Decolonising Australian Anthropology - Conclusion

CONCLUSION 

It could be said, at the risk of introducing a foreign distinction by way of an aide to understanding, that matters of the identity of reincarnated Dreaming ancestors is a concern for 'spiritual' reproduction and then contrast this with more familiar forms of bodily reproduction.

Despite a good start made on these matters by Spencer and Gillen from 1901, most of the Western debate about First Peoples forms of social organisation were dominated by world views which privileged bodily notions of reproduction over those of Dreaming spirits.

For whatever reason, and there is plenty of room here to speculate, this  singularly important feature of original life in this country – peoples lives as forms of reincarnation -  was treated as a matter of no real significance by Westerners.

No doubt there are many reasons, including the role of non-indigenous Australian’s own religious beliefs.

As a background to those beliefs, there has also been a long process in Great Britain which has removed people from the country and converted the lives of many into those of a landless working class. 

Western life has been marked by an increasing process of secularisation over the two and a quarter centuries this country has been colonised by European peoples. Unlike ways of life such as we see in India – and with the exception of church appointed Ministers of religion – modern society lacks a place for holy men.

This Western secularisation process is of direct relevance to the rise of Darwinism, naturalism, social science and the importance placed on notions of descent.

While First Peoples may have been regarded as heathens and pagans by Anglican authorities in 1788, by the 1900’s they were regarded by educated Europeans as living fossils - primitive stone-age remnants doomed to pass away.

That is, First Peoples were deemed to be of an extremely low existential  status. Their own extremely high existential standing – as reincarnated Dreaming ancestors – was not to be taken as anything more than the confused beliefs of ‘inherently inferior’ native peoples.

Edward Said, in his book ‘Culture and Imperialism’ has identified imperialism as carrying with it a system of attitudes. The attitudes of 1900 are no longer sustainable. 

Consequently, as we enter into the 21st century, the time has come for us to replace that destructive and obsolete system of attitudes with a genuine spirit of cultural partnership.

The notion of ‘Reincarnated Dreaming ancestors’ is at a great remove from the dazzling array of fresh technological miracles which keep our heads spinning in present times.

Such matters as mangaya inheritance (Dreaming persona, the ‘descent of the totem’) are a complex business which are difficult for ‘outsiders’ to understand. First Peoples are the real experts. 

We must not underestimate the high degree of resilience of First Peoples Ways and presume that the process of colonisation has replaced indigenous means of identification with those of the modern nation-state.  

Reincarnated Dreaming ancestors were never Beings of the Westminster systems of governance. Nor can we presume they cease to exist within the cultures of living First Peoples. 

The conclusion i draw from this is that First Peoples have to be provided with the freedom to be able to operate according to their own cultural imperatives. 

The act of recognising First Peoples in a Constitution must not be allowed to become another example of non-indigenous people trying to  ‘fix’ First Peoples by culturally inappropriate methods. 

The conversation on Constitutional recognition must, therefore, be conducted in a spirit of cultural partnership which allows First Peoples, in different parts of the country, to be able to clearly state their views on matters which remain outside the domain of the secular Australian state. 

And, in any new form of Constitution of a new Australia,  to be provided with forms of recognition which will enable First Peoples to be live their lives according to their own Ways.