Australia Day Water Ceremony

As a freckle faced kid January 26^th in Australia always meant a day of national celebration to me. I was proud to be an Aussie and I remember sun drenched days of backyard cricket, going to sporting events and even one year going to the harbour to watch some tall ships sail in. Those tall ships represented two different perspectives. And in more recent times a growing awareness of the fact that many Aboriginal people see this day as Invasion or Survival Day has soured my taste for flying the flag. Some drape themselves in the flag as a symbol of pride but for others it can be out of arrogance, thinking they own the place, turning the flag into a symbol of hate for others. The Aboriginal view that we don't own it but that we belong to the land always resonated with me.

For the vast majority of Australians there is nothing sinister in how and what they want to celebrate. Regardless, it is still riding roughshod over the feelings of many Aboriginal people.

There has been talk of moving the date of Australia Day and perhaps I'm being paranoid but I fear that doing so could be divisive in a way that would undermine the reason for doing it. I foresee those with misplaced patriotism or those who harbour racist tendencies taking exception to having the date changed, defiantly holding their own Australia Day celebrations or protestations in the face of those who see it as a day of mourning.

Seems it's not just reconciliation between people that is required but that a day needs to be reconciled too. Out of respect I would be content for the date to change but I wonder if there's a better way? What if the date that signifies white settlement and invasion came together? Not just to share a date but to share in both the mourning and celebration.

You could say I have a dream. Back in 2002 I attended a pilgrimage to Uluru where busloads of schoolchildren from all over Australia converged on Uluru to participate in a cultural exchange with the Mutitjulu people. This Pilgrimage still happens annually: http://www.fusion.org.au/schoolsinharmony/

One of the exchanges that took place and that moved me so much that it is forever etched into my memory and deeper, was something called a water ceremony.

A few hundred of us were gathered in an open amphitheatre under the multitude of stars that can be seen in an outback night sky. There we sat or stood holding our plastic cups given to us when we entered. We were entertained with a song sung in the Pitjantjatjaran language by the local women. Then came the story. The story of how Aboriginals kept coming across settlers in the early years who were dying of thirst because they didn't understand how to survive off the harsh land. The Aboriginals thought these settlers a bit dim but generously shared with them the secrets of where all the waterholes were. They were repaid this act of kindness with an act of cruelty. The settlers poisoned the water to kill off the local Aboriginal population.

It was haunting to hear such a story and be standing in the midst of Aboriginal Elders and women and children.

Then the water ceremony begun. This consisted of an Elder holding a jug of water and announcing that like in the old story, they were offering us the water, that which brings life, and that we should accept it properly this time. One by one people moved forward and received the water. Others took up jugs of water and gave it out. It was a very humbling experience to have my cup filled by a young Aboriginal woman who smiled with joy as she was approached from all sides by those eager to participate.

I wonder if this is a ceremony that could be held all over the country on the morning of January 26^th at festivals and sporting events and places of significance. It is a beautiful ceremony that puts the Aboriginal people in a place of high regard, establishing them as the traditional custodians of the land. It allows their hurt and their stories to be heard (more should be taught in school!). It puts them in a position that says we can forgive the wrongs of the past and welcome everyone as Australian. It places the non Aboriginal in a place of humility and asks them to act to receive the forgiveness of past wrongs. It is a simple ritual that goes a long way to bringing people together.

As a nation we made a giant leap when we said 'sorry' and a part of reconciliation has to be being forgiven. Is this the next step in reconciliation?

If we have to say sorry and be forgiven every year for the next 40,000 years then that is still good in my eyes so long as we are always moving in the right direction – towards reconciliation.

We have seen the resurgence of Anzac Day as a cultural focal point, especially for the young. Is this because they crave something with deep meaning? Something that brings us together, that shapes who we are. Unfortunately Australia Day doesn't bring us all together. So I dream of it being inclusive and imbued with deep meaning that can shape the culture of this nation.

If culture is shared symbols of meaning, rallying around the green and gold, knowing what 'mateship' means, then the symbolism in a water ceremony says we are all reconciled and we all belong. And with weight lifted I would hope we could move into the rest of the day as a celebration of what we share together now. I remember at the ceremony an Aboriginal woman also thanking for us all the good things we have brought that have enriched their lives, including, us.

