Definition of Aboriginal
Defining Indigenousness and asserting Aboriginal identity
The myth of race has long dominated definitions of Aboriginality in Australia, impacting on the plethora of Aboriginal policies that continue to marginalise our peoples.
Racial definitions of Indigenous identity have informed over 400 Aboriginal policies in the last two centuries. The problem with this is that there is no such thing as an Aboriginal race. Even Charles Darwin refuted the concept of race – in The Descent Of Man he set aside a number of chapters for this purpose, categorising people in terms of social populations when the idea of separate biological human species proved untenable.
But despite overwhelming scientific and genetic evidence to the contrary, the notion of race still stains constitutions and legislation worldwide while more meaningful definitions along lines of kinship, ethnicity, homeland and spirituality are denied. Colonial denial of Aboriginal identity is usually on grounds of blood-quantum, and is a phenomenon that occurs when there is some perceived social benefit attached to indigenousness. This is reversed when Aboriginal people of mixed descent are vilified or punished however – then there seems to be no qualms about the “distance” of Aboriginal descent.
In the 1980’s Australia saw the emergence of a three-part definition comprising descent, self-identification and community identification. The first part of the definition still carried the racial criterion left over from the eighties. The last part meant that a person separated from their community in the course of family disputes could no longer identify as Aboriginal, even if they had no European ancestry at all.
In the 1990s the inherent contradictions and shortcomings of this definition became apparent in court cases where persons identifying strongly as Aboriginal pointed out that there was a lack of official records to prove their ancestry, but still demand that their Aboriginality be recognised. In 1995 Justice Drummond stated that, “..either genuine self-identification as Aboriginal alone or Aboriginal communal recognition as such by itself may suffice, according to the circumstances.”
Judge Merkel agreed in 1998, defining descent as a technical rather than a real criterion for identity, which nowadays is accepted as a social, rather than a genetic, construct. He also acknowledged the validity of self-perception and identity.
In 2002 the administrative appeals tribunal found that in the absence of official documentation, family oral history may suffice as evidence of Aboriginal descent. This came at a time when lobby groups were calling for compulsory DNA testing of all Aborigines to determine blood quantum, and so in that social climate the ruling represented a strong move away from the myth of race as a basis for indigenous identity.
However, the three part rule continues to marginalise many Aborigines. So what kind of definition would be more acceptable? Perhaps none is needed. When we seek to define identity, we ignore the fact that an individual's ethnicity is fluid, often pluralist, and socially constructed with varying degrees of cultural connection.
It has been suggested that if definition is needed to identify the welfare needs of a people, then why not identify the need, rather than some arbitrary ethnic grouping? Such needs could be identified individually, rather than as a homogenised categorisation of myriad identities under one limiting ethnic label.
