The 'last' fluent speaker of Jawoyn passed away early this week. She was from Barunga and Francesca Merlan had worked with her intensively in the past.
Bobala.
Wamut has written about what it means to call a language 'extinct', and he describes a fair bit of use of Ngandi, despite there no longer being any living 'fluent' speakers.
In the case of Jawoyn however, there hasn't been much language use or activity for a number of years. I think there are a number of people who could speak it fairly well, but they don't do so often.
Bobala jet langguj.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Bugger! I told you so!
Transcribing some of my just-recorded sessions, I've found electronic interference in several of my video recordings. Bugger. I've always preached that one should record while wearing headphones to monitor audio quality inter alia. As soon as I start to get a bit overconfident, I get bitten on the bum. May my mistake have greater significance than me alone having to learn this lesson. Again!
Friday, July 13, 2007
NITV is here!
NITV has been launched.
And they're looking for high quality content. Team up with your local film-maker now to get producing shows in language!
And has anyone been watching The Circuit on SBS on Sunday nights? I thought the first show last Sunday was excellent. Better than RAN.
And they're looking for high quality content. Team up with your local film-maker now to get producing shows in language!
And has anyone been watching The Circuit on SBS on Sunday nights? I thought the first show last Sunday was excellent. Better than RAN.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Permits and land takeover
An article here on NT govt and NLC protests about the Federal Government's proposals to abolish permits and take over township leases.
Manic Inertia
My mind and heart are working so hard to process "it all." I don't even know what to call "it." The Intervention? The Howard-Brough Reforms? The Crisis?
In any case, much of what comes inarticulately to mind, has already been better-said elsewhere. By Jane, by Jenny, by wamut and by Jangari. And I notice (with great relief!) Sophie giving herself permission to Just. State. It.
There are two contributing factors to how I find myself sitting with all of "it." The first is that there are so many reactions to have, hence the mania. Celebration that *something* is finally being done. That *finally* there might be significant resources flowing in to communitites. Horror that those resources are apparently, at first glance, being delivered by the army and with complete lack of dignity, compassion, respect and collaboration. And with every likelihood of further disempowering Aboriginal people and bulldozing all pre-existing community driven efforts to address their own problems. Efforts which have not received consistent or effective support from the Federal government. I'm also confounded by proposals to take over township leases and abolish the permit system, and how these are supposed to address child sexual abuse? I know I'm not the first to ask for this to be made explicit, or to suspect that this is purely Howard creating a political opportunity to take over Aboriginal land. The ABC's Stateline (NT) asked Brough on Friday, after he had visited Muitjulu, to explain the link between addressing child abuse and changes to the government's proposals to resume township leases and abolish permits. I highly recommend reading the transcript of the interview, because I don't think Brough answers a single question.
Which leads me to the second factor contributing to my state of being: the utter lack of detail or consistency about what is actually being proposed, how it will be delivered and how long "it" will be sustained for. Hence the inertia. I've been trying to write letters to politicians, the media etc. And I find that I. Just. Can't. Formulate. A. Position. (Jenny also said as much.) Watching it all unfold is somewhat addictive too. I'm in this pasive state of receiving, needing my next hit.
And what's unfolding is the government's own confusion about what they will be delivering, and how, and for how long. We've gone from 'the army will roll in to deliver to law and order' to 'we will be sending in survey teams to talk with communities about what they need and want.' From compulsory health checks to 'voluntary health checks unless parents do not voluntarily present their children.' From 'this is a six month intervention' to 'this is a long term commitment.' From 'welfare payments for Aboriginal people will be conditional upon child school attendance' to 'welfare payments may become universally conditional, not just according to the colour of the skin of the recipient.' It *appears* as though the government is susceptible to changing its plan a) in the face of unrelenting criticism and b) as it actually works out what may or may not be acceptable/appropriate/workable.
But. (And it's a big 'but.') While we see this apparent flexibility with some of these proposals, I haven't seen (and don't expect to see) any flexibility on the permits and assumption of leases proposals. We're all to be fooled into thinking that the government is open to negotiation and is flexible etc on all the other proposals, and is acting altruistically to *save* Indigenous people (after waiting 11 years).
I was in Bulman and Weemol last week. A majority of the people I spoke to hadn't even heard about the proposals. And I struggled to explain the findings of the report, let alone the goverment's proposals. The proposals to link welfare payments to children's school attendance was welcomed though, as was the partial quarantining of welfare payments for food and other 'essentials.' Banning alcohol and extra policing to enforce that ban were also welcomed. But we really got stuck on permits and the taking over of leases. And I hear that there is no ICC budget to use interpreters when survey teams travel to communities to start talking about the proposals. I also hear that the ICC management in Katherine do not believe there will be a need for interpreters travel with the survey teams.
So in a round about way we come back to language. And the recommendations of the Children are Sacred report, and the government's plan to get kids to go to school. It's already been said that if all the kids in remote communities actually attended school everyday, there will not be enough classrooms and teachers to cope. One imagines (hopes?) that the government would respond to this best-case scenario of high attendance by providing funding and properly supporting teachers and bigger and better school buildings. Sounds like a Shared Responsibility Agreement? Gillian Cowlishaw has this to say on AASNet:
"If parents are to be forced to send their children to school on pain of losing their welfare money, perhaps a mutual obligation can be instituted whereby the teachers and education department will be held responsible if they fail to impart reading and numeracy skills. For whatever reason, or excuse, the education department seems unable to train and equip either Aboriginal or white teachers sufficiently well. Teaching in a remote community is surely a difficult job, but teachers are paid to teach children and they should not continue to be paid for work they cannot do."
