30 July 2010

Souvenir shenanigans at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy?

| nanzan
Join the conversation
36

Something is brewing at the Tent Embassy and it has to do with souvenirs.

On a recent visit I noticed that the area around the mosaic at the Tent Embassy is now decked out with tables selling all manner of Australiana souvenirs. There is new handmade signage directing people to the items on sale and that the proceeds go to the Tent Embassy, including for the purchase of firewood for the sacred fire. Several “donation” boxes are in place for people to pop their money into.

However, I have been informed, that the people behind the souvenirs – which include Aboriginal-themed paintings and other craft items – are not connected with the Tent Embassy in any way, and that they have only set up shop there in the last couple of weeks, and that although they have set up a caravan and tents at the Embassy, and are staying there, they do not have approval for this from either the Tent Embassy community or the NCA.

(The look – and the authenticity – of the place is not enhanced by the fact that the new signage for all the goods on sale is replete with spelling errors – with words such as “table”, “sacred” and “please” all misspelt – which must be confusing for overseas visitors! The suggestion was also made to me that the souvenirs are far from genuine – and had been purchased elsewhere at a much lower price.)

This is a very interesting development in the aftermath of the closure of the Old Parliament House shop at the start of July. Is this a case of someone cashing in on the lack of commercial facilities at Old Parliament House, especially the provision of souvenirs and other Australiana items to visitors from abroad and school students – who of course visit OPH in droves?

ED: While we’re on the subject of the Tent Embassy Hank had this to say:

I just came back from a meeting and noticed some of the occupants at the tent embassy at Old Parliament house had some pet dogs that were fighting one another. Although I have no problems with them I was curious to the rules on keeping pets there?

Join the conversation

36
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
UrbanAdventure.org9:37 pm 31 Jul 10

georgesgenitals said :

Incidentally, who was it that first called what’s there now “The Tent Embassy”?

I do belive that would be Michael Anderson, Gary Foley and Chica Dixon.

georgesgenitals8:59 pm 31 Jul 10

Jim Jones said :

The entire point behind the tent embassy is that it symbolises the outsider status of Indigenous people in Australia.It functions as a reminder of the poor status of indigenous people in Australia.

The idea of removing it because ‘it’s an eyesore’ is ironic in so many ways. Not entirely like the way early European settlers in Australia removed the indigenous people, because they were ‘inconvenient’. The way that the government (and bulk of the people) of Australia is typified by this ‘eyesore’ attitude. It’s a problem that people don’t want to look at or think about.

Getting rid of the tent embassy and putting the whole thing into some easily ignorable concrete building out of the public eye would be nothing but another instance of removing an embarrassing truth away from view.

WMC has presented a ‘history lesson’ for you to learn from. You can either choose to learn more about this issue and present an informed view, or bollocks about with the whole ‘my opinion is valid no matter how poorly informed it is’ crap.

It’s worth pointing out that the latter view is the reason why Australian politics is up the sh1tter at the moment – because politicians are pandering to ignorant populism rather than addressing the actual problems of the nation: there’s a lot of talk about ‘stopping the boats’ in this election, but I haven’t heard anyone mention indigenous affairs.

Thanks for repeating the intent of post#24.

I actually thought the history lesson was a good effort. Doesn’t change my opinion, but well thought out nonetheless.

I-filed said :

Yarramundi Reach. Massively funded by the taxpayer.

Because we all know that Aboriginals aren’t ‘real Australian taxpayers’ and shouldn’t have any money spent on them.

Jim Jones said :

The entire point behind the tent embassy is that it symbolises the outsider status of Indigenous people in Australia.It functions as a reminder of the poor status of indigenous people in Australia.

The idea of removing it because ‘it’s an eyesore’ is ironic in so many ways. Not entirely like the way early European settlers in Australia removed the indigenous people, because they were ‘inconvenient’. The way that the government (and bulk of the people) of Australia is typified by this ‘eyesore’ attitude. It’s a problem that people don’t want to look at or think about.

Getting rid of the tent embassy and putting the whole thing into some easily ignorable concrete building out of the public eye would be nothing but another instance of removing an embarrassing truth away from view.

WMC has presented a ‘history lesson’ for you to learn from. You can either choose to learn more about this issue and present an informed view, or bollocks about with the whole ‘my opinion is valid no matter how poorly informed it is’ crap.

