122
Allied to the concept of identification is that of the
nomenclature used. This issue will now be examined.
9.5 Nomenclature
The inconsistency and arbitrariness of identification is
further illustrated by the lack of agreement even on nomenclature.
The Aboriginal people have been variously designated as ’natives’,
’Aborigines’, ’aborigines’, ’Aboriginals’.
A study of quotations used throughout this text, shows
enormous variation in nomenclature whether it is academics writing,
or governments stating policy. As late as 1964, Reay (1964:167)
devoted several pages to the problem of what to call the people.
Her efforts to establish an agreed form came to nothing; she "was
told that the term ’Aborigine’ had acquired in common usage
status of a name in the absence of any other name”.
Manifestly, while the dominant group had the power to name,
and did name the minority group, the particular nomenclature used
was a matter of indifference.
The indifference shown in naming mirrors the general indifference
of the dominant group towards a nihilated, 'not-to-be-taken-
seriously’ group.
Aboriginal people perceived this indifference as a form of
nihilation. Gilbert castigated whites
...as bastards ... [who] will not recognise the
conditions of Aboriginal people, [who] will not
live up to the ideals you profess - justice, humanity,
decency. Aborigines stereotype whites as indifferent
at best (Tatz ed., 1975:5).
ywww........ pj∣ι.∣j ∣rww≡WWΓ∣∣l∣ ∣ і п>ч'■ ■-W'""......
Colbung stresses the indifference of whites towards Aborigines:
b
White society says: ’You can have what we don't
want’ and this is how it goes - 'We don't want the
reserves, give them back to the Aborigines!; Now