Rights and Freedoms

Question 1

Define ethnocentric
Define eurocentric

Answer 1

Ethnocentric view means: where a person’s evaluation of other cultures is based on the preconceptions of standards and custom’s of their own culture.

Eurocentric view: is where one has a tendency to interpret the world in terms of European values and experiences.

Question 2

How did the protection policy control aboriginal lives?

Answer 2

The protection policy became the means of controlling their lives by:

-Deciding where they could live and work (in particular forcing them to live on ‘managed reserves’ or missions

-Limiting Aboriginal people’s access to their own wages

-Forbidding them the right to practise their own traditions

-Limiting their access to education

-Taking their children (also known as the Stolen Generation)

-Denying them the rights to which other Australians were entitled to.

Question 3

Why was the protection policy implemented?

Answer 3

From the mid 19th century onward, Australian governments implemented policies of ‘protection’, that in reality segregated Aboriginal people from Australian society. It was known as the protection policy because the Europeans believed they were protecting the Indigenous people from themselves.

Question 4

What did the certificate of exemption do?

Answer 4

Aboriginal people could sign a certificate of exemption – which basically meant the Indigenous person would join white society but deny their Aboriginal heritage.

Question 5

Effect of assimilation policies on indigenous Australians.

Answer 5

Assimilation policies proposed that “full blood” Indigenous people should be allowed to “die out” through a process of natural elimination, while “half-castes” (a now derogatory term) were encouraged to assimilate into the white community.

Question 6

Who organised the day of mourning protest?

Answer 6

William Cooper: Secretary of Australian Aborigines League
William Ferguson – founder of the Aborigine Progressive Association (APA)
John (Jack) Patten – APA’s president

Question 7

Success of day of mourning protest

Answer 7

The 26 January 1938 Day of Mourning and Protest did not achieve its main goals. However, what it did achieve was to:
- unite Aboriginal people in a formal gathering demanding their civil rights
- make Australians think about whether Australia day is appropriate (Invasion or Survival Day)

Question 8

Names of four policies that dictated how aboriginals should live

Answer 8

The four policies are:
1. Protection policy (1788 - 1969)
2. Assimilation policy (1937 – 1965)
3. Integration policy (1965 – 1972)
4. Self determination (1972-2005)

Question 9

How did the government protect Indigenous people, in order to ease the process of extinction.

Answer 9

In the name of ‘protection’, Indigenous Australians were made wards of the state and subjected to policies that gave government the power to determine where Indigenous people could live, who they could marry, and where they could work.

Question 10

How did the protection policy control Aboriginal Australian’s lives

Answer 10

Limiting Aboriginal people’s access to their own wages
Forbidding them the right to practise their own traditions
Limiting their access to education
Denying them the rights to which other Australians were entitled to.

Question 11

What was a main feature of protection legislation

Answer 11

One of the main features of protection legislation was the establishment of government reserves, parcels of land designated for Indigenous people to live on that were on the outskirts of towns (away from the British people).

Question 12

When were the adverse effects of the protection policy evident

Answer 12

By the 1920s, it became clear that the protection policy had resulted in:
- dispossession
- despair
- a rapid decline in the size of the Aboriginal population.
- loss of culture & traditional practice
- distrust towards the white community- Families were divided. Many children who were forcibly removed from their families never to see their families again.

Question 13

Why was the assimilation policy integrated?

Answer 13

By the 1930s, as it became clear that the Aboriginal people were not “dying out” and that the number of ‘mixed blood’ people was in fact increasing, the federal government and the state governments began to consider a new policy called Assimilation.

1937 – 1965

Question 14

What would happen to the half blooded aboriginals?

Answer 14

The Assimilation policy expected that Aborigines who were ‘not of full blood’ (also known as ‘half caste’ or ‘half blood’) would conform to the attitudes, customs and beliefs of the white majority

Question 15

Benefit of certificate of exemption

Answer 15

Some improvements were that Aboriginal people became eligible for old age pensions.

Question 16

Were aboriginals treated the same?

