Evolution of Indigenous Australian Policies Assessment Answer

Introduction

Australia's 1967 referendum was a turning point in its history. The referendum, which took place on May 27, 1967, produced the most "yes" votes of any kind (Watson, 2019). The referendum sought support from the general public in order to alter two specific clauses in the Australian Constitution that had a direct impact on Indigenous Australians. Before this Referendum, Indigenous Australians were not completely recognized as citizens at the time, and they were also not included in the Constitution's safeguards and rights (Bennett, 2019). This essay compares two historical occurrences from Australia's timeline to look at how Australian policies have changed over time for Indigenous Australians, how they have been justified in part by Indigenous Australians, and how this has put pressure on relations between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Australians. According to the statement, "When Holt went on his fateful swim on December 19, 1967, all hopes that the referendum would result in positive change drowned with him (Guardian, 2017)." The two events, before the 1967 referendum and after it has been chosen on the basis of this statement in terms of how representation of this event of December 19, 1967, has been reproduced.

Part-A: History

The two events are selected as “Decisions of Commonwealth and State Ministers at the Native Welfare Conference, Canberra, January 26th, and 27th, 1961” (Event 1, pre-1967) and “Australian Citizenship Testing, 2007” (Event-2, post-1967).

In terms of the goals of Event 1 before the 1967 referendum, the Native Welfare Conference, which took place in Canberra on January 26 and 27, 1961, had the objective of debating and making decisions on the welfare of Indigenous Australians (Hasluck, 1961). This incident occurred prior to the 1967 Referendum, which had a big impact on the acknowledgment and rights of Indigenous Australians, thus it is crucial to remember that. The main objective was to discuss and decide on projects and policies pertaining to the welfare of Indigenous people. However, the positioning of Indigenous Australians in this event was far from equal. Their opinions were not effectively represented, and they played a small part in determining decisions (Hasluck, 1961). Ministers from the Commonwealth and individual states attended the conference and made decisions about the welfare of the indigenous population without substantial input or engagement from the indigenous community. This paternalistic approach, where decisions were made on their behalf, further marginalized the voices and agency of Indigenous Australians by demonstrating their lack of direct representation and participation in the decision-making process.

In terms of post-1967 referendum event 2, the purpose of former Prime Minister John Howard's establishment of the Australian citizenship testing in 2007, was to gauge how well potential citizens knew and understood Australia's past, present, and core values (Chisari, 2012). The positioning of Indigenous Australians within this policy, however, was difficult. Indigenous Australians' rich cultural heritage, history, and viewpoints were largely disregarded by the testing framework. The fact that their distinctive knowledge and experiences were not sufficiently acknowledged or taken into account throughout the testing procedure, created a barrier for Indigenous people who wished to become Australian citizens. By reinforcing a dominant narrative of Australian identity that disregarded Indigenous Australians' contributions and rights, this positioning fueled a sense of exclusion and marginalization (Elder & Moore, 2012).

There are several similarities and differences evident in both events, in terms of goals, indigenous positioning, and implied relationships between Indigenous and Australian society. In terms of similarities in goals, the Australian Citizenship Testing sought to integrate the knowledge of Australian principles and history, including Indigenous history, into the citizenship process, while the Native Welfare Conference recognized the need to address the welfare problems of Indigenous people (Hasluck, 1961). In terms of differences in the goals, Event 1 addressed Indigenous Australians' welfare and well-being. Even though Event 2 featured certain components of Indigenous history, it was primarily focused on a broader sense of national identity (Chisari, 2012). Indigenous Australians were not treated (positioned) equally in both events nor were their opinions fairly represented or given much influence over decisions. Instead, they were cast in the role of welfare recipients or future citizens who had to adhere to the dominant conception of Australian identity. The implied relationship between Indigenous Australians and the larger Australian culture was one of dependency and restricted agency, according to Event 1. On the other hand, the citizenship testing policy reflected an assimilation relationship in which Indigenous Australians were required to adhere to a common sense of Australian history and values.

