What is the difference between Civil Rights and Land Rights in Australia between 1960 and 1980? 1. What argument does the source make? (if you are having trouble with this question, try breaking it down into two separate questions: What is the source about, and what does it say about its subject?)
A. Source A, explores post the 1967 Referendum, in terms of addressing the misconceptions and generalisations that have been produced by scholars, the media and journalists, of whom have highlighted the success of the referendum falsely. Particularly, false emphasis of the change (before and after the referendum), results of, ‘full-citizenship’ for Aboriginals, equality in Australia, as well as, Aboriginals also gaining full right to vote. …show more content…
Interpreting the past by drawing on both, primary sources such as, speeches, newspaper articles from a range of different newspapers, and campaign information in which they compare and extract similarities and generalisations. As well as secondary sources, such as writings and journals from scholars, whereby the authors compare and draw out the generalisations and poor conclusions made, in order to present their argument and re-state the significance and their own ideas and opinions of the referendum. However, on the other hand, DeCosta’s chapter provides a more factual and documentary like text, in contrast to Source A which is more so analytical and critical of sources and ideas. DeCosta interprets the past by providing ethnographic evidence of both Aboriginal and Australian perspectives to reflect the historical period in which is discussed. Furthermore, in contrast to Source A whereby much primary evidence is analysed, in Source B, secondary evidence of the media, conference reports and ethnographic studies are more so used as a way to explore ideologies and history rather then the argument of the …show more content…
Source A is a article from the Australian Historical Journal, an article which has a thesis, arguments and evidence. Inferring the interpretation of the past, in this case the 1967 referendum, as quite analytical and critical. Furthermore, the article is based on one historical event, whereby the thesis and argument revolves around the event and is focused on throughout the article. In comparison to Source B, whereby as a chapter of a book, a different interpretation is provided whereby rather then an argument, the idea/ concept of ‘indigenous transnationalism.’ This idea is thoroughly explored throughout this particular chapter through the documentation of historical, together with a socio-cultural and at times political perspective. In comparison to Source A, interpreting the past through a political and social
A. Source A, explores post the 1967 Referendum, in terms of addressing the misconceptions and generalisations that have been produced by scholars, the media and journalists, of whom have highlighted the success of the referendum falsely. Particularly, false emphasis of the change (before and after the referendum), results of, ‘full-citizenship’ for Aboriginals, equality in Australia, as well as, Aboriginals also gaining full right to vote. …show more content…
Interpreting the past by drawing on both, primary sources such as, speeches, newspaper articles from a range of different newspapers, and campaign information in which they compare and extract similarities and generalisations. As well as secondary sources, such as writings and journals from scholars, whereby the authors compare and draw out the generalisations and poor conclusions made, in order to present their argument and re-state the significance and their own ideas and opinions of the referendum. However, on the other hand, DeCosta’s chapter provides a more factual and documentary like text, in contrast to Source A which is more so analytical and critical of sources and ideas. DeCosta interprets the past by providing ethnographic evidence of both Aboriginal and Australian perspectives to reflect the historical period in which is discussed. Furthermore, in contrast to Source A whereby much primary evidence is analysed, in Source B, secondary evidence of the media, conference reports and ethnographic studies are more so used as a way to explore ideologies and history rather then the argument of the …show more content…
Source A is a article from the Australian Historical Journal, an article which has a thesis, arguments and evidence. Inferring the interpretation of the past, in this case the 1967 referendum, as quite analytical and critical. Furthermore, the article is based on one historical event, whereby the thesis and argument revolves around the event and is focused on throughout the article. In comparison to Source B, whereby as a chapter of a book, a different interpretation is provided whereby rather then an argument, the idea/ concept of ‘indigenous transnationalism.’ This idea is thoroughly explored throughout this particular chapter through the documentation of historical, together with a socio-cultural and at times political perspective. In comparison to Source A, interpreting the past through a political and social