Tourism and Indigenous Peoples - Assignment Example

Perception and Reality Perception and Reality: The Aborigines and the Manufacturing of Image Perception and Reality 2 Perception and Reality: The Aborigines and the Manufacturing of Image Reading 5.1 I was struck by a powerful sense of remoteness – both physical and commercial – in reading about the economic problems and opportunities associated with Australia’s indigenous peoples. My understanding of what makes for a healthy economic climate is based on social integration and the increasing connectedness (facilitated by the Internet, e-commerce, instantaneous communication, etc.) that characterizes so much of human interaction in the 21st century. The impression of remoteness reminded me of a scene from the movie Gallipoli, in which Frank Dunne (played by Mel Gibson) tries to convince an older man that the Germans want to take their country. Looking out over a vast, desolate landscape, the older man responds, “They can bloody well have it” (Weir, 1981). Aboriginal peoples aren’t just part of this remoteness – for many, they have come to symbolize it. I believe that this impression of the Aborigines is intrinsic to Australia’s cultural self-image, part of a pervasive and dominant national mindset. It has a debilitating effect on efforts to decrease traditional economic disparities and make Aboriginal peoples a productive part of the country’s economic mix. Dislocation is the inevitable product of treating Aboriginal people as novel curiosities, or historic anomalies. Until this perspective changes, I believe an almost carnival image will plague the Aborigines and will likely prove too imposing an impediment to indigenous economic integration. “The implications of…potentially expanding employment disparity is amplified for discrete Indigenous communities because they are remote, and opportunities in what is termed the ‘real’ (or mainstream) economy are extremely circumscribed” Perception and Reality 3 (Altman, 2000). As I contemplated this reading, I couldn’t help thinking about a series of television commercials advertising American Indian gambling casinos, which are typically only aired in the early morning hours. To me, this reflects the ingrained cultural disenfranchisement of America’s indigenous peoples, who are surely one of the most notable examples of a culturally and economically disadvantaged native population. Their cultural remoteness has kept them out of America’s economic mainstream as surely as has the Aborigines.’ In America, “fringe” business opportunities, or tourist businesses that exploit stereotypical notions, are often the only means for economic advancement available to native Americans. I believe this is, or will become, the case with Australia’s indigenous peoples, who are similarly trapped by racial bias and an endemic system of cultural quarantine. It seems to me that there is an underlying purpose to the willful lack of understanding of Aboriginal culture among Anglo-Australians. Comparing the plights of Aborigines and American Indians leads me to one of the saddest legacies of the relationship between the Aboriginal tribes and their Anglo-Australian counterparts. Just as the Indians were cheated by countless dubious treaties with the U.S. government, the Aborigines’ historical tendency to consent to policies they imperfectly understood has placed them at a terrible economic disadvantage. This unfortunate custom may have allowed them to co-exist in circumstances that might have otherwise resulted in their extinction. Nevertheless, I worry that their consequent cultural displacement, and physical remoteness, will permanently relegate Australia’s indigenous population to marginal business opportunities, in which tourists gloat over quaint, painted Didgeridoo-playing natives. Perception and Reality 4 Reading 6.1 As I mentioned previously, spatial and cultural remoteness have played a key role in the economic realities that affect the Aborigines. I believe that cultural bias is as damaging and as difficult to overcome. In ‘Is it Culture or is it Business?,’ Glen Miller makes a statement that seems to me to strike at the heart of the problem. He asserts that it’s important to make a distinction between “indigenous tourism” and “indigenous involvement in the tourism industry” (Miller, 2000). This is a key difference, because it delineates between an objectified view of indigenous people and the belief that more should be done to empower the Aborigines socially as well as economically. It’s accurate but unfortunate to argue that Australia’s indigenous population has become as much a part of the country’s identity as the kangaroo and the koala bear. It’s an insidious form of cultural discrimination that walls the Aborigine off from Australia’s lucrative tourism market. It’s one thing to be part of the logo; it’s another if you have no say in, or derive no benefit from, how the logo is used. A good term for this might be “image marginalization.” Miller points out a number of good examples of this phenomenon, including the skewed belief that the encroachment of white settlements has resulted in a widespread loss of Aboriginal cultural traditions, or that few Aboriginal communities actually exist and, therefore, tourism opportunities are false and exploitative (Miller, 2000). It’s a subtle aspect of Australian culture, but it reminds me of the racist doctrine that characterized the colonial era. It doesn’t take a great deal of analysis to realize that this trend is self-defeating, not only for the Aborigines but for Australia as a whole. Based on this reading, my impression of the situation is that Australia stands to benefit far more Perception and Reality 5 from a tourism industry that doesn’t exploit its indigenous culture but instead partners with it. In this article, Miller makes the point that Australia’s