White Australia Policy and the Indigenous Population - Essay Example

Link between today’s Indigenous population problems and the White Australia Policy Name Institution Some scholarly evidences have suggested that the past colonialists actions have continued to resonate in the 21st century Australia, and will surely continue to affect the future (Calma, 2005). In Calma’s (2005) views, the policies, laws, and practices that were intended to separate children of the Indigenous Australians from their families made direct significant contributions to alienating the current Indigenous societies. This argument receives significant support from Lavarch (1997) who pointed to the fact that when the adults who were removed while children, as well as the abuses they went through at the hands of the authorities have experienced enduring suffering. In his view, the harm has continued in the current generations. Indeed, as Skwirk (2014) notes, much of the effects are still felt to date by their children and their grandchildren. From this reflection, an underlying assumption is that the past is very much alive in the modern Australian society, due to the continued damage to the lives of Aboriginal Australians. The policy of removing indigenous children from their families to place them in concentration camps is currently sufficiently documented. This essay argues that the problems the Indigenous population in Australia today deal with are a direct consequence of the Government’s policies regarding Aboriginal people that were in effect during the 20th century, as part of the White Australia policy, were racially motivated. This paper examines the motivation for the segregationist policies targeted at the Aborigines and their implications, based on the themes of "Stolen generation" and White Australia Policies. The key research question is: Is there a link between the problems that the Indigenous population in Australia must today content with and the Government’s policies, as part of the White Australia policy, during the colonial period? White Australia Policy and the Indigenous Population The White Australia policy effectively attained its objective by restricting the number of non-European people who could settle in the country. Still, it should be noted that the laws associated with the White Australia policy were intended for the Asian immigrants, as well as the Aboriginal Australians. In particular, the Aboriginal Australians were not taken into account as much as the Europeans during the formation of the Australian Federation. For instance, the original Commonwealth of Australia Constitution enacted in 1901 had only two references to the Indigenous Australians. In this respect, Section 51 (Part xxvi) granted the Federal Government and the individual States power over the Indigenous Australians. What this indicates is that from the outset, the Federal Government did not consider dealing with the Aboriginal Australians. They considered that the Aborigines could not be equated to the white population, as it left it upon the individual States to deal with them. Again, section 127 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution deprived the Indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants of their right for inclusion in the national census. For these reason, the two minor references indicated that the Federal Parliament considered the Aborigines to be insignificant. The Federal government’s stance towards the Aborigines becomes even more vivid when the historical events that lead to the formation of the Commonwealth are put into perspective. For instance, Sourek (2009) explains that a new era of policies designed for the Aboriginal people started after the appointing of George Thornton as the NSW Protector of Aborigines in 1881. In his view, while such is depicted as the policy of protection, it actually depicted the onset of segregation of the Aboriginal population from the white population. The objective, as Buti (2008) notes, was to drive the Aboriginal people out of their society and to move them into living their age-old system lifestyles. The scholars further claim that there was a commonly shared assumption that an effective way of preserving the indigenous race in its purity was by segregating the Aboriginal people in the reserves overseen by the Protector of Aborigines’ orders and eventually the NSW Aboriginal Protection Board. Therefore, segregation became a central component of the Aboriginal Protection Policy” (NSWALC), hence implying that in fact, it was intended to protect the white population from the possibilities of encountering the Aborigines (Sourek, 2009). In fact, as Hampton and Toombs (2011) point out, it is such discriminatory laws that contributed. For instance, the official declaration of the assimilation policy of 1951 stipulated that all the Aboriginal people should be able to live in the same way as other Australians, where they enjoy the same privileges and rights, accept similar responsibilities, observe similar customs, and become influenced by similar hopes, beliefs, as well as loyalties (Sourek, 2009). Still in 1951, the Commonwealth minister for territories interpreted what the declaration mean, which left no doubt as to the position of the Government towards the Aborigines. He defined assimilation as practically meaning that all individuals of Aboriginal blood or half-Aboriginal blood should live like White Australians do (Hudec, 2011). Still, it is clear that the government believed that the “white cultures were superior and that it was more sensible for the Aboriginal individuals to enjoy similar rights and privileges, as well as to accept similar responsibilities in the same way as the White Australians. All lived in the same country, and, therefore, should have been considered bona fide citizens, which was factually incorrect until 1967, if evidence provided by Cassidy (2006) should be taken into perspective. In fact, the only assumption that appears more convincing is that by having similar customs, hopes, beliefs and loyalties, the government would