Suchergebnisse

The historical and current status of Indigenous people needs careful consideration in designing evaluations of Indigenous-specific programs. In Australia, the evaluator operates in a context arising from past policies of discrimination against Indigenous people and limited current policy moves toward community control and self-determination. Evaluation guidelines and standards exist to provide direction and become particularly valuable in complex project conditions, such as the current evaluation. This paper reflects on guidelines of the Australasian Evaluation Society and standards of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) as they apply to the evaluation of Indigenous programs in Victoria, focusing on our recent experience in the evaluation of Indigenous specific alcohol and drug programs. Particular attention is given to the utility standards of the AEA, given the range of key stakeholders involved in the evaluation. We discuss the consistency of our approach with the utility standards and suggest areas where modification to the standards may be useful, drawing particularly on the modifications to the standards that have been put forward by the African Evaluation Association. In reflecting on the evaluation, we also identify areas for change in future projects involving Indigenous programs.

Social work as a profession has evolved out of contextualised human responses to social, political and economic questions that afflict human existence. Its education and practice in India, imported from the west as a part of the colonisation process, has remained stagnated, for long, with concepts and methods suited to respond to the ravages of industrial revolution in Europe. Thus, it has failed, in many ways than one, to position itself responsively to India's contexts. The tribal/indigenous situation of India's northeast, for instance, challenge social work education and practice to define programmes and strategies, respectively, suited to meet its unique needs. The present paper is an attempt to conceptualise a social work education framework suited to this context.

Abstract
In contrast to U.S. Federal Indian law, which has classified indigenous tribes as "domestic dependent nations" since the early 19th century, Mexican law has only recently begun to define the political and territorial autonomy of indigenous groups. This paper contrasts the Mexican approach to this problem to that of the United States, first describing Mexico's 2001's constitutional reforms and their failure to clarify the nature of tribal sovereignty. It then analyzes recent court cases that protect tribal political and territorial autonomy by applying rights to consultation contained in the International Labor Organization's Indigenous and Tribal People's Convention 169 ("ILO 169") and the Mexican Constitution. It concludes by arguing that in spite of this effort by the courts, Mexican law still requires a comprehensive legislative or diplomatic resolution of the lack of clarity surrounding the political and territorial autonomy of its indigenous groups.

The current presidential administration of Brazil has implemented a legislative agenda aimed at weakening protections of Indigenous peoples, in line with an ideological discourse and the direct participation of the armed forces in this process. This agenda has enabled invasions of Indigenous lands and a much higher COVID-19 mortality rate for Indigenous peoples when compared to non-Indigenous people. A bill recently approved by the Chamber of Deputies aims to extinguish all Indigenous lands established by the Brazilian government from 1988 onwards. This bill represents the official opening for violation of the rights of Indigenous peoples by the Bolsonaro administration and facilitates invasion of Indigenous lands. The president's multiple efforts to weaken or deny protection of these peoples, to usurp their lands and to deny their rights to consultation on projects that affect them need to be judged by Brazil's Federal Supreme Court, the UN Human Rights Council, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Criminal Court.

In the past, indigenous peoples were exposed to many violations of human rights. They were treated as nations without rights and civilisation. Colonial powers confiscated their land without paying any compensation. Their culture, religion, language, social and judicial systems were annulled or even destroyed. Members of indigenous peoples were victims of ethnocide/genocide and were used as cheap labour force. Today, many live on the edge of human society and deal with different problems (alcohol, drugs, crime). National efforts and trends to abolish the injustice made in the past, and efforts for the improvement of the present situation of members of indigenous peoples have brought fruit because indigenous peoples have reached a certain degree of autonomy in different countries through the right to self-determination and the right to self-government. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted in 2007. It represents an important milestone in resolving many issues associated with indigenous peoples, even though individual countries with many indigenous peoples have not supported it.

