Rebellion Pastiche!
Many years ago now I lived in Newtown, Sydney, and the areas surrounding it (Stanmore, Marrickville, etc), all of which have a recent history as the home of a large number of Aboriginal people and a bit of a hotbed of street activism (far left and far right), largely probably due to their proximity to the University of Sydney, some large inner city areas of Aboriginal housing, and some industrial areas. Marrickville, where I also lived, has a long tradition of Greek, Italian and then Vietnamese migration, and the whole area is a wide swathe of light industrial zoning with a long and proud history of unionism. As part of the post-60s wave of Aboriginal rights and green activism a large number of murals were painted in various areas of the inner west. From the train line between Redfern and Newtown passengers used to be able to see a rendering of the Black Panther Olympic salute, entitled “Three proud men”; and on the road to Stanmore there was a really creepy old guy perving on a girl on a tricycle. But the most famous mural is the “I have a dream” mural, pictured above, which was painted on the side of a terraced house in the very centre of the main commercial road, King Street, very close to the station. This mural combines a picture of Martin Luther King, his most famous phrase, the earth with Australia red in the centre, and the Aboriginal flag (the black and red squares with the gold disc in the middle). It’s a bit tacky but also a proud reminder of Indigenous struggle, painted there by a local couple many years ago. In my opinion the Aboriginal flag is a really powerful symbol, and should be used as Australia’s official flag in place of the Southern Cross[1], which is nowhere near as cool, and this mural combines that strong image of Australia with a couple of international ideas about liberation and freedom. I’m not entirely in favour of importing American ideals of freedom and struggle to other countries, but I hope my reader(s) can see the intent and appreciate its strength.
Anyway, back when I lived in Newtown this mural was starting to decay, the paint was starting to crumble, but worst of all a lot of posters were beginning to appear, mostly on the bottom left of the red part of the flag but also in the golden disc. Rather embarrassingly, most of these posters were either for far left political groups, or for illegal raves (“doofs”) that would regularly spring up in the inner west and which were also largely associated with the far left/green movement. This was in the 1990s, before the Reconciliation movement had really taken off, probably 10-12 years before the apology, and a lot of the far left hadn’t cottoned on to the fact that Aboriginal reconciliation and land rights were becoming a really important part of the political landscape – Aboriginal activism generally was seen as strongly connected to the Labour party and the Democrats, and viewed with suspicion by the far left. This might explain their willingness to put up posters on such an iconic mural (the far right couldn’t, because they had either died of heroin overdoses, been sent to prison, or been driven out of the inner city by unionist violence). My friends and I weren’t happy with this though, because as the posters accumulated and damaged the paint, and the mural got scrappier, the incentive to post more posters and slowly destroy it was growing – like litter or broken windows, the damage was encouraging more damage. So one sunny Saturday morning we got up early, grabbed a ladder, some paintbrushes and a few scrapers and some paint, and set about restoring it. We didn’t organize it with any official organs because no one was officially in charge of this mural – we just rocked up and started cleaning it. The version you can see above is probably from about 10 years after we did this, because it is still clean and in the bottom left corner you can see my contribution to the project. That corner was where most of the posters were stuck, and after I scraped them off and we repainted it I wrote this in my bad freehand:
My tiny piece of history, badly drawn
I took this photo of my contribution in 2006, probably 8-9 years after I painted it, just before I left for Japan, and at this time no one had posted any bills anywhere on the mural – you can see on the wall to the side that they are using nearby wall space for a thick layer of posters, but they aren’t putting them on the mural itself. Sadly, this situation no longer pertains today, another 8 years after I took that picture. The Marrickville facebook page has a link to the picture which in March this year had comments saying that someone needs to put the “Don’t poster here” order back on. Someone must have painted over it after I left the country, and now the posters are returning. However, after many years, the mural has finally received some official respect, and the Marrickville Council have decided to Heritage List it, which means that they are now officially responsible for maintaining and protecting it. I hope this means that the posters will be removed and no new ones added. Maybe they’ll even repaint it with a better and more consistent colour palette than my friends and I used …
