Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Indigenous people of australia
Restorative justice for indigenous people
Indigenous people of australia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Indigenous people of australia
Collective Identity is an individual or groups set beliefs and rituals that make up there own personal identity. It is how one can belong or feel accepted by a group or create how a person is. Indigenous people here in Australia are an example of a very strong version of collective identity. Indigenous people belong to tribes or clans, and all the separate clans have different collective identities but they are all similar in some ways. An indigenous clan that you are apart of determines on where you are born and also your language group. There are many different things that make up the aboriginal identity one of the main thing being the Dreaming, which is the creation story of the aboriginals. The originally known as the Dream Time is the …show more content…
It said that aboriginal people should be treated equally with land rights, as indigenous Australians were the first on our land that we are on today. This challenged many different previous Australian legal statements to do with Aboriginals including one of the main ones being that Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island communities or people owned no land before the arrival of the British in 1788. This statement was called Terra Nullius, which means land belonging to no one. This Native Title Act of 1993 recognized native title and recognizing and that the aboriginal’s community owns the land, as they are the original owners. The Mabo decision was one of Australia’s firsts steps in recovering all the injustices towards the Indigenous people that were happening in the past and giving them back the land they hold so dearly that they own. The Mabo decision contributed to the collective Identity of Indigenous people as is gave back there cultural land and bringing the most major part back to the aboriginal culture which is the land and the connection between them and the land. This Native Title Act of 1993 allowed the aboriginals to enhance there collective identity due to the fact that it was the first time they were positively recognized and the first time they got something back that was once taken from them all making there beliefs, rituals stronger and overall enhancing there collective identity of being aboriginal. Since the Mabo decision there has been many other cases and different changes and different things added to the native title. The Mabo Decision first did the recognition and giving back of the aboriginal land and it was one of the first to recognize that the land title was wrong and that it did belong to the
From an early age, Mabo was taught about his family’s land. In 1959 he moved to Townsville and settled down with his wife and children. He started becoming more involved in the community around Townsville, becoming an activist in the 1967 Referendum campaign, helping to found the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Service and co-founding and directing Townsville’s black community school. Mabo’s motivation towards land rights didn’t start until 1974, when he was working as a gardener at James Cook University. Two historians, Noel Loos and Henry Reynolds recall a
Jeff Lambert’s thesis suggests “the proclamation delivered an injustice to the Aboriginal nation that took over 200 years to legally reject Terra Nullius, albeit under certain conditions” (Lambert 2012. pg15). Lambert explains the stages before and after the Proclamation 1835 formed also noting a statement by Joseph Bank “Sir Joseph Banks’ prediction that no Aborigines would be found in the interior of the continent, because they only lived on fish and shellfish, but rather a few nomadic peoples along the coast line, may have influenced the British government’s decision to declare Terra Nullius” (Lambert 2012. pg15). The statement is discussed in and evidenced with a map. Jeff Lambert also explains the European attitudes towards Aboriginal and Torres islander sovereignty. Jeff Lambert states Europeans perceived Torres Islanders and Aboriginals as ‘inferior’ (Lambert 2012. pg.12). Lambert (2012. pg13) suggests that “There were some who asserted that terra nullius implied that unoccupied land was not the only meaning of the phrase and that it could also be interpreted as an absence of civilised society.”. The principle of terra nullius means no-man’s land, therefore after the Governor Bourke Proclamation Aboriginals had no legal ownership of land. According to Lambert (2012. pg13) Torres Islanders and Aboriginals ownership of
The first is Paul Keating’s Redfern speech of December 1992, during the Mabo case. Keating spoke about the injustices committed against Indigenous people since European settlement of Australia and the need to acknowledge and remedy these. The conflicting source is an interview of John Howard on the 7.30 report in 1997, 4 years after the Mabo decision. Howard deals with the perceived implications of the Mabo and subsequent land title decisions for land ownership across Australia. The two sources conflict as they are taken from opposing parts of the mainstream Australian political spectrum. They reflect the so-called History Wars, a debate regarding the unresolved cultural struggle over the nature of the Indigenous dispossession and the place it should assume in Australian self-understanding. The Redfern Speech sets out the views of the left wing, progressive spectrum of Australian political views. John Howard’s interview sets out the arguments against the political and economic effects of the Mabo decision and subsequent land title decisions and largely reflects right-wing political views. The sources differ not only in their political views but also the time that they were given. Keating sets out his moral perspective regarding the need to rectify the past wrongs and improve the future prospects for Australian indigenous people. It was delivered before the final Mabo high court decision, and so cannot deal with the social, economic and political implications of said decision. Contrastingly, John Howards interview was 4 years after the Mabo decision, during which several subsequent land title decisions had been made. Consequently, his interview focused on his views of the implications of those subsequent events for Australia’s political, social and economic
Throughout Australian history, there have been men and women who fought for the entitlements of the indigenous people. The most respected and recognised of these is Eddie Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander. Mabo stood up for the rights of his people from a very young age all the way to his death, in order to generate changes in the policies and laws of the government. Mabo battled for his right to own the land which he had inherited from his adoptive father, a fight which was resolved only after his demise. Despite this, Eddie Mabo became one of the key influential figures in the Aboriginal rights movement, as his strong will, determination, and intelligence allowed him to bring about change.
