Country under Concrete

WARNING: Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples should be aware that this article contains reference to people who have passed away, and content that may cause sadness and distress. Dr Bob Morgan writes ‘my culture and worldview is centred in Gumilaroi land and its people, it is who I am and will always be. I am my country’ (Morgan 202). Morgan and other Indigenous Australian scholars (see Moreton-Robinson, The White Possessive; Dodson; Rose, Nourishing Terrains) identify themselves through their cultural and spiritual connections to specific areas of land and the peoples of those lands. Since the colonisation of Australia, Indigenous peoples have been dispossessed of their land through squatting, land grants, leasehold, purchase, or via violence. Over time, land has been farmed, and exploited, and many prime locations developed into industrial and housing estates. This has had a lasting impact on Indigenous people who have witnessed their land harmed via development, which has often involved the damage and destruction of sacred and significant sites and the extinction of some species. The impacts of this are far-reaching. However, as Quandamooka artist Megan Cope points out, this has never severed Indigenous peoples’ relationship or obligation to the land, which she and other Indigenous people call Country. This article explores how development has impacted on Indigenous Australians and their relationship to Country. We discuss how Indigenous artists are resisting development, exercising resilience, and restoring their connection to Country. The Significance of Country For centuries, Country has been at the centre of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander life. Dodson (41), in writing about land, explains, to understand our law, our culture and our relationship to the physical and spiritual world, you must begin with the land. Everything about Aboriginal society is inextricably woven with, and connected to, the land. Culture is the land, the land and spirituality of Aboriginal people, our cultural beliefs or reason for existence is the land. You take that away and you take away our reason for existence. We have grown the land up. We are dancing, singing and painting for the land. We are celebrating the land. Removed from our lands, we are literally removed from ourselves. Indigenous peoples’ connection to Country differs from Western perspectives. The most important difference is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples view their relationship with Country as reflexive (Rose, Nourishing Terrains). It is not merely a physical or utilitarian relationship; it involves ongoing duties and responsibilities (Waters). While Western perspectives often view land as a resource to be developed or built upon, Indigenous peoples see the land as inherently significant and integral to their identity and sense of self. Hence Bob Morgan’s statement “I am my country” (Morgan 202). Irrespective of whether land is cleared or built upon, sovereignty “can never be ceded” (Moreton-Robinson, The White Possessive, 43). Rose explains how when Indigenous people move through the landscape, they are part of it, rather than merely across it, or on top of it. Moreton-Robinson recalls the words of her grandfather: “white people and what they have is surface. You are surface people. We are part and in and of the land. You can put on our country anything you like, but we and the land remain sovereign” (Moreton-Robinson, Speech at Clancestry). Colonial sovereignty – established through the dispossession of Indigenous peoples – is a sovereignty that is flimsy and incomplete (Moreton-Robinson, The White Possessive). Background Land has been a fundamental part of the British settler colonial project from the beginning of European occupation in Australia. From the beginning of colonisation in Australia, Indigenous peoples were dispossessed of their land through various means, including land grants, squatting, licencing, leaseholds, and purchases (Ford and Roberts 322). These methods, to varying degrees, involved violence, and were often met with resistance from Indigenous peoples (Ford and Roberts 322). Indigenous peoples were routinely expelled from areas by Europeans and pushed to fringe camps and missions, unable to return to their homelands which were often fiercely guarded by armed settlers (McKenna; Attwood). Land was central to arguments theorising Australia as terra nullius, a term implying “empty land”. This notion was leveraged to justify the acquisition of territory, and often relied on assumptions of how Indigenous peoples were or were not “utilising” land. Patrick Wolffe has argued that territory is settler colonialism’s “irreducible element” and led to a logic of elimination. Wolfe sees settler colonialism as a land-centred project, coordinating a comprehensive range of agencies, from the metropolitan centre to the frontier encampment, with the aim to eliminate Indigenous societies (Wolfe 393). Thus, all that Indigenous peoples had to do to get in the way of the settler colonial project, Rose (Hidden Histories 46) argues, is to stay home. Settlers routinely set out to reorganise the landscape (Veracini 623). Often, this involved pushing Indigenous people to the boundaries to open the land for development (Harris 167). Although this may seem like a distant colonial endeavour, government-sanctioned land acquisition and clearing is still commonplace today and has very real cultural and spiritual ramifications for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Impacts of Development The impacts of development on Indigenous Australians are felt through generations, scarring communities and the land they have called home for thousands of years. In developers’ search for new land, they may come across significant sites and restricted regions of Indigenous land. If it is known at all, this land's profound cultural, spiritual, and environmental significance is frequently disregarded, leading to irreparable damage. Land once revered and respected by Indigenous peoples is now farmed, exploited, and transformed into industrial and housing estates, erasing sacred sites, harming biodiversity, and physically dispossessing Indigenous peoples of the land (Fredericks, "Collaborative"; "There Is Nothing"). In contemporary times, despite cultural assessments being conducted, Indigenous groups and their significant sites often remain vulnerable. Indigenous peoples are left with limited options, such as engaging in protests through various means or pursuing legal action against developers, industries, and governments. These entities often justify their actions as being in the 'public good,' positioning themselves in opposition to Indigenous interests. Riverlea The recent discovery of a mass burial ground at the Riverlea housing development 30km north of Adelaide epitomises some of the issues with developing on Indigenous land: the desires and needs of corporations often contradict those of Indigenous peoples. The Walker Corporation’s new $3 billion estate aims to house an estimated 33,000 people and build 12,000 new homes (Boscaini, "Decision"). It is part of the South Australian Government’s plan to address the housing crisis (Doherty). However, in April 2023, a shallow grave with Indigenous peoples’ remains was uncovered while conducting earthworks. The ABC revealed the developer found “three isolated Aboriginal objects” in early 2021 while doing earthworks for the initial stages of the project, but these were only reported to the Aboriginal Affairs Department in late October 2023 (Donnellan). Since then, at least 31 individuals have been uncovered in the area. Speaking to SBS/NITV, burial ground Aboriginal Heritage manager Alison Harvey stated that there could be hundreds more skeletal remains at or near the grounds (Doherty). The Indigenous community is distressed. The remains were exhumed and stored in a shipping container awaiting a decision on where to bury them (Iqbal). Tim Agius, Kaurna Elder, said in October that the community’s preference was that the ancestors remain in their burial ground and not be moved from Riverlea. However, he said that under the circumstances, “and with the support of Kaurna Elders, we have made the difficult decision to respectfully exhume the remains to ensure their protection” (ibid.). However, some community members, Natasha Wanganeen states, were not consulted (Boscaini, "Exhumed"). The impact on the community was profound. Kaurna, Narungga, Ngarrindjeri, and Nyoongar woman Natasha Wanganeen said the remains should be put back where they were found: "we're not playing musical bones with our elders and ancestors, that's not what we're about” (Boscaini, "Decision"). Wanganeen stated that she did not oppose development, but rather opposed "destruction of our history and heritage" ("Protesters Condemn Excavation"). The discovery of remains did not come as a surprise to everyone. Professor Lynley Wallis, from Griffith University, stated that the area’s significance has been long known (Donnellan). Although not involved with the development itself, Wallis is familiar with the local landscape. She, alongside Indigenous communities, knows that creeks, campsites, and burials are often found together (Donnellan). The question then is how development was allowed to proceed even though there was knowledge that the site might have significance for Indigenous communities. When developers choose to ignore information that may negatively affect their development plans, communities are the ones that feel it. What happened in Riverlea was not a unique occurrence. Several other sacred sites have been desecrated, such as Juukan Gorge – a sacred rock structure in the Pilbara region of Western Australia that was legally destroyed by Rio Tinto in May 2020 (Kemp et al.). Rio Tinto was aware of the archaeological significance of the site, but chose to ignore it in favour of securing an ore body valued a