Unit 3 - Australian Indigenous Culture

Culture

refers to the way of life of a particular group or society and is comprised of symbols, languages, values and norms. These are learnt by members and passed on to following generations. There are two types: material and non-material culture.

Material Culture

refers to tangible aspects of culture; things that we can see and touch, including objects, places and living things that have meaning for a group.

Material culture - examples

Possum skin cloaks - unique to the Koorie people to commemorate a person’s birth and would then be added to across their life

Bunjul’s Shelter - relative to space as it is the shelter of Bunjil the Eagle

Non-material culture

refers to the intangible parts of culture that we cannot see, including language, values, norms and symbols.

Non-material culture - symbols (Just Know Vibe)

Any gesture, artefact, sign or concept that ‘stands in for’ or represents something else. Symbols need to have a shared meaning.

Non-material culture - languages (Just Know Vibe)

A system of communicating using words or signs. Knowledge, norms and values are often transmitted through language.

Non-material culture - values (Just Know Vibe)

Beliefs about what is right and good. Values guide norms.

Non-material culture - norms (Just Know Vibe)

The rules that guide behaviour. Expectations for appropriate behaviour.

Non-material culture - examples

The dreaming - tells the journey of ancestral beings who created the natural world (The Bunjil the eagle story - which is Victorian Koorie and emphasises the need to repect the land and elders)

Languages - prior to colonisation there were over 250 languages, which carry cultural knowledge, so the loss of language means the loss of culture and connection to ancestors (Yorta Yorta language)

Sociological Imagination

In 1959 C.W. Mills considered the sociological imagination to be 'an awareness of the relationship between personal experience and wider society'.

Ethnocentrism

 is a term used to describe attitudes that judge other cultures using the evaluator’s own culture as the measure of what is superior

Cultural relativism

is a method used when different societies or cultures are analysed without using the values of one culture to judge the worth of another.

Sociological imagination relationship with ethnocentrism

no relationship as it involves judging based off your culture, works against the sociological imagination

Sociological imagination relationship with cultural relativism

attempts to understand a culture and the issues its members face according to its own standards, works with the sociological imagination

AIC Cultural Relativism example

Historical: Archie Roach “Took the children away” (1990)

• raises awareness for reality and experience after government policy for stolen generation

Contemporary: A.B. Original January 26 (2016)

• the disrespect compared to “Nan’s” funeral “get[ting] lit up and burn out” suggesting disrespect present of the history

AIC Ethnocentric example

Historical: $2 coin designed by Horst Hahne (1988)

• Indigenous being dehumanised as native flora and fauna shown as “blackfella” suggesting superiority of Angelo Saxon Australians

Contemporary: Survival Island 3 (2016)

• Indigenous must be killed in order to achieve games goals, this dehumanises and categories them all as threats in the game

Misconception

to hold a misconception is to have an idea or view about something that is not factual, or influenced by misinformation

Misconception - Past perception that Australia was land that belonged to no-one prior to European arrival

• Influenced by the notion of “terra nullius’ (land belonging to no one)

• Untrue, both historical and scientific research has established that Indigenous Australians have been living and practicing culture in Australia for over 60,000 years

The perception that Australian Indigenous people mainly live in arid (dry) areas of Australia

• Many people believe Australian Indigenous live in remote areas or the outback

• Majority of Indigenous people live in eastern states

• 2021 Census data:

  • 38% live in major cities

  • 44% live in inner and outer regional areas

  • 17% live in remote and very remote areas

Misconception - Past perception that Australia was land that belonged to no-one prior to European arrival Evidence

• 3rd June 1992: The Mabo decision overturned the legal principle of terra nullius

• Recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ rights to land predating British arrival

• Established native title as legal recognition of land rights based on traditional laws and customs

Misconception - The perception that Australian Indigenous people share one culture

• British ethnocentrism colonists saw Indigenous Australians as one group, but they consist of diverse cultural groups.

• Stereotypes in tourism ads reinforce this misconception.

• Over 250 language groups exist across Indigenous nations.

