Robert Hyman 10/20/11 Geog 120 Dobbs Australian Genocide in the 20th and 21st century.

Even those who limit their definition of genocide to mass-murder agree that genocide of indigenous peoples occurred in 19th century Australia, but what can be said of 20th century child removal and 21st century territorialism? In supporting or refuting 20th and 21st century Australian genocide, it is critical to explicitly define genocide and point out cases where alternative definitions would come to differing conclusions. For this purpose, the international legal definition of genocide from the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide will be used the crime of genocide requires an intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group and a physical element of killing, causing harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group, preventing births, or forcibly transferring of children (preventgenocide.org: the legal definition of genocide). When Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide in the aftermath of WWII, he stressed that physical and cultural aspects are part of one process that could be accomplished through a variety of means, and usually through two phases of genocide: the first, physical destruction via either physical or cultural genocide and, the second, imposition of the natural pattern of the oppressor (regardless of the indoctrination, murder, or exportation of the targeted group). Though examining questions of genocide requires a preoccupation with intent, in Australia many indigenous deaths were not directly caused by an intended extermination

policy but instead: smallpox, malnutrition, despair, alcohol, and demoralization (Short). Frontier killings prior to the 20th century were certainly intended and genocidal, as were 20th century forcible transfers of children seen in the film Rabbit Proof Fence. Indeed both of these forms of ethnic cleansing, in addition to illness and malnutrition, made the disappearance of the Australian Aboriginal people seem inevitable (Short). Despite these challenges, they persevered into a 21st century that has seen Australia adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples and offer them an official apology for past genocide. How is it that despite seemingly helpful intentions, some still contend that the Australian government is continuing to perpetuate genocide produced by colonial practices? The primary intent of the Australian government was never genocide so much as to take over a land, this territorialism is the root of 20th century and prior physical genocide and also contemporary 21st century culturally destructive practices. This is not to say that genocidal intent was not present, but rather a product of premeditated decisions strategically made in a contest for land. While arguably included under deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group, contemporary income control measures, land disposition practices, and cultural assimilation drives would better fit definition of genocide outlined in Lemkins draft of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, specifically, [] destroying in whole or in part or of preventing its preservation or development. Nonetheless, this problem can be avoided by considering 21st century cultural genocide in Australia the second phase of genocide described by Lemkin as, imposition of the natural pattern of the oppressor.

Known colloquially as the Intervention, it is a piece of legislation prompted by an investigation into abuse of Aboriginal women and children that was used to justify many reforms violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination through the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Among other things, it introduced discriminatory and demoralizing income control measures that dictate what goods can be purchased by indigenous peoples and where. The most common response by indigenous people is that increased self-determination is the solution to their problems, not more controlling measures. More specifically, an Aboriginal media release titled The Intervention is killing our people says, the Intervention is leading to ill health including stress-related early deaths and everincreasing rates of attempted self-harm and substance abuse amongst her people. A 2010 health impact assessment of the intervention by the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association unequivocally concludes that the intervention does more harm than good and suggests that a solution can be reached only if governments commit to working in respectful partnerships with indigenous people (Short). The Intervention in many ways is a legalese continuation of a genocidal contest for land, and this is seen particularly clearly in the reforms to indigenous land rights. Formerly indigenous people were offered voluntary 99-year leases by the government, but few chose to give up their landthe reforms amended the law to allow for compulsory 5-year leases. This forcible removal from their own land, then negotiating 99-year leases from them while deprived of its use, is intentional cultural genocide because the group in question has a relationship to land at its identity core (Short). Destruction of indigenous culture is not the primary purpose of land rights reforms, nor is

the stated purpose of preventing crimes against children and women, instead they are motivated by desire to open Aboriginal land up to mineral exploration and development. These economic motives are unsurprising considering that 30% of the worlds currently identified uranium is on Northern Territories Aboriginal land and pressure from the pastoral industry to make aboriginal land productive. Furthermore, Short argues that seeking to prevent crimes is a complex issue that should entail community agreement, not be imposed on the communities that have suffered a history of colonization. The last facet of Australian genocidal disregard for Aboriginal self-determination is coercive cultural assimilation drives such as the current Working Future initiative which is a thinly veiled push to urbanize those remaining indigenous people living in remote communities. The Northern territory government is threatening these towns by proposing to stop all funding, yet few inhabitants want to urbanize. In a protest press release one such clan said, These communities like that we live in here at MataMatais the cultural source of identity, pride and indigenous religion and law. These are sacred Homelands that the people WILL NOT leave (Short). This is further understood in light of research that has indicated that life at outstations is betterin health outcomes, livelihood options, and social cohesion, even housing conditionsthan at larger townships, despite neglect (Altman via Short). The 1970s outstations movement entailed a migration out of government settlements to traditional lands, today there are around 560 communities numbering less than 100 people spread across the Northern Territory (Short). Short further specifies that there are at least ninety-three such groups in Australia today who have proven [] a cultural connection to land and who still live, or wish to live, primarily in accordance with indigenous laws and customs

[] to the satisfaction of the settler colonial authorities in order to receive recognition of their rights to their land (Short). Considering that the Working Future [initiative] envisages only a conventional mainstream future for remote-living Aboriginal people, it must be accepted as cultural genocide (Altman via Short). To answer the first question posed in this paper, those who accept the 1948 definition of genocide must conclude 20th century child removal and 21st century territorialism to be acts of genocide. In the case of the 20th century, the classification could not be clearerwith the 21st century it is important to note the subtlety yet deliberateness of genocide through income control measures, land disposition practices, and cultural assimilation drives. WORKS CITED: Noyce, Philip. Rabbit-Proof Fence. HanWay Films (2002). Shaw, Barbara. The Intervention Is Killing Our People Intervention Rollback Action Group (2011). Short, Damien. Australia: a continuing genocide? Journal of Genocide Research (2010), March-June, 45-68.