God Reality? A Testimony (1)
August 29th 2009 22:38
1. The Awakening
"For this reason you come into existence and die”—Jesus, The Gospel of Mary.
| 61 |
| Vote |
[ July 2009 ] [ September 2009 ]
Millennium Watch - August 2009
"For this reason you come into existence and die”—Jesus, The Gospel of Mary.
Read More
Add Comments
White Gain vs. Indigenous Loss (4)
August 14th 2009 05:08
The Aboriginal land rights movement in Australia began in NSW around the 1860s (Goodall, 1996, p.173) with the struggle to obtain and then hold on to reserve land. From there, it grew to a nationwide ongoing struggle culminating in the recognition of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ native title in a High Court decision of 1992 (Mabo vs. Queensland). However, as Lisa Strelein points out, trusting in a judicial system to acknowledge and sustain indigenous self-determination is ‘fraught with dilemmas’ (Strelein, 1996, p.36), namely the inherent structures of oppression, and understanding indigenous needs from a European perspective.
In 1991 the Australian Government passed the Reconciliation Act, and a timeline from this point to present day will highlight the contemporary nature of Indigenous disadvantage to non-indigenous advantage, for in reality, nothing much has changed.
For example, the Reconciliation Council was established when the Act passed through Parliament, and was terminated nine years later by a Howard government on the eve of centenary of Federation celebrations. This is the same government who refused to say sorry to the ‘stolen generation’ in 2005, those children of mixed-descent forcibly taken from their parents. Although that blot has now been erased by the Rudd government, and no doubt the Indigenous population are pleased with the Mabo ruling and Wik Legislation, Indigenous disadvantage is alive and well in rural and outback communities, and any Native Title claims have to navigate the beaurocratic minefield of States, Departments, and local Councils that are inherent in federalism[ Click here to read more ]
For example, the Reconciliation Council was established when the Act passed through Parliament, and was terminated nine years later by a Howard government on the eve of centenary of Federation celebrations. This is the same government who refused to say sorry to the ‘stolen generation’ in 2005, those children of mixed-descent forcibly taken from their parents. Although that blot has now been erased by the Rudd government, and no doubt the Indigenous population are pleased with the Mabo ruling and Wik Legislation, Indigenous disadvantage is alive and well in rural and outback communities, and any Native Title claims have to navigate the beaurocratic minefield of States, Departments, and local Councils that are inherent in federalism
| 34 |
| Vote |
White Gain vs. Indigenous Loss (3)
August 13th 2009 00:13
Into the 21st Century and it is hard to conceive how a government could have been so callous and negligent, that is until one realises the full extent of the Terra Nullius doctrine and its partner in crime, the belief that the Aboriginal people were a dying race. This explains why the Aborigines were herded like sheep onto reserves, and then denied adequate resources to sustain self-sufficiency. Why their mixed-blood children were taken from them, or as adults forbidden from entering the reserves. And why government gave in to white settler pressure and sold-off Reserve land (Barwick, 1972, pp.18-66).
What Terra Nullius and social Darwinism don’t explain is ethnocentricity, the belief in racial superiority and outright prejudice against another because their skin is a different colour. If Terra Nullius and dispossession are the foundation of indigenous disadvantage in this country, then racism is the perpetuating force. To illustrate an example of racism and prejudice at work we need only go back as far as the 1950-60s eras and the cattle industry of Queensland, NT, and northern Western Australia.
Both male and female Aboriginal workers were indispensible to the stock and station industry in these areas due to the difficulty in luring white labour to the harsh and inhospitable climate. The men proved to be more than capable in the saddle and their bush skills stood them in good stead when locating herds and strays across the vast expanses, while the women were employed as domestics in and around the homestead. However, as historian Richard Broome elucidates, ‘overall, the European racist myths in the north claimed that Aboriginal workers were lazy and incapable.’ The reality, Broome qualifies, is that ‘the Aborigines were absolutely essential to the pastoral economy because of their skills and acceptance of low wages’ (Broome, 2002, p.130). Not only did the Aboriginal workers accept lower pay, in some cases they were not paid at all. Many were housed in tin shacks, while white stockmen and managers enjoyed the comforts of homestead and quarters. The myth translated into a reality of racial prejudice, and the walls of Indigenous disadvantage were as unassailable as ever[ Click here to read more ]
What Terra Nullius and social Darwinism don’t explain is ethnocentricity, the belief in racial superiority and outright prejudice against another because their skin is a different colour. If Terra Nullius and dispossession are the foundation of indigenous disadvantage in this country, then racism is the perpetuating force. To illustrate an example of racism and prejudice at work we need only go back as far as the 1950-60s eras and the cattle industry of Queensland, NT, and northern Western Australia.
Both male and female Aboriginal workers were indispensible to the stock and station industry in these areas due to the difficulty in luring white labour to the harsh and inhospitable climate. The men proved to be more than capable in the saddle and their bush skills stood them in good stead when locating herds and strays across the vast expanses, while the women were employed as domestics in and around the homestead. However, as historian Richard Broome elucidates, ‘overall, the European racist myths in the north claimed that Aboriginal workers were lazy and incapable.’ The reality, Broome qualifies, is that ‘the Aborigines were absolutely essential to the pastoral economy because of their skills and acceptance of low wages’ (Broome, 2002, p.130). Not only did the Aboriginal workers accept lower pay, in some cases they were not paid at all. Many were housed in tin shacks, while white stockmen and managers enjoyed the comforts of homestead and quarters. The myth translated into a reality of racial prejudice, and the walls of Indigenous disadvantage were as unassailable as ever
| 35 |
| Vote |
White Gain vs. Indigenous Loss (2)
August 11th 2009 22:53
This was the colonial mentality: belief in racial superiority and the fire-power to back it up. One has to go no further than the colonisation of the upper Macquarie district of New South Wales between 1822 and 1825 to witness the development of Aboriginal land disadvantage, and conversely, white advantage. From the surveyor’s eye, there were thousands of acres of flat grazing land occupied by nomadic tribes who made little use of it. Waiting were the graziers eager to tame the frontier, establish boundaries and put up fences for thousands of sheep. Both government and grazier lacking the realisation that those nomadic tribes in fact stayed within defined ‘clan territories’ (Pearson, 1984, p.64) and depended on that patch of land for their very existence. A clash of cultures was inevitable. Native warriors fought with skill and bravery; the graziers and settlers, on the other hand, fought a war of attrition. With the arrival of new weapons, growing numbers, and increasing government assistance fuelled by public pressure of white deaths, it took but three years to dispossess the Upper Macquarie native of his land—one of many such incidents across the country.