Misconception - The perception that Australian Indigenous people share one culture Evidence

• Each group has distinct language, beliefs, stories, and art as it is multicultural and not monocultural

• Australia, 2008 represents AIC’s implying a homogenous culture

• E.g. the Bunji the Eagle story in Victoria and the Rainbow Serpent story in Uluru

Cultural Suppression

refers to the domination of one culture over another through use of power

How does cultural suppression occur

when a culture is overpowered and dominated, usually coinciding with the promotion of another culture

Historical suppression

this occurred to widespread Australian Indigenous people through the implementation of the interrelated protection and segregation policies, the policy of assimilation and the notion of integration

Protection and Segregation - Policy Overview

1840s -1910s

Policies that resulted in the movement of First Nations peoples onto Church run missions and Government reserves based on a belief that Indigenous Australians were a “dying race”.

For example, the Aborigines Protection Act (Victoria) (1869).

• The Act established control over residence, employment, marriage and social life. From 1899, for the better care, custody and education of the child. 'It shall be lawful ... [to prescribe] the place where any aboriginal or tribe of aborigines shall reside'.

Protection and Segregation - How it suppressed culture

Indigenous people such as the Yorta Yorta people in Victoria were forced to speak English and adopt Christian values, leading to cultural suppression and preventing the transmission of their language, customs, and beliefs to future generations.

Prior to colonisation there were approx. “250 Aboriginal languages spoken” Today the number of languages considered “alive” is 60 (AIATSIS, 2025)

“Missions, reserves and stations were designed to erase peoples cultural identity” (AIATSIS, 2025)

Protection and Segregation - Indigenous Response

Cummeragunja Walk Off (1939)

• Over 150 people left Cummeragunja Station in protest of their cruel treatment and explotation by management, first ever mass strike

• Crossed NSW, VIC border in breach of NSW Protection Board rules

• Mostly home to the Yorta Yorta people

“Those who worked were given in adequate and unhealthy rations.” (deadly stories, 2025)

“Children were removed and forced into domestic work” (deadly stories, 2025)

Assimilation - Policy Overview

1930s -1960s

In 1937 Statements were made by Commonwealth and state minsters at the Native Welfare conference “that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin, but not of the full blood, lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth" … “All persons of Aboriginal blood or mixed blood in Australia will live like white Australians do”. In 1961 the government formally changed its policy to that of assimilation.

Assimilation - How it suppressed culture

• Between 1910 and 1970 “between 10 and 30 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children were forcibly removed” (Bringing Them Home report)

• resulted in the disruption and destruction of thousands of years of culture, language, spirituality and traditions

• Caused psychological and emotional damage

Assimilation - Indigenous Response

Freedom Ride (1965)

Charles Perkins led Sydney University students on a 15-day bus trip across rural NSW to expose the poor living conditions, racism, and exclusion faced by Indigenous people.

In Moree, they challenged a 1955 ban on Aboriginal people using public pools. While Perkins initially secured entry for Indigenous boys, discrimination persisted when a mother was told only her lighter-skinned children could enter. The group protested again, leading to tensions before the mayor agreed to end the ban. They later required a police escort to leave town.

“Angry discussions broke out everywhere” (Cuthoys)

“All the hatred and confused thinking about race boiled to the surface and it was like a volcano exploding” (Perkins)

Integration Period - Policy Overview

1962 – 1967

Notion of acceptance of Indigenous Australians but with a desire for them to become ‘Australian’. It recognises that the Assimilation policy was not working.

First introduced at the 1965 Aboriginal Welfare Conference (as described in the Bringing Them Home Report 1997)

Integration Period - How it supressed culture

Attempted to support AIC as policies emphasised increased funding and improved programs in areas such as health education and employment.

The election of PM McMahon, who was not committed to this policy lead it AIC’s continue to have their culture suppressed

“Aboriginal activists had interpreted this as evidence that the commonwealth was reluctant to confront the states over the issue of Aboriginal rights” (Foley, 2017)

“Word came that the office of Aboriginal affairs would no longer be part of the Prime Minister’s department and would be downgraded in status and staff.” (Foley,2017)

Integration Period - Indigenous Response

Wave Hill Walk Off

On August 23rd, 1966, 200 Gurindji stockmen, domestic workers, and their families walked off Wave Hill station in the NT and refused to keep working due to wages and land ownership. The disagreement lasted 7 years.

