232 research outputs found
Towards the Native Title Act : How we got a Native Title Act. by Tim Rowse
No full texttag=1 data=Towards the Native Title Act : How we got a Native Title Act. by Tim Rowse
tag=2 data=Rowse, Tim
tag=3 data=Australian Quarterly,
tag=4 data=65
tag=5 data=4
tag=6 data=Summer 1993
tag=7 data=111-132.
tag=8 data=ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS%MABO
tag=9 data=NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993%RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975
tag=13 data=IN
Court in the Act : Some wider implications : The principles of Aboriginal pragmatism. by Tim Rowse
No full texttag=1 data=Court in the Act : Some wider implications : The principles of Aboriginal pragmatism. by Tim Rowse
tag=2 data=Rowse, Tim
tag=3 data=Australian Quarterly,
tag=4 data=65
tag=5 data=4
tag=6 data=Summer 1993
tag=7 data=185-193.
tag=8 data=ABORIGINES
tag=9 data=NATIVE TITLE%SELF DETERMINATION
tag=13 data=IND
tag=32 data=DODSON, MIC
The Difference Identity Makes
No full textThis book is a product of the project ‘Australian Cultural Fields:
National and Transnational Dynamics’ supported by the
Australian Government through the Australian Research Council
(DP140101970). The project was awarded to Tony Bennett (Project
Director, Western Sydney University), to Chief Investigators Greg
Noble, David Rowe, Tim Rowse, Deborah Stevenson and Emma
Waterton (Western Sydney University), David Carter and Graeme
Turner (University of Queensland) and to Partner Investigators
Modesto Gayo (Universidad Diego Portales) and Fred Myers (New
York University)
'Essentially sea‑going people' : how Torres Strait Islanders shaped Australia's border
Get PDFAs an Opposition member of parliament in the 1950s and 1960s, Gough Whitlam took a keen interest in Australia’s responsibilities, under the United Nations’ mandate, to develop the Territory of Papua New Guinea until it became a self-determining nation. In a chapter titled ‘International Affairs’, Whitlam proudly recalled his government’s steps towards Papua New Guinea’s independence (declared and recognised on 16 September 1975). However, Australia’s relationship with Papua New Guinea in the 1970s could also have been discussed by Whitlam under the heading ‘Indigenous Affairs’ because from 1973 Torres Strait Islanders demanded (and were accorded) a voice in designing the border between Australia and Papua New Guinea. Whitlam’s framing of the border issue as ‘international’, to the neglect of its domestic Indigenous dimension, is an instance of history being written in what Tracey BanivanuaMar has called an ‘imperial’ mode. Historians, she argues, should ask to what extent decolonisation was merely an ‘imperial’ project: did ‘decolonisation’ not also enable the mobilisation of Indigenous ‘peoples’ to become self-determining in their relationships with other Indigenous peoples? This is what the Torres Strait Islanders did when they asserted their political interests during the negotiation of the Australia–Papua New Guinea border, though you will not learn this from Whitlam’s ‘imperial’ account
The certainties of assimilation
No full textOne of the cumulative effects of the studies gathered in this book is to undermine any certainty about the meaning of the term ‘assimilation’. Yet the desire to fix or to limit the meaning of assimilation is understandably strong, not least among historians. It has been tempting to postulate one figure as the definitive exponent of assimilation, or one statement as its definitive enunciation. Might not an exegesis of this person’s utterances and writings yield a stable and unambiguous account of assimilation
Mabo and moral anxiety. by Tim Rowse
No full textFor Australians who are neither Aboriginal nor Islander descent, the task of rethinking the nation's responsibility to indigenous people requires both moral and practical reasoning about the coexistence of settler and indigenous cultures. Provided by MICAH, Canberra
Top-down tensions. by Tim Rowse
No full textCan ATSIC really contribute to Aboriginal self-determination
‘Taxpayers’ money’? ATSIC and the Indigenous Sector
Get PDFFunding organisations controlled by Indigenous Australians and dedicated to serving them, in the name of ‘self-determination’, has created risks both for governments (who must satisfy the public that ‘taxpayers’ money’ is being well spent) and Indigenous leaders (who must not only meet service expectations of Indigenous Australians but also acquit funding according to government criteria). This chapter compares two experiments in governance: the Indigenous sector (thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC)
How shall we write the history of self‑determination in Australia?
Get PDFThe Uluru Statement from the Heart of May 2017 articulated an Indigenous vision for a better relationship between settler and Indigenous Australians: one ‘based on justice and self-determination’. The culmination of years of consultation with Indigenous people about constitutional recognition, the statement proposed a referendum in which the Australian people could approve (or not) the formation of an Indigenous deliberative and advisory body – a Voice to Parliament. The government-appointed Referendum Council endorsed this proposal, but the Australian Government quickly dismissed it in October 2017. One prominent advocate of the Uluru Statement and member of the Referendum Council, Megan Davis, seemed to anticipate that response when, back in January 2016, she stated that ‘Australia has rejected self-determination – freedom, agency, choice, autonomy, dignity – as being fundamental to Indigenous humanness and development’
- …
