Journalism…
Indigenous welcoming ceremonies: fake or authentic?
Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies are accepted by many as a means of reconciling Australian Aboriginal and European cultures by acknowledging around 60,000 years of indigenous occupation of the land, however over recent years the validity of the ceremonies have been called into question.
‘It’s all made-up.”
He was not trying to be snarky, he was trying to assert that the ceremony is a recent invention. “Add a didgeridoo performance or traditional dancing and you have a cliche of Aboriginal culture, a pantomime.”
The man was talking about the smoking ceremony performed by Australian Aboriginal organisations as part of a ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremony to open events.
The smoking and the Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies have been adopted as a means of Aboriginal people welcoming others to their traditional homelands and for people other than Aboriginals to recognise prior occupation of the land.
Backstory
The Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies are a part of reconciling differences between European Australians and Australia’s indigenous inhabitants. They acknowledge the occupation of the land by Aboriginal people for at least 60,000 years.
Who can perform the ceremonies?
Performance of the Welcome to Country ceremony is authorised by an Aboriginal Land Council or other official Aboriginal organisation that represents traditional custodians of the land where an event is taking place. That is, they can trace their ancestry to the indigenous people whose land it was. The ceremony is intended to welcome visitors to the land and offer them safe passage.
Anyone, indigenous or non-indigenous, can do an Acknowledgement of Country. It simply recognises the inhabitation of the land prior to the coming of Europeans. There is no specific wording.
There are variants to the Welcome ceremony. In its basic form it is a short speech. A smoking ceremony and dancing can be provided as add-ons.
What does the Welcome to Country cost?
Costs are variable. The inclusion of a smoking ceremony and dancing adds to the basic cost. A search reveals that:
- a basic Welcome to Country costs between $300 to $750
- a smoking ceremony adds between $700 and $1500 to the basic cost
- a traditional dance or a didgeridoo performance can increase the cost by around $300.
Be aware that these costs vary and might not represent current costs.
Are Aboriginal smoking ceremonies authentic?
Stimulated by the comment I mentioned at the start of this story, I looked for evidence that the smoking ceremony is authentic. Or, is what the person I spoke with said it was? A recent invention? A cliche of the culture?
Wikipedia confirms that the smoking ceremony does have historic precedent in Aboriginal culture. In other words, it is authentic.
“Smoking ceremony is an ancient and contemporary custom among some Aboriginal Australians that involves smouldering native plants to produce smoke. This herbal smoke is believed to have both spiritual and physical cleansing properties, as well as the ability to ward off bad spirits. In traditional spiritual culture smoking ceremonies have been performed following either childbirth or initiation rites involving circumcision. In contemporary culture, elements of smoking ceremonies have been incorporated into Welcome to Country performances and other spiritual events held for the general public.”
North American Indian cultures also made use of smoking ceremonies, usually using a local herb such as sage. In recent times the New Age movement adopted its own versions of the smoking ceremony, however this raises the question of whether the adoption of a practice embedded in the traditions of a culture has authenticity when used in rituals outside that culture. It also demonstrates how New Age is a derivative movement drawing on a range of cultural practices harvested from Eastern spiritual practice, practices like shamanism and from pop psychology. The culture has declined in participation in recent times and continues more or less as a remnant.
There is an ecological question around the use of smoking ceremonies by the New Age or hippie subcultures in America. Harvesting by these subcultures as well as by commercial interest has denuded areas of the herbs used in the ceremony, including taking entire plants to sell as ‘smudge sticks’. When done by commercial interests this appropriates an element of indigenous culture merely to make money from gullible buyers.
Between the lines
Australians have become used to the Welcome and Acknowledgment ceremonies at official events. Their supporters see them as important in reconciling the conflicting histories of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Not all Australians are happy with the ceremonies, however.