Part B: Institutions

To support current institutions and form perceptions of Australian history and culture, historical knowledge is repeated through institutions including schools, the media, and the government (Luke, 2000). Schools, the media, and the government are just a few of the institutions that are crucial in forming and disseminating information about Australian history and culture. Historical narratives are mostly transmitted through schools, where students' perceptions of the past are influenced by curricular decisions, textbook selections, and instructional strategies. Media platforms shape narratives and public debate through the stories and opinions they choose to portray. Institutions of government create frameworks and policies that influence historical accounts and cultural representation (Luke, 2000). These institutions have the ability to maintain marginalization, strengthen current power relations, or advance inclusion and equity. In addition, these institutions are crucial in maintaining certain discourses, standards, and power relationships that continue to shape modern viewpoints (Williamson, 2017).

The Native Welfare Conference and the Australian Citizenship Testing, the two events discussed earlier, have had a lasting influence on how people now interpret Australian history and culture (Hasluck, 1961). These incidents illustrate a historical narrative in which Indigenous viewpoints and efforts have frequently been undervalued. Indigenous Australians were subjected to a paternalistic discourse during the Native Welfare Conference, which reaffirmed the notion that they needed welfare support and decisions made on their behalf. Discussions and policies pertaining to Indigenous welfare are still influenced by this dependency narrative. Similarly to this, the Australian Citizenship Testing policy placed emphasis on a common grasp of Australian history and values, which may ignore or marginalize Indigenous viewpoints while supporting a dominant narrative of Australian identity (Elder & Moore, 2012).

The historical and modern structures of Australian society and its institutions are greatly influenced by racialized power and privilege (McLeod & Yates, 2021). Indigenous Australians have historically been subjected to systematic injustices and marginalization as a result of the colonial legacy and the adoption of Western systems. Racialized power structures have marginalized Indigenous populations while giving benefits and advantages to non-Indigenous people. The establishment of institutions and laws that uphold inequities and support historical narratives that prioritize non-Indigenous viewpoints has been affected by this unequal distribution of power.

Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people's collective and individual viewpoints are significantly shaped by racialization (Browne et al., 2005). Racialization has had a negative impact on indigenous people and communities, including misconceptions, discrimination, and historical erasure. Their perspectives frequently contest prevailing narratives and call for acceptance, autonomy, and justice (Browne et al., 2005). On the other side, non-Indigenous people could have opinions that are shaped by historical power structures and privileges that have benefited them. In order to redress historical injustices and promote reconciliation and equity, it is essential to recognize these opposing viewpoints and the effects of racialization.

It is crucial to critically assess how knowledge is produced and reproduced inside institutions, challenges prevalent narratives that marginalize Indigenous viewpoints, and actively fight to demolish racialized power structures in order to build a more inclusive and just society (Luke, 2000). This entails promoting media representation that accurately reflects the experiences and contributions of Indigenous Australians, amplifying Indigenous voices, integrating diverse perspectives into educational curricula, and fostering a dialogue that acknowledges and addresses the historical and current inequalities faced by Indigenous communities.

Part-C: Self

Regarding my perspective, I am aware that it is influenced by a variety of elements, including the impact of two key occurrences. My view of Australian history and culture has been influenced by the above-mentioned events, the Native Welfare Conference, and the Australian Citizenship Testing.

I was first aware of the historical paternalism towards Indigenous Australians by the Native Welfare Conference when decisions about their welfare were made without their direct input. The continuous battles for Indigenous empowerment and self-determination are highlighted by this event. My awareness of the necessity to confront historical injustices, correct them, and guarantee that Indigenous perspectives are heard and considered in decision-making processes has increased. I was made aware of the possible erasure of Indigenous viewpoints and contributions within the larger story of Australian identity by the Australian Citizenship Testing policy. It places a strong emphasis on how the general public views Australian values and history, which may betray the rich diversity of Indigenous Australians' cultural heritage and past. This event has made me realize how crucial it is to recognize and value the distinctive contributions made by Indigenous Australians to the fabric of Australian society.

My perspective is affected by a number of social, institutional, and historical elements in addition to these occurrences. My perspective is shaped socially by the values and viewpoints that are common in my own community, family, and social networks. Institutional factors, including those from my education and workplace, have a big impact on how I think. Schools can either support prevailing narratives or question them by fostering inclusive and diverse perspectives through their curricula and instructional strategies. Professionals can support the perpetuation of particular norms and power dynamics through their codes of conduct and practices, or they might seek to promote equality and social justice.