Answer 16

There was still discrimination in society towards Aboriginal people, regardless if they had signed the certificate of exemption. Many ‘white’ Australians were less accepting.
It did not give Aboriginal Australians the same rights as white Australians
They found it difficult to find work because of racism.
They encountered resistance in shops, entertainment venues and public places, and they were denied access to housing and health assistance.
Aboriginal people were still often placed in special housing areas or forced to live on the fringe of towns where facilities were poor.

Question 17

Assimilation policy change

Answer 17

By the 1960s the policy of assimilation, the idea that Aboriginal people should assimilate and abandon their tradition and culture, was under challenge.
Under this policy, the term ‘assimilation’ changed its meaning: Assimilation now meant that ‘all persons of Aboriginal descent will choose to attain a similar manner and standard of living to that of other Australians’.
Such a change of statement suggested that Aboriginal people were not required to lose all of their cultural ideas, beliefs and customs.

Question 18

Cons of integration policy

Answer 18

However, after the Commonwealth Government announced the policy in 1965, it then did little towards implementing it.

Question 19

Features of self-determination policy

Answer 19

To have self-determination for Aboriginal peoples, it was decided that self-determination was required. Key features of self determination are: - freedom: same rights as all citizens. - support: they can autonomously determine how to organise their resources. Rather than receive ‘supervision’ or be told, they may seek support. - knowledge: knowledge of what has and hasn’t worked elsewhere to help avoid making mistakes, without being told what is ‘best’ for them. - financial responsibility: they control their budget - stable policies: government policies should encourage and support Aboriginal solutions and be reliable.

Question 20

How was the self determination policy administered?

Answer 20

through the newly created Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) which marked the first significant involvement of the Commonwealth Government in policy making and the provision of support for Aboriginal people.

The eventual creation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) - ATSIC provided the formal structure for decision making on Indigenous issues. - It fights for their rights and delivers most of the programs and services for Indigenous people funded by Commonwealth Government

Question 21

Results of self-determination policy

Answer 21

The creation of ATSIC & the DAA (as mentioned on the slide before)- This meant that Aboriginal people were to have full control over all the things that affected their lives.- They were no longer to be a dying race, under ‘protection’ or ‘assimilation’ - Aboriginal people were classed as full & equal citizens with all other Australians.Finally there was widespread acceptance in Australia.- the Commonwealth government provided support to Aboriginal people - Self Determination policy allowed for empowerment to Aboriginal people and gave positive opportunities to voice opinions.

Question 22

No of stolen generation individuals

Answer 22

By late 1980’s there were more than 100,000 people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) descent who:
** Lost their links with family and land
** Lost their understanding of kinship
** Missed out on being educated in the language, culture and traditions of their people

Question 23

How were mothers coerced into giving their children up?

Answer 23

Boards frequently pressured Indigenous mothers to give up their children at birth (adoption). Often these mothers did not understand the consent papers that officials gave them to sign.

Question 24

Describe theThe Kinchela Boys Home, Kempsey
1924-1971

Answer 24

Among one of the worst ‘homes’ to which authorities sent children

For Boys aged 7 to 14.

They went there to gain a basic education and to learn farming and some basic manual labour tasks.

In years 1924 to 1971, approximately 400 members of the Stolen generation lived there.

Discipline was strict, treatment harsh and punishment severe. Staff referred to the boys as ‘inmates.’

The day started with farming before breakfast. If the work wasn’t finished, no breakfast. Then school (untrained teachers) until 3pm and then an additional two to four hours work as farm labourers. Bed time 8pm.

Question 25

Describe the The Cootamunda Domestic Training home for Girls 1912-1974

Answer 25

Home for Aboriginal girls aged from about 7 to 14.

Forcibly removed from their parents to train as domestic servants for white families.

Instructors taught girls that they were white and that Indigenous Australians were inferior.

Forbid the use of traditional language; denied contact with their family, punished if you broke the rules.

As servants after training, they were paid infrequently (if at all), worked long hours with little personal freedom and were at risk of sexual abuse.

