Site visit encourages guests to draw connections between the past and the present.
Having studied histories of Australian Indigenous Peoples and read the course materials provides somewhat a basic understanding about histories of Traditional Owners of the Land. To broaden ways of knowing how the knowledge is linked between the past and the present, Bunjilaka Aboriginal Cultural Centre at Melbourne Museum is a preferable and remarkable place to come to visit.
This site is an exhibition, which displays written and spoken materials related to Victoria’s first people in both historical and contemporary signal. Also, there are various aspects including indoor objects and symbols and outdoor landscape designed to reflect Aboriginal cultural heritage and philosophy. Especially, the connection between Indigenous communities and their ancestors via the notions, which are strengthened and deepened by their language, identity and culture, whereby sustain their traditional values and cultural heritages.
Therefore, the connections between Bunjilaka and the current knowledge gained from the course materials will be examined in regard to how the Stolen Generation was influenced by assimilation policies that young Aboriginal children suffered from mixed descent and lived away from their parents. Bunjilaka also presents the diversity in Aboriginal culture and their cultural expressions. Thus it accumulates fighting for civil rights and the reconciliation.
First and foremost, it seems that the Stolen Generation policies, which was functioned to europeanize Aboriginal population by bringing their children to live with white families to weaken the communities and thus to assimilate the whole communities, left behind its reverberation and caused a heart-rending cry at the very moment of the historical context and the shadow of it is still hanging over nowadays.
While some arguably said that it was not truly assimilation. According to Haebich (2011, 1034), Howard and his government saw the Stolen Generation as a righteous way of caring children and keeping them out of intangible and intangible danger. However, the evidence throughout the documentary film Why Me? can outweigh any word.[1] When it can be seen that a greater number of children were removed to live in white families, some were taken and lived in the same regions but others were brought to live in different states or so. Thus children had their own internal and external experience under different conditions.
With that in mind, there are a number of people who lived in reserves and missions areas supposed that the establishment of Aborigines Protection Board as ‘Destruction Boards’ because their supervision and absorption policies were inhumane by segregating families, stealing their children and treating them with a racist policy.[2] It is known that the policy was legislated to aim to integrate Aboriginal children into modern European society, which supposed to bring a prosperous living condition for Aboriginal communities.
But it turned out the start of controlling every single facet of Aboriginal lives under the Act.[3] In terms of voice of the traditional language, most of the Aboriginal children were prohibited to use their own language and could receive banishments for disobedience; about connections, they even could not contact their family and community and thus totally a disconnection; in regard to living conditions, the plight could be witnessed sexual abuse, physical maltreatment, emotional and psychological neglect by both the colonial government.
Furthermore, along with the intention to safeguard the benefits of the colonial government and also to fortify their authority, the Aborigines Act of 1928 in Victoria solidified the Law onto Aboriginal Natives of Victoria and the Board thereafter granted a permit to issue Aboriginal people were to inhabit (Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre). Probably, this was an unforgettable historical moment to those who endured the harsh circumstances.
What is more, the other source, as a consequence, proves the fact of removed children policies is the Bringing Them Home report of 1997; it refers to traumatic problems when witnesses need providing personal and psychological support to face up with their memories to tell their own stories.
According to Broome (2010), his research indicated that the percentage of removed children constituted around one in tenth on average between 1899 and 1968 in Victoria but this was not the concise statistical number in comparison with the years between 1940 and 1968 when the greatest number of child removals was reported. Although truths in the past and what they experienced from the historical injuries may never be forgotten and it takes times to heal emotionally and physically.
In recent eras, there are various Aboriginal generations continuously proceeding but somehow the history of the Stolen Generation still continue to bring feelings of isolation and displacement amongst Aboriginal communities. So in terms of connection, Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre knowledge is handed down to support the ideas of this historical context and to show the influences of assimilation period of time, and embody the connection between the past and the present in order to reattach the genuine identity of every Aboriginal person.
Remarkably, the assimilation policy of the colonial government did not reach the assimilatory goals due to the encounter with Aboriginal cultural expressions in the early period of this historical dimension. When it comes to resisting assimilation, struggles culminated between two sides and put the assimilation policy into a contest.
As stated by Broome (2010, 217), at that moment this policy was supposed to be anachronistic and also met backlashes from many international agencies such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 passed by the United Nations, the Soviet government in regard to obtaining a point in Cold War politics, student union from South Africa or even postwar migration from many nations.
Therefore, the colonial government was put under pressure and the policy needed to redefine to reach the living standard and suite the historical context; also Aboriginal people required the government to recognized their cultural diversity and the concept of Aboriginal communities.[4] Thereafter, many Aboriginal communities reinstated their identity and their traditional cultures were reconnected.
After ages, in the contemporary moment, Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre allows people to experience the Aboriginal cultural values and beliefs, which are clearly displayed to reflect historical and present remains throughout the map of 500 nations or language groups; those who were representatives for the communities either passed away or still living both in the past and the present. Especially, in terms of the tangible and intangible values, Aboriginal people have a sacred belief of on their Creation Ancestors, which is known as Bunjil; including the corroboree dancing, yuga painting, dadgier competing and delgi healing. [5]
As stated in Aboriginal Australians (Broome, 2010, 279-80), the achievement of paying respect for Aboriginal art and people reinforced and ABC’s broadcasting on Aboriginal programs by their traditional language and English version had a huge impact on ways of improving the Aboriginal image.
Moreover, the cultural expressions had significant attainments such as remains collection displayed in the Museum of Victoria (1984); the appearance of some Indigenous famous poet like Oodgeroo Noonuccal (1993), writer and activist Kelvin Gilbert (1993); other leaders like Steward Murray (1989) and many other young Aboriginal people.[6] That means Aboriginal cultural and physical identity gained a certain sense of belonging when their voices were associated with societies by their own ways of dedication.
