Throughout the text, specifically near the end, I noticed that personification was used to give natural elements human-like emotions and capabilities. For example, on page 219, when Tayo was on the run, he describes the wind as “restless” and as if it was full of “emptiness and loss.” In my opinion, giving nature human-like emotions helped to depict the reverence, respect, and value that Natives place on the Earth in contrast to white culture. That being said, do you agree that the use of personification emphasizes the human nature relationship between Native American’s and the Earth? If so, why do you think this deeper relationship exists compared to white culture?
Additionally, when Tayo is on the run, he finds refuge in a mine shaft. Tayo reflects that the water there tasted bitter because of the large quantities of uranium nearby (pg 227). To me, this brief excerpt on uranium mining in Native American lands reflects on deeper colonialistic exploitations by white men (i.e. reclaiming Native lands and degrading the landscape for the purpose of mining and profit). That being said, what do you think? What was the purpose of including this brief statement and description of uranium? Could this possibly be used to foreshadow future Native American and white settler conflicts like those we see today (i.e. current uranium mining in the US for nuclear power)?
In the Gagugju Man, it is stated that “The identity of an Aboriginal person, however, is much more than legal title to land”…”land is life”. The main difference in the white man’s relation to nature is just a power structure. They “own” the land in order to extract monetary value from it. By displacing the environmental degradation onto indigenous lands, the white man can ignore the damage it causes to the Earth while still being able to enjoy the wealth taken from sacred grounds.
Aboriginal thinking can be seen in this quote; “Old people say ‘You dig yam? Well you digging your granny or mother through the belly. You must cover it up, cover again. When you get yam you cover over, then no hole through there.Yam can grow again'”. Their relationship to the land is one that recognizes the personification of the landscape by comparing it to their mother, and they believe you must have a reciprocal relationship to the land that respects proper stewardship of resources in order to sustain life. The Earth is full of living systems that are necessary for life; trees for breathing, water for plants/thirst, land for food. White man’s logic has objectified the landscape to be a one-way relationship in which the white man gains from environmental loss. This is an unsustainable relationship, therefore I believe giving the land a human identity can increase awareness of Nature’s right to exist independent of human profitability. By personifying nature, perhaps we could reduce socio-environmental tragedies, such as Uranium contamination in water supplies on indigenous lands, by treating it how we would we treat our own Mother with dignity.
“I guess I must be getting old,” she said, “because these goings-on around Laguna don’t get me excited any more.” She sighed, and laid her head back on the chair. “It seems like I already heard these stories before . . . only thing is, the names sound different” (242).
Through old grandma’s statement above, the novel is asserting that the stories it contains are both old and new. Throughout time, the stories tell the same truths about evil, witchery, goodness, and the right way to act. However, they repeat each other in different ways to communicate these truths to match the ever changing world. Basically, the stories are adapted to be more relatable at any given point in time. This idea of a story being “echoed” can be related to Ceremony as a whole. What stories within Ceremony are actually just “echoes” of existing stories?
In Gagudju man, Bill Neidjie tells the story of the aboriginal peoples in Australia through the perspective of one of the last aboriginal peoples. In the section of the poem entitled “Law” Neidjie writes:
“We must get rain.
Law says we get rain.
He come along in wet season.” (Neidjie, 24).
In the poem, law is personified and projected onto earth and people/animals/living things within earth to illustrate the interconnectedness that indigenous law has with the earth and lying things within earth. This is further illustrated with the personification of the tree, and at one point in the poem the man tries to talk to the tree, but it does not speak back. The man states that the tree grows at night, and expresses itself through its large leaves. The tree expresses itself through feeling, not actual words. Further illustrating the importance of law, Neidjie states:
“If man leave one or two barramundi behind,
he go bad.
Trouble,
big fight.
He can’t waste anything.” (Neidjie, 27).
This speaks to the importance of minimizing waste in indigenous law. Neidjie then illustrates that if there is waste, the punishment will be having less fish in the future to feed them. Ultimately, the rest of the poem speaks towards the importance of earth and the people’s interconnectedness with earth. Ultimately, the interconnectedness of earth as well as the stories told within the poem draw a comparison between Ceremony and Gagudju man. What themes can be key takeaways from the poem/ceremony regarding sustainability? In what ways does the poem symbolize sustainability and how the earth and living beings/ objects should be treated?
Neidjie’s “He Can’t Move His Country,” offers a glimpse into the land management practices of Gagudju people. In lines 1-12 he states “This earth/ I never damage./ I look after./ Fire is nothing,/ just clean up./ When you burn,/ new grass coming up./ That mean good animal soon./ Might be goose, long-neck turtle, goanna, possum./ Burn him off,/ new grass coming up,/ new life all over.” These practices aren’t considered sustainable in developed nations because the rate in which it would have to be conducted to meet the demands of overpopulation would exceed the land’s regeneration. I think it is evidence of a root issue in sustainability: overpopulation. This is also true in colonialism/imperialism; as nations develop and thus become wealthy and greedy, they look to other places to establish dominion over by way of outnumbering, murdering, and intimidating. Rather than managing their own affairs, colonial countries opted for domineering. Heidje’s lines 28-32 read “Rotten tree,/ you got to burn him./ Use him to cook./ He’s finished up,/ cook or roast in coals,/ White man cook in oven.” The forestry practices of the Gagudji people are idealistic. This is an example of their coexistence with the land. They wait for the trees and limbs to fall to take them. If the forest is not ready to give, then they wait until it is. Could this ever be achieved in develop nations? Is it possible to convince the majority of people to be more minimalistic, considerate, and cooperative? I am trepidatious to put my faith in America because it has been run by corrupt politics for its entirety. As the gradual battle continues between environmental and human right activists and degenerate corporations/politicians, how can we improve our tactics in combating colonialism, environmental destruction, and climate crises?
Gagudju Man walks the reader through the journey between life within the Earth that is connected to the aboriginals, all the way to death. In the poem, Neidjie says, “you hang onto this story,” (25) implying that it will not be around much longer. There is so much about their culture that seems to be taken over by white Europeans. White Europeans take over lands slowly and by the time others realize, it seems almost too late. How can we save our world from the direction it is headed in, with the way natives are pushed out of their land and culture? Indigenous communities are continually overlooked by First World countries. Later in the poem, Neidjie goes on to write:
“People.
They can’t listen for us.
They just listen for money.
Money” (30).
This excerpt from the poem illustrates the struggles that indigenous people go through as other people use them to exploit their resources and invalidate their culture. First World countries use their power to take over lands that house indigenous peoples and their main goal is to make a profit which is emphasized in the quote. Additionally, Neidjie wrote, “you cut yourself” (52), referring to when you cut a tree. They thrive off what nature provides them with and by cutting down a tree, you are cutting yourself as you are damaging your own life and what keeps you alive. The Earth helps give us life and the people need to respect that, rather than focus on monetary benefits to their plans.
This poem connects to Ceremony as Tayo was slowly shut out by his family because he had association with the white people. He was half white and fought in the white war; however, he was still raised within their culture and understood the importance of the traditions. Similarly to the aboriginals in the poem, they want to preserve the environment and the land they have grown up on because it contains their culture. Also, it is important to keep our planet healthy so we can continue to sustain ourselves for generations. Why don’t the people, such as the white Europeans, acknowledge the damage they are doing when they are invalidating the indigenous communities as they are doing? Sustaining the environment and traditions through nature should be common knowledge of the importance, so what can be done to spread this message and potentially prevent any further damage from being done to not only nature, but the indigenous communities?
In Gagudju Man, author Bill Neidjie depicts the indigenous epistemologies of the Aboriginal population, which relates to the interconnectedness of humans with the earth and other species. In the poem entitled “He Can’t Move His Country,” Neidjie expresses the pain that was caused by white Europeans taking over the land, building their definition of civilization in place of the Aborigines. Regarding the white Europeans who came into the Australian land occupied by the Aboriginal people, it is stated that “first they should ask about fish, cave, dreaming, but they rush in. They make school. Teach.” conveying the negligence to understand Aboriginal culture by the colonizer (20). In the poem “Law” the differences between the colonizer and the colonized are clearly explained. Aboriginal law is related to humans being in rhythm with nature and is based on ancestral interconnection, whereas the European law is always being altered to fit the needs of humans and expressing superiority over nature and those that they desire to conquer. In what ways does the poem convey the impacts of colonialism in the erasure of indigenous epistemologies?
Bill Neidjie repeatedly stresses the importance of land in Gagudju Man. Neidjie’s reverence for the land extends beyond words and moves into actions in the poem He can’t move his country, “This earth/I never damage./I look after” (18). What Neidjie’s caring relationship to the land manifests is a deep sense of self and a profound understanding of the land as seen on pages 18 and 19 with the understanding that one must burn to make things grow. The blurred line between land and self continues with Neidjie’s words on rain in Law. Neidjie states, “Rain for us, for anybody./Rain give us everything new. Yam, fish, everything” (23). Neidjie goes on to challenge the counter view that money or wealth accumulation is more important than land in Land: “million no good for us./we need this earth to live because/we’ll all be dead,/we’ll become the earth” (31). Neidjie’s humble and realistic view of self in Land continues on page 39: “because you born from earth./You got to come back to earth… It’s in this earth,/same as for tree.” Essentially Neidjie is saying that humans and trees are made of the same material. We have learned through science that this is true. We have learned that roughly 96% of human’s chemical makeup is oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. We have also learned that trees are are mostly made of carbon, but also hydrogen and oxygen (https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_trees_get_their_mass_from#:~:text=The%20mass%20of%20a%20tree,atmospheric%20carbon%20dioxide%20and%20water). Neidjie was right; we are the same as trees. Neidjie’s accurate statement makes me wonder: how much of what we learn through science and medicine would we instinctively know if we were more connected to the land and we knew the land, if we knew ourselves? Knowing Neidjie was right about trees, how can we incorporate other lessons Neidjie knows to be true? How can we take seriously Neidjie’s call to action in Conclusion: “You’ll be part of earth when you die./You responsible now./You got to go with us./To earth./Might be you can hang on./Hang onto this story./To this earth” (54-55). What does it look like for us to hang onto this story?