Question 26

Describe the The Bomaderry Aboriginal Children’s Home
1908 – 1980

Answer 26

Established with the intention of replacing original family ties with a new family model “European Christian Model”

Young babies and children lived there until age of 7 then sent onto another home.

Staff encouraged the students to think of themselves as ‘white.’

Denied them of any contact with their families

Question 27

Consequences of stolen generation

Answer 27

Parents lost their roles in nurturing these children to adulthood.
Children denied these skills failed to learn by example of how to be good parents.
Loneliness, depression and poor self esteem
Loss of identity
Lack of access, denial and understanding of their language, heritage, culture & role models within their communities
Deep distrust of the government, police and ‘white’ society.
Shortened family tree (complete loss of knowing their family)
Violence, relationship problems and troubles with connection
All levels of abuse
Life of Crime and addiction

Question 28

How did aus change their views on the stolen generation

Answer 28

In the late 1960s, most Australians did not know about the systematic removal of Indigenous people from their families.
Victims often felt too ashamed & had no one to listen. Slowly, Indigenous activism began to have an impact.
By end of 1970s, Aborigine Welfare Board was shut down.
By mid 1970s – the government began to seek the views of Indigenous people placing children into foster care.
By mid 1980s, the preferred policy was to place children with people of their own race.

Question 29

African American discrimination examples

Answer 29

Jim Crow Laws enforced segregation
Use separate entrances to buildings
Created separate areas for them in theatres and on buses
Denied them access to ‘whites only’ swimming pools, hospitals, schools, housing and even cemeteries
Intimidated them into not exercising their voting rights.
They also had to endure inadequate and substandard facilities, having people refer to them by the derogatory terms and the risk of becoming victims of mob rule, violence and even lynchings.

Question 30

Describe the Montgomery Bus Boycott

Answer 30

In 1956–7, Montgomery, Alabama, was the scene of a successful 381-day boycott to desegregate its buses. The law reserved the front seats of the bus for white people. African Americans could sit in the back of the bus, or in the middle if white people did not require these seats. In December 1955, African American Rosa Parks went to jail for violating the law.

In protest, Baptist minister Martin Luther King (1929–68), president of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), called on African Americans, who comprised 75 per cent of bus users in Montgomery, to boycott the city’s buses. Their slogan was ‘Don’t ride the bus today, don’t ride it for freedom’. Bus companies faced massive financial losses, but refused to give in. In November 1956, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the MIA’s case for desegregation. The boycott ended on 20 December 1956, when the bus companies agreed to allow all bus travellers the same rights to any vacant seats.

Question 31

Purpose of freedom rides US

Answer 31

Segregation and racial intolerance were worse in the southern states, where over 50 per cent of African Americans lived. Companies continued to segregate interstate buses, trains and stations even though the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in 1955 and the US Supreme Court in 1960 had already ruled this to be illegal under federal law. Freedom riders wanted to make states overturn these laws and enforce federal law on transport companies in the South.

Question 32

Describe the beginning of the freedom rides in US

Answer 32

The first Freedom Ride began on 4 May 1961.

Thirteen activists set out from Washington DC in two separate buses — a Greyhound bus and a Trailways bus — to journey to New Orleans in Louisiana, where they planned to arrive in time for a mass rally on 17 May.

Racists in these areas became increasingly hostile to this protest and eager for violence. A mob attacked the freedom riders at the Greyhound bus station in Rock Hill, South Carolina, but this was a relatively minor incident compared to what was to happen in Alabama.

Question 33

Describe the Alamaba bus ride incident

Answer 33

A Ku Klux Klan supporter/Police Sergeant and the Commissioner for Public Safety in Birmingham were determined that the Freedom Ride would not continue beyond Alabama. They promised the Klansmen that the police would wait 15 minutes before intervening to stop any attack on the Freedom Riders.
On 14 May, a mob forced the Greyhound bus off the road as it crossed into Alabama and used baseball bats, iron bars and knives to smash its windows and slash its tyres.
Then they fire-bombed the bus, shouting ‘‘Burn them alive’ as the freedom riders struggled to escape the burning bus and the crowds waiting outside to attack them. The police eventually forced the mob to stop.
Multiple other attacks took place. Some hospital staff refused to treat the wounded.
This caused international outrage and was an embarrassment for the US government.

