The epistemology that maintains white race privilege, power and control of Indigenous Studies and Indigenous peoples' participation in universities

This paper represents my attempt to turn the gaze and demonstrate how Indigenous Studies is controlled in some Australian universities in ways that witness Indigenous peoples being further marginalised, denigrated and exploited. I have endeavoured to do this through sharing an experience as a case study. I have opted to write about it as a way of exposing the problematic nature of racism, systemic marginalisation, white race privilege and radicalised subjectivity played out within an Australian higher education institution and because I am dissatisfied with the on-going status quo. In bringing forth analysis to this case study, I reveal the relationships between oppression, white race privilege and institutional privilege and the epistemology that maintains them. In moving from the position of being silent on this experience to speaking about it, I am able to move from the position of object to subject and to gain a form of liberated voice (hooks 1989:9). Furthermore, I am hopeful that it will encourage others to examine their own practices within universities and to challenge the domination that continues to subjugate Indigenous peoples.

On the contemporary position of the Indigenous peoples of Australia

This paper highlights the contemporary disadvantaged position of Indigenous peoples of Australia.∗ It discusses a number of data quality issues on Indigenous data, before examining Indigenous disadvantage across five key areas: (1) education; (2) employment; (3) housing and living conditions; (4) health and wellbeing; and (5) crime and justice. Given the call for all governments to implement a framework to overcome Indigenous disadvantage, we recommend that future research begin with an investigation of non-Indigenous attitudes towards, and knowledge of, the position of Indigenous peoples in Australia. This is essential towards developing an understanding of the general public’s current perceptions of Indigenous peoples’ position in Australia, particularly where the development of policies pertaining to Indigenous peoples requires cooperative action and the support of the broader Australian population.

Living with the Legacy of Conquest and Culture : Social Justice Leadership in Education and the Indigenous Peoples of Australia and America

Indigenous peoples have survived the most inhumane acts and violations against them. Despite acts of genocide, Aboriginal Australians and Native Americans have survived. The impact of the past 500 years cannot be separated from understandings of education for Native Americans in the same way that the impact of the past 220 years cannot be separated from the understandings of Australian Aboriginal people’s experiences of education. This chapter is about comparisons in Aboriginal and Native American communities and their collision with the dominant, white European settlers who came to Australia and America. Chomsky (Intervention in Vietnam and Central America: parallels and differences. In: Peck J (ed) The Chomsky Reader. Pantheon Books, New York, p 315, 1987) once remarked that if one took two historical events and compared them for similarities and differences, you would find both. The real test was whether on the similarities they were significant. The position of the coauthors of this chapter is in the affirmative and we take this occasion to lay them out for analysis and review. The chapter begins with a discussion of the historical legacy of oppression and colonization impacting upon Indigenous peoples in Australia and in the United States, followed by a discussion of the plight of Indigenous children in a specific State in America. Through the lens of social justice, we examine those issues and attitudes that continue to subjugate these same peoples in the economic and educational systems of both nations. The final part of the chapter identifies some implications for school leadership.

Why do Indigenous Australians drink and drive? A qualitative exploration of self-reported influences on drink driving behaviours of Indigenous peoples from remote communities

Drink driving contributes towards high injury rates for Indigenous populations in Canada and Australia, particularly in more isolated regions. At present there is limited research on the cultural and psychosocial factors that underpin Indigenous peoples’ drink driving. This study is part of a broader project aiming to inform a culturally sensitive program. Qualitative interviews with 29 convicted Indigenous drink drivers (aged 20-51 years) from a remote region of Queensland, Australia were used to explore their cognitions about, and underlying motivation for, drink driving as well as the factors that might facilitate or impede it. Although a number of themes were identified, this paper will focus on the first theme, respondents’ self-perceived rationale for their behaviour. Two subthemes were identified: ‘being the hero’ referred to situations where respondents were motivated by a bravado mentality to drive after drinking despite having, on some occasions, the opportunity to avoid this (e.g. another person offering to drive); and ‘family obligations’ which referred to situations where respondents described pressure from members of their extended families to drive after drinking. The underlying responsibility for transporting family members appeared to be difficult to avoid and related to cultural values. Findings indicate the social and individual characteristics for younger drink drivers are similar to mainstream populations. However, the reinforcers for Indigenous drink drivers may be different for this population, consistent with findings on other Indigenous populations outside Australia. Specific programs should contain a family-centred approach and explore the kinship value system to build strategies around these strong relationships.