In Bill Neidjie’s Gagudju Manis, he is screaming for people to wake up in terms of sustaining the environment, land, and the Earth as whole. Neidjie emphasizes that the Earth and its environment are our home and people are in debt to not take the environment for granted. I saw this poem as a cry for a wake up call in society especially in our youth or younger generation to recognize the environmental issues and take action. I think Neidjie does a great job in emphasizing the phrase, “an eye for an eye” when he talks about how the Earth has provided for people, so therefore people should give back to the environment. In Neidjie’s discussion about money he says on page 30 he talks about how people only see the environment as money, just as Barry Dana had stated in Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action. Similar to Neidjie, Chief Barry said that paper pulp factory does not see the river as sacred, but see it as a pipe to the ocean. Both Chief Barry and Neidjie believe that the white people in power who run companies/businesses do not see the true value of the environment (such as the river), but only see the money instead.
Neidjie on page 20 also talks about how this issue began when the Europeans came over to the Aborigine territory and was essentially demolished by the Europeans. Neidjie states that once the Europeans came over the Aborigine people were dying and the Europeans took everything from them. I think it was really interesting to read what Neidjie had to say, compared to Silko where he talks about Indian Witchery. Based on our discussion in class/breakout room Silko was talking about how Indians invented white or European people, such as their behavior and competitiveness with the Native Americans. Silko recognizes that the fault is not all on the Europeans because the Native American’s were also doing the same thing as the Europeans were in terms of fighting for land and resources. Overall comparing Silko’s context to Neidjie is completely different, but I think that Silko would still agree on Neidjie point that people need to wake and take action on protecting the Earth and its environment.
Do you think that Silko would agree with Neidjie’s point about the Europeans being responsible for the conflicts that occurred between the Native Americans and Europeans?
Furthermore do you think Chief Barry (from Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action) would agree with Neidjie’s perspective on the Europeans and Native Americans?
Lastly, conversations about the environment are happening and are similar to Neidjie’s scream for people to receive a wake up call, so what changes can people do or what policies should be made to get those conversation into action?
In Gagudju Man Neidjie is sharing a story of how the Aboriginal people respect and get all of their life from the land and how after they pass they will return to the land lastly how the land is the law for the Aboriginal people, he contradicts this with how white people have no respect for the land and just use it as an object to extract profits. “People. / they can’t listen for us. /They just listen for money. / Money. /We want goose, we want fish. / Other men want money. / Him can make million dollars, / but only last one year. /Next year him want another million. / Forever and ever him make million dollars. / Him die. / Million no good for us. / We need this earth to live because / we’ll be dead, / we’ll become earth.” This quote shows how white people are viewed as money hungry parasites that are looking to suck profits out of the earth, this has been proven time and time again. Indigenous people all across the earth were he long before colonists, they lived off the land only took what they needed, never more, this allowed for their civilizations to be sustainable for tens of thousands of years. With this being said it is possible to shift our society to this sustainable way of living? Is it even possible under capitalism? Lastly what will happen we exacerbate all of the natural resources on the planet? Will it be in our life time or will we be the generation that shifts society to a more sustainable future that is good for all people not just rich white people.
In Gagudju Man, Neidjie talks about the Australian Aboriginals’ deep connection with the land repeatedly, and contrasts this with the European’s clear disregard for the earth. A specific example of this is when he states: “We walk on earth, we look after…If you touch, you might get cyclone, heavy rain or flood. Not just here, you might kill someone in another place. Might be kill him in another country. You cannot touch him” (34-35). A few lines later he says “…we frightened that European might touch him. If we tell white European story, he slow to listen”. These lines are alluding to the fact that everything on the planet is interconnected, and an action affecting the earth and population in one place will ultimately affect many other people and environments around the world. He is voicing his concern of how the white Europeans have been treating the planet and how blind they are to the true detrimental impacts of their actions, and how they refuse to listen due to their ignorance and hierarchical ways of thinking. How does the Aboriginal’s connection to and respect for the earth as well as critique of the practices of white settlers mirror some of the ideals and themes in Ceremony?
In Gagudju Man, Neidjie discusses a variety of subjects that represent the beliefs of the Aboriginals in Australia and how they may compare to that of the Europeans. One of those subjects is the law. Neidjie says, “Law never change, / always stay same. / Maybe it hard, / but proper one for all people. / Not like white European law, / always changing. / If you don’t like it, / you change it. / Aboriginal law never change” (Neidjie, 22). Aboriginal law seems to reflect the laws of nature. You cannot change nature; therefore, you cannot change the law. Additionally, the law should not be changed in order to satisfy one’s preferences and if you break the law, you must receive the necessary punishment. As for Europeans, they change the law in their favor. If they cannot do what they please without breaking the law, they change it. If they cannot change the law, they find ways to justify their actions. Is the law of nature truly the superior law? If not, then what is? How do we decide when it is acceptable to change the law if it is acceptable at all? What are some examples of how we have either changed modern-day law or justified our actions in order to evade punishment?
On page 34 of Gagudju Man, Bill Neidje talks about the “dreaming place.” I had trouble interpreting this part of the poem.
“Dreaming place,
you can’t change it,
no matter who you are.
No matter you rich man,
no matter you king.
You can’t change it.”
As we read the rest of this passage, Bill describes the dreaming place as a secret place. Since it is a secret people should not go there because they might get hurt. He then goes on to say that the dreaming place is everywhere. The secret place is the biggest place on Earth.
When I read this passage, I interpret the dreaming place to be a subconscious place that is also subterranean. The dreaming place is how we connect with the Earth and where we can best feel and understand how the white people are harming the earth. That’s why it is dangerous. As Bill also mentions, we can feel the physical pain of the Earth in our own bodies. We can feel a tree being cut down through pain in our neck or back because we are a part of the Earth. We are a part of the tree that’s just been cut down. The dreaming place, which is secret, cannot be changed. Maybe the secrecy of being able to tap into this subconscious state of mind is what allows the place of dreams to be unchanged, unlike any other place or terrain that is constantly altered by human beings above ground. Here, in a conscious state, the rich man and the king are always making changes. They have power. But, in the dreaming place, all people are leveled and humbled. The rich man and the kings no longer have the power to change the place. This is my interpretation. I have no idea if this is right. So my question is, what is the dreaming place? In the context of my interpretation, why is a place that is virtually untouchable by man and where all are equal so “dangerous?” How is the dreaming place a secret place and a place that is everywhere all at once?
I really liked Gagudju man. I believe it does accomplish its goal of speaking to people and having a culture be remembered. There are several things which I like about the prose. The main one is the concept which it emphasizes the connect between the people and the land. Neidjie shows this in several different ways including feeling the same pain as the trees and explaining the importance of the law. I feel that he is describing a universal concept that transcends all cultures. I know that when I experience an environment injustice (timbering, coal mining, or anything else) I not only see the damage but I feel it. It creates a strong emotional response which combines sorrow for that ecosystem but also hate of people who could knowingly do such acts. Do you all think this idea for earth care is a universal concept? As a society, are we capable of participating Including this governing “Law” into our culture? How would we instill it into our culture so that we too do not forget its story?
“Ground and rock,
he can’t move.
Cave,
he never move.
No-one can shift that cave,
Because it dream.
It story.
It law.”
(page 55)
This first quote is showcasing the agency of the earth and the environment as everlasting, never changing, and impenetrable. As does this next quote,
“Law never change,
always stay same.
Maybe it hard,
but proper one for all people.
Not like white European law,
always changing.
If you don’t like it,
you can change.”
(page 22)
This is an interesting parallel between these two cultures, where one sees the earth and the law of its land as the end all be all, their law will not change or need to change. Whereas another sees law as fluid and at times feeble enough to be altered or broken at will. These differences in approach have obviously caused very different outcomes and more importantly have had very different effects on the planet which we inhabit. What aspects of both of these systems could we combine to construct a system respecting both sets of values and in turn protects the lands all people require for survival, if any?
The entire purpose of Gagudju Man is the preservation of the Aboriginal culture, and it’s a troubling reflection of how modern society has disregarded the thousands of years of knowledge, experiences and connection with our planet. The book is a warning to Western civilization but has and will still likely fall upon deaf ears. The author’s words of wisdom are super relevant in our time of global warming, excess mining and de-forestation. He lays out the connection to nature throughout the entire passage, but this stuck out to me in particular:
Earth.
Like your father or brother or mother,
because you born from earth.
You got to come back to earth.
When you dead,
you’ll come back to earth.
Maybe little while yet…
then you’ll come to earth.
That’s your bone, your blood.
It’s in the earth,
Same as for tree.’
