CCBC-Net Archives
Re: Jason's post re social media, and a question about invisibility
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:58:24 -0500
Judith,
It is a good question and the answer depends significantly on what perspective you take. I have lived in both Australia and the US and my first instinct was to answer that Aborigines are much more visible. But the human mind arrives at an answer before it knows why it answered that way. So on what basis did I answer? Thinking it through, I don't think my instinctive answer is quite the right answer. In both countries, the Aboriginal and Native American populations are roughly 2% of the whole, so the circumstance is similar in that respect. Both countries are similar in having had famous Aboriginal or Native American artists, sportsmen, actors, singers etc. going back to the early 1900s all of whom attract media coverage.
And I think the answer is partly based on media coverage but from a different angle. Land rights have been a prominent continuing legal and civil rights issue in Australia through the 1990s and early 2000s (and perhaps still), so Aborigines are more front of mind by simply being in the news more than Native Americans as a group are. In the US, prominent media coverage of specifically Native American issues tends to be episodic, very specific and usually local. There is no real unifying theme such as land rights and apology.
I think there is also a much more active and focused segment of the Australian civil rights movement committed to Aboriginal issues (for example, the apology demonstrations around the Stolen Generations). In the US, in contrast, the civil rights focus is dispersed across multiple groups, each with their own set of particular issues. While there is much more civil rights energy in aggregate in the US, it is much less singularly focused than in Australia.
But I don't think the answer is really about media presence. In some respects, Australian Aborigines are much less visible in Australia than Native Americans in the US. Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world with 90% of the population in seven cities. And those cities tend to be geographically separated from communities of Aborigines, other than neighborhoods such as Redfern (which in turn are often fairly isolated). In the US in contrast, there are numerous states where the Native American population are 5-10% (Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota). However, in the big industrial and commercial centers such as Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, Georgia, they are virtually invisible, i.e. <0.3% of the population. Awareness of and experience with Native American history and present circumstance therefore varies greatly in the US with some states having a relatively high awareness and experience and other states close to zero. In Australia, it was my experience that people in the major cities had virtually no direct contact with Aborigines.
If you look at visibility from an economic or power perspective, you get a somewhat different answer. In the political arena, the first Australian member of Parliament of Aboriginal descent, Neville Bonner, wasn't elected to Parliament until 1971. Native Americans have been in the US Congress since at least 1907 and in State legislatures since at least the 1840s.
In the US, in some states, there has been far more demographic and commercial integration than in Australia. In Australia, a significant portion of Aborigines are far from the population centers and are primarily engaged in the agricultural sector. Native Americans are more integrated into a much broader range of industries in the US, particularly the energy sector. I never met or even heard of an executive of Aboriginal descent in Australia but know, or know of, a handful of American executives and entrepreneurs of Native American descent in the US.
The net is that I think Aborigines are probably more visible from a civil rights perspective in Australia. But because commercial and demographic integration is much further along in some parts of the US, the civil rights aspect is much less prominent here. On the other hand, the very success of that integration tends to mask Native Americans in the US. As I was checking my figures, I came across the fact that the conservative congressman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, is a member of the Chickasaw Nation. US Representative, Masters from Yale, a PhD from University of Oklahoma. You can't get much more establishment than that. I have seen him in the news occasionally and have to admit, it never crossed my mind that he was Native American. Invisible in plain sight.
Only about 0.9% of the US population singularly identifies themselves as Native American. 1.2% of the population identify themselves as mixed heritage including Native American. I recall in the US back in the mid-80s when it became increasingly important to report employee population ethnicity to EEOC for government contracts, that many companies were surprised to discover the number of employees that had Native American backgrounds but had never been thought of as such. In some ways that is great civil rights progress but in others it jeopardizes maintenance of separate identity.
So like I said, complicated and depends on your perspective. I don't think either group is invisible but just visible in different ways and in different contexts. If you are a Native American civil rights campaigner in the US, I can see how you might consider Native Americans as invisible compared to Australian Aborigines. On the other hand, I think Australian Aborigines would be stunned by the degree of integration and commercial and/or political power that some Native Americans exercise in some places in the US.
Charles
On 20 February 2014 11:34, Judith Ridge [judith.ridge_at_gmail.com] wrote:
My curiosity has been piqued by this, Debbie! I wonder if it's true that Native Americans are less visible than Aboriginal Australians
On 19 February 2014 03:42, Debbie Reese <dreese.nambe_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Off list, I was asked why Native people in the US, in comparison to aboriginal people in Australia, are so invisible.
