f^aqM∣,∣ι.⅛ я 4i- *
155
In making general comments, the Report noted some Europeans
making statements such as:
They should be free to follow their own culture.
IVhy should we expect them to accept ours?
*
The comment is made that such statements come too late and
... can have a parallel in another sentiment frequently
expressed in situations where cultural conflict
exists, that ’they should be free to develop along
their own lines’. Both of these can so easily
be a respectable form of rationalising and justifying
discriminatory practices in a far more subtle way,
on the part of those not amenable to change. This
avoids the real problem, leaving those facing cultural
conflicts and disorganisation out on a limb, and
frequently perpetuates prevailing inequities on
the basis that ’they don’t really want to change’
(Commission of Inquiry into Poverty Report, 1975:66).
There is, however, one advantage gained by the Aboriginal
people from the theorizing of government and of official government
bodies.
While the theorizing about integration for Aborigines is
negated by the theorizing about integration for other ethnic
groups, it is nevertheless a theorizing about the location of
Aborigines in society that is positive in intent.
Despite the fact that the ’world’ of Aborigines is excluded
from mainstream 'cohesive* multi-cultural society, the ’world'
of Aboriginal people is no longer nihilated. It is recognised.
The recognition provides a basis for Aboriginal theorizing
that is positive.
The exclusion of Aboriginal people provides a ’boundary
from without' which marks off Aborigines as a group, and makes
easier the possibility of disparate groups of Aboriginal people
becoming more cohesive and constructing a framework for building
positive identity.