Comments on: Unfreezing move #3- Indigenous Worship

By: David

David — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 07:18:00 +0000

That’s a good move, Phil. Turn the situation into a free lunch for yourself.

By: phil

phil — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:36:48 +0000

I have been at the Neil Cole conference most of the week, so I have missed the interesting style of anaylsis by Greenman. Choosing to believe an American author who talks about indiginous worship is racist because of how indiginous is used to refer to Aborigines in Australia is an illogical step.

As I know the greenman has a great capacity for logic, thinking and analysis - I choose to believe he is involving himself in “mock outrage”

Perhaps over lunch greenman you can convince me that you truly believe that Easum is a racist.

By: bec

bec — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 07:42:01 +0000

Same in Vic. In fact, where I come from there’s lots of debate about whether the people should be called “Kurnai” or “Gunnai” (I’m afraid I’ve forgotten all about this, but from the depths of my memory I think I recall that “Gunnai” is the feminine and it’s as much a gender issue as anything).

Personally I think that the reference to “indigenous Australians” is not an entirely bad thing - while yes, it obscures cultural differences, it prevents the splintering of a somewhat vulnerable minority into an even more vulnerable minority, and the use of the term “indigenous” has all sorts of political ramifications that referring to people as, say, Gunnai, Wurundjeri etc does not. The point is they are the original inhabitants of this land - and the use of the term “indigenous” is an impediment to people forgetting their dispossession.

I have no idea how we came to be talking about this on this thread.

By: Toddy

Toddy — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 06:37:59 +0000

I think that’s the point. Instead of lumping them all in together (thereby assuming that they’re all mates and lovey dovey etc) we should take the time to work out who/where they’re from.
Germans and Belgians are European, but there are enough differences in their culture, geopgraphy, customs etc that it’s important to differentiate between the 2.
When Greenman was talking about displacement etc earlier, part of that is that many Aboriginal people themselves don’t know what ‘nation’ they are from. Fortunately, in the SW of WA at least, many more are learning, and are identifying as something ‘more/other’ than ‘Aboriginal’ in discussion.

By: bec

bec — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 06:24:08 +0000

Aren’t indigenous Americans now called “Native Americans”? (Or is that not PC anymore?) Surely the best term for indigenous Australians is indigenous Australians - or first Australians, or original Australians, or native Australians (though I’m not a fan of the word ‘native’ because of the noble savage connotations…) LovesTha, it’s hardly possible to come up with any other word to describe the entire indigenous Australian population, since they formed many nations and had many languages…it would be a bit like calling all Europeans Belgians.

By: LovesTha

LovesTha — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 05:09:00 +0000

I was purely commenting that the world would be slightly less confusing if some other term was universaly used to describe the (more) native australians than Aboriginal, maybe we should trying and find out what the first word an Aboriginal spoke to a western was and use that, it’d be no more of a silly thing than Americans being called Indians.

By: dan

dan — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 02:30:50 +0000

Bill Easum is from the USA. So why should we assume that he means Indigenous Australians when he refers to Indigenous Worship? “Indigenous” simply means “originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment”. Greenman, I don’t know that you can “choose” to interpret this in a totally different way and then get upset that you think he is being rascist!!

By: bec

bec — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 01:45:12 +0000

Not sure what you’re trying to say LovesTha??

Indigenous and aboriginal mean the same things - though in Australia both have come to be associated with indigenous Australians. Is Easum Australian? If not, I think his use of the term is entirely appropriate. Even if he is, it’s still appropriate. I certainly don’t think of people when I see the term “species which are indigenous…”!!

I don’t think “innate”, “essential” really get at the same thing - I understood Easum as trying to talk about a form of worship thats internally generated, rather than externally imposed - I guess “natural” comes closest to what I imagined he was talking about.

I’ve heard a number of indigenous and non-indigenous Christians use the term “indigenisation” to refer to the birth of new forms of worship among indigenous Australians. Interesting use of the word!

By: LovesTha

LovesTha — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 01:21:36 +0000

It is unfortunate that western culture never bother to name the aboriginal Australians beyond Aboriginal. It shows quiet a lack of imagination.

By: David (aka evidential)

David (aka evidential) — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:58:23 +0000

I would also support the greenman’s sentiments about the treatment of Indigenous Australians. The choice of the word “Indigenous” is probably unfortunate in that its meaning would often be associated with the long-term inhabitants of Australia. Alternative terms might be “innate”, “essential”, “natural”, etc.