I don’t consider that there are any valid grounds for contesting the truth of the statement that the rightful custodians of the lands of Australia are Indigenous peoples. But when such a statement is made in the form of an acknowledgement by a non-Indigenous person as a preface to a public address of some sort, the enormous gap between the truth of the statement, and the actual situation on the ground at the time of speaking becomes an acute issue. If a non-Indigenous person in Melbourne, for example, acknowledges that the Wurundjeri are the custodians of the land they are speaking on, the question naturally and inevitably arises ‘in what sense is this true right now?’ If the Wurundjeri really are custodians of the land, what power do they actually have over anything which takes place in Melbourne which demonstrates this custodianship? Answer: virtually none. And not only do they lack power to enact their custodianship, they are still subject to severe discrimination on these lands.
Thus, making an acknowledgement of country may be well-intentioned, and may have the effect of at least reminding people of our colonial history. But as a description of present conditions, it is conspicuously and seriously inaccurate, and I consider that this disqualifies it as an acceptable thing to say. Therefore, I would need to add to the acknowledgement, and say something to the effect that ‘I acknowledge the Wurundjeri people as the custodians of this land, but also acknowledge that this custodianship is currently, in practice, being denied and prevented by the non-Indigenous government to whom this land was never ceded.’I don’t consider that there are any valid grounds for contesting the truth of the statement that the rightful custodians of the lands of Australia are Indigenous peoples. But when such a statement is made in the form of an acknowledgement by a non-Indigenous person as a preface to a public address of some sort, the enormous gap between the truth of the statement, and the actual situation on the ground at the time of speaking becomes an acute issue. If a non-Indigenous person in Melbourne, for example, acknowledges that they are speaking ‘on Wurundjeri lands’, the question naturally and inevitably arises ‘in what sense is this true right now?’ If the Wurundjeri really are custodians of the land, what power do they actually have over anything which takes place in Melbourne which demonstrates this custodianship? Answer: virtually none. And not only do they lack power to enact their custodianship, they are still subject to severe discrimination on these lands.
Thus, making an acknowledgement of country may be well-intentioned, and may have the effect of at least reminding people of our colonial history. But as a description of present conditions, it is conspicuously and seriously inaccurate, and I consider that this disqualifies it as an acceptable thing to say. Therefore, I would need to add to the acknowledgement, and say something to the effect that ‘I acknowledge the Wurundjeri people as the custodians of this land, but also acknowledge that this custodianship is currently, in practice, being denied and prevented by the non-Indigenous government to whom this land was never ceded.’
Comments