On Friday the Prime Minister said “Indigenous people have no hope of being part of the mainstream of this country unless they can speak the language of this country.”
It came after the indigenous affairs minister, Mal Brough, suggested the best way for Aboriginal children in remote communities to have more options in life is to learn English.
Mr Brough is drawing up a plan that would see parents of indigenous children lose their welfare payments if they don’t send their children to school.
Mr Howard also says that non English speaking migrants who come to Australia have to learn English, and even though indigenous Australians are not migrants, he said the same should apply to Aboriginal children.
The Australian Education Union says the government needs to provide more money if the plan is to work. Others say that whether or not a child learns English should not be tied to welfare payments – and that parents should ultimately decide whether or not their child learns English.
What do you think? Is the government’s plan for indigenous children in remote communities to learn English, a good idea?
FOR:
Mal Brough says that if we want Aboriginal children to have the same life expectancy, and the same capacity to enjoy ‘the bounty’ of Australia, then they need to be able to speak English.
He says speaking English is essential if indigenous children are to become ‘mobile citizens’
AGAINST:
Will we see indigenous languages disappear if Aboriginal people are in this way forced to learn English?
Do you think it’s fair that parents lose their welfare payments if they don’t send their children to school? Is this a good incentive? Should learning English be tied to welfare payments?
Comments (2)
I can unequivocally agree with Mr Brough and Mr Howard that English is a vital life skill for all Australians, and that it opens up many opportunities that would otherwise not be available.
So far as I can see, the argument is not so much about learning English as it is about the methods by which indigenous people are being taught it. If I understand correctly (and I trust someone will correct me if I'm wrong :-)) Aboriginal education has traditionally been entrusted to the elders of any given community. The Government's proposal is to override this tradition and impose instead the European system of schooling viz. formal education from ages 5 onwards.
This is clearly, from the Government's perspective, the simplest solution to the problems they see amongst indigenous communities (some of which are included in the survey cited by Hona Wikeepa above). I'm not sure, however, that it is necessarily the best. By removing children from their communities and traditional way of life we are effectively cutting them off from their own history and culture. I certainly believe that this should be an option for their parents to consider, but I don't agree that it should be mandated.
Perhaps an alternative might be to look for ways to integrate the teaching of English (and other basic skills) into the traditional teaching methods. This would clearly not be the easy solution, as it would involve all kinds of effort and research to work out how this might be done in an effective and culturally sensitive manner, but perhaps it might lead to better outcomes in the long term?
Posted by Tim Campbell | June 4, 2007 12:37 PM
Posted on June 4, 2007 12:37
Perhaps the question should be how come Aboriginal children are on the language debate in the 21st century.
After William Wilberforce successfully fought against slavery in England in 1787 he made sure that there were missionaries onboard the ships of the first fleet. He knew that the primary reason white people were coming to Australia was so that the indigenous population here could hear the gospel. Anything else apart from that was secondary because God's will is over all things.
Two weeks ago Australia was ranked last in the world on indigenous issues and indigenous health was reportedly 20 years behind the rest of Australia. This is despite Australian medical research being amongst the best in the world. Yet in the 21st century we are asking ourselves if indigenous children should be taught English. Its kind of like throwing the baby out of the bath tub and keeping the dirty water. This is also after 40 years of indigenous recognition as far as the vote is concerned.
What should have been the churches role and have they done it? In the 21st century in Australia abortion is an ethical means to a relative end for whatever reasons. This means that abortion is the concept of truth in regards to the value of human life. To the Christian human life is intrinsic to the Trinity. Yet the pro-abortion agenda is the default concept today. The biblical concept has not only been replaced, it is considered immoral in todays relative society where truth is what 'I' the individual thinks it is.
The churches role should have been to set the cultural climate in its time for example the 21st century. Even after 40 years wandering around the dessert the children of Israel still set the cultural climate in their time.
Everyone around them knew that their God was real and this is why the Ammorites feared Israel's advance. In the 21st century the situation is not the same but in fact even the God concept has gone and all we have is a word which behind it stands nothing. This in contrast to the Judeo Christian consensus.
If we have not understood the dominant philosophic thought forms in our 21st century world then we will find ourselves talking largely to ourselves. Non-Christian people reason upon a different framework for appraoching the questions of truth and knowledge then the Christian. The Christian begins with the Bible (God's propositional verbalised revelation) as the Jews did in Paul's time. Our world like the gentiles in Paul's time did not begin with the Bible. When Paul spoke to the Jew he would say, "It is written'" because they were familiar with Scripture. But to the non-Jew he would begin with something familiar to himself and to them. If we have not understood this point we should not be surpirsed at the state of affiars of our indigenous people.
As Christian's we should hang our heads in shame at the state of affairs amonsgt our indigenous people. If we don't we really risk facing an Islamic nation within our country comprising of indigenous peopls. They already have the right people in place. In the face of a silent Christianity, they have no opposition. The Cronulla riots should have shown us this with the absolute silence from all leaders in protestantism. This is a shame considering all racism and all violence are first acts against the God who was there and second against the image and likeness of God as well.
As A christian, I hang my head in shame at our pagan beginning of 1788. I say Pagan because indigenous Australian's are still fighting for equal recognition. It's time for Christians to be honest and stand up for righteousness about these indigenous shortcoimings. otherwise they will be waiting another 200 years should Jesus tarry which I doubt.
Teach the children English? Jean Paul Sartre French existentialist philosopher said this. Something rather than nothing is out there; furthermore something in contrast to that something is also there; you and I are there. Immediately we are confronted by two questions, the questions of metaphysics of being and the question of morals. Sartre was no Christian but these ideas are the truth of Christianity. The Bible claims to naswer both questions but Sartre wasn't a Christian. Who am I and where did I come from or perhaps we could say it like this; who am I and what is wrong with me. The biggest issue facing indigenous Australia children are these two questions. If we can teach them the answers to these questions it is like winning the lotto as far as evangelism is concerned. If we don't address the God mandate then you can be sure that trouble is just around the corner and it wont go away untill we teach them who they are and why. if not, Islam will have a free reign or the empricist or pantheist will.
Posted by Hona Wikeepa | May 30, 2007 1:16 AM
Posted on May 30, 2007 01:16