Being someone who lives in Hawai'i and also being a part of the United States, it is common that we hear about injustices done against Native Hawaiians, African Americans, and Native Americans. But, it isn’t often that we go more into depth about injustices against minorities internationally. For instance, in Australia, for hundreds of years, Aborigines have been struggling with issues regarding their land. The loss of Aboriginal lands have adversely affected the natives of Australia because of the acts such as community closures on behalf of the government and should have some form of compensation towards the Aborigines. In order to get any closer to righting a wrong, many Aborigines have protested and spoken out to represent the voice of their people.

Since Aborigines have been having land complications for a while, what makes the phrase, “community closures” any more significant? The Australian government has a history of performing these. Last year, a community closure was performed on an Aborigine community that had an approximate population of 100 people. The government completely evicted the residents of the area and blocked their electricity and water. Their single shop, school and hospital were obliterated. It is claimed to be that the land would be used for the purposes of uranium and coal mining and that they were planning on doing the same thing to 150 other communities. As a personal perspective, no race should be disrespected like this in any circumstance. It truly is a form of cultural genocide that shouldn’t be ignored. There were no immediate alternate locations for these people to settle and there were no jobs granted.

In May of 2015, a mass protest of over 10,000 people filled the streets of Melbourne in opposition to these community closures. Many people claim that the government’s initial intention was greed and that they shouldn’t be treating the land so disrespectfully. By the fact that this could happen to 150 more communities, means that this could take a toll on any of these thousands of people protesting. The more of these that they perform means more people are without a home and have no employment. Not only this, but anyone of any race deserve their human rights and the ability to live their life comfortably.

On the other hand, the government argued that the areas in which they were performing these community closings had various negative accusations. These communities were accused of child sex abuse, alcoholism, incredibly low school attendance rates, and also the use of drugs. So, by the government doing what they did was simply evacuating them from that negative environment because they could no longer afford to provide them with basic services. But, in response to all of the protests, the Australian government said that no dramatic changes are coming soon since it’s such a long-term project.

With several protests that happened involving thousands of people in opposition to this genocide, the change is something that can be looked as from many different perspectives. Some can say that the federal government compensated positively and responded to the protests by signing over a funding responsibility that would provide essential services to those affected. It can also be said the change could be measured by the number of people in participation of the protests, meaning that change comes in numbers. If a number of people, such as 10,000 as opposed to 50 were to protest, the larger number would have a greater effect on the intensity of the message. The change could also be looked at from the perspective that much more people are now aware of the government’s intentions and can now make a change for the better if what the communities were accused of is valid so that they won’t be evicted.

There has been a lot of change regarding the incidents of the areas that had community closures. Without the actions of the protestors, the government would continue to think it’s appropriate to take away the homes of these people. Even if the government thought that the conditions were so terrible that they couldn’t continue to subsidize anymore, there could have been a more logical and reasonable compromise. The compromise should be that the government should continue to fund the Aborigine people with the promise that they shouldn’t participate what they were accused of. These native people need the foundation to thrive on and to perpetuate their culture. There should be occasional inspections to reassure the government that the expectations are being upheld and that the funds are of good use. In closing, the change can definitely be determined and positive acts towards compensation can be done, but what’s left of the situation is social damage that is complicated to reverse.