Assimilation, Control and Discrimination (1940s–1960s)
- In the mid twentieth century, government attitudes were shaped by racial hierarchies, assimilationist ideas and policies that undermined Indigenous autonomy.
- Australian governments promoted assimilation to absorb Aboriginal peoples into white society.
- Indigenous Australians faced legal restrictions on movement, employment and family life.
- New Zealand policies attempted cultural integration but still favored Pakeha dominance.
- Maori experienced social inequality due to land loss and limited economic opportunity.
- Both countries viewed Indigenous cultures as obstacles to national unity.
Case study
Australia’s Assimilation Policy (1950s–1960s)
Origins and Intent
- The policy sought cultural absorption, aiming to erase Indigenous identity.
- Governments removed Aboriginal children from families to enforce assimilation.
- Indigenous communities faced strict controls through welfare boards.
- Residential institutions emphasized European-style education and training.
- The policy reflected paternalistic attitudes rooted in colonial thinking.
Impact and Consequences
- Forced removals caused deep intergenerational trauma.
- Many Indigenous Australians lost cultural connections and family ties.
- Policymakers eventually acknowledged policy failure by the late 1960s.
- Growing activism demanded political rights and recognition.
- The Stolen Generations became central to national reconciliation debates.
Definition
Assimilation
Policy expecting migrants or minorities to adopt majority culture.
Definition
Paternalism
Policy approach treating Indigenous groups as dependent and incapable of autonomy.
Indigenous Activism and Political Rights (1960s–1980s)
- Rising Indigenous activism challenged discriminatory laws, demanded treaty recognition and pushed governments toward meaningful reform.
- The 1960s civil rights era fueled Indigenous mobilization across Oceania.
- Australia’s 1967 referendum expanded Commonwealth authority over Aboriginal affairs.
- Maori movements demanded land rights and preservation of cultural heritage.
- Activists protested racism and social marginalization in both countries.
- Governments began adopting more inclusive policies while facing pressure for structural change.
Case study
New Zealand’s Maori Land March (1975)
Causes and Motivations
- Maori protested continued land alienation under government programs.
- Activists emphasized cultural survival and the need for treaty justice.
- The march united Maori groups around shared identity and purpose.
- Urbanization deepened social inequality, strengthening demands for change.
- Leaders highlighted Treaty of Waitangi breaches spanning over a century.
Impact and Legacy
- The march raised national awareness of Maori grievances.
- It helped establish the Waitangi Tribunal, expanding legal avenues for claims.
- Maori cultural revival gained political momentum and support.
- Policies shifted toward bicultural recognition and partnership.
- The event marked a turning point in New Zealand’s national consciousness.
Definition
Land alienation
Loss of Indigenous land through legal, political or economic pressure.
Definition
Treaty justice
Efforts to honor or restore rights guaranteed under historic treaties.
Recognition, Land Rights and Reconciliation (1980s–2005)
- Late twentieth-century movements shifted government attitudes toward acknowledgment, legal reform and Indigenous empowerment.
- Australia confronted its colonial past through land rights cases and cultural recognition.
- The Mabo decision overturned the doctrine of terra nullius, recognizing Native Title.
- New Zealand expanded Treaty settlement processes to address historic injustices.
- Governments invested in Indigenous health, education and cultural revitalization.
- Public attitudes shifted toward respect and national inclusion, though inequalities persisted.
Case study
Australia’s Mabo Decision (1992)
Background and Significance
- Eddie Mabo challenged legal assumptions denying Indigenous land ownership.
- The High Court recognized Native Title, rejecting the idea of empty land.
- The decision validated Indigenous sovereignty over traditional lands.
- It pressured governments to pass Native Title legislation.
- Indigenous groups gained new legal tools to claim ancestral land.
Consequences and Impact
- The ruling transformed national law and historical understanding.
- It advanced reconciliation and symbolic justice.
- Land councils gained greater authority over negotiations.
- Industries had to consider Indigenous rights in development projects.
- The decision remains foundational to Indigenous policy today.
Common Mistake
- Ignoring differences between Australian and New Zealand Indigenous experiences.
- Treating policies as purely social rather than linked to political power and legal systems.
- Overlooking Indigenous activism as the driving force behind major reforms.
Exam technique
- Use case studies to demonstrate continuity and change in policy.
- Compare the role of courts versus activism in achieving Indigenous rights.
- Link Indigenous issues to broader national identity debates.
Theory of Knowledge
- How does historical memory shape national responsibility?
- Can legal systems fully address cultural loss and dispossession?
- How do competing perspectives influence interpretations of Indigenous justice?
Self review
- Assess the changes in government policies toward Indigenous peoples in Australia or New Zealand.
- Examine the role of activism in shaping Indigenous rights after 1945.
- To what extent did legal reforms transform Indigenous–state relations in Oceania?