This was my sole real contribution to the urban community of Newtown. My friends and I got pissed at the mess, went up there and (I guess!) risked a graffiti charge in broad daylight on a sunny Saturday to repair the damage. While we worked lots of people came up to thank us and express their approval (I think one person wandered across the road to buy us a coffee or a drink or something), and I guess the police must have cruised by at some point and done nothing. Everyone seemed to treat our efforts as if they were as natural as the presence of this unclaimed and unprotected mural in the heart of the little shopping area. It was like everyone accepted it and respected it, but everyone thought it was everyone else’s responsibility. Maybe that unfocused view of its place in Newtown is part of the reason that people were able to damage it without any trouble being raised – because everyone just assumed someone else knew who was responsible for its upkeep. But in truth no one was, and our action was the only time I know of in the entire time I lived in the area that anyone took responsibility for it. And it worked! That little two sentence demand I wrote there on the wall kept the entire mural clean and free of damage for 10 years, and my guess is that if someone hadn’t painted over it the mural would still be free of damage today. Now that it is Heritage listed I guess it will get a little plaque and a bit of care and respect, and my bodgy handwritten warning won’t be needed anymore. It will be forgotten soon enough, but I am proud of my little tiny effort in preserving an emblem of a struggle that, over the time I lived in Australia, really began to assert itself and push itself into the mainstream. I hope people will remember the long slow path to acceptance of Aboriginal rights in Australia when they look at that mural, and I like to think that my tiny contribution went a little way towards preserving that mural long enough for it to make the heritage list. Hardly a radical or brave act, it’s true, but I’m proud of my little tiny contribution to one of the most important political movements in Australian history.
—
fn1: It actually has official flag status, but is not usually used as such.
Compromise and Conceit 
December 5, 2014 at 7:18 am
“In my opinion the Aboriginal flag is a really powerful symbol, and should be used as Australia’s official flag in place of the Southern Cross[1], which is nowhere near as cool”
There’s a reasonable argument that Australia taking the Aboriginal flag as it’s official flag would just be white Australia nicking one more thing off the original inhabitants.
I’m generally in favour of keeping the Southern Cross [1] but replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag may be a nice touch at some point.
Of course, I also favour doing such symbolic actions once we’ve got the actual life outcomes for Aboriginals in Australia to a much better state. That’s mostly because Rudd’s apology to the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders was a powerful symbol, but I’m not looking forward to the next apology I’m expecting Australia to have to make that’ll go “We’re sorry for all the stuff that happened after we said we were sorry the first time.”
[1] And getting bloody New Zealand to stop using it. ;P
December 5, 2014 at 11:18 am
I object to merging the southern cross and the Aboriginal flag on aesthetic grounds – they just don’t go together. Maybe you could find a way to mix the stars into the black background of the Aboriginal flag but I just don’t think it would work. Flags are best when they are simple (this is why the Japanese flag is so striking) and even the current one is quite busy. I think NZ should change theirs too, so it matches their rugby emblem (let’s face it, it’s that or the eye of Sauron). I don’t believe that many Aboriginal people would feel bad about the flag being appropriated, though I’m sure there’ll be someone who kicks up a fuss. But flags, like anthems, are one of those things that are probably better decided upon before your country becomes a liberal democracy, since they really need an authoritative decision with no whingeing or a decision will never get made …
While I agree with you that some positive practical outcomes would be nice, I think it’s important not to undervalue symbolism. Conservatives make a big fuss about this (Howard gave it as one of his prime reasons for resisting apologies, recognition in the constitution, etc.) but he was all about symbolism – got upset about flag burning, always liked to visit memorials, etc. Tony Abbott is happy to visit war memorials for their symbolism while refusing soldiers a pay rise and cutting their leave entitlements[1], which implies in other areas of life he can wave symbols around while denying practical outcomes. Why don’t these people value symbols for Aboriginal people in equal measure? I think it’s because they don’t want to admit Aboriginal people fully into public life, and want to try and contain the “debate” (not that there is much of one left) about colonialism and genocide to one based in practical, small things – nothing that threatens their understanding of our status as a nation or the (completely erroneous) history they learnt at school. This is why Howard will downplay the importance of symbolic apologies while supporting Keith Windschuttle’s ideologically biased exercise in historical revisionism – because he values symbols about Aboriginal history very much, just not the truthful ones. This isn’t to say that he and Abbott don’t take Aboriginal health and welfare seriously (I think Abbott does more than Howard, but it’s beside the point), just that they don’t want to welcome Aboriginal people fully into the cultural life of the nation. I see it as of a piece with their discomfort with multiculturalism, which is at least partly based in their philosophical belief that Australia has only one culture, and that any society with multiple cultures must be fragmentary. I obviously don’t agree with this perspective on culture, and I think over time Howard came to agree with me, which was why he was much more accepting of multiculturalism and the symbolism of things like a preamble to the constitution by the end of his time in power than he was at the beginning.