Objections to both the Welcome and Acknowledgement ceremonies are many and include:
- the Welcome to Country is a modern invention rather than an ancient tradition and is therefore inauthentic; it is alleged that it is a recent invention through which Aboriginal organisations make money
- charging up to $700 per appearance turns the Welcome ceremony into a business transaction
- the high cost erodes goodwill
- Acknowledgement of Country is a formality that is hurried through at the start of events and its presentation can lack conviction
- there are concerns about the authenticity of the practice, especially when performed by non-indigenous people or in contexts where it is perfunctory
- the Acknowledgement at events, before meetings, on websites and in emails has become overused and suffers from overuse syndrome by which things lose their earlier significance and meaning
- the ceremonies make non-indigenous Australians feel unwelcome in the country of their birth; they can feel like unwelcome strangers in their land
- smoking ceremonies can have spiritual elements that may conflict with personal religious beliefs; some Christian schools instead allow students to observe but not participate; some Aboriginal Christians are reported to not to participate in smoking ceremonies because of their religious beliefs
- the purpose of smoking ceremonies can be vague and lead to skepticism about their effectiveness
- some argue that the Welcome to Country practice is divisive of Australian society; the same charge was made of the referendum for Aboriginal Voice to Parliament in 2023
- the ceremonies are an imposition of indigenous culture on non-indigenous Australians, leading to feelings of resentment
- the ceremonies have become a type of performative activism used by organisations to appear culturally sensitive without making substantive changes
- the Welcome to Country ceremony consumes too much time at the start of events and meetings and eats into the time available for the event
- the performances are tokenism and are merely virtue signalling.
Doubts and support on social media
An exchange on the social media platform Reddit confused the Acknowledgement of Country ritual with the Welcome to Country ceremony performed by groups authorised by Aboriginal organisations. The conversations ranged through authentic inquiries, confusion, allegations of inauthenticity and the accusation that the Welcome to Country is merely a money-making ploy.
Somebody asked what the allusion to Aboriginal elders past, present and future means in the Acknowledgement of Country ritual. Here is a sample of the replies.
r/aussie
It’s acknowledgment of people who are future leaders in their communities.DampFree
Which is weird to be fair. We’re ‘acknowledging’ future leaders? Why?LeftEnvironment503
I dont know, could be a sign of respect to Aboriginal customs. Got me stumped.stoic_praise OP
So all speeches should start by acknowledging future state premiers, prime ministers and so on? Did the First Nations people greet each other with this form of words or something similar? Across all of “Australia”?r/aussie
99% of the time its a form of spam since the people saying it don’t care.thumptime_now
There’s nothing wrong with a white person with 1/32th indigenous DNA earning a little bit extra say $800 to make other white people feel virtuous.
Even on the Australia Left Politics Reddit, where you would anticipate broad support for the Acknowledgement ritual and Welcome ceremony and for indigenous people in general, we find a range of opinion as to their value, although we find general support for the meanings implied by them. Here are some indicative comments.
r/AustraliaLeftPolitics
Discussion starter: Do you support and defend the use of Welcome to Country/Acknowledgement of Country?Ever since the Voice Defeat, many right-wingers with an anti-indigenous agenda want to start a culture war by opposing Welcome/Acknowledgement to Country saying stuff like:
“WTC causes division, We are all Australians”
“It does not improve lives of Indigenous”
“We are sick to our throats”
“Why appease the 3.5% not the 97%”
r/AustraliaLeftP…
DeeDee_GigaDooDoo
It feels performative to me and a way to give the appearance of being progressive without actually doing anything, it comes across as a very liberal approach to systemic issues.I’ll defer to the aboriginal people on the issue as to whether it’s something they want or not. I’ve heard both sides argued by them over the years. Personally l’d find it a bit cringey if I was aboriginal and hearing it all the time at the start of every meeting/speech etc, but I’m not so again I defer to what they want on the issue. That’s for their community to decide and my input isn’t really needed.
r/AustraliaLeftP
One is that acknowledgment of country is sometimes overused. When I am at a speaking event, I don’t need every single speaker start with an acknowledgment. Just have the MC do it at the beginning and let’s get on with it.My other big gripe is that it is often just a check box. I would like to see more people put a little thought into the AoC and actually tailor it to themselves and their audience.
ilanjbloom
I support it when people feel a genuine connection and want to do it. In a corporate setting where people are often too busy to care I think it’s just a tick in the box and a time waster.r/AustraliaLeftP.
I think in many cases a Welcome to Country is very much appropriate, especially where it is a big event, and it is in a place in which there is a clear familial linkage to the traditional owners.Acknowledgements are in my opinion mostly dumb. They are essentially just the progressive version of a prayer before a meeting, are largely just corporates wanting an easy way to signify they are doing the right thing, and largely do nothing for indigenous people.
