> On the term "aboriginal" as in aboriginal languages and aboriginal people.
> There may be a good deal of confusion engendered by the Australian use
> of these terms. At present, the native peoples of Australia are called
> the "Aboriginal people", this term being generally considered a more
> acceptable term than the previous "Aborigines"....
> [...]
> Personally, I don't like this second title - partly because of the other
> (non-Australian) connotations of the word "aboriginal". But for most
> Australians the wider sense of the term is rarely called to mind. Hope this
> clarifies, because I assume some of the apparently objectionable uses of the
> word "aboriginal" come from Australian sources.
On another track, there is a sense in which the term "aboriginal" reflects
a European fascination with the notion of "pure origins," of "a time before
time." One version of this is the "garden of eden." Another version is the
"state of nature." These images seem to be an important part of European
cosmology, whether used to support a notion of "progress" or of "fall."
In addition to serving in this capacity, the term "aboriginal" also works to
demarcate an endpoint for those societies encountered by Europeans in their
colonizing/civilizing process. That is, a people who are termed "aboriginal"
are presumed no longer to really exist; their existence is no longer regarded
as indpendently valid, but as being dependent on European reality.
Each of these functions (and there are probably others) of "aboriginal"
could be fleshed out with examples. At the moment, I only want to
put them forward as suggestions.
-- Peter d'Errico phone: 413-545-2003 Legal Studies Department fax: 413-545-1640 University of Massachusetts/Amherst 01003 dErrico@titan.ucc.umass.edu