Heritage of Indigenous Australians HUSIDAU | 2020 Final Task
Introduction
Heritage of Indigenous Australians is a major aspect of Australian history. History of Aboriginal settlement in Australia goes back more than 7000 years. Indigenous identity is of continuing importance and also culturally important, establishing and sustaining continuous ties between land and people. Places with considerable importance and prominence to indigenous peoples involve places identified with Dreaming tales about the rules of the land and how people will respond, locations connected with their faith, sites where many communities have come into connection with indigenous peoples and cultures important to more contemporary uses.
Terra nullius is a Latin term which means “land which belongs to none.” British colonialism and ensuing Australian various legislations were formed under the pretense that Australia was terra nullius, supporting the acquisition without an agreement or compensation by British invasion. This basically revoked the earlier ownership of the land by aboriginal people. Then, Justice Blackburn found in the 1971 Gove land rights case that Australia was a terra nullius previous to European invasion. Court decisions cases in 1977, 1979, and 1982 strenuously defended this decision. Even so, on 20th of May 1982, on the island of Mer in the Torres Strait, Eddie Koiki Mabo and four other Indigenous Meriam people started their legal ruling to possess their ancestral homelands. The myth of Terra Nullius is also a conceptual story of the initial years of Aboriginal opposition and colonization interruption.
Regardless of the myth of Terra Nullius, the figures for Australia’s aboriginal residency differ. Statistics are uncertain however there is general agreement that the advent of Europeans decimated the indigenous population. Several reports indicate that the population declined by about 87 percent between the advent of the First Fleet in January 1788 and 1900. Population decimation led to state policies that treated Indigenous Australians as a ‘dying race’ and the best solution was to promote ‘assimilation’. The Aborigines Protection Act of 1909 saw the forced relocation of aboriginal children from their near ones. The policy remained in effect until 1969. The children are labeled as the “Stolen Generations.” Aboriginal language and cultural traditions were banned by force execution of power.
Aboriginal Australians were not included in the census until a 1967 independence referendum to pass a constitutional amendment. The electorate also agreed that the parliament should enact legislation related to indigenous Australians; historically these had been established at state and local level, which implied that the interests of indigenous Australians were incoherent with the state policies. In the year 1992, Australia’s high court dismissed Terra Nullius’ legal doctrine. The court recognized indigenous ownership of land in the case of Mabo and Others v. Queensland (No.2), today known primarily as the Mabo decision. Various organizations and individuals are continuing to advocate and raise public awareness of native people and the legacies of invaders and colonial exploitation.
While learning this course I found the British Crown in Australia’s mischaracterization and myth of the terra nullius concept. The concept can be interpreted as “land that belongs to no one”, implying the philosophy that could only be extended to no-men’s land that belongs to no-one without any local custom or regulation. However, one eventually comes across various details regarding the introduction of the first fleet while learning into the Native property rights. In fact, aboriginal community is well regarded to be very challenging for many communities to recognize their way of living.
Myth of Terra Nullius
When the first fleet came to Australia with Captain Arthur Phillip, he was astonished to discover that the country was not thinly inhabited, as Captain Cook had identified. As the Australian native people witnessed the advent of the first fleet, they were clueless that they also needed to look to the end of their conventional mode of living. The indigenous people were apprehensive when the British set foot on their land. They had problem figuring out what was British and what they wished They had never ever seen clothing, guns, ships and camps. The first interactions were nevertheless pleasant. The British and aboriginal people are reported to have also danced together. The aboriginal people initially trusted the British because Captain Arthur Phillip had no a front tooth. A front tooth used to be separated during Indigenous initiation ceremonies. Resultantly, he was not truly “alien” and had just been introduced in their minds by some other tribe. Shortly after that, the British cleared the land and abused the resources and wealth in a manner that did not adhere to the Aboriginal manner of living, contributing to the reverse of what had been a prosperous and respectful friendship.
Some question why the Aboriginals could not oppose British intervention. But the fact is, they did. They soon realized that the soldiers were dressed in red uniforms, and they witnessed them violently beating convicts, which caused terror. Yet in the meantime, a disease spread very rapidly among all the natives and that disease is of smallpox, which resulted in the deaths of almost half of the native people. They were frightened because they had never before seen such a disease, and decided to escape. This further prompted the disease to spread.
