周末返回，好好放松休息，趁机看了D9的澳洲乱世情(Australia)。

整个片子给人的感觉就像是《走出非洲》+《珍珠港》+《乱世佳人》。影片的音乐、画面很好，可以当澳洲风光片看。但整部片子，如果说编导意图打造成为史诗电影的话，明显地感觉恢宏、气度上还是不够，剧情也稍嫌空洞、无力。也难怪，澳大利亚的历史本身就有些单薄。

影片最核心的人物不是尼克基德曼和休杰克曼扮演的那对恋人，而是那个土著混血小男孩，也许在编导者心中，是用这个小男孩暗指澳大利亚。另外，影片中男女主角的爱情似乎也不那么有说服力，当然片子更不能算作史诗爱情片。

比起前几年出演的冷山、翻译风波等片子，妮可明显看出老来了。片中出场时的扮相，感觉不如影片后面的部分。据说片子拍摄期间剧组诞生了不少于15个新生儿，包括妮可的女儿。但妮可在整部片子中自始至终体型苗条。

推荐几篇关于本片的影评：

1. 解码《澳大利亚》
2. 站在《澳大利亚》的角度看电影——《澳洲乱世情》
3. 澳大利亚（澳洲乱世情）影评
4. 《澳洲乱世情》：意淫史诗，谋杀爱情

　　内容提要：1900年7月9日通过的《澳大利亚联邦宪法》把土著排斥在澳大利亚的社会生活之外，成为澳大利亚社会歧视土著的明证，不断遭到批评。二战后，澳大利亚社会中要求修改宪法以给予土著平等权利的呼声越来越高，这迫使澳大利亚政府于1967年举行全民公决，进行宪法改革，修改宪法中的相关条款。1967年宪法改革是澳大利亚白人与土著关系史上的一个标志性事件，对后来澳大利亚政府管理土著事务、改善土著的地位及对澳大利亚的社会进步都有着不可忽视的重大影响。
　　　　
　　在澳大利亚的历史上，土著是一个备受折磨、惨遭践踏，同时又非常吸引人的少数民族。从白人踏上澳洲大陆起，经过百余年的种族屠杀、种族隔离以及疾病的侵袭，到19世纪后期当地土著人口锐减，以至于人们普遍认为土著是一个注定要灭亡的种族。在1900年7月9日通过的《澳大利亚联邦宪法》的制订过程中，澳大利亚联邦的创建者们几乎未经讨论就通过了有关土著的条款，即宪法第51条26款和第127条。第51条26款的内容是：为了维护澳大利亚联邦的安宁、秩序，促进联邦政府对国家的良好治理，联邦议会拥有对各州除土著以外的任何种族的居民制定特别法律的权力。第127条的内容是，在统计澳大利亚联邦、州以及其他地方的人口时，土著居民不得计算在内。宪法第51条26款使澳大利亚联邦政府放弃了对全国土著居民的责任和义务，致使从澳大利亚联邦建立到1967年宪法改革完成之间60多年里土著事务管辖权属于各州政府，而不属于澳大利亚联邦政府，成为联邦政府解决全国土著问题的障碍；而第127条则表明，在澳大利亚白人的心目中，土著不是人，不值得计人人口之中，③土著在澳大利亚政治生活中毫无价值。澳大利亚联邦的创建者们就这样用宪法条款将土著排斥在澳大利亚社会之外，从而确立了对土著居民的制度化歧视。
　　澳大利亚宪法有关土著的条款成为歧视土著人的标志，不断遭到人们的批评。20世纪50－60年代，澳大利亚白人与土著的关系日趋紧张，为土著争取平等与权利的运动蓬勃展开，这迫使澳大利亚联邦政府与各州政府相继进行改革，改善土著的地位，提高土著的待遇。1967年澳大利亚通过全民公决进行宪法改革，修改了宪法第51条26款，赋予联邦政府对全国土著的管辖权；废除了宪法第127条，规定将土著人口纳入澳大利亚联邦人口统计之内。1967年的宪法改革被人们称为澳大利亚白人与土著关系史(一个充满不幸的领域)上非常难得的里程碑，被称为白人与土著社会、政治关系史上的分水岭。本文拟对1967年宪法改革的由来、结果及其对土著问题的影响进行初步探讨。

