One might be inclined to suggest that Aboriginal writing is the 'new genre,' offering its own syntax, appealing to those who would like to situate the 'Aboriginal book' as the representative of Aboriginality: the written and purely 'factual' notion that 'this is what it means to be home-grown – the Indigenous Other.' However to bracket off Aboriginal writing as a socially-progressive fact is, perhaps, illusory; with Aboriginal writers previously unheard of (and of course representing what was once unmentionable) will we see signs of a cultural, pluralistic buoyancy? The once silenced voices that can now be circulated and 'understood' seem to suggest that white Australia has relaxed its position, welcoming among its literary ranks those with something important to say. To suggest, however, that Aboriginality in print form can only be good is an innocent mistake. For all that is seen as a contemporary license to express one's cultural and personal 'take' on what being Aboriginal means by way of the text, is merely confirmation of mainstream Australia's white refusal to meet Aboriginality on its own terms – that is, 'understanding' of cultural pluralism cannot be published. And certainly not when the Aboriginal text is an artifice that had to be pushed into the Australian social contract, whereby (Aboriginal) tradition is and must be, neglected in order to ask for understanding. The Aboriginal text, therefore (regardless of its move toward Western aesthetic qualities), must be seen as a political gesture first, a hybrid second, and then anecdotal evidence, pure, of further oppression dressed up as a means to 'equality,' 'justice,' 'true expression,' and for the white-reading-public: something 'stylish.'
             As Robert Ariss points out, the construction of an Aboriginal discourse was never something that white Australia was quick to promote, rather, '...the intervention of Aborigines has been an essential force...1' Such a blata...