provide the Aboriginal people with civil rights and even citizenship provided that the Aborigines accepted to do away with their beliefs and cultures, and, therefore, willingly assimilate and complied with the white cultural demands and values. Motivation for the White Australia Policies The basis for the segregationist policies was not only for purposes of assimilation. It was racially motivated. Lavarch (1997) explains that the basis for the policy was assimilation. An underlying assumption was that removal of the indigenous children from their families made it convenient for the government to break the eventually to be assimilated into white society. Jennett (1999), however, argues that the colonialists tended to focus on aboriginal children who had mixed parentage. For this reason, although the policy predates 1937, it is in the year that it was decided at the first ever meeting between the Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities that the ‘destiny of the Aboriginal Australia who were not of full blood, lay in the eventual absorption by the Commonwealth people. As a result, it recommended the authorities to direct their forces to that end. Starting from the time the British colonised the vast lands that came to be known as Australia, land was classified by the colonial state as “terra nullius.” As Jennett (1999) explains, the term “terra nullius” has two key meanings. It means country that lacks sovereign, is acceptable to the European authorities; and next, it means people who inhabit the land do not in fact own the land as no system of tenure exists. In the same way land was perceived as terra nullius, Dirk (2011) explains that the Indigenous people were perceived to be British subjects, rather than citizens. Because of such perceptions, some scholars, such as Wood (1999), who was more concerned with the Aboriginal land rights, have indicated that any attempt to resist dispossession of their lands and disruption of their lifestyle was perceived to be criminal activity. For this reason, the concept of 'Justice' was entrenched within the colonisation project (Rudin, 2006). Again, the British viewed themselves to be the enlightened people and, therefore, the “bearers of civilisation.” Hence, they had the right to develop the lands. This was despite the fact that the Aboriginal Australians, who are the original inhabitants of the country, had occupied the country for nearly 40,000 years before the British colonists arrived. When the colonisation process began in 1788, an incursion of individuals from Ireland and Britain, who comprised nearly a homogeneous group of individuals from the Anglo-Celtic origin, started streaming into Australia. Eventually, they dominated in the society and gradually comprised what came to be commonly referred to as the “White population,” in contrast to the Aboriginal people, who were dubbed the “Blacks.” Some authors have attempted to explain that the “White population” dissented to anyone who was not “white” to settle in the country, as they sought to preserve the single national culture. In fact, it is based on this assumption that Lavarch (1997) explains that such dissents were the basis for the highly controversial policy called the White Australia policy. As ABS (2012) attempts to show, the policy was in fact a set of complex regulations, acts, and policies entrenched into the Australian legal system following the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. There is sufficient evidence from scholarly literature explaining that the chief objective of the White Australia policy was prevention of non-European immigration to the country. This was, as Sourek (2009) further explains, intended to help maintain the “whiteness” in Australia, particularly the Anglo-Celtic descent. In fact, after the introduction of the policy, Australia became virtually a racist state, as it treated the Aboriginal Australians on the basis of their origins. As reasoned earlier, the White Australia policy comprised a sequence of regulations, acts, and laws that the Australian parliament enacted (Sourek, 2009). In spite of being the initial inhabitants of the country, the Aboriginal Australians experience considerable suffering in the aftermath of the White Australia policy in addition to a series of other the white colonisers introduced ahead of formation of the Commonwealth in 1901. For this reason, Buti (2008) explains that while the concept of the White Australia policy describes the conditions following 1901, it is more reasonable to include a number of other policies aimed at assimilation and conquest of the Aboriginal Australians even before 1901 and later on, including the assimilation policies that contributed to the “Stolen Generations.” The term Stolen Generations refers to practices by the Australian government to remove Aboriginal or half-Aboriginal children from their original families between 1869 and 1969. During the period, the government took children who were below the age of four years and into government-controlled institutions known as State home, or church mission known as religious homes. In New South Wales for instance, Aboriginal children were removed from their families whenever the court could prove the neglect. However, evidence from literature, such as that of Buti (2008) and Cassidy (2006) shows that the children were removed despite their being no question of neglect. Cassidy (2006) provides valid arguments attesting to the fact that removal of the Aboriginal children was intrinsically racially motivated. Mostly, this was the situation for those who highly advocated for removing the children, whose objective entailed breeding out a race (Battiste, 2011). Based on these facts, the dominant mission of the policy was assimilation of the Aboriginal population into the white society or makes those who were unwilling to assimilate to become extinct. George (2001) also suggests that the assimilation objective was premised on the need to eliminate Aboriginality, which was then defined as the rejection of Aboriginal languages, rituals, customs and the cutting kinship ties to facilitate absorption into the white society. White Australian policies as Origin of racism When the term “White” in the “White Australia policy’ is taken into review; it is easy to note that the policy was mainly concerned with projective white supremacy, racism or ethnocentrism. As Broome (1982) attempted to explain, humans are vulnerable to feeling superior to other human beings. Dudgeon et al. (2012) views this as natural, as people who originate from dissimilar cultural backgrounds habitually assume that their cultures and customs are superior. This belief is what Broome (1982) describes as ethnocentrism. In the 19th century, the Australian population was predominantly of British descent, meaning that the residents were predominantly ‘white.’ The ‘white’ in this sense is a denotation rooted in the colour of the skin. On the other hand, the British descendants that had managed to colonise the Australian continent and declare it the property of the United Kingdom, were in fact not the only group of individuals living in the country (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2014). In fact, a comparatively large number of Indigenous Australians also existed in the country. However, Broome (1982) and Cordell & Judith (1987) seem to agree that since the Europeans had claimed racial and cultural and superiority, the Indigenous people were viewed to be insignificant. In fact, a later review by Cassidy (2006) also shows that the objective to keep Australia “white,” triggered the feeling that the Aborigines were a threat. This point is, however, contested by an earlier review by Hartwig (1972) who claimed that before 1851, there was still no racism towards the non-European people and that the Aborigines were, until then, not viewed as threats. Instead, they were perceived to be insignificant. According to Hartwig (1972), racism started during the Gold Rush in 1851 when a threat emerged of foreigners from Asia who began migrating into Australia in large numbers in pursuit of Australian goldfields. Among them included the Chinese, who made up about 40,000 at the time. Broome (1982) explains that the Asians and Aborigines were at the time viewed to be inferior races. They were ultimately viewed to be a threat to the European hegemony. In Cassidy’s (2006) view, it is such perceptions that led to the formulation of the White Australia Policy. Implications of the White Australia Policies The White Australia Policies are today acceptably “acknowledged’’ as being the chief contributor to the racial problems, as well as devastation of Aboriginal families and cultures because of the practices of separating Aboriginal children from their families, or parents, hence generating the Stolen Generations (Buti, 2008). Indeed, current evidence from literature provides some convincing facts showing that the effects of the Stolen Generations are among the greatest issues facing Australia today (Department of Social Services, 2009; Skwirk, 2014). While the White Australia policy was formerly done away with in the 1970s, its consequences are evident to date. As Skwirk (2014) shows, the contemporary Aboriginal population still had to contend with the effects of the Stolen Generations today. In fact, Cassidy (2006) argues that many of those forcibly removed from their homes still live, and, therefore, face the displacement problem and significance loss of identity. This is why, as Cassidy (2006) explains, they are not able to offer their children things that they were denied, and became of the insensitive measures reinforced by the White Australia policy. This perspective is well supported by the current crop of sociologists. According to Wundersitz (2010), the present-day problems associated with domestic violence, drug addiction, alcoholism, as well as child abuse are largely associated with the Aboriginal population, and are reminders of the period of Australian history where the measures of the White Australia policy were in effect. This had led to their overrepresentation in prisons. According to Cassidy (2006), the implications of the assimilation policy aimed at the “half-caste” children are enormous. The children became deprived of parental love, care, and guidance. The children also lost their identities and throughout their lives lived with the emotional trepidation of being unwanted or removed (Garvey, 2008). As Sourek (2009) shows, while the “full-blood” Aboriginal people did not get acceptance into the white society, the “half-caste” Aborigines were viewed to be more able to be raised in agreement with the white lifestyles. The children, who had been removed, as Metcalfe (2008) argues, also grew up in neglected and hostile environments where they lacked cultural identity and family ties. When they became adults, many experienced insecurity, low self-esteem, felt worthless, were depressed, as well as became suicidal, violent, delinquent, abused of alcohol and drugs and mistrusting (Dunn et al., 2007). Maddock (1998) also shows in her explanations that since they lacked a parental model, the Aborigines found it difficult to bring up their own children later in their lives. The extent of separation also had significant social and health effects on the entire Aboriginal community (Pellekaan & Clague 2005). For instance, they developed a lack of sense of purpose and, therefore, failed to trust the Government, the police and the authorities to date. Therefore, the policies also led to the erosion of Aboriginal communities. The policies have also been cited for the great discrepancies between the Aboriginal and non-Indigenous Australians in the areas of health, life expectancy, crime and housing (Navarro, 2009; Forrest & Dunn, 2007; Paradies et al., 2008). For instance, during the 1990s and even in the 2000s, infant mortality rates were higher among the Aboriginal people by 3 to 4 times than the total Australian population. Again, the life expectancy during birth is still. In fact, statistics from the Department of Health and Ageing shows that the “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who were born between 1996 and 2001 have had life expectancies pegged at 17 years lower than that of an average Australians born during the same period. Majority of the Aboriginal people are also likely to be victims and offenders (Wundersitz, 2010). Crime and justice data provided by Crime Research Centre of the University of Western Australia indicates that in 2000, the Aborigines were five times more prone to becoming victims of violence compared to the non-Aboriginal Australians. Additionally, the arrest rates for the Aborigines were 10 times more compared to that of the non-Aboriginal Australians. At the same time, rates for adult imprisonment were 26 times more compared to that of the non-Aboriginal Australians. The juvenile detention rate was also 30 times more than that of the non-Aboriginal Australians. Conclusion The problems the Indigenous population in Australia today deal with are a direct consequence of the Government’s policies regarding Aboriginal people that were in effect during the 20th century, as part of the White Australia policy, which were racially motivated. From a review of literature, there is sufficient evidence showing that the basis for the segregationist policies was not only for purposes of assimilation. It was racially motivated. Again, the removal of the Aboriginal children was intrinsically racially motivated. Evidence from literature also indicates that the present-day problems prevalent among the Aborigines are associated with the White Australia policies and the “Stolen Generations.” The problems include domestic violence, drug addiction, alcoholism, as well as child abuse are largely associated with the Aboriginal population. References ABS. (2012). Unity and Diversity: The History And Culture Of Aboriginal Australia. Retrieved from Australian Bureau of Statistics website: Australian Law Reform Commission. (2014). Aboriginal Societies: The Experience of Contact. Australian Government. Retrieved: Battiste, M. (2011). Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Vancouver: UBC Press Broome, R. (1982). Aboriginal Australians: Black Response to White Dominance 1788-1980. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin Buti, A. (2008). The Stolen Generations and Litigation Revisited. Melbourne University Law Review 32(1), 384-407 Calma, T. (2005). The current challenges facing Indigenous people in Australia and the importance of rights. Retrieved from Australian Human Rights Commission website: Cassidy, J. (2006). The Stolen Generations – Canada and Australia: The Legacy Of Assimilation. Deakin Law Review, 11(1), 132-140 Cordell, J. & Judith, F, (1987). Torres Strait: Cultural Identity and the Sea. Cultural Survival Quarterly. 11(2), 1-4 Department of Social Services. (2009). Closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage: the challenge for Australia - 2009. The Australian Government. Retrieved: Dirk, M. (2011). Official apologies, reconciliation, and settler colonialism: Australian indigenous alterity and political agency. Citizenship Studies, 15(02), 145-159 Dudgeon, P., Wright, M., Paradies,Y., Garvey, D. & Walker, I. (2012). The Social, Cultural and Historical Context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Retrieved from: Dunn, K., Kamp, A, Shaw., W, Forrest, J. & Paradies, Y. (2007). Indigenous Australians’ Attitudes Towards Multiculturalism, Cultural Diversity, ‘Race’ and Racism. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues 13(4), 19-31 Forrest, J. & Dunn, K. (2007). Constructing Racism in Sydney, Australia’s Largest EthniCity. Urban Studies 44(4). 699-721 Garvey, D. (2008). Review of the social and emotional wellbeing of Indigenous Australian peoples. Retrieved from: George, M. (2001). Aboriginal Australians and the Impact of the White Man. Masaryk University Brno Faculty of Education. Retrieved from: Hampton, R. & Toombs, M. (2011). Culture, identity and Indigenous Australian peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press Hartwig, M. (1972). Aborigines and Racism: An Historical Perspective. RACISM: The Australian Experience. Ed. F.S. Stevens. Vol. 2. Sydney: Australia & New Zealand Book, 1972. 9-24. Hudec, P. (2011). Aboriginal Australians and the Impact of the White Man. Retrieved: Jennett, C. (1999). Policing And Indigenous Peoples In Australia. Paper presented at the History of Crime, Policing and Punishment Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with Charles Sturt University and held in Canberra, 9-10 December 1999 Lavarch, M. (1997). Bringing them Home. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Maddock, K. (1998). The ‘Stolen Generations’: A Report from Experience. Agenda 5(3) 347-353 Metcalfe, L. (2008). The impact of ‘White Australia’ on the development of Australian national identity in the period between 1880 and 1914. Retrieved from: Navarro, V. (2009). What We Mean By Social Determinants Of Health International. Journal of Health Services 39(3), 423–441 Paradies, Y. Harris, R. & Anderson, I. (2008). The Impact of Racism on Indigenous Health in Australia and Aotearoa: Towards a Research Agenda. Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health and Flinders University, CRCAH Discussion Paper Series – ISSN 1834–156X Pellekaan, S. & Clague, L. (2005). Toward health and wellbeing for indigenous Australians," Postgrad Med Jourlan 81, 618-624 Rudin, J. (2006). Aboriginal Peoples and the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from: Skwirk. (2014). Challenges facing the Indigenous community today. Retrieved from Skwirk website: Sourek, P. (2009). The White Australia Policy and the Issues of Aboriginal Population As Depicted in Contemporary Aboriginal Dramaand American Studies. English Language and Literature. Masaryk University Faculty of Arts: Department of English Wood, S. (1999). Aboriginal Land Rights in Australia. Human Rights Brief 6(3) , 5-10 Wundersitz, J. (2010). Indigenous perpetrators of violence: Prevalence and risk factors for offending. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology Read More