When linking the different theories of monogenism, phrenology, polygenism, Darwin’s theory of evolution, eugenics, social Darwinism and lastly socio-biology there is a trend that links to racist essence. This has there fore contributed to the ideology of hierarchy, slavery and further more played a massive part in colonisation. The theories of monogenesis and polygenesis focused on where the human races had been based from in regards to a single origin or multiple origins. Both theories were based of the Christian Bible. Monogenesis held the belief that humans all descended from Adam and eve then further on from Noahs sons and wife’s. Where as pilgenesis thought that God had created different races, they also thought that some races were created …show more content…
Mabo v Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 32: ‘As among themselves, the European nations parcelled out the territories newly discovered to the sovereigns of the respective discoverers (66), provided the discovery was confirmed by occupation and provided the indigenous inhabitants were not organised in a society that was united permanently for political action. (67) To these territories the European colonial nations applied the doctrines relating to acquisition of territory that was terra nullius. They recognised sovereignty of the respective European nations over the territory of ‘backward peoples’ and, by State practice, permitted the acquisition of sovereignty of such territory by occupation rather than by …show more content…
(reference) Stating that Australia was terra nullius allowed an inhabited territory to be settled with out the legal requirements of a conquest or cession. This meant that indigenous people had been deemed to be with out sovereign and primitive social organisation. Mabo v Queensland (1992) 175 CLR 1 at 36. As to the ‘barbarian theory’, it was premised on the idea that Indigenous inhabitants had no system of law, government, or appropriate use of land: see at 36, 39–40. (reference) In 1788 squatters could acquire title to land through physical occupation although Indigenous peoples who already occupied the land had no occupation rights. This lead to Indigenous peoples technically trespassing on their own land. The Australian government and the British crown have maintained that they have never signed a treaty with Aboriginal peoples. Although this is legal fiction and historically inaccurate as at lest two treaties were signed by Aboriginal peoples, one in Victoria and one in Tasmania according to Wunder, JR 2007, P Grimshaw, & R McGregor (eds.), pp. 19-56. (second reference). “What has been conspicuously lacking in the assessement of aboriginal history is an appreciation that Aboriginal tribes were, in effect, small nations which had long
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...
The land of the Native Indians had been encroached upon by American settlers. By the
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).
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
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...
To take these lands, American settlers physically invaded the lands to claim as their own, however, they also petitioned the Federal Government to remove the Indians from their native lands. By doing this, they gained the support of the government’s resources and influence, especially President Jackson’s. Using both political and military attacks, the settlers quickly gained the upper hand over the Indians.
The Effectiveness of Native Title The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
This means looking back at the arrival of Europeans, particularly the legal and political system that were used in the apparent legitimisation of the invasion. Colonisation occurred in 1700’s when Australian soil first became ‘occupied’, not by the indigenous Australians who had lived with and upon the land for centuries before but rather by European colonial fleets who had been in search of undiscovered land. The act of occupation occurred through compliance with international law and the legal doctrine of discovery of uninhabited land; terra nullius. The Australian land was declared void not of inhabitants but rather of ‘organised society united permanently for political action.’ It was declared that those who inhabited the land when it was discovered had no local laws, and as such no
Land rights now referred to the continual legal exertion to reclaim ownership of the land and waters that was called home prior to British colonisation (Creative Spirits, 2011). Australian Museum (2015) and Creative Spirits (2011) acknowledge the struggle to gain legal recognition and ownership of Indigenous land is difficult and expensive. Furthermore, the history behind the struggle in earlier years often resulted in violence as Indigenous Australians were dispossessed of their land (Australian Museum, 2015). Subsequently, the struggle for land rights continued through the legal and political systems; as demonstrated in 1982 when Eddie (Koiki) Mabo and four other Meriam people decided to pursue declaration of their customary land rights in the High Court of Australia (Hill, 1995). Based on the findings of Creative Spirits (2011) Indigenous Australian land rights appeared promising in 1983 when the Hawke Government promised legislation to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s land rights are protected throughout Australia. The legislation was said to permit Indigenous Australians to exercise the right of control over mining on Indigenous Australian land to ensure sacred sites are protected (Creative Spirits, 2011). However, in 1984 the mining companies fought back to repossess control over land. Mining and pastoral industries were considered too powerful and
Many Native groups, because they were nomadic, didn't see land as belonging to one person. The idea that someone could come in, claim a piece of land and ban them f...
Key events in Aboriginal Australian history stem from the time Australia was first discovered in 1788. For instance, when Federation came into existence in 1901, there was a prevailing belief held by non Aboriginal Australians that the Aborigines were a dying race (Nichol, 2005:259) which resulted in the Indigenous people being excluded from the constitution except for two mentions – Section 127 excluded Aborigines from the census and Section 51, part 26, which gave power over Aborigines to the States rather than to the Federal Government. Aboriginal people were officially excluded from the vote, public service, the Armed Forces and pensions. The White Australia mentality/policy Australia as “White” and unfortunately this policy was not abolished until 1972. REFERENCE
Aboriginals have inhabited Australia tens of thousands of years before any European powers had reached the land. Aboriginals lived simply lives and valued the lands which they lived on. Lifestyles of Aboriginals were threatened with the arrival of British colonizers in the late 1700s and early 1800s, who tried to integrate them into their society. The colonizers also saw the Aboriginals as a backwards, inferior people who were unable to develop. The notion that Aboriginals are inferior to whites may have caused the impacts Aboriginals have had in shaping modern Australia to be overlooked. This effect appears to be apparent in the development of Australian sport, however, Aboriginals have played a significant role in shaping Australian Rules