Indigenous Australia and Belonging - Literature review Example

Indigenous Australia and Belonging Name Institution Course Tutor Date In nations that have beed colonized, migration and dispossession often influence how communities configure belonging, home and place. In the context of Australia, non-indigenous people enjoy the sense of belonging, home and place based on the dispossession by the original land owners and the denial of the rights of indigenous people under the international law of customs (Moreton-Robinson 2003). This sense of belonging is obtained from ownership and its self-regulation organizes the myth of the pioneer. Contrary to this stands the Indigenous community’s configuration of belonging in its incommensurable difference (Hunt 2013). Thus, this essay discusses ways in Indigenous Australia configure belonging and how they accommodate differences in experiences and conceptions of belonging. In Australia, indigenous communities still remember the nature of migration and therefore position all non-Indigenous Australians as not only migrants, but also as people from the diaspora. According to Moreton-Robinson (2003) the ontological relationship to land by Indigenous Australia, the way the nation constitute people from this community, and hence how it indisputably relates to land marks incommensurable difference between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Australia. In deed, the relationship Indigenous Australia has with land is a position they do not and can not share with the non-Indigenous communities whose sense of belonging is attached to migrancy. Although Indigenous Australia is likely to have been seduced and incorporated in by the colonizer’s cultural forms, the situation they went through has not reduced the ontological connection to land (Dudgeon et al 2010). In fact, this has enabled people from Indigenous Australia be behave as whites while remaining Indigenous. In this regard, the position of Indigenous Australia on land and in belonging for this matter can be considered as fixed and incontrovertible. Their position cannot be wiped away by the processes of colonization as Young (1986) argues, whose purpose is to position the people from the Indigenous community as object, other, inferior, and the origin of this community is not tied to migration. Even before the migrants arrived in the country, Australia was a multicultural society. Over 500 language people are approximated to have held title to land in Australia before the British colonization (Moreton-Robinson 2003). Equally, people from Indigenous Australia had land ownership, lived on, and were attached to certain tracts of Australia land. This is a terminology people use to mean one’s territory of origin, or being connected to the very piece of land (Fredericks 2013). Configuration of belonging in Indigenous Australia is derived from the ontological relationship to land and this originates from the Dreaming. In this case, the precedents for what are thought to have taken place in the beginning in the nature of social living by the ancestors are provided by the Dreaming (Dudgeon et al 2010). It is during the Dreaming that the ancestors in Indigenous Australia created life and the land and these are attached to certain tracks on the nation. Beliefs and knowledge the Indigenous Australians have attached to the Dreaming guide the present and future, hence help in defining their belonging. In Indigenous Australia, the ancestral beings are believed to have created humans, animals, plants and the physiographic elements of the country they were associated with. Additionally, they introduced the Indigenous ways of life which constitutes patterns of activity and a more code of social institutions that exist in the community (Joseph 2002). Ancestral beings established rules that guided the behaviour of Indigenous people and which provided for what can be done and what cannot be done in the community (Valentine 1997). According to Dunn et al (2010) they are considered as immortal and creatures of the Dreaming who left possessions across the country, designating particular sites of importance to the entire Indigenous community in Australia. As such, their presence on earth is still recognized in Indigenous Australia because they left behind substantial evidence According to Moreton-Robinson (2003) ancestral beings in Indigenous Australia also changed gender and form and are often connected with natural species. For example, an ancestral being who existed in the form of an owl is today associated with all owls in the ordinary world. This means that the ancestral being’s spirit continues today. Since the spirits of the ancestors gave birth to humans as indicated earlier, they share a common force of life. This highlights the attachment of humans to the earth in stead of being separated (Joseph 2002). Indigenous Australia’s ontological relationship with land is a form of embodiment which occurs through the inter-support of humans, ancestral beings and land. Therefore, the fact that Indigenous Australians are descendants of these ancestral beings, their sense of belonging as argued by Valentine (1997) is derived to community through and from these ancestral beings, implying that their ontological relationship to land has not been eroded by colonization. During colonization, it was argued that Australia did not belong to any one, something that informed and continues to inform the relationship between the nation state and Indigenous Australians (Hunt 2013). State policies and legislation did not allow Indigenous Australians to participate as citizens by removing them to missions, reserves and cattle stations, yet they lived their entire lives here under surveillance regimes (Moreton-Robinson 2003). Although many people were removed from their ancestral communities, they did not leave the knowledge of these communities behind. Additionally, other people from Indigenous Australia were forcefully removed from their families and adopted by while families or placed in institutions they were not familiar with (Dudgeon et al 2010). Therefore, colonization resulted to various perspectives that formed the way Indigenous subjectivities is constructed, which continue to be positioned within history formations relative to a certain country, space and time. The Indigenous subjectivities are in deed attached to their ontological relationship to land and play an important part in positioning their political and cultural identities. The Indigenous Australians do not consider themselves to be migrants based on the premise that they have shifted from one country to another, but it is the removal policies that transferred various people from Indigenous Australia to another places (Dudgeon et al 2010). In effect, the dislocation means that although they can be out of place, but they are still connected