Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"The White Possessive explores the links between race, sovereignty, and possession through themes of property: owning property, being property, and becoming propertyless. Focusing on the Australian Aboriginal context, Aileen Moreton-Robinson questions current race theory in the first world and its preoccupation with foregrounding slavery and migration. The nation, she argues, is socially and culturally constructed as a white possession. Moreton-Robinson reveals how the core values of Australian national identity continue to have their roots in Britishness and colonization, built on the disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty. Whiteness studies literature is central to Moreton-Robinson's reasoning, and she shows how blackness works as a white epistemological tool that bolsters the social production of whiteness--displacing Indigenous sovereignties and rendering them invisible in a civil rights discourse, thereby sidestepping thorny issues of settler colonialism.Throughout this critical examination Moreton-Robinson proposes a bold new agenda for critical Indigenous studies, one that involves deeper analysis of how the prerogatives of white possession function within the role of disciplines. \"-- Provided by publisher.

The White Possessiveexplores the links between race, sovereignty, and possession through themes of property: owning property, being property, and becoming propertyless. Focusing on the Australian Aboriginal context, Aileen Moreton-Robinson questions current race theory in the first world and its preoccupation with foregrounding slavery and migration. The nation, she argues, is socially and culturally constructed as a white possession. Moreton-Robinson reveals how the core values of Australian national identity continue to have their roots in Britishness and colonization, built on the disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty. Whiteness studies literature is central to Moreton-Robinson's reasoning, and she shows how blackness works as a white epistemological tool that bolsters the social production of whiteness-displacing Indigenous sovereignties and rendering them invisible in a civil rights discourse, thereby sidestepping thorny issues of settler colonialism. Throughout this critical examination Moreton-Robinson proposes a bold new agenda for critical Indigenous studies, one that involves deeper analysis of how the prerogatives of white possession function within the role of disciplines.

(1) Background: This article examines whether connection to digital technologies helps connect young Indigenous people in Australia to culture, community and country to support good mental health and well-being and protect against indirect and potentially long-term effects of COVID-19. (2) Method: We reviewed literature published between February and November 2020 and policy responses related to digital strategies. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, government policy websites and key Indigenous literature sources, identifying 3460 articles. Of these, 30 articles and 26 policy documents were included and analysed to identify existing and expected mental health outcomes among Indigenous young people associated with COVID-19 and more broadly. (3) Results: There are inequities in affordable access to digital technologies. Only 63% of Indigenous people have access to internet at home. Digital technologies and social media contribute to strong cultural identity, enhance connections to community and country and improve mental health and social and emotional well-being outcomes. (4) Discussion: Access to digital technologies can facilitate healing and cultural continuity, self-determination and empowerment for young people to thrive, not just survive, in the future. (5) Conclusion: More targeted policies and funding is urgently needed to promote digital technologies to enhance Indigenous young people’s access to mental health and well-being services, maintain cultural connections and evaluate the effectiveness of these initiatives using Indigenous well-being indicators.

