Terra Nullius and Its Lasting Effects on Aboriginal Australians

Introduction: British Colonization and the Denial of Aboriginal Rights

Great Britain colonized Australia in 1788. It has been estimated that there were between 300,000 and 750,000 native inhabitants on the continent at that time (Russell, 2005). English Common Law forbade the colonization of any inhabited area unless this was accomplished by treaty or by force. English colonists typically acknowledged the native peoples of the lands they colonized; however, this was not the case during the colonization of Australia (Daunton & Martin, 1999). The Aborigines defined themselves according to their clan relationships and were separated by at least 200 different dialects (Daunton & Martin, 1999). The British did not recognize indigenous Australians as having any formal societal organization, and this contributed to the British treating the natives they encountered in North America and in Australia quite differently.

Instead of recognizing the rights of native Australians, the British denied them any rights or ownership over the lands they had inhabited prior to British colonization. Although the notion of terra nullius — "a land that belongs to no one" — is often tied to both the Americas and Australia, the British viewed Native Americans as an organized society, whereas in Australia they viewed the native people as barbarians.

The Legal Foundation of Terra Nullius

Terra nullius was applied to Australia, and the policy formally remained in effect from 1788 until the 1990s (Russell, 2005). The terra nullius doctrine is based on John Locke's ideas regarding the ownership of property. Locke's notion was that since native populations did not have an investment in the soil they lived on, they had no claim over it. The British interpreted this as meaning that the land inhabited by indigenous Australians belonged to no one, and this allowed them to assume complete ownership over the land with no regard for the Aborigines (Buchan & Heath, 2006).

The traditional Aboriginal lifestyle was considered by many British and white Australians to be a crude culture of hunting and gathering. This attitude continued following the British departure from Australia (Reconciliaction Network, 2007). Terra nullius reinforced this attitude: a people that have no inherent rights to the land they live on cannot be viewed as having equal rights — or any rights — within the society that controls that land (Buchan & Heath, 2006).

Political Exclusion and the Slow Path to Citizenship

The British retained control over Australia until 1901, when six major colonies combined into a single democratic government (Buchan & Heath, 2006). At that time, the Aborigines were considered a dying race and were not counted in the census. Instead, the six colonies — now referred to as "States" — were given complete power over them until 1967, when a majority vote would include them in the census (Reconciliaction Network, 2007). However, the Australian constitution drafted in 1901 allowed each state to determine how to deal with its native populations, so the Aborigines still had little say regarding their fate.

In 1962, Aborigines were given the right to vote, but only in federal elections. They were still considered wards of the State, so they were not able to vote in State elections. Despite obtaining federal voting rights, Aboriginal people were still treated inhumanely — a lingering effect of terra nullius. They remained the poorest sector of the population in Australia, and even though they had obtained federal voting rights, very few were able to exercise them, either by choice or by coercion (Reconciliaction Network, 2007). It was not until 1967 that the Aborigines were granted legal citizenship of Australia, despite being the continent's indigenous people.

Being deemed "inferior," the Aborigines were placed under the control of government administrative policies and administrative boards as a result of the terra nullius mandate. These boards and policies dictated complete control over the lives of Australia's indigenous people. The parallel to the slavery imposed on Black Americans is quite striking; however, slavery in the United States was officially abolished following the Civil War in 1865, whereas the policies controlling the lives of Australia's indigenous population continued well into the 1900s and beyond (Reconciliaction Network, 2007).

The Stolen Generations: Forced Removal of Aboriginal Children

One of the major effects of the terra nullius policy on the Aborigines was the legal policy permitting the removal of Aboriginal children from their families. The formal policy lasted from 1910 to around 1970, but historically this practice was in effect far earlier and continued beyond 1970 (Celermajer, 2005). Churches, welfare boards, and other institutions participated in the process of removing these children without the consent of their parents and without a court order. The process typically consisted of taking a child from his or her home, placing them in an institution, and later placing them with white families.

The reasoning behind this was entirely genocidal in nature, designed to exploit the children while simultaneously enforcing "white" values on them. Removing children from their homes was justified as humane on the grounds that it severed ties with a family and culture considered barbaric (Celermajer, 2005). The most common ages at which a child was removed were at birth, two, or four years old. The impact of such a policy on generations of people can hardly be fully realized. Entire generations of Aboriginal families were disconnected from their heritage and culture and were indoctrinated into a society that neither respected them nor genuinely cared about their well-being.

The effects of this policy also created major tensions and deep distain between Aborigines and white Australians today — the legacy of the Stolen Generations (Celermajer, 2005). When generations of people are exploited and abused in this manner, they inevitably develop prejudicial attitudes toward their oppressors. Likewise, the oppressors will cognitively seek out information that confirms their biases and stereotypes of the oppressed group, long after the policies and practices of the past have ceased. In Australia this was certainly the case, and despite efforts to restore indigenous peoples' freedom to practice their culture, these tensions remain quite strong.

One must also consider the effect on those who were oppressed and how their perception of the situation influenced future generations. The policies of removing a substantial number of Aboriginal children from their families have resulted in deep psychological scars and continue to hinder reconciliation — both from a practical standpoint and from a social one (Buchan & Heath, 2006).

Conclusion: Shared Responsibility for Reconciliation

It is easy for the dominant group in a society to excuse itself from the sins of its past and employ a defense mechanism that convinces them "things are getting better." That is certainly an easy attitude to take when one only views things from afar. However, the facts clearly indicate that the effects of terra nullius have been long-standing. There is no denying this.

The responsibility to address the situation lies with everyone in Australia. It is not the responsibility of indigenous people alone to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps," nor is it solely the responsibility of the government to make things right. It is the responsibility of every person in Australia to look within and ask, "How can I contribute to bettering the situation?" If everyone genuinely asked that question and truly wanted to improve conditions for all Australians, it would be a meaningful start.

References

Australia Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Office of Public Affairs. (1998). As a matter of fact: Answering the myths and misconceptions about Indigenous Australians. Woden, ACT: Office of Public Affairs, ATSIC.

Buchan, B., & Heath, M. (2006). Savagery and civilization: From terra nullius to the "Tide of History." Ethnicities, 6(1), 5–26.

Celermajer, D. (April 22, 2005). The stolen generation: Aboriginal children in Australia human rights dialogue: "Cultural rights." In Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from

Daunton, H., & Martin, R. (1999). Empire and others: British encounters with indigenous peoples, 1600–1850. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.

Reconciliaction Network. (July 28, 2007). Stolen Generations fact sheet. Retrieved October 14, 2012, from http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/stolen-generations/

Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88–106.

Russell, P. H. (2005). Recognizing Aboriginal title: The Mabo case and indigenous resistance to English-settler colonialism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.