Australia Belonging

Australian people and culture are often stereotyped in the media in different forms, one of them being film. The two films being examined, ‘Red dog’ (2011) and the ‘Sapphires’ (2012), are an example of the Australian identity but from different points of view. ‘Red dog’ shows the kind and positive side which exemplifies mateship and loyalty. The film ‘Sapphires’ ,which takes place in the 1950’s through to the 1960’s, shows a negative and racist view towards the indigenous people. Both the films show different aspects of the Australian identity, not all insights of the films accurately represent contemporary Australian identity as the Australian identity has changed by the evolution of people and their lifestyle.

The Eddie Mabo v the State of Queensland [No. 2] (Mabo) case has had a deep impact on the legal, social and political reality of Indigenous-non-Indigenous relations in Australia. It’s established a long term consequences may require considerable litigation, or maybe a Federal Legislation. The Mabo case is the means of which the sovereign rights of Indigenous Nations to their ancestral lands. The result in the case was a recognition by the Australian legal system that the Meriam people hold rights to their land under their own system of law, and that those rights should enjoy the protection of the Australian Law.

Buchan and Heath argue that the term terra nullius was used to create a false construct of Australia and it’s Aboriginal people. Terra Nullius resulted in Britain justifying illegal colonisation of Aboriginal land and denigrating Aboriginal Australians by ignoring their sovereignty despite failing to either conquer or form treaties with Aboriginal Australia people.

The pub scene in the Australian Outback helped me understand the consequences of prejudice through the combination of dialogue and cinematography. These film features shows the unfair treatment that Aborigines endured because of their race. The mid shots showed how the white Australian audience at the pub Talent Quest ignore the two Aborigine sisters as they began to sin. A panning shot showed the audience’s disapproving and disgusted looks as they avoided eye contact with the sisters. Clearly contrasting with the warm and enthusiastic cheers given to the white Australian performers before them, as also shown in a panning shot. Noticing the coldness of the crowd, Gail says, “Thanks for the half-heart applause.” The dialogue and camera shots clearly outlined the difference in treatment between Aborigines and White Australians in Australia. This clearly shows the inequality between the two races, as Aborigines were clearly mistreated based on their appearance. At the end of the Talent Quest, after the White Australian performer

How each character’s relationship relates to native Australians grows for better or worse throughout the novel. The novel also shows how Grenville has incorporated each personal lifestyle and how it co-exists with the other. The novel incorporates past and modern views about each society and brings to attention controversial issues about Australia’s convict past and how Aborigines are being ostracized for their way of life and skin pigmentation.

In 1788 when the European settlers “colonised” Australia, the Australian land was known as “terra nullius” which means “land belonging to no-one”. This decision set the stage for the problems and

Australian landscapes have long been used to place fear and anxiety in the Anglo-Australian’s psyche. This anxiety and the requirement for Indigenous peoples to negotiate white ideals is reflected in current Australian literature and cinematic identities. This essay will discuss the critical arguments of what makes the chosen texts Australian literature. This discussion will be restricted to the critiques of the film Lantana directed by Ray Lawrence and the novel Biten’ Back written by Vivienne Cleven. The will firstly look at the use of landscape as a crime scene and how this links to the anxieties caused by the doctrine of terra nullius and the perceived threats from an introduced species. It will then look at the Australian fear of a different ‘other’ followed then by a discussion around masculinity and the need for Indigenous people to negotiate white ideals. The essay will argue that Australian literature and film reflect a nation that still has anxieties about the true sovereignty of the land and assert that Indigenous people have a requirement to fit in with white ideals.

The social views towards Aboriginal people portrayed in the film are far more destructive than those in the novel. In the time period of the film, 1931, the Chief Protector of Aboriginals in Western Australia, A.O. Neville, strongly believes in trying to ‘breed out’ the Aboriginal blood by forcibly removing half-caste children, who are half Aboriginal and half European from their homes and putting them in institutions such as Moore River Settlement in order to stop them from marrying members of their own race. The underlying purpose of ‘Moore River Settlement’ becomes especially clear when Neville explains to potential sponsors of the facility “the continual infiltration of blood will be bred out….in spite of himself, the native must be helped”. This mindset about Native Australians and the idea of trying to eliminate them for their own benefit is of great contrast to the one presented in the novel.

