History is open to interpretation, it evolves as new evidence and ideas become available which is evidently demonstrated in Cooks 1770 declaration of Terra Nullius in Australia, which has evolved over time due to significant changes in public and legal opinions. The 1967 referendum, The Mabo decision, which served as a catalyst and the Native Title Act (cwth) were all influential to the change of interpretation. Therefore, the quote “History is open to interpretation; it evolves as new evidence and ideas become available” is highly relevant to the evolution of histories interpretations of Native Title in Australia which is seen through the two differing interpretations. There is the traditional European colonial interpretation showing, accounts of earlier settler relations, which does not acknowledge Aboriginal people to be the traditional custodians of the land, and there is the current changed interpretation where Aboriginal people are proven through various instances including the 1967 referendum, Mabo Case and the Native title act, to be the original owners of the land. Thus, history is open to interpretation as the Mabo case brought new evidence to the fact of the matter, proving the statement to be highly relevant to the Mabo case.
In order to examine how Australian native title interpretations evolved as new evidence was brought forward, it is vital to understand the context of European settlement and the dispossession of Aboriginal land. 1770 was where English settlement began, upon arrival, Aboriginal people were not considered owners of the land, rather were counted as primitive humans among flora and Fauna. The British claimed Terra Nullius, “I now once more hoisted English colours, and in the name of his Majesty King George the third took possession of the whole Eastern Coast” quotes James Cook (aug.22, 1770). Terra Nullius was the term referring to the land owned by no one, despite Aboriginals inhabiting the land. This implemented the doctrine of Terra Nullius which was in function from 1788 up until proven different in the Mabo Case. Expansion continued and Indigenous land was converted to farming lands.
The traditional European settler’s interpretation differed significantly to today’s interpretation, due to new evidence becoming available, which shows how the statement “History is open to interpretation; it evolves as new evidence and ideas become available” is highly relevant. During the time of white settlement British saw this as an opportunity to become a new nation and have Australia as land to use. White settlement believed that Aboriginal tribes had no boundaries of ownership in land and didn’t erect permanent habitations upon the land. With this in mind it proves highly relevant where James Cook states “aborigines lived mainly on shellfish and did not cultivate the land or erect permanent habitations upon it" this quote shows the original interpretation of white settlers. As a result of Aborigines not being counted as citizens, white settlers were able to shoot on sight at any aboriginal that was armed with spears or if they were within a certain distance of homes. This was the belief that the indigenous people would eventually ‘die out’. An example of this is the Warrigal Creek Massacre in 1843, which saw the event of mass murdering 2000 Aboriginal people, either being shot or poisoned. Furthermore, “the people could not be considered owners of their land. They were simply primitive and happy occupants.” (Moore) displays his interpretation of Aboriginals. Europeans failed to realise that aboriginals had an extremely advanced culture and superior survival skills “they (the aboriginals) certainly rank very low, even on the scale of savages” Watkin Tench (1793) exemplifying the traditional interpretation. European settlers failed to recognise or understand that Aboriginal people were the original custodians of the land. Through these interpretations it is evident that history has evolved over time as evidence comes to light, proving the statement to be highly relevant.
A significant event that can be seen to influence the evolution of interpretation of the doctrine of Terra Nullius and Native title in Australia is the 1967 referendum. This referendum was the change in the public and legal interpretation towards Aboriginal people, as it changed two sections of the constitution. It included the Aboriginal people in the constitution and it also allowed for the Federal Government to make laws regarding Aboriginal people. Post 1967 referendum there was a great push for Aboriginal Australians to be given native title to land “we cannot be satisfied with anything less than the ownership of the land…The Australian law has said that the land is not ours. This is not so. It might be right legally but morally its wrong.” Raymattja Marika, Daymbalipu Mununggurr, and Wali Wunungmurra, (1971) this is of high relevance to the statement as it exemplifies that history is open to interpretation as this is an opposing view to that of the traditional interpretation.
Contravening to traditional interpretations, Mabo case can be considered a reaction to the interpretations of European settlers, as they are two opposing views. The Mabo Case was the catalyst that brought forward new evidence that ultimately disproved the Doctrine of Terra Nullius and a change of interpretation of history, reinforcing the high relevance to the statement “History is open to interpretation; it evolves as new evidence and ideas become available”. Eddie Mabo an Indigenous Australian gives his interpretation on native title “The present Queensland Government is a friendly enemy of the black people as they like to give you the bible and take away your land.” Proving to be highly relevant to the statement, as there is a change of interpretation. Eddie Mabo was the leader of a group of ten Meriam people who started up a High Court case in 1982 to disprove the doctrine of Terra Nullius. Over the 10 years and two cases, Mabo and others generated 4000 pages of evidence, proving 8 clans of Murry islands had distinct boundaries and customs were still prevalent on the Island, which conveys the high relevance to the statement. Mabo V Queensland (No 1) (1986) was able to prove under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (cwth) that their case conflicted these rights and could go further to case number 2, the land rights case. After Mabo V Queensland (No 2) (1992) the high court ruled that the Meriam people held traditional land ownership of Murry Island “Declare-(1) that the land in the Murry Islands is not Crown land within the meaning of that term… (2) that the Meriam people are entitled as against the whole world to possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of the island of Mer” High Court of Australia (1992). This not only allowed the people of Mer to have native title but, established a process for future claims, introducing the legal doctrine of Native Title into Australian law. Thus, the Mabo case is highly relevant to the statement as this ruling, based on new evidence, has changed history because of the varying interpretations.
As consequence to the Mabo case, The Native Title Act (cwth) was an Act that was influential to the changing of public and legal interpretations