Obviously dispossession is the first major leg on the road to indigenous disadvantage, a term polarised under a ‘loss of rights’ banner. White settlers applied for and were granted land that government had no right to grant in the first place, the false doctrine of Terra Nullius hard at work appeasing the white conscience—it is alright to take this advantage in land as it belonged to no one in the first place. Here the seeds of Indigenous disadvantage are sown: if the Aboriginal people have no land, then they have no civilisation. This enabled the development of racist policy for well over a century, and denied the Indigenous population citizenship in their country until 1967.
Hindsight and conjecture are useful tools in retrospective analysis, however, to take another’s land is bad enough, then to deny them any recourse in the matter by exclusion from citizenship for sixty-six years, is to systematically strip them of all rights. The obvious scapegoat employed by pre‘67 democratic governments: we only have to uphold the rights of our citizens. These are rights to ‘employment in a reasonable job; ‘quality education’; ‘freely available healthcare’, and ‘affordable housing’ (Theophanous, 1994, p.91). What excuse is there for the forty years that has followed Indigenous citizenship[ Click here to read more ]
Obviously dispossession is the first major leg on the road to indigenous disadvantage, a term polarised under a ‘loss of rights’ banner. White settlers applied for and were granted land that government had no right to grant in the first place, the false doctrine of Terra Nullius hard at work appeasing the white conscience—it is alright to take this advantage in land as it belonged to no one in the first place. Here the seeds of Indigenous disadvantage are sown: if the Aboriginal people have no land, then they have no civilisation. This enabled the development of racist policy for well over a century, and denied the Indigenous population citizenship in their country until 1967.
Hindsight and conjecture are useful tools in retrospective analysis, however, to take another’s land is bad enough, then to deny them any recourse in the matter by exclusion from citizenship for sixty-six years, is to systematically strip them of all rights. The obvious scapegoat employed by pre‘67 democratic governments: we only have to uphold the rights of our citizens. These are rights to ‘employment in a reasonable job; ‘quality education’; ‘freely available healthcare’, and ‘affordable housing’ (Theophanous, 1994, p.91). What excuse is there for the forty years that has followed Indigenous citizenship
| 56 |
| Vote |
Comments (1) White Gain vs. Indigenous Loss
August 4th 2009 04:21
It could be argued that Aboriginal disadvantage began when tribesmen first laid eyes on the British invaders in 1788. Developments took a decided turn for the worst however when colonists began to usurp tribal lands for the purposes of grazing and agriculture. By the 1870s with superior weaponry and government sanction, white settlers forced Aboriginals from their traditional lands and hunting grounds. What started out as subjugation with little or no conciliation (Pearson, 1984, p.48), soon turned into decimation. With decreasing food supplies and the spread of disease, Aborigines had little choice but to accept help from the white man and his government—invader now misguided saviour. This in turn led to a century of disastrous welfare protectionist policy, with many indigenous tribes herded onto reserves, and in some cases their children taken (the ‘Stolen Generation’). Robbed of their humanity and their identity it was a slow form of genocide. Dispossession complete, the invaders settled on Aboriginal land comforted by the false notions of Terra Nullius, and all had been done (Broome, 2001, pp.26-56).
This essay will examine important elements in historical and contemporary developments of Aboriginal disadvantage, compared to non-aboriginal advantage. The examination will inevitably lead to a relevant contemporary question: will Reconciliation right the balance, or will it be stymied by ingrained racist attitudes and the behemoth of federalism?
There can be little doubt that the greatest form of Indigenous disadvantage was the loss of tribal lands. Not only were the people robbed of their independence and the ability to sustain life, but their spirituality as well. Aborigines believe that ancestral beings inhabit their particular tribal territory and are responsible for generating life. Sacred sites exist where great events took place, sacred objects were hidden, and initiation ceremonies and burials performed (Broome, 2001, p18). Hence, the very fabric and structure of pre-invasion Aboriginal society was inextricably linked to the land[ Click here to read more ]
This essay will examine important elements in historical and contemporary developments of Aboriginal disadvantage, compared to non-aboriginal advantage. The examination will inevitably lead to a relevant contemporary question: will Reconciliation right the balance, or will it be stymied by ingrained racist attitudes and the behemoth of federalism?
There can be little doubt that the greatest form of Indigenous disadvantage was the loss of tribal lands. Not only were the people robbed of their independence and the ability to sustain life, but their spirituality as well. Aborigines believe that ancestral beings inhabit their particular tribal territory and are responsible for generating life. Sacred sites exist where great events took place, sacred objects were hidden, and initiation ceremonies and burials performed (Broome, 2001, p18). Hence, the very fabric and structure of pre-invasion Aboriginal society was inextricably linked to the land
| 52 |
| Vote |
More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
48 Posts dating from October 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
[ View Blog Summary ] [ Create A New Post ]
Pete's Blogs
I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by Pete
