Self-identification is just one of three criteria used for a long time in Australia to determine a person’s Indigenous status. The “definition of work” considers that, in addition to self-identification, a person must be of Aboriginal or island origin from the Torres Strait and also be recognized as an Aboriginal and / or islander from the Torres Strait. Towers for the community. The third point usually involves a letter or certificate of recognition issued by a traditional homeowners corporation or a land council.
Some community leaders say those who identify as indigenous without meeting these criteria can perpetuate the disadvantage of the most at-risk indigenous communities across the country. They argue that because government data collections do not accurately mark these cases, resources aimed at addressing the disadvantages of Aboriginal people and the Torres Strait Islands could be misdirected.
While part of the growth of those who identify as indigenous can be attributed to a growing population, along with the general tendency of children of mixed indigenous and non-indigenous relationships to identify as indigenous, some community leaders say that there are two other factors that act: the increase in the acceptance – and celebration – of indigenous identity; and the thriving ancestry research industry, which offers commercial DNA testing.
LinkUp Victoria, an organization that connects relatives of stolen generations in Victoria and Tasmania, told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald that it received a series of requests in 2020-21 from people who wanted the organization to confirm the its aboriginality, though this is not a “service” that the organization can offer.
“In the southeast, especially along the coast, a growing number of middle-class liberal progressives are self-identifying, claiming their aboriginality through a distant relative,” says academic Suzanne Ingram, a Wiradjuri woman.
Loading
Distortion of demographic statistics has real-world implications for disadvantaged indigenous communities, says Denise Bowden, executive director of the Yothu Yindi Foundation (YYF), which represents the Yolngu in the land of Arnhem. Governments at all levels rely on data, such as demographics, to determine the distribution of much-needed funding, and an increase in one location may obscure the urgent need for services in another community.
Five years ago, the YYF presented an investigation to a Productivity Commission on the horizontal tax equalization system, which is used to determine the distribution of GST revenues across states and territories. The system considers “weighting factors” that include geographic and remote locations, disadvantage levels, and indigenous population.
In this presentation, Bowden noted that the Commonwealth methodology did not give fair weight to the different circumstances of Indians across the continent, which compromised the access of Northern Territory Indians to GST assignments.
The YYF report also referred to “lax census data” as a contribution to inaccurate records of indigenous populations.
While the census does not require respondents who claim to be indigenous to provide evidence, the ABS says it believes the vast majority of people complete the census truthfully.
Playwright Nathan Maynard, a palawa man, dealt with the problem of people incorrectly identifying as Indians, known as “box-tickers,” in his play At What Cost, which was presented on Belvoir Street Sydney Theater earlier this year. Speaking to The Age in February, Maynard said people claiming indigenous identity without understanding the trauma of Aboriginal people or sharing the connection to the country were detrimental to the indigenous community.
Professor Emma Kowal, who has worked extensively in indigenous communities as both a doctor and an anthropologist, says this is “a problem that has existed for many decades.”
In a 2019 article she co-authored, “What’s at stake? Determining Indigenity in the Age of DIY DNA,” published in the journal New Genetics and Society, Kowal noted the potential impact of testing of ancestry to the Australian Indigenous community.
Kowal estimates that when AncestryDNA updated its service just before the pandemic to provide an estimate of ancestry for “Indigenous Australians”, at least 100,000 Australians used the site.
To develop an estimate of ethnicity for a client, Ancestry takes DNA from a test kit and compares it to its database of samples collected from people who have a solid family history from specific parts of the world.
Ancestor’s current database, which he calls his “reference board,” has 56,580 DNA samples that divide the world into 77 overlapping regions and groups. The panel now features 53 samples of people with Aboriginal and island heritage from the Torres Strait.
Before the company had enough samples with the Indigenous Australian heritage to compare, a client who did a test and had Torres aboriginal or island heritage would receive results with a broader ethnic estimate for the widespread Melanesian subregion, than the company expanded to cover Australia.
“If you get the Aboriginal region and Torres Strait Island to your DNA results, this tells you that you probably had an ancestor who was an Indigenous Australian,” the company states on its website.
Loading
Kowal agrees that the science behind the Ancestry update is accurate, but even now, the results may vary. Because of the way DNA is transmitted, it is possible that two siblings do not even share a particular DNA.
For Katherine Marks, a Dja Dja Wurrung and Dhudhuroa woman, the percentage range of Aboriginal and island ancestry from Torres Strait indicated in her test kit results was much lower than expected. She describes basing a person’s indigenous status on a DNA test alone as “silly.”
“It reduces a complex social phenomenon to a matter of biological percentages.”