On the danger of song lyrics and election shenanigans

The NSW government has refused to scrap a controversial songbook with a song apologising to Aborigines, despite complaints it's political propaganda. Hamish East, the father of a pupil at Kiama Public School, on the state's south coast, approached the school principal after learning his son Brian was being taught the Sorry Song by West Australian composer Kerry Fletcher. Mr East told News Ltd he was not opposed to reconciliation but the sorry issue was "emotive" and political, and should not be forced down the throat of a child. He is reported as saying that the song is a "political stunt" which "confused" his son.

The only lyrics I can find on the web are the following:

If we can say sorry to the people from this land,
Sing, sing loud,
Break through the silence,
sing across this land.

They Cry, they cry,
Their children were stolen,
They still wonder why.

Break through the silence
Sing sorry across this land
We cry, we cry, their children were stolen.

Mmm. I would have thought the history of that song was fairly undisputed, and was not overly politicised. Kids were taken from their parents, we still feel the ramifications of that today, and we should be sorry for that part of our history.

Kevin Rudd has disagreed with the NSW government. He's indicated that he sees the song as inappropriate for schools, saying: "I think we're starting to look at too much political correctness on those sorts of questions. We've got to watch out for political correctness going mad."

"Political correctness gone mad." That phrase always sets off alarm bells for me!

Mr Rudd says that children should be educated about the facts of Australia's history, including respecting indigenous culture, but left to make up their own minds about what's right and wrong.

With all due respect to Mr Rudd, I reckon that irrespective of whether Aussie kids are taught that indigenous kids were "stolen" or "taken", they're going to find that pretty...uh, emotive. When I was in primary school I was absolutely terrified that my parents would get divorced, because it felt like everyone else's parents would. I suspect that a lot of kids are going to find the idea that children were "taken" from their parents pretty distressing...even confusing.

I'm far from convinced that the Sorry Song is any more "emotive" or biased than the lyrics of our national anthem: . Perhaps we should cease teaching that to kids, in case it denies them the ability to make up their own minds about history.

When gallant Cook from Albion sail'd,
To trace wide oceans o'er,
True British courage bore him on,
Till he landed on our shore.
Then here he raised Old England's flag,
The standard of the brave;
With all her faults we love her still,
"Brittannia rules the wave!"
In joyful strains then let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

Or how about the final verse:

Shou'd foreign foe e'er sight our coast,
Or dare a foot to land,
We'll rouse to arms like sires of yore
To guard our native strand;
Brittannia then shall surely know,
Beyond wide ocean's roll,
Her sons in fair Australia's land
Still keep a British soul.
In joyful strains the let us sing
"Advance Australia fair!"

I'm not sure that singing about Aussies having a "British soul" and England ruling the waves is allowing kids much scope to "make up their own minds" about our history.

While on the surface this appears to be a relatively insignificant spat over the appropriateness of singing a song in a primary school, at a deeper level it reveals the extent to which Australian history continues to be whitewashed (and I use that term deliberately). The vulnerability and capacity of individuals and communities is rooted in their histories. History shapes our social structures, our sense of self, our emotional resilience.

I don't expect 8 year olds to fully understand this part of Australian history - it's hard for me, a young adult, to get my head around it! I don't believe that 8 year olds of Anglo descent should be plagued by guilt for what their grandparents or great-parents did. However the reality is that many 8 year olds of indigenous descent are painfully aware of this history. They might know that their father has only just met some of his siblings, or they might know that their grandmother never knew her mother because she was taken from her family and forced to work, very hard, for white people in a place very far away from her own community. Or they might know that their father doesn't know where he comes from, and that he saw very bad things in the mission he grew up on. Where do these kids fit into our education system? For how long will we continue to ignore their voices, their everyday experiences? For how long will their experiences be ignored because their stories are "too difficult" for other 8 year olds?

Land, Violent Conflict and Development

I'm currently reading the OECD Development Centre's report on Land, Violent Conflict and Development. The report reviews what has been learnt so far about the link between land and conflict (Sections II and III), and the scope for land policy to prevent violent conflict (Section IV). It also looks at what is not known, as well as ways to learn more. It concludes with making some preliminary policy-relevant recommendations on how donors may support the use of land policy to secure peace in developing countries.

The report is not new - publication date is 2004 - but it makes some observations that don't appear to have been heeded. For example, the report notes that donors' conflict-prevention programmes aiming to sustain peace in immediate post-conflict settings tend to neglect land issues. Similarly, land policy projects often neglect the conflict dimension. It suggests that donors include "Political Impact Assessment" into project cycles in order to better understand local dynamics, monitor potential land-incited conflict, and consider the impact of projects on local politics and land issues.

