The name is absent

It is significant that the card came to be known by
Aboriginal people as a dog licence - a term that encapsulated
the Aboriginal view that they were seen as less than human
by the dominant society.

A further consequence of the nihilation of positive
+

Aboriginal identity by white people was that it made possible
the manipulation of those Aboriginal people who came into
contact with the white world as part of their aim to work to better
the lot of the Aboriginal people. Such people were categorised
as not-Aboriginal and therefore having no right to speak for
Aborigines.
*

Tatz (1979:11) describes how Viner, the Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs, rejected the right of Miller, (a self-identified Aborigine),
to speak for Aurukun Aborigines. Undoubtedly, Miller was a self-
appointed spokesman not designated by the elders of Aurukun ∙
Nevertheless, Viner could hardly have the right to say ^,,I speak
*
directly for the (Aurukun) Council”.

Similarly, Senator Neville Bonner’s right to speak for
Aborigines at a political level was derided in the following
account where Tatz (1979:11) quotes from the record of the
Queensland Parliamentary Debates.

Mr, Hinze: Would you say that Senator Bonner is an Aborigine?
Dr. Scott-Young: No, Senator Bonner claims to be an Aborigine,
Mr, Hinze: Do you think he might be an Indian or an Afghan?
Dr. Scott-Young: I do not know. He claims to be an Aborigine.
*

Once an Aboriginal person was educated, or in a position having
status, by definition he could no longer be an Aborigine. He could
only claim to be an Aborigine. Real Aborigines were those with
negative attributes.

ɪθn the question of spokesman in tradition-oriented groups,
see p.271 below.

<<   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   >>

More intriguing information