The Aboriginal Embassy Protest of 1972 - Essay Example

Major Essay Question Name Course Tutor University Date The Aboriginal Embassy Protest of 1972 Introduction The Australian Aboriginal people gained political consciousness by embracing land rights and expressing their views through protests during the decades preceding 1972. Deep emotions characterized the growing debate amongst the Aboriginals that set the stage for politically expressing their growing awareness of traditional dispossession. This culminated into nine-month protests along the lawns of the old parliament building, which was turned into a public arena for airing the discontentment amongst the Aboriginals (Fan & others, 2015). Calm restraint and tumultuous violence became the hallmark of the protests that led to legislative changes that gave way for the recognition of the Aboriginals’ land rights. Major political parties adopted restoration of land to the Aboriginals as part of their political agenda as the Aboriginal Embassy gained legendary status thus becoming a source of inspiration to the Aboriginals in the subsequent decades. A series of events culminated into the 1972 Aboriginals Embassy protests and these included a decision by the Northern Territory Supreme and the subsequent statement by the Prime Minister on Australia Day in January 1972 (Muldoon & Schaap, 2012). The Northern Territory Supreme Court Decision The Australians consider land rights as a prerequisite for economic freedom since land is the base for generating resources and creating employment. In April 1971, the Northern Territory Supreme Court shocked many Australians in its decision that granted permission to a mining company giving it rights of accessing Aboriginal land. The decision was based on the simple fact that the common law in Australia did not formally recognize the land rights of the Aboriginal communities (Feltham, 2004). Representatives from the Aboriginal communities attempted to seek the Prime Minister’s intervention by requesting for issuance of title deeds for their land, payment of royalties following the mining activities, exclusive rights to accept or refuse any further development activities on their lands, and restoration of their land ownership status after conclusion of the mining activities. The Prime Minster William McMahon made an undertaking to look into the concerns of the Aboriginals and devise strategies for protecting the interests of the Aboriginal communities (Lothian, 2007). The Statement by Prime Minister McMahon on the Australia Day The conception of the Aboriginal Embassy was triggered by a statement issued by Prime Minister McMahon during sthe Australia Day on 26th January 1972. McMahon’s speech was an extension of his party’s policy that sought to abolish the Aboriginal community by integrating them into the mainstream society of Australia through the concept of diluted assimilation. The Prime Minister acknowledged the government’s awareness of the Aboriginals’ strong affinity with the land but reported the enactment of a new policy to govern land reserves held by the Aboriginals and every other person (Muldoon & Schaap, 2012). Under the new plan, the government undertook to assist individuals or groups in effective holding of land as well as respected places within a unitary Australian society while taking cognizance of the traditions and diverse culture of Australia. The Prime Minister also dismissed the concept of prioritizing development in some parts of Australia was inconsistent with the assimilation agenda thus contrary to the objectives (Thomas, 2015). The speech went further to claim that the government’s deliberate actions had positively transformed the housing standards, created employment opportunities, and improved health sector. The government had also abolished the concept of special disabilities in its programs and sensationally claimed to have improved the health of the Aboriginal communities (Schaap, 2009). In what appeared to upset the Aboriginal people, McMahon began to underscore the possibilities of the Aboriginal people having their rights recognized in law. Although the Prime Minister acknowledged the government’s awareness of the desire by the Aboriginals to have a lawful recognition of their land rights, she went ahead to enumerate a number of constraints that would be applicable to the Aboriginals while accessing the said land. The statement hinted to the abolition of land rights contrary to the propositions of the activists in an attempt to prevent potential challenges created by the uncertainties relating to the title deeds within Australia (Thomas, 2015). Instead, the government resorted to issuing general purposes leases lasting for a period of fifty years on condition that the land recipients conduct meaningful economic activities. This excluded land parcels allocated as crown land or reserve, and existing missions. In addition, the government undertook to purchase land located outside reserves depending on its availability. The final statement of the Prime Minister’s statement was a warning issued to Yirrkala people who were opposing a mining venture by Nabalco while affirming that the mine was in the nation’s interest (Fan & others, 2015). Clearly, the Prime Minister had reneged on the promise made to the Aboriginal people in their previous attempts to have the government intervene in their predicaments especially following the infamous decision by the Northern Territory Supreme Court. Following this betrayal, the Aboriginal activists sprung into action through meetings and resource mobilization activities in an attempt to have their voices heard with the hope that they would regain the coveted land rights that were dear to them (Fan & others, 2015). The events during the Embassy protests The Prime Minister’s statement did not resonate well with the young activists from the Aboriginal communities that occupied the eastern parts of Australia. Important to note was the fact that these group of Aboriginals had heightened political activities during the preceding decades and participated in numerous demonstrations to protest bad and oppressive governance policies. Consequently, the pronouncements on Australia Day worsened the existing divide with the Aboriginals feeling more ostracized, as their hopes appeared to dwindle (Fan & others, 2015). Billy Craigie, Michael Anderson, Tony Coorey, and Bertie Williams are credited for the initiation of the Embassy protests that started on 26th January 1972. The four Aboriginal activists enacted a beach umbrella at 1.00am along the lawns of the Old Parliament building in Canberra to protest the government’s decision to introduce leasehold land ownership across