion of
>equality which
>originates from one culture only. Possible i suppose, but highly unlikely.
It seems to me that our main point of contention is your advocacy
for an unequal relationship.
I even suspect that _if_ the Settler Peoples (as you call them)
could offer the senior partnership to First Peoples, that might
well open the door to a truly equal partnership.
But that, I would think, is not even a remote possibility at this
stage.
>Elder and Younger partners, First and Second partners , Original and what
>unoriginal partners? How do you retain a (to me) vital distinction which
>respects the place of First Peoples as our Brothers and Sisters in life and
>which also avoids the notion of second class citizens for people who came
>and continue to come from overseas.
I think that's an important question. I don't have an answer.
I agree (strongly) when you say ...
>First Peoples occupy a different place to more recent arrivals (post 1788)
> ...
And that a "disguised surrender treaty" is no basis for a
partnership.
>Rather, activate the rainbow warrior within and, calling on the very best
>of energy (cosmic; creative; practical) ask "What really needs to be done
>to heal life in Australia?"
>
>If you feel the need to change my thinking (it is no news that i have no
>monopoly on right answers) the challenge to you is to come up with
>something better.
I wish I could come up with something better. Beyond the need
to keep trying, to keep espousing the truth of history, to be an
advocate for this in all our relationships, I am at a loss.
In your postscript you go on to say, in part ...
>I should add, by way of providing some context to my position, that it is
>my assessment that the monolithic Anglo-Australian state is a failed
>experiment. It is the local dimension of a wider Western allaince, with
>local managers etc. Anglo-Australia Inc.
>
>It has demonstrated repeatedly that it cannot ensure the well-being of
>Australia's First Peoples. Why subject the surviving First Peoples to yet
>another round of mistreatment?
In my view it has demonstrated that it cannot even ensure the
well-being of its supporters. So, yes, I think it is in its
autumn years.
Those autumn years may be long drawn out, of course. Or the
whole edifice may collapse suddenly, in crisis. I am not
persuaded that, if that happens, any of us will be well provided
for.
>A change to the system of governance is required. ...
>But life has a logic and rhythm of its own. Hey, there is a peoples
>movement happening in Australia and elsewhere. People are moving -
>sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.
I hear this, increasingly, and would like to believe it is true.
I _experience_ a digging in, a consolidation, of the old Anglo-
Celtic ways.
I experience a turning away from the best of the Settler Peoples
values.
>Hence the importance of a notion of deep equality which builds on the
>original good human impulse (equality) but which won't let it be captured
>(monoculturally normalised) by the opposing forces.
Well, this is a goal worth pursuing. I cannot imagine a way of
pursuing it at national level while John Howard manages the agenda.
Perhaps that just means we have to pursue it, face to face, in
other forums.
>Suppressed - gee, the old regime is getting desperate in its attempts to
>hold the collapsing edifice together. I'd slap a condemned notice on it on
>the interest of public good. But politicians everywhere, once elected, are
>always happy to promote pretence rather than tell us what their experts are
>already telling them.
Yes, I suspect that sums it up well. My fear is that history gives
us little reason to believe that the collapse will benefit anyone.
Warm regards -- Bob
--
+----- Bob Dick -------------------------------------------+
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action research resources: |
| http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/sawd/ari/ar.html |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
