159 research outputs found
Historical reasoning about Indigenous imprisonment: a community of fate?
The high rate of Indigenous incarceration is a problem for public policy and therefore for historical and social analysis. This paper compares and contrasts two recent attempts at such analysis: Thalia Anthonyâs Indigenous People, Crime and Punishment (2013) and Don Weatherburnâs Arresting Incarceration: Pathways Out of Indigenous Imprisonment (2014). What difference do these booksâ contrasting narrative models of Australian history make to our thinking about contemporary Indigenous incarceration? The paper reveals several differences and similarities in their perspectives: how they position themselves in relation to the values that shape Australian debate about punishment; their historical understanding of the institutions of âprotectionâ and of the impact of âassimilationâ; whether the law and order apparatus is systemically biased against Indigenous Australians; and whether Indigenous Australians should be understood as a âcommunity of fateâ
'Essentially seaâgoing people' : how Torres Strait Islanders shaped Australia's border
As an Opposition member of parliament in the 1950s and 1960s, Gough Whitlam took a keen interest in Australiaâs responsibilities, under the United Nationsâ mandate, to develop the Territory of Papua New Guinea until it became a self-determining nation. In a chapter titled âInternational Affairsâ, Whitlam proudly recalled his governmentâs steps towards Papua New Guineaâs independence (declared and recognised on 16 September 1975). However, Australiaâs relationship with Papua New Guinea in the 1970s could also have been discussed by Whitlam under the heading âIndigenous Affairsâ because from 1973 Torres Strait Islanders demanded (and were accorded) a voice in designing the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Whitlamâs framing of the border issue as âinternationalâ, to the neglect of its domestic Indigenous dimension, is an instance of history being written in what Tracey BanivanuaMar has called an âimperialâ mode. Historians, she argues, should ask to what extent decolonisation was merely an âimperialâ project: did âdecolonisationâ not also enable the mobilisation of Indigenous âpeoplesâ to become self-determining in their relationships with other Indigenous peoples? This is what the Torres Strait Islanders did when they asserted their political interests during the negotiation of the AustraliaâPapua New Guinea border, though you will not learn this from Whitlamâs âimperialâ account
How shall we write the history of selfâdetermination in Australia?
The Uluru Statement from the Heart of May 2017 articulated an Indigenous vision for a better relationship between settler and Indigenous Australians: one âbased on justice and self-determinationâ. The culmination of years of consultation with Indigenous people about constitutional recognition, the statement proposed a referendum in which the Australian people could approve (or not) the formation of an Indigenous deliberative and advisory body â a Voice to Parliament. The government-appointed Referendum Council endorsed this proposal, but the Australian Government quickly dismissed it in October 2017. One prominent advocate of the Uluru Statement and member of the Referendum Council, Megan Davis, seemed to anticipate that response when, back in January 2016, she stated that âAustralia has rejected self-determination â freedom, agency, choice, autonomy, dignity â as being fundamental to Indigenous humanness and developmentâ
'Taxpayers' money'? : ATSIC and the Indigenous sector
Funding organisations controlled by Indigenous Australians and dedicated to serving them, in the name of âself-determinationâ, has created risks both for governments (who must satisfy the public that âtaxpayersâ moneyâ is being well spent) and Indigenous leaders (who must not only meet service expectations of Indigenous Australians but also acquit funding according to government criteria). This chapter compares two experiments in governance: the Indigenous sector (thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)
New treaty, new tradition: reconciling New Zealand and MÄori Law
According to Carwyn Jones, New Zealandâs late twentieth century return to the Treaty of Waitangi is both an opportunity for tikanga MÄori and a threat to it
Reconciliation as public culture : taking cultural studies beyond Ghassan Hage's 'white nationalist'
This year we celebrate not only the twentieth anniversary of the Culture and Communication Studies section but also the twentieth anniversary of Ghassan Hageâs White nationâhis ethnographic account of what he calls the white national subject. My paper is an attempt to build on Ghassanâs work by considering research published since his book. I will argue that in the public culture of Australia, Indigenous people and Indigenous things are now prolifically affirmed. Before I explore this Indigenous-affirmative culture, let me explicitly exclude two topics: the extent and nature of racism against Indigenous Australians; and Indigenous Australiansâ experiences of contemporary Australian society
Knowing and not knowing : the Ngarrindjeri dilemma
Doreen Kartinyeri (1935â2007) was an Aboriginal historian, in particular, a genealogist of several regions and lineages in South Australia. In her posthumously published autobiography she evokes the tensions between two orders of knowledge that were mobilised when she wrote things down. Written genealogy, drawing on oral, scientific and bureaucratic sources, was sometimes in tension with Indigenous strategies of forgetting and silence. And her inscription of secret/sacred Lawâa tactic intended to mobilise the state's defence of âAboriginal heritageââwas intensely controversial among both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. In this reading of Doreen Kartinyeri: My Ngarrindjeri Calling, I highlight the author's attempts at resolving these tensionsâmetaphorically (her body) and ethically (her conception of the interests of future generations)
âEssentially sea-going peopleâ: How Torres Strait Islanders shaped Australiaâs border
As an Opposition member of parliament in the 1950s and 1960s, Gough Whitlam took a keen interest in Australiaâs responsibilities, under the United Nationsâ mandate, to develop the Territory of Papua New Guinea until it became a self-determining nation. In a chapter titled âInternational Affairsâ, Whitlam proudly recalled his governmentâs steps towards Papua New Guineaâs independence (declared and recognised on 16 September 1975). However, Australiaâs relationship with Papua New Guinea in the 1970s could also have been discussed by Whitlam under the heading âIndigenous Affairsâ because from 1973 Torres Strait Islanders demanded (and were accorded) a voice in designing the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Whitlamâs framing of the border issue as âinternationalâ, to the neglect of its domestic Indigenous dimension, is an instance of history being written in what Tracey BanivanuaMar has called an âimperialâ mode. Historians, she argues, should ask to what extent decolonisation was merely an âimperialâ project: did âdecolonisationâ not also enable the mobilisation of Indigenous âpeoplesâ to become self-determining in their relationships with other Indigenous peoples? This is what the Torres Strait Islanders did when they asserted their political interests during the negotiation of the AustraliaâPapua New Guinea border, though you will not learn this from Whitlamâs âimperialâ account
Top-down tensions. by Tim Rowse
Can ATSIC really contribute to Aboriginal self-determination
- âŠ