Indigenous peoples are culturally distinct peoples and societies who share ties to their ancestral lands and natural resources where they live, visit or have been displaced from. About 476.6 million Indigenous people, speaking over 4 000 of the world's approximately 6 700 languages, live across 90 countries worldwide.1-2 Although Indigenous people represent around 6.2% of the global population of 7.7 billion, data from 23 countries show that of 6189 651 people surveyed and living in extremely poor conditions, an estimated 18.7% (1 157 465) are Indigenous people.1 This group faces higher health inequalities including greater health risks, suboptimal health outcomes and greater unmet needs for health and social services.3 Globally, the life expectancy of nous people 20 years lower than that of non-Indigenous people.4 Colonization created systems and structures where Indigenous peoples often experience racism, discrimination, marginalization and exclusion, subsequently having poor access to national health systems, water and sanitation, housing and education. These conditions have made Indigenous peoples extremely vulnerable to the impact of natural disasters, disease outbreaks and climate change.Increasing global urbanization has been accompanied by a rapid growth in Indigenous people living in urban areas.5 As noted at the sixth session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,6 the increasing urbanization of Indigenous people requires developing culturally specific policies enabling culturally appropriate childhood education, health and provisions for maintaining Indigenous communities, connections to country and cultural identities.Indigenous people in Australia comprising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the oldest continuous culture on earth; as an assertion of their sovereignty, they continue to pursue self-determination and cultural preservation through initiatives that are embedded in cultural understandings of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.4 The 2021 Australian Population Census estimated the population of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at 983 700.7 Although representing just under 4% of Australia's total population,7-8 this population has experienced major shifts in urbanization, particularly in the last two decades. The proportion of Indigenous people residing in major cities of Australia increased from 30% (138494/458 520) in 2001 to 41% (401674/983 709) in 2021 and conversely declined from 26% (121 163/458 520) in 2001 to 15% (150 873/983 709) in 2021 in remote and very remote areas (Fig. 1). Multiple factors contribute to the urbanization of Indigenous people, including ongoing dispossession of traditional lands, natural disasters induced by climate change, as well as perceptions of better opportunities in education, health, employment, social amenities and civil society participation in cities.

This is the first of two articles exploring the international human rights framework as it relates to Indigenous peoples' land rights and interests, with a focus on Australia. Over the past 30 years, the international community has increasingly recognised that special attention needs to be paid to the individual and collective rights of Indigenous peoples, as they are among the world's most marginalised peoples. For a long time, the Indigenous peoples of the world have used the international human rights system to tackle discrimination and abuses of their rights, and the United Nations has increasingly become a place for them to voice their concerns. In Australia, there has been a long-running debate about the lack of recognition of the First Peoples in Australia's Constitution. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are increasingly demanding that the full suite of international human rights norms and standards are applicable to their affairs and to dealings with them, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This first article discusses the international human rights framework as it relates to the Indigenous peoples of Australia. The second article will take a closer look at how the land rights and interests of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are being recognised at the national and state jurisdictional levels within Australia, with reference to recent comparable actions in Canada and New Zealand.

Part 1 of this article explored the relevance of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia, particularly the key principles of self-determination and free, prior and informed consent; how the international human rights framework applies in Australia; and Australia's lack of compliance with it. Part One concluded by discussing the Uluru Statement from the Heart, presented to all the people of Australia in 2017, and how it marked a turning point in the struggle for recognition by Australia's Indigenous peoples. Part 2 explores recent developments since the release of the Uluru Statement, especially at sub-national levels, in relation to treaty and truth-telling. It draws some comparisons with Canada and New Zealand, discusses the concept of coexistence, and presents a set of Foundational Principles for Parity and Coexistence between two culturally distinct systems of land ownership, use and tenure.