I don't know where the water ceremony originated and whether it belongs to one group of people. Whether it would be offensive to ask other groups if they would like to introduce such a ceremony. Perhaps they have other stories and ceremonies that would work too. Everyone would need to own it for it to work.

I don't have a personal relationship with any Aboriginal elders or politicians to be able to ask how they feel about this proposal and whether they'd be interested in being a part of making something like this happen. I will endeavour to rectify both situations and would appreciate any assistance. If you think this is a worthwile idea and you think you can make it happen on a national scale or just on a small local scale which could one day grow to something bigger then I welcome you and urge you to try.

I ask again, is this or something like it the next step in reconciliation?

A definition of Insanity - Australia's reponse to boat people

I consider the values of the Christian faith to be Justice, Mercy and Compassion. In the light of those core values I ask myself how anyone who calls themselves a Christian can support the major parties stance on boat people?

In the eyes of the law over 90% of boat people are found to be legitimate refugees and not illegal immigrants. We signed a treaty that says that a person fleeing persecution can enter a country without permission and claim asylum. We signed that treaty because we agreed with many other nations that it was necessary to do so to prevent evils like the holocaust from ever happening again. Justice dictates that these people have done nothing wrong and should not be incarcerated indefinitely. We are flying in the face of international law.

the man who jumped

Mercy and Compassion is also missing in our response to boat people. (check out the documentary that got me all riled up again-something everyone should see but it having been shown on SBS means that it will evade the masses) http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2189706100/The-Man-Who-Jumped-Full-Ep

Instead we utilise brutality and a regime of tormenting dehumanisation in an attempt to deter others, yet still they come. Benjamin Franklin said that 'the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.' I think Australia is going insane over this issue.

$90,000 per detainee per year to keep them in detention and subject them to months and months of mental anguish. This is supposed to protect us yet all it does is breed resentment and retaliation and riots. Insane.

What do we have to fear? Is it that they won't assimilate? that they don't speak english? Or is it just xenophobia being whipped up by some of the most irresponsible leaders of our time. We have been lied to for the sake of gaining power. Anyone who can get beneath the spin and see the truth like that conveyed in the 'the man who jumped' doco, if they still support the dehumanisation then somewhere along the way they may have allowed themselves to become dehumanised.

Here are some facts worth getting your head around:   http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

 

a child's perspective of detention in Australia

If it's so important that they speak english then why isn't a detention centre more like a school? If it is so important that a refugee/immigrant is assimilated then why do we put them through hell? If I was mistreated so I would be resentful of, not thankful toward the nation that did that to me. Why would I want to assimilate? Why would I want to be like them? So we want them to assimilate and contribute to our society but our treatment of them ends with such a devastating ammount of mental illness that they become dependant on health and welfare and are a drain on our society. Again, insane.

Wouldn't it make sense to welcome them on arrival and treat them with such dignity and generosity that they would be so thankful as to want to belong to such a society and to contribute to it as a way of giving back what has been given to them? Ever seen the movie 'Pay It Forward? Well if you are giving and generous and compassionate that often results in more giving and generosity etc. It's how the world works as God made it. If we pay forward with mistrust and carelessness and brutality, where does that lead us?

Jesus said that what we do to the least of those in need we do to him. It is said that some have welcomed those in need into their homes and have welcomed angels in doing so. Our fear has become contagious and spread to our brains and in our insanity we want to turn the angels away. After loving God we are meant to love our neighbour. What is being done in Australia's name is not loving.

If you find this blog offensive then I'd like to talk with you about why (you should've seen the initial draft – much more scathing and dripping with sarcasm). I just can't see Jesus turning people in need away and I can't see him standing by in the face of racism, oppression and the spin and lies and abuse of those in power. I am trying to follow his way, trying to find a sane place.

Occupying the Sacred

The major argument of the Church of England in attempting to oust the Occupy London Stock Exchange movement's camp from its sourrounds is that St Paul's is not a banking or a government institution but that it is a sacred place and is therefore an unsuitable place for holding such a demonstration. Could the Occupy campsite be considered as sacred too?

I went overseas for the first time just before Christmas and being in London for a couple of weeks visiting St Paul's and the Occupiers was on the top of my to do list. I'm not much of a tourist, ever since participating in a pilgrimage to Uluru where it was explained that a tourist passes through the land but a pilgrim let's the land pass through them I've always been more interested in getting a feeling for a place than just getting photo's of it. In a sense visiting St Paul's was very much a pilgrimage for me being that I care deeply about social activism and being that I consider myself part of the fellowship of those that follow Jesus. Here was a place where those two interests of mine came together, somewhat in harmony and somewhat in conflict.