I see a few things to hope for in this scenario: If kids are going to school and the schools and teachers are properly funded, a) the kids might get some good education and b) the parents as a community have some lobbying power to say 'we want culturally inclusive schools.' Also, if the kids are going to school, and as in the scenario Gillian describes, they are still not *achieving* then the responsibillity falls back on the education department to re-examine their methodologies, and with any luck, realise the importance of first language and cultural inclusivity in education. Who me? An Idealist?
In any case, much of what comes inarticulately to mind, has already been better-said elsewhere. By Jane, by Jenny, by wamut and by Jangari. And I notice (with great relief!) Sophie giving herself permission to Just. State. It.
There are two contributing factors to how I find myself sitting with all of "it." The first is that there are so many reactions to have, hence the mania. Celebration that *something* is finally being done. That *finally* there might be significant resources flowing in to communitites. Horror that those resources are apparently, at first glance, being delivered by the army and with complete lack of dignity, compassion, respect and collaboration. And with every likelihood of further disempowering Aboriginal people and bulldozing all pre-existing community driven efforts to address their own problems. Efforts which have not received consistent or effective support from the Federal government. I'm also confounded by proposals to take over township leases and abolish the permit system, and how these are supposed to address child sexual abuse? I know I'm not the first to ask for this to be made explicit, or to suspect that this is purely Howard creating a political opportunity to take over Aboriginal land. The ABC's Stateline (NT) asked Brough on Friday, after he had visited Muitjulu, to explain the link between addressing child abuse and changes to the government's proposals to resume township leases and abolish permits. I highly recommend reading the transcript of the interview, because I don't think Brough answers a single question.
Which leads me to the second factor contributing to my state of being: the utter lack of detail or consistency about what is actually being proposed, how it will be delivered and how long "it" will be sustained for. Hence the inertia. I've been trying to write letters to politicians, the media etc. And I find that I. Just. Can't. Formulate. A. Position. (Jenny also said as much.) Watching it all unfold is somewhat addictive too. I'm in this pasive state of receiving, needing my next hit.
And what's unfolding is the government's own confusion about what they will be delivering, and how, and for how long. We've gone from 'the army will roll in to deliver to law and order' to 'we will be sending in survey teams to talk with communities about what they need and want.' From compulsory health checks to 'voluntary health checks unless parents do not voluntarily present their children.' From 'this is a six month intervention' to 'this is a long term commitment.' From 'welfare payments for Aboriginal people will be conditional upon child school attendance' to 'welfare payments may become universally conditional, not just according to the colour of the skin of the recipient.' It *appears* as though the government is susceptible to changing its plan a) in the face of unrelenting criticism and b) as it actually works out what may or may not be acceptable/appropriate/workable.
But. (And it's a big 'but.') While we see this apparent flexibility with some of these proposals, I haven't seen (and don't expect to see) any flexibility on the permits and assumption of leases proposals. We're all to be fooled into thinking that the government is open to negotiation and is flexible etc on all the other proposals, and is acting altruistically to *save* Indigenous people (after waiting 11 years).
I was in Bulman and Weemol last week. A majority of the people I spoke to hadn't even heard about the proposals. And I struggled to explain the findings of the report, let alone the goverment's proposals. The proposals to link welfare payments to children's school attendance was welcomed though, as was the partial quarantining of welfare payments for food and other 'essentials.' Banning alcohol and extra policing to enforce that ban were also welcomed. But we really got stuck on permits and the taking over of leases. And I hear that there is no ICC budget to use interpreters when survey teams travel to communities to start talking about the proposals. I also hear that the ICC management in Katherine do not believe there will be a need for interpreters travel with the survey teams.
So in a round about way we come back to language. And the recommendations of the Children are Sacred report, and the government's plan to get kids to go to school. It's already been said that if all the kids in remote communities actually attended school everyday, there will not be enough classrooms and teachers to cope. One imagines (hopes?) that the government would respond to this best-case scenario of high attendance by providing funding and properly supporting teachers and bigger and better school buildings. Sounds like a Shared Responsibility Agreement? Gillian Cowlishaw has this to say on AASNet:
"If parents are to be forced to send their children to school on pain of losing their welfare money, perhaps a mutual obligation can be instituted whereby the teachers and education department will be held responsible if they fail to impart reading and numeracy skills. For whatever reason, or excuse, the education department seems unable to train and equip either Aboriginal or white teachers sufficiently well. Teaching in a remote community is surely a difficult job, but teachers are paid to teach children and they should not continue to be paid for work they cannot do."
I see a few things to hope for in this scenario: If kids are going to school and the schools and teachers are properly funded, a) the kids might get some good education and b) the parents as a community have some lobbying power to say 'we want culturally inclusive schools.' Also, if the kids are going to school, and as in the scenario Gillian describes, they are still not *achieving* then the responsibillity falls back on the education department to re-examine their methodologies, and with any luck, realise the importance of first language and cultural inclusivity in education. Who me? An Idealist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
