Experiences of Colonization by Indigenous People - Essay Example

Experiences of Colonization by Indigenous People The term “indigenous people” does not have a universally accepted definition. Several different explanations of the term are in vogue, which was introduced by international organizations such as United Nations’ Organization, International Labor Organization, World Bank etc. For want of a concise and comprehensive definition of the term, the definition contained in Wikipedia Encyclopedia is perhaps all-encompassing. According to the Encyclopedia Indigenous People are “cultural groups and their descendants, who have an historic continuity or association with a given region, or parts of the region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region either:- Before its subsequent colonization or annexation, or Alongside other cultural groups during the formation of a nation state, or Independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation state And who furthermore have maintained at least in part their distinct linguistic, cultural and social/organizational characteristics and, in doing so, remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation state The above criterion is usually added to also include peoples who are self-identified as Indigenous, and those recognized as such by other groups.” [1]. Several other related terms are also in vogue e.g. aborigines, native peoples, first peoples, Fourth World, first nations and autochthonous (derived from Greek, meaning “sprung from the earth”). However, in this era of political correctness the term Indigenous People is more commonly used to avoid implications of racism etc. [1]. It is not quite possible to have an exact figure of the total population of Indigenous People in the world. The United Nations estimates that “there are currently about 300 million Indigenous peoples living in more than 70 countries, of whom approximately 150 million live in the Commonwealth countries. These are; Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea (South Pacific), Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Malaysia (South and South East Asia), Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, Cameroon, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda (Africa), and Canada, Guyana, and Belize (North Americas and the Caribbean).” [2]. Despite the diversity of indigenous peoples, in may be noted that they share common problems and issues in dealing with the prevailing, or invading, society. They are generally concerned that the cultures of indigenous peoples are being lost and that indigenous peoples suffer both discrimination and pressure to assimilate into their surrounding societies. This is borne out by the fact that the lands and cultures of nearly all of the peoples listed at the end of this article are under threat. Notable exceptions are the Sakha and Komi peoples (two of the Northern Indigenous Peoples of Siberia), who now control their own autonomous republics within the Russian state. In the Commonwealth, Indigenous Peoples usually face discrimination related to jobs, education, welfare, culture, and language and especially in relation to their land rights. The root cause of all this is commonly attributed to colonization. However, Commonwealth, in general, has so far not taken any concrete steps to ensure the rights of its Indigenous Peoples. This fact may come as a surprise to some because Commonwealth was built on the foundations of the principle of self-determination. Only six Commonwealth countries have specific Ministries responsible for Indigenous affairs, these include Australia, Canada, Fiji, Guyana, India, and New Zealand. [2]. The experiences of the Indigenous People are, therefore, documented and somewhat more available for study in these countries. The example of Australia is quite educative in this regard. Until 1992 Australia was clinging desperately to a fast eroding concept of terra nullius, which purported that Australia, for legal purposes, had been an uninhabited and unarmed land at the time of colonization. But another concept prevalent since 1820s was conveniently ignored. This was “the English institution of the Common Law which provided for the recognition of the indigenous peoples of Australia as the original occupants and possessors of their traditional homelands who, though they have had been dispossessed of vast areas of their original estates over the past two centuries, were entitled to respect of their rights to their remaining inheritance today.” [3]. However, the situation was rectified in 1992, when the decision of the High Court of Australia in Mabo’s case found that the doctrine of native title formed a part of Australian law, just as it had in other countries that had inherited the Common Law tradition in North America throughout Africa and Asia and New Zealand. Prior to this ground-breaking decision, there had been practically no recognition of the rights of Indigenous People (aborigines) in Australia resulting into cultural conflicts, desecration of sacred sites and social dislocation. [3]. Despite that, “socioeconomic statistics show consistently that Indigenous Australians have poorer levels of health, lower levels of education, and higher levels of unemployment and higher rates of poverty than their non-Aboriginal counterparts. Indigenous families are 20 times more likely to be homeless than non- Aboriginal families. Indigenous deaths from diabetes were 12 times greater than that of the general Australian population. 72 per cent of children in the Kimberley region under 5 years old are anemic. The standard mortality rate for Indigenous women from cervical cancer is over 8 times that of their non-Aboriginal counterparts.” [4]. In the words of Senator Aden Ridgeway, Australian Democrats’ Senator for NSW, Australia “the current policy underpinning Indigenous Affairs in Australia is that of practical reconciliation. – one driven by the conviction that better economic opportunities and individual initiative alone will deliver real equality between all Australians. There are at least two difficulties with the Government's approach of 'Practical Reconciliation'. The first is that it is really a ‘do nothing’ option. The Government has not begun to develop strategies to ensure that Indigenous people have a real stake in the economic opportunities of this country, either at an individual or communal level. The second is that the Government continues to advocate the parceling out and privatization of public resources, such as water, fisheries, and forests, to non-Indigenous groups that have no legal claim to such resources. It does this at the same time as denying the legitimacy of Indigenous claims for a stake in that process. Meanwhile, government regulation is increasingly forcing Indigenous people out of industries in which they have long participated, such as fishing, and into to a state of welfare dependence which for many families and groups has not previously existed.” [2]. The Canadian experience is quite contrary to Australian experience. The Indigenous People were in a position of power right from the time of initial contact. The presence of French in the neighboring North America may have been a cause for British to establish better relations with Canadian Indigenous People whereas in Australia there was no such compulsion. [4]. Whatever the root cause, the Indigenous People of Canada became important political allies of the British in the 18th and early 19th Centuries. [5]. In this early period, in Australia, indigenous policy was neither a priority for the imperial government nor the local government. The most fundamental difference that distinguishes the two nations’ indigenous policy making lies in the area