If we couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time, I would agree that practical outcomes are “more important” than debates about flags. But I think we can do both! Unless there is an argument that making an apology renders people sanguine about practical efforts to redress disadvantage. That’s an argument I’m sympathetic to and actually almost wrote into this post, but I don’t know how I feel about it or if there is any evidence to support it, so I left it out.
—
fn1: If one is to believe the rantings of a slightly unhinged senator, but please allow me my example.
December 5, 2014 at 1:01 pm
“Tony Abbott is happy to visit war memorials for their symbolism”
He’s actually also pushing for a bigger change to the constitution than Howard was to recognise Indigenous Australians. It’s likely to fail for the same reason as the last referendum [1], but it’s pretty clear that both he and Howard are cool with symbolic gestures in general. It’s just some specific ones like an apology (for Howard) or a treaty (for practically every politician) that is a problem [2].
For me the issue with symbolic gestures isn’t “Does this distract us?” but instead “Are we going to actually deliver in a way that doesn’t render the gesture pointless”. If the apology for the Stolen Generation is followed by either more child-snatching or (based on the stats I’ve seen) a failure to snatch kids who are being abused then the apology is pointless (and insulting). Saying I’m sorry then allowing kids to be hurt means the apology was never about the injured group, it was about the feel good factor of apologising for something that you didn’t personally do [3].
“If we couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time, I would agree that practical outcomes are “more important” than debates about flags. But I think we can do both!”
I can understand this argument. But my major concern isn’t that we can’t both walk and chew gum. It’s that we can’t walk at all. Outcomes for Indigenous Australia are still in the toilet. They have been forever. Recent improvements are largely traced to more (already well off) people identifying as Indigenous. I worry that we can’t agree on what would help the most and (even if we did agree) that it still wouldn’t work.
*Sigh*
The recent shootings in the US have me down on race relations in general. I’d hate for my nation to be like the US on race, but I suspect that while it’s not as ingrained into everyday life [4] the practical outcomes are just as bad (or worse) in terms of health, education, income, etc.
[1] Specifically, both the republic referendum and the proposed acknowledgement of Indigenous Australians need to decide if they want symbolic change or substantive change. If they chose symbolic, then people who want substantive change or no change veto it. If they chose substantive change then people who only want symbolic change work with people who want no change to veto it.
[2] And in defence of practically all politicians, what would the treaty agree? That we wouldn’t casually slaughter them again? That’s a pretty low hanging and pointless fruit. That they have particular rights that are important in everyday life that others don’t? That’s divisive enough that it’d fail to be supported for the same reason as the currently proposed referendum.
[3] For example, Rudd apologised for the Stolen Generation, but I don’t ever recall him apologising for reducing stewardesses to tears. This isn’t to insult Rudd saying Sorry, but does illustrate that personal apologies are actually harder to make as they involve condemning and changing your own actions instead of just pointing out some other persons flaws. I’d suggest this is a universal truth rather than something that is Rudd specific.
[4] e.g. I don’t constantly hear about cops killing Aborigines.