What do you think the importance of this mindset is? I believe that we should all think of the earth and mortality in this way, it’s freeing in my eyes, as it shows that just as we should give praise and care to our actual mother, we should do the same for Mother Earth.
This story tells of the struggles of the Kukadu people, retold in English so the lessons can be taken and lived on without experiencing the same struggle. This quote expresses the reasoning behind Bill’s sharing of this story..
“I give you this story, this proper, true story. People can listen. I’m telling this while you’ve got time, time for you to make something, you know / history / book” (16).
In our society presently, it seems we keep striving to find new ways to progress in our lives finding new solutions to problems with up and coming thought and technology. Is their more promise and hope for better solutions when looking back at more traditional cultures? I believe it’s a difficult question I want to bring up because I feel though the answer could be both.
In the “Gagudju Man”, I see its main purpose is to tell of the deep connections that the Australian Aboriginal has with the land while also comparing himself with the European’s clear disregard for the earth. Through the multiple stories that he tells, something that I continuously noticed was the use of personifications to help the reader/listener understand how sacred the land can be. A couple specific examples of that include: the Environmental passage on page 42 when it is explained that if you cut down trees, you are pumping the life away from the land. He connect the importance of water to a tree to the importance of blood to ourselves. Another passage that also represents personification is that of page 31 where the story teller is is comparing the land to that of mothers and grandpas. The main focus is to show that because we all return to the earth someday, tearing up the land is like tearing apart our ancestors and that in turn tearing apart their beliefs and all that they stand for. As a side note, something interesting I noticed as I was reading was the story tellers use of we instead of I. Along with the personification, I see this is also another method of trying to connect back to the past and even though he is considered one of the last Gagudju men (for when he told this story), the spirits of his ancestors and people still live on through him and through the land around him.
As the speaker continues to push out that the developments of the European people are increasingly destroying the land, the question that I pose is that if we as people started personifying earths resources as that of ourselves (similar to how the narrator personified the caves, trees, rivers, etc), could the earth last live longer as a natural being then if it was still thought of as an inanimate object that we can easily take from? To start thinking in the mindset of “we came from the earth and one day we will return”, what resources, items, or practices would we have to give up? For however far we have come into development, is it possible to ever return to how it once was (as pictured within the stories)?
In the reading, “Gagudju Man”, Bill Neidjie depicts the value and importance of land. More specifically, Neidjie helps explain the importance of conserving and projecting the natural world. With this, we can further see the importance of sustaining our natural world for the present and future. Yet, one thing that stood out to me the most was the poem “Law”. With this poem, Neidjie represents the law of nature, as well as the law of indigenous peoples. With this, nature is shown as been one with man. It represents its connection to native people. With this being said, we can then see the lack of respect and connection that the white colonizers have with the land. Nevertheless, I feel as though Neidjie does good job creating ecopoetry, or creating a poem in which creates the representation of nature, humans, and culture. Nevertheless, how might the use of ecopoetry in “Gagudju Man” change our perspective of the nature world? Do you think Neidjie was able to depict a different aspect of the world through his poem? Why do you think he personified nature?
“People,
they can’t listen for us.
they just listen for money.
Money.” (pg30)
This section is in reference to the land, this to me is immensely relevant and accurate to the way that we treat land and nature. We see land as a resource that will result in money. The next section of the poem touches on the fact that we make money and then somewhat grow an addiction to making gross sums of money, “Next year him want another million, forever and ever him make million dollars.” (pg30). This is calling attention to the fact that people don’t care about nature and the connection we can have to nature, that we would rather quickly exploit it to make some money. He goes on to talk about our close natural connection with nature, referencing aspects of earth in relation to family members. He thinks we should treat the earth with respect and treat it as if it is something important to us like a family member. Does the majority of the planet view the environment as only a source of money? Is there a way to alter peoples perceptions of the land in a way that will lead people to respect the land and work with it rather than exploit it?
In Gagudju Man there is a section where Bill Neidjie talks about law and more specifically the Aboriginal law compared to the White European law. He writes,
Law never change,
always stay same.
Maybe it hard,
but proper one for all people.
Not like white European law,
always changing.
If you don’t like it,
you can change.
Aboriginal law never change.
Old people tell us,
‘You got to keep it.’
It always stays. (pg. 22)
This quote and the rest of the “Law” section of the poem led me to think a lot about his definition of law compared to the one we are all familiar with. Throughout this section, he writes about many different examples of law that the Aboriginal people follow because it is a tradition or it’s a part of nature. One example is how he describes that he was always told that young people were only supposed to eat the shoulder of the goose. That if young people got to eat all of the goose or fish then they would die. This is a fundamental principle of conservation and sustainability. Yet, they have no college degree or conservation laws forcing them not to eat the goose. They simply follow the laws that nature provides. They just know these things because they have spent the time out with nature and observed it for generations and that knowledge has been passed down. This also ties back into the Homeland film from last week and the stark contrasts between American society and the Native people’s culture. I think all of these arbitrary systems that society has created of things like laws, social norms, formal education, etc. have just expedited the process of us becoming less connected to nature. What good are these systems and laws if they do not contribute to the betterment of humanity and the world in general? How should we go about finding our connection with nature again? Can we have systems in place that resemble the current ones and still have a true connection to nature?
I find it interesting the differences between Europeans and aboriginals when it comes to the idea of time and constants. Early in the poems Neidjie mentions “No man growl at me for telling this story, because it will be too late. I will be dead.” He then goes on and expresses that Europeans do not have the same understanding, that even through change, things still stay the same, either it be through a burn or through law. Neidjie then goes to write near the end “But now you know this story, and you’ll be coming coming to earth… hang on to this story. to this earth.” It shows that he is writing for a time far from his, does he see that his people are lost, and is he hoping that the europeans will somehow adopt a more similar thought and practice?
“First people come to us
they started and run our life… quick.
They bring drink.
First they should ask about fish, cave, dreaming,
but
they rush in.
They make school. Teach.” (20)
When the Europeans arrive in a land that is new to them, yet has been inhabited by aboriginals for millennia, they have no interest in the local knowledge, the epistemology endemic to the land. In fact, among their first tasks is to supplant that knowledge with their own, foreign understanding of the world. One that lifts their own culture to a place of supremacy. This fits the traditional trajectory of colonialism. In the next stanza, Neidjie says that by the 1970s the aboriginals are all gone, only himself and two others remain, though in numbers of physically existing beings a great number remain. How is the eradication of indigenous knowledge tantamount to the eradication of the people? Does one become a colonial when he adopts the colonists ways of thinking and acting? Could the reverse be the case- could one become an aboriginal by learning and practicing the language, way of life, and customs of the aboriginal? Could a new form of man be created through intentionally crafted new customs and practices, ones that seek to honor the past and the land while reflecting the new global paradigm?
Bill Neidjie attempts to demonstrate the bond Aboriginal people have to the land in Kakadu National Park in writing “Gagudju Man.” Neidjie sees this writing as essential for passing his culture down to future generations because “No history is written for us,” (19). Although it was considered taboo to record the sacred knowledge of his people, Neidjie believed that it was important to pass on their legacy and as the last speaker of his Native language, he did not want their stories to die with him. Neidjie writes,
“while you sleeping
you dream something.
Tree and grass same thing.
They grow with your body,
with your feeling” (40)
This stanza illuminates the embodied connection between land and people within Aboriginal society. I believe that the dichotomy between man and nature is one of the most problematic lasting thoughts in mainstream environmentalism. How can we rectify the separation between humans and their environment? Are there ways to use Indigenous modes of thinking and knowledge creation to disrupt these Decartian binaries without appropriating their culture?
In the Bill Neidjie story, he juxtaposes the life of the aboriginals with that of the European settlers. At one point he compares the laws that differentiate them.
“Law never change,
always stay same.
Maybe it hard,
but proper one for all people.
Not like white European law,
always changing.
If you don’t like it,
you can change.
Aboriginal law never change.
Old people tell us,
‘You got to keep it.’
It always stays.
Creek, plain, hill.
That plain can change.
Wet season, him mud.
You get lily,
you get fish.
But, he dry up …
that’s alright.
Then people can get long-neck turtle.
Sarne for animal.
People look for food,
animal look for food.
Lizard look,
bird look,
anyone look.
We all same.”
He compares the man-made laws of the Europeans to the “law” his people follow, which is simply the laws of nature. The laws of nature, e.g. changing of the seasons, the need for food all animals share as he describes are the laws that govern the aboriginal people, and essentially all of life in a sense. Their society has no need for the typical socially constructed laws that the Europeans use for example, which are ever-changing.
Ceremony and Gagudju Man share many of the same messages and hold similar beliefs. There is an emphasis on feeling in both Neidjie and Silko’s work. In Gagudju Man Neidjie says,
“I feel it with my body,
with my blood.
Feeling all these trees,
all this country.
When this wind blow you can feel it.
Same for country,
You feel it.
You can look.
But feeling…
that make you.” (Neidjie, 39)
On page 213 of Ceremony Silko also focuses on feeling, “The destroyers: they work to see how much can be lost, how much can be forgotten. They destroy the feeling people have for each other…Their highest ambition is to gut human beings while they are still breathing, to hold the heart still beating so the victim will never feel anything again.” For both of these authors the importance of feeling is about connecting with one’s environment such as, the landscape, animals, and people. This connection bridges all worlds and dissolves them into one where earth is a part of the internal self. Neidjie says,
“That’s your bone, your blood.
