DOCSLIB.ORG

Testing the Bomb: Maralinga and Australian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Testing the Bomb: Maralinga and Australian BLACK MIST BURNT COUNTRY Testing The Bomb: Maralinga and Australian Art AN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE FOR YEARS 9–12 BLACK MIST BURNT COUNTRY Testing The Bomb: Maralinga and Australian Art AN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE FOR YEARS 9–12 “We seen this smoke…it was black, greasy, sort of shiny…it was rolling up to us through the mulga. We thought it was a mamu, a devil spirit. The old people got their woomeras to wave it away, but it was a very strong mamu.” Yami Lester – Yankunytjatjara man and victim of the Emu Fields atomic tests in 1953. The Black Mist Burnt Country Timeline of Nuclear Testing in Australia 2 exhibition explores the British The Development of the A-Bomb 4 atomic testing that occurred at the Monte Bello Islands (WA), Emu Field The Bombing of Hiroshima 8 (SA) and Maralinga (SA) between 1952 and 1963, and reflects British Tests in Australia 13 on the subsequent human and environmental impact of the tests. Maralinga: Ground Zero 16 Indigenous Culture and Land Rights 20 Each chapter of the Black Mist Burnt Country story is linked to a Impact on Country and Environment 24 key artwork. When you see this symbol, stop in front of the relevant The Clean Up 27 piece and complete the analysis task. Victims and Survivors 30 ‘Ban the Bomb’: The Australian Anti-Nuclear 33 Movement Australia’s Nuclear Future? 36 Timeline of Nuclear Testing in Australia September 1942 to undertake atomic weapons tests. The general US General Leslie Groves assigned to command public is largely unaware of the nature and risks of secret Manhattan Project. Groves hires Robert testing program. Oppenheimer to run the scientific development of the atom bomb. The project eventually employs October 1952 130,000 people First UK atomic test in Australia, codenamed Hurricane. Bomb is exploded inside the hull of 6 August 1945 frigate HMS Plym, which is mostly vapourised in the Enola Gay drops Little Boy. 70,000 are killed blast. William Penney supervises test. immediately. October 1953 9 August 1945 Totem 1 and Totem 2 atomic tests at Emu Field Bockscar on mission to drop plutonium bomb Fat (SA).‘Black mist’ incident affects the health of Man. Smoke from fire-bombing prevents targeting Aboriginal people in the area. of Kokura. Bockscar is diverted to Nagasaki but misses target. 40,000 die instantly. May 1955 British and Australian governments announce January 1946 permanent test site at Maralinga, South Australia. UN Assembly calls for the elimination of atomic weapons. May–June 1956 Operation Mosaic: UK conducts conducts two September 1950 atomic weapon tests at the Monte Bello Islands, Australian PM Robert Menzies receives request the second of which (G2) spreads fallout across from British PM Clement Attlee to test atomic mainland Australia.” Australian Labor Party weapons in Australia. Menzies agrees. withdraws political support for the British tests in the wake of Mosaic G2 test. March 1951 British seek to use Monte Bello Islands (WA) for tests. September–October 1956 Four atomic devices are trialed at Maralinga 1952 codenamed Operation Buffalo. Himsworth and Ooldea Aboriginal Reserve closed to move people Bronk reports on hazards of radioactive fallout and away from weapons tests. Anangu Pitjantjatjarra strontium-90. are displaced and re-settled at Yalata on the Great Australian Bight. May 1957 The Milpuddie family incident. Artists demand June 1952 immediate end of nuclear tests from Liberal government passes Defence (Special Australian government Signatories include Dargie, Undertakings) Act, which allows the British Waller, Counihan, Howley, French, Perceval and Government access to remote parts of Australia Blackman. with the track Maralinga reaches top of Australian September 1957 charts. Britain commences Operation Antler, which includes April 1983 three precursory tests for British hydrogen bombs. Palm Sunday rallies call for the end of the arms race. More than 150,000 protest in Australian January 1958 major cities. Australia’s first nuclear reactor goes critical in Lucas Heights, south of Sydney, which is built for May 1984 research and production of medical radioisotopes. A scientific mission to Maralinga exposes a hitherto unknown distribution of plutonium contamination April 1963 at