Indigenous identity, ‘authenticity’ and the structural violence of settler colonialism

Maddison, Sarah

doi:10.1080/1070289x.2013.806267

Cited by 81 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since British seizure of the Australian continent began in the late 1700s, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who are part of the oldest continuing culture in the world (Australian Geographic 2011), have experienced a collective history of rights violations including forced dislocation and invasion, violence, discrimination, and oppression (Maddison 2013;Branco 2013;Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997). In light of the last, and the consequential intersecting effects of intergenerational trauma (Tighe et al 2015;Walters 2011;O'Loughlin 2009), Indigenous Australians' over-representation in the Australian prison system and their higher rate of cycling or transitioning in and out of prison must be both embedded and contextualized (Blagg 2008;Cunneen et al 2013).…”

Section: A Brief Overview Of Indigenous Imprisonment In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Australians, Intellectual Disability and Incarceration: A Confluence of Rights Violations

Brolan

Harley

2018

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with intellectual disability in the Australian prison system through a human rights lens. There is an information gap on this group of Australian prisoners in the health and disability literature and the multi-disciplinary criminal law and human rights law literature. This article will consider the context of Indigenous imprisonment in Australia and examine the status of prisoner health in that country, as well as the status of the health and wellbeing of prisoners with intellectual disability. It will then specifically explore the health, wellbeing and impact of imprisonment on Indigenous Australians with intellectual disability, and highlight how intersectional rights deficits (including health and human rights deficits) causally impact the ability of Indigenous Australians with intellectual disability to access due process, equal recognition and justice in the criminal justice and prison system. A central barrier to improving intersectional and discriminatory landscapes relating to health, human rights and justice for Indigenous Australian inmates with intellectual disability, and prisoners with intellectual disability more broadly in the Australian context, is the lack of sufficient governance and accountability mechanisms (including Indigenous-led mechanisms) to enforce the operationalisation of consistent, transparent, culturally responsive, rights-based remedies.

show abstract

Section: A Brief Overview Of Indigenous Imprisonment In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Australians, Intellectual Disability and Incarceration: A Confluence of Rights Violations

Brolan

Harley

2018

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At every stage in the encounter of a collection of indigenous groups with a globalising organisation (such as branches of the UN) the underlying structural nature of the engagements results in the power in these relationships resting almost exclusively with the globalising agency. In such settings, the confluence of distinct indigenous groups, ostensibly brought together by the need to articulate common concerns or to agree on shared policy positions can result in the structural regulation of individual indigenous identity (Maddison 2013) by the external globalised agency that mediates such assemblies.…”

Section: The Hegemonic Character Of Globalisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression of Hybridised Indigeneity

Moon

2015

IJCIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to examine how the work of the United Nations (UN) nurtures hybridised constructs of indigeneity, especially through the activities of the United Nations' Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). This article surveys particular aspects of the literature relating to cultural and indigenous hybridisation, and then applies this to the activities of the UNPFII as a means of interpreting the contribution of the organisation's work and objectives to portrayals of indigeneity, drawing in the experiences New Zealand's indigenous Maori as a case study. It concludes that the UNPFII-as a globalising agent-simultaneously promotes the rights of indigenous peoples while masking many of the cultural differences between its constituent members, resulting in a broad conception presented to outsiders of a single, hybridised indigeneity in the international sphere, which is defined and only exists in the hegemonic space created by the UN. Dimensions of IndigeneityThe emphasis in this article is not on the hybridisation of indigenous cultures per se (that is, through encounters at a domestic level between indigenous cultures and the usually dominant culture of the colonising other (Said 1979)-although elements of that phenomenon inevitably surface at certain points). However, what is evident, and is addressed in relation to the emergence of supra-state hybridity in the United Nations (UN), is that the roots of this hybridity can be found in the development of forms of indigenous political activism within nation-states, which then spill over into international forums as activists seek redress or attention to their concerns outside the nation-state. To a degree, indigenous groups can therefore be complicit in the manifestation of a hybridised indigeneity, of the sort that has been fostered through the work of the UNPFII.In the case of indigenous Maori identity, the emergence in recent decades of Maori health providers (under the state system), mandatory Maori representation in local authorities, Maori television and radio stations, Maori educational institutions, Maori social services, and Maori businesses have given the impression of a revived sense of Maori indigeneity. However, these developments have generally been of a pan-tribal nature and, therefore, have hybridised the notion of Maori itself (Durie 1995;Stuart 2003).

show abstract

“…It formalized Indigenous water interests and rights in a way that ensures they are only recognized when the activities are conducted for 'traditional culture, ritual or self-consumption', which underpins the doctrine of 'tradition' and unchanging Indigenous cultures. Based on this token acknowledgement of Indigenous peoples and their water interests, the Water Act accordingly privileges the dominant discourse that Indigenous cultures are recognizable and acceptable only to the extent that they are unchanged, ancient and 'traditional' (see also Barclay 2010;Maddison 2013). …”

Section: Colonial Interventions and Government Legislationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing Indigenous water rights in ‘modern’ Taiwan: reflecting on Tayal experience of colonized common property

Chen

Suchet‐Pearson

Howitt

2018

International Journal of the Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a widely accepted stereotype that Indigenous Taiwanese have lost their connection to country as a result of colonization and thus the Indigenous presence is often omitted in representations of 'modern' Taiwan. By asserting a modern/traditional binary that privileges the colonizer as modern these representations demean Indigenous cultures as 'primitive' or 'traditional'. This paper challenges those biased dichotomies by exploring the experience of Tayal people in northern Taiwan, drawing on both field and archival research to demonstrate the resistant and persistent Indigenous presence in common property resource governance, specifically water governance. The research found that Tayal systems for common property governance persist in the management of water. It also demonstrates that in those governance systems, non-human agencies such as water have active agency in Tayal culture. By recognizing water as actively engaged in the common property governance, the paper argues that governing common property in the Tayal context is about contemporary and adaptive governance relations among non-human and human agencies in a more-than-human world, as well as communally sharing the custodianship. It is misguided to understand these governance systems as primitive, traditional or inauthentic -all common representations within dominant Taiwanese discourses. The paper also argues that recognizing and engaging Tayal people's communal custodianship offers a Reframing Indigenous water rights in 'modern' Taiwan 379 foundation for building culturally appropriate, just and resilient common property governance frameworks in Taiwan's contested cultural landscapes.

show abstract

Indigenous identity, ‘authenticity’ and the structural violence of settler colonialism

Cited by 81 publications

References 11 publications

Indigenous Australians, Intellectual Disability and Incarceration: A Confluence of Rights Violations

Indigenous Australians, Intellectual Disability and Incarceration: A Confluence of Rights Violations

Impression of Hybridised Indigeneity

Reframing Indigenous water rights in ‘modern’ Taiwan: reflecting on Tayal experience of colonized common property

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About