Braden StokesMyths and the Indigenous Roots of Aussie Rules
May 20th 2008 09:08
I was recently rather surprised to read about the controversy surrounding the comments of historian Gillian Hibbins regarding the history and formation of Australian Rules football. In brief, Ms Hibbins has suggested (in an official AFL document) that the idea that the game derived from a game played by indigenous Australians was a myth. This, to me, seems like a fairly reasonable comment for a historian to make based on whatever research she has conducted - it's not like she denied the Holocaust or anything. However, the disapprobation with which her comments have been many in some quarters was, to me, rather confusing. For example, The Age quoted Martin Flanagan as saying "for 20 years, the AFL has successfully positioned itself as a national leader in the area of race relations, but it's now in a position where it's at odds with its official history". Maybe the history books need to be rewritten a little bit, but that is what historical research is for.
I agree that if it were true (and the opinion of one historian doesn't mean that it isn't) it would be a lovely story: that our native people played a role in the development of our national game. But it seems that those who object to Ms Hibbins' comments feel that it is somehow disrespectful to our indigenous people; to say that football is, after all, just another important part of Australia that was brought here by the white man. What would normally be a mere academic debate or curiosity has turned - seemingly unnecessarily - into a question of respect and identity. However, if it is true that football has absolutely nothing to do with an indigenous game, I fail to see why that precludes the AFL from being a leader in race relations and celebrating indigenous players and culture. The AFL seems an ideal place to foster race relations and respect for indigenous Australians, given its popularity and high-profile indigenous players. Does it really matter whether indigenous Australians played a part in the formation of the game?
Personally, I don't see what all the controversy is about. Perhaps it is because Ms Hibbins' ideas were adopted officially, and therefore seem authoritative. However, as long as her comments are well-researched, why should they not be considered true (or as true as historical narrative ever can be)? And if, in time, more evidence is found that proves her wrong, then a new history can be written - remember, in days gone by it was universally accepted that the sun circled the Earth; that is just the way of research. It really seems like a case of someone being castigated for merely doing her job.
However, all this kerfuffle raises a very interesting question. At times, are we better served by a myth than the truth? I am reminded of the notion that one should not undergo psychoanalysis unless one is ill because some trauma might be uncovered that was previously dealt with by the mind's natural defence mechanisms. Thus, rooting around in there would cause more harm than good. Similarly, it seems that those who object to the notion that the indigenous origins of football are a myth, are simply disturbed by the disruption to their previously-held beliefs; beliefs that formed a great and meaningful story. It would be as if a devout Christian were told that scientific evidence proved conclusively that Jesus Christ never existed.
Perhaps the tradition of endless curiosity in modern academic endeavours can at times do more harm than good. In rational terms, there is no connection between the formation of the game and modern relationships with indigenous Australians. However, perhaps it would be better if everyone believed that football really did derive from an indigenous game; that everyone has those indigenous people to thank for something they hold so dear, and which is such a big part of our national identity.
I agree that if it were true (and the opinion of one historian doesn't mean that it isn't) it would be a lovely story: that our native people played a role in the development of our national game. But it seems that those who object to Ms Hibbins' comments feel that it is somehow disrespectful to our indigenous people; to say that football is, after all, just another important part of Australia that was brought here by the white man. What would normally be a mere academic debate or curiosity has turned - seemingly unnecessarily - into a question of respect and identity. However, if it is true that football has absolutely nothing to do with an indigenous game, I fail to see why that precludes the AFL from being a leader in race relations and celebrating indigenous players and culture. The AFL seems an ideal place to foster race relations and respect for indigenous Australians, given its popularity and high-profile indigenous players. Does it really matter whether indigenous Australians played a part in the formation of the game?
Personally, I don't see what all the controversy is about. Perhaps it is because Ms Hibbins' ideas were adopted officially, and therefore seem authoritative. However, as long as her comments are well-researched, why should they not be considered true (or as true as historical narrative ever can be)? And if, in time, more evidence is found that proves her wrong, then a new history can be written - remember, in days gone by it was universally accepted that the sun circled the Earth; that is just the way of research. It really seems like a case of someone being castigated for merely doing her job.
However, all this kerfuffle raises a very interesting question. At times, are we better served by a myth than the truth? I am reminded of the notion that one should not undergo psychoanalysis unless one is ill because some trauma might be uncovered that was previously dealt with by the mind's natural defence mechanisms. Thus, rooting around in there would cause more harm than good. Similarly, it seems that those who object to the notion that the indigenous origins of football are a myth, are simply disturbed by the disruption to their previously-held beliefs; beliefs that formed a great and meaningful story. It would be as if a devout Christian were told that scientific evidence proved conclusively that Jesus Christ never existed.
Perhaps the tradition of endless curiosity in modern academic endeavours can at times do more harm than good. In rational terms, there is no connection between the formation of the game and modern relationships with indigenous Australians. However, perhaps it would be better if everyone believed that football really did derive from an indigenous game; that everyone has those indigenous people to thank for something they hold so dear, and which is such a big part of our national identity.
| 101 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