Maralinga. Britain concludes ‘minor’ trials program at Maralinga ibefore Test Ban Treaty comes into 1984 place. The South Australian Government passes Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act, which grants traditional 1964 owners freehold title to an area of 81,000 sqkm. Partial cleanup of Emu Field and Maralinga commences. August 1984 Royal Commission into British Nuclear Tests 1965 established. PM Menzies commissions report into a possibility of a nuclear weapons program in Australia. November 1985 Royal Commission hands its findings to the Federal May 1967 Government, including recommendations amounting PM Harold Holt commissions study to assess the to compensation for victims (servicemen, Aboriginal possibility of domestic manufacture of nuclear people and civilians) and full clean-up of test sites. weapons. 1990 August 1967 Lin Onus creates sculpture Maralinga, the first Britain completes clean-up operation at Maralinga, artwork by an Indigenous artist inspired by the Operation Brumby, and vacates the site. nuclear tests in Australia 1967 1993 A Federal referendum on allowing the UK government agrees to pay £20m on an ex Commonwealth to make laws in respect of gratia basis towards the cost of the Maralinga site Indigenous people, and for Indigenous people to rehabilitation. be counted in the Census, receives overwhelming support. July 1996 Soil excavation starts at Maralinga’s Taranaki site. 1968 Pearce Report reveals that 20kg of highly toxic March 2000 plutonium are buried at Maralinga’s Taranaki site. Maralinga Rehabilitation Project declared Most of the plutonium is later found to be scattered completed which Science Minister Nick Minchin around the site. declares as “world’s best practice” and announces the site “clean and safe”. December 1976 Avon Hudson, RAAF veteran, reveals on TV that 2009 he had “helped bury 26 boxes of radioactive Section 400 at Maralinga is handed back to plutonium waste at Maralinga under just three traditional owners encompassing 3000 sq km, metres of sand”. including the ‘forward area’ where seven nuclear devices were exploded and almost 600 so-called June 1978 ‘minor tests’ were conducted. Australia joins UN Committee on Disarmament. November 2014 May 1980 Maralinga-Tjarutja people receive unrestricted The Advertiser in Adelaide runs a story about Yami access to Maralinga. The site was limited because Lester. it was part of the Woomera restricted area. 1982 January 2016 Midnight Oil album 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists leave Doomsday 4 Development of the Atomic How an Atomic Bomb Bomb Works The atomic bomb or A-bomb was developed by a group of international scientists during World War II as part of a top-secret American weapons program called the Manhattan Project. The project was led by Lieutenant General Leslie Groves of the United States Army and physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. By 1945, the Manhattan Project had become the first program to successfully develop a nuclear weapon. Atomic bombs were designed to wipe out large areas when dropped from a single aircraft. Their destructive nature had many effects on humans and the environment. The initial blast killed victims instantly, flattened buildings and incinerated all combustible materials. 5 Manhattan Project scientists, 1940 The physical impact of exposure to term impacts affected generations, as radiation included nausea, vomiting, victims exposed to the blast died slowly headaches, fatigue, fever and a red skin and horribly from radiation sickness, rash. The lands became contaminated and often their children developed with radioactive material that worked cancer. In many ways, the A-bomb was a its way into the ecosystem. The long- devastatingly perfect weapon. How an Atomic Bomb Works 6 7 Stop, See, Interpret, Share Hilda Moodoo (Pitjantjatjara, b.1952) Maralinga Bomb 2009 acrylic on canvas 40 x 50 cm Produced for Maralinga, The Anangu Story by Yalata and Oak Valley Communities with Christobel Mattingley, first published by Allen & Unwin in 2009. © Maralinga Tjarutja Inc. representing the Oak Valley and Yalata Communities, 2009 View the artworks in the exhibition and respond to the questions below. 1. How many times is the symbol of the mushroom cloud used in the exhibition? 2. Why do you think so many of the artists have included a mushroom cloud? 3. Which artwork in the exhibition uses the mushroom cloud to the best effect? Explain your answer. 