Hey bob4711,

I think you should take a look at Keith's post 3 above yours and ask yourself how you might feel if that was you, or your kids suffering?

As to how much money has been given to people to make these problems go away, I'd suggest you look at the lesson Rene Rivkin taught us about money and happiness, before you assume that money can take away pain and heartbreak, or buy good role models.

Remember Rene? One of the richest men in Australia and yet he took his own life.

Alan Bond was another rich man. According to our justice system he committed criminal acts. Obviously his money didn't give him excellent morals and a sense of community service.

The money isn't the issue. Compassion is the issue. I found it fascinating to read "We of the Never Never" in a contemporary light. The narator speaks of having to chase away indigenous folk from the river because "they know they weren't allowed there." Right, only the new owners that had claimed the land as their own could give the locals permission to swim or drink or enjoy the river. Times have changed, and attitudes have changed, for some of us at least.

...and always remember, the one who has the most money when they die wins. (Thanks for illustrating this principle Rene)

Neil Hewett says that: "Subincision is culturally linked to birth-control in arid desertlands where the birth of another child would jeopardise the survival of the group. It is entrenched into manhood and worn as an undisputed honour. Fertility is deliberately restored through another cultural practice when conditions are suitable."

Is this ritual still performed? Some young Aboriginal are still being inititiated in Central Australia but I would hope that subincision itself had gone the way of the dodo. After all condoms are a much more effective birth control than slashing of the phallus.

Don't be shame, be game!!

As for the manhood guff, let's stop kidding ourselves that a culture/s based on gender apartheid, a la Anangu, is a beautiful thing.

Ironic contention, "As for the manhood guff, let's stop kidding ourselves that a culture/s based on gender apartheid, a la Anangu, is a beautiful thing" from such an ambiguous nom de plume, Savage Pencil.

The ritual is still performed and the post-initiates wouldn't have it any other way.

Your inability to conceive of such an undertaking in a positive context is probably no different to indigenous incredulity that non-indigenous Australia so rapaciously desecrates the terrestrial bed that it lies in, as it were.

What is primitive and spiritually incomprehensible to one; is incomprehensible and spiritually primitive to the other.

As I trawl through the eclectic comments that at times cause me, the author, to feel a little sullied, it is a great pleasure to come across the literary offerings of Neil. What a fine way with words. Loved your website too.
Donna

To Neil Hewett

Am I to be condemned for not viewing subincision in a “positive light”, as you put it?

Given that there is no longer any need for this ritual from the point of view of contraception, the only reason that I imagine that initiates would undergo it is so that they can scream “I’m a MAN” at the end of it. To which I would say, “Cut the macho crap”.

The trouble with the cultural relativist position that you are advancing Neil, is that it provides us with no platform from which to advance universal human rights. It provides us with no platform to argue against the death penalty in countries such as China, Singapore and the United States. It gives us no argument against the pro-whaling nations such as Iceland, Japan and Norway. And cultural relativism is a ready defence for theocrats in the Middle East and elsewhere who want to argue against democracy.

Contemplate this Neil ... if Anangu or other Western Desert tribes had cultural practices which were akin to those of the Mexica people in 1500, would heart excision be OK with you? Should we defend it as a cultural practice worthy of a World Heritage listing?

For a comprehensive demolition of cultural relativism might I suggest British writer Kenan Malik’s excellent article “All cultures are not equal” (http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/anti-imperialism.html) for starters. As the Indian-born Malik notes: “To regard people as 'temporarily backward' rather than 'permanently different' is to accept that while people are potentially equal, cultures definitely are not; it is to accept the idea of social and moral progress; and it is to accept that it would be far better if everyone had the chance to live in the type of society or culture that best promoted human advancement.”

Ultimately young boys in Aboriginal communities need to be freed from the prospect of torture that subincision involves. And Anangu women should be free to walk through the Valley of the Winds with a geology text in hand and see that male myth is just a bunch of archaic codswallop.

What criterion determines the type of society or culture that best promotes human advancement? Might? Decadence? Sustainability?

It is a fundamentally important question and you are to be congratulated, SP, for at least having the wherewithal to arrive at its reckoning.

I can’t precisely recall when I first condemned the self-defeating colonial arrogance that claimed a monopoly on wisdom in this unfamiliar antipodal landscape.

Debate tends to favour the rigour of contrarian views, but I won’t hesitate to argue for the greater complexity of concurrence and compromise.

Reconciliation seeks to restore or bring back to friendship or union, that which never was. To what extent does non-Aboriginal Australia avail itself of the necessary language to engage its original people in meaningful dialogue? Quite simply, not at all.

Language, I have heard and verily believe, evolves from worldview. ‘Savage’, for instance, describes a state of nature: wild, uncivilised, ferocious and furious. ‘Pencil’, denotes something with an expectation and allowance for later alteration.

It is astonishing that the value I place on the collective wisdom of Australia’s indigenous people is used as an argument to deny a ‘platform from which to advance universal human rights’ or to seek the prohibition of whaling by other peoples from around the world.

You ask if I would I defend heart excision as a cultural practice worthy of a World Heritage listing? I would suggest that the treatment of Australia’s indigenous people, World Heritage listed or not, strongly suggests heart excision is rife within the dominant culture.