I found this warning on a website operated by the Australian government’s Museum of Australian Democracy:
“Warning: Indigenous Australians are advised that this website may include images or names of people now deceased.”
What’s the purpose of this warning?
I remember reading about this during the premier of the movie Australia a couple of years ago - they had a similar warning for screenings in Australia. It is because of the Australian Aboriginal avoidance practices.
Probably because in a lot of Australian aboriginal cultures it’s taboo to refer to the deceased. That is, it’s considered anywhere from extreme disrespect to pathological social perversion to refer to dead people using their original names and/or within a certain period after their death.
Hey, that page has the names of dead anthropolgists! I think you’re supposed to break the link or put it behind a spoiler box if you link to a NSFA page.
I don’t think the taboo applies to people outside your social group; it’s unlikely any aboriginals are going to have a problem with reading the names of dead white anthropologists in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, they may balk at the seeing the names and likenesses of deceased family members in the original documents and photographs presented on the Museum of Australian Democracy’s website.
Anyway, the warning there is serving the same purpose as NSFW warnings on this message board. The aboriginals may consider our obsession with avoiding public displays of nudity to be just as risible as we think their avoidance practices are.
When I went to the Museum of the American Indian in Washington, they had a great exhibit of women’s clothing in their temporary exhibit hall. They had a few dresses from the Ghost Dance, and they were off to the side in a corner behind a warning which said something about them being upsetting to some people - not because of anything intrinsic to the dresses (nothing obscene in their decoration or anything like that) but because being reminded of the time period in question might be upsetting to some people. I still find that odd, in a museum, but I’d always rather be kinder and more sensitive than the alternative.
What I REALLY found odd was that the museum at Jamestown was so careful to warn me, both in the person of the lady at the counter and by signage, that if I went around this corner I would see human remains (skeletons). Who doesn’t expect a skull or two at a museum?
ETA - upon reading that article I am impressed at the Aboriginal social wisdom. A lot of people from other cultures would be a lot happier if it were taboo to talk to your mother in law.
In the Australian Outback, the native peoples have a practice called Dyalngui, or “mother-in-law” languages, that may be contradistinguished with Guwal, or ordinary speech … so on and so forth, I think you know how this is going to end.
I’m pretty sure a similar disclaimer appears in the Australian film The Proposition.
The answer to this question must be “yes”:
I wonder if, in fits of pique, native folks ever facetiously speak to a non-relative in the “mother in law” language to make a point? E.g. “… you know, MIL, you’re bing a bee-yotch from hell right now …”
Very interesting replies - thanks, everyone. Ignorance fought.
To add to whats been said already, I believe ALL media of aboriginal people MUST include this warning if it’s been produced by the Australian government within the last 10 years or so.
If anyone knows in more detail I’d be interested to know if private companies in Australia have to include this warning on their own media and when this rule came into enforcement.
I’ve seen this message many times, IIRC it always precedes material concerning Aboriginals. I don’t think us white fellas have the same cachet 