Australia’s Bush Culture at Risk

Fires raged on and the native groups became at risk the losing cultural memory of thousands of years of stories, sites, and traditions. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples are some of the native groups that were directly impacted by the recent Australian bush fires.

As with any fire, destruction is eminent; however, how do you approach cultures who tie some of their identity to the land on which they live? A trouble for the preservation of the culture, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples’ land will be a wash of memories of the protected forests and rock paintings that decorated the lands.

I believe that there is a foundational question on whether or not it is someone’s duty to protect these cultural sites through documentation, photographs, or recordings. In order to fully explore this question, we must think of how these populations address time.

For the Western world, we see time as linear—we are 45 years old; that event was six days ago; we are preserving this item because it is 6500 years old. However, for cultures that don’t represent time in a linear fashion, we can observe that they have a more circular process of time. Now, to break this down a bit further, an item is not important because it is 6500 years old, but yet it has a strong importance to their culture.

We have seen debates on land ownership in Australia regarding this item due to the fact that infringement on land ownership of the native peoples has been an issue. For the native peoples, the cultural importance of ownership is done more from a verbal standpoint and recognition as it is thought that the paper document is able to deteriorate over time; however, the memory and story-telling of the native cultures are more powerful than that of the paper document.

I presented this understanding to two colleagues of mine, who are psychologists noted for their expertise in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). To which they stated that memory of individuals can be as weak that the paper on which we write. Whereas psychologists who study memory have been able to place a memory in one’s mind through certain methods of insertion. This is not to deter or negate the cultural practices of the native peoples, but to shed light on how agreements, whether on paper or in memory can be modified or disintegrate over time.

Now, as we look towards the variety of importance of whether, from a cultural standpoint, written word or verb narrative is stronger, I think that might fall into the realm of an ontological dichotomy. Therefore, both can exist as true!

Now that we have an elementary understanding of how time and importance is placed on cultural items, how might the Aboriginal and Torres Strait people view the importance of preserving these items? Might they consider this fiery damage a sense of renewal or rather a washing of their culture? Should outside agencies place an importance on preserving or recreating these memories and cultural areas? What might the country of Australia do to assist these native populations—should they do anything?

Complex as these questions are, it must come from a cultural standpoint of what they deem to see as an importance. The levels of cultural memory that exist within the native populations will be forever changed by the landscape and locational knowledge of these stories. The stories are unique and multifaceted as well as the solutions.

I believe that there must be a dialog with the individuals who were directly affected and allow their leadership to determine the outcomes. By injecting oneself into the culture would cause more of a clash than an assistance, especially when an individual might not directly represent or understand the culture with whom they are trying to assist.