Nancy Fraser Tripartite Model Essay

This is a reputation that many believe Pauline Hanson is out to destroy. Her controversial views combined with her political power has the potential to divide Australian society, and damage our international image. Hanson believes that the government spends too much money on foreign aid and welfare, specifically Aboriginal welfare services. The problems arose when she publicallyannounced this in her maiden speech at a time of great social change; many people were recognizing that minority groups in Australia were disadvantaged despite what Australian identity would have them believe. “We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness.” It is partly true that a ‘type of reverse racism’ exists, however Hanson blows this idea out of proportion, creating controversy. While this controversy potentially aids her political campaign with widespread media coverage, it has the side effect of dividing Australian society. There will be one group of people who agree with her views and another who don’t. Instead of uniting all Australians under the same goals of multiculturalism, Hanson seemingly ‘drives a wedge’ through our society. Multiculturalism is a vulnerable thing for a country like Australia, and Hanson poses a threat to this identity with her primitive views, and her political

I argue that the ideologies behind The Assimilation Policy were evident since the first white settlers had arrived in 1788. Since first contact, Aboriginal people’s values, customs, beliefs and traditional way of life began to erode. From the 1850s onwards, Aboriginal people were forced onto reserves, and then into towns and cities in the mid 20th century . Many people feared that the ‘Australian’ culture was being affected by immigrants. Since the early 1900s, there had been a ‘White Australia’ policy and assimilation was expected upon arrival. However, Aboriginal people did not immigrate, so their policy, dictated by the Australian States and Commonwealth Government was known as The Policy of Assimilation. Assimilation policies were supported by racist assumptions and represented by settler nationalist imperatives . In the 1950s, assimilation policies for Aboriginal people were supported by the

The discourse of whiteness has severely impacted on the educational outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (herein referred to as Indigenous Peoples). The discourse is based on an ontology founded on overt racism, discrimination, prejudice, exclusion and dispossession and towards all Indigenous Peoples. Subsequently, the history of Indigenous Peoples experiences in relation to education is extremely negative. They have been denied the right to the same education as non-Indigenous students, frequently expelled and continually forced to deny their cultural identity. The discourse of whiteness has resulted in pedagogies and pedagogical practices that are overly racist and not inclusive of Indigenous Peoples culture. To improve future educational outcomes it is necessary to decolonise Australia and rewrite the curriculum so that it is inclusive for all students.

It is a commonly known issue in Australia that as a minority group, the people of Indigenous Australian ethnicity have always been treated, or at least perceived, differently to those of non-Indigenous disposition. This can be applied to different contexts such as social, economic, education, or in relation to this essay – legal contexts. Generally, Indigenous Australians face issues such as less opportunity for formal education, less access to sufficient income, more health issues, and higher rates of imprisonment (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service

As many Aboriginals stood in the way of European economic expansion, Europeans forced the younger generation of Aboriginals to residential schools. This justified and assisted in their need to revolutionize former Aboriginal beliefs. More specifically, the correspondence principle identifies the changes Aboriginal children had to make in school in order to reflect that of the normal workplace. For instance, certain ideologies were enforced by residential schools. Aboriginal children were punished if they spoke in their native tongue, as this rule was reflected and followed in the workplace. With these regulations in place, the Aboriginal culture was on the verge of destruction, as it was nearly impossible for any future Aboriginal generations to receive proper knowledge on their native culture. More generally, conflict theory is based on social inequality, and it explains how the powerful promote their own interests at the expense of the weak (Ravelli & Webber, 2010). Residential schools signify this notion, as the Aboriginals were mistreated and abused by the more powerful, prominent religious figures in the school. Overall, the conflict theory best describes the residential school system, and it correctly identifies how the Aboriginal culture was destroyed as a result.

Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.

At the turn of the twentieth century the systematic forced removal of Aboriginal children from their mothers, families and cultural heritage was commonplace. There were several reasons that the government and white society used to justify the separation but the prevailing ideology of nationalism and maintaining Australia for the ‘whites’ was the over-riding motivation and justification for their actions[1]. Progressive sciences such as anthropology espoused such theories as eugenics, miscegenation, biological absorption and assimilation which legitimated governmental policies relating to Aboriginal affairs[2]. It was

Stan Grant’s speech ‘Racism and the Australian Dream’ (2015) effectively reminds the Australian population of the racism and harsh inequalities indigenous Australians have faced in the past and still face today. In reminding us of this reality, Grant engages us to discover issues of civic participation in Aboriginal people and in doing so perpetuates a need for social change. More?

