Aboriginal anti-hero

Not bad for a white fella? I got a "Distinction" on my Contemporary Indigenous Health and Wellbeing essay. But there is something that was never quite explained in the class. "WARNING: use caution viewing this film, as it may contain images or voices of dead persons."

I asked. I got an answer: the deceased needs to get on with their journey. When you use their name, you are calling them back. It is a sign of respect to not call them back and disturb their spirit by using their name.

Yet a big part of the class was learning about - "naming", if you will, deceased Aboriginal "heroes". In my mind, I developed an elaborate mental construct of a culture that didn't have heroes. What is a hero after all? It's making someone larger than human; it's the pinnacle of a hierarchical society - becoming a hero. In the hero culture, notable historical figures are no longer human, but shining, flawless creatures. I imagined a culture where there were no heroes, no hierarchy; only humans, with the elders representing the cultural wisdom - as humans, not heroes. And I imagined that the class needed to name Aboriginal "heroes" because white people needed the "hero version" to respect Aboriginal culture; they couldn't just respect people for being people. I imagined a culture where no matter how impressive or large someone was in life, once dead, they pass into the realm of The Dreaming, and the dreaming is everyone and everything; not just reserved for heroes. History books are filled with heroes; The Dreaming is the reflective moment in everyone's mind.

I imagined the strange irony of white culture posting images of Aboriginal "heroes" everywhere, as an attempt to generate respect, but at the same time, disrespecting by calling the deceased back from their journey.

It turns out my imagined culture was not quite right. I consulted with the spirits of my culture - Wikipedia - and they told me that after a couple of years, you can name the deceased. That the restriction on naming is not just about calling the deceased back from their journey, but it's also about the pain of the living, and to help the living get on with their journey out of sorry business. After a few years, the pain is not as intense, and the deceased are settled in The Dreaming, and the cycle goes on.

Is that right? Is the Bible right? Everybody's got their own interpretation and there are countless branches of religion. Hey, Wikipedia also says in Aboriginal culture, I don't have to talk to my mother-in-law?!