tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post3085706478835989278..comments2024-02-11T19:28:27.997+11:00Comments on Personal Reflections: Sunday and now Monday Essay - personal reflections on Australia's Indigenous peoplesJim Belshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-73583704795715006842009-04-20T19:09:00.000+10:002009-04-20T19:09:00.000+10:00Hi Anon. I think that the link I gave in the post ...Hi Anon. I think that the link I gave in the post does carry you through to the aph paper. But its good to have some elements spelled out in more detail.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-91941988245621464952009-04-19T23:18:00.000+10:002009-04-19T23:18:00.000+10:00Research Note 18 2000-01
The Definition of Abor...Research Note 18 2000-01 <br /><br /><br />The Definition of Aboriginality <br /><br />John Gardiner-Garden <br />Social Policy Group <br />5 December 2000 <br /><br /><br />In his analysis of over 700 pieces of legislation, the legal historian John McCorquodale found no less than 67 different definitions of Aboriginal people.(1) Though colonial legislation initially grouped Aboriginal people by reference to their place of habitation (e.g. aboriginal natives of New South Wales and New Holland), 'blood' quantum classifications entered the legislation of New South Wales in 1839, South Australia in 1844, Victoria in 1864, Queensland in 1865, Western Australia in 1874 and Tasmania in 1912. Thereafter till the late 1950s States regularly legislated all forms of inclusion and exclusion (to and from benefits, rights, places etc.) by reference to degrees of Aboriginal blood. Such legislation produced capricious and inconsistent results based, in practice, on nothing more than an observation of skin colour. To illustrate the inconsistencies the historian Peter Read, drawing on documented sources, has offered the following conflation:<br /><br />In 1935 a fair-skinned Australian of part-indigenous descent was ejected from a hotel for being an Aboriginal. He returned to his home on the mission station to find himself refused entry because he was not an Aboriginal. He tried to remove his children but was told he could not because they were Aboriginal. He walked to the next town where he was arrested for being an Aboriginal vagrant and placed on the local reserve. During the Second World War he tried to enlist but was told he could not because he was Aboriginal. He went interstate and joined up as a non-Aboriginal. After the war he could not acquire a passport without permission because he was Aboriginal. He received exemption from the Aborigines Protection Act-and was told that he could no longer visit his relations on the reserve because he was not an Aboriginal. He was denied permission to enter the Returned Servicemen's Club because he was.(2)<br /><br />Read this rest here:http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RN/2000-01/01RN18.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-65699810879471721192009-04-13T11:09:00.000+10:002009-04-13T11:09:00.000+10:00Neil, the DNA issue is a live one in North America...Neil, the DNA issue is a live one in North America. I would hate to think that we might end up going that route.<BR/><BR/>There are two quite separate issues with recongnition. Recognition as an Aboriginal in a general sense, then recognition in a particular context. A lot of the problems come from the second.<BR/><BR/>In a sense, you go to the heart of one of the distinctions that I was thinking about. <BR/><BR/>You can legitimately claim that you have an Indigenous ancestor, something that you are proud of,but would not claim to be indigenous. By contrast your nephew can claim to be Indigenous by both blood and history. <BR/><BR/>The quote I gave strikes at the heart of the problem that arises when you try to classify people by the proportions of particular ancestry. <BR/><BR/>LE, your Jewish example amplifies in a very clear way the problems associated with ethnic classification, including the mixture between blood and culture.Jim Belshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10075614280789984767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-80956366719744952962009-04-13T10:51:00.000+10:002009-04-13T10:51:00.000+10:00Great post Jim, I look forward to seeing what your...Great post Jim, I look forward to seeing what your further thoughts are.<BR/><BR/>Identity is an interesting thing, isn't it? I was having a discussion with some Jewish friends about the disconnect between self-identity and community identification. Of course, there are many debates within the Jewish community about who is a "real Jew". I once heard an ultra-ultra-Orthodox Jew say that Russian Jews were not real Jews because they didn't descend from the 12 Tribes. Others said that it wasn't a matter of where your ancestors came from, but how devoutly you practiced tradition. Of course there's the whole "descended from a Jewish mother" requirement too. And what about converts? The book of Ruth indicates that converts have an honourable history in Judaism, but if one wants to become a halakhic Jew recognised by the Beth Din, then one has to be more Jewish than a born-Jew in order to prove Jewishness. <BR/><BR/>And then I'm sure some people were persecuted in Nazi times just because they had some Jewish forebears, even though they did not practice and would not identify as Jewish.Legal Eaglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01096038577529334966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24338064.post-62697932448116060462009-04-13T10:17:00.000+10:002009-04-13T10:17:00.000+10:00Thoughtful stuff, and I agree on the issue of dive...Thoughtful stuff, and I agree on the issue of diversity. As for the 'definition' I am not sure, for all its problems, that we can do better, unless someone starts checking DNA of course, but I am not sure that would go down well. Also there have been some quite nasty spats about who is or isn't -- Marcia Langton being a recent example. I regard my (perhaps 1/32nd part) Aboriginal ancestry as a matter of interest and even of some pride. It is a good one-upmanship point too when someone says "Of course my ancestors were on the First Fleet" to be able to say "Well, some of <I>my</I> ancestors probably saw it sailing up the coast."<BR/><BR/>As you know one of my nephews is Aboriginal by the current definition, and has done much good work with Aboriginal people -- but he (and all that branch of the family) are of Aboriginal descent on both mother's and father's side, whereas I have mine through my father's mother.<BR/><BR/>But the old days of quadroons and octoroons and so on can't return as they are so poisoned by now, not least by the clear analogy with what used to prevail in South Africa.<BR/><BR/>I would agree there are still issues which do make a one-size-fits-all approach untenable.Neilhttp://ninglunbooks.wordpress.com/early-last-century/family-stories-4-a-guringai-family-story-warren-whitfield/noreply@blogger.com