Exploration of the Mabo Case, Stolen Generation and Reconciliation
Both Keating’s and Rudd’s speeches are firmly based on the ideas of recognition and reconciliation for the wrongs that European settlers, and their decedents, have inflicted on Indigenous Australians. To explore this idea I believe that it is necessary to take a closer look at both the plight of Eddie Mabo and the stories of the Stolen Generation.
The Mabo Case
Eddie Mabo is widely known for his plight to regain land rights for both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. In 1982, along with four other Meriam people from Murray Island, he initiated legal proceedings in the Queensland Supreme Court claiming customary ownership of their lands on Murray Island. This original claim was rejected by the Supreme Court, but rather than backing down Mabo chose to present his case to the High Court of Australia. The basis of his case explores how “’Australia’ is morally illegitimate to the extent that it is founded on European denial of the continent’s prior ownership by indigenous people…” (Rowse, 1994)
His claim presented that a portion of the Murray Island belonged to his family, as it had been passed down through the generations. These areas had been removed from Indigenous control during the annexation of the Torres Strait in 1879 and Mabo believed that his customary ownership had not been lawfully extinguished (Rowse, 1994). The ownership of land by the indigenous people of Australia was simply washed over with the label of Terra Nullius.
The term Terra Nullius causes a lot of pain for Indigenous people as it can be translated to “A land that belongs to no-one” (“Terra Nullius defined,” 2013). This simply means that the British settlers completely disregard...
... middle of paper ...
...http;//search.proquest.com/docview/223162550?accountid=10675
Manne, R. (2001). In Denial: The stolen generations and the right. The Australian
Quarterly Essay, 2001(1), p25.
National Sorry Day Committee Inc. (2014). The Apology to Australia’s Indigenous
Peoples. Retrieved from: https://www.nsdc.org.au/events-info/the-apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples
Rowse, T. (1994). After Mabo. Interpreting indigenous traditions. Carlton, Victoria:
Melbourne University Press.
Terra Nullius defined (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nfsa.gov.au/digitallearning/mabo/tn_01.shtml The Mabo case and the native title act (1995). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article21995?opendocument The Mabo decision in the High Court (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/stories/2012/01/19/3412061.htm
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 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...
Of the 8 successful, the 1967 referendum which proposed the removal of the words in section 51 (xxvi) ‘… other than the aboriginal people in any State’ (National Archives of Australia ND), and the deletion of section 127, both, which were discriminative in their nature toward the Aboriginal race, recorded a 90.77% nationwide vote in favour of change (National Archives of Australia, 2014). As a result, the Constitution was altered; highlighting what was believed to be significant positive political change within Indigenous affairs at the time (National Archives of Australia, 2014). Approaching 50 years on, discussion has resurfa...
As European domination began, the way in which the European’s chose to deal with the Aborigines was through the policy of segregation. This policy included the establishment of a reserve system. The government reserves were set up to take aboriginals out of their known habitat and culture, while in turn, encouraging them to adapt the European way of life. The Aboriginal Protection Act of 1909 established strict controls for aborigines living on the reserves . In exchange for food, shelter and a little education, aborigines were subjected to the discipline of police and reserve managers. They had to follow the rules of the reserve and tolerate searchers of their homes and themselves. Their children could be taken away at any time and ‘apprenticed” out as cheap labour for Europeans. “The old ways of the Aborigines were attacked by regimented efforts to make them European” . Their identities were threatened by giving them European names and clothes, and by removing them from their tra...
A political debate derived from 1990’s that held the British colonists culpable for the beginning of the ‘history wars’ that many protagonists became involved in. ‘History wars’ is divided into two views, one being a conservative view that considered the European settlement to be an achievement of taming hostile land. The progressive view on the other hand, perceives the history to be a reminder of the invasion of their land, frontier violence and dispossession of Indigenous owners. John Howard who represented the liberal party was one of the main protagonists within this controversy, representing the conservative view. Paul Keating, the labor party representative became a legacy, a Keating legacy that began reconciliation evolving in practical and symbolic ways (Ke...
