The War Of All Against All By James Cook Essay

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

Describe and explain Australian Indigenous people’s historical and contemporary connections to land and sea and the resources derived from them. How have settler discourses associated with colonization affected these connections to country?

Buchan and Heath (2006) argue that Indigenous Australian people could never meet these British standards of ‘civilisation’ because it was built on a ‘solidly Eurocentric template’ of what constitutes a State, property, and cultivation, therefore, the term ‘savage’ was possible constructed to aid the description of Australia as terra nullius, rather than

The deposition of their land, involvement in violent conflict and exposure to new diseases, resulted in the death of a vast number of Indigenous people. For the small population that did survive through this period of time, their lives were irreversibly changed, forever

This quote from Thomas Hobbes ‘Leviathan,' summarizes his opinion of the natural condition of mankind as concerning their felicity and misery. He basically suggests a natural impulse for war embedded in the souls of men who do not have a ruler, or a king. They are without bounds, and without limits. It is a state of anarchy that he envisages.

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 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).

It is often claimed that history repeats itself; the classic portrayal of a defenseless Aboriginal community against the “conquest” of a white European hero is echoed throughout common historical records. Yet, we are seldom provided with a view of an arguably truer side of the story, in which Europeans are the subordinate species. On his search for the Coppermine river, explorer Samuel Hearne writes a journal, titled “A Journey from Prince of Wales's Fort in Hudson's Bay to the Northern Ocean.” Hearne's record presents not only scientific research, but also a blunt insight into the primitive Native lifestyle that Hearne and his men endure. The white Europeans struggle to persevere alongside the Native population due to an unfamiliarity with

In his book, Hobbes lays out a society with no third party power to exert authority. He calls that society the “State of Nature”. Within the State of Nature, if there is a perpetual fear for ones being, he calls that being in a “State of War”. An example Hobbes gives of a society in a State of nature are the Native Americans.

The process of colonisation by European powers, as might be expected, has had a radical effect on Aboriginal culture. The settlers viewed the natives as barbarians, seizing tribal land and, in many cases, following a policy of pacification by force. Many others died of disease, starvation, cultural dislocation and neglect. Today, there are fewer than 230,000 Aborigines in Australia, less than 2% of the population.

Hobbes suggests three causes of the nature of man. First, competition; Second, Diffidence; third, glory. Human exercise violence first to gain their desire, and secondly to defend their gains, and lastly for one’s own reputation. On the ground that we are all in a state of war, Hobbes states, “In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain…no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, NO SOCIETY, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death…” (Leviathan, XIII). Therefore, the idea of justice or injustice cannot have a place in our society where there is no power.

The Article the end from the beginning re (de)finding Aboriginality written by Michael Dodson explores the notions on how Aboriginal people have been represented and perceived by the early settlers. Michael Dodson makes a critique on the language from previous historians. They Mention in the beginning that the Aboriginal people were seen as Noble savages from the prehistoric beasts, blood thirsty, cunning ferocious” that they even fell in the classification of blood types which gives an idea of an animal like classification, scientific based and based purely on Age and descent. ( Dodson, 2003: 19-20). Michael Dodson Argues the question as to how can the colonisers understand all the aspects of the indigenous people if they

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

Christen Fisher Pol 4020 Paper 1 IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN, MEN WILL LIVE IN A STATE OF WAR "OF EVERY MAN AGAINST EVERY MAN." Hobbes assumes that, without strong, centralized authority human beings will perpetually be at war with each other where “every man is Enemy to every man.” Furthermore, he assumes there would be no art, no leisure, and no ability to travel over water or create community building projects. Of course, Hobbes had never encountered an indigenous person before. In fact, he never travelled more than 100 miles from the island of his birth, so his understanding of how indigenous people behaved was informed by second hand accounts and his own imagination.

In Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan,” the state of nature is described as a state of war. Hobbes says that the lack of a common, sovereign power causes a state of war. In order to understand the argument that Hobbes makes, I will define commonwealth, natural man, state of nature and law of nature. These terms are crucial to understand the complex argument that Hobbes lays out calling the state of nature a, “war of every man against every man,” (Somerville 142). In this paper I will discuss Hobbes’ argument in detail.