In 1974, some of the homeland were returned, influencing the first legislation in 1976 that allowed First Nations People to claim land title (National Museum Victoria)

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response - Policy Overview

2007 - 2022

The Intervention was a set of policies introduced by the Howard government in 2007 in response to the Little Children are Sacred report (2007), which claimed that neglect and sexual abuse of children in Aboriginal communities had reached crisis levels.

The Intervention applied to 73 Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory and banned the sale and consumption of alcohol and possession of pornography. The policy was repealed in 2012 and was then replaced by the Strong Futures policy until 2022

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response - How it suppressed culture

Targeted those who managed their income and those who do not, treating them all the same

“If this intervention was so good for us, why did you remove the Racial Discrimination Act?” (Kunoth-Monks,2009)

Approx. 90% of people on income management in the NT are Indigenous (sbs,2017)

The Northern Territory National Emergency Response - Indigenous Response

Amperlatwaty Walk-Off

To protest the NT intervention, 300 people walked from their community at Amperlatwaty and set up camp at Honeymoon Bore.

On the 14th of July 2009, the elders from the Amperlatwaty community, set up camp in the bush

They demanded the federal government: stop the NT intervention, Genuinely consult with us on any plans that will affect our lives now and for the future, reinstate the full Racial Discrimination Act without conditions or measures

Reconciliation

involves efforts to repair or improve the relationships between colonised (Indigenous Australians) and colonising (non-Indigenous Australian) peoples.

There are two types: symbolic (mending relationships) and practical (socioeconomically focused)

Reconciliation - Process

Reconciliation is an ongoing process of truth-telling, healing, and justice that seeks to repair relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians through mutual respect and meaningful change

Practical Reconciliation

involves tangible actions that can improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Such as, funding for education, health and housing.

For example, providing funding for the Australian government’s ‘National Agreement on Closing the Gap’

Practical Reconciliation - Example

“National Agreement on Closing the Gap”

A government policy aimed to reduce Indigenous disadvantage and inequality targeting 17 socio-economic targets. In 2008 the Australian government made a formal commitment to address First Nations disadvantage

While the Closing the Gap policy created momentum and led to a First Nations-led health campaign, its initial goals remain unmet, with some indicators worsening. It has been criticized for using a deficit model that portrays First Nations people as passive and was initially designed without their meaningful input, which wasn’t addressed until 2020.

Practical Reconciliation - Example Evidence

Outcome 10: Adults are not overrepresented in the criminal justice system

By 2031, reduce the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults held in incarceration by at least 15 per cent

Practical Reconciliation - Effectiveness

“The latest Closing the Gap data shows once again that the status quo is not working” (Minister Burney,2025)

“More of the same isn’t good enough, we have to do things differently.” (Minister Burney, 2025)

Outcome 10 - is not on track and worsening

Symbolic Reconciliation

involves recognition of the past and encouraging Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to imagine a shared future.

For example, the 2008 ‘Apology to the Stolen Generations’.

Symbolic Reconciliation - Example

The Apology

On the 13th of February 2008, PM Kevin Rudd delivered a national apology to the stolen generations on behalf of the Federal parliament

“For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry” (Rudd,2008)

Public awareness

(knowledge of)- the notion of awareness involves an examination of what information is known or understood about Australian Indigenous cultures

Public views

(opinions of) These consist of the opinions, biases and stereotypes that may be held or that are being challenged about Australian Indigenous cultures

Change the date - nature of the issue

- Many Indigenous people see January 26th as a date signifying the beginning of dispossession, frontier violence, destruction of culture, exploitation, the separation of families, and subjection to policies of extreme social control. Consequently they often refer to the day as Invasion Day and Day of Mourning

- Many Indigenous and non-Indigenous people want the date to change to a day that is less harmful and can be celebrated by everyone, while the contrasting group believe the day should be celebrated as the establishment of our nation

Change the date - historical context

- Australia Day was first celebrated nationally in 1994.