It’s in this Earth,
same as for tree.” (Neidjie, 39)
Both of these stories are empowering because they offer the lessons of feeling, connection, and love. These lessons are conveyed to overpower destruction, “This feeling was their life, vitality locked deep in blood memory, and the people were strong, and the fifth world endured, and nothing was ever lost as long as the love remained.” (Silko, 204). While this is a call to action for both authors, it is also a warning about the dangers of dehumanization, forgotten stories or laws, and division. How do the lessons of Gagudju Man and Ceremony prevent destruction? Why are stories and laws so important to Silko and Neidjie? Both stories are critical of industrialization and white European civilization, yet call for the union of all to fight against destruction. How do the authors remain critical of white culture while still calling for the union, connection, and love of all? Why do they do this and are they successful?
On Tuesday, we discussed Tayo’s pivotal moment found on pages 226-228ish, when he realizes he had never been crazy. Following/within this moment, Silko writes “His protection was there in the sky, in the position of the sun, in the pattern of the stars. He had only to complete this night, to keep the story out of reach of the destroyers for a few more hours. and their witchery would turn, upon itself, upon them” (p.228). This passage illustrates Tayo’s newfound comfort, and seems to symbolize a stabilization of Tayo’s fluctuating identity. Unlike Rocky, Tayo could not find comfort in the white world, and instead, it left him in a state of complete disassociation. Now we see Tayo accepting a blurred, non-separate understanding of the world. Instead of a stabilization, perhaps this can be seen as Tayo’s acceptance of a dynamic identity. Either way, this healing moment comes from within and without Tayo, completely unlike his previous treatment in the hospital. His healing was so complete he knew he had never been sick. I wonder why it is at this moment that Tayo knows that the “destroyers” will begin to turn on themselves, does anyone have any ideas on that? What does that really mean?
First people come to us,
they started and run our life … quick.
They bring drink.
First they should ask about fish, cave, dreaming,
but
they rush in.
They make school. Teach.
Now Aborigine losing it,
losing everything.
Nearly all dead my people,
my old people gone.
This part of the reading really stuck out to me because of the recent conversations of dispossession and devaluing of identity and culture that I have had in other classes. I feel like it is very common to see outsiders come with what they value as knowledge and force it upon people native to an area. In this process, outsiders dispossess native people of their identity, history, worldviews, etc.
Later in the reading, he writes about generational knowledge. He writes:
We have to keep pressure on young people to learn.
They must learn these things.
I have to stay on to teach my children.
But, young people spread out.
It like that every time we have meetings,
meeting for ceremony.
We make arrangement …
you know … appointment,
about business, secret.
Young people all in town.
I guess my question is, is this a result of dispossession? I am not sure if I am misinterpreting this, but I think it refers to the difficulty of passing down generational knowledge because of outsider influence.
In Bill Neidjie’s poem “Land” he talks about how himself and the Aborigine people differ from other men when it comes to what they need. Neidjie writes: “People. They can’t listen for us.They just listen for money. Money. We want goose, we want fish. Other men want money. Him can make million dollars, but only last one year. Next year him want another million. Forever and ever him make million dollars. Him die. Million no good for us. We need this earth to live because we’ll be dead, we’ll become earth,” (30-31). This part of the poem discusses the fundamental differences between the Aborigine people and other, presumably European, men. What Neidjie is trying to say is that the other men care only about money in their lives, not the fact that as people, we are one with the earth. As a result, the other men are taking advantage of its resources.
Neidjie is justifiably critical of the white man and their seeming unwillingness to educate themselves on the Aborigine culture. My question is despite all of this, why did Neidjie continue to try to teach the white people? How was he able to keep his patience when faced with so much frustration?
My children got to hang onto this story.
This important story.
I hang onto this story my entire life.
My father tell me this story.
All my children cant lose it.
White European want to know
asking “What this story?”
This not easy story.
No-one else can tell it
because this story for Aboriginal culture.
I speak English for you,
so you can listen,
so you can know,
you will understand.
If I put my language in same place.
you wont understand.
Our story is in this land
It is written in those sacred places.
My children will look after these places,
thats the law.
(Page 32)
This excerpt from Neidjie shows the interconnectedness of indigenous knowledge and culture to the land the “sacred places” he makes mention of. I find it interesting that he feels the need to explain these stories to the white Europeans who “want that place” (35). I believe Neidjie is referring to the settler colonialism matrix that involves the dispossession of indigenous land for the monetary gain of the white Europeans (30). What similarities can be found between these undertones of settler colonialism with the Native Americans in Ceremony? After reading this excerpt, it seems as if just explaining the “sacred places” to the white Europeans in English diminished Neidjie’s idea of culture so what role does language play in eliminating indigenous culture? Is it possible for an indigenous population to explain “culture” to colonizers?
There is mention of a cave and its significance both to Bill Neidjie and to Tayo.
“When I die,
I become skeleton.
I’ll be in cave.
That way my spirit stay there.
I seen new coffin three or four times.
No good.
I don’t want coffin,
just cave.
Should be keep our law.
Coffin no good for Aborigine,
got to put bones back where they belong.
Man die.
Soon as him ready,
pick him up,
take him.
Take him to cave.
His shadow,
his spirit,
will stay with him” (50).
Here, he mentions the importance of returning back to Earth, where we came from. However, why does he specifically mention a cave? Is there a connection with his experience with the cave and Tayo’s? Tayo seemed to also reconnect with his roots and nature while in the cave, so why does the play such an important role in both writings?
I think this is a really interesting question, and was also intrigued by the similarities of the mention of the caves in the two stories. I think for starters, it is important to acknowledge Neidjie’s disapproval of coffins. I think that it is simple to understand the disapproval of coffins, as they are limiting, and rather useless. It is a waste of materials, to trap ones dead body and bury it. Additionally, on page 123 in “Ceremony,” Betonie tells Tayo the story of how white people came to be on the earth. In the beginning of the story, Betonie tells Tayo that all the “witch people” gathered to “fool around in caves.” Perhaps this is related to the importance of caves in both stories. Caves are rather different than a grave because it gives the feeling of being inside the earth, yet without the barrier that being buried comes with. Lastly, I think that Tayo reconnected with his roots while in the cave because he was almost reclaiming his heritage. The cave was created as a result of white destruction, and in the story where the witch people gathered in the caves, the white people also emerged from a cave. Tayo healing in the cave was a step to accepting his multiracial heritage, as it was a connection between Native land, and white destruction.
I think Bill Neidjie’s sole purpose in his writing is to bring light and recognition to the Aboriginals and their connection to the land and he does this through storytelling, a very powerful method to get people to listen to their story and lives. Throughout his stories, he is noting that because of the need for greed, money, land, food, etc of white men, their community is slowly but fastly diminishing along with everything else, and what only remains are the stories. These stories are passed down from generation to generation until there is no one left but us reading it in a text. I think this is the overall theme of a lot of the writings, especially in the conclusion. In the end, he talks about even after death, they all still remain there, within and connected to Earth.
“I die and put my bones in cave or earth.
Soon my bones become earth.
all the same.
My spirit has gone back to my country,
my mother.”
This story is very important because it emphasizes that while he and his ancestors may be dead and buried, “like this earth, it won’t move” that essentially everyone and everything is and will be connected on the earth.
“This law,
this country,
this people,
No matter what people,
red, yellow, black or white,
the blood is the same,
Lingo little bit different,
but no matter.
Country,
you in other place.
But same feeling.
Blood, bone,
all the same.
This story,
this is true story.”
I really liked these lines and I think this means that in the end, we are all really the same, so why are we choosing who is better than another person based on their race or the way they choose to live?
In “Gagadju Man” Bill Neidjie touches base on an indigenous culture; a culture that’s strongly relies on understanding, respecting and working with the natural environment. His book represents a message to the world that preservation of natural ecosystems and cultures like his own are extremely important in relation to survival. He goes on to say,
”Earth.
Like your father or brother or mother,
because you born from earth.
You got to come back to earth.
When you dead,
you’ll come back to earth.
Maybe little while yet…
then you’ll come to earth.
That’s your bone, your blood.
It’s in the earth,
Same as for tree.'”
I chose this quote because I feel that it encompasses what I am trying to explain. In this quote, Bill personifies the earth and is essentially saying that we are all the same; regardless of where you were born, who you came from, what your origins are we all perish, and we all go back to the same place we all came from. That place being the very earth we all walk and should honor. I believe that he personifies it to show that all living things are owed respect and honor. So my question for this week is, if this reading focuses so heavily on indigenous cultures and the interactions we have with each other and the land due to those cultures, why did Bill; the last surviving speaker of the Gaagudju language wait to tell about the secrets of his culture on his deathbed? Why didn’t his previous ancestors tell of their secrets and traditions? If Bill was trying to depict that we are different but one in the same, then why not educate the people along the way? Why wait so long and until last minute to ensure his culture might thrive once again?
In Gagudju Man, author Bill Neidjie gives us a glimpse of the struggle of the Aboriginal peoples in handling the European encroachment and disruption of their traditional ways of life. As opposed to the consumptive lifestyle of Europeans, Aboriginal people worked with the land and nature to survive, a system which was clearly working out well for them. How is this a similar situation to that found in Ceremony, and what could be done to reverse these harms?
