Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English Settler Colonialism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English Settler Colonialism. Peter H. Russell. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005. 470 pp. $65.00 hc. In Recognizing Aboriginal Title: The Mabo Case and Indigenous Resistance to English-Settler Colonialism, Peter H. Russell examines background and impact of two intertwined Australian legal cases, Mabo (Nos. 1 and 2). These cases centered on Indigenous land rights, and their decisions continue to have precedent-setting and far-reaching political, social, economic, and cultural consequences in Australia. Recognizing that issues behind Mabo did not develop in isolation, however, Russell also frames his analysis against an international backdrop that includes Canada, New Zealand, and United States and by doing so has produced work that will be of interest to scholars in variety of fields. Russell traces life of Mabo from his time on Murray Island, to his political radicalization--or awakening--on Australian mainland, to his efforts to have land rights of Murray Islanders recognized. Beyond being solely story of Eddie Mabo, islander legal warrior, however, narrative in Recognizing Aboriginal Title also tells the story of imperialism, colonization, and efforts of Indigenous peoples in contemporary period to get out from under colonialism imposed on them by English-settler democracies (p. 10). Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and United States were only four British colonies where English-speaking settlers bec[a]me dominant population both in numbers and in influence of their legal and political traditions (p. 8). Russell shows that Mabo's potentially explosive impact on Australia's sense and understanding of itself stemmed from crucial distinction that it did not share with other European-settler dominated colonies. While Indigenous peoples in all four colonies were subjected to massive dispossession and colonization (p. 117), treaty processes in Canada, New Zealand, and United States implicitly recognized Indians [and Maori] as owners of vast territories 'surrendered' (p. 115). Settler society in Australia, however, believed that before arrival of Europeans, colony had been terra null&s-an uninhabited territory, an empty land. This did not mean uninhabited in truest sense of word-bloody conflicts between settlers and Aborigines over lands and resources punctuated eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. Rather, Australian settler society believed that land was unoccupied and that Aboriginal land rights did not exist because local Indigenous populations did not exercise (and perhaps were not capable of exercising) sovereign authority over their lands (p. 41) and that they therefore were not fully human (p. 255). Euro-Australians viewed their country as being of one-nation, that is, a political society formed by British settlers which non-British immigrants and native people have been allowed to join (p. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".