Hi Bruce and all,
As usual Bruce, your thoughts always manage to touch some worrisome corner of my mind.
Perhaps it is because I too am a "dreamer." :) In any case, a few thoughts in response
to your questions if I may.
You asked:
>SOME QUESTIONS
>
>What image of life arrived in Australia in 1788? What image of
>life it is reasonable to say (on the basis of what we know
>today) was already here prior to 1788? How do these two relate
>or fail to relate?
The new settlers surely must have had the notion of "freedom" strongly entrenched in
their minds. I would imagine that concept at least to be one commonality they shared
with the culture that was antecedent to them in Australia. Coming from debtor's
prisons and such, freedom would have a fairly truncated meaning to them for it
probably meant "freedom from" and not "freedom to." A negative as opposed to a
positive notion of freedom if you will; whereas the First Peoples of this land
couldn't understand or know what hadn't been in their experience. Until the arrival of
the whitefellas, Aborigines had only known the positive "freedom to" notion of
liberty.
For indigenous peoples, "freedom to" meant Freedom to/of:
* egress and ingress to their lands
* associate with one another at will
* practice their language and culture as desired
* maintain their normal diet
* maintain their laws and their sacred sites
* make their mistakes and corrections without interference
In effect, there was nothing of their world that they perceived as being something to
be "freed from." They were rather gloriously, and sometimes savagely, free on *their*
own terms and no other. The whites coming by the droves were already tamed herd
animals seeking refuge and respite from a society that deemed them of pure utilitarian
use and nothing more than that. To that end, they were "useful" for securing this new
land. But frightened, abused settlers aren't going to be capable of operating at a
conceptual level that could encompass the kind of "freedom to" it would take to become
a new kind of society. No, once released from prison, their leg irons were cast off
their physical bodies, but the chains of their oppressors still firmly imprisoned
their hearts, souls and minds staying firmly in place....and so they remain unto the
present.
>What are the ongoing consequences - especially in regard to
>solving some of lifes problems here? Does the present system
>of governance have the potential to solve those problems?
The present system of government is a dying vestige of the once great capitalist
democracies it emulates. None of them can provide guidance or answers to the problems
we face. They prove it daily by compounding existing problems and creating new ones as
they roll inexorably on. I can only conjecture and mention what I think is the future
of governance; your mileage may vary. I see a trend toward bio-regionalism such that
humans come together in similar or likeminded communities to pursue their particular
vision. And yes, this would require a healthy bit of imagination. I would hope to see
the overall "good" of an area, particularly the environment including the flat denial
of permission to pursue unsustainable agriculture or forestry, the respect for the
areas designated as sacred or necessary to First Peoples, and finally, I'd hope to see
the development of a unique, place-specific ethos that was communally agreed to and
binding. To my way of thinking, the government's job should consist in accepting and
enforcing, both nationally and internationally, the unrevised version of the U.N.
Declaration of Human Rights. If you heed well your country's human rights issues, the
rest will follow: no hunger, no genocide, no unnecessary jailing.
>Is 'Canberra' a ritual centre for the continued production of
>an image of life which is ill fitting for Australian
>realities?
Canberra is no different than any other center of power and corruption fueled by the
money machines of rich, powerful people in the private sector. It is their bastard
handmaiden and as such is dedicated to maintaining the current balance of power. Keep
the rich rich, and keep the poor as cannon fodder and cheap slave labour.
If every Australian were to live as the top 10% of this country lives, you'd out
consume your resources in record time. Australia is at a turning point now. Either
Australians learn what it means to restructure lifestyle so as to continue to live
here, or sit by and watch the last 20 years of human inhabitation as it winds its ugly
snail trail to oblivion. Water--too many people sucking it dry--crappy irrigation
policies for cotton of all things--no population policy--Australians have to quit
breeding and so do all other developed nations, then we can worry about helping the
low-consumption per capita undeveloped world. Don't want to rant so I'll leave it
there, but I feel very strongly about what I think it will take to save this wonderful
country.
>Is that crucial ritual document, the Constitution, fashioned
>according to specifications of an image of life which will
>ensure that the whole of life will be able to live fully or
>does it contain (in its unconscious messages) a life design
>which is destructive of life outside of a subset of those who
>hold a very partial image of life (and, ultimately,
>destructive of them as well)?
I was going to comment on the Constitution Bruce, but I ran out of time and set this
aside to finish. If I don't send it now it will be totally out of date--apologies to
all if it already is. Time has a way of running away from me :/
Suzie
-------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body�subscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
