Kester Tong
It is difficult to pin down the ideology behind the First Australians gallery. There is no cohesive argument, but a diffuse presentation of objects, multimedia and stories. However, in looking at what is included, and just as importantly what is not included in the exhibits, it is possible to identify some key messages. Oppression of Aboriginal people is present, but its scale is not adequately portrayed. The humanitarian views towards Aborigines of some governments and politicians in Australia’s history are greatly exaggerated while their open racism is certainly not. The way the political and economic system brought to Australia in 1788 necessitated the theft of Aboriginal land and the oppression of Aboriginal people is denied. Hence the Museum is able to claim that "there is hope that we can work together for a better future," without demanding change to the political and economic system. The museum is instead overwhelmingly positive about the potential for change within the system.
There has been a great deal of controversy over possible political influence on curators by pro-Liberal members of the NMA board of directors, especially David Barnett, the writer of Howard’s biography. Dawn Casey has denied that oppression of Aboriginal people has been played down for political reasons1. However, a spokesperson insisting the gallery will not be "preachy"2 seems to imply that atrocities committed against Aboriginal people would be played down. Even sites of massacres are renamed "conflict sites", and some of the worst atrocities are left out in favor of incidents in which the white murderers were actually punished. Ambiguous wording is often misleading. For example with respect to the Stolen Generation the museum says, "from the 1890’s to the 1960’s many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were removed from their parents by governments promising better education and employment opportunities." This leaves open the question of whether or not force was used or parents were simply tricked into giving their children away, as well as whether the promise was made to the parents or white Australian society.
There is one reference of Prime Minister Fraser saying that both white people and Aboriginal would benefit from the exploitation of land through mining. Apart from this, if government oppression of Aboriginal people is played down, then the interests behind this oppression are neglected entirely. Sometimes this requires extremely misleading statements such as describing the taking over, without any negotiations3, of the land of the Yilpara people by "…bauxite mining engulfed the mission…" without mention of the people’s protests. One exhibit does point out that that aborigines from the ‘stolen generation’ were used as cheap domestic labor, but industrial struggle by the Aboriginal working class is completely ignored. Even the Wave Hill strike, which initiated the modern land rights movement4, does not get a mention. Naturally, limitations of space and a will to avoid offending sections of society are used to justify this5, but neither of these arguments addresses the reconciliation of a factual account of history and the omission of major issues.
Director Dawn Casey says the museum "uses indigenous people themselves to tell their stories"6. Which stories are selected and how much time is devoted them are very important to understanding the viewpoint of the curators. The most significant dichotomy is between action within, and action against the system. While the protest movement for land rights of the 60’s and 70’s and the massive mobilization of Australians in the walk across Sydney Harbor Bridge is given a few sentences in a video, the sale of land by Tasmanian aborigines to Batman in the 1830’s is given its own wall and hailed as a "challenge" to the colonial attitudes of the time. Native title granted by the courts is also lauded unconditionally, despite the very limited nature of the gains made, especially with respect to mining7. The museum is only able to take such a thoroughly reformist line by ignoring the link between the drive for profit and the oppression of aboriginal people. Even so, conservatives such as Barnett have criticized the museum’s content8.
There is a very clear message that a greater understanding between Aboriginal Australian and whites will ensure a better future for Aborigines, but this is based on the mistaken assumption that it is the attitudes of ordinary of Australians that is the cause of the oppression of Aboriginal people9. A museum spokesperson said, "What we’re doing is presenting the facts as they are. Non-Aboriginal people genuinely want to understand Aboriginal culture."10 Some facts are present, but the absence of others is very problematic. In particular, how can people understand Aboriginal culture outside the context of 210 years of struggle against British-imposed capitalism? For all their care, the political binds placed on curators have created a gallery that does not address important political issues such as a government apology to aboriginal people, conflicts between mining and land rights, mandatory sentencing and many others. It is not lack of space that excludes these political issues but a fear of retribution11
The museum claims that the First Australians gallery "documents the heritage, cultural traditions, languages, and economic, social and spiritual life of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples…"12. Inasmuch as it ignores the contradictions between aboriginal rights and the political and economic system brought to this country by British invaders, this is not possible. There is a rich culture of struggle amongst indigenous Australian’s, including many great political activists. When progress is reduced to a series of court cases and tribunals, and the real forces driving oppression behind aboriginal people are ignored, the museum’s attempt to accomplish its aims will be at best incomplete.
Notes
1 See L. Martin, "Left or Right, the centre of attention" in Sydney Morning Herald, 18 April 2001.
2 See J. Israel "$152m museum gives sneak peek into our psyche" in Sydney Morning Herald,13 March 2000.
3 M. Armstrong. "Aborigines: Race and Class", in R. Kuhn and T. O’Lincoln (ed.), Class and Class Conflict in Australia, Longman Australia: Melbourne, 1996 p. 62.
4 Ibid. p. 70
5 Discussion with museum staff inevitably resulted in discussion of one of these factors. Also see M. Doherty "Museum Denial" in The Canberra Times, 3 March 2001 where Dawn Casey refers to the museum not being "confrontationalist"
6 in R. Usher "Australia, you’re standing in it" in The Age, February 21, 2001
7 See Armstrong ‘Aborigines’ Op cit p. 58. The situation outlined there is made worse by Howard’s Ten Point Plan
8 L. Martin ‘Left or Right’ Op. cit.
9 Armstrong ‘Aborigines’ Op. cit. p. 60
10 J. Israel ‘$152 Museum’ Op. cit.
11 According to L. Martin in ‘Left or Right’ op. cit., "Barnett criticized the intellectual tone and content of the museum and wrote a lengthy paper, which mysteriously made its way to MPs, suggesting the curators should be reined in. Insiders at the museum say that Barnett’s appointment alone was read as a sign to take heed of the Prime Minister’s disdain for the "black armband" view of history."
12 The National Museum of Australia, 2000 (Pamphlet)