Posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 17:05:38
In reply to Re: justice » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on November 14, 2005, at 16:44:16
we are different from australia.
the treaty...
the treaty...
people go on about how our indigenous realtions are different because we have a treaty...the treaty says... (roughly)... that maori retain their soverignty. suffice it to say that many millions of dollars have been spent on attempts to cash out the precise meaning of 'soverignty' and what that may or may not imply for indigenous relations.
there were different versions of the treaty. different tribes signed different versions so that complicates things a little. but... the soverignty bit is common to all versions. another issue... is that the english version doesn't match up so well with the maori version. most of the maori who signed signed on the basis of having the maori version read to them. so where there are differences between the english and maori versions there are further problems... some of the 'mis-translations' were probably fairly intentional. other 'mis-translation' trouhles are fairly much the inevitable result of translation. but it makes things tough...
basically... we have cashed out 'soverignty' as something along the lines of... maori retaining self-determination. with respect to their culture. where their culture is heading in modern times. there are also developments (which i think are fairly brilliant) in areas such as 'community psychology'. where the idea is basically... psychologists who go and live on the marae and work there from within to help the people fairly generally. play with the kids... etc etc. to be 'role models'. teach them stuff. just be a good 'role model'. teach them about drugs and alchohol and sexual health. etc etc. i think... that is a fairly worthwhile thing to be doing with respect to intervention. community centre type stuff. teaching them boxing or something. the self-control that goes along with that.
but i'm going off on a tangent...
aborigine are different... because they were wanderers. they wandered... they ranged over the land. they wandered around in small groups. and over time... the major cities just grew and grew. in the most fertile areas (well, the ones with water) which is fairly understandable. but the tribe goes wandering to find their water hole. and oh, hello, welcome to the edges of sydney. hmm.
so what to do with a wandering tribe?
if they want to wander then let them wander i say...
if they want to settle down then they need somewhere habitable. somewhere they can have a healthy community.
if they want to wander... then they need access to water etc. so they are self-sufficient when they do that.
i don't imagine... they are terribly happy hanging around the edges of the cities... drinking themselves into a stupor.
i was fairly impressed to be yelled at when i was in Canberra. was at old parliament house and someone yelled 'do you realise you are on aboriginal land???????' out the window.
should have seen their face when i gave them the thumbs up.
we forget... ownership is such a western notion... ownership to the exclusion of others. its mine so get off of it.
another name for that... is theft. theft of a common resource.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:578654
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/578710.html