- The date January 26th, 1788 marks when Captain Arthur Phillip claimed the colony of New South Wales.

- In the 1880s, non-Indigenous Australians called it ‘First Landing’, ‘Anniversary Day’, or ‘Foundation Day’.

- For Indigenous Australians, it is known as ‘Invasion Day’ and has been a ‘day of mourning’ since 1938.

- In recent years, public organisations and councils have supported changing the date.

- Some councils, like Victoria’s state government, have stopped citizenship ceremonies on January 26 out of respect for Indigenous peoples.

- Triple J moved its Hottest 100 from January 26 in 2018 to acknowledge Indigenous perspectives and recognition.

Change the date - political context

• Many local councils support changing the date of Australia Day to show respect for Indigenous Australians.

• These councils and organisations take active steps to demonstrate support for Indigenous recognition.

• In 2023, Victoria’s state government removed its annual Australia Day parade, stating the day is one of mourning and reflection for many First Peoples.

• The federal government, however, is largely against changing the date.

• Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, “No, we have no plans to change Australia Day.” However, acknowledges that the day is sensitive for First Nations Australians. (7News 2025)

• Former Opposition leader Peter Dutton is also against changing the date. Says Australia Day is “sacrosanct” and changing it signals “shame” in national identity. (National Indigenous Times. 2025)

• Senator Dorinda Cox, a Yamatji Noongar woman, supports changing the date, saying January 26th is a “day of mourning” (Greens, 2025)

Change the date - Indigenous response for

Summary:

- Ngarra Murray believes “January 26 is not a date to celebrate” and calls for truth-telling and national healing.

- She argues that changing the date would acknowledge the strength and resilience of Indigenous peoples and the pain caused by celebrating on this day. (SBS, 2025)

Impacts on public awareness (knowledge):

- Her advocacy educates Australians about the historical trauma and ongoing impact of January 26 on First Nations communities.

- Promotes truth-telling and understanding, increasing awareness of why changing the date supports healing and recognition.

Impacts on public views (opinions/stereotypes):

- By highlighting resilience and survival, she encourages people to see changing the date as positive and unifying.

- Helps challenge stereotypes and foster more respectful, inclusive attitudes toward Indigenous Australians.

Change the date - non-Indigenous response for

Summary:
Em Rusciano is for changing the date, as she believes we shouldn’t be telling our First Nations people to “just get over it.” She believes “this country needs a national day of celebration that is inclusive of all Australians” (The Project 2021)

Impacts on public awareness (knowledge):

- Em Rusciano’s opinion that Australia Day is not inclusive spreads awareness about the harm caused by the current date.

- Her statement that we shouldn’t tell First Nations people to “just get over it” helps educate the public on why the date should be changed.

Impacts on public views (opinions/stereotypes):

- By highlighting the harm of the current date, she positively influences public opinion toward supporting a date change.

- Encourages people to see the value in creating “a national day of celebration that is inclusive of all Australians.”

Change the date - non-Indigenous response against

Summary:

- Peter Dutton believes Australia Day should remain on January 26, stating Australians should not be “ashamed of who we are” and pledging to force councils to hold citizenship ceremonies on that day if elected (NITV, 2025).

- He argues that the date represents national unity, celebrating both Indigenous heritage and migrant stories, and that changing it would “dilute the importance of what it means to be Australian” (ABC, 2025).

Impacts on public awareness (knowledge):

- As Opposition Leader, Dutton’s stance reinforces traditional understandings of January 26 as a day of pride and unity, rather than division (ABC, 2025).

- His strong opposition to change limits public exposure to Indigenous perspectives on the date’s historical trauma, maintaining a one-sided narrative about national identity (NITV, 2025).

Impacts on public views (opinions/stereotypes):

- His messaging encourages Australians to view changing the date negatively, framing it as an attack on national values and tradition (PS News, 2025).

- This can strengthen stereotypes of those supporting change as “unpatriotic,” while fostering resistance to reconciliation-based change (ABC, 2025).