I am a native Australian who is familiar with the organizations like professions and schools that shape my perspective. My perspective of Australian history, culture, and social standards is greatly influenced by the educational curricula, textbooks, and pedagogical methods used in schools. Educational institutions can either embrace various voices and experiences in their curriculum choices or promote conventional viewpoints. Law and journalism are two professions that have an effect on my perspective. These professions' practices and discourses may influence how I perceive social problems, justice, and equality. They can either support the continuation of current power systems or fight to denounce systemic injustices and advance inclusivity.

Overall, a variety of elements, such as the effects of historical events, societal influences, institutional practices, and the narratives supported by educational institutions and professions, have an impact on my point of view. For critical analysis and the creation of a well-rounded viewpoint that takes into account the various experiences and contributions of all Australians, it is essential to acknowledge these influences. It also inspires me to actively oppose and change the structures that support inequality in order to create a society that is more inclusive.

Conclusion

Overall, despite the fact that both occasions acknowledged the existence of Indigenous Australians, their positioning and the implication of their link to the larger Australian community varied. While the Australian Citizenship Testing program prioritized assimilation and ignored the various viewpoints and contributions of Indigenous Australians, the Native Welfare Conference demonstrated a paternalistic attitude with little representation. These discrepancies bring to light the historical obstacles and ongoing struggles to ensure the rights, representation, and empowerment of Indigenous Australians within Australian society. For a more accurate, inclusive, and just understanding of Australian history and culture, institutions must be acknowledged and efforts made to decolonize and diversify their practices. My standpoint was influenced by various aspects in terms of the institutions' viewpoints and events discussed above.

References

Bennett, B. (2019). The importance of Aboriginal history for practitioners. Our Voices: Aboriginal social work, 3-30. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7h1HEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=indigenous+lives+before+the+1967+referendum&ots=acWiZZYeIf&sig=li2hJ2ZtoV549unw9xdDcX-9r2A

Browne, A. J., Smye, V. L., & Varcoe, C. (2005). The relevance of postcolonial theoretical perspectives to research in Aboriginal health. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research Archive, 16-37. https://cjnr.archive.mcgill.ca/article/view/1969

Chisari, M. (2012). Chapter Eight: The History and Values of Australian Citizenship Testing. New voices, new visions: Challenging Australian identities and legacies, 137. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YwkuBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA137&dq=THE+HISTORY+AND+VALUES+OF+AUSTRALIAN+CITIZENSHIP+TESTING+MARIA+CHISARI&ots=VOj50e5a1p&sig=Jc5RhG2snkYLAUu42V5S2w1oLr8

Elder, C., & Moore, K. (Eds.). (2012). New Voices, New Visions: Challenging Australian Identities and Legacies. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YwkuBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=New+Voices,+New+Visions:+Challenging+Australian+Identities+and+Legacies+Edited+by+Catriona+Elder+and+Keith+Moore&ots=VOj50e5b8s&sig=4d64qcqJ12AGCnK_VQYI99jyq7k

Guardian. (2017). Harold Holt's death and why the 1967 referendum failed Indigenous. Online. Retrieved on 11 May 2023, from people https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/27/harold-holts-death-and-why-the-1967-referendum-failed-indigenous-people

Hasluck, S. P. (1961). The Policy of Assimilation: Decisions of Commonwealth and State Ministers at the Native Welfare Conference, Canberra, January 26th and 27th, 1961. AJ Arthur, Commonwealth Government Printer.

Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (5), 448-461. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40017081

McLeod, J., & Yates, L. (2012). Making modern lives: Subjectivity, schooling, and social change. State University of New York Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RMMfm6KpD-cC&oi=fnd&pg=PA29&dq=How+the+discourse+and+norms+associated+with+the+Australian+citizen+ship+testing+continue+to+inform+contemporary+understandings+of+Australian+history+and+culture&ots=q0sSozrOto&sig=2iLZG7L1pA12e0cFphhCw7cYEdo

Watson, G. (2019). The lessons in the 1967 Referendum campaign. NEW: Emerging scholars in Australian Indigenous Studies, 5 (1). https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/student-journals/index.php/NESAIS/article/view/1565

Williamson, B. (2017). Big data in education: The digital future of learning, policy, and practice. Big Data in Education, 1-256. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5017810&publisher=FZ7200

You Might Also Like:-

Humanities Homework Help

Business Courses at Deakin Business School - Deakin University Blog Series

Bicycle Thieves Movie Scene Analysis - Arts and Humanities Assessment Answer