Dispossession of Indigenous People
The dispossession of indigenous people in the United States and Australia during nation-building effectively removed them from lands indigenous people thought no one could own. Through unfair acts of legislature the nations were effective in corralling the natives into reserves and in the case of the Aboriginals creating laws to govern and control every aspect of their lives. It is a detriment to a new nation to enter a new land, claim dominion and to then exclude its native peoples from becoming an integral part of a new nation and society.
The nation-building occurring in the United States during the 19th century; pulled into the fold the Native Americans, in this case the Cherokees, due to Manifest Destiny. …show more content…
As the British claimed the land under their law terra nullius meaning land belonging to know one, they began to sell, grant and lease land to settlers. The Aborigines endured a fate similar to the Native Americans in the United States. The British settlements moved in and treated Aboriginals in the same manner as early colonists toward Native Americans. They made agreements, experienced conflicts, attempted assimilation, introduced diseases, and slowly moved the Aboriginals off their land further inland. The conflicts had to have been born from the way the aborigines lived on the land, as nomadic tribes with a deep connection to the …show more content…
In the beginning of their settlements both settlers wanted to treat the indigenous people fairly. Great Britain and the United States fail to realize that these people are humans and their culture and knowledge is valuable. They differentiate between races and this prejudice is a belief in their inferiority and the necessity to civilize the wandering savages.
Both indigenous groups had conflicts with settlers and the government. The Cherokees traded, created alliances, sold land and assimilated in the new societies. The Aborigines did as well but they were much more resistance to the forceful British which caused the protection act but it was merely a way to contain, control and try to eradicate them from the country.
The differences between these two documents is the identification of the groups. The Cherokees are a “state, as a distinct political society separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself.” (Ward, p. 252) Clearly they are free do and act as any other citizen until the settlers spread out and desired Cherokee territory. Unfortunately the Aborigines do not have similar freedoms with the government control the minutiae of their lives. I also doubt they have any method of recourse for changing the Protection Act forced upon them. As they were seen as nothing more than livestock to be held behind
The dispossession of indigenous people in the United States and Australia during nation-building effectively removed them from lands indigenous people thought no one could own. Through unfair acts of legislature the nations were effective in corralling the natives into reserves and in the case of the Aboriginals creating laws to govern and control every aspect of their lives. It is a detriment to a new nation to enter a new land, claim dominion and to then exclude its native peoples from becoming an integral part of a new nation and society.
The nation-building occurring in the United States during the 19th century; pulled into the fold the Native Americans, in this case the Cherokees, due to Manifest Destiny. …show more content…
As the British claimed the land under their law terra nullius meaning land belonging to know one, they began to sell, grant and lease land to settlers. The Aborigines endured a fate similar to the Native Americans in the United States. The British settlements moved in and treated Aboriginals in the same manner as early colonists toward Native Americans. They made agreements, experienced conflicts, attempted assimilation, introduced diseases, and slowly moved the Aboriginals off their land further inland. The conflicts had to have been born from the way the aborigines lived on the land, as nomadic tribes with a deep connection to the …show more content…
In the beginning of their settlements both settlers wanted to treat the indigenous people fairly. Great Britain and the United States fail to realize that these people are humans and their culture and knowledge is valuable. They differentiate between races and this prejudice is a belief in their inferiority and the necessity to civilize the wandering savages.
Both indigenous groups had conflicts with settlers and the government. The Cherokees traded, created alliances, sold land and assimilated in the new societies. The Aborigines did as well but they were much more resistance to the forceful British which caused the protection act but it was merely a way to contain, control and try to eradicate them from the country.
The differences between these two documents is the identification of the groups. The Cherokees are a “state, as a distinct political society separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself.” (Ward, p. 252) Clearly they are free do and act as any other citizen until the settlers spread out and desired Cherokee territory. Unfortunately the Aborigines do not have similar freedoms with the government control the minutiae of their lives. I also doubt they have any method of recourse for changing the Protection Act forced upon them. As they were seen as nothing more than livestock to be held behind