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
Eddie Mabo was a recognised Indigenous Australian who fought for his land, Murray Island. Mabo spent a decade seeking official recognition of his people’s ownership of Murray Island (Kwirk, 2012). He became more of an activist, he campaigned for better access for indigenous peoples to legal and medical services, to house, to social services and to education. The Mabo case was a milestone court case which paved the way for fair land rights for indigenous people. The Merriam people wanted to ensure its protection. Eddie Mabo significantly contributed to the civil and land rights of Indigenous people in Australia due to his argument to protect his land rights. In a speech in 1976, at a conference on the redrawing of the Torres Strait border, Mabo articulated a vision for islander self-determination and for an independent Torres Strait Island (Stephson, 2009).
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 Calder Case was the spark that led to the Canadian government recognizing Aboriginals and their rights. Firstly, the aboriginals used the Calder Case to inform the government that they were taking away their rights. The Calder Case was launched after the Attorney General of British Columbia declared “that the Aboriginal Title, other wise known as the Indian Title, of the Plaintiffs to their ancient tribal territory...has never been lawfully extinguished.”1 The statement made by the government claimed that the Aboriginal Title did not exist in the eyes of the law and before the Calder Case, it allowed them to ignore Aboriginal land rights all over the country. In addition, The Calder brought the issues the Aboriginals were facing with land claims to the attention of the Canadian government. “According to Kainai Board of Education The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where the court ended up rejecting the native's claims after being split on it's validity. However, the Supreme Court of Canada's recognition required new respect for Aboriginal land claims.”2 The Supreme Court of Canada's recognition of the Calder Case benefited the Aboriginals as the government was...
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
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 National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
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...
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
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
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
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.
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
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