When Europeans first arrived to Australia, they viewed the indigenous inhabitants as lacking sufficient civilisation to be deemed as the tangible owners and sovereigns of the land (Bulbeck 1998), this attitude caused many incorrect social myths and stereotypes to be placed upon them. European settlers maintained these theories to help rationalize their own approach to genocide in order to claim the land (Keesing 1981). In addition to this, the Europeans also felt that if these Indigenous Australians forcefully gave in to their 'wild wandering and unsettled habits' then they would actually become somewhat useful to the country, by servicing the lower-class positions of employment (Reynolds 1981).
Over time however, many historians, sociologists and social anthropologists have discovered that when the Europeans placed such extreme changes on these people it only lead to inaccurate characterization of them due to expectations not being met. In This essay I will address these issues by introducing assertions made by such scholar's as Reynolds, Keesing, Bulbeck and Dodson.
I will also draw from materials and reports used by the Office of the Minister for Aboriginal and Islander Affairs (OMAIA) and the Department of Family Services and Aboriginal Islander Affairs Queensland (DFSAIA) which further examine the myths shrouding our Indigenous Australians.
With the arrival of the first settlers came a new wave of ideals about this new and untouched country, and of it's 'untamed' inhabitants. Reynolds recounts the attitudes of these settlers as being "quite clear as to the economic and social role appropriate to Aborigines who came from the bush". Several attempts were made to entice the Indigenous Australians to become more 'acceptable' in their daily lives by adopting a more 'European' approach. This could be achieved by becoming gardeners or small farmers and reaping the rewards of their labour, as the Europeans did (Reynolds...