I say in harmony because they still exist side by side, the Occupy movement which began there in October is still there which is more than can be said for the so called tolerant nature of Australia in regards to what happened in Melbourne and Sydney. But that harmony may be over in London as the High Court has just handed down an eviction notice pending appeal and therein lies the conflict.

Two high profile members of St Paul's stood down last year. Rev Giles Fraser and Chaplain Fraser Dyer both felt compelled to resign from their posts because other members were heading towards forcibly removing the occupiers. Good on them for standing up for what they believe in, but what does that tell us about those that remain? What do they believe is a reasonable course of action? If the appeal fails and the Occupiers don't leave then the City of London Corporation that St Paul's are in bed with in this will use force to remove them.

So what of my personal experience of the place?

The sun was going down, it was cold and we were a bit lost when searching for the site while walking some eerily empty streets with guards watching over side streets and buildings.

Only after reading this article did I get a sense of the sinister nature of these streets and how guilty on a much wider scale is the City of London Corporation for occupying public spaces:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/occupy-london-war-public-space

Then we could see the unmistakable dome looming between shiny office buildings and quickened our pace toward it. The eerily dead streets opened out into something alive, the grand edifice that is St Paul's and the campground at its feet. Not knowing if I was even allowed to enter St Paul's I explored the Occupy campsite and came upon what seemed to be the hub which was a library in a tent. This library was utilised by the Occupiers so that they could read up on activism, oppression, economy, theology, philosophy etc. A place that gives birth to ideas and to discussion and sharing and learning.

Walking past tents I spyed people sitting up in their sleeping bags and reading by candlelight. Spoke to a friendly guy who was handing out leaflets promoting an event that would be calling for the end to Guantanamo Bay and read the signs that had been put up on tents and trees. We walked all the way around the Church and it's fenced off grounds and then when we saw other people going inside we decided to venture into St Paul's.

Just in time for Evensong, taking our seats we listened to the choir and took in the majestic interior. An interior that I thought I might leave a sour taste due to a contradiction of the decandance inside and the poverty outside but that is not how I felt. I felt humbled by the place. I felt like I could stop, rest, meditate. I found myself being curious as to how different people find different ways to worship and express their faith and I was thankful that for some of them, building this living cathedral was it. It was undoubtedly a sacred place but as I exited out to where the occupiers were, I felt that their place was sacred too.

Sacredness is usually reserved for the religious but I like others disagree, I think we can find sacredness in a quest or in collectivity or counter-culture, or truth, beauty, in something that moves you to feeling that this is important to the story of humanity or that there is more to the story. Sacredness connects us to something special and bigger than ourselves.

Occupy has provided a place for those that believe that there is something wrong with the world. The Church also says there is something wrong with the world hence Jesus came to save it. Occupy has provided a place for many homeless, an issue that the Church is charged with caring about. The Occupiers are about to be moved on and the Church for a time now is in danger of becoming irrelevant.

I think wow when I imagine what it would be like if the Church opened up their grounds to the movement and joined in the demonstration against greed. I get that they see themselves as a sacred place of worship and seperate from meddling in national affairs but are they missing an opportunity? If the church can be vocal against homosexuality which Jesus never mentioned then surely they can be vocal against greed and abuse of power which Jesus had much to say about including Luke 12:15 “Be on your guard against all types of greed.”

Jesus also said in Mark 2:23-28 that the Sabbath was designed to serve humanity and not the other way around and that therefore if a structure is not serving the people then create one that does. The structure as it is does not serve the people and that is why the Occupiers are there, to occupy and bear witness to obscene corporate greed and abuse of power. To say that people have the right to demonstration and free assembly but that they've had their say and they should move on now in this case is saying we haven't heard you. To remove them is an attack on all they stand for which is to occupy until the world wakes up. 

 

I would probably be considered to be living below the poverty line here in Australia but according to this online survey-

http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resources/how-rich-you-are.php

-I am still in the top 7.5% wealthiest people in the world. The 1% have too much but it is not me that needs a share of what they have, its the bottom 80-90% that do and as long as they are included and are a focus of being served by this movement, the movement will be considered sacred by me and I will stand by them, where do you stand?