Inspired by Zheng’s post on surviving Tasmania aborigines, I decided to look into how Tasmania officially qualified the identity of an aborigine. As Zheng points out, most descendants of Tasmania aborigines look no different from descendants of European Tasmanians (implying that their genetic heritage has been ‘diluted,’ for lack of better words). Therefore, it becomes tricky for them to prove their ancestry to the Australian government when they are applying for grants or trying to vote in special elections.
My first instinct was, is it possible to genetically test for biological ancestry? However, the more that I researched, the more I realized that the aboriginal identity is more complicated than a simple DNA test. According to the 1981 ‘Report on a Review of the Administration of the Working Definition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders,’ there is a three part definition an aborigine (for different aboriginal tribes, including those in Australia). The report defines an aboriginal as:
- of Aboriginal biological descent
- who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and
- is accepted as such by the community in which he (she) lives
This definition was then upheld in 2003 by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALCR) in the report Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia. ALCR also looked at other international standards for aboriginal status, such as blood rules as used by many tribes in North America, which essentially states that those who have some percentage of native parentage are considered members of the tribe. This seems like a troubling definition for Tasmanian aborigines, as I would imagine it would be hard for many to trace their heritage far back enough.
According to Australia’s definition, a DNA test will only satisfy one of the definitions. After all, someone who is adopted into a tribe should still be considered a member of the tribe. Furthermore, genetic testing calls for another question: is there a genetic basis behind race and ethnicities, or are they social constructs? Also, should the Australian government be the ones deciding who is an aborigine or should the specific tribes? And how would the tribes decide?
Here are two interesting articles on the subject:
This seems like a classic example of a really complex issue with tons of gray area. You bring up an interesting point with adoption and identifying with the tribe/culture. We have similar issues of cultural an ethnic identification in the US and even at Stanford.
ReplyDelete-Brittany Hallawell
This is really interesting, and the lack of cultural continuity adds another wrinkle to the issue. Are there tribal or cultural organizations established to bring people together who might be biologically part Tasmanian and would like to learn more about their history and culture? - Aaron Peterson
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with the above comments - this is a fascinating topic. Does DNA really define who you are? Should it?
ReplyDeleteAgreed -- this is intriguing! I thought heritage was a personal issue, but now I can see how it's important to identify because of government grants and elections. I wonder what Tamanian aborigines think of these arbitrary definitions. Do different groups have their own criteria?
ReplyDelete