We are Yugambeh, not just ‘Aboriginal’ - This is our country. All across this country, there are local councils, States and Federal offices seeking to create meaningful relationships with local Indigenous peoples and First Nations. From Reconciliation Action Plans to NAIDOC events, and even more involved matters like managing public lands - all of these require consultation and input, but who exactly is being consulted and under what circumstances? Aboriginal Australians are not a homogenous group, there are hundreds of Traditional Nations, clans, and family groups, as well as a myriad of complexity around Historical Communities and Stolen Generations. There is no single ‘Aboriginal’ group. Yet in many places, there is little transparency about how these consultations are being conducted and if they are a genuine reflection of Aboriginal wishes. More often than not, there is not just one Aboriginal community locally, but a variety of Indigenous groups, Traditional Owners, Historical Peoples, and Stolen Generations - and we are not the same.

‘We’re talking to the local Aboriginal people’

It is an often heard expression, batted about public servants, but what does it mean to ‘talk to the local Aboriginal people’. In the few cases where there is some transparency on who is being spoken to, the most common response from Aboriginal community members is ‘That organisation/person doesn’t represent Traditional Owners and/or cannot speak for that issue’. This is where the deeper issue of homogenisation comes in - what is homogenisation? In the social contexts, it means to take distinct groups, peoples, etc, and reduce them to a single group; in this case - Aboriginal Australians. Each of the various First Nations and peoples have their own languages, cultures, lands, and are distinct ethnic groups and have names like Yugambeh, Warlpiri, Yolngu, etc. Aboriginal is a European introduced concept of ‘race’.

Traditional Owners, are the original First Nation of an area, they have a right to self-determination and a right to their cultural identity. They should not be homogenised with Historical Peoples or other groups, simply because they are all ‘Aboriginal’.

Homogenising Indigenous ethnic groups under a single race to sideline one ethnic group's view is a form of racial discrimination.

1. International Human Rights Standards:

   • Racial discrimination is explicitly condemned under various international human rights instruments, such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Homogenising diverse ethnic groups may be seen as denying a specific group their right to participate in cultural, social, and political life, violating the principles enshrined in these international agreements.

2. Violation of Anti-Discrimination Laws:

   • Many countries have specific anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and national origin. Homogenising ethnic groups in a way that sidelines one particular group may be argued as a breach of these laws.

3. Undermining Democratic Principles:

   • In democracies, the fair representation of diverse viewpoints is essential. Homogenising ethnic groups to suppress a specific perspective could be seen as undermining the democratic principles of representation and participation.

4. Denial of Freedom of Expression:

   • Homogenising ethnic groups may impact the freedom of expression of the marginalised group by suppressing their ability to express their unique cultural, social, or political perspectives. This could be argued as a violation of constitutional or human rights protections for freedom of expression.

5. Impact on Political Participation:

   • Racial discrimination can manifest in various forms, including limiting the political participation of certain groups. Homogenising ethnic groups might result in the exclusion of a particular group from meaningful political engagement, contravening democratic ideals that promote inclusive political processes.

6. Historical Context and Systemic Discrimination:

   • An argument can be made by considering the historical context and systemic discrimination. If homogenisation is rooted in historical patterns of discrimination against a specific ethnic group, it could be viewed as a continuation of systemic discrimination.

Race & Ethnicity

Distinguishing between ethnic groups in itself is not considered racial discrimination. Ethnicity and race are distinct concepts, and while they can be related, they are not interchangeable. Ethnicity generally refers to shared cultural traits, language, ancestry, and heritage, while race is often based on physical characteristics.

Here are a few points to consider when understanding how distinguishing ethnic groups may not be inherently discriminatory:

1. Cultural Diversity: Recognising and distinguishing between ethnic groups can be a way to acknowledge and celebrate the rich cultural diversity within a society. Appreciating and understanding different ethnicities can contribute to a more inclusive and pluralistic society.

2. Preservation of Cultural Identities: Distinguishing ethnic groups may be important for the preservation and promotion of distinct cultural identities. It allows communities to maintain their unique traditions, languages, and customs without assimilation.

