THE STOLEN GENERATION
• Forcible removal of the indigenous children from their family
• Policy of assimilation
• Based on the assumption of black inferiority to white superiority
• Taken from their parents
• Taught to reject their indigenous culture
• Forced to adopt white culture
• Names were often changed
• Forbidden to speak their traditional language
• Placed in institutions
• Abuse and neglect were common
• Policies focused on children
• Considered more adaptable to white society than indigenous adults
• Half caste children were vulnerable to removal
• Thought they could be assimilated easily due to their white complexion
• white society refused to accept the indigenous people as equals
1967 REFERENDUM:
• 90% of all Australians voted
…show more content…
• “The Parliament will have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:”
• “The people of any race, other than the aboriginal people in any State, for whom it is necessary to make special laws.”
• Section 127
• “In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives should not be counted.”
• People widely believed
- Aboriginal people were dying out
- Indigenous people were not intellectually worth of a place in the political system
- “there is no scientific evidence that he is a human being at all” – Tasmanian MP
• Whole of section 127 was removed following the referendum
• The words “other than the aboriginal people in any state” was removed from section 51
• Allowed the indigenous to be included in the census
• Federal parliament the power to make laws regarding the indigenous population
• Previously, laws for indigenous was job of state
• Laws varied greatly from state to state
• Indigenous in NSW and SA were the only states allowed to own property
• Lead to better conditions for the indigenous people
NATIVE TITLE MABO
• Momentous legal case
• Acknowledged the history of indigenous dispossession of Australia
• Abolished the legal fiction of terra
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.
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.
...e necessary, and those laws which were to be applied could not be made applicable to all of the Aboriginal peoples but only to some.
He also assumes that they should be participated in economic cooperation, resource development and the sharing of knowledge and technologies, like they assisted non-Aboriginal people in the past time. (James Tully pg.53) Obviously, Aboriginal people get a chance to participate in the society and to get respect and rights to exert their ability. Therefore, Aboriginal are able to promote the economic development. It is sufficiently show equality between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in economic aspect. On the other hand, Tully’s states that Aboriginal people want to get power back from the government, they more likely to govern themselves and desire to delegate several of their rights to the political area. (James Tully pg.53) I will argue that it is valid to repatriate legal and political powers to Aboriginal people. Because when they self-govern accord with their own tradition and laws, it will create stabilize social order which avoid misconduct in our society. Furthermore, it offers Aboriginal people fair chance to speak in public that maintain their interest and profit. Most importantly, it recalls and emphasizes mutual respect is a factor to balance citizens between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. So that while Aboriginal people express their voice to society, it gain
Indigenous People. In evaluating the Legal System’s response to Indigenous People and it’s achieving of justice, an outline of the history of Indigenous Australians - before and during settlement - as well as their status in Australian society today must be made. The dispossession of their land and culture has deprived Indigenous People of economic revenue that the land would have provided if not colonised, as well as their ... ... middle of paper ... ...
...ndigenous recognition and the removal of racist remarks has been an on-going theme for a vast majority of time. The necessity of Constitutional reform to close the gap on cultural divide as well as support the on-going concept of reconciliation is essential in ensuring Australia continues to improve and nurture its relationship with Indigenous peoples. The process of amendment through referendum has proven to be problematic in the past, with the success rate exceptionally low. Though with key factors such as bi-partisan support, widespread public knowledge and correct management, the alteration to remove racial discrimination and provide recognition for Indigenous persons within the Constitution is highly achievable. If proposed and eventually passed, this will provide assistance in eliminating many of the cultural gaps Indigenous persons face throughout society.
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 recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources." (Wherrett
Thomas, L. (2013). Recognising indigenous people in the Australian constitution. Australian Nursing Journal: ANJ, the, 20(10), 21.
Despite these small problems, the native title is an effective aspect of our common and statute law, which strives to achieve fair results for all citizens. Today we understand that the aboriginal’s form of ownership of the land extends back more the 40,000 years, which is recognised in the Australian Native Title. This important aspect of Australia’s common and statue law should be further taught in schools, universities and to the community because of its ongoing political, social, cultural and legal significance. Native title was adopted not only to benefit indigenous citizens but also the Australian society as a whole.
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
“Today we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human History. We reflect on their past mistreatment. We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were Stolen Generations—this blemished chapter in our nation’s history. The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future. We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians” (apology by Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, 16th November 2009, Parliament House, Canberra.)
Generation Z is determined to change the future and is at an advantage over all previous generations to do so. This group is those born between the years 1995 and 2012, whom are currently ages 4 to 21. Statistics show Gen Z is extremely mature for their age with the lowest levels of drug use, alcohol consumption, smoking, and teenage pregnancy in decades, as stated by JWTIntelligence. This demonstrates that they are future orientated. Generation Z is unified, diverse, realistic, and technologically advanced, making them the generation with the power to impact the world.
The generation that I was born into can sometimes be easily misunderstood by those in earlier generations. The individuals in my generation get thrown many different labels such as those that Rosie Evans (n.d.) listed in her article, “Millennials, Generation Y, the Lost Generation, boomerang kids, the Peter Pan generation…” and more. This can impact us as a whole because some will begin to live by the labels, in some cases that can be negative but in others it may be beneficial. Many people in this generation believe that they can’t reach their full potential due to labels and prejudgment, while there are others believe nothing can hold them back. When we get labeled all together that is also what may drive some to try to stand out from the