Why We Will Never Find The ‘Most Appropriate’ Term To Refer To All Indigenous Australians.

Finding the ‘most appropriate’ term to refer to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples/Indigenous Australians/First Australians/First Peoples/First Nations etc is like the Holy Grail of stuff that seems like it would be way easier than it actually is to resolve. Sadly though, it is a conversation that will never go away, and is also one that will probably never be entirely resolved.

A big part of the problem stems from the refusal to accept and use the hundreds of original names that exist, eg Wiradjuri, Noongar, Gamilaroi, etc, and even that often has the issue of agreed upon English spelling of these words. This also doesn’t solve the desire to refer to all groups under a single banner, even though we never had one ourselves.

Instead of having names that are our actual names, Indigenous peoples have always had descriptors instead of names. Aborigine, native, indigenous and so on are all words that describe us rather than name us. These are broad terms that have been applied to plants, animals, and various groups of human across the planet. They are anti-names.

The shift from these descriptors to them becoming names is seen in the shift from uncapitalised to capitalised; ‘aborigine’ became ‘Aborigine’, ‘aboriginal Australian’ became ‘Aboriginal Australian’ and this shows that rather than being words used strictly in their dictionary definition they had moved into the realm of becoming proper nouns, or names. Names that people had taken a sense of ownership of, and were willing to identify as.

Indigenous is still stuck somewhere in the middle of this process, with a variety of people still not liking the term for a variety of reasons, and many media organisations still refusing to capitalise it.

As to the ‘why’ some terms are considered inappropriate, there are cases to be made for and against and like most debates of linguistics it is usually better to take a descriptive rather than a prescriptive approach.

Aborigines: It is often said that this term has become outdated, and carries strong connotations of colonialism and racism. It evokes in many minds a memory of what we like to think of as a bygone era of overt racism.

Another argument that is often used is that it lumps diverse groups together under a single banner. I find this argument to be a strange one as it applies equally to all of the other suggested names (Aboriginal, Indigenous, First Australians etc) and is effectively what the entire conversation is about – ‘can we come up with an English word, or series of words, that respectfully erases the original identities of people and lumps them all together for convenience?’.

The only argument for the use of ‘Aborigine’ I have ever encountered is from amateur linguists and media people, who argue that ‘aborigine’ is a noun’ while ‘aboriginal’ is an adjective. This argument seems rather pedantic and prescriptive, and it completely ignores the move from noun and adjective to proper nouns.

Aboriginal: This is the term that many of us grew up identifying as and as such feels more comfortable than ‘Aborigines’ which we more commonly encounter in history books and in a few lingering media spaces.

The main arguments against it are that it excludes Torres Strait Islander who are also Indigenous to Australia, but are not Aboriginal. It is also an introduced term that we did not get to choose for ourselves. It homogenises the diversity of Aboriginal peoples. There are also suggestions that it is an insulting descriptor that attempts to separate us from ‘original man’ eg the Biblical ‘Adam’. This is often linked to the prefix ‘ab’ eg normal/abnormal; original/aboriginal. I’m not a professional linguist or historian but it is a interesting and compelling idea, and it does make some sense to think that the white people who called us ‘aboriginal’ had something like that in mind rather than acknowledging our status as coming from this place.

Indigenous: This term became popularised in the early 1990s, presumably because of the Year of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. I have heard that various Indigenous academics here and in other countries began to push for this term to bring about more global collaboration and recognition of the status of Indigenous peoples worldwide.

As it is one that many of us saw emerge seemingly out of nowhere in the 90s there was and is some notable opposition to this term. The earlier arguments about being an introduced term still apply, and many believe that it was introduced by government without consultation and oppose it even more for that reason. Others like it as it includes Torres Strait Islander peoples as well, and helped get government departments to stop using ATSI. The issue of homogenising diverse groups becomes magnified though as it includes a larger and more diverse grouping of peoples.

First Australians: Some people think this shows more respect by acknowledging we were here first, but others think it erases the historical reality that we are actually the last people to be officially allowed to be ‘Australians’. Asylum seekers are now giving us a run for the unwanted title of ‘last Australians’ though.

I could keep going, but I’m sure you are getting the gist; there are fors and againsts for all terms, and there is no consensus on the ‘one’ term that we can all agree on, and there probably never will be.

The more interesting conversation though is why do we need a single term for all of us? Who benefits and who losses out from having one? Who should get to decide, and how would we go about making such a decision? How long would such a decision be valid for? 10 years? 100 years?

Just as ‘Aborigines’ fast fell out of fashion it seems likely that if we do ever see substantial progress towards the rights of Indigenous peoples that terms like ‘Aboriginal’ might suffer a similar fate. Perhaps future generations will find that the term evokes distatsteful memories of Interventions, vilification from media, community closure or the million other oppressive realities existing in Australia today. Maybe we will need a new term for every significant generational shift towards justice?

I don’t have the answers for all of these questions, but I think this is where the conversation needs to shift if we are to get anywhere meaningful.

We might not (definitely won’t) reach a consensus on a single name that can ‘respectfully’ lump together hundreds of diverse groups, but we can find some new and unexplored territory that gets to the heart of this conversation.

We all want to be respected. Not just Indigenous peoples, but all of us. Many non-Indigenous people take this place of comfort and respect for granted and never have to question or defend their status – “Me? I’m just an Australian.”.

Indigenous Australians, and indeed, most Australians who are not white, have rarely had the luxury of casually referring to ourselves as ‘just an Australian’ without this being denied or challenged.

If you remove this privilege from white Australia and reverse the conversation to ‘What appropriate term should I use to refer to white Australians?” you will find just as much, if not more, opposition and resistance to the process, and at least as many different opinions. Anglo Saxons, English/Irish, European, caucasian, white, etc and yet this is not a conversation that is ever had. White Australia has effectively laid claim to ‘Australian’ and feels no pressure to come up with any other name, except for when it suits them. There is no other group that holds any power in media, government, or other relevant institutions to challenge this. So, it is a conversation that isn’t deemed necessary.

Not having a name that actually describes the group makes it harder to discuss the group with any clarity or specificity.

So even though we all understand that when someone asks ‘Are Australians racist?” they are usually talking about ‘white Australians’, people can still derail that conversation very easily just by asking “What do you mean by ‘Australian’?”, or by pulling the classic reverse racism catch cry of ‘Racism is a two way street’, and effectively negate any conversation about systemic power, prejudice, and how personal and institutional racism work in tandem to create ‘racism’ as it exists today.

So don’t ask me anymore ‘What is the respectful term for all Indigenous peoples?’. Just avoid the obviously disrespectful or outdated terms, use a capital letter for whatever term you use, and deal with the fact that whatever term/s you use you will not make everyone happy, and you will not be immune to criticism from those who disagree. Just make your own choice based on the best information you have, explain your reasoning and be willing to be flexible if it turns out not to be the best term to use in the context you intended.

And please, let me know if you ever come up with consensus on a term to respectfully refer to all white Australians, because there’s lots of things worth talking about within that group, and I would love to find a respectful term for when I’m talking about racism, apathy, animosity, ignorance, white privilege, white fragility and so on, that doesn’t upset anyone.

*cough*