　　　一、1967年宪法改革的由来
　　
　　1911年，南澳大利亚州政府把北部地区移交给澳大利亚联邦政府。联邦政府开始在所辖北部地区介入土著事务。此后，社会各界就联邦政府是否应该对整个国家的土著事务担负责任展开争论，并逐渐在人们的心目中形成这样的观念：除非联邦政府直接干预土著事务，否则土著状况不会改变。当年成立的澳大利亚土著保护协会就认为，联邦政府干预是解决土著问题的有效途径，是实现土著与其他澳大利亚人的平等、结束种族歧视的有力保障，因为作为代表全体澳大利亚人的联邦政府拥有更多的资源。1929年一份提交给澳大利亚联邦政府的报告也呼吁，联邦政府应该承担起保护土著幸福的责任。鉴于此，1937年澳大利亚联邦政府召集各州政府负责土著事务的官员开了第一次关于土著问题的全国性会议。在没有全国土著管辖权的情况下，澳大利亚联邦政府开始在土著事务上寻求各州政策的协调。
　　二战爆发后，为了补充军队和后方的劳动力，澳大利亚政府招募土著。到1945年9月，大约有3000名土著和托雷斯海峡岛民在军队中服务，还有一些人受雇于准军事组织。由于劳动力缺乏，澳大利亚联邦政府开始重视土著事务。为战时需要，柯廷政府(1941－1945年)要求联邦政府接管14项权力，其中就包括管理全国土著的权力，并要求修改宪法第51条26款的内容。1944年澳大利亚就是否同意联邦政府接管这14项权力举行了全民公决，但公决要求选民要么全部赞成，要么全部反对。由于这14项权力有的是相互对立的，结果公决失败，修改宪法第51条26款的愿望也落空了。尽管如此，这次公决使越来越多的人开始关注土著问题，成为二战后澳大利亚宪法改革运动兴起的前奏。
　　二战后澳大利亚的土著问题越来越成为国内外关注的焦点之一，宪法有关土著的条款显得越来越不合时宜，要求修改宪法的呼声越来越高。其主要原因是：
　　首先，基于对土著的了解和认识的加深，越来越多的澳大利亚人同情土著的悲惨遭遇，并要求改变土著的状况。二战后随着广播、电视的普及，人们可以更为便捷地了解有关土著的状况：加之20世纪50年代汽车在澳大利亚人中开始普及，人们有能力和有机会进入土著居住区。这些因素客观上为澳大利亚白人更好地了解土著的状况提供了条件。
　　而一些土著活动家和热心土著事务的进步人士对土著状况的积极披露，更加引起了人们的注意。人类学家如拉德克利·布朗和阿道夫斯·耶尔金等皆撰文真实地介绍土著居民的状况，呼吁政府提高土著的地位，要求政府改变歧视土著的政策，并号召全国关心土著，要求给予他们更好的受教育机会，以改善他们的生活环境。人类学家唐纳德·汤姆逊曾经长期研究土著居民的生活，他于1949年在墨尔本的《先驱报》上发表文章指出，那些没有见过北部领土、西澳大利亚和昆士兰畜牧场土著的人，是很难想像土著生活境遇的全部悲惨情形的。1949年lO月《星期日先驱报》曾刊登伦德尔牧师有关土著状况的报道：“大城市里没有土著人，某些州甚至把他们限制在6英里以外，不许进入城市。购买必需品时，要到供应土著和贫民的专门商店购买。酒吧、舞厅和游泳池完全禁止土著进人。”在20世纪50－60年代，土著活动家费斯·班德勒(Faith Bandler)就以亲身经历向人们控诉种族歧视给土著带来的巨大痛苦。1957年澳大利亚土著协会(AAF)的一位秘书艾琳·迈克雷斯(Irene Mcllwraith)被派往沃尔格特(Walgett)，调查那里发生的种族冲突，她对当地土著极为贫困和备受歧视的状况感到非常惊讶。后来她根据自己在土著居住区的所见所闻写了一份反映土著悲惨状况的报告，并分别呈交新南威尔士州和联邦政府的官员、政党领袖、议员等并提供给报社，引起了很大的反响。
　　其次，随着二战后经济和社会的发展，白人与土著的交往日益增多，由此导致白人与土著关系紧张。土著与白人的纷争主要表现在两个方面：一是越来越多的土著从保留地和其传统的居住区迁到非土著社区的边缘居住下来，这引起了白人的不满和担心，他们害怕土著的到来会影响自己的生活，因而要求联邦政府在国家层面上加强对土著事务的管理，尤其是对土著跨越州界迁移的管理。南澳大利亚州首席检察官邓斯坦(Dunstan)就曾抱怨：“大量土著从北部地区流入南澳，联邦政府应对此负责。”另一方面，随着二战后澳大利亚矿业和牧业的发展。经济开发活动深入到以传统方式生存的土著地区，对土著的生存构成了严重威胁。为保护自身利益，土著开始起来斗争。例如，从20世纪60年代中期开始，澳大利亚北部的土著团体开始行动起来，保卫他们的土地免受采矿公司的侵害；南方各州的土著亦为拥有传统的保留地而斗争。在昆士兰和北部地区，采矿公司不断深入土著的保留地和基督教传教团所在地，也引发了一系列围绕土地权问题而展开的斗争。1963年北方伊尔卡拉地区(Yirrkala)的约格人(Yolng)就向联邦政府提交了一份树皮请援书，抗议采矿公司占据他们的土地。在这些纷争中，土著问题日益成为人们必须面对的重要问题。

