The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The main thing is that every single one of the Salishan tongues has a romanization. Do any of the aborigine tongues have a romanization so that you can read and write in it? If so, the period of instruction in their native tongues would be genuinely useful since you'd teach them how to read and write in it, and then teach them how to read and write in a different language later. If the initial instruction doesn't include education in reading and writing of a roman-script based written version of their native tongue, it is, however, completely useless and should be replaced by total English immersion, or such a romanization needs to be developed for each of the Aborigine tongues in use, and implemented in the curricula.
While I can see the value of a Roman script, the Cherokee nation have done quite nicely with their non-Roman syllabary as seen in these examples from Talequah, Oklahoma:
Couple things here:
1) In this day and age a language needs a writing system. While Roman characters have some advantages in regards to computer use and a few other applications, the exact form doesn't matter as much as the fact
the written form exists. Some languages probably are better suited to syllabaries than pure alphabets, and at this point the Chinese ideograms are so entrenched they aren't going away for a long, long time. Roman characters alone don't seem to cut it for many languages, hence all the accents and modifiers seen in various tongues. A writing system not only allows information to be recorded for posterity, it's also one of the features that makes people take the language seriously. Ideally, one might ask the "Australian Aborigines" what
they would prefer, except that they are such a diverse group there would probably be multiple answers. That may or may not be a problem. Cherokee is the only language I'm aware of whose writing system was largely generated by just one person, I suspect how this happens is often the result of "committee" or imposition from outside. Regardless, languages need writing these days.
2) People need to be
literate. In one sense, it doesn't matter
which language is there first (although some languages have advantages of status and power, there is no denying that) as long as people can read and write. The first language learned is the biggest hurdle in this regard. Even if members of an indigenous tribe don't read/write/speak English if they at least read/write/speak their own language information can still be distributed in written form, appointments written down, and so forth. It is probably best if people learn
two languages, but it is important they become literate in
at least one. This allows for basic participation in civic life, even if not in the dominant language. We see this in large cities such as Chicago which publish and disseminate information on voting, social services, laws, and other such things in
dozens of languages. In Chicago one technique hospitals use for determining what sort of language translation is needed (which, thanks to major travel hubs like O'Hare, can result in patients from literally anywhere in the world arriving at the ER) is to present a patient with a chart that allows them to choose the written form of their language, which enables hospital staff to attempt to locate an appropriate translator with much less guessing required. To some extent, this works even for marginally literate people who can at least recognize their own writing system even if they can't truly read it.
3) There must be an
absence of forces killing the native tongue.
Most of the overt examples - outlawing of language, beating of children who speak the forbidden language in school, etc. - have gone away in this day and age, but that doesn't mean there aren't such forces still at work. The trend is for the children to gradually move away from the tribal language (though some such language, such as Cherokee and Navajo, have actually
gained speakers during the 20th Century) but attempts to stamp out a language generally seem to result in poor overall language development. There is absolutely nothing wrong in speaking one language at home and another in the outside world as polyglots have proven for centuries and one can be equally adept at two languages. This is actually a
normal state of affairs for most of the world and much of history. Forbidding a language, though results in resent, anger, distrust, and a resistance to education overall that is toxic.
4) Some respect for the native culture helps. Authorities don't have to love it, but if you characterize all of group X as dirty, unwashed, disease-ridden, drunken, immoral trash barely above the level of rats (which has happened on several continents in regards to native tribes) this
will communicate to the defeated people clustered against their will in limited land areas. Authorities have to keep their promises/treaties/whatever. This includes apologizing for past transgressions, acknowledging mistakes, and perhaps in some cases reparations (which are not always practical). It
certainly means respecting the
current boundaries of native lands. The natives have to be allowed to keep as many of their traditions as practical (we can't, for obvious reasons, permit systematic head hunting or war raids on non-tribal neighbors) NOT as tourist attractions but as genuine traditions. This requires giving the natives the authority to ban outsiders from certain ceremonies (some of the American south west Pueblos close to outsiders during certain holidays) or permitting customs that may well upset the dominant culture (such as the Plains Sun Dance - I recall the uproar caused when one of my classmates in college sought a leave of absence for his commitment to performing the dance, which if I recall involved at least four years of participation and left significant scars though perhaps these days with piercing and scarification being all the rage it wouldn't cause such a fuss).
5) On the flip side, those who wish to assimilate should be permitted to do so. One reason you get corrupt tribal leaders is either the perception or the reality that the tribals have no other choice. If people are free to go it makes it much harder for the chief to abuse them. Mind you, this is not
forced assimilation, this is keeping the door open.
What the above does is give the tribals some cultural security, that they aren't going to be systematically exterminated (not an unreasonable fear, given history). This makes resistance far less entrenched and improves open-mindedness. This works both ways. Tribal members, secure that they will be allowed to use their native tongue and keep their customs become less hostile to outsiders. Children who might otherwise feel overly constrained are more free to choose which culture they wish to live in, or even both by going out into the dominant culture to work and earn money but able to return to the tribal to either visit, retire, or attempt to start something worthwhile there. Or commute - there's a history of Iroquois working steel on New York City high rises while maintaining strong ties with their tribal areas, which also brought needed cash to their regions.
And finally -
realize that living cultures are not static. This has to be realized by ALL parties. Tribal/native peoples are NOT museum specimens. These things range from a change in clothing habits, assimilation of new words, dying out of some customs, and adoption of new ones.
I am most familiar with the situation in North America, of course, as I live here. Things were pretty shitty for the natives for quite a long while, are still pretty horrible for a significant number of them. While some tribes are starting to enjoy economic benefits the situation is far from ideal. There is a
lot of friction between tribes and their neighbors. Frequently, the only resolution to conflict is a compromise that leaves everyone equally unhappy.
Question my mind - what really is the situation in Australia? What I typically hear as characterizations of the aborigines reminds me of how people in the 19th Century referred to the American tribes. It appears that their standard of living is abysmal, that alcohol and drug abuse are rampant (also a serious problem in North America), and, from this thread, aborigines are even
less educated on average than the poorest US tribes. Where can I find unbiased and accurate information on this?
