I was listening to Dave Batic on the radio about …

Comment on Define gallery purpose before picking a site: Bruce Walker by Ray.

I was listening to Dave Batic on the radio about the same subject and he was saying that a visit to the National Aboriginal gallery should be placed on the National Curriculum to showcase art and Aboriginal cultural.
That had me wondering, is this gallery going to be showcasing Central Australian art, or will it be featuring that with other SAboriginal art from around the country to keep in line with the “National” side of things?
What sort of cultural learning will be there? Culture from the Arrente from Central Australia, or also that from WA, the Top End, Victoria, QLD?
Is the membership and exec of the Chamber of Commerce privy to some extra info of what the building will contain?
If so it would be good for the residents to have this info.
As far as my question above, why would school kids from, say Geelong come here unless it featured Aboriginal customs, art and traditions from their area? Or is it a case that people are thinking that the aborigine from Papunya has the same culture, beliefs and art as that of a clan from the Mornington Peninsula or Bribie Island?
Surely if more Aboriginal history is added to the national curriculum, it would focus on the people, traditions and customs of the people who lived in the local area, unless our national museum contains information relating to all other language and tribal groups throughout the country.
If that is the case, then surely we need to adjust the projected figures and in turn the economic benefit.
For the claims that it will bring 150,000 extra tourists a year, and domestic tourism from school groups dwarfing even that figure, even the entire site of the Anzac Oval precinct would be needed if it is to truly be a national art gallery. Otherwise it would be a Central Australian Art Gallery, which one is it?
One would hope that the planners understand the concept that Australia was made up of over 200 hundred nations not just Aboriginal people as one collective.
Unless this is addressed the bickering over its purpose and representation will make it a laughing stock. Let’s hope the consultation with TOs from around the country are done better than what we have seen so far.
Policy on the run? We seem to becoming used to that. But to allocate so much money into it when we don’t actually have any, for an economic benefit that relies on crossing your fingers, seems to be so irresponsible it is not funny.

Recent Comments by Ray

Alice councillors join new political party
Ha ha, love the moniker Local 3, maybe I started something, but have not seen any posts from local 2 yet. Maybe over time we will grow, and can have a locals get together. Position vacant: Local 4.


Make September 8 Australia Day, anthem in Pitjantjatjara
Shannon Spaulding: It is quite ironic that you chastise Mr Egan over his choice of words.
He has done far more for the Indigenous people in the NT (both fair skinned and full blood) than you could ever dream of, yet you chastise him on the words he uses.
It is ironic that you attribute the white Australia policy to relating to Aboriginal people whereas it actually was an immigration policy.
You quote things about the so called stolen generation that really prove you have no real understanding about that subject either, apart from the populist ideas of that myth.
I might identify as a Syrian Attack Helicopter, but does that mean I am one? How is it fair that an urban couple living in a million dollar house, a white male living with a mostly white woman whose great grandmother was Aboriginal, gets the same benefit, drawing from the same funding as a child living at Mutitjulu? Of corse not.
Be proud of your cultural identity, but acknowlege all sides. Whilst I do not agree with Ted’s proposal, I would never contemplate trying to educate him on Aboriginal affairs.
That would be like arguing with Stephen Hawking about what sort of cheese the moon is made from.


The stolen child who went to university
True Peter, sadly what happened when many of these children were taken away was traumatic, however the biggest mistake was the acceptance of the misnomer, stolen.
True, the term stolen usually means taken without permission, but unfortunately this term fails to address the reason they were taken.
In almost all cases it was due to either neglect or an inability to provide a safe environment, and in context, based on what European standards at the time deemed a safe environment.
There have been many prominent Aboriginal people who have gone on record claiming they were stolen, but this often led to heartbreak when the real circumstances are discovered, that their parents were unable to provide for them, for various reasons.
It’s easier to say the government stole you rather than say your parents were unable to provide for you. There has only ever been one truly stolen person in any court case in Australia.
Bruce Trevorow, who was adopter out when his parents left him in hospital and were uncountable for over 12 months.
The term stolen generation is now morphing into the more emotive term genocide.
In the meantime the children continue to suffer.


Australia Day: Alice’s role in it
@ Evelyn. The Australia Day celebrations that we celebrate today first began in 1818, when it was called Fist Landing Day, or Foundation day. The recommendation from Matthew Flinders that the country be called Australia was only accepted a year before that.
During the Centenary in 1888, leaders from around Australia and new Zeland gathered in Sydney to celebrate what was then changed to Anniversary Day. The Federal Australia Day Council began in 1946 until replaced by the National Australia Day Council in 1984.
So while July 9, 1900 is an important milestone in our history, it does not reflect the day of our beginnings, or in effect our birthday. Whilst Aboriginal history goes back thousands of years before European settlement, Australia’s history really began when first claimed by Philip on the shores of Port Jackson, on January 26, 1788.
The many events that occurred subsequently, whilst important, do not tell the story from the beginning.


Fiscal emergency: Get rid of Ministers, says Opposition
@ Pseudo Guru. Politicians are not public servants. Public servants are defined as “employed under the Public sector Employment and Management Act”.
Politicians are not employed under this Act, as they are elected.
They have similar guiding principles, however it is important to understand that they are NOT public servants.
In many Acts, the buck stops with the CEO of the agency, a “Minister of the Crown” cannot be prosecuted or charged for a failure or breach of an agency under their portfolio.
They are not elected to “serve the people”, rather to represent the people. Small words, but big difference.


Be Sociable, Share!