Question 34

Result of freedom rides

Answer 34

As a result, international media reports of the Freedom Rides and violent responses to them embarrassed the US government, but it was still reluctant to enforce federal law over state laws. It tried to persuade the freedom riders to cease their protest so that things could ‘cool off’. Instead the riders kept the rides going until, in September, the ICC finally ordered bus companies to introduce desegregation. Companies had until 1 November to desegregate all their buses and the toilets, waiting rooms and eating areas at all their bus stations.

Question 35

Goals of Washington March

Answer 35

For African Americans, the goals of the March on Washington on 28 August 1963 were:

to pressure the government into passing the proposed new Bill on civil rights and improving employment prospects for African Americans
to stage an event that would attract worldwide media attention and demonstrate the success of non-violent tactics, especially to those angered by the slow pace of change.
It was 100 years since the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation that ended slavery.

Question 36

Purpose of freedom rides Aus

Answer 36

• the desegregation of leisure facilities in country towns
• information-gathering on race relations in rural New South Wales.

Question 37

When did the freedom rides begin?

Answer 37

On 12 February 1965, he led about 28 others on a 14-day, 3200-kilometre Freedom Ride of rural New South Wales.
Their aim was to raise awareness of discrimination against Aboriginal people and to try to redress it.

Question 38

Examples of discrimination abos

Answer 38

Aboriginal peoples’ appalling living and health conditions
Aboriginal people being forced to live on reserves outside country towns
local authorities denying Aboriginal people access to facilities such as hotels, clubs and swimming pools; service in shops; and equal treatment in cinemas
the ways in which rural communities discriminated against Aboriginal people.

Question 39

Describe Walgett

Answer 39

In Walgett, the local Returned Services League (RSL) club refused entry to Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal ex-servicemen who had participated in World Wars I and II.
Occasionally they were allowed in for Anzac Day.

Question 40

How did they protest against Walgett

Answer 40

Perkins led the freedom riders in forming a picket line outside the club.
They held up posters proclaiming ‘Aborigines also fought’, ‘Bullets did not discriminate’ and ‘Good enough for Tobruk, why not Walgett RSL?’
Perkins addressed the crowd of onlookers to try to convince the RSL committee members to change their policy. Members of the local Aboriginal community joined in.

Question 41

Resistance in Walgett

Answer 41

The Anglican minister evicted the students from their lodgings in the church hall because many local residents were hostile to their actions. A line of cars and trucks followed the bus out of Walgett and ran the bus out of town.
One of the trucks forced the bus off the road.
The situation reminded the students of the three American civil rights activists who had been beaten and shot on a country road in Mississippi just eight months earlier.
They saw four or five cars surrounding them and were relieved to find that these were driven by local Aboriginal people who had come out to offer protection. The other trucks and cars disappeared.

Question 42

Result of walgett protest

Answer 42

A journalist captured on tape the vice-president of the Walgett RSL who said he would never allow an Aboriginal to become a member.

Such evidence was beamed into the living rooms of Australians with the evening news. It exposed an endemic racism. Film footage shocked city viewers, adding to the mounting pressure on the government.

Question 43

Discrimination in Moree

Answer 43

The bus moved on to Moree, where a 1955 council by-law prohibited Aboriginal people and those with ‘a mixture of Aboriginal blood’ from using (except during school hours) the local artesian baths and swimming pool.
The town refused to allow Aboriginal patients to share hospital facilities with white patients and insisted that Aboriginal people be buried in a part of the local cemetery that was separate from the section for white people.

Question 44

How did they protest at Moree

Answer 44

SAFA’s protest began with a demonstration outside the council building.
It then got families’ permission to take eight children and try to gain entry to the pool. Charles Perkins brought more children from the reserve.
The manager refused to sell them entry coupons, saying ‘darkies not allowed in’.

