Strategies of Elimination: “Exempted” Aborigines, “Competent” Indians, and Twentieth-Century Assimilation Policies in Australia and the United States

Abstract

Despite their different politics, populations and histories, there are some striking similarities between the indigenous assimilation policies enacted by the United States and Australia. These parallels reveal much about the harsh practicalities behind the rhetoric of humanitarian uplift, civilization and cultural assimilation that existed in these settler nations. This article compares legislation which provided assimilative pathways to Aborigines and Native Americans whom white officials perceived to be acculturated. Some Aboriginal people were offered certificates of “exemption” which freed them from the legal restrictions on Aboriginal people’s movement, place of abode, ability to purchase alcohol, and other controls. Similarly, Native Americans could be awarded a fee patent which declared them “competent.” This patent discontinued government guardianship over them and allowed them to sell, deed, and pay taxes on their lands. I scrutinize the Board that was sent to Oklahoma to examine the Cheyenne and Arapaho for competency in January and February 1917, and the New South Wales Aborigines’ Welfare Board, which combined the awarding of exemption certificates with their efforts to assimilate Koori people into Australian society in the 1940s and 1950s. These case studies reveal that people of mixed white/indigenous descent were more likely to be declared competent or exempt. Thus, hand in hand with efforts to culturally assimilate Aborigines and Native Americans came attempts to reduce the size of indigenous populations and their landholdings by releasing people of mixed descent from government control, and no longer officially recognizing their indigenous identity.En dépit des différences de leur politique, de leur population et de leur histoire, il existe certaines similitudes frappantes entre les politiques d’assimilation des Autochtones adoptées par les États-Unis et l’Australie. De tels parallèles sont très révélateurs des dures pratiques sous-jacentes à la rhétorique de l’édification humanitaire, de la civilisation et de l’assimilation culturelle dans ces nations pionnières. Cet article compare les lois qui ont fourni des moyens d’assimiler les Aborigènes et les Autochtones américains que les représentants blancs percevaient comme acculturés. Certains Autochtones se sont vu offrir des certificats d’« exemption » qui les libéraient des restrictions légales imposées au mouvement des peuples autochtones, droit de résidence, achat d’alcool, et autres contrôles. De façon semblable, les Autochtones américains pouvaient recevoir des lettres patentes les déclarant « compétents ». Celles-ci interrompaient la tutelle gouvernementale et leur permettaient de vendre, de transférer par acte notarié et de payer des taxes sur leurs terres. L’auteur a analysé à fond le Comité qui a été envoyé à Oklahoma pour examiner la compétence des Cheyenne et des Arapaho en janvier et février 1917, ainsi que le New South Wales Aborigines’ Welfare Board, qui combinait l’attribution des certificats d’exemption à leurs efforts pour assimil...

Storytelling from the Colonial Margins of the Academy: Urban Mixed Ancestry Indigenous experience in and around social work classrooms of T’karonto

“…Essentially, the definition of "who is an Indian" has been stolen from the hands of the Indigenous communities and engulfed within the systems of colonial power, particularly with the Indian Act . This exploits and labels mixed blood Indigenous peoples as "undeserving" of the benefits and rights that come with being Indigenous (Ellinghaus, 2007).…”

Isopolitics, Deep Colonizing, Settler Colonialism

“…The anticolonial Indian nationalists could and would not represent "voiceless" (often indigenous/Adivasi) rural subalterns. While these anticolonial erasures can be construed as examples of deep colonising, and considering that "eliminationist" shifts in indigenous policies in settler colonial contexts have been routinely couched in a humanitarian rhetoric emphasising equality and emancipation from controlling legislation, it is not surprising that indigenous militancy in a multiplicity of settings has repeatedly shown a stubborn reluctance in engaging with other insurgencies and with state driven emancipatory programs.Ellinghaus's comparative work on 'assimilative pathways' in two settler colonial polities highlights instances of indigenous dispossession framed as "emancipation" (in other words, deep colonising) (seeEllinghaus 2007).For their exemplarity, two contemporary instances of deep colonising could be mentioned in this context. As recently noted by Jody A. Bird in an article dedicated to his dealings with Native American issues, future US president Barack Obama repeatedly and powerfully articulated during the 2008 presidential campaign an ongoing project of democratic inclusion.…”