HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL FORCES SHAPING INDIGENOUS

INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION

Historical

Historical experiences of Indigenous Australians form some of the more commonly known forces that
act to generate and maintain social exclusion. The main elements in this historical treatment are
dispossession, paternalism and cultural assimilation. It is useful to examine these separately as each
has had different effects on Indigenous inclusion and government policy must acknowledge and cater
to the differences in these historical forces.

Dispossession

Dispossession refers to the explicit removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from both their
land and from any opportunities for material wealth. From European arrival, Aboriginal lands were
seized by force, with a vicious war of resistance of following. Famous figures such as Pemulwuy led
campaigns against British invaders, but were ultimately defeated by the early 1800s. From this point
forward, Aboriginal resistance instead turned to raids and the like, largely ceding land to the British
and instead resorting to hit-and-run tactics or assaults on vital infrastructure. The British retaliation
came in the form of periodic massacres and relaxing of murder laws that essentially legalised hunting
Indigenous Australians. As pastoralism came to dominate the early Australian economy, ownership of
large areas of formerly Aboriginal land became essential. By 1836, when South Australia was being
colonised, some of the more humanitarian leading colonists were more sympathetic to Indigenous
Australians and attempted to have land set aside for them. These concerns were ignored by the
commissioners who divided the land. Some colonists then attempted to simply buy land from the
original inhabitants, and perhaps allow them to remain on it. However, the Home Department of
Britain was clear: Australia was under British law and so all land belonged only to the Crown, to divide
it as the Crown saw fit. Land could not be purchased from Indigenous Australians because they did
not rightfully own it. By 1889, most major cities of Australia had been virtually swept clear of any
significant Indigenous population and frontier wars were brief and sporadic. From this point on,
Aboriginal movement became restricted to missions, usually state-funded and staffed by government
or religious-based officials.

Paternalism

Paternalism refers to the attitude that Indigenous Australians were somehow backwards or
primitive and that they are therefore incapable of making wise decisions about their own community.
Examples of this can be seen early, in refusing to allow Indigenous Australians to vote (and in some
states actually removing a right to vote that they briefly had). This paternalism also manifested as
attempts to civilise the indigenous population, particularly by converting them to Christianity and
teaching them British cultural norms, as was done at the Native Institute, established by Macquarie in
1814. An early example of protection policies and how they were misguided is the fate of the
Indigenous Tasmanians. By the 1820s the effect of the frontier war in Tasmania had been devastating
on the Indigenous population of the island. The local officials came up with the plan of confining the
surviving Aboriginal people to islands off the coast, both for their own protection and to make it easier
for the white settlers. Aboriginal people were convinced to move onto the islands off the Tasmanian
coast by a well-meaning young Methodist preacher called George Robinson. Robinson believed that
the Aboriginal people would die out unless they moved and he convinced them of this. By 1847 the
remnants of a number of Tasmanian Aboriginal groups were living on Flinders Island north of
Tasmania. Their numbers totalled only just over 200. Robinson truly believed that he was doing the
right thing by them, but far from living a free, traditional way of life, the Indigenous Tasmanian people
were now living under guard, forced to wear clothes and learn Christianity. By 1847 all but 47 of them
had died from disease and despair. The last of them, a woman named Truganini, died in 1869.
Genocide (the killing of an entire race of people) had taken place in Tasmania at first because of the
frontier war, but also as a result of the new protection policies. Today, this paternalism is present in
social policies which imply that Indigenous Australians cannot be trusted to make their own decisions,
such as those that limit their behaviour or what they may buy. The Northern Territory Intervention
is perhaps the most striking recent example of this.

Cultural Assimilation

Closely related to paternalism is the historical destruction of Aboriginal culture by forcibly removing
Indigenous Australians from their own culture or actively forcing them to participate in and practice
European traditions. The Stolen Generations represent the most obvious case of this assimilation.
Children taken from their parents were taught to reject their Indigenous heritage, and made
to adopt white culture. Their names were changed, and they were forbi dden to speak their
traditional language. Some were adopted by white families, and many were placed in
institutions, where abuse and neglect were common.

Assimilation focused primarily on children, who were considered more adaptable to white
society than Indigenous adults. Half-caste children (a term now considered derogatory for
people of Aboriginal and white parentage), were particularly vulnerable to removal, as it was
thought that they could be more easily assimilated into the white community because of their
lighter skin colour.

Assimilation, including child removal policies, failed its aim of improving the lives of
Indigenous Australians by absorbing them into white society. This was primarily because white
society refused to accept Indigenous people as equals, regardless of their efforts to live like
white people.

Many of the Stolen Generations were psychologically, physically, and sexually abused while living in
state care or with their adoptive families. Efforts to make these children reject their culture often
caused them to feel ashamed of their Indigenous heritage. Many children were wrongly told that their
parents had died or abandoned them, and many never knew where they had been taken from or who
their biological families were. Living conditions in the institutions were highly controlled, and children
were frequently punished harshly, were cold and hungry, and received minimal if any affection. The
children received a very low level of education, as they were expected to work as manual labourers
and domestic servants. Medical experts have noted a high incidence of depression, anxiety, post-
traumatic stress and suicide among the Stolen Generations

Political

Political forces are closely related to legal as the political institutions that make decisions are closely
tied to the legislative bodies that make laws within Australia. Political decisions can be seen as those
which control distribution of resources within society and act through commonly recognised bodies
of authority such as the Prime Minister, Cabinet or various government agencies charged with the
various portfolios of government. In many cases, these agencies can act without passing laws because
they have been placed in charge of certain aspects of everyday life. Decisions made by Centrelink, the
Indigenous Affairs Ministry and the Prime Minister are all important aspects of these political forces.
Perhaps the most famous recent example of this is the Apology of 2008 which, while it did little to
actually reduce inequality, represented a large cultural step forward in acknowledging the role of
historical forces in Indigenous exclusion.

1. Research TWO political decisions concerning Indigenous affairs and how these impacted on
the lives of ATSI Australians.
2. What is the race power of the Australian government? Where does it come from?
3. Outline the significance of the 1967 referendum for political decisions regarding Indigenous
Australians.