Eddie Mabo was an Aboriginal rights activist who fought for rights of indigenous peoples to land (Land Rights) and for the government to recognise Aboriginals spiritual ties to pieces of land (Native title) . for aboriginal people throughout the 1980’s and early 1990’s. He campaigned for the right for aboriginal groups to own certain pieces of land of water due to the spiritual connection they have to that land or water. Mabo was born and lived on the Murray Island and wanted for his Native title and Land Rights to be recognised by the government. Mabo fought against High Court of Australia in 1988. However he did not see the outcome of the case, due to his death in 1992 by cancer.
The connection Indigenous Australians have with the land was established, and maintained, by The Dreamings, passed down through generations binding Indigenous Australians to the land (National Film & Sound Archive, 2015). National Film & Sound Archive (2015), highlight that land and being can not be separated for Indigenous Australians as they form part of the land and are accountable for the preservation of the land. Indigenous Australian land rights originated from an intricate social process constructed on traditional core values; where the rights of the land were established on principles of descendants, kinship and marriage (Dodds, 1998). However, despite this, the British colonisation of Australia in 1788 brought about change when the land was declared Terra Nullius (Short, 2007). Short (2007) stated that as a result of Australia being declared Terra Nullius, Indigenous Australians had no legitimate claim to their land. Hence, British colonisers dispossessing Indigenous Australians of their land rights as the customs established by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were not recognised or taken into consideration by the British Government (Short,
The Stolen Generation has had a profound impact on every aspect of the lives of Indigenous communities. It has jeopardised their very survival. It has impoverished their capacity to control and direct their future development. The Stolen Generation has corrupted, devastated and destroyed the souls, hopes and beliefs of many Australian lives through damaging assimilation policies established in an attempt to make a ‘White Australia’ possible. Discrimination, racism and prejudice are some of the many permanent scars upon Indigenous life that will never be repaired. However, recently Rudd and the Australian public have sincerely apologised for the detrimental effects the Stolen Generation had caused. The Stolen Generation has dramatically shaped Australian history and culture.
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 Doctrine of terra nullius is “land that is uninhibited” or “land that belongs to no-one” was used in association with the original British Settlers. When the British settlers arrived, a lot of issues had risen as they ignored the indigenous Australians and regarded them as “not human” who owned land even though they had practiced traditions and customs for hundreds and thousands of years. The British treated Australia as terra Nullius. However due to the doctrine of Terra Nullius it states that Indigenous Australians could not sell or assign any land, nor could any individual person to retain or acquire it, besides from the distribution of royalty. According to international law the British were only able to take possession of a country through only 3 different ways. 1- If the country was uninhabited meaning that British could claim ownership of that land 2- if the country was inhabited Britain would have to seek permission from the owners of the land. In this case it would be the Aboriginal people and they would have to purchase it for ...
The core epistemology of Indigenous culture is based in the notion of country. Contrasting this, is the axiology of the colonial framework in representing itself the land. In its purest form, non-Indigenous conceptions of land were imposed through invasion. “Invasion requires the invader to justify his actions not to the invaded, but to himself” (Pascoe 178). Justification of invasion within the colonial framework has been represented in the landscape through numerous declarations, namely through the assertion of terra nullius over the land and its inhabitants. This motion perpetuates and underlies the fact that “land has always been at the centre of conflict between black and white Australians” (Reynolds 133-167). Furthermore, the doctrine
For a long time in Australian history, there was constant concealment of the reality of the nature of the relationships between the settlers, government, and aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal people were supposed to be British subjects, but were not aware of the fact. They would commit crimes of British law, and settlers would harm them under that justification. Jno. B Hughes wrote, in a letter to The Register, regarding the att...
Colonisation (1788) ended traditional life for Aborigines and started a period of white degradation, leading to their severely oppressed situation in 1900. Control over all Australian land, besides the very remote areas, had been lost. Aborigines were not given the chance to determine their own future and even their language was dying out. “Few whites took the trouble to learn anything about Aboriginal life; many whites regarded Aborigines as oddities or nuisances.”