to their community through their ontological relationship to land and cultural protocols as Fredericks (2013) argues. Removal and dislocation effects have led to various constructions of subjectivity that try to connect individuals to place in a number of ways. For example, the life histories of women from Indigenous Australia reveal that Indigenous Australians are connected by descent, place, community, or shared experiences. They depict a moral sociality ordering that embraces mutual support and caring for people they are closely connected with in the community (Moreton-Robinson 2003). The ontological relationship to place and home by the Indigenous Australians facilitates this belonging and connectedness. Although this ontology continues to exist, Moreton-Robinson (2003) asserts that it is not easily noticeable, frequently indefinable and in most cases not recognized for many people from non-Indigenous Australia in their difference with people from Indigenous Australia. The successive legal systems the Indigenous Australians live under are products of conditions of post-colonizing. Additionally, the circumstances of Indigenous Australia are connected to the migration of non-Indigenous people and the dislocation of Indigenous Australians is due to their land being taken away for to be used by the new immigrants (Dudgeon et al 2010). Thus, people in Indigenous Australia share this ordinary experience the same way all migrants enjoy the benefits of dispossession of the Indigenous people. The postcolonial, according to postcolonial theory, is positioned relative to the prevailing culture in a community an individual leaves and the community of arrival. Thus, as Ahmed (2000) postulates, post-coloniality is present in Australia, however, it is equally determined by white possession. Nevertheless, Indigenous Australian’s sense of belonging, place and home are configured differently to how migrants view them. In any case, there exists no other homeland known to offer a point of place, or origin for many identities. But, the basis of Indigenous Australians’ ownership is through their ontological relation to land. In relation to the above discussion, liberal philosophy on individual freedom and rights is likely to strengthen belonging and disparity in Indigenous Australia in a number of ways. Liberalism is a moral philosophy and political philosophy (Chau 2009), that is based on two main principles which might support Indigenous Australia’s sense of belonging and difference. First, liberal philosophy puts the individual at the center of society and it explains that social order built around the individual is highly valued. Secondly, liberal philosophy provides that society is meant to allow individuals to achieve their best as they so wish by giving them much freedom as possible (Chau 2009). In the context of Indigenous Australia’s sense of belonging, the government may take a laissez-faire approach to the Indigenous community by allowing people to make their own decisions that uphold how they configure belonging and interact with other people they are interconnected with. Additionally, by state not interfering with Indigenous’ sense of ownership, and allowing them to exercise their freedom as concerns ownership, it would be supportive to their sense of belonging. In deed, through the liberal philosophy, individuals in Indigenous Australia can willingly come together and establish peaceful associations to help them accommodate difference. Therefore, we may not confuse freedom with competition, as Chau (2009) argues, but it concerns about people having the liberty to cooperate as a community and deal with difference. Additionally, through the liberal philosophy, the government may not force individuals from Indigenous Australia to reach their potential, since an attempt to do so is likely to prevent overall potential of all people including non-Indigenous Australians. This means that they would have the liberty and right to practice their identities without restrictions from the state. Still, the liberal philosophy would prevent Indigenous Australia from forcing its beliefs on non-Indigenous Australia. In this effect, the Indigenous community would be in a position to accommodate difference and maintain good relations between them and the non-Indigenous community. Conclusively, today’s life is often fashioned by culture and history. Probably, this is especially so people from Indigenous Australia. Since colonization, the effects of dispossession and migration have shaped how Indigenous Australia configures belonging and cooperate with non-Indigenous Australians. It has always and continues to tie their relationship to land, a position that could not be eroded by the colonization processes. The people from Indigenous Australia associate ancestral beings with natural species, contrary to non-Indigenous Australians and therefore their spirit exist today. Consequently, the community of the Indigenous people shares a common force of life with the ancestral beings, which explains their inseparable attachment to land. By allowing Indigenous Australians to exercise individual liberty and rights as explained in the liberal philosophy, they would enjoy their sense of ownership without any interference and they would also respect the beliefs of communities. Reference List Ahmed, S 2000, Strange encounters: Embodied others in post-coloniality, London and New York, Routledge. Chau R 2009, ‘Liberalism: A political philosophy’. Dudgeon, P, Wright, M, Paradies, Y, Garvey, D & Walker, I 2010, ‘The social, cultural and historical context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians’, Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice, pp. 25-42. Dunn, K. M, Kamp, A, Shaw, W. S, Forrest, J & Paradies, Y 2010, ‘Indigenous Australians’ attitudes towards multiculturalism, cultural diversity, “race” and racism’. Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 31-40. Fredericks, B L 2013, ‘We don’t leave our identities at the city limits’: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in urban localities’, Australian Aboriginal Studies, Vol. 1, pp. 4-16. Hunt, J 2013, ‘Engaging with Indigenous Australia: Exploring the Conditions for Effective Relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities’, Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Joseph, M 2002, Against the romance of community. University of Minnesota Press. Mormon-Robinson, A 2003, ‘I Still Call Australia Home: Indigenous Belonging and Place in a White Postcolonizing Society’. Valentine, G 1997, ‘Making space: separatism and difference’. Thresholds in feminist geography: Difference, methodology, representation. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 65-75. Young, I. M 1986, ‘The ideal of community and the politics of difference’. Social theory and practice, pp.1-26. Read More