4. What other symbols or images occur often in the exhibition? 8 The Bombing of Hiroshima After the successful development of the the pilot, Colonel Paul Tibbets. While atomic bomb and a test-firing in New the US government justified its decision Mexico the United States government to drop the bomb by claiming that the authorised the dropping of an atomic action shortened World War II, it remains bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in the closing a contentious historical issue. months of World War II. Eyewitnesses recalled that the impact of On 6 August 1945, at 8.15am, the Enola the bomb was accompanied by a blinding Gay, a B29 Superfortress bomber, flash and a loud boom. ‘Little Boy’ missed dropped an atomic bomb (named ‘Little its planned target of the Aioi Bridge, Boy’) on Hiroshima with devastating but instead detonated over the Shima consequences. The aircraft was named Surgical Clinic. after Enola Gay Tibbets, the mother of General panoramic view of Hiroshima after the bomb. Official U.S. Army photo. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, LC-USZ62-134192. 9 “Many people on the street were killed almost instantly. The fingertips of those dead bodies caught fire and the fire gradually spread over their entire bodies from their fingers. A light gray liquid dripped down their hands, scorching their fingers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization
    Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, May 1988 Seattle University, Seattle, WA Master of Science in Technical Management, May 1997 The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Master of Arts in International Science and Technology Policy, May 2009 The George Washington University, Washington, DC A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 10, 2020 Dissertation directed by Kathryn Newcomer Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration The Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University certifies that Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy as of November 26, 2019. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation. Developing an Intergovernmental Nuclear Regulatory Organization: Lessons Learned from the International Civil Aviation Organization, the International Maritime Organization, and the International Telecommunication Union Clarence Eugene Carpenter, Jr. Dissertation Research Committee: Kathryn Newcomer, Professor of Public Policy and Public Administration, Dissertation Director Philippe Bardet, Assistant Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • Grappling with the Bomb: Britain's Pacific H-Bomb Tests
    Timeline and glossary Nuclear timeline, 1945–1963 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, United States conducts first-ever nuclear New Mexico, USA test, codenamed ‘Trinity .’ 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan US aircraft Enola Gay drops the atomic weapon ‘Little Boy’ on Hiroshima, killing 80,000 people immediately and an estimated 100,000 people within six months . 9 August 1945 Nagasaki, Japan US aircraft Bockscar drops the atomic weapon ‘Fat Man’ on Nagasaki, killing 70,000 people immediately and tens of thousands in following months . 30 June 1946 Bikini Atoll, Marshall Under Operation Crossroads, United Islands States conducts the first of two atomic tests at Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands. ‘Able’ and ‘Baker’ are the first of 67 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands between 1946–1958 . 6 August 1948 Hiroshima, Japan Hiroshima’s first Peace Festival. 29 August 1949 Semipalatinsk, USSR conducts first atomic test Kazakhstan RDS-1 in Operation Pervaya molniya (Fast lightning), dubbed ‘Joe-1’ by United States . 1950–1954 Korean peninsula United States, Britain and Australia, under a United Nations mandate, join military operations in Korea following clashes between forces from the south and north of Korea. The Democratic People’s Republic is backed by the newly created People’s Republic of China . 3 October 1952 Monte Bello Islands, Under Operation Hurricane, United Western Australia Kingdom begins its nuclear testing program in Australia with a 25 kiloton atomic test . xi GRAPPLING WITH THE BOMB 1 November 1952 Bikini Atoll, Marshall United States conducts its first Islands hydrogen bomb test, codenamed ‘Mike’ (10 .4 megatons) as part of Operation Ivy .