An observation that I found worrying, but in some respects reassuring because of my own frustration with the limited interaction between "research" and "practice" (also known as "academics" and "NGOs") was the observation that:

Although the scope of each category of development programme (e.g. rural development, education, or enterprise development) is broadening continuously to accommodate new preoccupations, those responsible for designing and implementing them, within academia or donor agencies, do not systematically exchange their views and experience.

A section that really struck me was that entitled "Decentralisation is not a Panacea" (p. 33):

Although assumed to be more transparent and closer to “ground-level realities” than national politics, local politics often exhibit no such features when looked at in detail — especially in contexts marked by the embedded domination of large landowners. In Africa, British colonial rule — often referred to as “indirect rule” — greatly weighted the balance of forces at the level of villages in favour of chiefs. This situation has not been significantly altered after decolonisation, and incited Mamdani (1996) to describe it as “decentralised despotism”. Thus, even when agrarian structures appear to be organised along “customary” rules, they do not necessarily foster “harmony” between community members. Chauveau (1998) thus argues that:

“As an element of broader social relations, and a result from history and power relations, customary tenure rules and practice do not constitute an endogenous, closed and harmonious system[…]. The process by which rights are acquired and protected is hence deeply political”.

He argues that West African small holder agriculture is subject to a variety of external and internal pressures, to which different customary systems react differently. Yet, a common feature seems to be that local dynamics tend to reinforce the most powerful members of the community (usually middle aged land owning men). When economic opportunities are rising, a process of differentiation is observed, which favours those who are able to invest in land productivit (Woodhouse 2003); when opportunities are becoming scarcer, the pressure on livelihoods puts at odds customary and other claims to land, and results either in the exclusion of the weaker or in violent conflict. As Woodhouse (ibid.) puts it:

“When competition for land intensifies, the inclusive flexibility offered by customary rights can quickly become an uncharted terrain on which the least powerful are vulnerable to exclusion as a result of the manipulation of ambiguity by the more powerful”.

Therefore, assuming “decentralised” ownership of projects to be more legitimate or efficient “by essence” may be misleading. For all their shortcomings, central states have an essential role to play in promoting peace and development in rural areas, including through a process of decentralisation. First, they can balance the influence of local authorities viz. the weaker groups (often the young, women, and strangers). Second, they can ensure induced patterns of change are consistent with overall goals of economic growth and environmental sustainability.

A good reminder that we should always interrogate our assumptions, biases and ideological leanings!! I've often been frustrated by the criticism levelled by some NGOs, practitioners and activists towards other NGOs or donor agencies that focus on reform of governance, law and justice sectors. While the shift towards grassroots development is a good one, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - law reform is often a necessary part of development, and it is inevitably going to be more top-down than some other forms of development. Unfortunately too many NGOs neglect issues of law and governance (because these issues are seen as "top down" development), and focus instead on things like microcredit (which is seen as "grassroots" development), when law and governance systems are the very things that shape people's access to resources.

Weaving "modern" and "traditional" systems together: the kastom economy in Vanuatu

2007 is the Year of the Kastom Economy in Vanuatu, and the BBC article 'Paying in pig tusks in Vanuatu' provides an example of how ni-Vanuatu are exploring ways for the modern, cash-based economy and the customary economy might interact. I'm really only beginning to learn about Vanuatu, and I'm no economist, but I am fascinated by the creativity with which ni-Vanuatu people have sought to bring together the two economic systems so as to not only preserve the kastom economy but increase the capacity of those who have access to the kastom economy but limited access to the cash economy. Apparently school fees can often (always?) be paid with traditional currency, and this article provides an example of library fees being paid for with traditional currency.

East Gippsland floods: the aftermath

Flood victims threaten to sue (The Australian, 5/7/07, AAP)

Angry residents of waterlogged Gippsland are threatening legal action against local authorities for not warning homeowners and businesses of the impending deluge when water was released from an upstream reservoir during the flood crisis. Mr Bracks said the Southern Rural Water authority acted properly in releasing water from the Glenmaggie Weir.

Flood victims to get funding (The Age, 9/7/07, David Rood

Premier Steve Bracks has announced $1.2 million for Gippsland areas affected by recent floods, and further multi-million dollar funding announcement is expected tomorrow. Wellington acting mayor Jeff Amos told Mr Bracks and his cabinet the floods had a devastating impact and while the immediate clean-up would be long and arduous, the eventual recovery would be "a hell of a lot longer".

"The pressure on our communities has been great," Mr Amos said.

"What a lot of people haven't realised is a lot of our communities have battled a very long drought, followed then by bushfires, mudslides and now this just tops it all off.

"People in those communities ... are certainly stoic, they're resilient but at the moment things are starting to wear a little bit thin."

Insurers refuse flood claims (the Australian, 9/7/07, Catherine Best)

Flood-stricken residents in Victoria's Gippsland are facing a massive financial hit with some insurance companies refusing to pay out tens of thousands of dollars in damage bills.

