|
Australia
|
Tide of History or Wave of Cultural Genocide From: Samantha Craig Date: 8/09/00 Time: 12:05:36 Remote Name: 61.12.115.152 Comments Tide of History or Wave of Cultural Genocide? “When the tide of history has washed away any real acknowledgement of traditional law and any real observance of traditional customs, the foundation of Native Title has disappeared.” # One of the elements the claimants in The Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v The State of Victoria & Ors [1998] 1606 FCA must prove (according to the standards of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)), was that their “traditional connection with the and of their ancestors had been substantially maintained since the time sovereignty was asserted.” # J. Olney required that the claimants prove maintenance of the same laws and customs as prevailed in 1788.# Surely it’s almost impossible to prove this when the “tide of history” makes reference to from Mabo No. 2, was more like a wave of white settlement crashing down and destroying indigenous culture, customs and ultimately their right of occupation of traditional lands. When cultural genocide seems the appropriate label for government policy in the 1800’s and 1900’s, why are we punishing claimants for a “history” they had no control over? J Olney says in para 121 that it was “clear that by 1881 those through whom the claimant group now seeks to establish Native Title were no longer in possession of the tribal lands and had, by force of the circumstances in which they found themselves, ceased to observe those laws and customs based on tradition which might otherwise have provided a basis for the present Native Title claim.” It’s difficult to imagine how the ancestors of the claimants had any choice in the “circumstances in which they found themselves.” And in fact in para 40 J Olney discusses the “circumstances” in the claim area around 1880. He says there was a “limit to traditional ceremonial activity and sanctions imposed, such as loss of rations, if people failed to attend Christian services.” He also discusses the many and serious health problems, and the beatings for “immorality”. So let me re phrase J Olney’s take on the “tide of history”. “It’s clear that by the 1880’s all tribal lands were stolen from the claimant’s groups ancestors, who were as a consequence dispossessed, no longer self sufficient and reduced to beggary or semi starvation (see para 119). The Aboriginal population had decreased significantly due to introduced diseases, “conflict” (Slaughter) and the introduction of the term “half caste” - effectively depriving any claimant with a genealogical link to ancestors who were not “full blood” of right to Native Title. And by force of “circumstance” that being imposition of white culture, religion and education, punishment and reprisals, they were no longer able to observe laws or customs that traditionally went with possession of their land.” It’s unjust to impose such an element of proof to establish common law Native Title, when it seems impossible that any custom or traditional law of any culture in the world could withstand the policy of a Government determined to dislocate and dispossess it’s original inhabitants. The judiciary needs to review it’s stance on revival of customs and traditions, instead of punishing claimants for overcoming a history of cultural genocide. Bloodless Genocide - Norfolk Island, Australia, from 1856 through to 1996 - a chronology. www.pitcairners.org/bloodless_genocide2.html
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/theblackwar.html
http://www.officeoftheamericas.org/books/genocide_in_paradise/genocide_contents.htm ttp://www.forumsec.org.fj/news/1997/dec13.htm |
Last revised: Mon., Feb. 24, 2003