If you were at an event with a lot of people from the traditional owner group, but weren’t indigenous, then sure, it makes sense and is polite to do one. But not every single event needs it, otherwise its just meaningless.
Outside of the participants on Australia Left Politics, comments on facebook raise the question on whether critics have the knowledge to comment authentically:
“Do these people making claims that these ceremonies are fake and never existed have any formal training in ethnography or Aboriginal culture?
Most I see online can hardly spell and are more motivated by hate and jealousy than anything approaching.”
Emmanuela Prigioni
I would ask those who make these claims what their positionality is for starters, and see whether they are placed to make that claim to begin with. I would also denounce any critique that is done egotistically and in a non trauma-informed way. It is essential for anyone who engages in real research to ask themselves how their research will affect vulnerable, already traumatised, oppressed people and how it might be another case of colonial, oppressive investigation that could trigger further trauma in people who are already struggling unfairly.
The Australian left has a history of supporting Aboriginal rights. Let’s make a brief side trip into this before returning to the question of the ceremonies recognising Aboriginal occupation of the continent.
Left-wing support for Aboriginal rights
The left in Australia has traditionally supported Aboriginal people in their struggle to improve their living conditions, health, education and status in society. This stems way back into the history of the Australian left to the days when the Communist Party Australia (CPA) was the only political formation to the left of the social democrats, the Australian Labor Party. Historically, the CPA supported Aboriginal causes and played a role in advocating for Indigenous rights through involvement in the Aboriginal land rights campaign supporting the reclaimation of traditional lands by Indigenous communities. The Party participated in demonstrations around the injustices faced by Aboriginal peoples.
The Aboriginal land rights movement in Australia began in 1963 when the Australian government took around 780 square kilometres of land from the Gurindji people, without compensation. This sparked the start of modern-day advocacy for Aboriginal land rights. The Gurindji people protested against the loss of their land and in doing so garnered support from non-Aboriginal citizens. Things developed from there:
- 1967: A referendum amended the Constitution to include Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and allow the federal government to make laws for them
- 1976: The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act was enacted, allowing Aboriginal people to claim land in the Northern Territory where they could prove traditional ownership — the first legislation in Australia to legally recognise Aboriginal land rights
- 1982: The Aboriginal Land Rights Act was amended to expand the rights of Aboriginal people to claim land
- 1992: The Mabo decision by the High Court of Australia recognised the concept of native title, which further affirmed the rights of Indigenous Australians to their traditional lands
- 1975: Australian Labor Party leader and prime minister, Gough Whitlam, ceremoniously handed over Uluru to local Indigenous people with an iconic moment when he poured a handful of red soil into the hand of Gurindji leader Vincent Lingiari.
While the CPA might have been the first of the political organisations to the left of the Australian Labor Party to become involved in Aboriginal politics, the New Left of late-1960s Australia played a supportive role. The socially diffuse movement opposed the Stalisist trend of the CPA and framed their support in terms of their agenda of social justice and anti-colonialism. The broad make-up of the New Left opened support for Aboriginal rights to broader social involvement.
A question for local governments
Several local governments in Australia have considered abolishing Welcome to Country and smoking ceremonies because of some of the above points.
“It makes no sense to continue with an indigenous policy that only represents roughly 0.63 per cent of the 240,000 residents that reside in the Cumberland City Council Local Government area,” Cumberland City Councillor, Steve Christou, told NCA Newswire. He said the ceremonies do not represent the people of his electorate because of its small Indigenous population. Similar moves by local governments have been reported in Western Australia.
The National Indigenous Times reported that Shire of Harvey councillor, Craig Carbone, last year told The West Australian that: “I think everyone has had enough. It’s at every footy game, school event, or concert. There’s a time and place for these things.”
What does it mean?
The concerns and objections to the use of the Aboriginal smoking ceremony, the Welcome to Country and the Acknowledgement at events, meetings and other instances has seen their weaponisation in the culture wars, especially following the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum of October 2023.
