In distant corners of the world, two nations grapple with the past and present, confronting the weight of history and the promise of change. Brazil and Australia, each with its unique Indigenous populations and landscapes, are currently engaged in pivotal struggles for Indigenous rights that have far-reaching implications for their societies and the global battle against climate change.
In Brazil, a controversial legal doctrine known as the ‘Marco Temporal’ has been at the heart of a heated debate over Indigenous land rights. This doctrine, with its ominous translation as the ‘Time Limit,’ asserted that Indigenous communities were only entitled to lands they physically occupied in 1988 when the country’s Constitution was signed. This notion effectively erased the painful decades of forced displacement for more than 500 years (since the invasion), enforced in recent times during Brazil’s authoritarian dictatorship leading up to 1988.
However, today is a day to celebrate, breathing new hope into the fight for Indigenous land rights in Brazil, for Indigenous people around the globe and for life on Earth. A majority on Brazil’s Supreme Court voted against the ‘Time limit,’ safeguarding the rights of Indigenous peoples to claim and protect their ancestral lands. This historic decision reflects a victory for Indigenous rights and their vital role in preserving Brazil’s invaluable carbon-sequestering forests.
But the struggle is far from over. A parallel threat looms in Brazil’s Congress, where Bill 490 (renamed PL 2903) leans heavily on the Marco temporal thesis. If passed, this bill would permit mining, water, and energy exploitation within Indigenous territories without requiring free, prior, and informed consent—an alarming violation of international conventions. The agribusiness lobby is racing to push this bill through Congress before the Supreme Court can rule, underscoring the urgency of the situation because they do have an active voice.
Global impacts
The impact of these political battles extends beyond legal doctrines and legislative chambers. Indigenous communities in Brazil have endured land invasions, lack of access to essential services, and a tragic increase in infant mortality. This is the same all around the globe, with minor variations. Illegal mining and deforestation within Indigenous territories have left scars on the land and its people, with mercury contamination causing severe health issues among Indigenous communities.
With many similarities, Australia grapples with its own legacy of more than two centuries of dispossession, social injustice, and discriminatory government policies that nearly annihilated the country’s Indigenous peoples. The Voice to Parliament referendum offers a chance for change. This referendum, if passed, would grant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders the same rights as mining and agribusiness corporations: a voice in the nation’s decision-making.
Voting ‘Yes’ in the Voice to Parliament Referendum means opening space for Indigenous wisdom and connection to guide us through the climate change crisis. It signifies a step towards closing the injustice gap, the health issues gap, the dispossession gap, and the racism gap that have persisted for Indigenous Australians. It acknowledges that the history of dispossession and discrimination cannot be undone, but it can be rectified through a commitment to justice and equality that will last independently of the colours in government.
Both Brazil and Australia find themselves at crossroads in their respective journeys towards recognising Indigenous rights. These struggles are not isolated but interconnected with the global fight for Indigenous rights and against climate change. Indigenous lands, as some of the world’s most secure carbon sinks, play a pivotal role in mitigating environmental degradation as the last resort for biodiversity.
As we look to the future, let us remember that Indigenous rights are not just a matter of justice but also an essential component of the broader mission to heal our planet. By supporting the rights and voices of Indigenous peoples, we take a significant step toward a more equitable and sustainable world—one where the wisdom of those who have lived in harmony with the land for generations can help guide us through the dark challenges of our time.
What Rubish !
The “voice” doesn’t give the natives the same rights as Agro and Business for government access, because they already have that.
Lobbyists don’t have their position guaranteed by the Constitution now and neither do the natives, but try doing anything in this country without the imprimatur of aboriginal ‘elders’ and it won’t happen. They and the lobbyists already manage to hoodwink the Government with ease.
There is nothing “equitable” about giving special privileges to one racial group, quite the reverse.
Cheers, G”)
You mean, there is nothing equal about advantaging one group over another. ‘Equity’ is all about a central planner dispensing privileges and penalties to ‘even up’ everything. I run faster than you, so I need to have weights on my legs so that we are all slow. Some people just don’t like to be productive, but need their bills paid. Equity is a race to the bottom, or more accurately, to the lowest common denominator. Don’t strive to be the best you can be kids, or they will drag you back down to ‘equitable’.
Quibbling over the meaning of a word is a common rhetorical ploy to avoid hearing the meaning behind the word.
Conflating words, that seem similar but have very different meaning, is a common rhetorical ploy to get people to agree to things that they wouldn’t if they understood the exact meaning. Aboriginal, Indigenous, Native, mean different things. When I use the word ‘Aboriginal’, I’m usually referring to the continental autochthonous people, presuming no antecedent species. Understand?
People have meanings, and use words to express them. Or we might nod, wink, dance, hold up a middle finger, or a thumb, or express hatred of a racial or other group with an AK47, or display evocative pictures or emotos, etc.
But when using words, arguing about the words, instead of grasping the meaning behind them, is like the argumentum ad hominum argument wherein one attacks the messenger because one doesn’t like the message. it’s invalid.
Noel Pearson makes a very good point Greg: it’s not about race, it’s about indigeneity. Prior ownership!
Just so you know, natives is a derogatory term. But it seems it is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of your lack of knowledge.
I agree that they are not native to Australia. Humans are supposedly native to Africa. Indigenous refers to how long a people have lived in an area, so Aboriginals should be referred to as ‘More Indigenous’ or ‘of greater indigenatity’. Implying that people whose clans have been bonded to country for a quarter of a millenium, lack indigenatity, is offensive. Though, the Australia Natives Association may argue with us as to our view of the usage of the word ‘native’.
Please look up ‘natives’ in the AND – stop taking offence at what you think a word personally “means” to you.
Often no offence is ever intended – but ‘Progressive’ word-bullying abounds nowadays.
Nothing equitable about driving people from their land, subjecting them to nearly 200 years of race based discrimination, bigotry and exclusion then suddenly deciding we’re all equal – all quits. Laughable!
Actually, that’s exactly how equity works. Europeans were suffering from over crowding, and the Aboriginals were hording vast amounts of land. Far more than they needed. People on here often call such people ‘evil fascists capitalists’, and want their land taking by force to be redistributed among the needy. The activists keep telling us Aboriginals lived in a socialist utopia, so they should have understood, and been confused as to why they weren’t all executed for the crime of Capital Hording.
The overcrowding was in the prisons – that’s the problem that brought the Brits here. Maybe you’d have a point if there was a willingness shown to SHARE the land – but that didn’t seem to be the idea.