Why Whites also need an Aboriginal Treaty

Roberta Sykes

Dr Roberta Sykes, a Harvard Graduate, is executive officer of Black Women's Action.

This article is, in part, a response to Geoffrey Blainey's.  Dr Sykes believes that much of the debate about justice for Aborigines has been distorted by misinformation, driven by sectional interests, and that if the majority of Australians understood the issues better they would support a treaty, not on grounds of altruism, but on those of self-interest.

THE recent and periodic immigration debate, with its focus on race, seems somehow to be an emotional partner to the occasional anti-Aboriginal outbursts we endure.  The year which held so much promise of hope for a reconciliation between white and black Australians, and for a treaty to safeguard that reconciliation into the future, seems to be running out of time.

At bottom, dissent regarding a treaty stems from a very vocal and sophisticated group of whites, among them mining magnates and investors, and rogue academics.  The vested interests of the former are obvious, although they are persuasive with their ''give Aborigines land rights and everyone will lose their jobs!'' approach.  These are the same people who alarmed white Australia with their dire predictions that the country would go to rack and ruin if Uluru (Ayers Rock) was returned to the traditional owners.

Since the hand-over, more tourists than ever have visited and enjoyed the area, under the watchful and protective eyes of the local elders.  Aboriginal control of the area will ensure its maintenance and continuity for perhaps another 40,000 years, a benefit for ''all'' Australians.  During this same period, white systems and culture seem destined to destroy much of the rest of the planet.

The understanding that large numbers of white Australians have of the historic conflict between Aborigines and whites is mostly superficial, minimal and abstract.  Estimates of black fatalities now number in the hundreds of thousands.  And, as with all other wars, it was and is a war over land.  It matters little whether the blacks were shot down, passively ate poisoned food left out for them, or died of syphilis after having been raped by whites.

Rogue historians would argue that invasion by outside forces was inevitable, that if the British had not expropriated the Aboriginal birthright, some other nation would have.  In terms of justice, however, this defence in a court of law would have us believe that rapists and murderers are justified, because if they hadn't committed the act someone else would have.

A flimsy argument is often postulated that Aborigines themselves arrived from elsewhere, and this, too, is supposed to justify the white invasion of 1788.  There is not one shred of evidence to support a theory of Aboriginal migration, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.  All Aboriginal oral history and mythology point to the evolution of Aborigines right here.  Anthropological finds keep pushing back the date at which the alleged migration could have occurred -- it is now in excess of 50,000 years ago.

UNINFORMED MIDDLE GROUND

There are three main camps of whites -- those with understanding, empathy and support for the black position, those who oppose that position, and a large group on middle ground who struggle with the questions, many of whom as yet hold no firm opinion.  Successive governments have failed to provide this middle group with sufficient information to solve their dilemma.

Unbelievable though it may sound, many worry that government recognition of prior Aboriginal ownership would force them to return home.  They see their own position as invidious because many have been here so long and have such diverse ancestry that they really have no ''home'' apart from their security here.  For them, this makes recognition of the rights of Aborigines untenable.  This large group of people usually do not know any Aborigines personally.  If concern for their own welfare could be alleviated, they would be free to weigh up the moral question of justice for Aborigines.

These people are alert to the vested interests of mining and rural investors, but more susceptible to others who may appear to be on the middle ground.  Culture brokers, often xenophobes and academics, step in and, claiming to be unbiased, offer these people guidance in how to think, feel and act in this difficult situation.

The compensatory aspect of an Aboriginal treaty is often denounced as being discriminatory.  The principle of compensation for crime, car and industrial accidents, etc, is to assist victims, replace lost goods and try to recover their former lifestyles.  It was not established just for blacks, but in recognition of the right all people have to go about their lives unmolested.  Failure to redress this issue is discrimination.

WIDENING GAP

Meanwhile the social and economic gap between blacks and whites continues to widen.  Black poverty is a well-known fact.  Collective white Australian wealth was founded in 1788 through the expropriation of the continent, and built upon since by the import of animals which graze upon the land, and technology to exploit the resources of the land.

The source of contemporary white wealth is the land, and the land and its ensuing wealth has been handed down from generation to generation among the whites.  Blacks, due to this colonisation, have had only dispossession and poverty to hand down to each successive generation.

A treaty may or may not be the answer to this conflict.  Professor Blainey thinks that because a treaty may have been worth little 200 years ago, it won't work today.  If white commitment and dedication to justice, reconciliation and reparation can be measured by Blainey's, he may be right.

At best, Australia could negotiate a treaty that acknowledged former Aboriginal ownership, and the historic past, and sought an equitable solution based on justice.  Australia is being nudged in this direction by the Pope, the United Nations and many other organisations.  At worst, an excuse for a treaty, based on principles of more welfare and ''grants'', may mean a continuance of policies of the past which failed to bring dignity to either party.

Any treaty needs to make explicit where the national resources originally came from which enable such ''generosity''.  Ironically, blacks are the most intense critics of the white hand-out mentality.  Many governments have deluded themselves and voters by reasoning that increasing hand-outs should satisfy the Aboriginal passion for justice.

In either case, there is always a concern -- by the detractors -- about who is an Aborigine.  It's like saying there should not be equal employment strategies to end sexual discrimination against women -- because some men might dress up as women and capitalise upon it.

It is important now to move steadily ahead with a treaty, and sort out the peripheral concerns later.  The black community, operating from a position of power, could effectively deal with Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal individuals who might seek to seize personal advantage by exploiting newly negotiated resources.

There is no doubt in my mind where ''no treaty'' would lead us.  Even moderate blacks who publicly denounce Aboriginal-Libyan overtures, privately lament that a constant stream of new and assertive measures appears to be the only way Aborigines stay on the agenda.

An informed public would be more likely to support a treaty, not for any altruistic notions, but because it serves their own self-interest.  Scaremongers push the public to believe that land or funds flowing from a treaty will be shipped away to where no white can every gain access to it.  Such a view would be laughable if it weren't so widespread.

The truth is that the acknowledgment and restoration of Aboriginal rights would enable white society to work towards its own sense of dignity.  Of slavery it as said that ''the master can't dehumanise another human being without, in the process, dehumanising himself''.

As well, Australia can only be stimulated by and benefit from initiatives which would be undertaken by blacks in their new role of equal participants moving towards the shared challenge of the future.  A dream, perhaps, but with a treaty there is a chance.