Essay Outline Martial Law Bathurst

Reynolds said he had researched over ten books and a large amount of academic studies about the conflicts between European colonists and the Aborigines. He estimated that about 3,000 colonists and 20,000 indigenous Australians were murdered directly in the frontier wars and more numbers of Aboriginal people were dead from diseases of European introducing (Bidwell-Brown 2013). However, this number is totally different from Windschuttle's.

For generations the Native Americans were forcefully removed from their lands, enslaved and murdered. The harsh treatment of Native Americans by both the Europeans and the Americans led to a change in how the native people acted and to their subsequent distrust of the white races.

After reading the piece by Mary Rowlandson, one can see why the settlers were persuaded that the Indians were savage and barbaric. One may think this because of the many mentionings of how they shot children and neglected people making them seem like animals. She also speaks about how the Indians destroyed and burned their village. The Indians killed people inhumanely and took many prisoners which they later neglected. This was expressed by explaining how a man met his demise, “He begged of them his life, promising them money (as they told me) but they would not hearken to him but knocked him in the head, and stripped him naked, and split open his bowels.” All of these statements of what happened may now persuade someone to think that the Indians were savage and brutal.

These assimilation policies ended up causing physical and mental harm to the Aborigines (B and I). Further proof of this is the noting by medical professionals of stress disorders, anxiety, depression (J) and suicide (J and F). Legalities show that these acts provide proof of genocide in Australia, which would clearly not be beneficial to the Aboriginals during Neville’s

The history wars of Australia is an area of great controversial debate. Throughout the course of Australian history, the public has been mainly subjected to one perspective that focused on the glorifying moments of European settlement and its progress such as its involvement in world wars and the transition of the nation into a globalised continent. As a result, there is a rigid dichotomy between the perceptions of white Australians and the indigenous population on subjects such as the colonisation or invasion of Australia. History told from the perspective of Aboriginal people greatly contrasts what is written in the history books and also what is exposed or encouraged towards the public. It focuses on the dispossession of indigenous people, the massacres and the attempted eradication of culture. This view of Australian history has been labeled as 'black armband history', which was first used during an interview by a historian, Geoffrey Blainey.

The efficacy and implementation of the Northern Territory Intervention has received wide spread criticism due to the lack of prior consultation with the Indigenous Community leaders as well as the questionable reforms subsequently implemented. Amongst these reforms were the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) (Korff, J, 2016) and forceful leasing of Indigenous land to the commonwealth as documented in The Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act, 2007 (Cth). The Northern Territory Intervention consequently has had numerous negative impacts on the community, “The intervention has had consequences that will have repercussions for generations” (Dodson, 2016)

As a direct result of the stealing of indigenous land, racism began to influence other decisions that the colonizers were making. The settlers began to spread the idea that they were more intelligent and more capable of building a society than the Native Americans were. This mindset and many others were used to justify things such as stealing the land from ocean to ocean, as well as disrespecting many treaties and even slaughtering Native Americans to make them move off of their land (Finzsch

The battle between the settlers and Aborigines increased when Macquarie became Governor and believed that the Aborigines should be civilised. This is another way of saying to convert Aboriginal ways into European ways. Macquarie tried very hard to teach new techniques or educating them however these failures made him very mad and desperate. In his perspective the rightful last resort was to put the Aboriginal land and people under his control by saying anyone is permitted to shoot Aborigines if they retaliated or resisted.

This sentiment of racial inferiority by the white American was further demonstrated by their treatment of Native American society. As European settlements continued to expand across the continent, Indians were forcibly removed from their land to make room for the “more civilized” white American. The Native American population was practically eradicated with only a handful of survivors remaining on small, segregated reservations in Oklahoma. The genocide of their people-- and their culture-- left most Native Americans with extreme resentment towards the white man. Ironically, just as the white man saw the Native American people as uncivilized savages, Native Americans saw firsthand how barbaric the white man actually was. This further supports the theory that race is not a physical characteristic, but something that is constructed by different societies to establish each ones perception of how the other is viewed or perceived. In Mary C. Waters “Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity,” she explains this theory in the

-White settlement affected the Indigenous people in a number of ways”{They} made them (the Aboriginals) outcasts on their own land*” by calling it terra nullius under the English Law, despite knowing the existence of the Aboriginals. Terra nullius is a latin term that means “land that belongs to no one.”They believed it belonged to no one because the Aboriginals didn’t use the land in the same way as the British. The Aboriginals believed that Mother Nature would provide them with what they needed, so they didn’t need to hunt and mark the land. The British completely ignored the deep spiritual connections the Aboriginals had with the land. They cut down trees, put up fences and built towns. They believed they had to own the land. But the Aboriginals were outraged when saw the settlers building farms where they had originally been hunting and gathering at, this was because there wasn’t enough food for them. They killed many white settlers in revenge and a clash of cultures began. Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal warrior that lead raids against the British. He also speared John McIntyre, Governor Phillip's gamekeeper, in December 1790. When the Indigenous people resisted the British, it lead to many conflicts which eventually left a irreversible damage to the lives of Indigenous people.

In 1788 the first Fleet arrived in Australia bringing European soldierse, convicts and settlers. This bought aboriginals in contact with white people for the first time. Some aboriginal groups tried to resist this occupation and they used violence and force the archive it. This essay will explain why that resistance was justified by examining the causes, identifying some examples of Indigenous resistance and will assess short and long term effects of this conflict.

After this time, many atrocities occurred, such as the fact that Aboriginals were often killed for sport, and massacres such as Myall Creek were occurring, where 28 Aboriginal men, women and children were murdered near Myall Creek Station in 1838. There was also the problem of the Stolen Generation, when Aboriginal children were forcibly taken from their homes to be raised as though they were white. It was only recently in 2008, that Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister of Australia at the time, apologised for the actions that the government had undertaken. In another apologetic move, Prime Minister Paul Keating delivered a powerful speech regarding the fact that Aboriginal Communities were still segregated despite the fact that laws had been changed a number of years ago. This shows that the idea of atonement by Australia is quite a new topic. Does this prove the challenges that Aboriginal’s faced nearly 200 years ago are still present in today’s society? It was enough to force the Aboriginal men, women and children to begin act in support of their rights.

Noel Pearson’s speech ‘an Australian history for us all’ discusses his approach to trying to solve some of the most systemic problems facing Australian Aboriginals today. The speakers are successful in understanding the ideas and values of the speech. Through the uses of various language techniques and context, Pearson’s speech details the struggles of the relationship between the first European settlers and Aboriginal Australians.

The author’s purpose for creating this source is to outline to the people of Australia what this new act would enable the government to be able to do at the time of war. This includes the ability for the Governor General to make regulations and orders for the safety of the Commonwealth. As well as the imprisonment for those who fail to comply with any regulations or orders created under this Act.

Aboriginal laws were not written down but was part of oral traditions which were passed on to generations through various ceremonies, rituals, songs and stories. The English law carried over by the English settlers did not recognize the Aboriginal laws or the land rights of the indigenous people of the colony. But, it was the Mabo case decision in 1992 which recognised the land rights of the natives. The Mabo case is considered to be a milestone in the Australian legal history and will be discussed further in this essay.