It’s worth pointing out that the latter view is the reason why Australian politics is up the sh1tter at the moment – because politicians are pandering to ignorant populism rather than addressing the actual problems of the nation: there’s a lot of talk about ‘stopping the boats’ in this election, but I haven’t heard anyone mention indigenous affairs.

“All was dark and horrid in Australia because of the Liberals, until Kevin from Queensland came along and said sorry to the stolen generations. All the lefties in the land danced about joyously, clapped hands and fell at the feet of this great, great man who’d stood up for the downtrodden Aborigines and made things right, just like Big ted did in ’72. Meanwhile, life was suddenly so much brighter for all Aborigines: no more petrol sniffing, no more dying by 45, no more domestic violence, no more fiddling with the kiddies – and welfare quarantining was continued to help them save up for their own plasma televisions, just like the ones those kind white people own.

But then, along came an evil bow-legged witch from Werribee, with a horrid voice, dyed red hair and slits for eyes came along and stabbed Kevin from Queensland in the back 350 times while he was otherwise occupied looking for his mirror and hair dryer…………”

(to be continued….)

“Why can’t they have a building with proper facilities to give them the opportunity to display their culture and to provide them with an administrative base for supporting their movement?”

Georges @ 11: they do. Yarramundi Reach. Massively funded by the taxpayer.

The entire point behind the tent embassy is that it symbolises the outsider status of Indigenous people in Australia.It functions as a reminder of the poor status of indigenous people in Australia.

The idea of removing it because ‘it’s an eyesore’ is ironic in so many ways. Not entirely like the way early European settlers in Australia removed the indigenous people, because they were ‘inconvenient’. The way that the government (and bulk of the people) of Australia is typified by this ‘eyesore’ attitude. It’s a problem that people don’t want to look at or think about.

Getting rid of the tent embassy and putting the whole thing into some easily ignorable concrete building out of the public eye would be nothing but another instance of removing an embarrassing truth away from view.

WMC has presented a ‘history lesson’ for you to learn from. You can either choose to learn more about this issue and present an informed view, or bollocks about with the whole ‘my opinion is valid no matter how poorly informed it is’ crap.

It’s worth pointing out that the latter view is the reason why Australian politics is up the sh1tter at the moment – because politicians are pandering to ignorant populism rather than addressing the actual problems of the nation: there’s a lot of talk about ‘stopping the boats’ in this election, but I haven’t heard anyone mention indigenous affairs.

I have no issues with putting a bulldozer through the tent embassy.

Not really tents if one of the items in a shipping container

georgesgenitals1:58 pm 31 Jul 10

Jim Jones said :

That’s pretty pissweak argument: ‘it’s an eyesore’ and ‘oooh you’re calling me names waaaaah’. What’s next, telling the teacher?

I’m not claiming it to be a tight, bulletproof argument – it’s just an opinion. Perhaps you could offer one of your own instead of waiting on the sidelines while a discussion progresses shouting “yeah, what he said”. What’s your opinion on this? All you’ve offered is a couple of motherhood statements that say nothing about the Tent Embassy itself.

You may have noticed that I don’t do great diatribes with heaps of research – it’s because I don’t take this site very seriously. This thread is no different. I think the Tent Embassy is an eyesore and should go. I’d like to see something a bit more dignified and positive in it’s place. If nothing happens, though, my life isn’t going to change much.

But no doubt you’ve got all the answers, so let’s hear ’em, JJ.

That’s pretty pissweak argument: ‘it’s an eyesore’ and ‘oooh you’re calling me names waaaaah’. What’s next, telling the teacher?

georgesgenitals6:58 am 31 Jul 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

didn’t say build an embassy, I said a building with proper facilities. It would need to be called something that actually relected their movement. Incidentally, who was it that first called what’s there now “The Tent Embassy”?

I don’t know why I bother, because you’re one of the most deliberately ignorant people on this site, and you seem to be proud of it:

Just think about what you typed for a second. It’s the tent embassy. You want to replace it with something that ‘actually re(f)lected their movement’. But not an embassy. But they’re the tent embassy. Do you see the problem here? The only thing that will replace the embassy is…wait for it…an embassy. Have a guess what the odds of that happening are?