It was seemingly great when traditional cultural expression in combination with cultural values brought up the soul of the land and passed on Indigenous artists. So their works and artistic endeavours could go beyond the scope of the land that they own, the border of national land and end up in many different horizons by cultural exports.[7] Accordingly, the establishment of administrative bodies like the National Indigenous Arts Advocacy Association (1999) helped protect Indigenous artists’ works and functioned to educate and train artists.
Along with the Aboriginal Historic Places Programs to certify many places and heritages reached intangible values (Jane and Burns, 2010, 50). Consequently, although they’re still was different perspectives on the assimilation policy and thus of cultural expressions, the dedication in many aspects by Aboriginal people raised their internal voices to demonstrate their respect to the land and throughout ancestors values handed down to determine the diversity in their culture and heritage which more or less demoted on Aboriginal human person including their appearance and identity.
Lastly, since the achievements of Aboriginal communities opened a brighter prospect on their land in varieties, that this raised the consideration to the needs for equal human nobility, fighting the civil rights and traditional owners of the land.
At Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre, the norm of “resilience” takes over the meaning of every single object and Aboriginal persons. The word is displayed remarkably amongst many other spiritual values of Aboriginal people but it carries the traditional concept of ancestors and their Creation stories.
At any rate, this is to educate and awaken not only Indigenous people but also those who are not Indigenous or visitors coming to visit or study about Aboriginal culture and what they did experience and overcame from the most vulnerable times to the prominent Aboriginal community.
In fact, in the earlier period of time when Aboriginal people struggled for the liberation, they were forced to change by oppressive policies but the campaign calling for a referendum did occur though the colonial government lacked civil rights and their mistreatment on child removals policy. According to Broome (2010, 221), in order to achieve the collection of the signatures of people through a variety of agencies and those who would listen, the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders (FCAATSI) received 103,000 signatures thereby the 1967 Referendum created a major step for Aboriginal communities in terms of fighting for civil right; eventually, Australians voted ‘yes’ for Aborigines.
Nonetheless, in connection with the present, as displayed at Bunjilka Aboriginal Centre, it is shown an upset information which was stated in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, “ In reckoning, the number of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.” [8] Although the legislation was still less capacity to practice at the time and the attitude of contemporary colonial government did little change, continuous negotiations between the two sides could promote better relationship and considered a better way of restoration.
For instance, the outcome of the negotiation between the Yorta Yorta nation and the state government fostered a co-management arrangement on lands and somehow had a great political reach than litigation.[9] Then, a continued strategy to reconcile the nations after the resistance to say apology of Howard government because of his divergent perspective and his so-called ‘practical reconciliation’ but did little action and rejected welfare dependency. [10]
Especially, with that in mind, social disintegration under this contradictory idea did bring an unkind government to marginalize the living condition of Aboriginal Australians. Until the government of Kevin Rudd took action on state apology on 13 February 2008 and what he promised for the future of Indigenous Australians with “free injustice and inequality based on mutual respect, mutual resolve, and mutual responsibility” (as cited in Broome, 2010, 349). That means the reconnection and recognition of Aboriginal Australians as Traditional Owners of the Land.
In a great extent, this also made a collaboration to flourish ways of ancestors and Creation stories of Aboriginal people handed down once every Aboriginal generation from present to future keeps and fosters their traditional values in the past. Above all, the resilience of individual Aboriginal person strengthened more and more when their land is now accepted and their values as well.
In conclusion, Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre grants precious knowledge on Aboriginal Australian history which somewhat enriches cultural understanding for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people about the past and the present.
The values lie in each of the stories, which are about ancestors’ concepts, symbolic paintings and objects, and other cultural attributes. This respectful place is probably a meaningful destination to build up deeper understanding and helps generations have a great manner when communicating with Aboriginal people and respect multiculturalism in terms of humanities.
As mentioned above about the connection between the past and the present which can be seen at Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre, the Stolen Generation, cultural expression, and land right and national reconciliation are just several aspects about Indigenous engagement.
When it comes to historical understanding, each object and stories can shed light for future generations and shape spiritual involvements amongst different generations with each other to seek insightful and respectful inspiration to Traditional Owners of the Land and many those of Indigenous Australians.
Bibliography
Behrendt, Larissa. “Land Rights and Native Title.” Hot Topics in Plain Language, no. 86, (2013): 16-19.
Broome, Richard. Aboriginal Australians: A History since 1788, 4th ed. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2010.
Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre, Melbourne Museum. Site visited on 29 May 2016.
Stories of separations-experiences of assimilation and child removal.
Haebich, Anna. “Forgetting Indigenous Histories: Cases from the History of Australia’s Stolen Generations.” Journal of Social History 44.4 (2011): 1033-1046.
Lyndon, Jane, and Alan Burns. “Memories of the Past, Visions of the Future: Changing Views of Ebenezer Mission, Victoria, Australia.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 14 (2010): 39-55.
[1] Stories of separation-experiences of assimilation and child removal.
[2] Richard Broome, Aboriginal Australians: A History since 1788, 4th ed. (Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2010), 96.
[3] Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre, visited 29 May 2016.
[4] Broome, Aboriginal Australians, 217.
[5] Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre, visited 29 May 2016.
[6] Broom, Aboriginal Australians, 278.
[7] Broom, Aboriginal Australians, 307.
[8] Bunjilaka Aboriginal Centre, visited 29 May 2016.
[9] Larissa Behrendt, “Land Rights and Native Title.” Hot Topics in Plain Language, no. 86, (2013): 17.
[10] Broome, Aboriginal Australians, 334-35.
The Digerati Politics 