　　再次，国际社会反种族歧视的运动对澳大利亚的土著问题产生了重大影响。1948年12月10日，联合国大会通过了《世界人权宣言》，其中第二条规定：“人人有资格享受本宣言所载的一切权利和自由，不分种族、肤色、性别、语言、宗教、政治或其他见解、国籍或社会出身、财产、出生或其他身份等任何区别。”联合国有关人权的基本原则成为指导澳大利亚土著为维护自身权益而斗争的思想武器，同时联合国还成为土著给联邦政府施加压力的合法渠道。著名土著事务活动家杰西·斯特里特(Jessie Street)曾经希望通过英国反奴隶制协会向联合国经社理事会的人权委员会申诉澳大利亚土著的人权问题，但遭到多方阻挠，未能如愿。为了直接与联合国接触，后来史瑞特主张建立全国性的澳大利亚土著机构并得到人们的支持，并于1958年2月成立联邦土著进步理事会(FCAA)。全国性土著机构的建立为澳大利亚土著与国际社会的接触提供了方便。经过长期努力，1969年澳大利亚土著代表团最终到达纽约，向联合国秘书长直接提交了关于澳大利亚土著状况的报告。
　　国际社会也开始关注澳大利亚土著的命运。1945年旧金山会议上，澳大利亚被列入“种族主义阵营”。1949年苏联代表团团长A·维辛斯基在联大特别政治会议上揭露澳大利亚对土著的暴政和土著的悲惨状况，呼吁国际社会对其予以关注。1952年联合国大会总务委员会则把澳大利亚的同化政策与南非的种族隔离政策相提并论，一起列入议事日程，二者在大会上受到同声谴责，如一些非洲国家把澳大利亚说成是“亚洲的南非”。1963年6月联合国托管理事会会议上，苏联代表直接批评澳大利亚代表，指出澳大利亚宪法第127条就是歧视土著的最好证据。
　　有鉴于此，在20世纪50年代后期尤其是60年代，澳大利亚联邦和各州政府开始把土著问题提上议事日程，并开始废除有关歧视性的法律和给予土著相应的权利、待遇。1962年澳大利亚联邦取消了对土著选举权的限制，1966年取消了对土著社会保障的限制并在同年签署了《关于消除各种形式的种族歧视的国际公约》。各州政府也积极响应，1962年南澳州通过的《土著事务法》成为州政府放弃对土著生活实行家长制控制的开始，西澳州和昆士兰州也分别于1962年和1965年给予了土著选举权。1965年南澳州政府明确表示放弃同化政策，实施一体化政策，成为全国土著政策转变的信号。1966年南澳州通过《禁止歧视法》，禁止基于种族或者肤色的歧视和偏见。这些改革成为澳大利亚宪法改革的先导。
　　与此同时，澳大利亚国内各派政治势力对宪法改革的紧迫性的认识日益加深。1962年工党议员金·比兹利(Kim Beazlay)极力主张废除宪法第127条和修改宪法第51条26款，立即在议会和联邦政府内部产生反响。总理孟席斯同意废除宪法第127条，但不同意修改宪法第51条26款。他认为单独为土著立法是对其他澳大利亚人的歧视。1965年澳大利亚联邦政府向议会提交一项宪法改革议案，该议案提出废除宪法第127条，而宪法第51条26款维持不变。议会通过了这个议案，但没有采取进一步的措施即实施宪法改革的必要步骤——全民公决。最终该议案的设想未能实现。
　　1966年霍尔特(Holt)政府上台后顺应潮流，于1967年3月提出了修改宪法议案，该议案要求废除宪法第51条26款中“除土著种族以外”的语句和宪法第127条，并确定于1967年5月27日进行全民公决。这个议案得到了澳大利亚社会各界的支持和欢迎，政治家、进步社团、民主人士、报刊和其他媒体纷纷表示赞同，力陈宪法改革的重要性和必要性，呼吁澳大利亚人投票支持。
　　
　　二、1 967年全民公决的结果及存在的问题
　　
　　1967年5月27日澳大利亚就有关土著问题的宪法修正案如期举行全民公决。该宪法修正案试图授权联邦政府做到两点，即：为全国的土著立法和将土著人口纳入人口统计之中。全民公决向选民提出的问题是：你是否赞成修改宪法，废除有关土著的条款，以便在统计人口时把土著计人其中?公决结果令人振奋，所有州对该宪法修正案的支持率都很高，全国以接近90％的支持率通过了该宪法修正案。公决成功对于20世纪50年代以来一直致力于宪法改革以谋求改变土著地位的人们来说，无疑是一次巨大的胜利。同时，我们也要看到，在这次宪法改革胜利的背后也存在着很多隐忧，它们预示着宪法改革虽已完成，但要想实现土著与白人的真正平等，还有很长的路要走。
　　首先，这次全民公决虽以高票获得通过，但澳大利亚白人社会对土著的接纳程度依然有限。在对宪法改革议案的公决中，澳大利亚人的热情普遍高涨，并最终以非常高的支持率通过了宪法改革议案。但是在1967年5月27日举行的全民公决中，土著人口多的地方，人们多投票反对宪法改革；而城市和土著人口少的地方，人们多投票支持宪法改革。具体来看，土著人口比例较小的塔斯马尼亚、维多利亚和新南威尔士的支持率超过或接近90％；而土著人口比例比较大的西澳、昆士兰和南澳的支持率相对要低一些，其中西澳最低，仅为78.84％，反对者竟占18.56％。支持宪法改革的人们绝大多数是那些很少(或者根本就没有)与土著接触或一起生活过的人；而那些经常与土著接触，必须和土著交往的生活在农村及边远地区的人们却不乐意这样做。还需要指出的是，在1967年全民公决中，北部地区和首都直辖区的居民未能参加投票，参与投票的只是6个州的选民而已。而当时北部地区的人口大约有7万多，仅土著人口就有2.1万，约占当地总人口的1/3。所以，北部地区和首都直辖区的居民对无法在关系切身利益的问题上表达意见极为愤怒。就在投票当天，他们在艾丽斯·斯史普林斯(AliceSprings)举行了一次抗议示威游行活动。
　　可见，澳大利亚白人社会对土著的偏见依然很深、对土著的接纳程度依然非常有限。而且，偏偏是那些经常与土著打交道的人们不接纳土著，甚至许多有善良愿望的白人，一旦真要他们与土著做邻居，则又难免忧心忡忡。这反映出一个更深层次的问题，即：澳大利亚白人虽然在道义和法律上认可了土著的存在，但在心理上、在现实生活中却不愿意接受土著。
　　其次，各派政治势力普遍支持宪法改革，但执政党(自由党)与反对党(工党)及民间团体支持宪法改革的出发点有所不同。自由党联邦政府进行宪法改革的主要出发点是应对国际压力，而不是真正从内部改善土著的处境。这与反对党和民间团体将宪法改革等同于联邦政府负责全国土著事务、切实促进土著处境快速改善的愿望形成对比。这也是公决成功后五年里澳大利亚联邦政府在土著事务方面无所作为的重要原因。
　　随着国际交往的日益广泛，土著政策成为澳大利亚参与国际交往的重大障碍。在冷战格局下，“当澳大利亚充当美国的伙伴、为美国对抗苏联而呐喊助威时，才发现自己由于歧视土著而处于尴尬之中”；种族主义的坏名声使澳大利亚的国际影响力也大打折扣，“在今天种族主义被明确地归类为一种疾病的世界上，澳大利亚因为它的白澳政策而背有种族主义的坏名声。我们参加国际上的讨论，提高我们的嗓音时——在保卫人权、维护人类福利方面，我们应该大声疾呼——我们的发言由于整个大陆遍布着成千上万蜷缩在垃圾堆上的被歧视，被压迫的人民而变得一文不值。”

// Aboriginal 土著居民

// ab [拉](=from, away)从, 自

// inhabitant 居民, 居住者

// habitant 居住者

// habit 习惯, 习性

// indigenous 本土的

 // Torres Strait Islanders 托雷斯海峡

Torres Strait, channel, between northern Australia and southern New Guinea. The channel is 100 km (90 mi) wide, and its navigation, although possible, is dangerous. It is named for Luis Vaez de Torres, a Spanish navigator who sailed through the strait in 1606.

INTRODUCTION 简介

Aboriginal Australians or Aborigines, original inhabitants of Australia and their descendants. 澳大利亚土著居民,澳大利亚的原居民和他们的后裔

The term Aboriginal does not include the Torres Strait Islanders, a much smaller indigenous population in Australia whose homelands are the islands off the tip of the Cape York Peninsula in far northeastern Australia. 并不包含托雷斯海峡的土著居民,少数土著居民居住在澳大利亚东北部的约克角

Archaeological evidence suggests that Aboriginal people have lived in Australia for at least 50,000 years. 从考古学上证明土著居民在澳大利亚生活了最少5万年

They have inhabited every region of the island continent. 他们栖息于岛屿上的每个地方

 Today they live in all states and mainland territories of Australia, with the highest population concentrations in the states of Queensland and New South Wales. 今天他们生活在澳大利亚的领土上,人口密集于昆士兰州和新南威尔士

In 2001 the Aboriginal population of Australia numbered approximately 427,000, or about 2.2 percent of the total population. 在2001年土著居民人口大约为427,00人,占总人口的2.2%

 Aboriginal people traditionally lived as hunter-gatherers in small family groups, hunting, fishing, and collecting a variety of plant foods. 土著居民传统上以小型家庭为族群,进行打猎,采摘,钓鱼等活动

Most groups were nomadic or seminomadic and built simple brush or bark shelters. 多数群团以游牧,半游牧方式生活,

Hundreds of culturally distinct Aboriginal groups were spread across the Australian continent. 几百个不同文化的族群土著居民散布在澳大利亚大陆上

They occupied a wide range of environments, from the savanna woodlands of the north to the harsh desert outback and temperate woodlands of the south. 他们生活在广宽的环境,从北部的热带雨林到内地和南部的温带疏林

Like indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, they developed an intimate understanding of the environment in which they lived. 好似在其它本地居民一样,他们发展出同自然界一种亲密无间的关系

This connection to the land, and to its animals and plants, permeated every aspect of Aboriginal culture. 渗透到土著居民文化的每个方面

Europeans began settling in Australia in 1788. 1788 年欧洲人开始进入澳大利亚.