Question 45

Reception of protest at Moree

Answer 45

The mayor and the pool manager re-imposed the ban. Three days later, about six children from the Moree Reserve joined the freedom riders in another attempt to break the ban.
They tried without success for over three hours. A crowd of about 500 angry locals, including a group from the pub across the road, shouted abuse, spat at them and threw tomatoes and rotten eggs at them and the bus.
Perkins later said he feared for his life during this incident.

Question 46

Results of Moree

Answer 46

The confrontation received huge press coverage.
Many journalists made comparisons between the racist attitudes shown in Moree and those evident towards African Americans in the United States.
Finally, the police escorted the freedom riders out of Moree. The bus continued on to Lismore, Bowraville and Kempsey before returning to Sydney.

Question 47

Reasons for referendum

Answer 47

Attracting media attention to issues of injustice affecting Aboriginal people put pressure on Australia’s governments and political parties to address these issues.
The Freedom Ride became part of the campaign movement that resulted in the 1967 referendum to remove discrimination against Aboriginal people from the Constitution.
Increased public awareness of racial discrimination within Australia helped create a context in which this referendum could succeed.

Question 48

How was Perkins a role model?

Answer 48

Charles Perkins became a national figure and a role model for Aboriginal people throughout Australia.
His Freedom Ride showed Aboriginal Australians that nonviolent action could result in change.
His organisation of protests and public debate demonstrated both his leadership skills and his willingness to take action to demand change.
Perkins campaigned all his life for the recognition of Aboriginal rights.

Question 49

Media role in abo fight for discrimination end

Answer 49

Perkins organised television coverage of the Freedom Ride with the executive producer of the Channel 7 program Seven Days.
This, combined with newspaper coverage, focused national attention on the Freedom Ride and brought images of racist behaviour in country towns, and its injustices, into living rooms around Australia.
The Freedom Ride generated discussion and debate throughout Australia about the plight of Indigenous communities, and media coverage stimulated national and international pressure for reform.

Question 50

Denial of abo voting rights

Answer 50

There was no voting rights prior to 1962 for Aboriginal people.
Legislation specifically excluded “any aboriginal native of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific, except New Zealand” from voting unless they were already on the roll before 1901.”
Worse still, electoral officials had the power to decide who was an “aboriginal native” and who was not which led to arbitrary decisions depending if an Aboriginal person lived like a white person or not.

Question 51

Government’s response to FCAA’s campaign

Answer 51

The government responded to the committee and their report by introducing a Bill ‘to give to Aboriginal Natives of Australia the right to enrol and to Vote as Electors of the Commonwealth’.
In March 1962 the Menzies Liberal and Country Party government finally gave the right to vote to all Aboriginal people
Aboriginal people now could vote in federal elections if they wished.

Question 52

Constitution issues concerning abos

Answer 52

Before 1967, the states had exclusive powers to make laws for Aboriginal people within their boundaries.

This was supported by discriminatory statements in the constitution.

Until 1967, Australia’s Constitution contained only two references to Aboriginal people (both disadvantaged them). As a result, they were subjected to different laws depending on where they lived.

Question 53

Purpose of constitution

Answer 53

Was not about citizenship or voting rights. Voting rights was already achieved.
It was about the removal of discriminatory sections of the Constitution which saw Aboriginal people have rights in one state that they might be denied in another.

Question 54

Result of referendum

Answer 54

The referendum was significant for Indigenous Australians and 90.77 per cent of Australian voters voted ‘yes’.
This was the most successful referendum in Australian history.
Such a high ‘yes’ vote was remarkable in a country which other nations often judged to be racist and where voters were traditionally reluctant to change the status quo.

The Australian people had taken out two sections of the Constitution which had discriminated against Aboriginal Australians and given them the same civil rights as other Australians

Question 55

Significance of referendum

Answer 55

showed the power of ordinary people to achieve change.
Resulted in public recognition of the existence of Australia’s Indigenous peoples.
It marked the change from Indigenous Australians’ exclusion from to inclusion within the Constitution.
increased momentum for change among Aboriginal Australians and came to symbolise their broader struggle to achieve recognition of their rights.

