Introduction
Attaining national unity among citizens of a country is a very noble issue although it may prove difficult to achieve. Divisions among citizens are normally a result of factors such as tribalism, racism, corruption, social injustice. With such kinds of prevailing issues, it may be impossible for a country to achieve its national goals. It is very important for people to embrace unity among themselves because this promotes peace and development within a country (Dodson 1992, Para.1).
Embracing unity can also help citizens to recognize and appreciate one another without having differences. In this way, people can work together and focus on how they can develop nationally. Some years ago, the Ngunnawal of Australia had to go through national reconciliation because they were having many problems. At that time there was no national unity in the country as people were denied their rights by the government. Actually, there was a division between the government of Australia and indigenous groups like the Ngunnawal.
In those days, people from such indigenous groups acquired lands from their ancestors. Unfortunately, the Australian government took those lands without any considerations (Dodson 1992, Para.1). This, therefore, escalated to enmity between the government and Australians who really felt intimidated. Later a reconciliation policy was introduced To attain national unity that had been lost. The objective of this paper is to discuss the relevance of the policy of reconciliation to social justice for Australian Aborigines.
Australian Aborigines
Historically, the Aborigines were inhabitants of Asia before they migrated and settled in Australia. As migrants from another country, the Aborigines had a small population and were an indigenous group in Australia. The Aborigines were mainly hunters and gatherers who were divided into several clan groups. A small number of them were fishermen as they lived along the coast. This indigenous group had a good connection with its culture which entailed a strong relationship with the traditional land. The traditional lands were initially owned by ancestors who gave them out to their next of kin before they died (Dodson 1992, Para.2).
Later on, the government took over the lands from Aborigines who were left without a place to call their own. By taking away the lands, People from Aborigines felt demoralized because their rights were denied.
Today, these Aborigines are leading a peculiar social life that is entirely entrenched into sexual immorality. Within the communities, people tend to misbehave as they allow their sexual desires to control them (Huggins 1989, Para.2). Both men and women are portrayed as immoral since they go about having sexual practices without any conscience. Probably this sexual trend can be connected to their previous experience with white settlers who took advantage of them. Because some Aborigines had no land, the only alternative they had was to offer their women to white settlers (Huntsman 1992, Para.2).
Offering women to white settlers was part of a negotiation over land use by the Aborigines who were so desperate. In other words, the Aborigines had to give out their women for them to acquire land for their own use (Keating 1994, Para.3). Clearly, this was not a wise decision although the Aborigines had no other better alternative. Their own land was taken away yet they could not just sit and do nothing about it. In return, women became prostitutes who slept with other men as a way of getting lands. Other victims of prostitution were young girls who were sent by their parents to go look for ways of acquiring land (Huggins 1989, Para.3).
With time, this sexual practice became a norm among the Aborigines community. Thus, the sexual immorality did not end but instead, it was carried forward to members of the next generations. Until today, the Aborigines are rooted in their sexual immoralities that continue to raise questions. The Australian Aboriginal men are portrayed as sexual predators while women are portrayed as ‘whores’ (Dodson 1992, Para.3).
Relevance of the policy to social justice
Ideally, it was not right for the Australian government to take over land from indigenous communities like the Aborigines. As a supreme authority, the government took advantage of its position and left most Aborigines without a place to live. It was so devastating because the government was supposed to protect the rights of citizens but not to do the opposite (Lavery 1995, Para.3) Introducing the reconciliation policy was very essential as it was geared towards uniting all Australian citizens and promoting equality. Other than this, the reconciliation policy was meant to emphasize the spirit of togetherness between the indigenous group and the majority group.
This was necessary because there was no unity among the people of Australia. Indigenous groups like the Aborigines were still in pain after their land was taken away. Introducing the new policy was a way of bringing peace between the government and the Aborigines. Achieving national unity can be impossible if crucial issues are not dealt with. The Australian government had to assure its citizens that everything would be fine and come up with strategies that would aim at promoting national unity (Huntsman 1992, Para.3). Most Australian Aborigines were still in grievance and so the federal government had to do something about it.
According to Dodson, there was a time when he visited an indigenous school in Australia. That was before the reconciliation policy was introduced in Australia (Dodson 1992, Para.3). He says that the students of that school were full of anger and animosity because of the land that had been taken away from them. He even recalls how the students tied a flag on a chair instead of a pole. Tying the flag on the chair was a way of resentment among the students.
Some of them even claimed that tying the flag on a chair was a way of remembering their ancestors. With such kinds of ideologies, a reconciliation policy was important so that Aborigines could embrace the spirit of forgiveness. In terms of social justice, the reconciliation policy was significant as it would help indigenous groups to get rights that had previously been denied. As such, people from indigenous groups would be able to aspire for social and political developments without discrimination (Lavery 1995, Para.3).
For a very long time, indigenous people were denied the chance of expressing themselves as citizens of Australians (Huntsman 1992, Para.4).On the other hand, the policy would help Australian Aborigines to realize that their sexual immorality is wrong. Initially, the practice started as a way in which Aborigines could get land from the white settlers. Surprisingly the sexual practice continued and even became worse as both men and women were victims.
Perhaps this sexual practice continued because many Aborigines had not forgotten what they had gone through. With the reconciliation policy, people from indigenous groups would be able to acquire land without indulging in any sexual practices (Keating 1994, Para.4). Through reconciliation, people the Aborigines would have second thoughts about their immorality. Thus, the reconciliation policy would also give indigenous people the opportunity to join the job market and involve themselves in many important activities. Moreover, the reconciliation policy was significant as Australian Aborigines could have the chance to pursue their education.
Socially, they would interact and help each other in every eventuality that needed assistance. The reconciliation policy is very relevant for the Australian Aborigines as it may help them feel recognized and appreciated by the majority groups. As a social justice, indigenous people must be given the right to interact with other citizens without any fear (Lavery 1995, Para.5). Previously, the Aborigines were treated with too much contempt and were not appreciated by the majority groups.
I this case they could not freely socialize with other citizens who felt more superior. Reconciling the whole nation is an effective strategy that can help indigenous people to learn more from the majority groups who might sensitize them on crucial issues. Apart from interactions, the Australian Aborigines would have the freedom of movement. In this case, the Aborigines would be free to move to wherever they want so long as they do not go against the law. With the policy of reconciliation, the Aborigines may no longer be given many restrictions concerning their movements (Lavery 1995, Para.5).
Conclusion
Ultimately the Australian government was wrong when it took over land that belonged to indigenous groups (Huggins 1989, Para.6). Even though the government may have authority, it is not right to take advantage of small groups that may not protect themselves. As a result of this, the Aborigines decided to involve their women in prostitution as a way of acquiring land from the white settlers. It was not the best idea though they had no choice but to do what they felt was convenient for them. Introducing the reconciliation policy was essential since it was aimed at sorting out mistakes that were done by the government. The reconciliation policy was also relevant because it could assist Australian Aborigines to get their social justice.
Reference List
Dodson, P., (1992). Reconciliation and the high court’s decision on native title. Aboriginal Law bulletin.Vol.3, No.61, pp. 6-9.
Huggins, J., (1997). Reconciliation’s positive path. A new direction for indigenous People.Vol.10. No.18, pp. 5-8.
Huntsman, C. (1992). Experiencing the United Nations. The Australian Government and Indigenous Peoples’ issues.Vol.8. No.44, pp. 2-4.
Keating, P., (1994) Australian Launch of the International Year for the World’s Indigenous People.Vol.7.No.34, pp. 5-8.
Lavery, P., (1995). The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. Aboriginal Law Bulletin.Vol.2.No.58, pp. 7-8.