Search

The forcible removal and detention on reserves of many of Australia's Indigenous people during much of the 20th century was pervasive and, according to Penny Pether, influenced her understandings of indefinite detention in other areas. She was interested in proliferating regimes of indefinite detention used as a technique to govern 'dangerous' populations. In this article, we examine how alcohol management schemes introduced in the 21st century in the Northern Territory, under the guise of welfare, continue the systemic confinement and control of Indigenous lives. The feared population has been reconstituted from one requiring protection as the remnants of a dying race, to one comprising vulnerable and criminogenic alcoholics who need to be detained for their own and others' safety, and so they can be treated. We trace the genealogy of laws enabling the civil commitment of inebriates and addicts to show that in the form taken in the Northern Territory, the law has been aimed at the control and containment of a perceived antisocial population, rather than their treatment. Rather than protecting vulnerable people, the regime relied on techniques of detention and coercive treatment that continued the colonial state's production of their Indigenous 'vulnerability'. We examine this through the lens of the findings of a coronial inquiry into the death of an Indigenous woman in 2014, while detained for treatment and the subsequent evaluation of the Northern Territory's Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Essentialism has become a fundament of Aboriginal activism in modern Australia, with the result that informed, first-hand empirical observations of anthropologists who chronicle the deterioration of life in many Australian Aboriginal communities tend not to be taken seriously simply because their authors are not ethnically 'Aboriginal'. This problem has contributed to a relative absence of analysis of the economic history of Aboriginal Australians, fostering instead an approach that prioritises the political and cultural rights of indigenous people above the kinds of life-enhancing circumstances that are necessary for them to participate in the economy and create wealth. This kind of essentialism has also resulted in a disregard for the rights of indigenous people as individuals, rather than as communities seeking self-determination, especially with regard to the rights of women and children. The work of Professor Ronald M. Berndt and Dr Catherine Berndt should serve as an example for today's anthropologists in encouraging broader expert participation in debates on indigenous disadvantage, despite the threat of admonishment or criticism by Aboriginal rights activists wielding the weapon of racial priority or essentialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's insights on the perceived deprivation of the self-determination right of Aboriginals in Australia. The author explores the alleged false Aboriginal life expectancy and defunding. She argues that the state does not provide the right for aboriginals although it signed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. She says that the Indigenous Peoples Organisations of Australia calls for legislation that will assure the declaration's implementation.