Question 56

Remaining problems

Answer 56

While the referendum result had great symbolic importance, it had little practical benefit for Aboriginal people as:
inequities continued in pay and working conditions
they continued to be victims of racism and discrimination
land rights remained a key issue to be addressed
political parties that had united to achieve the ‘yes’ vote did not share a commitment to improving health, housing, employment and education benefits for Aboriginal people, and it was another five years before the federal government began to implement change in these areas.
The fact that the highest percentages of ‘no’ votes came from areas with the largest Aboriginal populations indicated that racial prejudice remained a significant problem.

Question 57

US Civil Rights Movement influence on Abos

Answer 57

People uniting to fight for their rights - non-violent methods - staging an event that would attract media coverage (e.g. 1965 Freedom Rides), gain support for a cause and create pressure for change. - seeing African Americans take on leadership roles and provide role models for their people - publicly pressuring governments to protect the rights of all people

Question 58

What was the wave hill walk off

Answer 58

In 1966 Vincent Lingiarri led 200 Gurindji people in an 8-year strike, wanting better conditions and their land. This was known as the Wave Hill walk off.

Question 59

Result of wave hill walk off

Answer 59

In 1971 the Labour Party came in to power and Prime Minister Gough Whitlam announced that his government would give Aboriginal people the rights to their land – not complete rights but it was still a start.
The original Wave Hill contract came to an end in 1973
This led to a symbolic and iconic moment in our history – Prime Minister Whitlam arrived in Daguragu and poured a handful of soil through Vincent Lingiari’s fingers saying:

Question 60

Describe the tent embassy

Answer 60

On 26th January 1972, four Aboriginal activists set up an Aboriginal embassy in a tent on the lawns in front of Parliament House in Canberra – a sit in protest.
They were angry about Prime Minister William McMahon’s attitude towards land rights (the PM before Whitlam).
McMahon had announced that land rights would threaten the Australian governments possession of the land, therefore no land rights or compensation would be given to the Indigenous peoples of Australia. He also said mining could happen on Aboriginal land and Aboriginal people could ‘lease’ the land back if it suited the government economically.

Gaining media attention across Australia and internationally, the embassy site became a centre for protest, with a number of well-known Aboriginal activists spending time there.
Groups from the embassy went on protest marches, lobbied government representatives and spoke at community forums to continue to raise the issue of land rights in broader public settings.
In 1992 on the 20th anniversary of the original protests, the embassy was permanently re-established on its original site on the lawns outside Old Parliament House.
The Tent Embassy is a symbol of Aboriginal protest against successive governments and their approach to Indigenous issues.

Question 61

Other Government Responses to aboriginal initiatives

Answer 61

These Aboriginal initiatives began to achieve results.
The Whitlam government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and it introduced the policy of self determination. In addition, the Whitlam government significantly increased funding for Aboriginal affairs and created a commission to investigate land rights.
Some state governments also started to recognize land rights. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (NSW) recognized Aboriginal ownership of reserves.

Question 62

Describe the Mabo case

Answer 62

The Queensland government took over the Torres Strait Islands in 1879.
The Meriam Islanders continued their traditional way of life on their island, Mer, until, in the late 1970s, the Queensland government began to deny some of them the use of their lands.
From 1982, Eddie Koiki Mabo (1936–92) led a court case challenging the government’s right to do this.
He claimed that the Indigenous peoples living on Mer Island owned that land because their families had lived there since ‘time immemorial’ (further back than anyone could remember).
They wanted legal recognition of their native title rights over their land. After losing their case in Queensland’s Supreme Court, they appealed to the High Court of Australia

On 3 June 1992, the High Court handed down a historic decision in Mabo and Others v. The State of Queensland (1992), the case now known simply as Mabo. It decided:
in favour of the Meriam Islanders and against the State of Queensland
that native title to land had existed before 1788 and might still be in existence on land that governments had never sold or given away
That for native title to continue to exist, Indigenous families and their descendants would have to have lived on the land continuously on the land since 1788 & continued to follow traditional customs
That on land that had been legal granted or sold by governments to someone else for their exclusive use, native title had ceased to exist.