Journey- Patricia Grace, the People Before- Maurice Shadbolt (Lack of Clear Outcome

The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the

Aboriginal people, since British settlement, have faced great inequalities and much racial discrimination on their own soil. Aboriginal Australians through great struggle and conflict have made significant progress in the right to their own land. To better understand the position of the Aboriginal Australians, this essay will go into more depth about the rights that Aboriginal people had to their own land prior to federation. It will also include significant events and key people who activated the reshaping of land rights for Indigenous Australians and how that has affected the rights Aboriginal people now have in the 21st Century, in regards to their land.

A strong essay goes beyond the explicit and makes logical inferences about the psychological and literary elements of the stories

The Mabo decision of 1992 was hailed as a landmark case in the history of indigenous-white relations in Australia. Overturning centuries of injustice, as well as the myth of right by ‘terra nullius’, the case prompted the passing of the Native Title Act of 1993, which affirmed native title and asserted that native Australians possessed their land under common law, and in doing so ushered in a new era of equality in Australian society. However, though correctly lauded as a milestone in recognition of aboriginals as valid legal entities, the act was not without its problems, and in truth has had little impact on Australian society as a whole. As we shall see, the trend of positive reform existent in the act was not supported in practice, and aboriginal Australians remain at the mercy of Western courts when it comes to their land. Though the Mabo decision and the subsequent Native Title Act went some way to correcting past injustices, its actual impact on Australian society has been negligible.

The native title act inspired by the mambo case enabled and encouraged the aboriginal people in the past, present and future to stand up for their culture, community and land. The mambo case allows me to understand the fight the aboriginal people fought for. In recognising that Indigenous peoples in Australia had prior rights to land, the Court held that these rights, where they exist today, will have the protection of the Australian law until those rights are legally extinguished (HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA,2017).

This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics

Wright demonstrates the limit opportunity that the Indigenous people had for their inherited land. The land that they owned was taken over by the white Europeans and called ‘Australia’ a name ‘never heard of’ in the Aboriginal community. Wright demonstrated that the land was taken over, and they had no choice in the decision they had to live with the choice. Furthermore Wright empathised their unpresented land right when presenting the ‘Discharged Soldiers’ Settlement Act of 1917’, the public servant had ‘the authority to acquire land’ of the Indigenous without giving them a choice ‘you can’t just take the land off us’, however the reality is that they could. Wright also demonstrated that Indigenous servicemen couldn’t ‘apply for land’ in the same way white servicemen could. The viewers of the play are presented with the harsh reality of what the white individuals could take from the Aboriginals without them be able to defend themselves eliciting a sense of sadness and reject of the treatment towards them. On the other

When we were given the final assignment’s instructions, I was very confused by it. I did not understand what were we supposed to do and how to do it. I had an idea on mind, however after talking to Professor McNair, I understood what the assignment was and I realized that I needed a new pitch for the final project. The task was to create a short 30 seconds story with no dialogue, which had a beginning, middle and end. In addition, the story needed to have a motive for action. The character was to move within the frame but with a purpose. This is the most important part of the project because it leads to everything else. After thinking about this assignment over and over, one day I finally got a divine insight. I realized that I needed to do something simple that several people could relate to.

In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting two great short stories. One being “The Story of

In this article, Heuser discusses one of the main issues with Aboriginal Land Claims today, and how the government handles them. One of the main issues mentioned was the time it takes to fulfill Aboriginal Land Claims. For example, the Algonquins of Ontario launched a land claim against the provincial and federal government in the 1980s, and it is still being discussed today. Heuser is a journalist for several newspapers including the National Post. Heuser has graduated from the University of Toronto with a J.D. in the faculty of law, as well as receiving her B.A., making her qualified to form valid opinions on government issues. The arguments presented in this article are well stated, and proved with recent government land-claims to back them

The Indigenous land rights was a significant social justice issue in modern Australian History because indigenous people were treated very unfair because they couldn’t use their own land for what they wanted to such as the Tent Embassy. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act in 1976 was the first attempt by an Australian government to legally recognise the Aboriginal system of land ownership and put into law the concept of inalienable freehold title. “Terra Nullius was how James Cook described Australia and how it was officially viewed up until the last decades of the 20th Century.” When the First Fleet arrived in 1788 the British took over the land without a second thought as to its ownership. They discounted the fact that there were original inhabitants

For years we have witnessed the Indigenous population’s political struggle for recognition of rights to Australian land. At times the effort appears to be endless and achieving recognition almost seems impossible. Native Title and Land claims have become a step closer in achieving this recognition; however, for land rights to exist in an absolute form, they cannot exist as a mere Act of Parliament but must form a fundamental part of the Australian Constitution. This

The colonisation of Australia was based on the legal fiction of terra nullius. Compare and contrast the consequences of terra nullius on the experience of Australian Indigenous people, with indigenous peoples’ experiences of colonisation in Canada.

A Key conflict that endures as one of the most noteworthy events in New Zealand’s early history is the Waikato war of 1863-1864. The significance of the battles lies in the definition of the status of Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. Particular historic debate surrounds whether the Waikato war was caused more primarily over the dispute of land or sovereignty. Maori were rising against British control and domination over them exhibited by establishment of the Kingitanga movement and the resistance to land sales. Responding in a way they saw that they had the right British invaded the Waikato. The outcomes of these events still hold debate and controversy in the regions of occurrence even today. With large loss of lives on both sides directly from the clashes, as Maori retained their pride refused to surrender to the British’s superior technology. New laws were passed as a result of the resistance involving shameless policy’s which marginalised Maori and there rights further. The consequences of this war were drawn out until the late 20th, when finally reparations were made in full.

The three sections discuss the impact of systematic dispossession of Maori land in Aotearoa New Zealand during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The first section, Wynyard draws on Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation. Primitive accumulation in the New Zealand context is perceived as an alienation of Maori land for colonial settlers. Likewise, it represents a countless amount of force, fraud, and oppression towards Maori in order to operate a capital accumulation. In other words, it is a form of cultural theft in stealing Maori lands and resources (Heim, 1998). Thus, primitive accumulation causes indigenous Maori left with nothing besides selling themselves as labor to work for the European civilization. This concept is similar to how capitalism was formed in the early colonization in Europe through the same progress of stealing the land and the development of agriculture. The second section, Wynyard covers the case of the Native Land Court where he titled the section as the Theft made legal. The Native Land Court is an intention of freeing up the so-called Theft in obtaining legal act through creating the law in a way to benefit the settlers. The main mean of this act is to maintain the system of British law. This law is launched to completely destroy and ignore the Maori laws through establishing courts, institution and land acts that permit them to