State Policies, Territories and Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Ecuador (1983-2012)

This work seeks to reconstruct the dynamics of the agreements and disagreements between the State and the indigenous peoples in Ecuador, emphasising particularly on two key elements: first, the indigenous peoples participation and exercise of their political rights, in particular the right to self-government and autonomy within their jurisdictions; and secondly, indigenous peoples’ degree of direct influence on public policies’ formulation and implementation, specially those directly affecting their territories, including the exploitation of natural resources. In Ecuador, during this historical period, the state has gone through three major moments in its relationship with indigenous peoples: neo - indigenism associated to developmentalism (1980-1984); multiculturalism associated to neoliberalism (1984- 2006) as one of the dominant trends over the period; and the crisis of neoliberalism and the search for national diversity and interculturalism associated to post- neoliberalism (2007-2013). Each has had a particular connotation, as to the scope and methods to respond to indigenous demands. In this context, this research aims to answer the central question: how has the Ecuadorian State met the demands of the indigenous movement in the last three decades, and how has it ensured the validity of their gradually recognized rights? And how and to what extent by doing so, it contradicts and alters the existing economic model based on the extraction of primary resources?

Understanding coastal urban and peri‐urban indigenous people’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change

This brief presentation will commence to address a number of emerging questions that are underpinned by the current NCCARF research project: Understanding Urban and Peri‐urban Indigenous People’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to Climate Change. In terms of climate change adaptation barriers, options and priorities, what are the major considerations for indigenous communities residing in coastal peri-urban and urban places that may differ from those of their non-indigenous counterparts and possibly from Indigenous communities living away from the coasts? It will speculate on whether these considerations can be addressed through existing planning and management frameworks.

Indigenous climate change adaptation perspectives : understanding urban and peri‐urban indigenous people’s vulnerability and adaptive capacity to climate change

The National Climate change Adaptation Research Plan: Indigenous Communities (2011) highlighted that research on Indigenous communities and climate change, including the variables of impacts, vulnerability and adaptive capacity and adaptation has been limited. While most research has focused on identifying the biophysical impacts of climate change, a minority of studies have considered the Indigenous knowledge and peoples whom continue to reside in Australia and care for; ‘country’;. The report concluded that “there is a need for research that expands knowledge about these and other dimensions of Indigenous adaptation to climate change.“ This paper reviews work in progress on a NCCARF funded research project that is seeking to investigate select coastal urban and per-urban Indigenous community vulnerability to, and capacity for climate change adaptation. Working collaboratively with Indigenous communities resident in Adelaide, Heywood/Portland, Mornington Peninsula, Stradbroke Island and Brisbane, it seeks to explore and articulate strategies that enhance Indigenous capacity to climate change including possible protocols, frameworks, processes and procedures that may lead directly to a more informed appreciation of what is transpiring around Australia’s coastal per-urban regions for their Indigenous communities who still hold strong bonds and responsibilities to their ‘country’.

Making meaning from collective apologies : Australia's apology to its indigenous peoples

This article considers the meaning of intergroup apologies for their recipients. Our research examined Indigenous people’s responses to the 2008 Australian apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples forcibly removed from their families under previous governments (the Stolen Generations). We interviewed Indigenous men (n=10) and women (n=22) about their attitudes toward the apology and forgiveness. To cover the breadth of Indigenous responses to the Australian apology, we sought out participants from diverse geographic, cultural, and occupational contexts across Australia. After pooling the transcripts and entering them into NVivo, we identified key concepts and themes. Participants expressed positive, negative, and mixed views toward the apology and forgiveness. A dominant theme emerged as participants indicated that for the apology to be truly meaningful, there needed to be action commensurate with the emotion of the apology. Though participants indicated that the apology promoted reconciliation, this was not true for forgiveness. We conclude by discussing implications of these findings for theoretical models of intergroup apology.