Australia at the expense of the interests of the Aboriginal communities (Muldoon & Schaap, 2012). Their actions gained national attention and protesters started flocking in to erect more tents as a sign of growing displeasure against the approach taken by the government. This became the start of protracted battles between the Aboriginal protesters and the government of the day led by Prime Minister William McMahon. The number of protesters grew as days passed with a record 2,000 protesters gathered along parliament lawns on one single occasion (Muldoon & Schaap, 2012). In July the same year, the government changed the law to prohibit trespassing commonwealth in a bid to bring the protests under control. Consequently, the government ordered the police to use force in dismantling the embassy and clear the protests. The clashes between the police and the protesters continued until in September 1972 when the supreme court annulled the use of the new trespass laws by the government thereby paving way for the symbolic re-erection of the embassy. However, government operatives destroyed this on the morning that followed its establishment (Feltham, 2004). The Aboriginal protesters re-enacted the Tent Embassy in 1974 and maintained it in place until after the negotiations by Charles Perkins that led to the Aboriginal Land Rights Act of 1976. During its 20th anniversary in 1992, the Aboriginal Tent Embassy was re-enacted thereafter serving as the focal point for a wider indigenous movement. The year 1995 marked the listing of the embassy in the National Estate register as a historical site representing the Aboriginals’ political struggle (Schaap, 2009). The Tent Embassy has elicited both positive and negative emotions amongst the Australians over the past decades. Several arson attacks torching the embassy have been reported throughout the course of its existence with recent attacks in 2003. The 40th anniversary of the Aboriginal Embassy protests commemorated in 2012 restored the Aboriginal struggles back to the opening pages of modern day history (Lothian, 2007). Significance of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy The Aboriginal Tent Embassy symbolizes the political struggle that started from the grass roots to subvert the narrative of colonization. This was made possible by the accounts of the living experiences by the Aboriginal people that focused on dispossession, poverty, disease, and racism. In the recent past, elders from the Aboriginal communities have appeared to pass the baton to the young people hoping to involve them more as they confront health related challenges affecting their communities (Fan & others, 2015). Aboriginals still feel short changed by the ruling regimes that make promises to ameliorate their living standards by addressing the fundamental issues that affect their livelihood such as unemployment, poverty, and disease. The embassy tent represents a never-ending struggle that inspires the present generations of Aboriginals. Today, the Aboriginals believe that they have the capacity to champion the direction of their lives and they are the solution to the challenges that they face (Muldoon & Schaap, 2012). The Embassy protests of 1972 represent the most significant and successful protest spanning the Aboriginals historical struggles. The tent embassy gained national focus and records visits from tourists everyday who get to learn about the history of the Aboriginal communities. The Aboriginal communities are yet to enjoy comprehensive rights over their land hence the need for binding treaties that fully address the concerns of the Aboriginals. Mining activities have also persisted on Aboriginal lands with no clear policies that safeguard the interests of these communities (Lothian, 2007). Interventions by the Northern Territory continue to disenfranchise the Aboriginal communities that do not have land rights or adequate funding essential for the management of their affairs. Important to note is the fact the sovereignty of the Aboriginal communities has never been the subject of any law and over the past years, the Australian senate has granted it some consideration. There is need for heightened advocacy activities amongst the Aboriginal communities in order to have their rights fully recognized by the Australian Common Law (Feltham, 2004). Unity among the Aboriginal communities remains very crucial in the realization of their objectives. In addition, strong leadership is essential in delivering the aspirations of Australia’s Aboriginal communities considering their distribution across the entire nation. The Aboriginal Tent Embassy shall therefore continue to be a symbol of the Aboriginal Unity and their strong resolve to have their rights fully recognized by law (Fan & others, 2015). Conclusion Land rights are essential for the attainment of economic freedom amongst communities and the government bears the responsibility of ensuring that the citizens have access to the factors of production. The failure by the state to guarantee land rights culminated into the 1972 embassy protests by the Aboriginal communities going down in history as one of the longest protests against the political establishment. Today Aboriginals are yet to have their land rights fully recognized by the law and their struggle transformed into a political struggle for social and economic rights over the past decades. Addressing the concerns of the Aboriginals requires multi-stakeholder collaboration and good will from the government to end the overdue struggle by these communities. Racism, discrimination, and persecution of members of the Aboriginal communities are still prevalent in Australia hence the significance of the Aboriginal Embassy protests in modern day Australia. References Fan, R., & others. (2015). Redfern tent embassy discusses Aboriginal resistance. Green Left Weekly, (1039), 8. Feltham, O. (2004). Singularity happening in politics: The aboriginal tent embassy, Canberra 1972. Communication and Cognition, 37(3/4), 225–246. Lothian, K. (2007). Moving blackwards: Black power and the Aboriginal Embassy. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.508.2302 Muldoon, P., & Schaap, A. (2012). Aboriginal sovereignty and the politics of reconciliation: the constituent power of the Aboriginal Embassy in Australia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 30(3), 534–550. Schaap, A. (2009). The absurd proposition of Aboriginal sovereignty. Law and Agonistic Politics, 209–223. Thomas, G. (2015). The right to be human: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and human rights. Knowledge of Life: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australia, 203.  Read More