Australian Sovereignty, Indigenous Standpoint Theory and Feminist Standpoint Theory

Abstract

Much has been written by non-Indigenous Australians in the wake of the 1992 Mabo case following its rejection of terra nullius in Australia. What is surprising about this literature is the lack of discussion about sovereignty, which is a logical consequence of the Mabo decisionʼs conclusion that the basis for Crown sovereignty was incorrect. What little has been said about sovereignty since Mabo can be placed into two broad groups. The first calls for various forms of First Peoplesʼ sovereignties, and is made up almost exclusively of First Peoples scholars. The other group is dominated by non-Indigenous people who speak instead of citizenship, shared responsibility, native title, reconciliation, rights, selfmanagement, multiculturalism, colonisation and postcolonial theory. This article is directed to non-Indigenous scholars who write on these topics. It is a critique of their scholarship, notwithstanding its merit to the extent that literature questions injustice, dispossession, genocide, discrimination and colonial policy. The basis for this critique is that this scholarship fails to bring First Peoplesʼ sovereignties to the fore, and for this reason persists as colonial knowledge. To make this argument, the article identifies with feminist standpoint theory and Indigenous standpoint theory to contend that First Peoplesʼ sovereignties must be embraced by non-Indigenous scholars.

What are the enablers of economic participation in remote and very remote Australia, and how can we identify them?

“…Ardill (2013) has highlighted that most Australian scholarship, particularly undertaken by non-Indigenous academics, fails to bring First Peoples' Sovereignties to the fore, and as such persists as colonial knowledge. He has pointed out that while sovereignty is an abstraction for non-Indigenous scholars, First Peoples scholars have consistently maintained "that their sovereignties continue as embodiments of themselves, despite assertions of Crown sovereignty" (p. 318).…”

Creating Shared Norms in Schools — A Theoretical Approach

“…We do not believe our scholarship on Indigenous issues is invalid because we are non-Indigenous (Aveling, 2013), but rather that it is imperfect in its ability to describe events at the cultural interface (Nakata, 2007b; Smith, 1999). We are perhaps more aligned with authors such as Ardill (2013) and McGloin (2009) who argue that for non-Indigenous people to be silent in the search for solutions to issues affecting Indigenous Australians, would be tantamount to complicity in the face of social injustice. As researchers and educators, we join in the discussion that aims to provide freedom, dignity and justice for Indigenous people, but also understand the boundaries of our role.…”

“…The TBP and SDT present a new approach to a long-standing issue, and may provide fresh insights to improving educational outcomes in mixed culture classrooms. It is important, however, that we pay respect to Indigenous Standpoint Theory, and justify why the ideas in this paper, Euro-centric in their origin, are worth consideration (Ardill, 2013; McGloin, 2009; Nakata, 2006; 2007a).…”

“…As researchers and educators, we join in the discussion that aims to provide freedom, dignity and justice for Indigenous people, but also understand the boundaries of our role. For this reason, our scholarship is only valid as long as it is held transparently accountable to the critique of the Indigenous community whom we write about (Ardill, 2013).…”

“…In this, we as authors consider ourselves not voices for the Indigenous community, but allies (Aveling, 2013). In writing this paper, we call for white Australians educators to grapple with issues such as Indigenous sovereignty (or lack thereof) (Ardill, 2013), Standpoint Theory (Ardill, 2013; Nakata, 2007a) and white privilege (Aveling, 2006).…”