The laws regarding native title have continually been questioned about its legitimacy in providing justice to Indigenous Australians and their lost land. The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was recently established in response to the Mabo v Queensland case in 1992. Eddie Mabo and four other Torres Strait Islanders went
How can we not own it?’ as a clarification for Mabo when he was deal with the case. After he died the government finally said Merry island is belong to aboriginal people. This is a powerful clue show racialism was a momentous aspect for Mabo fighting for aboriginal people’s rights let everyone turn be
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
The majority decision in the High Court case of Mabo in 1992 found that indigenous relationships to land could be recognised through common law. This was then codified in the Native Title Act in 1993. The Native Title Act adopted much of the same language used in the High Court decision. For example, it defined native title as “rights and interests possessed under the traditional laws acknowledged and the traditional laws observed by the aboriginal peoples”. The result of Mabo and the
The decision of the Mabo case in 1992 resulted in the adoption of the Australian Native Title, which recognises the traditional connection aboriginals have with the land and gives them the right to a say in the development and use of certain sites. There was a great lead up to the establishment of the native title, which began when the Europeans invaded Australia, claiming the land their own through the European law claiming vacant land. Although aboriginals occupied Australia the Europeans claimed the land terra nulius because the people who were there, were considered unhuman and therefore were not actually occupying or living on ... ... middle of paper ... ... toral lease does not necessarily extinguish native title rights, the situation regarding miners and the complexity of the legislation, which causes understanding problems for the indigenous people.
In 1788 when the European settlers “colonised” Australia, the Australian land was known as “terra nullius” which means “land belonging to no-one”. This decision set the stage for the problems and disadvantages faced by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for 216 years. The protection policy was meant to disperse tribes and force Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people off their traditional land so the “white Australian’s” could have more control. The protection policy enforced by the British colonies drove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander onto reserves.
Indigenous Australian land rights have sparked controversy between Non Indigenous and Indigenous Australians throughout history. The struggle to determine who the rightful owners of the land are is still largely controversial throughout Australia today. Indigenous Australian land rights however, go deeper than simply owning the land as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have established an innate spiritual connection making them one with the land. The emphasis of this essay is to determine how Indigenous Australian land rights have impacted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, highlighting land rights regarding the Mabo v. the State of Queensland case and the importance behind today’s teachers understanding and including Indigenous
The High Court did, however, conclude in that case (a conclusion confirmed in WA v Commonwealth, Wororra Peoples v WA and Teddy Biljabu and others v WA, High Court, March 16 1995) that some Aboriginal land law (that which attracted the status of 'native title') survived the colonisation process. What is far less certain is the fate of Aboriginal customary laws that were not concerned with title to land. Did traditional laws on subjects such as family relationships, title to goods, community justice mechanisms, inheritance and criminal law survive c...
Whatever the term deviance creates , in general it is popularly assumed that 'deviants' are individuals who are somehow less capable, less socially responsible, less adjusted, and consequently less useful to society than their more fortunate, upright and 'normal' fellows ( Social Deviance in Australia, p 4). In the case of Aboriginal drinking, alcohol is the main source of criminalisation and incarceration. This public labelling gives the individual an entirely new status- one which tends to dominate the person's self conception. Once this assumes a 'master status' it becomes the major reference for personal identity and relegates all to other 'normal' characteristics to a subsidiary status. This process insures that characteristics such as sexual preference, comes to intrude upon and influence almost their entire existence. Once identified publicly, (homosexuals), the person is treated differently and expected to behave differently (Study guide p18). The creation of deviance according to Merton is seen as the responsibility of society ( or the law abiding and respectable members of society) and of the official agents of social control ( police, magistrates, social workers, teachers, judges, doctors and psychiatrists) ( Social Deviance in Australia p 5). Merton draws attention to the causal significance of social, economic and cultural factors of all kinds in pushing or pulling certain types of individuals into courses of action which involved rule breaking. Interactionists', however, like Becker are primarily concerned with the role social control plays in the social production of deviance, which may take two main forms- rule making and rule enforcing. As Becker (1963:9) writes: 'social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance... and by applying these rules to particular people and labelling them outsiders. While Quinney states that crime is created. He refers to the social definition of deviance, to the fact that the system of government we have created for ourselves was and is constructed by those who have titled authority and power. Control is exerted through a variety of institutions run by and for the elite (Mass media, education, religion). It is those who are in power who define what is seen as deviant behaviour.
The cultural diversity in Australia continues to widen due to net overseas migration. It has been estimated that 24 percent of the Australian population was born overseas (Mortensen, 2010). The small proportion of these migrants are refugees and asylum seekers (Amnesty International Australia, 2014). Most of the refugees have deteriorating health by the time they reach the host country due to various traumatic events experienced by them or relating to poor access to health care in their own country (Russell, 2015 and Pottie et al., 2011). The Australian Psychological Society (2011) has also acknowledged the vulnerability amongst the refugees for mental health disorders (Murray, Davidson, & Schweitzer, 2008). Moreover, their access
First and foremost, culture is a complex whole which includes habit, language, festival, food, values and beliefs etc. The diversity of culture in our world is caused by many factors including the various geographical environment, historical succession, religions, and even political system. It is part of our life in all aspects and during the whole life time. No matter where you go and who you are, you are living under the shadow of culture. As Albert Camus, who was a French philosopher said: without culture, and the relative freedom it implies, society, even when perfect, is but a jungle. This is why authentic creation is a gift to the future. (Kartha, D 2016). We can clearly to know the culture it is really important for us. Referring to