The period of scientific interest with the Australian aborigines (1840-1912) awakened the preservation/protection mode of the British colonizers and strengthened by the enactment of the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act in 1897 (it was renamed Aboriginals Preservation and Protection Act in 1939), which was enforced until 1985 (Tatz 17). At this stage, they were taught the “accepted culture” of the whites – on education, religion, and hygiene. The government-run settlements and Christian-run missions were inaccessible to the whites, isolating them from “temptations” of drugs and alcohol, educating and “Christianizing” them. The missionaries, through their Mission boards, became their active advocates, pushing for various policies such as protection-segregation, assimilation, integration, self-determination and self-management (Tatz 18). The Christian missionaries became their “guardians” and “controllers” providing them all the basic necessities (shelter, food, water, sewerage, etc.), education (schools), hospital care (infirmaries), and law and order (jails were also put up to punish offenders). With such provisions, though, all their rights were suppressed, issuing numerous prohibitions within the preservation camp banning the following: (a) owning or selling properties; (b) manage their own money or open savings accounts; (c) inter-racial marriages; (d) use of alcohol and drugs; (e) inter-racial sex; (f) get out of the preservation camp unless they were issued permits; and (g) practice or performance of religious rituals. The government represented by the Federal Minister of Territories, also implemented assimilation initiatives from 1957 to 1967 including, massive educational and information campaigns/dissemination on Australia’s Aborigines through print media. In these materials, the Aborigines were depicted as “noble savages” saved from dependence of harsh nature and assimilated into the civilized world as rural workers (The Perth Press on CRCC website).
After World War II, the aborigines became more educated and organized until they were accorded citizenship in 1967 then the assimilation policy was replaced by self-determination in 1972 (Reidlinger, 1996). A major triumph, at least on paper, for the aborigines was in June 1992, when the High Court overturned Australia’s land rights law -terra nullius, issuing the Mabo case, and recognizing “native title” to land in common law (Survival Organization). The succeeding land laws enacted by parliament (Native Title Act in 1994, legal decision called Wik in 1996, and lately a proposed law called the Native Title Amendment Bill), however, were generally pro mining and farming, but nevertheless presented problems for the majority if natives indeed have legal claims on the land they presently occupying. As such, these laws have been the subject of controversies and debate between the natives, politicians and major players in the farming and mining industry. In spite of such controversies and debates, however, the aborigines have learned to organized themselves into Land Councils to safeguard their lands from illegal claimants, but most of them continue to be squatters in areas where land ownership disputes remain unresolved, mostly in vast cattle ranches and mining areas. To date, there are about 200,000 aborigines, making up roughly 2 percent of Australia’s total population, some living in towns, mostly in slums, with a significant number illiterate and earning low wages; beleaguered with problems on drugs, alcohol, low life expectancy, and racial discrimination. Many have opted to go back to the desert outback living like before collecting berries and seeds, and hunting kangaroos. The young aborigines are relearning their culture and language, as well as English and mathematics (Reidlinger, 1996).
Functional Theory Analysis
Under a functionalist perspective, the plight of Australia’s Aborigines had been on a roller coaster ride, due to the differing processes of “assimilation and integration” that took place at the time of invasion to the period of self-determination in 1972. These assimilation and integration phases proved to have more dysfunctional rather than functional outcomes. For instance, before the invasion, the natives were in complete accord with their environment. With the invasion, annihilation took place, which is outside the purview of functional perspective of “equilibrium”. The minority group, (or white invaders) became the majority group because of their more sophisticated weapons and culture, subjugating the Aborigines to their way of life, abusing their women, slaughtering their tribes, and taking away their lands. In retaliation, the natives fought back, robbing provisions, which incidentally led to the start of one of their social sickness – addiction to alcohol and drugs. As a result of the subjugation, the natives were regarded as slaves, their tribes were dismantled, women were raped, man became laborers in cattle ranches and farms, their population significantly reduced to near extinction, their original way of life totally repressed.