Their impact on the indigenous population was devastating. 他们对土著居民带来毁坏性影响.

 Many Aboriginal people died from epidemics of European diseases or from fighting to retain control of their land. 好多土著居民因欧洲人所带来的疾病或在争夺保留自己的国土而死亡

Only those inhabiting the most remote areas of the continent were able to continue their traditional way of life. 只有那些远离大陆的土著居民继续原来传统的生活.

By the early 1900s many Aboriginal people were reduced to an impoverished, sedentary life, either on their own lands at the fringe of urban areas or on government-established reserves. 在90年代初期许多土著居民被归纳为穷困的、隐居的族群,在城市的边缘拥有任意一独立领地或由政府预定空地

Government assimilation policies, which sought to absorb Aboriginal people into white society, further eroded their culture. 政府同化政策寻求吸引土著居民进入白人社会,侵蚀他们的文化

澳大利亚土著历史与文化

澳大利亚只有近代史，如果要追究澳大利亚的早前历史，那只有澳大利亚土著人的历史。

澳大利亚土著人是澳大利亚最早的居民，他们属游牧民族，没有固定的居住点，分散在整个澳大利亚，在欧洲人占领澳大利亚之前，共有 500 多个部落，人数达七十五万之多。

澳大利亚土著人的文化是全世界历史最悠久，迄今一直充满活力的文化。艺术是土著人生活的中心，因为艺术与宗教有天然内在的联系，通过这种方式把过去与现在，人类与超自然世界联系起来。艺术表达了个人与集体的特性以及人与土地之间的关系。

土著历史

现在比较共识的猜测是，澳大利亚土著人是来自亚洲的移民。早在四万年前最后一次冰川时期，那时的海平面远比现在的低，澳大利亚大陆板块与亚洲板块也还没有完全分开，土著人沿着大陆步行及使用小木船穿过窄小的海峡徒迁到澳大利亚。 那时的澳大利亚与现在完全不同，整个大陆架覆盖着森林与大湖泊，拥有大量的巨型动物，包括高达三米的袋鼠的鸟类。经过几万年的地球变迁，随着温度的上升地球经历了冰川的消融，洪水泛滥，干燥的过程，澳大利亚变成了孤立而干燥的大岛，他的内部原来的湖泊变成的巨大的沙漠，许多地方的气候条件变得不适合人类生存，许多土著人迁移到沿岸地带并学会了在艰苦的环境下生活，学会了制做石器，木器，网器等工具。其中最据特色的工具是回标，投出后能自动飞回。不过土著人最喜欢的工具还是削尖了的木棍，他们用此棍挖取地下的根状食物与小动物。 直到1768年，库克船长（Captain Cook）从英国出发前往南太平洋，展开一次探险行动，才发现澳大利亚东部，并在1770年占领东岸一带。 库克船长发现澳大利亚后不久，美国便宣布独立，迫使英国要另觅地方流放罪犯，于是便在澳大利亚开辟新监狱。 1787年第一批由11只船队组成的流放船队带着759名犯人及206名船员由英国出发，开始了欧洲人大批量向澳大利亚移民的历史。由于土地与生活资源的冲突，而土著人原始的武器根本无法抵抗外来的侵略，至少有2万土著人死于土地的冲突，许多土著人轮为奴隶，大部分的土著人失去了肥沃的可生存的土地被赶往不毛之地。更灾难性的是移民带来了大量的疾病，使缺少生活资源的土著人雪上加霜，至1933年，土著人在澳大利亚的人数大约仅存七万人左右。 直至二十世纪，澳大利亚政府才开始意识到侵犯到澳大利亚原居民的权利，开始逐渐改善与土著人的关系，二次世界大战后，政府开始尝试同化土著人，迫使土著人住入乡镇并接受欧洲文化的教育。土著人权真正有所改善是从 1960年开始，政府设立了土著人事物机构，土著人成为了澳大利亚原始居民，部分土地归还给原属的土著居民。1962年土著人获得了选举权。现在澳大利亚土著人受到了许多政策的优惠。

 信仰

信仰是土著民族生活中最重要的的一部分。土著民族的每一块土地或部落都有其宗教的来源，所以他们之间从来没有因为土地等生活来源而争执，他们之间所发生的冲突大都起源与宗教活动，民俗等被外来民族所冒犯，冲突往往由部落中的长者调解解决。这是为和我们建议在参观土著文化时在没有经过当事人的同意最好不要随便照相。 土著民族相信所有的土地及自然界的东西都是在人类出现之前称着梦幻时期就存在的神氏祖先所创造。而这些神氏祖先仍然存在在自然界中，影响着自然界的所有的一切。图腾是神氏祖先与人类的联系中介。每个人都有其各自的图腾，这些图腾通常由一些动物如小袋鼠，鸟，鱼等来担任。 有关梦幻时期或创造时期，各个故事给出了各个部落相关的宗教，习俗，及各个部落的土地的起源，告诉哪里可获得生活资源，如寻找资源，如何寻找生活伴侣等，实际是各部落的生活教科书，这也是为何土著民族的生活离不开宗教的原因。 土著民族对有关他们神氏祖先的圣地都非常爱护，每个人都会自觉地维护它们。

 梦幻时期故事一： 变色石ULURU 的故事：
ULURU在澳大利亚中部，有460米高，以全天变幻多种色彩而著名。此石是当地土著民族的圣地，1985年归还给他的所有者 ANANGU 土著民族。 ULURU 的故事说的是ANANGU 土著民族的神氏祖先两个男孩在玩雨后留下的烂泥，他们堆的泥块变成了现在的巨石。不久他们外出打猎，弟弟看到一只小袋鼠，他将木棍扔向小袋鼠，小袋鼠没打到，木棍插向地面，泉水随之流出，但弟弟很自私，保存了这个秘密。哥哥快渴死了，就和弟弟打了起来，最后两人都变成了孤石，既现在PLATEAU 附近的ATITA 顶上。

