The name is absent

117

Tatz detailed the following bewildering identification of
Aborigines in Queensland.

In Queensland, until 1972, Aborigines were full-bloods,
persons with a preponderance of full-blood, part-
Aboriginal spouses of Aborigines already defined -
and residents of reserves. Part-Aborigines were those
with one full-blood parent and one with no strain of
the blood of the indigenous inhabitants, and those
of both whose parents have a strain of blood and who
themselves have no more than 25 percent of such blood
(Tatz, 1979:83,84).

In South Australia, before 1962, an Aborigine was a person of
full or part descent who had not been specially exempted. After
1962 there were two categories; Aboriginal and person of Aboriginal
blood.

Returning to the definition of identity as a perception of

and practice establishes the fact that Aboriginal people were
not permitted the possibility of perception of self-sameness
as either Aborigines or non-Aboriginal.

Aboriginal people were 'named’, ‘identified’ as non-Aboriginal            .

or Aboriginal by the dominant society on a variety of changing                !

V

criteria. It was a situation which could only lead to the utmost              ɪ

H

1
confusion for the individual thus identified.

9,4 Identification: Government practice in identifying Aborigines

Government policy on identification before 1967 could only
be categorised as arbitrary and serving the interests of the
dominant group.

When it was opportune to enforce the policy of segregation those
with a ’strain’ of ’blood’, (i.e. those visibly coloured) were
held to be Aborigines and were relegated to reserves. They were
physically nihilated by being removed from view.

<<   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   >>

More intriguing information