At the stage of assimilation, in spite of being under the safety umbrella of the preservation camps and their Missionary guardians, their oppression graduated from physical annihilation during the invasion period to cultural annihilation, practically removing all their rights and identity as thinking human beings. By all intents and purposes, the expected results of the assimilation movement by both the government and Christian missionaries were evident. The natives were better educated, learning mathematics and English, dressing like whites, living in houses, eating white men food, and working as rural workers or laborers in farms/gardens, --- in sum, all the outward preparations for mainstream assimilation were achieved. But these expected outcomes were jaded with unintended results. The aborigines never completely imbibed the Christian doctrines; they just learned to bury their dead. Moreover, they developed irrational and violent fits of temper (maybe because of repressed feelings), did not completely recover from alcohol and drug addiction, most probably never developed close ties with their guardians, and developed white men diseases like hypertension, heart disease, among others. There were also cases of forced assimilation. Children sired by non-Aboriginal fathers were put into custody of white parents to be raised as “white person” and expunge all traces of their native heritage. This forced assimilation policy was maintained and implemented mostly in the 20th century. Moreover, the Aborigines and Protection Acts of 1886 limited the protection aid to only the “full-bloods” and “half-castes” hence all non-full bloods below 34 year old were expelled and left to fend for themselves in mainstream society while those that can afford 20 pounds re-admission fee were allowed to return, which was most unlikely (Tatz 24).
In the period of self-determination (1967, 1972 onwards), educated natives were issued Australian citizenship, but they were subjected to racial discrimination, because in spite of endless information dissemination campaign by the government, majority of the whites never learned to live with their native brothers in harmony. In 1992 the natives’ victory to claim the lands that rightfully belonged to them, remained a paper victory, forcing them to fight endless legal battles with the capitalist society to earn their rights to the land. In a way, a positive outcome of these endless persecutions and difficulties, is it has taught them to organize themselves into councils to have better bargaining power. Their exposure to the outside world has improved through computer technology and telecommunications, making them realize that they as much as the whites have the right to live decent lives the way they chose to. While a few have successfully integrated into the mainstream Australian society, some live in slums with minimal provisions for water, utilities and food, illiterate and serving as laborers in various farming and mining enterprises. A significant number have chosen to go back to their old ways, which was all they ever wanted in the first place. Yet, indicators of oppression remain today: (a) higher mortality rates than the average Australian, (b) higher incidence of suicide, (c) are jailed more frequently than the whites, probably because of their violent temper, a number of them dying under police custody, and (d) a significant number are still prone to alcohol and drug abuse (Survival Organization).
Conflict Theory Analysis
Under the conflict theorist purview, the Aborigines never had a chance to excel and merge with their superior white brothers. Because of their primitive beliefs, culture and way of life, they were practically railroaded into subjugation by the white population in all aspects of social reproduction from economic to cultural, and to hegemonic state. From the time of their invasion in 1788, the British colonizers operated on the ideology that they were the superior race compared to the aborigines because of the latter’s primitive ways. To the British, the natives were idle, lawless and illiterate people, completely lacking the characteristics of a civilized culture: (a) common coherent language, (b) government, (c) defined social structure, (d) defined family ties (e) land titles, and (f) black and nomadic appearance. Because of the natives’ lack of civility, they did not have rights to own anything and practically declared them non-existent by the British, exercising their superiority by taking over lands declaring terra nullius. In this phase, the main conflict was economic, with land and all its resources as the bone of contention to sustain the establishment and maintenance of a civilized society of British settlers. These include animals for ranching, farming and food; the forests for timber and fuel; the land for cattle ranching and farming; and the mountains for timber and fuel as well as mining (quarrying and mineral deposits including gold).
During the assimilation phase, the whites, on the guise of protecting natives and recognizing their rights as individuals established isolated camps; where they were properly sheltered, clothed, medicated and schooled; to prepare them as civilized people, worthy of recognition and citizenship. The state and their missionary guardians practically took over their lives, creating laws and policies that purportedly promoted assimilation and integration into the mainstream society. They operated on the ideology that their aborigine wards are child-like unthinking individuals with no sense of responsibility; their culture (inter-racial marriage and sex) and rituals are disgusting; and their lack of initiative to domesticate animals and develop resources is pathetic. Such sentiments indicated their feeling of superiority over the natives’ way of life and thus purposely attempted to expunge the later’s culture into extinction by controlling their education, way of life, economic pursuits, and religion. To date, the majority-minority conflict is mostly on land ownership because of the denouncement of Australia’s terra nullius in 1992 and succeeding land laws that may have given advantage to the majority group but nevertheless created enough legal basis for the natives to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Through it all, the white had come out the victor subjugating the minority group in all aspects of social and economic endeavors, exploiting their land and natural resources, and destroying their individuality and identity. In spite of the odds, however, the natives have learned to fight back, forming themselves into groups and addressing problems in a more scientific and legalistic manner.
