Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aboriginal history culture
Aboriginal history and culture
Aboriginal history culture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aboriginal history culture
When anthropologists’ are involved in native title litigations, ambiguities may arise. In native title cases, anthropologists’ give their expert, objective opinion. This opinion helps determine whether a continuing relationship between an Indigenous group and the land exists. Engaged anthropologists apply their methodology to real world situations, such as native title. The Native Title Act passed in 1993, provides a national system which recognises and protects native title. It recognises that some Indigenous people, who show continuity from their traditional laws and customs, have rights to their land. In the efforts of creating social change the goals of the community, anthropologists and legal constraints of The Native Title Act may vary. The Indigenous community’s goal is to prove a relationship to the land. While an anthropologists’ goal is to conduct research on such communities which will support or counteract their claim. In achieving the objectives of these two groups ambiguities may arise. This paper will firstly discuss the controversies and consequences which arise from anthropologists being contracted by a particular. Secondly, issues which arise from the methods involved in anthropological research are discussed. Lastly, the risk of advocacy when presenting anthropological findings is shown.
Differing Roles of Contracted Anthropologists:
The role and position of the anthropologist will change according to whom they are contracted by. The two contractors are the applicants and those contesting or responding to the native title claim. Katie Glaskin (2004) discusses in her article the issues that hiring an anthropological witness can involve. Glaskin (2004) outlines that the role of the anthropologist depends on w...
... middle of paper ...
...002, ‘Preserving Culture in Federal Court Proceedings: Gender Restrictions and Anthropological Experts’ in Land, Rights, Law, Issues of Native Title, Volume 2, Issues Paper No. 15, May 2002. AIATSIS Native Title Research Unit, Canberra.
Morphy, H 2006, ‘The Practice of an Expert: Anthropology in Native Title’, In Anthropological Forum 16(2):135-151.
Robinson, M 2001, Disparate Judicial Approaches to the Production of Anthropological Fieldnotes: Observations on the Daniel and Smith cases. Paper delivered at the conference Expert Evidence in Native Title Court Cases: Issues of Truth, Objectivity and Expertise, Adelaide, 6-7 July 2001.
Trigger, D 2004, ‘Anthropology in Native Title Court Cases: ‘Mere pleading, expert opinion or hearsay’?’, in Crossing boundaries: Cultural, legal, historical and practice issues in native title, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.
In compiling this text, Henderson uses the stories and histories gathered from Mi’kmaq families and elders, blending them with European documentation of the events and peoples discussed which have been critically analyzed us...
The two forms of traditional Aboriginal law were ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ laws. Sacred laws were entrusted to the elders, teaching Aboriginal customs, acceptable behaviour, and adequate use of the land. Secular laws focused on the responsibilities of individuals. There were also ‘secret’ laws and different people...
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
Robbins, R. H. (2014). Cultural anthropology: a problem-based approach (Second Canadian ed.). Itasca: F.E. Peacock.
Introduction “We are all treaty people” Campaign. The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400).
As Vance Hughston writes “the major problem with the system for resolving native title claims is not hard to identify. It is the significant time and resources needed to resolve those native title claims which are opposed by government and other respondents” (Calma, 2009). Therefore, it is evident that the Native Title procedure needs some reforms to counteract the unjust requirements set out in section 223 of the Native Title Act 1933 (Cth). Within this section, it clearly expresses the marginal requirements imposed on the Native Title claimants – particularly subsection C. This subsection outlines the ongoing relationship that a native title claimant would have to sustain in order to be eligible for a possible trial. However, it poses many problematic and difficult situations towards the claimant, as they have to prove a continuous relationship with the land since sovereignty. In addition, section 237 of the Native Title Act states that the land mustn’t be partially or wholly extinguished by Government actions. If wholly extinguished, i.e. when claimants want areas such as “privately owned freehold land, pastoral or agricultural leases, residential, commercial, community purposes and in areas where governments have built roads, airports, railways, schools and other public works”, the
Both parties the Coalition of the tribes and NAGPRA and the scientists believe that they are doing the right thing by this discovery. In this paper I will introduce the Kennewick case and discuss the parties and their personal views that have made this such an important case along with thought of my own to add to the criticisms of the professionals that were involved.
As a scholar invested in the progression of the field of Native American material cultural studies, I consistently recondition my understanding of both epistemology and the appropriate ways to approach cultural circumstances of the so-called “Other” through personal encounters and the shared experiences of my contemporaries. My own ethical position is forever fluid, negotiated by both Native and non-Native sources as I attempt to find ground in what exactly I intend to do (outside of an occupation) with the knowledge I accumulate. Perhaps the most vulnerable facet of existence in the world of academia is the ease that comes in the failure to compromise one’s own advancement for the well-being of those being studied. Barre Toelken is an encouraging exception to this conundrum, considering his explicit analysis of both Navajo and Western ethics in the case of the Hugh Yellowman tapes. His essay argues for an approach that surrenders the fieldworker’s hypothetical gain to the socio-emotional needs of subjects’ epistemological structure and, most intriguingly, he treats ethnographic materials as praxis rather than data. After years of apprehension with the objectifying habits of cultural anthropology, a discipline internally dithered by the bickering of Science vs. Humanities, I am finally moved to disengage from such authoritatively based methods altogether as a result of Toelken’s example.
An issue facing society is whether the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), is sufficient in balancing the rights of Indigenous Australians and the rights of current land owners. To determine whether legislation is sufficient and fair, an investigation into the current societal view points needs to be considered by legislators, with an evaluation into the ways in which other societies cater to the needs of Indigenous land owners should be made. This information then allows recommendations and changes to be debated, to therefore to ensure more equitable legislation on land rights within Australia.
Robbins Burling, David F. Armstrong, Ben G. Blount, Catherine A. Callaghan, Mary Lecron Foster, Barbara J. King, Sue Taylor Parker, Osamu Sakura, William C. Stokoe, Ron Wallace, Joel Wallman, A. Whiten, Sherman Wilcox and Thomas Wynn. Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 25-53
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
Australia’s Indigenous people are thought to have reached the continent between 60 000 and 80 000 years ago. Over the thousands of years since then, a complex customary legal system have developed, strongly linked to the notion of kinship and based on oral tradition. The indigenous people were not seen as have a political culture or system for law. They were denied the access to basic human right e.g., the right to land ownership. Their cultural values of indigenous people became lost. They lost their traditional lifestyle and became disconnected socially. This means that they were unable to pass down their heritage and also were disconnected from the new occupants of the land.
Shah, Anup. "Rights of Indigenous People." Global Issues. N.p., 16 Oct. 2010. Web. 3 May 2014. .
One of the major advantages of participant observation is the ability of the anthropologist to gain access to events, locations and intimate situations where outside observers would not be allowed. DeMunk and Sobo (1998) describe some benefits of the observation method over alternative methods of anthropological data collection including the fact that it allows admission to the “backstage culture” (DeMunk and Sobo 1998 p.43), it allows for intimately detailed description, and provides the anthropologist with opportunities to be a part of all events. DeWalt and DeWalt (2002 p.92) also suggest that it increases the quality of the data that has been collected and the interpretation of the anthropologist, as well as analysis of that data and assisting in the development of new research questions and hypotheses. However, DeMunk and Sobo (1998) also address some disadvantages of using the particip...
In the article, “ Dwight” Newman (2015): Of aboriginals, Metis, First Nations, Inuit and Indians (status holding and otherwise)”, it depicts massive struggles for