December 5, 2014 at 1:34 pm
I think Abbott and Howard came around to the symbolic gestures thing later in the piece – when he first came to power Howard was strongly against any form of symbolic reparations, even the most paltry ones, and the focus on practical outcomes came later. In 1996 he couldn’t even accept the concept of the Stolen Generations. It was a long hard road to get him and Abbott to recognize that Aboriginal disadvantage has a context that is bigger than just poverty and individual choices – but they did come around to this recognition, and I agree that now they accept some symbolism. I wonder actually if the Liberal response to Rudd’s apology might have been a little better if Abbott had been in the leadership of the opposition at that time – I remember Nelson’s response was incredibly mean-spirited and vicious, and really showed how far the party at that time was from accepting what was happening. I think Abbott might have been more sensitive, and in 2009 (while opposing various other symbolic measures!) he admitted the Coalition should have apologized.
The alleged “failure” to “snatch” kids is something of a right wing talking point, I think – years ago when I worked in health we received child protection training and it was very clear that the authorities were wiling to take Aboriginal children into care where necessary, though in NSW it is done through a parallel agency. The problem then (and now) is that there just aren’t the resources to handle child abuse in either white or black communities in Australia, and rural Aboriginal communities tend to be overlooked. There are definitely people working in health and child protection who think the state still takes too many Aboriginal children on “welfare” grounds, but I don’t think this is a big issue for those actually working in the field. The big issue is that there just aren’t enough resources to handle child protection in Australia, and many absolutely shocking cases get overlooked. But I agree that if an apology for stealing children were to lead to a reduction in child protection outcomes for Aboriginal Australians that would be a bad thing – the reality is though that Aboriginal fear of child protection authorities predates the Stolen Generations report and the apology by decades – for very good reasons. [When I was a postgrad student in NSW I taught maths to Aboriginal teaching assistants who were primarily women in their 30s to 50s, and all the older women were either Stolen or from families that were Stolen. I think it’s really hard for an Aboriginal person in that generation not to have all kinds of fears about modern welfare agencies!]
I think a treaty will never pass because it is not symbolic – treaties have consequences, and if it’s anything like the treaty in NZ those consequences will affect rural land use and involve large amounts of reparations. That is not going to happen in our lifetimes!
I agree that it’s possible we can’t even walk, let alone chew gum. That’s sad, but I’m not down on race relations because the movement of land rights and reconciliation from the fringes of politics to being an accepted part of the mainstream has changed the background within which efforts are made to start walking. I think that’s a positive outcome of the symbolism, and I think we will see progress. The parties are largely now in bipartisan agreement on the need to change and broad concepts of how to go about getting that change, which is actually pretty new in political history. The Coalition has largely given up its support of the revisionists like Windschuttle, and has accepted that Aboriginal health and rights are bigger than just poverty. So I think things will get better. They already have – which is why you don’t constantly hear about cops killing Aborigines. Aborigines used to die in shocking numbers in custody, but that stopped.
I guess a good comparison here would be Palestine. If both parties to that dispute both actually seriously agreed that a two-state solution was necessary, and seriously accepted the right of both parties to a state, then almost all the issues would be resolved quickly. The problem is they don’t – a portion of the Palestinian side only grudgingly admit the existence of Israel when the screws tighten, and the current government includes senior cabinet members who have openly stated that they will never allow a Palestinian state to exist. They can’t even agree on the outlines of the problem or its solution, so of course every US president fails to get them to come to a meaningful agreement. But if both sides actually did accept those principles, the whole issue would be done and dusted in a few years. And I think in Australia since the late 1990s (since, in fact, the time I painted those words on that flag), the Australian people and all mainstream political parties have come to an agreement on the principles. Sure debate remains about welfarism vs. individualism, times are tight, etc. but the principles are agreed so now it’s quibbling over methods. So from here I’m hopeful that problems can be solved!
December 5, 2014 at 2:00 pm
In WA, two people have died in police custody in the last six months. It may not be as bad as the 80s (I don’t know the rate then) but the correct number of deaths is very easy to describe.
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/corrective-services-investigate-death-of-prison-inmate/5836126