In the process of acquiring Australia, the British Empire depended on the terra nullius theory. The term mentioned above, turns into “the land belongs to none”. Australia’s assertion as a country where no one holds the land was of course inaccurate and attributed largely to the 1770 claims by Captain Cook and Joseph Bank. They had proclaimed the world to be sparsely populated by sub humans. This population which did not wear any clothes and lacked any sort of political organization did not count as residents in the sight of the Europeans. Perhaps notably, they weren’t growing the land as the Europeans did. As Captain Arthur Phillips landed in Australia in 1788 he was quite shocked to see the country too heavily settled as indicated otherwise from prior records. However, the concept of terra nullius was introduced in 1788.
Like several others, this letter shows that the English recognized the existence of the human race and that the introduction of terra nullius should never have been rendered properly. The truth is that the Indigenous people didn’t think they controlled the land. They were regarded as just the caretakers. They seem to be about protecting it, loving it and caring for it. The British’s indecent exposure was shocking, because they not only breached the borders between tribes but also violated religious areas. Though the land was not held by the Native community, they nevertheless felt the need to defend it. The land and its inhabitants were like an impenetrable chain, binding together. Sooner or later many clans were aggressive to defend their homes. One example which clearly shows this is Pemulwuy.
Such two explanations summaries why the British couldn’t have been honestly made to think Australia was a territory belonging to no one. First, people born on the land with their own beliefs and rituals. Second, the tribes were defending their land and were not impressed with the white people’s action. Eventually it is proved that the concept of terra nullius was adhered while still being aware of the fact that it did not directly correlate with the interpretation. The British recognized that the territory they colonized was not a terra nullius and they realized the colonization was a violation of the Indigenous people’s sovereignty. Furthermore, the key reasons that the British Empire adopted the concept of terra nullius are multifarious: by applying the concept that they did not have to negotiate tribal customs, they could avoid having to pay the aboriginal people to use their land and thus enforce their rules without question, using and abusing as they wished on their own conditions. Australia was a long way away and correspondence was complicated, making it more difficult for the British Monarchy to choose Australia.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, it is apparent from the research that Britain was fully cognizant that the concept of terra nullius, according to which Australia was asserted, could not have been implemented properly. Terra nullius means “land that belong to no one”. So several people have argued that the British people have not recognized the Australian native peoples as human until today. I actually cannot endorse this assertion. As stated previously, one may claim that the British people were oblivious of Indigenous history and custom and also of their complex, unique and deep relationship to the land on which they reside. It might even be asserted that some were completely ignorant of the harm that their incursion had exacerbated. Even so, one cannot argue that the British people were skeptical of the terra nullius concept that had been misinterpreted. Even though British recognized the Australian Indigenous as somewhat barbaric wilderness, they also regarded them human. The two main reasons show that the concept of terra nullius was certainly adhered in an unequivocal and self-serving manner. As the settlers were aware of the natives, accounts were distorted and they believed that the tribal people they encountered were much better than they realized were not alive. The Mabo case overruled the terra nullius principle. It has now been established that the concept of terra nullius is incorrectly implemented, enabling the establishment of conventional land titles for native peoples.
References
Nunn, P.D. & Nicholas J. R., Aboriginal memories of inundation of the Australian coast dating from more than 7000 years ago. Australian Geographer, vol. 47, no. 1, 2016, p. 11-47.
Hunter, J. Native Title in Australia and South Africa: A Search for Something That Lasts. U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., vol. 22, 2014, p. 233.
Knafla, L. A., and Haijo W, eds. Aboriginal Title and Indigenous Peoples: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. UBC Press, 2011.
Parry, N. Stolen Childhoods. Reforming Aboriginal and Orphan Children through Removal and Labour in New South Wales (Australia), 1909-1917. Revue d’histoire de l’enfance «irrégulière». Le Temps de l’histoire, vol.14, 2012, p. 141-163.
Leuzinger, M.D. and Lyngard, K., The land rights of indigenous and traditional peoples in Brazil and Australia. Braz. J. Int’l L., vol.13, 2016, p. 418.
Altman, J. and Markham, F., Burgeoning Indigenous land ownership: Diverse values and strategic potentialities. Native title from Mabo to Akiba: A vehicle for change and empowerment, 2015, p.126-142.
Cahir, F., Black gold: Aboriginal people on the goldfields of Victoria, 1850-1870. ANU Press, 2012
Gaile, A., DISSECTING THE LIES OF TERRA NULLIUS: THE NIGHTMARE OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY. In Rewriting History (pp. 105-140). Brill Rodopi. 2010
Naylor, I. and Council, I.W, Re: Petition on proposal to establish a Pemulwuy Cooks River Trail, 2018
Pasternak, S. Jurisdiction and Settler Colonization: Where Do Laws Meet. Can. JL & Soc., vol. 29, 2014, p.145.