3. Policy and Program Development: Governments and organisations may distinguish between ethnic groups for the purpose of developing targeted policies and programs that address the specific needs and challenges faced by different communities. This approach is not discriminatory but rather aims to address disparities and promote equity.

4. Social Research and Demographics: Researchers often distinguish between ethnic groups for social and demographic studies. This allows for a better understanding of population dynamics, social trends, and disparities in areas such as healthcare, education, and employment. Such distinctions can be vital for designing effective policies and interventions.

5. Multiculturalism and Inclusivity: Many societies promote multiculturalism as a core value, recognising and respecting the coexistence of various ethnic and cultural groups. In such contexts, distinguishing between ethnic groups is not intended to create hierarchies but rather to foster a sense of unity in diversity.

Silencing the Voices

If a government body chooses to consult only individuals of the same "race" as an Indigenous tribe regarding a sacred site of theirs, it is a form of ethnic discrimination against the tribe.

1. Exclusionary Practice:

• By limiting the consultation to individuals of the same "race," the government body is engaging in an exclusionary practice that excludes the Indigenous tribe from meaningful participation. This can be seen as discriminatory if it prevents the tribe from expressing their unique perspectives and interests related to the sacred site.

2. Failure to Recognise Ethnic Diversity:

• Ethnicity encompasses a broad range of factors, including cultural heritage, language, and historical ties. By basing the consultation solely on "race" and not considering the specific ethnic identity of the Indigenous tribe, the government body fails to recognise and respect the diversity within the broader category of race.

3. Denial of Indigenous Rights:

• Indigenous communities often have unique rights related to their cultural heritage, including the protection of sacred sites. Denying the Indigenous tribe the opportunity to be directly involved in the consultation process may be a violation of their rights to participate in decisions that affect their cultural heritage, as recognised by international standards and possibly domestic laws.

4. Undermining Cultural Competence:

• Consultations regarding sacred sites require a level of cultural competence and understanding. Inviting individuals solely based on their "race" rather than their specific cultural or ethnic connection to the Indigenous tribe's heritage may result in a lack of understanding and appreciation for the cultural significance of the site.

5. Potential for Tokenism:

• Limiting consultation to individuals of the same "race" may risk tokenising the involvement of other groups, potentially undermining the authenticity of the consultation process. This could be perceived as a superficial attempt to appear inclusive without genuinely engaging with the specific cultural and historical context of the Indigenous tribe.

Why is everyone calling themselves ‘Yugambeh’ or ‘Minyangbal’ now?

 
Historical people, individuals who may have recent social ties to a specific Indigenous tribe or community but lack a direct, ancestral connection to that group, might erroneously believe they have the right to identify with a tribal name due to various factors:

1. Cultural Identity and Belonging: Historical people may feel a sense of cultural identity or belonging based on their family history or oral traditions passed down through generations. They might identify strongly with a particular Indigenous tribe or community, even if they lack legal or cultural recognition from that group.

2. Lack of Understanding or Education: Some historical people may not fully understand the complexities of Indigenous identity, tribal affiliation, and cultural protocols. They might mistakenly believe that their racial heritage entitles them to claim affiliation with a specific tribe without considering the nuances of Indigenous identity or the importance of ongoing connection to the community.

3. Misinterpretation of Ancestral History: Family stories or genealogical research may lead historical people to believe they are descendants of a particular Indigenous tribe or community. However, these narratives might be based on incomplete information, misunderstandings, or inaccuracies, leading to false assumptions about tribal affiliation and identity.

4. External Influences: Historical people may be influenced by external factors such as popular culture, romanticized portrayals of Indigenous peoples, or appropriation of Indigenous symbols and identities in mainstream society. These influences can shape their perception of Indigenous identity and contribute to misconceptions about tribal affiliation.

It's important to recognise that while historical people may feel a genuine connection to their Indigenous heritage, using a tribal name without proper authorisation or cultural understanding can be harmful and disrespectful to the Indigenous communities whose identity and sovereignty are tied to that name. Respecting Indigenous protocols, seeking education and understanding, and acknowledging the perspectives of Indigenous peoples are essential steps in promoting cultural sensitivity and fostering genuine reconciliation.