Wonderland Wanderess

  Cultural Warning: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are warned that the following blog post contains images and names of deceased persons Introduction The writer acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional custodians of Australian land.   Respect is paid to the Elders, past and present.   With this respect in mind, this essay will examine the Mabo decision and the importance of this decision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.   It will commence with a brief biography of the life of Edward ‘Koiki’ Mabo.   Next, an overview of Mabo v Queensland (No.2) will be discussed, followed by a critique.   Finally, the impact the Mabo decision had on dispossession will be analysed.   It will be argued that, fundamental as the Mabo decision may have been, it was conditional and with it came complex rules the Crown had no right to attach.      The Man Behind the Law Edward ‘Koiki’ Mabo, widely known as ‘Eddie Mabo’, was

Crow, Jim (c. 1825—c. 1884) by C M Wormington Jim ‘Jimmy’ Crow (c. 1825—c. 1884), camp operator and Indigenous guide, was born in the 1820s, in the Darling Downs, Queensland (Kerkhove 2020). His exact birth and death dates remain unknown and, in addition, it is unclear whether Crow's surname was associated with his crow-like appearance or his moiety (Kerkhove 2020); in fact, many aspects of Crow's early life are disputed. This can most likely be attributed to his younger years having occurred in early Aboriginal times. Written history from these times is ‘…almost non-existent’ (McGreevy 2003, para. 1) and, because of this, there is a large gap in the documented facts of Crow’s life. This gap ranges from his birth, up until approximately his early 20s. Popular belief holds that the entire name ‘Jim Crow’ was given to him by the early settlers (Watson 2020), with his traditional birth name remaining a mystery; however, Kerkhove (2020) did not acknowledge this theory in hi

  Introduction The writer acknowledges the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional custodians of Australian land.   Respect is paid to the Elders, past and present.   With this respect in mind, some of the prime differences between a Western worldview and an Indigenous Australian worldview, particularly in the context of religion, will be examined.   Similarities will also be discussed.   Next, why these differences would have contributed to the frustration experienced by the First Nations people will be touched upon.   Finally, the resulting implications rendered on the freedom and control of the Indigenous Australians’ homeland will be analysed, the negative repercussions of which are still affecting generations of today.   It will be argued Australia should be relinquished back to an Indigenous supreme sovereignty.   Religion now plays a less significant role in society, yet at the time of European colonisation of Australia, religion seemingly differen