The name is absent

163

Broom and Jones concluded in their statements towards a
social policy for Aborigines that

A first need is to establish a common definition:
the 1971 Census self-identification question seems
to offer the best solution (Broom and Jones, 1973:90).

However, while this definition of identification is eminently
practicable for census purposes, and appears straightforward,
it does not come to grips with the more fundamental problem of
identity, of stability in the perception of one’s self-sameness
in positive terms, in the location of oneself in a particular
social structure, and in the provision of ’functional constancy’,
⅛    ∙              4         «    *

that is, the recognition by others of one’s self-sameness.

The Aboriginal Consultative group offered the following

definition of Aboriginal identity:

The identity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
people is primarily a question of descent and should
be established on the basis of family lines. We
realise that for some Aborigines and Torres Strait
Island people, documentation of descent will be
difficult and some appropriate method determining
lineage may have to be devised (Report to the Australian
Schools Commission, 1975:5).

Aboriginal people perceive the need of something more than
a verbal self-identification - namely, an identification that
is at the same time a Contexting into a life-history and into
a group.

4

So great is the Confusionwhichhas been engendered by earlier

policy and practice that, in the contemporary social climate
where it is acceptable to identify and be identified as Aboriginal,
questions have to be asked even by the Aboriginal people: seeking

Aboriginal identity:

What does Aboriginal identity mean?

What does the perception of self-sameness imply?

How do we arrive at self-identification?

The white world, until the seventies, could decide arbitrarily
ь

who was, and who was not, an Aborigine.

<<   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   >>

More intriguing information