In Indigenous Australia, the ancestral beings are believed to have created humans, animals, plants and the physiographic elements of the country they were associated with. Additionally, they introduced the Indigenous ways of life which constitutes patterns of activity and a more code of social institutions that exist in the community (Joseph 2002). Ancestral beings established rules that guided the behaviour of Indigenous people and which provided for what can be done and what cannot be done in the community (Valentine 1997).

According to Dunn et al (2010) they are considered as immortal and creatures of the Dreaming who left possessions across the country, designating particular sites of importance to the entire Indigenous community in Australia. As such, their presence on earth is still recognized in Indigenous Australia because they left behind substantial evidence According to Moreton-Robinson (2003) ancestral beings in Indigenous Australia also changed gender and form and are often connected with natural species.

For example, an ancestral being who existed in the form of an owl is today associated with all owls in the ordinary world. This means that the ancestral being’s spirit continues today. Since the spirits of the ancestors gave birth to humans as indicated earlier, they share a common force of life. This highlights the attachment of humans to the earth in stead of being separated (Joseph 2002). Indigenous Australia’s ontological relationship with land is a form of embodiment which occurs through the inter-support of humans, ancestral beings and land.

Therefore, the fact that Indigenous Australians are descendants of these ancestral beings, their sense of belonging as argued by Valentine (1997) is derived to community through and from these ancestral beings, implying that their ontological relationship to land has not been eroded by colonization. During colonization, it was argued that Australia did not belong to any one, something that informed and continues to inform the relationship between the nation state and Indigenous Australians (Hunt 2013).

State policies and legislation did not allow Indigenous Australians to participate as citizens by removing them to missions, reserves and cattle stations, yet they lived their entire lives here under surveillance regimes (Moreton-Robinson 2003). Although many people were removed from their ancestral communities, they did not leave the knowledge of these communities behind. Additionally, other people from Indigenous Australia were forcefully removed from their families and adopted by while families or placed in institutions they were not familiar with (Dudgeon et al 2010).

Therefore, colonization resulted to various perspectives that formed the way Indigenous subjectivities is constructed, which continue to be positioned within history formations relative to a certain country, space and time. The Indigenous subjectivities are in deed attached to their ontological relationship to land and play an important part in positioning their political and cultural identities. The Indigenous Australians do not consider themselves to be migrants based on the premise that they have shifted from one country to another, but it is the removal policies that transferred various people from Indigenous Australia to another places (Dudgeon et al 2010).

In effect, the dislocation means that although they can be out of place, but they are still connected to their community through their ontological relationship to land and cultural protocols as Fredericks (2013) argues. Removal and dislocation effects have led to various constructions of subjectivity that try to connect individuals to place in a number of ways. For example, the life histories of women from Indigenous Australia reveal that Indigenous Australians are connected by descent, place, community, or shared experiences.

They depict a moral sociality ordering that embraces mutual support and caring for people they are closely connected with in the community (Moreton-Robinson 2003).

Read More