    [Show full text]
  • National Trachoma Surveillance and Reporting Unit Trachoma Surveillance Report 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    NATIONAL TRACHOMA SURVEILLANCE AND REPORTING UNIT TRACHOMA SURVEILLANCE REPORT 2008 AUGUST 2009 Prepared by Ms Betty Tellis Ms Kathy Fotis Mr Ross Dunn Professor Jill Keeffe Professor Hugh Taylor Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne National Trachoma Surveillance and Reporting Unit Trachoma Surveillance Report 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The National Trachoma Surveillance and Reporting Unit’s third Surveillance Report 2008 was compiled using data collected and/or reported by the following organisations and departments. STATE AND TERRITORY CONTRIBUTIONS NORTHERN TERRITORY • Australian Government Emergency Intervention (AGEI) • Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHS) • Centre for Disease Control, Northern Territory Department of Health and Families, Northern Territory • Healthy School Age Kids (HSAK) program: Top End • HSAK: Central Australia SOUTH AUSTRALIA • Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia, Eye Health and Chronic Disease Specialist Support Program (EH&CDSSP) • Country Health South Australia • Ceduna/Koonibba Health Service • Nganampa Health Council • Oak Valley (Maralinga Tjarutja) Health Service • Pika Wiya Health Service • Tullawon Health Service • Umoona Tjutagku Health Service WESTERN AUSTRALIA • Communicable Diseases Control Directorate, Department of Health, Western Australia • Population Health Units and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services staff in the Goldfields, Kimberley, Midwest and Pilbara regions OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE • Institute of Medical Veterinary
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Design Issuesceduna Aboriginal Children and Family
    INDIGENOUS DESIGN ISSUES: CEDUNA ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND FAMILY CENTRE ___________________________________________________________________________________ 1 INDIGENOUS DESIGN ISSUES: CEDUNA ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND FAMILY CENTRE ___________________________________________________________________________________ 2 INDIGENOUS DESIGN ISSUES: CEDUNA ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND FAMILY CENTRE ___________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWELDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ 5 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5 PART 1: PRECEDENTS AND “BEST PRACTICE„ DESIGN ....................................................10 The Design of Early Learning, Child-care and Children and Family Centres for Aboriginal People ..................................................................................................................................10 Conceptions of Quality ........................................................................................................ 10 Precedents: Pre-Schools, Kindergartens, Child and Family Centres ..................................12 Kulai Aboriginal Preschool .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • (G-FLOWS) Task 6: Groundwater Recharge
    Facilitating Long Term Out‐Back Water Solutions (G‐FLOWS) Task 6: Groundwater recharge characteristics across key priority areas Leaney, FW, Taylor, AR, Jolly, ID and Davies PJ Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 13/6 www.goyderinstitute.org Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series ISSN: 1839‐2725 The Goyder Institute for Water Research is a partnership between the South Australian Government through the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, CSIRO, Flinders University, the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia. The Institute will enhance the South Australian Government’s capacity to develop and deliver science‐based policy solutions in water management. It brings together the best scientists and researchers across Australia to provide expert and independent scientific advice to inform good government water policy and identify future threats and opportunities to water security. Enquires should be addressed to: Goyder Institute for Water Research Level 1, Torrens Building 220 Victoria Square, Adelaide, SA, 5000 tel: 08‐8303 8952 e‐mail: [email protected] Citation Leaney, FW, Taylor, AR, Jolly, ID, and Davies PJ, 2013, Facilitating Long Term Out‐Back Water Solutions (G‐FLOWS) Task 6: Groundwater recharge characteristics across key priority areas, Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical Report Series No. 13/6, Adelaide, South Australia Copyright © 2013 CSIRO To the extent permitted by law, all rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means except with the written permission of CSIRO. Disclaimer The Participants advise that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research and does not warrant or represent the completeness of any information or material in this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • A Collaborative History of Social Innovation in South Australia
    Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies University of South Australia St Bernards Road Magill South Australia 5072 Australia www.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute © Rob Manwaring and University of South Australia 2008 A COLLABORATIVE HISTORY OF SOCIAL INNOVATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Rob Manwaring∗ Abstract In this paper I outline a collaborative history of social innovation in South Australia, a state that has a striking record of social innovation. What makes this history so intriguing is that on the face of it, South Australia would seem an unlikely location for such experimentation. This paper outlines the main periods of innovation. Appended to it is the first attempt to collate all these social innovations in one document. This paper is unique in that its account of the history of social innovation has been derived after public consultation in South Australia, and is a key output from Geoff Mulgan’s role as an Adelaide Thinker in Residence.1 The paper analyses why, at times, South Australia appears to have punched above its weight as a leader in social innovation. Drawing on Giddens’ ‘structuration’ model, the paper uses South Australian history as a case study to determine how far structure and/or agency can explain the main periods of social innovation. Introduction South Australia has a great and rich (albeit uneven) history of social innovation, and has at times punched above its weight. What makes this history so intriguing is that on the face of it, South Australia is quite an unlikely place for such innovation. South Australia is a relatively new entity; it has a relatively small but highly urbanised population, and is geographically isolated from other Australian urban centres and other developed nations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of Reducing the Threat Posed by Nations Possessing
    Mesaieed International School Model United Nations Forum: General Assembly 1 Issue: The Question of reducing threat posed by nations possessing nuclear Weapons. Student Officer: Subhan Khan Position: Deputy Chair Introduction The issue of nuclear weapons has been an ever-present issue within the world and was the first issue adopted by the UN (United Nations) in 1946. Nuclear armaments when detonated have devastating effects both environmentally and socio-economically via the fallout that it left behind from the bomb exploded. Many nations throughout the world are working to combat the issue, and the dismantling of all these weapons would be the perfect solution to all these issues, but this would be very difficult to do. Over 14,900 reported missiles remain on the Earth, and the decommissioning of all these weapons would be a feat for the human race. There is also the issue that nuclear weapons provide a sense of security and defence to a nation as they can pose a severe threat to any potential adversaries looking to harm a country. The decommissioning of nuclear weapons is an effort to preserve peace in the world and eradicate further complications that are to arise due to the threat of atomic weapons. Nations such as the US (United States) and formally the Soviet Union are unwilling to decommission their nuclear arsenals due to the risk of an attack that may occur at any point with the invention of ICBM’s (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles). Definition of Key Terms WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) Regarded as a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapon that is capable of causing great damage to humans, infrastructure and biological systems in the vicinity of its deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • Coober Pedy, South Australia
    The etymology of Coober Pedy, South Australia Petter Naessan The aim of this paper is to outline and assess the diverging etymologies of ‘Coober Pedy’ in northern South Australia, in the search for original and post-contact local Indigenous significance associated with the name and the region. At the interface of contemporary Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara opinion (mainly in the Coober Pedy region, where I have conducted fieldwork since 1999) and other sources, an interesting picture emerges: in the current use by Yankunytjatjara and Pitjantjatjara people as well as non-Indigenous people in Coober Pedy, the name ‘Coober Pedy’ – as ‘white man’s hole (in the ground)’ – does not seem to reflect or point toward a pre-contact Indigenous presence. Coober Pedy is an opal mining and tourist town with a total population of about 3500, situated near the Stuart Highway, about 850 kilometres north of Adelaide, South Australia. Coober Pedy is close to the Stuart Range, lies within the Arckaringa Basin and is near the border of the Great Victoria Desert. Low spinifex grasslands amounts for most of the sparse vegetation. The Coober Pedy and Oodnadatta region is characterised by dwarf shrubland and tussock grassland. Further north and northwest, low open shrub savanna and open shrub woodland dominates.1 Coober Pedy and surrounding regions are arid and exhibit very unpredictable rainfall. Much of the economic activity in the region (as well as the initial settlement of Euro-Australian invaders) is directly related to the geology, namely quite large deposits of opal. The area was only settled by non-Indigenous people after 1915 when opal was uncovered but traditionally the Indigenous population was western Arabana (Midlaliri).