语言与音乐

土著语言非常多种，但大多面临丢失。在欧洲人到来直前大约有250种方言，但现在仅存一百来种，真正在使用的只有二十来种。大部分的土著民族已使用英语作为他们的第一或第二语言。许多品种的语言只有老一辈人才会说。土著语言面临着断代的危险。 土著音乐是土著民族文化，每日的生活和庆祝活动中最精彩的一部分。它们大都带有浓重的宗教色彩。 土著音乐分为三种： 一是神圣色彩的，用于神圣和秘密的庆典活动，只能在特定的地点用于特种目的。其主题通常与某些事件及神氏祖先有关。有些歌只用某些男人才知道。妇女也有自己秘密的庆典。 二是半神圣的，这种音乐占大部分。它们通常有男士唱各，妇女跳舞，他也只能在特定的庆典地点上表演。在其它场合，男士决不会唱这些歌的。 三是非神圣的娱乐音乐。可由各种人士在各地表演。 音乐是土著民族日常生活中非常重要的一部分，土著孩子被要求将唱歌跳舞作为每日的功课。孩子们在不同的时期学不同的歌曲。

左图 Didgeridoos 是土著民族最主要的乐器，由中空的木管做成，由成年男土著表演。土著音乐是由有节律的歌曲配合有限的乐器组成。其乐器除Didgeridoos 大都是简单原始的打击器组成，如拍手，拍身体，打击木棍等。

February 13, 2008 – 3:55PM
I move:

That today we honour the indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

We reflect on their past mistreatment.

We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations – this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.

The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.

We apologise for the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.(我们就历届澳大利亚政府和议会通过的给我们那些澳大利亚同胞们造成深重痛苦、苦难的法律和政策致歉)

We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.(我们尤其对强迫土著和托雷斯海峡岛民儿童与他们的家人、社区和地区分离致歉)

For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.(对那些被偷走的一代、他们的后人和家人所承受的痛苦、苦难，我们说对不起)

To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.

And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.(对于强加给这一自豪民族和自豪文化的屈辱和衰落，我们说对不起)

We the parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.(我们澳大利亚议会敬请土著人士接受这一歉意。作为国家和解的一部分，我们提出了这一道歉)

For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.

We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.

A future where this parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.

A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, indigenous and non-indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.

A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.

A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.

A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.

There comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must become fully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embrace their future.
Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time.
That is why the parliament is today here assembled: to deal with this unfinished business of the nation, to remove a great stain from the nations soul and, in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a new chapter in the history of this great land, Australia.

Last year I made a commitment to the Australian people that if we formed the next government of the Commonwealth we would in parliament say sorry to the stolen generations.

Today I honour that commitment.

I said we would do so early in the life of the new parliament.

Again, today I honour that commitment by doing so at the commencement of this the 42nd parliament of the Commonwealth.

Because the time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great commonwealth, for all Australians – those who are indigenous and those who are not – to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation.

Some have asked, Why apologise?

Let me begin to answer by telling the parliament just a little of one person’s story – an elegant, eloquent and wonderful woman in her 80s, full of life, full of funny stories, despite what has happened in her life’s journey, a woman who has travelled a long way to be with us today, a member of the stolen generation who shared some of her story with me when I called around to see her just a few days ago.

Nanna Nungala Fejo, as she prefers to be called, was born in the late 1920s.

She remembers her earliest childhood days living with her family and her community in a bush camp just outside Tennant Creek.

She remembers the love and the warmth and the kinship of those days long ago, including traditional dancing around the camp fire at night.

She loved the dancing. She remembers once getting into strife when, as a four-year-old girl, she insisted on dancing with the male tribal elders rather than just sitting and watching the men, as the girls were supposed to do.

But then, sometime around 1932, when she was about four, she remembers the coming of the welfare men.

Her family had feared that day and had dug holes in the creek bank where the children could run and hide.

What they had not expected was that the white welfare men did not come alone. They brought a truck, two white men and an Aboriginal stockman on horseback cracking his stockwhip.

The kids were found; they ran for their mothers, screaming, but they could not get away. They were herded and piled onto the back of the truck. Tears flowing, her mum tried clinging to the sides of the truck as her children were taken away to the Bungalow in Alice, all in the name of protection.

A few years later, government policy changed. Now the children would be handed over to the missions to be cared for by the churches. But which church would care for them?

The kids were simply told to line up in three lines. Nanna Fejo and her sister stood in the middle line, her older brother and cousin on her left. Those on the left were told that they had become Catholics, those in the middle Methodists and those on the right Church of England.

That is how the complex questions of post-reformation theology were resolved in the Australian outback in the 1930s. It was as crude as that.

She and her sister were sent to a Methodist mission on Goulburn Island and then Croker Island. Her Catholic brother was sent to work at a cattle station and her cousin to a Catholic mission.

Nanna Fejo’s family had been broken up for a second time. She stayed at the mission until after the war, when she was allowed to leave for a prearranged job as a domestic in Darwin. She was 16. Nanna Fejo never saw her mum again.

After she left the mission, her brother let her know that her mum had died years before, a broken woman fretting for the children that had literally been ripped away from her.

I asked Nanna Fejo what she would have me say today about her story. She thought for a few moments then said that what I should say today was that all mothers are important. And she added: Families – keeping them together is very important. It’s a good thing that you are surrounded by love and that love is passed down the generations. That’s what gives you happiness.

As I left, later on, Nanna Fejo took one of my staff aside, wanting to make sure that I was not too hard on the Aboriginal stockman who had hunted those kids down all those years ago.

The stockman had found her again decades later, this time himself to say, Sorry. And remarkably, extraordinarily, she had forgiven him.

Nanna Fejo’s is just one story.

There are thousands, tens of thousands of them: stories of forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their mums and dads over the better part of a century.

Some of these stories are graphically told in Bringing them home, the report commissioned in 1995 by Prime Minister Keating and received in 1997 by Prime Minister Howard.

There is something terribly primal about these firsthand accounts. The pain is searing; it screams from the pages. The hurt, the humiliation, the degradation and the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children is a deep assault on our senses and on our most elemental humanity.

Instead, from the nation’s parliament there has been a stony, stubborn and deafening silence for more than a decade; a view that somehow we, the parliament, should suspend our most basic instincts of what is right and what is wrong; a view that, instead, we should look for any pretext to push this great wrong to one side, to leave it languishing with the historians, the academics and the cultural warriors, as if the stolen generations are little more than an interesting sociological phenomenon.

But the stolen generations are not intellectual curiosities. They are human beings, human beings who have been damaged deeply by the decisions of parliaments and governments. But, as of today, the time for denial, the time for delay, has at last come to an end.

The nation is demanding of its political leadership to take us forward.

Decency, human decency, universal human decency, demands that the nation now step forward to right an historical wrong. That is what we are doing in this place today.

But should there still be doubts as to why we must now act, let the parliament reflect for a moment on the following facts: that, between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that, as a result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families; that this was the product of the deliberate, calculated policies of the state as reflected in the explicit powers given to them under statute; that this policy was taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called mixed lineage were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with the problem of the Aboriginal population.

