The Influence Of Terra Nullius On Indigenous Australia's Aboriginal People

The discourse of whiteness began at Colonisation when Indigenous Peoples were dehumanised. To legitimise the colonisation Moreton Robinson (2004) and Phillips (2005) state the traditional owners of the land needed to be ‘othered’, thus lacking innately human characteristics and, therefore, of unequal civil status. Othering of Indigenous Peoples enabled Australia to be defined as ‘Terra Nullius’, and according to McGrath (1995) and Crowley (1980), the myth of Terra Nullius is central to the discourse of whiteness and the white epistemology of Australia. The invasion and subsequent Colonisation

When the British arrived in 1788 roughly 500,000 Aboriginal people lived on the continent of Australia. Today only 270,000 remain. Governor Macquarie, tried to do what he described as “civilize” them, which meant

The Australian Indigenous community hold extremely significant corrections to the land of Australia, of which they refer to as ‘Country.’ Indigenous people acquire deep meaning from the land, sea and the countless resources derived from them. This special relationship has formed for many centuries. To them ‘Country’ is paramount for overall wellbeing; the strong, significant, spiritual bonds embody their entire existence. Knowledge is continually passed down to create an unbroken connection of past,

-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.

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

However, was this outrageous act nothing more than an honest mistake? Upon finding such promising land, did the European colonies believe they were impartial to possessing and commanding it as they please? Only for the fact that the current Indigenous owners were using it for means they could not understand? Did they believe that the only significance the land had to the Indigenous people was a spiritual and emotional connection, and the land could be therefore put to better use? Historical facts support all of these statements, and therefore are proving one of the largest acts of injustice Australia has ever

Terra Nullius was once apparent in Australian society, but has now been nullified with the turn of the century and the changes of societal attitudes. 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. Kevin Rudd’s apology as described by Pat Dodson (2006) as a seminal moment in Australia’s history, expressed the true spirit of reconciliation opening a new chapter in the history of Australia. Although from this reconciliation, considerable debate has arisen within society as to whether Aboriginals have a right to land of cultural significance. Thus, causing concern for current land owners, as to whether they will be

The article from Koori Mail refers to the British coming to “control and govern the Australian Continent”. Whilst Yahoo news describes the change of language as “rewriting history”. These statements covertly suggest that British had and continue to have superior rights to the land due to their ‘whiteness’. Terminology used in teaching Australian history such as settled, supports that the Europeans were peacefully welcomed onto the land. An assumption many Australians may believe is that Captain James Cook was the first to discover terra nullius due to the facts taught at school. While Australia had been habituated long before his arrival, the Aboriginals were still seen as nomadic and seemed to move randomly without claiming any particular territory. Cultural inaccuracies still occur surrounding the Indigenous Culture such as the terms tribe, chief and primitive to describe Indigenous. As seen by the statements made by the ‘Shock Jocks”, the journalists are not always a scholarly source therefore may not have accurate information and strive to create conflict in relation to sensitive

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.

The arrival of British colonists was based on a certain understanding of the world that had a racial character. The idea of terra nullius presumed that civilised humanity was achievable only by Europeans. What the British believed was settlement, was for Indigenous peoples invasion and dispossession. When the colonies federated as a Commonwealth in 1901, the organising principle was that of racial unity in the form of a White Australia. The first legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament was the Pacific Island Labourers Act (1901), which expelled all Pacific Islanders working in Australia. The deportation of the approximately 10,000 Pacific Islanders working in Australia - mostly in sugar plantations in Queensland - was aimed to ensure the living standards of white Australian workers wouldn't be undermined by cheap coloured labour. This was soon followed by the enactment of the Immigration Restriction Act (1901), perhaps the best known legislative instrument of the White Australia Policy. The Act would introduce the infamous dictation test used to exclude non-European

In 1824 the British tried to colonize the Tiwi islands in the Australian Northern Territory. They had many confrontations with the Tiwi islanders, particularly the men. Some deaths occurred in both groups as a result. For a short amount of time a sense of peace came to the Tiwi Island. The Tiwi and British would swap tools until the Tiwi started taking the British tools without swapping or asking. The British saw this as theft. They did not understand the Aboriginal culture revolved around sharing everything, and the aboriginals had no understanding of the value of material possessions. The British soon realized this and used it against the Tiwi by swapping tools for land. The Tiwi were then confronted by the British quarrying stone on Melville Island, cutting down the trees, killing animals for food such as wallabies and marine life, relocating water from creaks, and the clearing of land to build European structures. The Tiwi were not happy with this at all. The trees, water, and land are very sacred to the aboriginal people, they see these things as a part of themselves. The Tiwi realized that the British were not going to leave but instead were

During the period of 1788 to 1890 the British treated Australia as a colony of settlement. Aboriginal land was taken over and ran by British colonist believing that the land was owned by no one, “terra nullius.” From the 1970s non-Indigenous and Indigenous historians began to question this story; they were influenced by Indigenous politics and activism and began to talk to Indigenous people about their version of history, to see Australian history as having different sides. From an Indigenous perspective, Australia 's

Since James Cooke’s possession of the entire Australian east coast in 1770, followed by the arrival of the first fleet in 1788, British perceived domination has caused momentous and historic controversy between the rightful owners of the land, the aboriginal people, and the early settlers, the British.

Ironically, the civilised people who brought the ‘improvements’ could not cope to live in peace with the natives, where countless Aboriginal lives vanished under the ‘superior’ governance of the new settlers. Regardless which part of the continent including Tasmania, the history has shown many unfair

Cook’s voyage of exploration had sailed under instructions to take possession of the Southern Continent if it was uninhabited, or with the consent of the natives if it was occupied. Either way, it was to be taken. Upon his arrival, Lt Cook declared the land he called New South Wales to be the property of Britain’s King George III, and ignored the inconvenient fact that the land was already well populated. His failure to even attempt to gain the consent of the natives began the legal fiction that Australia was waste and