Background Given the persistence of Indigenous health inequities across national contexts, many countries have adopted strategies to improve the health of Indigenous peoples. Governmental recognition of the unique health needs of Indigenous populations is necessary for the development of targeted programs and policies to achieve universal health coverage. At the same time, the participation of Indigenous peoples in decision-making and program and policy design helps to ensure that barriers to health services are appropriately addressed and promotes the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination. Due to similar patterns of Indigenous health and health determinants across borders, there have been calls for greater global collaboration in this field. However, most international studies on Indigenous health policy link Anglo-settler democracies (Canada, Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States), despite these countries representing a small fraction of the world’s Indigenous people. Aim This paper examines national-level policy in Australia, Brazil, Chile and New Zealand in relation to governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs and engagement with Indigenous peoples in health. The paper aims to examine how Indigenous health needs and engagement are addressed in national policy frameworks within each of the countries in order to contribute to the understanding of how to develop pro-equity policies within national health care systems. Methods For each country, a review was undertaken of national policies and legislation to support engagement with, and participation of, Indigenous peoples in the identification of their health needs, development of programs and policies to address these needs and which demonstrate governmental recognition of differential Indigenous health needs. Government websites were searched as well as the following databases: Google, OpenGrey, CAB Direct, PubMed, Web of Science and WorldCat. Findings Each of the four countries have adopted international agreements regarding the engagement of Indigenous peoples in health. However, there is significant variation in the extent to which the principles laid out in these agreements are reflected in national policy, legislation and practice. Brazil and New Zealand both have established national policies to facilitate engagement. In contrast, national policy to enable engagement is relatively lacking in Australia and Chile. Australia, Brazil and New Zealand each have significant initiatives and policy structures in place to address Indigenous health. However, in Brazil this is not necessarily reflected in practice and although New Zealand has national policies these have been recently reported as insufficient and, in fact, may be contributing to health inequity for Māori. In comparison to the other three countries, Chile has relatively few national initiatives or policies in place to support Indigenous engagement or recognise the distinct health needs of Indigenous communities. Conclusions The adoption of international policy frameworks forms an important step in ensuring that Indigenous peoples are able to participate in the formation and implementation of health policy and programs. However, without the relevant principles being reflected in national legislature, international agreements hold little weight. At the same time, while a national legislative framework facilitates the engagement of Indigenous peoples, such policy may not necessarily translate into practice. Developing multi-level approaches that improve cohesion between international policy, national policy and practice in Indigenous engagement in health is therefore vital. Given that each of the four countries demonstrate strengths and weaknesses across this causal chain, cross-country policy examination provides guidance on strengthening these links.

A recurring theme in Indigenous affairs in Australia is a tension between maintenance of Indigenous culture and achievement of socio-economic ‘equity': essentially ‘self-determination' versus ‘assimilation'. Implicit in this tension is the view that attachment to traditional cultures and lifestyles is a hindrance to achieving ‘mainstream' economic goals. Using data from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, stronger attachment to traditional culture is found to be associated with enhanced outcomes across a range of socio-economic indicators. This suggests Indigenous culture should be viewed a part of the solution to Indigenous disadvantage in Australia, and not as part of the problem.

The unresolved anger and loss associated with the targeted discrimination, dispossession of land, forcible separation of families and systematic disempowerment of Indigenous people in Australia’s colonial history has had unequivocal effects on the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and continues to have intergenerational effects (Brock 1993 [#R2]; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2015 [#R1]). Moving forwards from Australia’s colonial past requires more than just economic resources and affirmative action policies, rather, it requires a dedication to empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to enable the realisation of self-determination in relation to health and wellbeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 44, 791-799. | Psychometric validation of the Growth and Empowerment Measure (GEM) applied with Indigenous Australians.Crossref [https://doi.org/10.3109/00048674.2010.482919] | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Psychometric validation of the Growth and Empowerment Measure (GEM) applied with Indigenous Australians.&journal=Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry&volume=44&pages=791-799&publication_year=2010&author=MR%20Haswell&hl=en&doi=10.3109/00048674.2010.482919] | 20815665PubMed [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=20815665&dopt=Abstract] | Maynard MT, Gilson LL, Mathieu JE (2012) Empowerment-fad or fab? A multilevel review of the past two decades of research.

Official apologies and truth commissions are increasingly utilized as mechanisms to address human rights abuses. Both are intended to transform inter-group relations by marking an end point to a history of wrongdoing and providing the means for political and social relations to move beyond that history. However, state-dominated reconciliation mechanisms are inherently problematic for indigenous communities. In this paper, we examine the use of apologies, and truth and reconciliation commissions in four countries with significant indigenous populations: Canada, Australia, Peru, and Guatemala. In each case, the reconciliation mechanism differentiated the goal of reconciliation from an indigenous self-determination agenda. The resulting state-centered strategies ultimately failed to hold states fully accountable for past wrongs and, because of this, failed to transform inter-group relations.