One of the most notorious examples of this approach was from the Northern Territory Protector of Natives, who stated:

“Generally by the fifth and invariably by the sixth generation, all native characteristics of the Australian Aborigine are eradicated. The problem of our half-castes” – to quote the protector – “will quickly be eliminated by the complete disappearance of the black race, and the swift submergence of their progeny in the white.”

The Western Australian Protector of Natives expressed not dissimilar views, expounding them at length in Canberra in 1937 at the first national conference on indigenous affairs that brought together the Commonwealth and state protectors of natives.

These are uncomfortable things to be brought out into the light. They are not pleasant. They are profoundly disturbing.
But we must acknowledge these facts if we are to deal once and for all with the argument that the policy of generic forced separation was somehow well motivated, justified by its historical context and, as a result, unworthy of any apology today.

Then we come to the argument of intergenerational responsibility, also used by some to argue against giving an apology today.

But let us remember the fact that the forced removal of Aboriginal children was happening as late as the early 1970s.

The 1970s is not exactly a point in remote antiquity. There are still serving members of this parliament who were first elected to this place in the early 1970s.

It is well within the adult memory span of many of us.

The uncomfortable truth for us all is that the parliaments of the nation, individually and collectively, enacted statutes and delegated authority under those statutes that made the forced removal of children on racial grounds fully lawful.

There is a further reason for an apology as well: it is that reconciliation is in fact an expression of a core value of our nation – and that value is a fair go for all.

There is a deep and abiding belief in the Australian community that, for the stolen generations, there was no fair go at all.

There is a pretty basic Aussie belief that says that it is time to put right this most outrageous of wrongs.

It is for these reasons, quite apart from concerns of fundamental human decency, that the governments and parliaments of this nation must make this apology – because, put simply, the laws that our parliaments enacted made the stolen generations possible.

We, the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible, not those who gave effect to our laws. And the problem lay with the laws themselves.

As has been said of settler societies elsewhere, we are the bearers of many blessings from our ancestors; therefore we must also be the bearer of their burdens as well.

Therefore, for our nation, the course of action is clear: that is, to deal now with what has become one of the darkest chapters in Australia’s history.

In doing so, we are doing more than contending with the facts, the evidence and the often rancorous public debate.

In doing so, we are also wrestling with our own soul.

This is not, as some would argue, a black-armband view of history; it is just the truth: the cold, confronting, uncomfortable truth – facing it, dealing with it, moving on from it.

Until we fully confront that truth, there will always be a shadow hanging over us and our future as a fully united and fully reconciled people.

It is time to reconcile. It is time to recognise the injustices of the past. It is time to say sorry. It is time to move forward together.

To the stolen generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry.

On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry.

On behalf of the parliament of Australia, I am sorry.

I offer you this apology without qualification.

We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering that we, the parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted.

We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied.

We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments.

In making this apology, I would also like to speak personally to the members of the stolen generations and their families: to those here today, so many of you; to those listening across the nation – from Yuendumu, in the central west of the Northern Territory, to Yabara, in North Queensland, and to Pitjantjatjara in South Australia.

I know that, in offering this apology on behalf of the government and the parliament, there is nothing I can say today that can take away the pain you have suffered personally.

Whatever words I speak today, I cannot undo that.

Words alone are not that powerful; grief is a very personal thing.

I ask those non-indigenous Australians listening today who may not fully understand why what we are doing is so important to imagine for a moment that this had happened to you.

I say to honourable members here present: imagine if this had happened to us. Imagine the crippling effect. Imagine how hard it would be to forgive.

My proposal is this: if the apology we extend today is accepted in the spirit of reconciliation, in which it is offered, we can today resolve together that there be a new beginning for Australia.

And it is to such a new beginning that I believe the nation is now calling us.

Australians are a passionate lot. We are also a very practical lot.

For us, symbolism is important but, unless the great symbolism of reconciliation is accompanied by an even greater substance, it is little more than a clanging gong.

It is not sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history.
Today’s apology, however inadequate, is aimed at righting past wrongs.

It is also aimed at building a bridge between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians – a bridge based on a real respect rather than a thinly veiled contempt.

Our challenge for the future is to cross that bridge and, in so doing, to embrace a new partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians – to embrace, as part of that partnership, expanded Link-up and other critical services to help the stolen generations to trace their families if at all possible and to provide dignity to their lives.

But the core of this partnership for the future is to close the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians on life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities.

This new partnership on closing the gap will set concrete targets for the future: within a decade to halve the widening gap in literacy, numeracy and employment outcomes and opportunities for indigenous Australians, within a decade to halve the appalling gap in infant mortality rates between indigenous and non-indigenous children and, within a generation, to close the equally appalling 17-year life gap between indigenous and non-indigenous in overall life expectancy.

The truth is: a business as usual approach towards indigenous Australians is not working.

Most old approaches are not working.

We need a new beginning, a new beginning which contains real measures of policy success or policy failure; a new beginning, a new partnership, on closing the gap with sufficient flexibility not to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach for each of the hundreds of remote and regional indigenous communities across the country but instead allowing flexible, tailored, local approaches to achieve commonly-agreed national objectives that lie at the core of our proposed new partnership; a new beginning that draws intelligently on the experiences of new policy settings across the nation.

However, unless we as a parliament set a destination for the nation, we have no clear point to guide our policy, our programs or our purpose; we have no centralised organising principle.

Let us resolve today to begin with the little children, a fitting place to start on this day of apology for the stolen generations.

Let us resolve over the next five years to have every indigenous four-year-old in a remote Aboriginal community enrolled in and attending a proper early childhood education centre or opportunity and engaged in proper preliteracy and prenumeracy programs.

Let us resolve to build new educational opportunities for these little ones, year by year, step by step, following the completion of their crucial preschool year.

Let us resolve to use this systematic approach to build future educational opportunities for indigenous children to provide proper primary and preventive health care for the same children, to begin the task of rolling back the obscenity that we find today in infant mortality rates in remote indigenous communities up to four times higher than in other communities.

None of this will be easy. Most of it will be hard, very hard. But none of it is impossible, and all of it is achievable with clear goals, clear thinking, and by placing an absolute premium on respect, cooperation and mutual responsibility as the guiding principles of this new partnership on closing the gap.

The mood of the nation is for reconciliation now, between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. The mood of the nation on Indigenous policy and politics is now very simple.

The nation is calling on us, the politicians, to move beyond our infantile bickering, our point-scoring and our mindlessly partisan politics and to elevate this one core area of national responsibility to a rare position beyond the partisan divide.