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
Throughout the text, specifically near the end, I noticed that personification was used to give natural elements human-like emotions and capabilities. For example, on page 219, when Tayo was on the run, he describes the wind as “restless” and as if it was full of “emptiness and loss.” In my opinion, giving nature human-like emotions helped to depict the reverence, respect, and value that Natives place on the Earth in contrast to white culture. That being said, do you agree that the use of personification emphasizes the human nature relationship between Native American’s and the Earth? If so, why do you think this deeper relationship exists compared to white culture?
Additionally, when Tayo is on the run, he finds refuge in a mine shaft. Tayo reflects that the water there tasted bitter because of the large quantities of uranium nearby (pg 227). To me, this brief excerpt on uranium mining in Native American lands reflects on deeper colonialistic exploitations by white men (i.e. reclaiming Native lands and degrading the landscape for the purpose of mining and profit). That being said, what do you think? What was the purpose of including this brief statement and description of uranium? Could this possibly be used to foreshadow future Native American and white settler conflicts like those we see today (i.e. current uranium mining in the US for nuclear power)?
In the Gagugju Man, it is stated that “The identity of an Aboriginal person, however, is much more than legal title to land”…”land is life”. The main difference in the white man’s relation to nature is just a power structure. They “own” the land in order to extract monetary value from it. By displacing the environmental degradation onto indigenous lands, the white man can ignore the damage it causes to the Earth while still being able to enjoy the wealth taken from sacred grounds.
Aboriginal thinking can be seen in this quote; “Old people say ‘You dig yam? Well you digging your granny or mother through the belly. You must cover it up, cover again. When you get yam you cover over, then no hole through there.Yam can grow again'”. Their relationship to the land is one that recognizes the personification of the landscape by comparing it to their mother, and they believe you must have a reciprocal relationship to the land that respects proper stewardship of resources in order to sustain life. The Earth is full of living systems that are necessary for life; trees for breathing, water for plants/thirst, land for food. White man’s logic has objectified the landscape to be a one-way relationship in which the white man gains from environmental loss. This is an unsustainable relationship, therefore I believe giving the land a human identity can increase awareness of Nature’s right to exist independent of human profitability. By personifying nature, perhaps we could reduce socio-environmental tragedies, such as Uranium contamination in water supplies on indigenous lands, by treating it how we would we treat our own Mother with dignity.
“I guess I must be getting old,” she said, “because these goings-on around Laguna don’t get me excited any more.” She sighed, and laid her head back on the chair. “It seems like I already heard these stories before . . . only thing is, the names sound different” (242).
Through old grandma’s statement above, the novel is asserting that the stories it contains are both old and new. Throughout time, the stories tell the same truths about evil, witchery, goodness, and the right way to act. However, they repeat each other in different ways to communicate these truths to match the ever changing world. Basically, the stories are adapted to be more relatable at any given point in time. This idea of a story being “echoed” can be related to Ceremony as a whole. What stories within Ceremony are actually just “echoes” of existing stories?
In Gagudju man, Bill Neidjie tells the story of the aboriginal peoples in Australia through the perspective of one of the last aboriginal peoples. In the section of the poem entitled “Law” Neidjie writes:
“We must get rain.
Law says we get rain.
He come along in wet season.” (Neidjie, 24).
In the poem, law is personified and projected onto earth and people/animals/living things within earth to illustrate the interconnectedness that indigenous law has with the earth and lying things within earth. This is further illustrated with the personification of the tree, and at one point in the poem the man tries to talk to the tree, but it does not speak back. The man states that the tree grows at night, and expresses itself through its large leaves. The tree expresses itself through feeling, not actual words. Further illustrating the importance of law, Neidjie states:
“If man leave one or two barramundi behind,
he go bad.
Trouble,
big fight.
He can’t waste anything.” (Neidjie, 27).
This speaks to the importance of minimizing waste in indigenous law. Neidjie then illustrates that if there is waste, the punishment will be having less fish in the future to feed them. Ultimately, the rest of the poem speaks towards the importance of earth and the people’s interconnectedness with earth. Ultimately, the interconnectedness of earth as well as the stories told within the poem draw a comparison between Ceremony and Gagudju man. What themes can be key takeaways from the poem/ceremony regarding sustainability? In what ways does the poem symbolize sustainability and how the earth and living beings/ objects should be treated?
Neidjie’s “He Can’t Move His Country,” offers a glimpse into the land management practices of Gagudju people. In lines 1-12 he states “This earth/ I never damage./ I look after./ Fire is nothing,/ just clean up./ When you burn,/ new grass coming up./ That mean good animal soon./ Might be goose, long-neck turtle, goanna, possum./ Burn him off,/ new grass coming up,/ new life all over.” These practices aren’t considered sustainable in developed nations because the rate in which it would have to be conducted to meet the demands of overpopulation would exceed the land’s regeneration. I think it is evidence of a root issue in sustainability: overpopulation. This is also true in colonialism/imperialism; as nations develop and thus become wealthy and greedy, they look to other places to establish dominion over by way of outnumbering, murdering, and intimidating. Rather than managing their own affairs, colonial countries opted for domineering. Heidje’s lines 28-32 read “Rotten tree,/ you got to burn him./ Use him to cook./ He’s finished up,/ cook or roast in coals,/ White man cook in oven.” The forestry practices of the Gagudji people are idealistic. This is an example of their coexistence with the land. They wait for the trees and limbs to fall to take them. If the forest is not ready to give, then they wait until it is. Could this ever be achieved in develop nations? Is it possible to convince the majority of people to be more minimalistic, considerate, and cooperative? I am trepidatious to put my faith in America because it has been run by corrupt politics for its entirety. As the gradual battle continues between environmental and human right activists and degenerate corporations/politicians, how can we improve our tactics in combating colonialism, environmental destruction, and climate crises?
Gagudju Man walks the reader through the journey between life within the Earth that is connected to the aboriginals, all the way to death. In the poem, Neidjie says, “you hang onto this story,” (25) implying that it will not be around much longer. There is so much about their culture that seems to be taken over by white Europeans. White Europeans take over lands slowly and by the time others realize, it seems almost too late. How can we save our world from the direction it is headed in, with the way natives are pushed out of their land and culture? Indigenous communities are continually overlooked by First World countries. Later in the poem, Neidjie goes on to write:
“People.
They can’t listen for us.
They just listen for money.
Money” (30).
This excerpt from the poem illustrates the struggles that indigenous people go through as other people use them to exploit their resources and invalidate their culture. First World countries use their power to take over lands that house indigenous peoples and their main goal is to make a profit which is emphasized in the quote. Additionally, Neidjie wrote, “you cut yourself” (52), referring to when you cut a tree. They thrive off what nature provides them with and by cutting down a tree, you are cutting yourself as you are damaging your own life and what keeps you alive. The Earth helps give us life and the people need to respect that, rather than focus on monetary benefits to their plans.
This poem connects to Ceremony as Tayo was slowly shut out by his family because he had association with the white people. He was half white and fought in the white war; however, he was still raised within their culture and understood the importance of the traditions. Similarly to the aboriginals in the poem, they want to preserve the environment and the land they have grown up on because it contains their culture. Also, it is important to keep our planet healthy so we can continue to sustain ourselves for generations. Why don’t the people, such as the white Europeans, acknowledge the damage they are doing when they are invalidating the indigenous communities as they are doing? Sustaining the environment and traditions through nature should be common knowledge of the importance, so what can be done to spread this message and potentially prevent any further damage from being done to not only nature, but the indigenous communities?
In Gagudju Man, author Bill Neidjie depicts the indigenous epistemologies of the Aboriginal population, which relates to the interconnectedness of humans with the earth and other species. In the poem entitled “He Can’t Move His Country,” Neidjie expresses the pain that was caused by white Europeans taking over the land, building their definition of civilization in place of the Aborigines. Regarding the white Europeans who came into the Australian land occupied by the Aboriginal people, it is stated that “first they should ask about fish, cave, dreaming, but they rush in. They make school. Teach.” conveying the negligence to understand Aboriginal culture by the colonizer (20). In the poem “Law” the differences between the colonizer and the colonized are clearly explained. Aboriginal law is related to humans being in rhythm with nature and is based on ancestral interconnection, whereas the European law is always being altered to fit the needs of humans and expressing superiority over nature and those that they desire to conquer. In what ways does the poem convey the impacts of colonialism in the erasure of indigenous epistemologies?
Bill Neidjie repeatedly stresses the importance of land in Gagudju Man. Neidjie’s reverence for the land extends beyond words and moves into actions in the poem He can’t move his country, “This earth/I never damage./I look after” (18). What Neidjie’s caring relationship to the land manifests is a deep sense of self and a profound understanding of the land as seen on pages 18 and 19 with the understanding that one must burn to make things grow. The blurred line between land and self continues with Neidjie’s words on rain in Law. Neidjie states, “Rain for us, for anybody./Rain give us everything new. Yam, fish, everything” (23). Neidjie goes on to challenge the counter view that money or wealth accumulation is more important than land in Land: “million no good for us./we need this earth to live because/we’ll all be dead,/we’ll become the earth” (31). Neidjie’s humble and realistic view of self in Land continues on page 39: “because you born from earth./You got to come back to earth… It’s in this earth,/same as for tree.” Essentially Neidjie is saying that humans and trees are made of the same material. We have learned through science that this is true. We have learned that roughly 96% of human’s chemical makeup is oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen. We have also learned that trees are are mostly made of carbon, but also hydrogen and oxygen (https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_trees_get_their_mass_from#:~:text=The%20mass%20of%20a%20tree,atmospheric%20carbon%20dioxide%20and%20water). Neidjie was right; we are the same as trees. Neidjie’s accurate statement makes me wonder: how much of what we learn through science and medicine would we instinctively know if we were more connected to the land and we knew the land, if we knew ourselves? Knowing Neidjie was right about trees, how can we incorporate other lessons Neidjie knows to be true? How can we take seriously Neidjie’s call to action in Conclusion: “You’ll be part of earth when you die./You responsible now./You got to go with us./To earth./Might be you can hang on./Hang onto this story./To this earth” (54-55). What does it look like for us to hang onto this story?