Householders and business owners have been left begging as they mop up from the worst floods in decades, on top of bushfires and record drought. Insurers generally don't offer flood insurance, and most insurers do not cover homes and businesses for flood damage.

The problems with focusing on vulnerability rather than capacity

Also known as "the problems of a culturally-biased approach", or "thinking that 'we' know what 'they' need"!

In a post titled "Why do we keep failing Africa?", Dave asks, "so what's going on? Our country and others in the developed world are swimming in cash and resources. Why can't we share it with people who really need it?"

I loved this response (bold is by me...the bit about traffic lights reminded me of the underpass and overpass opposite the market in Honiara, apparently funded by AusAid - I've never seen anyone use the overpass, the underpass is full of rotting vegetables and other rubbish, and despite thousands being spent on these two "amenities", you still see women tearing across the highway with a sack of rice on their heads...)

Dear Dave and fellow-bloggers,

I do not write this from my comfortable, eastern suburbs armchair. I write instead, from a lopsided office chair in rural West Africa. I don’t for a moment suggest this makes me a great expert, but I live here and I have my eyes open. This is what I’ve seen:

I’ve seen the homes that government officials build for themselves in the rural villages from which they came. Multiple stories high, beautifully tiled, landscape and with satellite dishes sprouting from the roofs. In a paddock on the outskirts of a village where every other construction is single story, mud brick, maybe three rooms and home to a large family.

I’ve seen, and am daily frustrated by, traffic lights erected in the middle of my rural town with overseas aid money that was earmarked for road safety. Road safety is a wonderful thing, I regularly make long cross-country trips that involve frequently fearing for my life, I would like to be safer on the roads here. Traffic lights, however, are doing nothing to improve my safety on the road. Not only are they spectacularly ineffective in a town struggling to maintain reliable electric supply; they are off more often than on, but they clog up intersections that function quite effectively when they don’t function. But this money was earmarked for such measure, and so it is traffic lights that we get.

This, I think, is one of the problems with aid, at least in the part of Africa that I know well. It is earmarked, set aside, prescribed by foreign governments and organizations for what they deem to be worthy issues without a real understanding of what is needed here. Road safety is needed, but my safety, and the safety of those whose country I live in, would be much better improved if the only major highway was not so heavily pothole that driving on it is like a slalom course and if even the major roads were wide enough for two vehicles to safely pass each other. When money is earmarked like this it clearly demonstrates that those foreigners responsible for it made no effort to leave the capital city, where traffic management is a major problem, and discover what is needed in the rural areas where a lot of their money will end up. Showed no actual interest in Africa, but decided that the right thing to do was to send money and to decide we needed traffic lights.

Governments remain the bodies most able to collect and distribute aid money, whether they do so or not. The vast majority of well funded aid that I see comes from governments. It is good money that could be used to do good things. It is left, however, in the hands of government officials. There are some leaders and officials who are more than capable of distributing this money effectively, on important issues, and improving the lives of their countrymen. There are others, however, who, faced with temptation, choose to funnel it into multistory houses in their home towns or, as others have mentioned, into Swiss bank accounts, building up arms caches and even conducting ethnic cleansing. They are left, by there brother governments, with spectacular amounts of money and arms-length, phony accountability. How many of you can be certain that, if given large quantities of foreign money, our own leaders would use it wisely and not spend it on campaign ads to get themselves back into to power next time? I don’t believe that is a particularly African problem.

What is necessary, then, as far as I can see it, is for aid to continue, but to be accompanied by genuine interest and involvement into the countries it is given to. For those giving and administering those funds to be people who are dedicated to the improvement of the country it is going to. To be people who are willing to invest there time, as well as their money. To spend the time discovering what is really needed, to spend the time to understand how to create genuine accountability and partnerships with leaders who have genuine integrity, to spend time working out how to help without creating dependency.

Many of you have reference the situation with out own indigenous community, and Mr. Pearson’s idea that “hound-outs kill”, others have suggested that Africans don’t know how to maintain what is begun by aid money, or what was left by colonial administrations. I don’t believe that this is the case. I do believe, however, that poorly managed aid, and welfare, leads to a cycle of dependency, both in Africa and the indigenous community. If money spent on beginning a project in Africa, whether it be good and appropriate or otherwise, if that project is begun and managed without any true involvement and partnership with locals involved, it will be depended upon and when it is left, it will be abandoned. Indeed, neither African, nor the indigenous community want or need handouts, but partnership with people, so they can improve their own lives in a way that is appropriate, necessary and sustainable, not condescending and disinterested.

I believe that the answer is neither to throw our arms up in disgust, nor to continue wantonly throwing money at the situation, but to move from a point of arrogance and guilt and give our genuine interest and involvement along with our money, being willing to invest our time and our lives in order that we are actually investing our money, and not wasting it.

Posted by: voyageur on July 6, 2007 8:05 PM