Now lest you think you’re the first straight-thinking, common-sense fast thinker to come up with this idea of just throwing a building at them, it’s been tried and failed for decades – Hunt in 72, Cavanagh in 74, Macdonald in 99 – all rejected. Because a building wouldn’t do what the tent embassy does – serve as a never-ending eyesore to remind you of why they’re really there.

And you can’t trot out the old ‘the tent embassy doesn’t represent ‘real’ Aborigines’ diatribe either, because that was also done to death in the 70s. McMahon tried to claim his National Conference of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Councillors was truly representative – unfortunately for him, the first thing they did was make the tent embassy reps delegates. Pity about that.

As for ‘who first called it an embassy’ – the founders called it that. They hung a sign that said ’embassy’ on the tent: “this is an embassy: the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday effectively makes us aliens in our own land, so like the other aliens we need an embassy.” McMahon had a fit, and he should have.

Learn your history before you bother trying to ‘contribute’ next time.

Wow – a history lesson, thanks man! My opinion is what it is. The current embassy is an eyesore. Others having the same thought process in the past doesn’t change that. Would allocating space for a building change things? Possibly. Would it change things? Maybe. For the better? Who knows. But right now it doesn’t seem like anything is changing

“I don’t know why I bother, because you’re one of the most deliberately ignorant people on this site, and you seem to be proud of it:”

Thanks for dragging (yet) another thread down into personal attacks and name calling. I don’t know why I bother, because you’re one of the most deliberately arrogant people on this site, and you seem to be proud of it.

If you want to live like a king, become a footballer.

OpenYourMind10:35 pm 30 Jul 10

Many Aboriginals find walking on Uluru and other sacred sites to be an affront. Many white Australians understand and respect that affront. I wonder if Aboriginals were told that camping on the lawns of old parly house was an equal affront to many Australians if similar respect would be returned.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:09 pm 30 Jul 10

didn’t say build an embassy, I said a building with proper facilities. It would need to be called something that actually relected their movement. Incidentally, who was it that first called what’s there now “The Tent Embassy”?

I don’t know why I bother, because you’re one of the most deliberately ignorant people on this site, and you seem to be proud of it:

Just think about what you typed for a second. It’s the tent embassy. You want to replace it with something that ‘actually re(f)lected their movement’. But not an embassy. But they’re the tent embassy. Do you see the problem here? The only thing that will replace the embassy is…wait for it…an embassy. Have a guess what the odds of that happening are?

Now lest you think you’re the first straight-thinking, common-sense fast thinker to come up with this idea of just throwing a building at them, it’s been tried and failed for decades – Hunt in 72, Cavanagh in 74, Macdonald in 99 – all rejected. Because a building wouldn’t do what the tent embassy does – serve as a never-ending eyesore to remind you of why they’re really there.

And you can’t trot out the old ‘the tent embassy doesn’t represent ‘real’ Aborigines’ diatribe either, because that was also done to death in the 70s. McMahon tried to claim his National Conference of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Councillors was truly representative – unfortunately for him, the first thing they did was make the tent embassy reps delegates. Pity about that.

As for ‘who first called it an embassy’ – the founders called it that. They hung a sign that said ’embassy’ on the tent: “this is an embassy: the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday effectively makes us aliens in our own land, so like the other aliens we need an embassy.” McMahon had a fit, and he should have.

Learn your history before you bother trying to ‘contribute’ next time.

well I’m just jealous that there have been cars parked there next to the tents all day for weeks now and no tickets!

calls to send in the jackboots and bulldozers is hardly simply ‘highlighting genuine touchy issues’ (whatever they are).

And calling people rednecks for highlighting genuine “touchy” issues is just as racist. If you want to compare apples with apples, there it is.

affordable said :

are they treated so bad, as we are told constantly by the vested interests.
are they forced to live as they do ? how many people want to leave Palm island, are they being held hostage, do they not receive government funding, where does the money go

Indigenous Australians receive significantly less government funding than middle class white Australians.

The myth that lots of hardworking taxpayer dollars are constantly doled out to ‘lazy savages who are parasites of the state’ is typically trotted out by ignorant rednecks who squeal like stuck pigs whenever their taxpayer-funded middle-class welfare is threatened.

CanberraCreative4:48 pm 30 Jul 10

It’s a disgraceful scar on the landscape, send in the AFP and kick them out.

Hells_Bells744:23 pm 30 Jul 10

Point taken astrojax..

