We are facing a tremendous shift in how the indigenous culture, society and economy in precolonial times is understood and how it would influence the future rights and dignity of dispossessed people.įurthermore, this shift will influence the broad field of knowledge because there is not yet an adequate model in the anthropology tool box to account for the socio-economic manner of land use and the provisioning of resources, emerging from current research and re-examination of older theories. There is a growing body of research and writing, showing on numerous levels, that the traditional portrait of primitive nomads can no longer be sustained. This would be surprising to many ordinary readers and prodding the minds of mainstream academics. “Hunter-gatherer” term, which circulated in both popular and academic spheres was more neutral, but it fed the same narrative about the “primitive dying race.”ĭark Emu is packed with quotes and references from original sources that collectively challenge the narrative of the Aboriginal people as nomadic hunters. So, the insulting term “nomad” helped to perpetuate the infamous myth of terra nullius - nobody's land. In this context, “nomad” was a judgemental term with negative connotations – and people who are not settled or cultivate land (according to European model) do not have a title or claim to the land. Civilising primitive land and people was framed as a noble endeavour, where ends justified means.
To justify this the colonist constructed a narrative, depicting indigenous people as primitive nomadic tribes.
This resulted in large part from political context where indigenous Australians were dispossessed, marginalised and suffered many decades of political and civic exclusion, institutionalised and inherent in practice. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people received insufficient and often distorted representation in cultural studies and, especially, Australian history.
0 kommentar(er)