    [Show full text]
  • A Preliminary Study of Pitch and Rhythm in Pitjantjatjara
    A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF PITCH AND RHYTHM IN PITJANTJATJARA. Marija Tabain (La Trobe University, Melbourne), Janet Fletcher (University of Melbourne), Christian Heinrich (Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich) Pitjantjatjara is a dialect of the greater Western Desert language, spoken mainly in the north-west of South Australia, but extending north into the Northern Territory, and west into Western Australia (Douglas 1964). Like most Australian languages, Pitjantjatjara has been analysed as a stress language (trochaic); however relatively little is known about the intonational system of this language. We present a preliminary analysis of the prosodic structure of Pitjantjatjara based on three female speakers reading two different texts – the Walpa Ulpariranya munu Tjintunya (South Wind and the Sun) passage, and the Nanikuta (Three Billy Goats) text. Our first result suggests that the shape and temporal alignment of major pitch movements perform a largely demarcative function, aligning with the metrically strong first syllable in a word. There is mixed evidence, however, that strong syllables are longer or have more "peripheral" vowels: differences in strong vs. weak syllable duration are text- dependent, while the formant patterns for the three vowel phonemes /i, a, u/ suggest subtle formant differences, rather than categorical changes in vowel quality, according to strong vs. weak syllable. We also consider the traditional rhythm metrics (e.g. vocalic nPVI and intervocalic rPVI). These suggest that Pitjantjatjara is a stress-based language. However, as noted above, Pitjantjatjara does not have vowel reduction in weak syllables, and in addition, it has a predominantly CV syllable structure. Moreover, Australian languages such as Pitjantjatjara have a high proportion of sonorants in their phoneme inventory (Butcher 2006), and despite the mainly CV syllable structure, sonorant coda consonants are possible and not infrequent.
    [Show full text]
  • Grievability and Nuclear Memory | 379
    Grievability and Nuclear Memory | 379 Grievability and Nuclear Memory Jessie Boylan Nuclear Wounds Without grievability, there is no life, or, rather, there is something living that is other than life. Instead, “there is a life that will never have been lived,” sustained by no regard, no testimony, and ungrieved when lost. The apprehension of grievability precedes and makes possible the apprehension of precarious life. —Judith Butler, Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? (2009) ince 1945, nuclear weapons have been tested on all continents except for South America and Antarctica. Although “it is the nature of bombing to Sbe indiscriminate,”1 Aboriginal, Indigenous, and First Nations people have been the disproportionate victims of these weapons. They also continue to face nuclear waste dumps, uranium mines, and other nuclear projects on their land. This radioactive colonialism ensures that violence persists and is etched into the knowledge of people, place, and country, and that the single “event” of a nuclear detonation is far from over. Official records provide ample evidence to document how state policies, practices, and attitudes marked Aboriginal people as not fully human. For example, the Maralinga nuclear test site in Australia was “chosen on the false assumption that the area was not used by its traditional Aboriginal owners.”2 People living downwind (“downwinders”) of the Nevada Test Site in Utah during the US atomic weapons testing program,3 including First Nations communities, were considered “a low-use segment of the population.”4 These racist assumptions and statements, one tiny example from the archive of the nuclear landscape, constructed the people (and the lands they inhabited) as disposable.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming the Kaurna Language: a Long and Lasting Collaboration in an Urban Setting
    Vol. 8 (2014), pp. 409-429 http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/ http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4613 Series: The Role of Linguists in Indigenous Community Language Programs in Australia1 Reclaiming the Kaurna language: a long and lasting collaboration in an urban setting Rob Amery University of Adelaide A long-running collaboration between Kaurna people and linguists in South Australia be- gan in 1989 with a songbook. Following annual community workshops and the estab- lishment of teaching programs, the author embarked on a PhD to research historical sources and an emerging modern language based on these sources. In response to numer- ous requests for names, translations and information, together with Kaurna Elders Lewis O’Brien and Alitya Rigney, the author and others formed Kaurna Warra Pintyandi (KWP) in 2002. It is a monthly forum where researchers, and others interested in Kaurna lan- guage, can meet with Kaurna people to discuss their concerns. KWP, based at the Univer- sity of Adelaide, is not incorporated and attendance of meetings is voluntary. The com- mittee has gained a measure of credibility and respect from the Kaurna community, gov- ernment departments and the public and has recently signed a Memorandum of Under- standing with the University of Adelaide. However, KWP and the author sit, uneasily at times, at the intersection between the University and the community. This paper explores the nature of collaboration between Kaurna people and researchers through KWP in the context of reliance on historical documentation, much of which is open to interpretation. Linguistics provides some of the skills needed for interpretation of source materials.
    [Show full text]