Yet, the ceremonies are seen as meaningful by many, as a way of recognising prior occupation of the land and as an act of reconciliation for past and present-day injustices. They are a recognition of those things but they are no guarantee that the organisations or individuals making them will go on to do anything positive to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. This is what those saying that the ceremonies are performative activism and virtue signalling are talking about. I think there is truth in the allegation that reciting an Acknowledgment at perfunctory official events and meetings will diminish its intent and meaning for many people — that it is just something to get out of the way before the meeting starts.
What will be the future of the ceremonies? My guess? They will continue but may become further politicised when indigenous issues arise. While there appears to be no concerted effort to end their use at local government meetings and events, I think it likely that some councils will drop them, at least from perfunctory meetings and events if not from all.
The greater risk lies in some on the rightwing side of Australian politics campaigning against the ceremonies to leverage their agenda. We saw this during the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum when the right created fear in the Australian community over issues that would not have come about had the referendum succeeded. Creating a moral panic is a proven way to stop something and is usually based on disinformation. Our politicians are adept at it.
Postscript…
February 2025
Individuals engaged in news and current affairs journalism are aware that in discussions surrounding contentious topics such as Aboriginal politics there is a tendency for individuals to divert the conversation away from the issues to engage in ad hominem (Dictionary: a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion, often using a totally irrelevant, usually fallacious but often highly charged attribute of the opponent’s character or background) attacks on the writer. This tactic is often employed as a means of discrediting the writer.
This occurred when I shared a link to this story on my facebook page. A self-described “permaculture designer and teacher, soil health consultant, and Farm it Forward coordinator” inquired about my right to comment on an ongoing and politicised public conversation with bearing beyond Aboriginal communities. She posed the question, “Does the world truly need another white privileged man to contribute to this topic?” The ethnicity and gender labels in this comment are loaded words these days that are used to position perceptions about people. It is noteworthy that on her facebook she appears to be a white woman with financial and social privileges, including land ownership in a mainland state.
The ad hominem attack suggested that my story was primarily driven by ego rather than attempting to clarify the issue. She asserted, “Cease contributing in order to gratify your ego and contribute when your contribution does not give voice to or amplify harm.” This personalisation of her criticism continued the attempt to discredit the writer and tell me when I can comment and when not, which is just a little presumptive.
The underlying assumption that writing about controversial topics and reporting criticisms causes harm, rather than clarifying the writer’s position and that of those who oppose them, implies that we might be better served by refraining from discussing controversial issues altogether. Such an approach would effectively allow the criticisms to continue unopposed.
She then questioned my democratic right to write and comment on public issues, stating, “Cease seeking to ‘enlighten’ us with your pervasive perspective and engage in a more profound listening to those vulnerable individuals being investigated for change.”
The underlying assumption here is that I have never listened to her “vulnerable people.” Rather than interpreting my story as a commentary on public attitudes towards the validity of the Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country ceremonies, their politicisation, effectiveness, and their place in Australian culture, the writer adopts a self-righteous stance and employs language commonly associated with tertiary-educated, left-leaning individuals of European descent. Sure, that is typecasting, however there is validity in the implied meanings behind the commentator’s language. While the use of loaded terminology has value in positioning people socially, politically and culturally, at the same time it puts off a lot of people with whom communication channels could be opened where different, more common and less socially charged phrasing to be adopted.
I have no objection to her empathy for the plight of Australian Aboriginal people and I believe that articles like mine keep the conversation going and doing that might, at some time, benefit Aboriginal people. My attitude is that as an Australian citizen of European descent I have as much right as anybody else to comment on public affairs as a means of working out how we can all live together on this continent.
It is my observation that a great many Australians want to see improvements in Aboriginal health and other areas but they are at a loss as to what they can do. It’s likely that they do not know any Aboriginal people and they may feel intimidated to approach them thanks to the controversy around the politics of Aboriginality. Perhaps they support the Acknowledgement and Welcome ceremonies because participating in them is all that they believe they can do.
What I observe is how my critic’s response aligns with similar sentiments expressed by individuals within the permaculture community, with which she identifies. It is undeniable that permaculture encompasses a diverse range of political attitudes and beliefs, ranging from the left to the conspiracy theory-oriented right. Consequently, any comments about social issues or politics can elicit strongly worded responses, as exemplified in this instance.
The permaculture movement predominantly comprises middle-class individuals, and verbal support for improving the situation of Aboriginal people is prevalent among this demographic. This social class background is what I perceive as the source of my critic’s comments.