Australia has always been a place of legal pluralism. Before the British colonists brought with them the common law and the statute law of England, there were indigenous systems of law. Indeed, there were very many of them. They did not cease to exist just because English law was imported. Sadly, for over 200 years, their existence was not officially recognised by the Anglo-Australian legal system. In 1992, in Mabo v State of Queensland [No.2], the High Court of Australia did more than "invent" native title. It made this nation officially a legally pluralist one. The common law now recognises, and gives effect to, indigenous law with respect to land tenure and, possibly, with respect to other aspects of life and death as well. Native title is what indigenous law says it is, no more and no less, except to the extent that non-indigenous law operates to "extinguish" or "impair" native title. The first inquiry in any application for a determination of native title must be as to the continuing existence of an indigenous legal system and the manner in which that legal system deals with entitlements in relation to the relevant land. If such a system survives and gives entitlement to people, it must then be asked whether non-Aboriginal law has "extinguished" or "impaired" those entitlements. In truth, this inquiry is as to whether the non-indigenous legal system has withdrawn its recognition of those entitlements, because of its creation of interests, or recognition of activities, incompatible with the continuing existence of indigenous entitlements. The entitlements continue to exist in indigenous law, despite any "extinguishment" or "impairment."

This essay analyzes ways that Canadians Jews have been engaging with Indigenous people and issues since the turn of the millennium. It argues that communal Jewish interest in Indigenous issues developed in the wake of the Ahenakew affair in 2002, and then grew in breadth and depth after the launch of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2008. The expansion of Jewish engagement in Indigenous matters bespeaks newfound mobilizations by Canadian Jews in the identity politics of ethnic/religious coalition building, toward multiple and sometimes competing ends, two of which are particularly salient: suffering and sovereignty. While the sufferings of the Jewish people and Indigenous peoples have been inexactly mapped onto one another, the attachments that many Canadian Jews have to the legacies of oppression, resistance, and recovery have profoundly shaped their eagerness to contemplate and engage Indigenous issues in particularly Jewish ways. Jewish engagements with First Nations also focus on the idea of "indigeneity" for the rhetorical power it may provide in debates about Israel as a colonial, post-colonial, or anti-colonial state. Canadian Jews to champion liberal support of First Nations, Jewish conversations around Indigenous suffering, heritage honour, and reconciliation have also foregrounded a set of tense questions about the extent to which Canadian Jews are and have been implicated in colonialism writ large, and about how Canadian Jews can or should best respond to its legacies. The two themes, suffering and sovereignty, are intertwined in a dynamic and unresolved tension, with one theme (suffering) inherently grappling with powerlessness, and the other (sovereignty), inherently grappling with power.

The concept of indigeneity is founded on an historical relation: my people were here before yours and are therefore legitimate occupiers of this land. This aspect of indigeneity, and its concomitant claim to justice, is most clearly articulated in the indigenous politics of postcolonial nations and the rhetoric of indigenous leaders. The discourses of politicians who invoke five centuries of oppression are frequently heard and easily accessible but much less so are the views of indigenous people far from the arena of metropolitan politics. In its focus on European colonisation and conquest the standard understanding of indigeneity necessarily invokes Western concepts of identity and being focused primarily on descent and a particular relationship to history, that of being a conquered people. This paper looks at how the people of one Aymara-speaking hamlet understand their history and their place in it. It explores the profound differences in historical consciousness to that of "mainstream" indigeneity and raises questions about how people relate to their past; the importance of the Conquest to indigenous people; and, consequently, the consequences a differently rooted identity may have for the contemporary politics of indigeneity. This record was migrated from the OpenDepot repository service in June, 2017 before shutting down.

By addressing the ways in which the singular narrative of "slavery" codifies identity, this work moves beyond binary racial classifications and proposes the possibility of utilizing holistic historical narratives to foster group and personal identity.

Introduction -- Acknowledgements -- Chapter 1: Pre-European: Australia's first naturalists -- Chapter 2: Naturalists: 1788-1837 -- Caley and Moowattin -- Chapter 3: Naturalists: 1838-1887 -- Gould, Natty, Jemmy & Gilbert -- MacGillivray, Neinmal & Paida and Kennedy & Galmarra -- Blandowski, Krefft & the Nyeri Nyeri -- Chapter 4: Naturalists 1888-1939 -- The Horn Scientific Expedition & Peter & Harry -- Spencer, Gillen & an Army of women and children -- Finlayson, Butcher, Jimmy & various women & man -- Chapter 5: Epilogue Contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Managers -- Notes -- List of illustrations -- index of Native Species.