This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Slavery in Australia was copied or moved into Wage theft from Indigenous Australians with this edit on 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The opening sentence "Slavery in Australia occurred throughout the continent from the period of British colonisation." seems to rule out any slavery before colonization. While I expect that this is true, is there any source? What if it were changed to "There is a recorded history of Slavery in Australia throughout the continent from the period of British colonisation." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldra ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slavery in Australia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
There are two pretty significant statements in the lede to this article which require citation.
Specifically:
"This practice of unpaid work and separation from family continued until 1970"
Given that this claims to have occurred until 1970 it shouldn't be hard to cite.
"State governments have denied fair restitution for these acts, even in the modern era having taken very little responsibility to date, despite government involvement (often including the police services)."
Firstly the word "Fair" is not NPOV ... it's subjective. Unless there is a legal or official (Human Rights Commission for example) precedent for establishing that the State governments have not acted 'fairly' it remains subjective.
Without those citations those two statements should be removed. If someone wants to keep them ... then find a Wikipedia grade Reliable Source and cite them already. 07:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.15.193 ( talk)
It's been 2-3 years, no citation. Comments removed - 203.121.221.208 ( talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Images to add to this article: 1) the famous photo of many chained Australian Aborigines, 2) the famous Slave Map of Australia. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 12:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The article contains this statement:
However, the article then goes on to mention numerous instances of humans being bought and sold (i.e., chattel slavery).
Both things can't be correct. Please fix it. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It is claimed under the section "Legislation enabling slavery" that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (Cth) allowed the non-payment of wages and forced recruitment of labour in the Northern Territory. However reading the legislation https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nt5_doc_1918.pdf, It says under Number 26,
26.—(1.) Any person residing within any Town District, and desiring to employ any aboriginal within any Town District, shall, in addition to obtaining a licence to employ aboriginals, enter into an agreement with the aboriginal in the prescribed form.
This seems to contradict the "forced recruitment" claim. Furthermore under Number 46
Number 46.—(1.) Where any Protector or Police officer has reason to believe that any aboriginal or half-caste is not being treated properly by any person having the custody or control of the aboriginal (whether employer or otherwise) he may remove the aboriginal or half-caste from the custody or control of that person.
This seems to contradict the "enabling slavery" aspect. Can someone explain?
However, a perusal of the Ordinance seems to give little support to the
proposition that its purpose was to create or authorise conditions of 'slavery'. The words of the legislation are paternalistic, but apparently benign. Most fundamentally, the proposition appears to be negated by the fact that the powers ofthe Chief Protector or Director of Welfare8 in relation to Aboriginal employees - just like his powers in relation to Aboriginal children - were required to be exercised 'in the best interests of' the Aboriginal person concerned. Under section 6 of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT) ('1918 Ordinance'), 'the Chief Protector shall be entitled at any time to undertake the care, custody or control of any aboriginal or half-caste if, in his opinion, it is necessary or desirable in the interests ofthe aboriginal or half-caste for him to do so'. Thus, prima facie, even if acts which amounted to acts of slavery were done under the apparent authority of the 1918 Ordinance, this could not be an indication of the invalidity of the 1918 Ordinance. It can never be in a person's 'interests' to be kept in slavery. No law can simultaneously authorise only actions carried out 'in the interests of the aboriginal or half-caste' and authorise that person being kept in slavery. Any act authorised by the 1918 Ordinance could not be an act of slavery. Any act of slavery could not be authorised by the 1918 Ordinance.]n other words, ifan act ofslavery occurred under the apparent authority ofthe 1918 Ordinance, such an act could only be an invalid exercise of
power, not an indication that the power itself was invalid.
Many of the topics on this page describe poor working conditions or exploitation rather than actual slavery.
Coolies for instance often had better working conditions than the average Burger King employee in countries like the US do today. Yet they are being equated to slaves.
Whilst there was slavery proper, this page fails to adequately describe when and how or to keep on topic. It also fails to give adequate citations or references. 120.22.141.131 ( talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
While I accept that this page covers both slavery and slavery-like conditions, Work for the Dole is very far from slavery. It is usually much less coercive than standard employment. Transient-understanding ( talk) 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Slavery in Australia. 125.253.110.33 ( talk) 18:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Slavery in Australia was copied or moved into Wage theft from Indigenous Australians with this edit on 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The opening sentence "Slavery in Australia occurred throughout the continent from the period of British colonisation." seems to rule out any slavery before colonization. While I expect that this is true, is there any source? What if it were changed to "There is a recorded history of Slavery in Australia throughout the continent from the period of British colonisation." ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldra ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slavery in Australia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
{{
cite book}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
There are two pretty significant statements in the lede to this article which require citation.
