Slave traders’ names are still stamped on native plants. It’s time to ‘decolonise’ Australia’s public gardens
Like all botanic gardens, the Royal Botanic Garden Sydney is a classic artefact of the activities that took place during the colonisation of Australia in the 18th and 19th century.
It was established to create a patch of landscape that mirrored those found in the United Kingdom, with the aim of “discovering” and documenting the floral biodiversity of New South Wales (in itself a name reflecting the perspective of those holding power).
Of course, this was powered by the economic driver to find plants that held potential for new and existing industries – a scenario that was mirrored across Australia and throughout the world by colonial forces of the time.
As a result, the names of effectively all Australian plants were defined by white – primarily male – botanists, based on the presumption that they were not known by humans prior to their discovery.
Many are named using Latinised terms to describe various features or locations, and a number are named after (usually white male) politicians or patrons.
We are finally becoming more aware that this is a preposterous scenario. My colleague Dr Kevin Thiele recently highlighted the case in which the plant genus Hibbertia is named after George Hibbert, who made his fortune from slave trading.
Aboriginal people have a level of understanding about, and a connection to, the plants in their environment that is detailed and advanced, based on thousands of years of exploration, analysis and observation. Over that period, they have had the opportunity to observe and record how species change in response to the environment, cultural management practices, grazing by herbivores and, through experimentation, how different species could be used for the benefit of their community.
Scientists such as myself still get excited by “discovering” new species – it is something we do each year and a core component of our organisation’s role. We do this mainly because we hope to protect these species more effectively before they are subjected to land clearing or the ravages of climate changeinduced drought or fire and become extinct.
Botanic gardens and museums are rightfully beginning to reflect on this and there is a great deal of commentary on “decolonising” collections across the globe and how this might happen. A starting point is to ensure that the Indigenous perspective on nature, and in our case plants, is a core component of both our displays, plantings and educational programs. We have had very successful Indigenous education programs at the Royal Botanic Garden Sydney for some time. Plant signage is starting to reflect Aboriginal names as well as the Latin version to educate the visitor about how Indigenous people used these plants. But there is still much to do, particularly given that botanic gardens are usually located in places that hold significance to local Aboriginal communities.
Enhancing the involvement of
Aboriginal people in our science programs is much more complex – and is an issue that affects all fields of science. Programs such as Deadly Science, run by Kamilaroi Stem expert Corey Tutt, are doing great things to inspire a love of science from an early age in Indigenous kids and should result in a cohort of scientists in the future.
For now, we need to explore and expand opportunities to increase the involvement and recruitment of Aboriginal
scientists in a meaningful way (and not tokenistic or a tick-the-box exercise) across the whole of the science and research sectors. This is critically important in sciences focused on the natural world as these are the areas likely to have an impact on the care and management of Country into the future and which need the input of Aboriginal people to be appropriate and meaningful.
Additional initiatives could include using names based on Indigenous languages – done in consultation – when describing new species. When working on Country do so in collaboration with the Indigenous community, wherever possible spend time in that community and approach the research in a humble manner without the assumption that “conventional science” knows best. It is also critical to ensure that outputs such as authorship on research papers and reports reflect this collaboration appropriately.
We cannot change the past 250 years of science in Australia or the legacy of approaches that dismissed
Indigenous knowledge and contribution. However, we can adopt a new approach that incorporates this knowledge and perspective in a meaningful manner that can result in a more effective way in which our ecosystems are respected and managed. At the Royal Botanic Garden Sydney we have recently launched our First Nations Engagement Strategy and Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan, which has a strong focus on recognising the connection between the gardens, plants and knowledge, and Aboriginal people.
The critical thing is to take the time to listen, learn, understand and respect – hopefully this will foster the broader community’s understanding of the depth of knowledge about this continent’s wonderful and unique flora that has existed for thousands of years.
• Dr Brett Summerell is chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Botanical Science