In Bill Neidjie’s Gagudju Manis, he is screaming for people to wake up in terms of sustaining the environment, land, and the Earth as whole. Neidjie emphasizes that the Earth and its environment are our home and people are in debt to not take the environment for granted. I saw this poem as a cry for a wake up call in society especially in our youth or younger generation to recognize the environmental issues and take action. I think Neidjie does a great job in emphasizing the phrase, “an eye for an eye” when he talks about how the Earth has provided for people, so therefore people should give back to the environment. In Neidjie’s discussion about money he says on page 30 he talks about how people only see the environment as money, just as Barry Dana had stated in Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action. Similar to Neidjie, Chief Barry said that paper pulp factory does not see the river as sacred, but see it as a pipe to the ocean. Both Chief Barry and Neidjie believe that the white people in power who run companies/businesses do not see the true value of the environment (such as the river), but only see the money instead.
Neidjie on page 20 also talks about how this issue began when the Europeans came over to the Aborigine territory and was essentially demolished by the Europeans. Neidjie states that once the Europeans came over the Aborigine people were dying and the Europeans took everything from them. I think it was really interesting to read what Neidjie had to say, compared to Silko where he talks about Indian Witchery. Based on our discussion in class/breakout room Silko was talking about how Indians invented white or European people, such as their behavior and competitiveness with the Native Americans. Silko recognizes that the fault is not all on the Europeans because the Native American’s were also doing the same thing as the Europeans were in terms of fighting for land and resources. Overall comparing Silko’s context to Neidjie is completely different, but I think that Silko would still agree on Neidjie point that people need to wake and take action on protecting the Earth and its environment.
Do you think that Silko would agree with Neidjie’s point about the Europeans being responsible for the conflicts that occurred between the Native Americans and Europeans?
Furthermore do you think Chief Barry (from Homeland: Four Portraits of Native Action) would agree with Neidjie’s perspective on the Europeans and Native Americans?
Lastly, conversations about the environment are happening and are similar to Neidjie’s scream for people to receive a wake up call, so what changes can people do or what policies should be made to get those conversation into action?
In Gagudju Man Neidjie is sharing a story of how the Aboriginal people respect and get all of their life from the land and how after they pass they will return to the land lastly how the land is the law for the Aboriginal people, he contradicts this with how white people have no respect for the land and just use it as an object to extract profits. “People. / they can’t listen for us. /They just listen for money. / Money. /We want goose, we want fish. / Other men want money. / Him can make million dollars, / but only last one year. /Next year him want another million. / Forever and ever him make million dollars. / Him die. / Million no good for us. / We need this earth to live because / we’ll be dead, / we’ll become earth.” This quote shows how white people are viewed as money hungry parasites that are looking to suck profits out of the earth, this has been proven time and time again. Indigenous people all across the earth were he long before colonists, they lived off the land only took what they needed, never more, this allowed for their civilizations to be sustainable for tens of thousands of years. With this being said it is possible to shift our society to this sustainable way of living? Is it even possible under capitalism? Lastly what will happen we exacerbate all of the natural resources on the planet? Will it be in our life time or will we be the generation that shifts society to a more sustainable future that is good for all people not just rich white people.
In Gagudju Man, Neidjie talks about the Australian Aboriginals’ deep connection with the land repeatedly, and contrasts this with the European’s clear disregard for the earth. A specific example of this is when he states: “We walk on earth, we look after…If you touch, you might get cyclone, heavy rain or flood. Not just here, you might kill someone in another place. Might be kill him in another country. You cannot touch him” (34-35). A few lines later he says “…we frightened that European might touch him. If we tell white European story, he slow to listen”. These lines are alluding to the fact that everything on the planet is interconnected, and an action affecting the earth and population in one place will ultimately affect many other people and environments around the world. He is voicing his concern of how the white Europeans have been treating the planet and how blind they are to the true detrimental impacts of their actions, and how they refuse to listen due to their ignorance and hierarchical ways of thinking. How does the Aboriginal’s connection to and respect for the earth as well as critique of the practices of white settlers mirror some of the ideals and themes in Ceremony?
In Gagudju Man, Neidjie discusses a variety of subjects that represent the beliefs of the Aboriginals in Australia and how they may compare to that of the Europeans. One of those subjects is the law. Neidjie says, “Law never change, / always stay same. / Maybe it hard, / but proper one for all people. / Not like white European law, / always changing. / If you don’t like it, / you change it. / Aboriginal law never change” (Neidjie, 22). Aboriginal law seems to reflect the laws of nature. You cannot change nature; therefore, you cannot change the law. Additionally, the law should not be changed in order to satisfy one’s preferences and if you break the law, you must receive the necessary punishment. As for Europeans, they change the law in their favor. If they cannot do what they please without breaking the law, they change it. If they cannot change the law, they find ways to justify their actions. Is the law of nature truly the superior law? If not, then what is? How do we decide when it is acceptable to change the law if it is acceptable at all? What are some examples of how we have either changed modern-day law or justified our actions in order to evade punishment?
On page 34 of Gagudju Man, Bill Neidje talks about the “dreaming place.” I had trouble interpreting this part of the poem.
“Dreaming place,
you can’t change it,
no matter who you are.
No matter you rich man,
no matter you king.
You can’t change it.”
As we read the rest of this passage, Bill describes the dreaming place as a secret place. Since it is a secret people should not go there because they might get hurt. He then goes on to say that the dreaming place is everywhere. The secret place is the biggest place on Earth.
When I read this passage, I interpret the dreaming place to be a subconscious place that is also subterranean. The dreaming place is how we connect with the Earth and where we can best feel and understand how the white people are harming the earth. That’s why it is dangerous. As Bill also mentions, we can feel the physical pain of the Earth in our own bodies. We can feel a tree being cut down through pain in our neck or back because we are a part of the Earth. We are a part of the tree that’s just been cut down. The dreaming place, which is secret, cannot be changed. Maybe the secrecy of being able to tap into this subconscious state of mind is what allows the place of dreams to be unchanged, unlike any other place or terrain that is constantly altered by human beings above ground. Here, in a conscious state, the rich man and the king are always making changes. They have power. But, in the dreaming place, all people are leveled and humbled. The rich man and the kings no longer have the power to change the place. This is my interpretation. I have no idea if this is right. So my question is, what is the dreaming place? In the context of my interpretation, why is a place that is virtually untouchable by man and where all are equal so “dangerous?” How is the dreaming place a secret place and a place that is everywhere all at once?
I really liked Gagudju man. I believe it does accomplish its goal of speaking to people and having a culture be remembered. There are several things which I like about the prose. The main one is the concept which it emphasizes the connect between the people and the land. Neidjie shows this in several different ways including feeling the same pain as the trees and explaining the importance of the law. I feel that he is describing a universal concept that transcends all cultures. I know that when I experience an environment injustice (timbering, coal mining, or anything else) I not only see the damage but I feel it. It creates a strong emotional response which combines sorrow for that ecosystem but also hate of people who could knowingly do such acts. Do you all think this idea for earth care is a universal concept? As a society, are we capable of participating Including this governing “Law” into our culture? How would we instill it into our culture so that we too do not forget its story?
“Ground and rock,
he can’t move.
Cave,
he never move.
No-one can shift that cave,
Because it dream.
It story.
It law.”
(page 55)
This first quote is showcasing the agency of the earth and the environment as everlasting, never changing, and impenetrable. As does this next quote,
“Law never change,
always stay same.
Maybe it hard,
but proper one for all people.
Not like white European law,
always changing.
If you don’t like it,
you can change.”
(page 22)
This is an interesting parallel between these two cultures, where one sees the earth and the law of its land as the end all be all, their law will not change or need to change. Whereas another sees law as fluid and at times feeble enough to be altered or broken at will. These differences in approach have obviously caused very different outcomes and more importantly have had very different effects on the planet which we inhabit. What aspects of both of these systems could we combine to construct a system respecting both sets of values and in turn protects the lands all people require for survival, if any?
The entire purpose of Gagudju Man is the preservation of the Aboriginal culture, and it’s a troubling reflection of how modern society has disregarded the thousands of years of knowledge, experiences and connection with our planet. The book is a warning to Western civilization but has and will still likely fall upon deaf ears. The author’s words of wisdom are super relevant in our time of global warming, excess mining and de-forestation. He lays out the connection to nature throughout the entire passage, but this stuck out to me in particular:
Earth.
Like your father or brother or mother,
because you born from earth.
You got to come back to earth.
When you dead,
you’ll come back to earth.
Maybe little while yet…
then you’ll come to earth.
That’s your bone, your blood.