Specifically:
"This practice of unpaid work and separation from family continued until 1970"
Given that this claims to have occurred until 1970 it shouldn't be hard to cite.
"State governments have denied fair restitution for these acts, even in the modern era having taken very little responsibility to date, despite government involvement (often including the police services)."
Firstly the word "Fair" is not NPOV ... it's subjective. Unless there is a legal or official (Human Rights Commission for example) precedent for establishing that the State governments have not acted 'fairly' it remains subjective.
Without those citations those two statements should be removed. If someone wants to keep them ... then find a Wikipedia grade Reliable Source and cite them already. 07:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.15.193 ( talk)
It's been 2-3 years, no citation. Comments removed - 203.121.221.208 ( talk) 15:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Images to add to this article: 1) the famous photo of many chained Australian Aborigines, 2) the famous Slave Map of Australia. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 12:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
The article contains this statement:
However, the article then goes on to mention numerous instances of humans being bought and sold (i.e., chattel slavery).
Both things can't be correct. Please fix it. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 12:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It is claimed under the section "Legislation enabling slavery" that the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (Cth) allowed the non-payment of wages and forced recruitment of labour in the Northern Territory. However reading the legislation https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nt5_doc_1918.pdf, It says under Number 26,
26.—(1.) Any person residing within any Town District, and desiring to employ any aboriginal within any Town District, shall, in addition to obtaining a licence to employ aboriginals, enter into an agreement with the aboriginal in the prescribed form.
This seems to contradict the "forced recruitment" claim. Furthermore under Number 46
Number 46.—(1.) Where any Protector or Police officer has reason to believe that any aboriginal or half-caste is not being treated properly by any person having the custody or control of the aboriginal (whether employer or otherwise) he may remove the aboriginal or half-caste from the custody or control of that person.
This seems to contradict the "enabling slavery" aspect. Can someone explain?
However, a perusal of the Ordinance seems to give little support to the
proposition that its purpose was to create or authorise conditions of 'slavery'. The words of the legislation are paternalistic, but apparently benign. Most fundamentally, the proposition appears to be negated by the fact that the powers ofthe Chief Protector or Director of Welfare8 in relation to Aboriginal employees - just like his powers in relation to Aboriginal children - were required to be exercised 'in the best interests of' the Aboriginal person concerned. Under section 6 of the Aboriginals Ordinance 1918 (NT) ('1918 Ordinance'), 'the Chief Protector shall be entitled at any time to undertake the care, custody or control of any aboriginal or half-caste if, in his opinion, it is necessary or desirable in the interests ofthe aboriginal or half-caste for him to do so'. Thus, prima facie, even if acts which amounted to acts of slavery were done under the apparent authority of the 1918 Ordinance, this could not be an indication of the invalidity of the 1918 Ordinance. It can never be in a person's 'interests' to be kept in slavery. No law can simultaneously authorise only actions carried out 'in the interests of the aboriginal or half-caste' and authorise that person being kept in slavery. Any act authorised by the 1918 Ordinance could not be an act of slavery. Any act of slavery could not be authorised by the 1918 Ordinance.]n other words, ifan act ofslavery occurred under the apparent authority ofthe 1918 Ordinance, such an act could only be an invalid exercise of
power, not an indication that the power itself was invalid.
Many of the topics on this page describe poor working conditions or exploitation rather than actual slavery.
Coolies for instance often had better working conditions than the average Burger King employee in countries like the US do today. Yet they are being equated to slaves.
Whilst there was slavery proper, this page fails to adequately describe when and how or to keep on topic. It also fails to give adequate citations or references. 120.22.141.131 ( talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
While I accept that this page covers both slavery and slavery-like conditions, Work for the Dole is very far from slavery. It is usually much less coercive than standard employment. Transient-understanding ( talk) 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Slavery in Australia. 125.253.110.33 ( talk) 18:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)