(Re) positioning Indigenous games in HPE: turning to criticality

In 2011, the Australian national curriculum called for the inclusion of Indigenous histories, cultures and perspectives/knowledges, prompting Health and Physical Education (HPE) teachers in schools and academics within higher education have experimented with and reported upon different purposes and ways of teaching Indigenous Games. However, Australian schools remain sites of epistemic injustice, where the privileging of Western knowledges marginalises alternative voices and knowledge systems, maintaining disciplinary terra nullius [terra nullius means ‘empty land’ – it was a legal fiction, overturned by the High Court of Australia in 1992, used by British settler-colonisers to justify the invasion of Australia. In this context, we mean that Physical Education in Australia still assumes erroneously that Western knowledges are the only available knowledges]. Worryingly, experimentation with Indigenous games, by predominantly white educators with minimal understanding of Indigenous histories and cultures, has resulted in confusion and apprehension over their purpose and place in the curriculum, leading toward either omission or cultural appropriation, rather than deep, critical engagement with Indigenous Knowledges. Centring on the publication and implementation of Yulunga: Traditional Indigenous Games [Edwards, K., & Meston, T. (2009). Yulunga: Traditional indigenous games. Ausport. http://www.ausport.gov.au/participating/indigenous/resources/games_and_activities/full_resource], we reappraise the Australian approach toward Indigenous games, suggesting this work has occurred over three distinct time periods or ‘waves’. Conceptualising this work with the heuristic of ‘three waves’ provides a useful contribution to the field, revealing a lack of substantive progress in including Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in HPE. We argue HPE educators and researchers are complicit in the marginalisation and/or omission of Indigenous knowledges and perspectives and must shift current practice toward a ‘fourth wave’ of implementing Indigenous games with criticality. We call for a revisiting of Martin Nakata’s [(2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and information systems. IFLA Journal, 28(5-6), 281–291. https://do.org/10.1177/034003520202800513; Nakata, M. (2007). The cultural interface. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36, 1–7. Nakata, M. (2011). Pathways for Indigenous education in the Australian curriculum framework. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 40(1), 1–8. https://do.org/10.1375/ajie.40.1] theory of the Cultural Interface – a theory of critique of knowledge systems. Nakata [(2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and information systems. IFLA Journal, 28(5-6), 281–291. https://do.org/10.1177/034003520202800513] cautioned that Indigenous knowledges and perspectives cannot be simply dropped into contested knowledge domains. Now more than ever, knowledge of critical frameworks like Nakata’s are required to disrupt the entrenched white disciplinary praxis of Australian HPE.