It’s in the earth,
Same as for tree.’
What do you think the importance of this mindset is? I believe that we should all think of the earth and mortality in this way, it’s freeing in my eyes, as it shows that just as we should give praise and care to our actual mother, we should do the same for Mother Earth.
This story tells of the struggles of the Kukadu people, retold in English so the lessons can be taken and lived on without experiencing the same struggle. This quote expresses the reasoning behind Bill’s sharing of this story..
“I give you this story, this proper, true story. People can listen. I’m telling this while you’ve got time, time for you to make something, you know / history / book” (16).
In our society presently, it seems we keep striving to find new ways to progress in our lives finding new solutions to problems with up and coming thought and technology. Is their more promise and hope for better solutions when looking back at more traditional cultures? I believe it’s a difficult question I want to bring up because I feel though the answer could be both.
In the “Gagudju Man”, I see its main purpose is to tell of the deep connections that the Australian Aboriginal has with the land while also comparing himself with the European’s clear disregard for the earth. Through the multiple stories that he tells, something that I continuously noticed was the use of personifications to help the reader/listener understand how sacred the land can be. A couple specific examples of that include: the Environmental passage on page 42 when it is explained that if you cut down trees, you are pumping the life away from the land. He connect the importance of water to a tree to the importance of blood to ourselves. Another passage that also represents personification is that of page 31 where the story teller is is comparing the land to that of mothers and grandpas. The main focus is to show that because we all return to the earth someday, tearing up the land is like tearing apart our ancestors and that in turn tearing apart their beliefs and all that they stand for. As a side note, something interesting I noticed as I was reading was the story tellers use of we instead of I. Along with the personification, I see this is also another method of trying to connect back to the past and even though he is considered one of the last Gagudju men (for when he told this story), the spirits of his ancestors and people still live on through him and through the land around him.
As the speaker continues to push out that the developments of the European people are increasingly destroying the land, the question that I pose is that if we as people started personifying earths resources as that of ourselves (similar to how the narrator personified the caves, trees, rivers, etc), could the earth last live longer as a natural being then if it was still thought of as an inanimate object that we can easily take from? To start thinking in the mindset of “we came from the earth and one day we will return”, what resources, items, or practices would we have to give up? For however far we have come into development, is it possible to ever return to how it once was (as pictured within the stories)?
In the reading, “Gagudju Man”, Bill Neidjie depicts the value and importance of land. More specifically, Neidjie helps explain the importance of conserving and projecting the natural world. With this, we can further see the importance of sustaining our natural world for the present and future. Yet, one thing that stood out to me the most was the poem “Law”. With this poem, Neidjie represents the law of nature, as well as the law of indigenous peoples. With this, nature is shown as been one with man. It represents its connection to native people. With this being said, we can then see the lack of respect and connection that the white colonizers have with the land. Nevertheless, I feel as though Neidjie does good job creating ecopoetry, or creating a poem in which creates the representation of nature, humans, and culture. Nevertheless, how might the use of ecopoetry in “Gagudju Man” change our perspective of the nature world? Do you think Neidjie was able to depict a different aspect of the world through his poem? Why do you think he personified nature?
“People,
they can’t listen for us.
they just listen for money.
Money.” (pg30)
This section is in reference to the land, this to me is immensely relevant and accurate to the way that we treat land and nature. We see land as a resource that will result in money. The next section of the poem touches on the fact that we make money and then somewhat grow an addiction to making gross sums of money, “Next year him want another million, forever and ever him make million dollars.” (pg30). This is calling attention to the fact that people don’t care about nature and the connection we can have to nature, that we would rather quickly exploit it to make some money. He goes on to talk about our close natural connection with nature, referencing aspects of earth in relation to family members. He thinks we should treat the earth with respect and treat it as if it is something important to us like a family member. Does the majority of the planet view the environment as only a source of money? Is there a way to alter peoples perceptions of the land in a way that will lead people to respect the land and work with it rather than exploit it?
In Gagudju Man there is a section where Bill Neidjie talks about law and more specifically the Aboriginal law compared to the White European law. He writes,
Law never change,
always stay same.
Maybe it hard,
but proper one for all people.
Not like white European law,
always changing.
If you don’t like it,
you can change.
Aboriginal law never change.
Old people tell us,
‘You got to keep it.’
It always stays. (pg. 22)
This quote and the rest of the “Law” section of the poem led me to think a lot about his definition of law compared to the one we are all familiar with. Throughout this section, he writes about many different examples of law that the Aboriginal people follow because it is a tradition or it’s a part of nature. One example is how he describes that he was always told that young people were only supposed to eat the shoulder of the goose. That if young people got to eat all of the goose or fish then they would die. This is a fundamental principle of conservation and sustainability. Yet, they have no college degree or conservation laws forcing them not to eat the goose. They simply follow the laws that nature provides. They just know these things because they have spent the time out with nature and observed it for generations and that knowledge has been passed down. This also ties back into the Homeland film from last week and the stark contrasts between American society and the Native people’s culture. I think all of these arbitrary systems that society has created of things like laws, social norms, formal education, etc. have just expedited the process of us becoming less connected to nature. What good are these systems and laws if they do not contribute to the betterment of humanity and the world in general? How should we go about finding our connection with nature again? Can we have systems in place that resemble the current ones and still have a true connection to nature?
I find it interesting the differences between Europeans and aboriginals when it comes to the idea of time and constants. Early in the poems Neidjie mentions “No man growl at me for telling this story, because it will be too late. I will be dead.” He then goes on and expresses that Europeans do not have the same understanding, that even through change, things still stay the same, either it be through a burn or through law. Neidjie then goes to write near the end “But now you know this story, and you’ll be coming coming to earth… hang on to this story. to this earth.” It shows that he is writing for a time far from his, does he see that his people are lost, and is he hoping that the europeans will somehow adopt a more similar thought and practice?
“First people come to us
they started and run our life… quick.
They bring drink.
First they should ask about fish, cave, dreaming,
but
they rush in.
They make school. Teach.” (20)
When the Europeans arrive in a land that is new to them, yet has been inhabited by aboriginals for millennia, they have no interest in the local knowledge, the epistemology endemic to the land. In fact, among their first tasks is to supplant that knowledge with their own, foreign understanding of the world. One that lifts their own culture to a place of supremacy. This fits the traditional trajectory of colonialism. In the next stanza, Neidjie says that by the 1970s the aboriginals are all gone, only himself and two others remain, though in numbers of physically existing beings a great number remain. How is the eradication of indigenous knowledge tantamount to the eradication of the people? Does one become a colonial when he adopts the colonists ways of thinking and acting? Could the reverse be the case- could one become an aboriginal by learning and practicing the language, way of life, and customs of the aboriginal? Could a new form of man be created through intentionally crafted new customs and practices, ones that seek to honor the past and the land while reflecting the new global paradigm?
Bill Neidjie attempts to demonstrate the bond Aboriginal people have to the land in Kakadu National Park in writing “Gagudju Man.” Neidjie sees this writing as essential for passing his culture down to future generations because “No history is written for us,” (19). Although it was considered taboo to record the sacred knowledge of his people, Neidjie believed that it was important to pass on their legacy and as the last speaker of his Native language, he did not want their stories to die with him. Neidjie writes,
“while you sleeping
you dream something.
Tree and grass same thing.
They grow with your body,
with your feeling” (40)
This stanza illuminates the embodied connection between land and people within Aboriginal society. I believe that the dichotomy between man and nature is one of the most problematic lasting thoughts in mainstream environmentalism. How can we rectify the separation between humans and their environment? Are there ways to use Indigenous modes of thinking and knowledge creation to disrupt these Decartian binaries without appropriating their culture?
In the Bill Neidjie story, he juxtaposes the life of the aboriginals with that of the European settlers. At one point he compares the laws that differentiate them.
“Law never change,
always stay same.
Maybe it hard,
but proper one for all people.
Not like white European law,
always changing.
If you don’t like it,
you can change.
Aboriginal law never change.
Old people tell us,
‘You got to keep it.’
It always stays.
Creek, plain, hill.
That plain can change.
Wet season, him mud.
You get lily,
you get fish.
But, he dry up …
that’s alright.
Then people can get long-neck turtle.
Sarne for animal.
People look for food,
animal look for food.
Lizard look,
bird look,
anyone look.
We all same.”
He compares the man-made laws of the Europeans to the “law” his people follow, which is simply the laws of nature. The laws of nature, e.g. changing of the seasons, the need for food all animals share as he describes are the laws that govern the aboriginal people, and essentially all of life in a sense. Their society has no need for the typical socially constructed laws that the Europeans use for example, which are ever-changing.
Ceremony and Gagudju Man share many of the same messages and hold similar beliefs. There is an emphasis on feeling in both Neidjie and Silko’s work. In Gagudju Man Neidjie says,
“I feel it with my body,
with my blood.
Feeling all these trees,
all this country.
When this wind blow you can feel it.
Same for country,
You feel it.
You can look.
But feeling…
that make you.” (Neidjie, 39)
On page 213 of Ceremony Silko also focuses on feeling, “The destroyers: they work to see how much can be lost, how much can be forgotten. They destroy the feeling people have for each other…Their highest ambition is to gut human beings while they are still breathing, to hold the heart still beating so the victim will never feel anything again.” For both of these authors the importance of feeling is about connecting with one’s environment such as, the landscape, animals, and people. This connection bridges all worlds and dissolves them into one where earth is a part of the internal self. Neidjie says,
“That’s your bone, your blood.
