Free Palestine

I'm no longer on tumblr. Below is where you can find me.

"Some modern archaeologists see archeology as simply another colonial strategy designed to justify occupation of 'savage' lands by Western countries. Hutchings and La Salle say that, '[A]rchaeology has always been tied to the endeavour of imperialism and capitalist expansion…Such "proof" of the natural, cultural and racial inferiority of Indigenous peoples served the interests of those who would justify their subjugation, assimilation and enslavement for profit.' They quote McNiven and Russel's assertion: 'Archaeologists and prehistorians constructed the archaeological record to scientifically vindicate the colonialist notions of savagery and staged progressivism to leave little doubt that Indigenous peoples, particularly "hunter-gatherers", represented primordial man…[and that archaeology] has little to do with the rigors of science and all to do with a colonial ideology and a…public that wishes to find scientific support to legitimize colonial dispossession of Aboriginal lands and to delegitimize contemporary Aboriginal claims to Native Title rights.' Many Australians are galled when Aboriginals and Torres Straight Islanders urge a revision of Australian history, but Aboriginal people are forced into a defence of their history, culture, and economy every day of their lives."

"We have to be careful that we are not deciding on markers of civilisation simply because that is the historical path followed by Western civilisations. As Gavin Menzies, author of 1421 has pointed out, if you proceed on the assumption that only Western European nations had reached the stage of civilisation, you have to behave as if the Chinese were not the first to invent gunpowder, pottery, and celestial navigation techniques. China was probably the most advanced nation on earth until the eighteenth century, but arrived there without following all the steps that Westerners consider the true path to civilisation. Racial bias can cloud observation and reasoning. The same intellectual prejudice has been applied to the state of Aboriginal civilisation in Australia, and in doing so has dismissed large bodies of first-contact evidence as being mere aberrations. With that myth firmly planted in the minds of students, it was only a matter of time before the image of Aboriginal people as primitives haplessly wandering across the face of the earth allowed Australians to feel 'sorry' for Aboriginals and to dismiss them from the national consciousness."

"Denigration of [Australian] Aboriginal buildings by Europeans took several forms. The explorer Ernest Giles was contemptuous of Aboriginal achievement. That prejudice squeezed his racism like toothpaste from a tube, so it is no surprise to read that when he discovered huge piles of stones with large central slabs, he assumed, with no evidence, that they were for cannibal sacrifice. If they were not old house sites, they were probably graves of significant figures, but it was too much to expect that Giles would describe them in anything but derogatory terms. … The underestimation of Indigenous achievement was a deliberate tactic of British colonialism. Large structures of North American First Nations people were similarly ignored, or credited to earlier Europeans; and in South Africa, Cecil Rhodes made it illegal for anyone to mention the huge Shona structures found in what was once Rhodesia and is now Zimbabwe. It was obvious they were built by the Shona, but in order to legitimise his usurpation it was important that their achievements were denied."

"The researchers John Morieson and Lynne Russell reflect on the stone arrangements found throughout the country, and the determination with which colonial Australia tried to prove that they couldn't have been built by Indigenous people. Morieson's work on the massive arrangements in various parts of Victoria led him to believe they were meant to predict the solstice. His mathematical calculations show precise correlations with celestial phenomena. Attracting attention and funding to such research is always difficult, but, as the evidence mounts, a new area of enquiry must surely develop. Perversely, some early colonists exaggerated the size of some features in order to distance the structure from the capability of Aboriginal people and to suggest their origin to be the work of isolated Europeans in the distant past. An engraving of some vertical stones at Mount Elephant, Victoria, published in Australian Illustrated News in 1877, has certainly been exaggerated to assume Stonehenge proportions. Faced with the evidence of permanent occupation, some were even tempted to infer that the work was the result of aliens."

"Collecting such a welter of evidence might seem a tedious excess to some, but reference to Aboriginal housing is so remote from the Australian consciousness that, on reading of one or two examples, people might be encouraged to see them as aberrations. I have used examples from across the continent in order to show the pervasive nature of these cultural developments. Houses and villages were observed from the far Kimberly to Cape York, from Hutt River to Tasmania, a feature of the pre-contact Aboriginal economy, and marked the movement towards agricultural reliance. These villages were not just functional occupation centres, but places of solace and comfort in often difficult terrains and climates. New examples are being discovered all the time. Archaeologists are currently examining a complex village site in 'Australia's dead heart' where the people had a complex water-management system, sophisticated housing, stone quarries, and seed-grinding and storage arrangements. This is a major cultural site where people employed engineering to manage the environment. It has the potential, together with the examination of hundreds of similar sites around the country, to provide a very different picture of Australia's social, economic, and cultural history. Genuine interest in the Australian past will provide a rich vein of knowledge that will inform our attempts to live in this country but still protect the environment."

"European settlers shunned the abalone, and referred to it derogatorily as mutton fish. English cooking has never enjoyed much of a reputation, and so the colonial chefs applied their most subtle cuisine to the abalone; boiling. The flesh of the abalone takes on the texture of industrial rubber when handled this way, and so, with no other cooking refinement to fall back on, the 'mutton fish' was considered food for 'blacks'. The Chinese and Japanese knew otherwise. They pounded the fish, sliced it finely, and cooked it quickly — for no more than thirty seconds — in a searing pan. Treated this way, the flesh is delicate, tender, and full of flavour. One Aboriginal recipe suggests cooking the abalone in its own shell on hot coals. I tried this, expecting the flesh to toughen under these conditions, but instead found that it remained tender and even more flavourful. Once entrepreneurs realised that Australian Chinese [people] were exporting abalone meat, they lobbied the Departments of Primary Industry to establish licensing, quotas, and closed marketing boards, which operated like cartels. Aboriginal people are now seen as poachers simply because the shellfish is so enormously valuable. When it was 'mutton fish', they were allowed to harvest as much as they wanted. Today they are jailed for pursuing their traditional harvest."