For the last 200 years Indigenous people have been victims of discrimination, prejudice and disadvantage. Poor education, poor living conditions and general poverty are still overwhelming issues for a large percentage of our people and we remain ‘as a group, the most poverty stricken sector of the working class’ in Australia (Cuthoys 1983).

In 1976 the Fraser government passed the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Several state governments passed their own Land Rights Acts, which recognised aboriginal and Torres Strait islander claims to land and guaranteed them royalty payments from mining companies working there. Some laws enforced by the government became challenging for most indigenous people to abide by. Through the analysis of this information we understand the impacts the government and its laws had towards the indigenous society of

Through my life, I have seen several different approaches to Indigenous people’s rights and importance in Australia. I have been fortunate enough to visit Ayers Rock and undertake a tour which allowed me to see Aboriginal culture in art and drawings as well as hearing Dreamtime stories from guides. I have also witnessed family friends who have been severely racist and disrespectful of Indigenous heritage and history. I also was lucky to work with some Indigenous students who were in Reception during my Professional Experience 1, and I was able to see first-hand how a culture clash can affect a student’s behaviour. I feel that even before entering this course, I have had the privilege of being able to observe both positives and negatives

Education is fundamental to growth, the growth of the individual, and the growth of a nation. Anthropologically this can be seen from the earliest of developments of human societies where practices emerge to ensure the passing of accumulated knowledge from one generation to the next. In the centuries since the invasion and colonisation of Australia in 1788, colonist authorities and governments have dominated the making of policies regarding most major aspects of Australian life, including the lives of Indigenous Australians. The enactment of these policies and legislation, whether targeted at society as a whole or directly at education, has had significant and most often negative causal impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, resulting in not only poor educational outcomes, but the loss of cultural identity, the development of serious issues in health and wellbeing, and the restriction of growth of Aboriginal communities. Moreover, there has been an ongoing pattern of the adoption of ill-informed policies in Australia, resulting in these poor outcomes and cultural decimation. Aboriginal people have developed a wariness, a mistrust, and even an attitude of avoidance to engage with non-Indigenous officials and those who they associate as their representatives, i.e. personnel working within

This article gives the reader an inequitable view of Indigenous Australians, defending Tony Abbot’s point of view and the audience is encouraged to agree with mainstream media in regards to whether or not Tony Abbott is racist. Article B from the Koori Mail condemns Tony Abbott’s viewpoint as not only racist but he is insulting the very culture that he is representing. Article B states that Tony Abbott does not understand Indigenous culture and how important land is to them “Connection to country is everything to Aboriginal people – defines Aboriginal people and sustains us in a cultural and spiritual sense and can play a vital role in building economic independence, self-determination and healing” (Greg Cromelin, Article B). With Article B the audience is encouraged to get angry at Tony Abbott’s comments and make him out to be racist.

Human rights are the rights of humans, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or religion. We should all have this in common as we are all part of humanity. However, Indigenous people did not always have these rights (Ag.gov.au, 2015). Aside from basic human rights, Indigenous people also have their own rights specific to their culture. Before 1967, Indigenous people had different rights in different states and the Australian federal government did not have any jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs until Australia’s constitution was amended for this purpose in 1967 (Moadoph.gov.au, 2015). Between 1900 and the present time, there have been significant changes to the rights of Indigenous Australians. The effects of the European Settlement on the Indigenous people of Australia have been devastating. When white people began arriving in Australia, the Aboriginal people believed them to be ghosts of ancestor spirits. However, once they realised the settlers were invading their land, the Aborigines became, understandably, hostile (Slater & Parish, 1999, pp.8-11). In 1788, the total Indigenous population was believed to be between 750,000 and one million. By 1888, the Indigenous population was reduced to around 80,000 Australia wide (Korff, 2014). The three main reasons for this dramatic decline were the introduction of new diseases, violent conflicts with the colonisers, and settlers acquiring Indigenous land (Digital, 2015). In 1848, the Board of National Education stated that it

64, Commonwealth of Australia 2011). Policy then moved towards more assimilationist strategies in which attempts were made to convert Aboriginal Australians into ‘responsible citizens’ (Gilbert 2005, Haebich 2000). The protectionist and assimilationist policies share the core values that Aboriginal culture is inferior and on its way to an ‘evolutionary end’ (Gilbert 2005, p. 64).