Difference and recognition : subverting the Australian colonial paradigm

The 1938-1940 Report of the Aborigines Protection Board, and the hearings and minutes of evidence that led up to it, discussed a dual track policy for the state approach to Aboriginal people.1 First, to “preserve” “full blood” Aboriginal people by relocating and isolating the residents of a number of reserves onto a single “giant reserve,” under the supervision of one white man. Second, was “assimilation of the [non-reserve] aborigines into the general community.”2 The giant reserve was never created, but there were mergers between reserves which entailed the forcible relocation of entire Aboriginal communities from one location to another. Commenting on these relocations in 2005, co-founder of Walgett Aboriginal Medical Service and one-time resident of Angledool Reserve, George Rose, wrote: The moving of Angledool – it was deeper than what people thought. It was the first step to destroying our Aboriginal culture… even I could see that, as a 13 year old. I could see that by combining the three tribes they were destroying the cultures.3 So, thirteen-year-old George Rose recognized that the mergers were an existential threat to Aboriginal cultures: that “preservation” brought destruction. And the Aborigines Protection Board recognized that there was something to preserve in Aboriginal culture, but failed to understand what and how. What did George Rose recognize? What is a culture? What was wrong with the colonial “preservation” policy and why did it destroy that which it nominally sought to protect? What, in short, sustains colonialism? There is a significant body of excellent anthropological, sociological, and historical scholarship on this topic, but less in the way of philosophical discourse. From a philosophical perspective, we can begin to identify and unpack what is at the core of these questions. From a philosophical perspective, they become questions of the what it means to be human in relation to other humans, and to be humans-in-relation in a colonial context. We can ask what it means to be differently, and what the possibilities of relation with others are. George Rose was a Yawaalaraay man, born on a reserve. He and his mother, Linda Fernando, were both forcibly removed from their families during their youth and sent to boarding houses.4 They, among many others, were subjected to a colonial attempt at erasing their identity, their difference from the colonial concept of being a modern human. George Rose’s life of activism can be read as a response to this colonial imposition, an attempt to make others recognize what he recognized at thirteen. Using a philosophical lens, we can ask the question at the heart of this thesis: what is the relation between recognition and colonialism