Surely its inappropriate to be positing an argument for appropriate use of English language at the same time as rejecting that same language for its unwanted imposition in a land and the subject it refers to?
Perhaps you should only be making this argument in the range of aboriginal languages and dialects its trying to empathise with.
Its also inaccurate to suggest that all people who arrived immediately after predominantly indigenous population were colonisers. The majority were genuinely “pioneers”, “explorers” and the like - seeking discovery, prosperity and new life on a land in the same way that “indigenous” Australians did tens of thousands of years earlier … for their own relative prosperity, survival and discovery of new lands.
To deny or argue against that truth is to ignore fundamental realities of human movement throughout the history of homo erectus on the place we call planet Earth.
The kind of rhetoric you’re putting forward does nothing for the advancement, peace of mind or education of humankind.
Whilst you’re heading down a path of “correct” language, you might also want to reconsider the use of the word “aborigine” and its derivations - as its origin is Latin and specifically refers to inhabitants of a particular region outside of Rome, in country now known as Italy.
Similarly, if indigenous is a reference to people who are “native” to a particular land - then, strictly speaking, the first Australian aborigines were not native to this place …
… its a precarious minefield of language if one chooses to be pedantic.
I agree. It would be impossible to manipulate colonial language to the point of “extinction", and we shouldn’t have to. It is about alluding to its inconsistencies. We will never be able to fully seperate ourselves from its political potency. It is inextricably intertwined with daily life, and I believe the authors have highlighted these critical junctures marvellously. The disclaimer, also, that this is a system of learning, leaves it open for readers to expand their worldview, and contemplate the reasons ‘why’ this language is problematic, and how we can work through it constructively.
The language is only problematic if you choose to make it so.
This kind of pedantic navel-gazing and twisting of language mostly seeks to complicate what is largely already simple and clear in context.
It does nothing to further anyone’s world view, in fact it entrenches blinkered separation and seems more about self-importance and grandstanding than genuine and active betterment of community or humankind.
I’ve consistently found that a major barrier to progression and mutual understanding or empathy is this kind of debate that distorts terminology and projects inaccurate beliefs whilst avoiding genuine action or shared alignment on issues.
Hi Mary. The ability to generalise about the various experiences of a wide range of people is speaking form a place of privilege that not everyone can assume. I would counter your argument that this investigation into the predantics of description in this place I grew up in has been personally beneficial and has generously lent me a perspective other than the mono-centralist discourse you seem very comfortable in perpetuating.
Thanks James and Matt, this is an interesting and useful resource and all the best in growing it,
Una
Surely its inappropriate to be positing an argument for appropriate use of English language at the same time as rejecting that same language for its unwanted imposition in a land and the subject it refers to?
Perhaps you should only be making this argument in the range of aboriginal languages and dialects its trying to empathise with.
Its also inaccurate to suggest that all people who arrived immediately after predominantly indigenous population were colonisers. The majority were genuinely “pioneers”, “explorers” and the like - seeking discovery, prosperity and new life on a land in the same way that “indigenous” Australians did tens of thousands of years earlier … for their own relative prosperity, survival and discovery of new lands.
To deny or argue against that truth is to ignore fundamental realities of human movement throughout the history of homo erectus on the place we call planet Earth.
The kind of rhetoric you’re putting forward does nothing for the advancement, peace of mind or education of humankind.
Whilst you’re heading down a path of “correct” language, you might also want to reconsider the use of the word “aborigine” and its derivations - as its origin is Latin and specifically refers to inhabitants of a particular region outside of Rome, in country now known as Italy.
Similarly, if indigenous is a reference to people who are “native” to a particular land - then, strictly speaking, the first Australian aborigines were not native to this place …
… its a precarious minefield of language if one chooses to be pedantic.
I choose not to be.
I agree. It would be impossible to manipulate colonial language to the point of “extinction", and we shouldn’t have to. It is about alluding to its inconsistencies. We will never be able to fully seperate ourselves from its political potency. It is inextricably intertwined with daily life, and I believe the authors have highlighted these critical junctures marvellously. The disclaimer, also, that this is a system of learning, leaves it open for readers to expand their worldview, and contemplate the reasons ‘why’ this language is problematic, and how we can work through it constructively.
The language is only problematic if you choose to make it so.
This kind of pedantic navel-gazing and twisting of language mostly seeks to complicate what is largely already simple and clear in context.
It does nothing to further anyone’s world view, in fact it entrenches blinkered separation and seems more about self-importance and grandstanding than genuine and active betterment of community or humankind.
I’ve consistently found that a major barrier to progression and mutual understanding or empathy is this kind of debate that distorts terminology and projects inaccurate beliefs whilst avoiding genuine action or shared alignment on issues.
Hi Mary. The ability to generalise about the various experiences of a wide range of people is speaking form a place of privilege that not everyone can assume. I would counter your argument that this investigation into the predantics of description in this place I grew up in has been personally beneficial and has generously lent me a perspective other than the mono-centralist discourse you seem very comfortable in perpetuating.