Silencing Indigenous Voices

I stumbled across an article on the web about Uncle Ron Yunkaporta when he exhibited a couple of years back.

Here's a quote from the start of the article, about Uncle's Law Poles:

"The two Australian cultures represented by the poles and the office towers are estranged by a history shared for over 200 years. The Gallery's soundproof glass walls symbolize, poignantly, the reluctance of a nation to hear its indigenous voices."

That's nice. But the article then goes on to quote some COMALCO big wig for about four pages. (COMALCO is the mining company digging up Uncle Ron's land.)

Uncle doesn't get a word in. Not one single quote or reference beyond the first paragraph. He is used - to provide the exotic art and the presence of a dark skinned man for the COMALCO suits to pose for publicity shots with.

He doesn't even get to explain the significance of his work. That is done for him (in an erroneous and simplistic way) by the European author.

Well, that author got one thing right - Australia is reluctant to hear its Indigenous voices. And he demonstrated that silencing perfectly. Form meets content!

But am I just as bad myself? With my middle-class education and discourse, do I have the right to an Indigenous voice in the public domain, when I may be taking the place of others of my people who are more disadvantaged in "mainstream" society, and who have more status than I in Indigenous society? I myself am just a small boy who knows nothing in my community - but on the web my middle-class discourse gives me a false authority I can't claim to own in my lived reality.

Click here for the article in which I struggle with these dilemmas. Start a discussion on the article page and let me know what you think.

Is it right that my middle-class discourse should give me power that in Indigenous contexts I do not possess? Am I helping, or am I part of the problem, and merely serving to exacerbate the silencing of my countrymen?