Interactionist Theory Analysis
Under the interactionist theory, the differences in perceptions of civility and resource utilization had been the root cause of contention between the majority and minority group. To the whites, their idea of civilized people are those that have acceptable appearance and mode of dressing, speaking a dominant and coherent language, with appropriate manners and conduct governed by laws/government and society, of reasonable piety or religion, living in decent housing, earning a living, and eating decent food. To them, resources are meant to be used profitably and not to be wasted. On the other hand, the natives, in their own primitive way, were civilized with their own version of organized social organization (tribes) governed by totemism. Because of their reverence to “Creation Ancestors”, who created the land and people, their economic livelihood is mainly on what nature has to give them rather than exploiting nature for their sustenance. Their arts and myths are deep and varied, in fact aboriginal rock carvings and paintings dating back some 30,000 years ago serve as main tourist attraction in Australian museums (Lonely Planet on lonely planet website). Their marriages are more than simple personal commitments; they are obliged to marry from other tribes to maintain kinship. The more spouse and children a person has, the higher will be his/her status among the tribes. These perceptive differences led first in the conflict over use and ownership of land and other natural resources (economic vs. sacred) then second, in cultural and moral conflicts over acceptable conducts in society (moral vs. immoral). The Thomas Theorem (a reality is real if perceived real) is also evident and can be applied in the manner the whites grabbed the lands, through their terra nullius – if the natives were non-existent, then the land is free for all. In both cases, the natives turned out to be the losers in all these conflict, first losing their land and lives and second, losing their identity as human beings. Maybe to date when Aborigines look at their white brothers, it is likely that they see a world of twisted morals, macabre thoughts and hypocritical lifestyle (Justice for Aborigines on Angry website). The whites, on the other hand, perceive the aborigines as “Mission blacks or educated blacks or half-castes/fringe dwellers embodying the worst fantasies of Australian whites-drunkenness, vagrancy, despair, and disorganization (The Perth Press on MCC website).”
Conclusion with Comparison
The aborigines in Australia have been the victim of never-ending oppression and subjugation, first by their British colonizers, and second, by the Australian government and missions on the guise of protection and preservation. Through it all, the aborigines have survived and learned to fight back, using the education, laws, and science of the whites. The same can be said with the American Indians, who immigrated in the Americas sometime 20,000-30,000 years ago, also of the Ice Age decent (Washita Battlefield on Georgia website). From an original population of 10 million their number was reduced to near extinction, after the land-grabbing European invaders finished with them from the 16th to 17th century. Their reason for annihilation – they were regarded by Europeans as “soulless creatures who wielded diabolically ingenious tools (Washita Battlefield on Georgia website).” In spite of their persecution, the Indian survivors stand tall and proud among their civilized American brothers, all living proof of a near extinct generation.
Works Cited
Justice for the Aborigines of Australia on Angry website at http://www.angry.org.au/
ap12/justice.html
Lonely Planet World Guide: Australia on lonely planet website at http://www.lonelyplanet.com/
destinations/australiaasia/australia/printable.htm
Riedlinger, Joseph. The Aborigines in Australia, April 1996 at http://www.ebgymhollabrunn.ac.at/
projekte/abori.htm
Tatz, Colin. Genocide in Australia: AIATSIS Research Discussion Papers No 8, Australian Institute
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Studies, Canberra, 1999.
The Perth Press and Problematizing Aboriginal Status on WMCC website at
http://www.mcc.murdoch.edu.au./ReadingRoom/dreamtime/press.html
Washita Battlefield on Georgia website at http://www.ngeorgia.com/history/nghisttt.html