It’s in this Earth,
same as for tree.” (Neidjie, 39)
Both of these stories are empowering because they offer the lessons of feeling, connection, and love. These lessons are conveyed to overpower destruction, “This feeling was their life, vitality locked deep in blood memory, and the people were strong, and the fifth world endured, and nothing was ever lost as long as the love remained.” (Silko, 204). While this is a call to action for both authors, it is also a warning about the dangers of dehumanization, forgotten stories or laws, and division. How do the lessons of Gagudju Man and Ceremony prevent destruction? Why are stories and laws so important to Silko and Neidjie? Both stories are critical of industrialization and white European civilization, yet call for the union of all to fight against destruction. How do the authors remain critical of white culture while still calling for the union, connection, and love of all? Why do they do this and are they successful?
On Tuesday, we discussed Tayo’s pivotal moment found on pages 226-228ish, when he realizes he had never been crazy. Following/within this moment, Silko writes “His protection was there in the sky, in the position of the sun, in the pattern of the stars. He had only to complete this night, to keep the story out of reach of the destroyers for a few more hours. and their witchery would turn, upon itself, upon them” (p.228). This passage illustrates Tayo’s newfound comfort, and seems to symbolize a stabilization of Tayo’s fluctuating identity. Unlike Rocky, Tayo could not find comfort in the white world, and instead, it left him in a state of complete disassociation. Now we see Tayo accepting a blurred, non-separate understanding of the world. Instead of a stabilization, perhaps this can be seen as Tayo’s acceptance of a dynamic identity. Either way, this healing moment comes from within and without Tayo, completely unlike his previous treatment in the hospital. His healing was so complete he knew he had never been sick. I wonder why it is at this moment that Tayo knows that the “destroyers” will begin to turn on themselves, does anyone have any ideas on that? What does that really mean?
First people come to us,
they started and run our life … quick.
They bring drink.
First they should ask about fish, cave, dreaming,
but
they rush in.
They make school. Teach.
Now Aborigine losing it,
losing everything.
Nearly all dead my people,
my old people gone.
This part of the reading really stuck out to me because of the recent conversations of dispossession and devaluing of identity and culture that I have had in other classes. I feel like it is very common to see outsiders come with what they value as knowledge and force it upon people native to an area. In this process, outsiders dispossess native people of their identity, history, worldviews, etc.
Later in the reading, he writes about generational knowledge. He writes:
We have to keep pressure on young people to learn.
They must learn these things.
I have to stay on to teach my children.
But, young people spread out.
It like that every time we have meetings,
meeting for ceremony.
We make arrangement …
you know … appointment,
about business, secret.
Young people all in town.
I guess my question is, is this a result of dispossession? I am not sure if I am misinterpreting this, but I think it refers to the difficulty of passing down generational knowledge because of outsider influence.
In Bill Neidjie’s poem “Land” he talks about how himself and the Aborigine people differ from other men when it comes to what they need. Neidjie writes: “People. They can’t listen for us.They just listen for money. Money. We want goose, we want fish. Other men want money. Him can make million dollars, but only last one year. Next year him want another million. Forever and ever him make million dollars. Him die. Million no good for us. We need this earth to live because we’ll be dead, we’ll become earth,” (30-31). This part of the poem discusses the fundamental differences between the Aborigine people and other, presumably European, men. What Neidjie is trying to say is that the other men care only about money in their lives, not the fact that as people, we are one with the earth. As a result, the other men are taking advantage of its resources.
Neidjie is justifiably critical of the white man and their seeming unwillingness to educate themselves on the Aborigine culture. My question is despite all of this, why did Neidjie continue to try to teach the white people? How was he able to keep his patience when faced with so much frustration?
My children got to hang onto this story.
This important story.
I hang onto this story my entire life.
My father tell me this story.
All my children cant lose it.
White European want to know
asking “What this story?”
This not easy story.
No-one else can tell it
because this story for Aboriginal culture.
I speak English for you,
so you can listen,
so you can know,
you will understand.
If I put my language in same place.
you wont understand.
Our story is in this land
It is written in those sacred places.
My children will look after these places,
thats the law.
(Page 32)
This excerpt from Neidjie shows the interconnectedness of indigenous knowledge and culture to the land the “sacred places” he makes mention of. I find it interesting that he feels the need to explain these stories to the white Europeans who “want that place” (35). I believe Neidjie is referring to the settler colonialism matrix that involves the dispossession of indigenous land for the monetary gain of the white Europeans (30). What similarities can be found between these undertones of settler colonialism with the Native Americans in Ceremony? After reading this excerpt, it seems as if just explaining the “sacred places” to the white Europeans in English diminished Neidjie’s idea of culture so what role does language play in eliminating indigenous culture? Is it possible for an indigenous population to explain “culture” to colonizers?
There is mention of a cave and its significance both to Bill Neidjie and to Tayo.
“When I die,
I become skeleton.
I’ll be in cave.
That way my spirit stay there.
I seen new coffin three or four times.
No good.
I don’t want coffin,
just cave.
Should be keep our law.
Coffin no good for Aborigine,
got to put bones back where they belong.
Man die.
Soon as him ready,
pick him up,
take him.
Take him to cave.
His shadow,
his spirit,
will stay with him” (50).
Here, he mentions the importance of returning back to Earth, where we came from. However, why does he specifically mention a cave? Is there a connection with his experience with the cave and Tayo’s? Tayo seemed to also reconnect with his roots and nature while in the cave, so why does the play such an important role in both writings?
I think this is a really interesting question, and was also intrigued by the similarities of the mention of the caves in the two stories. I think for starters, it is important to acknowledge Neidjie’s disapproval of coffins. I think that it is simple to understand the disapproval of coffins, as they are limiting, and rather useless. It is a waste of materials, to trap ones dead body and bury it. Additionally, on page 123 in “Ceremony,” Betonie tells Tayo the story of how white people came to be on the earth. In the beginning of the story, Betonie tells Tayo that all the “witch people” gathered to “fool around in caves.” Perhaps this is related to the importance of caves in both stories. Caves are rather different than a grave because it gives the feeling of being inside the earth, yet without the barrier that being buried comes with. Lastly, I think that Tayo reconnected with his roots while in the cave because he was almost reclaiming his heritage. The cave was created as a result of white destruction, and in the story where the witch people gathered in the caves, the white people also emerged from a cave. Tayo healing in the cave was a step to accepting his multiracial heritage, as it was a connection between Native land, and white destruction.
I think Bill Neidjie’s sole purpose in his writing is to bring light and recognition to the Aboriginals and their connection to the land and he does this through storytelling, a very powerful method to get people to listen to their story and lives. Throughout his stories, he is noting that because of the need for greed, money, land, food, etc of white men, their community is slowly but fastly diminishing along with everything else, and what only remains are the stories. These stories are passed down from generation to generation until there is no one left but us reading it in a text. I think this is the overall theme of a lot of the writings, especially in the conclusion. In the end, he talks about even after death, they all still remain there, within and connected to Earth.
“I die and put my bones in cave or earth.
Soon my bones become earth.
all the same.
My spirit has gone back to my country,
my mother.”
This story is very important because it emphasizes that while he and his ancestors may be dead and buried, “like this earth, it won’t move” that essentially everyone and everything is and will be connected on the earth.
“This law,
this country,
this people,
No matter what people,
red, yellow, black or white,
the blood is the same,
Lingo little bit different,
but no matter.
Country,
you in other place.
But same feeling.
Blood, bone,
all the same.
This story,
this is true story.”
I really liked these lines and I think this means that in the end, we are all really the same, so why are we choosing who is better than another person based on their race or the way they choose to live?
In “Gagadju Man” Bill Neidjie touches base on an indigenous culture; a culture that’s strongly relies on understanding, respecting and working with the natural environment. His book represents a message to the world that preservation of natural ecosystems and cultures like his own are extremely important in relation to survival. He goes on to say,
”Earth.
Like your father or brother or mother,
because you born from earth.
You got to come back to earth.
When you dead,
you’ll come back to earth.
Maybe little while yet…
then you’ll come to earth.
That’s your bone, your blood.
It’s in the earth,
Same as for tree.'”
I chose this quote because I feel that it encompasses what I am trying to explain. In this quote, Bill personifies the earth and is essentially saying that we are all the same; regardless of where you were born, who you came from, what your origins are we all perish, and we all go back to the same place we all came from. That place being the very earth we all walk and should honor. I believe that he personifies it to show that all living things are owed respect and honor. So my question for this week is, if this reading focuses so heavily on indigenous cultures and the interactions we have with each other and the land due to those cultures, why did Bill; the last surviving speaker of the Gaagudju language wait to tell about the secrets of his culture on his deathbed? Why didn’t his previous ancestors tell of their secrets and traditions? If Bill was trying to depict that we are different but one in the same, then why not educate the people along the way? Why wait so long and until last minute to ensure his culture might thrive once again?
In Gagudju Man, author Bill Neidjie gives us a glimpse of the struggle of the Aboriginal peoples in handling the European encroachment and disruption of their traditional ways of life. As opposed to the consumptive lifestyle of Europeans, Aboriginal people worked with the land and nature to survive, a system which was clearly working out well for them. How is this a similar situation to that found in Ceremony, and what could be done to reverse these harms?