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 Marbo decision is about trying to get the land back from the government.
Eddie Marbo was not happy about the how the government took indigenous land away from indigenous people and he did not think is was fair for them to take there land away from them . He was not happy because himself and his people have been living there for a for a long time and he does not want the government to own his land. The decision struck down the doctrine that Australia was terra nullius. The high court judgment found that native titles rights survived settlement, though subject to the sovereignty of the crown. The only party can loose in a native title claim is the indigenous claimant. (Mabo v Queensland 2013)
Marbo was not happy when they took his land illegally and he thought he has his rights to go and fight to get the land back and he did not find it fair at all and he thought it was wrong. It was not fair when all the white people went and took away children from there parents and it was not fair...
... middle of paper ...
...t moment for the Australian history and governments history. It was a good thing that happened too because if they said no to Marbo and gave the land to the miners the land would be dug up and destroyed and it would not have been nice for the indigenous peoples land to be dug up and it would not be fair to them either. The Mabo decision was influential in engendering a new national narrative focused on inclusivity, the correction of past injustices and the will make and improve the lives of all Australians regardless of the cultural and historical differences. What my opinion on Eddie Marbo and what he did for the Australian Ingenuous people is that I recon he did very well getting the ingenuous rights through the government and I also recon he is a legend for Australia and standing up to government and he changed history for Australia and he should be remembered.
their people at the hands of the European settlers. He does this by making effective use of
These advocates expected the Native Americans to leave their lands voluntarily. With the promise for land west of the Mississippi there would be no limits to the tribe’s choice of government, assistance, relocation and protection. Jefferson believed that the Indians’ failures were theirs to own and they needed to depend on themselves alone to become numerous and great people. He encouraged them to take the new land and cultivate it, build a home, and leave it to his children. He was failing to tell them that they really didn’t have much of a choice. Boudinot determined that many of the Cherokee people would leave their land if the true state of their condition was made known to them. They were left with only two real alternatives, one to live under the white man’s law or to be forcibly removed to another country. However some American’s worried about the future of the Native Americans. John Ross’s letter to president Jackson believed it was the white man’s duty to relieve the Indians from their suffering. This could only be accomplished by allowing the Native Americans to obtain their land in Georgia under the rights and privileges as free men. Nevertheless no great lands good for farming would be given to the Native Americans and Jackson would sign the Indian removal act. This act would allow the government to exchange fertile land for land in the west, where they would forcibly relocate the Indian
And since the land couldn’t be owned, it couldn’t be bought – for that reason the Powhatan's concluded "Selling land was essentially equivalent to selling air"
To own land, that is the privilege of whom? To Andrew Jackson the Cherokees current homesteads where on his country’s land. For whatever reason at that time some people living in America weren’t treated as good as there white counterparts. Meanwhile the Cherokees principal chief John Ross felt like that land belonged to his people. If you want to get technical he was speaking on the behalf of a tribe that made up a mere one-eighth of his ancestry. Not exactly a full blooded leader. He also was one of the main reason the “trail of tears” was as hostile and brutal as it was on his people. Its ironic, even as hard as Jackson pushed and deceived the Cherokee, the Cherokee people in turn pushed back, but past the point of being rational.
Andrew Jackson never considered Native Americans as citizens, even when they indicated their rights. In Jackson’s message to Congress, he was misleading in saying that the Native Americans were leaving because of “persuasion” and that the “ . . . emigration should be voluntary”(Document 8). The Native Americans were forcibly moved from their homelands and traveled great distances to reach their new shared territory in Oklahoma. Jackson continued the removal of Natives favoring with the white people’s cry for more land to plant cotton. Jackson benefited by removing the Indians to please the common farmers making him more popular and well liked. Cherokee’s wished to stay on their homelands with “a perfect and original right to remain . . .” (Document 9). Native Americans wanted rights like white men, even some of them grew accustomed to Americans ways of civilization such as farming and owning slaves. Moving to the west would be an unknown territory to them that supplies little necessities like food and water. Each tribe did not want to decrease their population due to the lack of food and water, or even lose their sacred cultures and languages. Native Americans wished to stay...
Australian Aborigines have had a traditional relationship with their land since they first came to the Australian continent somewhere from 40,000 to 60,000 years ago to 120,000 years ago (9:9). Before Europeans came and settled the same land, the Aborigines had their own law system, trading systems, and way of caring for their land (12:1-2). Then the First Fleet of Europeans landed at Botany Bay in New South Wales in 1788. The expedition lead by the new Governor Phillip, but directed by King George the Third, was told to endeavor by every possible means to open intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of our subjects shall wantonly destroy them or give them any unnecessary interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our will and pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the offense (9:2-3).
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...
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
Andrew Jackson was not justified in instituting this policy of relocating. “Cherokees were forcibly moved west by the United States government. Approximately 4,000 Cherokees died on this forced march, which became known as the "Trail of Tears."This was the wrong thing to do because the Indians try to be fair and 5 nations were affected unfairly. White Americans treated them unfairly. Andrew Jackson was not justified in instituting this policy of relocating The Native Americans.
His solution for this problem was to create a great council, which would create one united government within all the tribes. “We shall have a great council, at which all tribes will be present. We shall show to those who sold that they had no rights to the claim they set up, and we shall see what will be done to those chiefs who did sell the land to you” (Tecumseh, 206). In this
specific group of people thinking that land owned by others, is entitled to them, and they are willing to take it
were treated unfairly. The Aboriginals did not have rights to control land, did not have the same rights
“I’m sorry, your grace. The treaty is binding. Failure to show and you forfeit a piece of your Kingdom,” Michal reminds him. “And the way the stipulation is written, it’s a land of their choosing.”
Son, this land will belong to you when I die.” These are the words Eddie Koiki Mabo’s father once said and it is the beginning of what is to be known as “Mabo v Queensland (No 2), or the Mabo Case. In year 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo and some fellow plaintiffs from Murray Island, wanted to claim back their rights and ownership of what they claimed was their land. They went up in front of the High Court of Australia and ten years later the parliament passed the Native Title Act 1993. Eddie Koiki Mabo died in 1993, before the High court of Australia legislated the new act. At Eddies funeral, Bryan Keon-Cohen said “…without Eddie the case would probably never have begun” .