of governmental responsibility for indigenous matters. In Canada, the federal government was responsible for indigenous affairs, and the Constitution gave the federal government substantial powers regarding its indigenous population. The Canadian Constitution Act 1867, Section 91(24), specifically arrogates to the federal government full control over all matters regarding Canadian Aboriginal peoples and lands reserved for them. This section of the Act in effect removes any official independence the Canadian Aboriginal peoples may have enjoyed, and makes them wards of the federal government. The Australian system is fundamentally different to the Canadian model. At federation, in 1901, the states assumed responsibility for Aboriginal affairs, under the Australian Constitution, because the area was not seen by either the states or the federal government as a national responsibility. The Australian Constitution, Section 51(xxvi), specifically denied the federal government the power to make laws regarding Australian Aboriginal peoples. It was not until the 1967 Referendum that the Australian federal government gained concurrent powers with regard to Aboriginal affairs. Prior to the 1967 referendum, the separate states and territories constructed their own systems of governance concerning the Aboriginal population. This multifaceted approach to Aboriginal affairs in Australia means that until 1967 it is impossible to discuss legislation on a national basis. The relative military/political unimportance of Australian Aboriginal peoples to the European powers in Australia in the 18th and 19th centuries are reflected in the almost total lack of treaty arrangements between the two. In the history of initial European indigenous contact there was only one instance of a formal treaty being signed, in what would become Victoria in 1835, which was not instigated by a government official. Treaties were the basis of Canadian relations with indigenous peoples well into the 19th century. Canada signed over 500 treaties between the years of 1867 and 1975.15 After that time the Canadian government began negotiations with Canadian Aboriginal peoples for claims agreements where no previous treaty had been signed. The lack of treaty making in Australia as compared to the integral nature of it in Canada points out the relative lack of perceived military threat and/or importance of Australian Aboriginal peoples in the Australian example. The Canadian Indian Act 17 of 1876 was the piece of legislation that finally ended any practical sense of self-government for the Canadian Aboriginal peoples. Under its auspices all financial matters, social services, including education, came under federal control. The Act was, something of a 'total' institution that, when taken alongside the treaty process, touched upon almost every aspect of Canadian Aboriginal peoples' life. A new system of governance, imposed by the European federal government, replaced traditional government and the new 'band' system was unilaterally imposed on Canadian Aboriginal peoples. The Canadian Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reported that this Act completed the transition from tribal nation to legal incompetent. The Australian experience follows that of Canada closely, if not, exactly. The notion of 'protection' arose out of the 1837 House of Commons Select Committee Report on Aborigines. The report called for a more managed system of indigenous treatment and, in keeping with the new Poor Laws in Britain, sought the creation of Aboriginal 'Protectors' analogous to the 'overseers' the Poor Laws provided for paupers. This system would dominate policy until the mid-20th century. Whereas the report set policies for the treatment of indigenous peoples generally throughout the Empire, no recommendations were made with regard to Canada. Canadian legislation of the same era also claimed protectionist powers, but even then, and certainly later, trumpeted assimilationist intentions well before the term was used in Australia. Until the 1920s and 1930s, policies and practices in Australia and Canada were founded on the notion that the indigenous peoples of those countries were 'dying out'. In 1920, the Canadian Deputy Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs stated, before a Special Committee, that the Department's aim was to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department. In Australia in the 1930s the extinction of the Australian Aboriginal peoples was still generally taken for granted. The policies of the different governments in Australia in general reflected a desire that this 'dying out' should take place. In Canada and Australia, major changes occurred in indigenous policy after World War II. The most notable causes for this are linked, but the knowledge of Nazi Germany's racial policies and their outcomes, which added to the growing strength of Freudian ideas, hastened the demise of eugenic ideologies. Canadian policy changed in response to the war which had been fought against institutionalized racism. The obvious reason being that it was impossible, after WWII, not to notice the racist basis of that policy. For similar reasons Australian governments were moved to repeal discriminatory laws, especially as Australia took such a prominent role in the newly formed United Nations. However, the changing policies did not dramatically alter the situation of indigenous peoples. Changes did occur from the 1960s in Australia and Canada which granted limited autonomy to indigenous peoples. In Canada, the 1965 Federal-Provincial Conference on Indian Affairs came to an agreement in principle on the policy of integration, whereby Indian education and other services would be integrated with European Canadian services. In making this call, the Canadian Government found that all Canadian Aboriginal problems, such as overrepresentation in incarceration, political impotence, economic marginalization, were not due to generations of government policy, practice and racial prejudice at work within European society, but rather they were due to a lack of integration into the broader Canadian society. The recent past has seen more shifting patterns of governmental policy in Australia and Canada regarding indigenous peoples in many areas. Accompanying this is a growing, if occasional and grudging, acceptance of some level of responsibility for the difficulties and disadvantages which indigenous people suffer. This movement towards the acceptance of governmental responsibility has not been universal or complete, and further policy shifts have seen a reappearance of the types of policies already outlined. the major change in Canadian policy has been the increasing involvement of Canadian Aboriginal peoples in the creation and negotiation of government policy In Australia, there have also been some major changes to Aboriginal policy. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was formed in 1990 when the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs was merged with the Aboriginal Development Commission. [6]. Works Cited 1. 2. Dr Whall, Helena. Indigenous Peoples in the Commonwealth – A Story of Exclusion. Commonwealth Parliamentarian Association publication “Parliamentarian”, July 2003. 3. Keynote speech by Mr. Noel Pearson. 4. Behrent, Larissa. The Protection of Indigenous Rights: Contemporary Canadian Comparisons. Law and Bills Digest Group.27 June 2000. 5. Buti, Toni. The Systematic Removal of Indigenous Children from Their Families in Australia and Canada: The History – Similarities and Differences 6. Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody [RCIADIC], National Report: Overview and Recommendations, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1991 Read More