Surely this is the unfulfilled spirit of the 1967 referendum. Surely, at least from this day forward, we should give it a go.

Let me take this one step further and take what some may see as a piece of political posturing and make a practical proposal to the opposition on this day, the first full sitting day of the new parliament.

I said before the election that the nation needed a kind of war cabinet on parts of Indigenous policy, because the challenges are too great and the consequences are too great to allow it all to become a political football, as it has been so often in the past.

I therefore propose a joint policy commission, to be led by the Leader of the Opposition and me, with a mandate to develop and implement, to begin with, an effective housing strategy for remote communities over the next five years.

It will be consistent with the government’s policy framework, a new partnership for closing the gap. If this commission operates well, I then propose that it work on the further task of constitutional recognition of the first Australians, consistent with the longstanding platform commitments of my party and the pre-election position of the opposition.

This would probably be desirable in any event because, unless such a proposition were absolutely bipartisan, it would fail at a referendum. As I have said before, the time has come for new approaches to enduring problems.

Working constructively together on such defined projects would, I believe, meet with the support of the nation. It is time for fresh ideas to fashion the nation’s future.

Mr Speaker, today the parliament has come together to right a great wrong. We have come together to deal with the past so that we might fully embrace the future. We have had sufficient audacity of faith to advance a pathway to that future, with arms extended rather than with fists still clenched.

So let us seize the day. Let it not become a moment of mere sentimental reflection.

Let us take it with both hands and allow this day, this day of national reconciliation, to become one of those rare moments in which we might just be able to transform the way in which the nation thinks about itself, whereby the injustice administered to the stolen generations in the name of these, our parliaments, causes all of us to reappraise, at the deepest level of our beliefs, the real possibility of reconciliation writ large: reconciliation across all indigenous Australia; reconciliation across the entire history of the often bloody encounter between those who emerged from the Dreamtime a thousand generations ago and those who, like me, came across the seas only yesterday; reconciliation which opens up whole new possibilities for the future.

It is for the nation to bring the first two centuries of our settled history to a close, as we begin a new chapter. We embrace with pride, admiration and awe these great and ancient cultures we are truly blessed to have among us cultures that provide a unique, uninterrupted human thread linking our Australian continent to the most ancient prehistory of our planet.

Growing from this new respect, we see our indigenous brothers and sisters with fresh eyes, with new eyes, and we have our minds wide open as to how we might tackle, together, the great practical challenges that Indigenous Australia faces in the future.

Let us turn this page together: indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, government and opposition, Commonwealth and state, and write this new chapter in our nation’s story together.

First Australians, First Fleeters, and those who first took the oath of allegiance just a few weeks ago. Let’s grasp this opportunity to craft a new future for this great land: Australia. I commend the motion to the House.
TOMORROW: Sydney Morning Herald souvenir Sorry Day edition.

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/13/1202760379056.html

 澳大利亚最早居民为土著人，最古老的原住民可以追溯到７万年前。

    １７７０年，英国航海家詹姆斯·库克抵澳东海岸，宣布英国占有这片土地。

    １７８８年１月，英国流放到澳的第一批犯人抵悉尼湾，英开始在澳建立殖民地。当时估计有７５万土著人生活在澳大利亚。

    １７８９年，土著人中出现首例由殖民者传染的天花疫情，造成数百土著人死亡。
    １７９１年，英国殖民当局把悉尼湾附近的土地“分配”给服完刑期的流放犯人，开始了对土著人土地的剥夺过程。这一过程中，土著人与殖民者的冲突造成数以万计土著人死亡。

    １９０１年１月１日，澳各殖民区改为州，成立澳大利亚联邦，但把土著人排除在人口普查范围外，他们被归为“动物群体”。

    １９１０年，澳通过一项政策，以改善土著儿童生活为由，规定当局可以随意从土著家庭中带走混血土著儿童，把他们集中在保育所等处。

    １９３７年，澳当局通过一项可以武力同化混血土著人的官方政策。

    １９６７年，澳大利亚人在全民公决中赞成修改宪法，把土著人纳入人口普查，并赋予他们投票权。

    １９７０年，澳废除允许当局带走土著儿童的法令。

    １９７６年，澳政府通过法令，承认土著人对澳“北部地区”大片土地的所有权。土著人此后掀起要求归还先祖土地的运动浪潮。

    １９９２年，澳最高法院裁定，土著拥有殖民时期以前澳大利亚一种形式的所有权。

    １９９７年，一项全国性调查报告说，从家人身边夺走土著儿童的政策使多达１０万的土著人遭受精神创伤。报告建议政府对“被偷走的一代”作出补偿。时任总理约翰·霍华德拒绝做官方道歉。

    ２００７年，陆克文当选总理，承诺代表政府向那些土著人道歉。

澳大利亚是世界上最与世隔绝的大陆，其与世隔绝的程度比南美洲南端和非洲南端的与世隔绝更加严重。这一与世隔绝使古代的生命类型得以幸存到现代，其中包括诸如桉树属的植物和诸如单孔目动物和有袋目动物的哺乳动物。在澳大利亚，古人类型也幸存下来；18世纪后期，当首批英国移民来到这里时，他们仍处于旧石器阶段。和美洲印第安人的情况一样，土著居民最早到达澳大利亚的日期尚未确定。考古发掘渐渐将这一日期向后推。最新发现表明，土著居民到达这里的日期至少在31000年以前。当时，澳大利亚与印度尼西亚群岛之间仅由狭窄的海峡隔开，有三个不同的种族集团渡海来到这里。这三个种族在今天的土著居民中仍可辨别出来。其中大多数属于身材细长、四肢较长的民族，他们皮肤棕色，身上没什么毛，头发、胡须卷曲如波。他们之所以大批生存下来，是因为他们居住在对白人没什么用处的沙漠地区。在气候凉爽、土地肥沃的东南角，生存着一个人数不多、完全不同的土著民族。他们身材粗壮，皮肤浅棕色，身上多毛，胡须浓密。而沿东北海岸，在澳大利亚唯一稠密的热带雨林地区，居住着第三个种族集团。他们是黑人民族的一支，身材瘦小，鬈发蓬松，皮肤黝黑。