Under the ‘terra nullius’ law, the Aboriginals lost their land, which is now known as dispossession. To justify this dispossession, the English followed the set of beliefs that are now identified as social Darwinism. “Social Darwinism, with its powerful racially based doctrines, ranked Indigenous Australians as inferior to Europeans and provided a rationale for dispossession by drawing on the ‘laws’ of natural selection to justify the ‘inevitable’ extinction of Indigenous Australians in the face of the arrival of the ‘superior’ white race” (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009, pp. 75). By having their land taken away from them, the Aboriginals lost part of their spiritual connection and their sense of belonging and identity because Aboriginal culture is based heavily on the spirits of the land. These connections that bonded the Aboriginals to the land were never understood by the English settlers, who only saw the land as possible income (Psychology and Indigenous Australians, Foundations of Cultural Competence, 2009.). They also lost a lot of their sacred areas, spiritual areas and meeting places because they were on the land that the white people had divided and fenced of the land that these areas were on and if an Aboriginal was trying to

A new page in Australia’s history by writing the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.” To continue on Kevin Rudd had also quoted” We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments, and governments that have inflicted profound grief suffering and loss on these fellow Australians. We apologise especially for the removal of aboriginal and Torres strait islander children from their families, their community’s.” Therefore saying the stolen generation relates to the movie ‘

Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century. With the political changes in our society, and the apology to Indigenous Australians, society is now witnessing an increase in aboriginals gaining a voice in today’s society. Described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, Rudd’s apology was expressed in the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether aboriginals have a right to land that is of cultural significance and whether current land owners will be able to keep their land.

‘Australia’ also showed how the government controlled how children of Aboriginal descent were brought up with language used such as “The mixed raced children must be dislocated from their primitive full blooded Aborigine, how else are we to breed the black out of them”. This presented again the reason as to why the Aboriginal children were taken away from their own cultures to be raised in something completely different.

The recent Australian film, Rabbit Proof Fence, similarly condemns the social, political and cultural mores of colonial and post-colonial Australia in relation to its past treatment of indigenous Australians. Like To Kill a Mockingbird, it too, is set in the 1930’s and reflects similar attitudes and values whites have to black people. The film is a true story based on the book by Doris Pilkington Garimara, the daughter of one of the half-caste children in the film who, together with two other Aboriginal girls, was forcibly removed from her family in Jigalong, Western Australia. These children form part of what is now known as the “Stolen Generation”. They, like many others who lived in the first part of the 20th century, were the victims of the official government assimilationist policy which decreed that half-caste children should be taken from their families and their land in order to be made “white”. The policy was definitely aimed at “breeding out” Aboriginality, because only half and quarter caste children were taken.

The construction of Aboriginality in Australia has been achieved through a variety of processes, in various places and at various levels of society, giving rise to a complex interaction between the constructions. At the local level, the most striking line of tension may seem to lie between what Aboriginal people say about themselves and what others say about them. But crosscutting this is another field of tension between the ideas of Aboriginality (and non-Aboriginality) that people of all kinds construct and reproduce for themselves, and the constructions produced at the national level by the state in its various manifestations, the mass media, science, the arts and so on (Beckett, 1988).

Australia has always been centered around diversity and change, specifically with the vast multiculturalism and migrant culture throughout the nation. The specifics of Identity hold an important role in shaping our identity as students and as a nation. Australians pride themselves on being a land of the free and full of diverse culture. This is specifically referred to in our national Anthem; “For those who've come across the seas, We've boundless plains to share; With courage let us all combine,”(McCormick, 1984). Displaying Australia’s open attitude towards immigrants and contributes to the diversity present within our society today. Even before this, much of Australia’s Identity was associated with caucasian culture (Originating from British Settlers). Which is the dominant perception of Australia through the media with australian representation being present through the stereotypes of Bogans, which was made popular through shows like Kath and Kim (ABC, 2007). Also, represented through the popular depiction of Australian people - the bushman made popular by movies like Crocodile Dundee (Faiman, 1986) and through famous real life bushman; Steve Irwin. An important aspect of Australian identity which is consistently neglected is the culture and representation of the initial owners of the land; the aboriginal people. Throughout history the constant mistreatment and neglect of the indigenous, has lead to a massive gap in privilege between the aboriginal people and our