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 11:58:24 -0500
Judith,
It is a good question and the answer depends significantly on what perspective you take. I have lived in both Australia and the US and my first instinct was to answer that Aborigines are much more visible. But the human mind arrives at an answer before it knows why it answered that way. So on what basis did I answer? Thinking it through, I don't think my instinctive answer is quite the right answer. In both countries, the Aboriginal and Native American populations are roughly 2% of the whole, so the circumstance is similar in that respect. Both countries are similar in having had famous Aboriginal or Native American artists, sportsmen, actors, singers etc. going back to the early 1900s all of whom attract media coverage.
And I think the answer is partly based on media coverage but from a different angle. Land rights have been a prominent continuing legal and civil rights issue in Australia through the 1990s and early 2000s (and perhaps still), so Aborigines are more front of mind by simply being in the news more than Native Americans as a group are. In the US, prominent media coverage of specifically Native American issues tends to be episodic, very specific and usually local. There is no real unifying theme such as land rights and apology.
I think there is also a much more active and focused segment of the Australian civil rights movement committed to Aboriginal issues (for example, the apology demonstrations around the Stolen Generations). In the US, in contrast, the civil rights focus is dispersed across multiple groups, each with their own set of particular issues. While there is much more civil rights energy in aggregate in the US, it is much less singularly focused than in Australia.
But I don't think the answer is really about media presence. In some respects, Australian Aborigines are much less visible in Australia than Native Americans in the US. Australia is one of the most urbanized countries in the world with 90% of the population in seven cities. And those cities tend to be geographically separated from communities of Aborigines, other than neighborhoods such as Redfern (which in turn are often fairly isolated). In the US in contrast, there are numerous states where the Native American population are 5-10% (Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota). However, in the big industrial and commercial centers such as Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Indiana, Georgia, they are virtually invisible, i.e. <0.3% of the population. Awareness of and experience with Native American history and present circumstance therefore varies greatly in the US with some states having a relatively high awareness and experience and other states close to zero. In Australia, it was my experience that people in the major cities had virtually no direct contact with Aborigines.
If you look at visibility from an economic or power perspective, you get a somewhat different answer. In the political arena, the first Australian member of Parliament of Aboriginal descent, Neville Bonner, wasn't elected to Parliament until 1971. Native Americans have been in the US Congress since at least 1907 and in State legislatures since at least the 1840s.
In the US, in some states, there has been far more demographic and commercial integration than in Australia. In Australia, a significant portion of Aborigines are far from the population centers and are primarily engaged in the agricultural sector. Native Americans are more integrated into a much broader range of industries in the US, particularly the energy sector. I never met or even heard of an executive of Aboriginal descent in Australia but know, or know of, a handful of American executives and entrepreneurs of Native American descent in the US.
The net is that I think Aborigines are probably more visible from a civil rights perspective in Australia. But because commercial and demographic integration is much further along in some parts of the US, the civil rights aspect is much less prominent here. On the other hand, the very success of that integration tends to mask Native Americans in the US. As I was checking my figures, I came across the fact that the conservative congressman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, is a member of the Chickasaw Nation. US Representative, Masters from Yale, a PhD from University of Oklahoma. You can't get much more establishment than that. I have seen him in the news occasionally and have to admit, it never crossed my mind that he was Native American. Invisible in plain sight.
Only about 0.9% of the US population singularly identifies themselves as Native American. 1.2% of the population identify themselves as mixed heritage including Native American. I recall in the US back in the mid-80s when it became increasingly important to report employee population ethnicity to EEOC for government contracts, that many companies were surprised to discover the number of employees that had Native American backgrounds but had never been thought of as such. In some ways that is great civil rights progress but in others it jeopardizes maintenance of separate identity.
So like I said, complicated and depends on your perspective. I don't think either group is invisible but just visible in different ways and in different contexts. If you are a Native American civil rights campaigner in the US, I can see how you might consider Native Americans as invisible compared to Australian Aborigines. On the other hand, I think Australian Aborigines would be stunned by the degree of integration and commercial and/or political power that some Native Americans exercise in some places in the US.
Charles
On 20 February 2014 11:34, Judith Ridge [judith.ridge_at_gmail.com] wrote:
My curiosity has been piqued by this, Debbie! I wonder if it's true that Native Americans are less visible than Aboriginal Australians
On 19 February 2014 03:42, Debbie Reese <dreese.nambe_at_gmail.com> wrote:
Off list, I was asked why Native people in the US, in comparison to aboriginal people in Australia, are so invisible.
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Fri 21 Feb 2014 10:59:52 AM CST