这些民族的文化并不相同。最先进的是居住在东南部的民族的文化，这里雨水充足，适合长期居住。但整个澳大利亚的土著居民由于完全与世隔绝，仍处于旧石器时代的食物采集阶段。他们的停滞不前，在技术和政治组织方面表现得特别明显。除为了装饰外，他们一般不穿衣服。他们的住房，在干燥地区由简单的露天防风林组成，而在潮湿地区，则是低矮圆顶的小棚，这种小棚由任何可得到的材料拼凑而成。他们的主要武器是梭镖、梭镖发射器和飞镖，所有这些都是用木头制成的。他们不知道制造陶器，所使用的器皿只有少数编织的包和篮子，以及偶然用树皮或木头制成的碗。作为食物采集者和狩猎者，他们技艺高超，非常机灵。他们以范围广泛的植物及动物为食，熟悉这些食物的种类、习惯和特性，并竭尽全力地维持他们赖以生存的植物和动物的繁殖率。但土著居民不是食物生产者，他们保证充足的食物供应的方法是举行宗教仪式，而不是耕种。其中典型的仪式是：在希望增加猎物和植物的地方，将血和土混在一起。

澳大利亚的政治组织几乎与技术同样落后。象大多数处于食物采集阶段的民族一样，土著居民通常以群体和家族集团的形式生活、居住在一起，并转徙于一定的地区。他们没有真正的部落，只有以不同的语言和文化为标志的区域划分。因此，他们没有酋长、朝廷或其他正式的政府机构。不过，这些土著居民具有非常复杂的社会组织和礼仪生活。获得猎物的猎人，或采集一天归来的妇女，要按严格规定，将其所获分给本家族所有成员。在昆士兰北部的土著中，当一个人打喷嚏时，所有听到的人都要用手拍打自己的身体，拍打的具体位置随他们同打喷嚏者的确切关系的不同而不同。

澳大利亚社会这些非物质方面的情况是如此复杂，以致对专门研究原始风俗的学者来说成为一件乐事。但这些事物的过早发展，在18世纪后期欧洲人来到澳大利亚时，对土著居民几乎没有什么帮助。如果说具有繁荣的文明和广泛的农业社会的美洲印第安人无法抵抗白人的话，那么，处于旧石器时代的澳大利亚人显然也同样如此。他们的人数极少，在欧洲人来到时总共约30万。这意味着在有利的沿海或大河流域地区，每平方英里只有一、两个人，而在干旱的内地．每30到40平方英里才一个。除人数少这一弱点外，土著居民还缺乏进行有效的抵抗所必需的武器和组织。与美洲印第安人和非洲黑人不同，他们不大想获得和使用白人的“火棍”。因此，大批不幸的土著居民惨遭英国移民的屠杀；在这些移民中，有许多人是从拥挤的监狱用船运往此地的违法的囚犯。疾病、酒精中毒、肆意屠杀和大批没收土地，使土著的人口下降，减少到今天的45000人，外加同异族通婚所生育的80000混血儿。1853年，一位维多利亚的移民在下面这段典型详述中，暗示了澳大利亚人所受的待遇：“澳大利亚土著民族同莫希坎人和其他许多已知的部落一样，仿佛是天意注定要他们在文明进步面前从其本上消失。”

更悲惨的是大约2500名塔斯马尼亚人的命运，巴斯海峡将他们同澳大利亚隔开，澳大利亚土著所缺乏的东西，塔斯马尼亚人也缺乏，而且情况更加严重。他们没有梭镖发射器、飞镖、渔网和其他所有捕鱼的工具。英国向塔斯马尼亚岛运送了最残酷的罪犯。1803年，这些罪犯登陆之后，象猎杀动物一样大肆屠杀当地人。几十年内绝大多数人被消灭。最后的一个男子死于1869年，最后的一个女子死于1876年。这位女子名叫特鲁格尼尼，生于1803年，即白人入侵塔斯马尼亚岛的第一年；因此，她的一生跨越了其民族被灭绝的整个时期。她恳求不要解剖她的尸体，但连这一可怜的请求也得不到满足，她的骨骼被陈列在霍巴特博物馆。这是一个恰当地展现这一民族命运的纪念馆；而塔斯马尼亚人之所以毁灭，是因为他们恰好居住在地球上难以接近、未受到促进的地区。一位名叫雪弗伦德•托马斯•阿特金的人，目击了当地人的灭绝，从而推断出某些不仅与塔斯马尼亚岛有关，而且也与所有这类地区——在那里，欧洲人遇到了物质技术发展受阻碍的民族———有关的结论：

的确，从所归纳的大量事实来看，这似乎是天国里一条普遍性的法则：当以渔猎为生、靠地上野草、块根和果实过活的野蛮部落同以畜牧业、农业和商业为正业的文明种族发生冲突时，野蛮部落在文明种族进步的面前消失了……。

=================================================

艾尔斯岩（Ayers Rock）是位于爱丽斯泉市西南470多公里处的巨大岩石。只要沿著一号公路往南，车程约5个小时，就可以看到这世界上最大的单一岩石——艾尔斯岩。也有人称艾尔斯岩为 ULURU ，这是来自于当地的土著语，意指 “有水洞的地方” 。艾尔斯岩周围约9公里，海拔867公尺高，由地面算起高度为348公尺。艾尔斯岩生成于5到6亿年以前，因为曾经在海中，所以岩石表面特别的平滑。它气势雄峻，犹如一座超越时空的自然纪念碑，突兀于茫茫荒原之上，在耀眼的阳光下散发出迷人的光辉。

澳洲艾尔斯岩对澳洲土著来说，是一个神圣并且不可以侵犯的圣地。在岩石下面的洞穴和风口，曾经是澳洲土著的集会所。现在巨岩下仍保留著无穷魅力的土著壁画，壁画内容包含了各种事物的描述和当年的会议纪录。

     非常多科学家一直努力的研究探索艾尔斯岩的形成原因，澳洲沙漠中部是如何产生这样巨大的岩石。根据当地的地质研究，了解到在约6亿年前，艾尔斯岩所在的阿玛迪斯盆地（Amadeus Basin）经过地壳的巨大变动，形成两个巨大的海底岩石，而到了三亿年前，又经过了一次地壳变动后，把这两个巨岩推离了海面，经过了无数次的季节洗礼后形成了我们现在看到的世界奇景－艾尔斯巨岩。

艾尔斯岩的表面因为经过数亿年的风化和侵蚀，形成了各式各样的奇岩。每一座岩石都有自己独自又奇异的名称，最著名的有袋鼠尾Kangaroo Tai，脑浆Brain等。在艾尔斯岩的西侧有一条可直通岩顶的通路，方便旅客到岩顶俯瞰整个澳州沙漠的壮丽风景。不过这条通路因为建筑在岩壁之上，所以最好是穿不滑底的布鞋较为安全。

岩石颜色的变化无常是艾尔斯岩最让人津津乐道的。而最令旅客百看不厌的是每天日出和日落时候的惊人景观，不仅让游客留下毕生难忘的印象，每年更有数十万人从世界各地纷纷慕名前来，欲求一睹艾尔斯岩的神秘风采。