Causal analysis and the detail it provides produce strong historical relationship between dislocation and addiction, especially in England in the 1500s. The authors emphasize drug addiction as the dependent variable, arising from the dislocation in the society itself. People tend to establish substitute lifestyles, often referring to drug use to compensate for their inability to participate in the community. Alexander and Shaler pinpoint the beginning of dislocation in England and Canada, when those who rebelled against the law would be “confine[d] in ‘houses of correction'" (230) and would face punishment; natives were not addicts until “assimilation subjected them to extreme dislocation” (231). Alexander and Shaler conclude addiction is a “political and spiritual problem” (231) that needs to be fixed with integration.
The board controlled the freedom of movement and personal finances of Indigenous Australians. The atrocity of the Stolen Generations occurred under the orders of the Aboriginal Protection Board. Dr Rosalind Kidd in her book Hard labour, stolen wages, writes; “the government assumed extraordinary discretionary powers over the lives of Aboriginal people” (Kidd, 2007, pg 12). Kidd (2007) describes the plight of working Indigenous Australians as akin to
Mr. Tourgee, attorney for Mr. Plessy, argued that his Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments had been violated. The decision was appealed to the Louisiana State Supreme court in 1893 and was appealed again in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896. The Thirteenth Amendment officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery unless you are incarcerated for a crime. The Equal Protection Clause under The Fourteenth Amendment which requires that all states are required to provide equal protection for all of its citizens under the law. Regardless of their race, cultural background, or socioeconomic status, it is my duty as a new teacher to ensure that all of my students receive a quality
The court determined, in the best interest for the child custody would be awarded to the father. The federal court recognized some statements in the first judgment as discriminatory based on race and raised concerns based on the constitution’s commitment to eradicate discrimination. The court stated that the child’s welfare was the main element when determining custody. The court then reversed the order and gave custody back to the mother. Issue: Can effects of racial prejudice justify removing a child from the custody of its mother?
government treated all individuals living in the United States without proper documentation as illegal immigrants (Roby, et al., 2008). As a result of these issues, congress passed the TVPA of 2000, providing the first movement of prohibiting human trafficking in the United States. The TVPA of 2000 created new prosecution methods and provided victim services as an aid to prosecuting traffickers. Additionally, the policy provided protections and assistance for severe victims of Human Trafficking such as being eligible to receive Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF, and a T-Visa, which allowed them to live and work in the U.S. for three years and later apply for permanent residency (Roby, et al., 2008). Desyllas, M. C. (2007).
By focusing predominantly on the large increase of Asian immigrants subsequent to the termination of the policy, the author carefully evaluates the radical change in the large percentage of once racist Australian attitudes towards Asians. Written by a political scientist and experienced writer, James Jupp, and published in a scholarly political journal, the article thereby demonstrates a high level of reliability as well as a strong relevance to my research on the changed Australian perceptions of Asia following White Australia, and therefore will be used to supplement the basis of my essay. 4) MacLeod CL 2006, Multiethnic Australia: its history and future, 1st edn, McFarland & Company, North Carolina, America. This book examines the gradual transformation of the past and present of Australia’s immigration policies, detailing both the challenges and positive repercussions of the new multicultural
During early settlement of Australia, Indigenous children were removed from their families to be conditioned to European values and work ethic to eventually take up positions in the service of “colonial settlers” (HREOC, 1997, pp.22). Despite being an acknowledged and engrained practice in Australia for a number of years before formal government acts legalising the removal of children, the Stolen Generations is a term coined to encompass those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children forcibly removed from their families and communities as mandated by government policy between 1911 and 1969 (HREOC, 1997, pp.22). In an attempt to ‘merge’ the Indigenous population with the non-Iindigenous community, it was mandated that children should be removed from their families so as to lose their ‘Aboriginal identity’ (HREOC, 1997, pp.25). This policy was soon aimed towards ‘assimilation’ as opposed to ‘merging’; the major difference existing in the idea that all Indigenous people should live, work and be educated alongside ‘Whites’ (HREOC, 1997, pp.26). However, by the 1960s it was clear that the policy had failed to achieve its goal of forced integration; Indigenous people refused to “surrender their lifestyle and
In 1837, this practice was made official with the appointment by the British Select Committee of “Protectors of Aboriginies” in Australia. In 1869 Indigenous child removal legislation was put in place in all states and territories, giving the “Protectors” the power to remove children, and in 1937 assimilation was adopted as the official national Indigenous affairs policy. It was not until 1969 that Indigenous child removal legislation was removed. Even if past governments had good, albeit ethnocentric intentions, the effects of these policies have been devastating, and this dark and disturbing history of racism and assimilation still haunts many Aboriginal communities
Australia is the nation built on the principles of freedom and equality for everybody, but this is not true for Aboriginal people – the first owners of this land. From 1909 to 1969, the Australian government implemented the policy that forced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to leave their parents’ arms in order to assimilate these children and declared that they were adequately protected and given a better life (Reconciliaction, 2007). The statistics of the Bringing Them Home report suggests that there were about one-tenth and one-third of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children taken away from their families (Bringing Them Home, 1997, p. 31). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children separated from their families were called the “stolen generations” (Australia Human Rights Commission, 2012). These children had to live in poor conditions, poor quality and received a strange
Hawkins, M 1998, Social Darwinism in European and American thought, 1860-1945; nature as model as nature as threat, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Markus, A (ed) 1974, From the barrel of a gun: The oppression of the Aborigines, 1860-1900, Victorian Historical Association, Melbourne. Neville A 1947, Australia's Coloured Minority: Its Place in the Community, Currawong Publishing, Sydney. Smith, L 1999, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, University of Otago Press, Dunedin. Stone, S (ed) 1974, Aborigines in white Australia: A documentary history of the attitudes affecting official policy and the Australian Aborigine, 1697-1973, The Griffin Press, Adelaide.