tourist industry and the government that supports it must face its internal problems it hopes to accomplish its international tourism objectives - specifically, that to develop a thriving international tourist trade, it’s important to first establish a successful domestic market. In most cases, governments find it necessary to encourage a localized tourist culture that offers a solid economic foundation and strengthens the image of the country’s tourism industry. The thought process that Miller’s article set off in my mind was that Australia cannot realistically expect to succeed on the domestic tourism front with one hand tied behind its back; in other words, with an undervalued and underappreciated resource like its Aboriginal community confined to a largely figurehead role. From a purely economic standpoint, it seems to make more sense to encourage indigenous business interests that simultaneously serve as “culture” and “business,” rather than further the lamentable and short-sighted practice of “showcasing” the Aborigines and their culture as little more than museum pieces. In the U.S., sports teams such as the “Redskins,” the “Indians” and the “Braves” dropped such names because native Americans complained that they are morally objectionable. America’s Indian population recognized that establishment America was exploiting an iconic image of the “noble savage.” It seems to me that the same argument could, and should, be made in Australia on behalf of its indigenous peoples. Perception and Reality 6 Reading 6.2 The crass exploitation of indigenous peoples is an old tactic. I suppose this early version of “spin” can be traced to 18th century England, where propagandists transformed the Scottish highlander, once an inveterate foe of the Crown, from a howling savage to a noble representative of a somehow purer age, fully worthy of fighting and dying for British interests on foreign soil. In this reading, we see specific examples of the Aboriginal promoted as a symbol of Australia’s “uniqueness.” A Sydney Morning Herald article described a 1994 Qantas campaign that featured the smiling face of an eight-year-old Aboriginal girl emblazoned on the side of a Boeing 747. The article uses the image to illustrate the unscrupulous nature of such marketing initiatives, pointing out that “these beautiful and glamorous images about Indigenous Australia often belie the reality of these people” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2000). To many, this may seem a justified glorification of Australia’s heritage. It struck me as offensive in the sense that it is so cynically simplistic and purposely misleading. In the 21st century, we have glowing images of Aborigines on the sides of planes and on billboards, but I find it a grotesque pastiche of 19th century racial cynicism. Accounts of this racist doctrine exhibit a Euro-centric bias that has been institutionalized by the media. “(The Aboriginal) manner of life is extremely wretched and disgusting. The delight to besmear their bodies with the fat of animals mingled with ochre, and sometimes with grime. They are utter strangers to cleanliness…” (Ellingson, 213, year). Most people are aware of the Crocodile Dundee movies, which portray Aborigines as canny and sagacious primitives munching on cooked bat wings (Faiman, 1986). Not only is this the world’s vision; it remains the opinion of most Australians. Perception and Reality 7 As I read this article, it occurred to me that money is the great determining factor when it comes to Aboriginal identity. The Australian Tourist Commission, which is charged with engineering policy for the international tourist trade, is guilty of furthering a stereotypical image of the Aborigine in the interest of maximizing tourism income, but it is certainly not without precedent. As I mentioned, exploitation and the dissemination of misleading information - even reinventing history in the interest of profit - is a widespread practice. But I’m afraid that it has become so prevalent it’s almost difficult to feel outraged. I found it unsettling that a National Indigenous Tourism Survey from 1999 revealed that 65 percent of people who toured Aboriginal areas were guided by a non-indigenous person. My assumption is that this is at least partly attributable to a desire to manage the way the public perceives the Aborigine. When it comes to public relations, image is everything. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in today’s visually hyper-stimulated media, image is identity. It all comes back to money and the continual need to manufacture and maintain image. The Australian Tourist Commission has proudly announced that many of the world’s leading corporations choose to identify with Australia, which, the commission claims, enjoys an appealing and highly marketable image. However unique and appealing Australia appears to the world, the image it projects is the result of carefully strategic marketing. And the country’s Aboriginal population is a well-packaged and expertly leveraged component of that ongoing campaign. Perception and Reality 8 References Altman, J. (2000). “The Effects of the CDEP Scheme on the Economic Status of Indigenous Australians.” CAEPR Discussion Paper, No. 195. Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University. Ellingson, T.J. (2001). The Myth of the Noble Savage. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press. Faiman, P. (Director) and Cornell, L. (Producer). (1986). Crocodile Dundee. Australia: Paramount Pictures. Miller, G. (2000). “Is it Culture or is it Business?” Tourism-the Indigenous Opportunity: National indigenous Tourism Forum Proceedings Report. Sydney, 3-4 June, pp. 92-94. Sydney Morning Herald. (2000). Sydney, Australia. Weir, P. (Director) and Lovell, P. (Producer). 1981. Gallipoli (motion picture). Australia: Roadshow Pictures. Read More