Good question georgeg.

georgesgenitals4:06 pm 30 Jul 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Why can’t they have a building with proper facilities

Because building an embassy would be an acknowledgement that Aboriginal people are aliens in Australia, representatives of a sovereign state.

I didn’t say build an embassy, I said a building with proper facilities. It would need to be called something that actually relected their movement.

Incidentally, who was it that first called what’s there now “The Tent Embassy”?

Hells_Bells74 said :

Funny, I rent from the Govt. and my lease states I will not use any part of the land or house for commercial purposes. Nor any signage/advertising for commercial purposes.

That’s how it should be. So if I were aboriginal and scabbed land off them, I would be fine to make money off their land?

No, I know that’s silly and I definitely feel they deserve most of the help they get plus more. I hate to see any humans abusing position/charity though.

you rent from the government. the aboriginal tent embassy’s core point is, of course, that the government from whom you rent has usurped their land and doesn’t pay rent, or other dues… i know you know that, but let’s make it clear for the rednecks.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Because building an embassy would be an acknowledgement that Aboriginal people are aliens in Australia, representatives of a sovereign state.

Exactly. As I said earlier, it looks messy and terrible, but if it didn’t I would drive by and never notice them, and have one less thought about Indigenous issues.

Woody Mann-Caruso3:32 pm 30 Jul 10

Why can’t they have a building with proper facilities

Because building an embassy would be an acknowledgement that Aboriginal people are aliens in Australia, representatives of a sovereign state.

are they treated so bad, as we are told constantly by the vested interests.
are they forced to live as they do ? how many people want to leave Palm island, are they being held hostage, do they not receive government funding, where does the money go

Woody Mann-Caruso3:17 pm 30 Jul 10

You can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.

Like racists?

georgesgenitals3:16 pm 30 Jul 10

Jim Jones said :

georgesgenitals said :

The Tent Embassy is a national disgrace, and this just makes it worse.

The tent embassy is less of national disgrace than the treatment of Aboriginal people in this country.

Absolutely. Why can’t they have a building with proper facilities to give them the opportunity to display their culture and to provide them with an administrative base for supporting their movement?

You can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.

georgesgenitals said :

The Tent Embassy is a national disgrace, and this just makes it worse.

The tent embassy is less of national disgrace than the treatment of Aboriginal people in this country.

Woody Mann-Caruso2:10 pm 30 Jul 10

The fact that people in the Tent Embassy have better living conditions than most Aboriginal people in remote and very remote areas of Australia is a national disgrace

FTFY, DHRF

Hells_Bells741:54 pm 30 Jul 10

Funny, I rent from the Govt. and my lease states I will not use any part of the land or house for commercial purposes. Nor any signage/advertising for commercial purposes.

That’s how it should be. So if I were aboriginal and scabbed land off them, I would be fine to make money off their land?

No, I know that’s silly and I definitely feel they deserve most of the help they get plus more. I hate to see any humans abusing position/charity though.

Captain RAAF – as a money making venture you’d make more than the souvenir sellers if you sold tickets to drive the bulldozer through the area!

georgesgenitals1:37 pm 30 Jul 10

The Tent Embassy is a national disgrace, and this just makes it worse.

Captain RAAF1:24 pm 30 Jul 10

You have to get permission from the tent embassy to set up dodgy accommodation at the tent embassy?

I also, am collecting for the tent embassy then, all monies will be put to hiring a bloody great bulldozer to push the entire disgraceful site into LBG!

OooOoOoh, racial insensitivity, quick get him!

Aurelius said :

Is it just me who finds it ironic when someone cannot spell ‘misspelled’ in a rant critical of other people’s literacy standards?

Both are correct.

nanzan said :

There is new handmade signage directing people to the items on sale and that the proceeds go to the Tent Embassy, including for the purchase of firewood for the sacred fire. Several “donation” boxes are in place for people to pop their money into.

I guess the question is, does the Tent Embassy have some sort of legal entity (or is it associated with one) which will receive this money? Or is it just being handed to one of the residents on the day to do with as they wish?

As much as the look of the place irks me at time, you can’t argue that seeing a dodgy collection of tents and semi permanent structures looking run down does make you think about the situation of many of the indigenous people of Australia.

And to Hanks comment, I guess it is about as legal as setting up a camp site at the location.

Is it just me who finds it ironic when someone cannot spell ‘misspelled’ in a rant critical of other people’s literacy standards?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.