I’ve been asked to compile a list of appropriate terms/words when referring to Indigenous Australians.. So here goes!

As a little bit of back-ground info on us.. Indigenous people in Australia have the longest continuing culture/s in the world. With many different language groups, culture groups, similarities with cultures in certain parts of Africa, Indonesia and nearby countries/nations, Aboriginal Australia is indeed diverse, to say the least.

Terms/words that are appropriate:

  • Indigenous Australian/s
  • Indigenous 
  • Aboriginal 
  • Aboriginal people/s
  • Torres Straight Islander person/s
  • Torres Straight Islander people/s
  • Native (though it’s not used as much here and more often heard to describe the Indigenous people of America, some will use the term)
  • Black (yes, we ARE Black.. the white settlers used the term “Blacks” which reduced us down to our skin color.. we’ve reclaimed that word and is often used like “Black-fella”)
  • ATSI - Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander/s (umbrella term for Aboriginal and Torres Straight Island peoples or for shorthand)

Terms/words that are NOT appropriate:

  • Aborigine/Aborigines (a big no-no and sadly many still use these terms today)
  • The Aborigines
  • The Aboriginal people
  • The Torres Straight Islanders
  • Blacks
  • Colored
  • The n word (pretty obvious, really)
  • Half-caste 
  • Full-blood 

Appropriate area-specific terms:

  • Murri - Qld, north west NSW
  • Nyoongah - WA
  • Koori – NSW
  • Goori - north coast NSW
  • Koorie - Vic
  • Yolngu - Arnhem Land
  • Anangu - Central Australia
  • Palawa - Tasmania
  • Ngarrindjeri – SA - River Murray, Lakes, Coorong people
  • Torres Strait Island Peoples
  • Murray Island Peoples
  • Mer Island Peoples

Also, words that are used to describe us as “less-advanced” when compared to European societies, are not acceptable. We are not less-advanced, or less-modern or a “primitive” people - we are just different. As is everyone. 

Please direct any further questions to black-australia.


Also, Adelaide plains peoples are Kuarna people, but often self refer as ‘Nunga’ (which I believe is meant to specify living in an urban area, but I am not certain about this. I am not Indigenous, can anyone confirm this, or correct me?).

(via schrodingershipster)


Everyone should love Deborah Mailman.

(Source: togsorundies, via fancybooday)

"We’re not Native to America, we were here before ‘America’."

— Leonard Prescott, Former Chairman of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community (via nativnuance)

(Source: until-i-can-be-quiet, via therainitraineth)

Aboriginal and tribal nation news.

This is so much better than those whiteboards being passed around on predominantly white middle-class college campuses



This is so much better than those whiteboards being passed around on predominantly white middle-class college campuses

(via fancybooday)


I wrote this. The Peach published it. 

"The Indian Princess is the female counterpart to The Brave caricature. In the late 19th Century the nostalgic romanticizing of nature, and of the Indians that had once been found in nature, recreated Indians in all of their “natural” glory, as noble savages, mythical icons of America’s wilderness past. This phenomenon allowed Americans to largely forget the ugly consequences of their expansionist past. Additionally, even though the Noble Savage is defended as being a “positive” stereotype, the result is historical amnesia and the dehumanization of real people who still exist. By cementing the Indian as an “other” from the past, it allows modern society to largely ignore the existence and plight of Native Americans today. The Indian Princess caricature is rooted in the legend of Pocahontas, who is most often cast in American popular culture as a supporter of European interests. She is strong, beautiful, and possesses an exotic sexuality that both emphasizes her “otherness,” and yet serves as a forbidden fantasy for the dominating White male. She is Mother Nature, American-style, in all her primitive glory." (via mycultureisnotatrend)

(via djkjfjglgk-deactivated20120430)




buy a print/shirt here


Right. I don’t know where to start.  Even though it’s “just a cartoon” doesn’t mean that it’s not promoting ridiculously fucked-up stereotypes about hyper-violent Natives. 

Looking at this just literally made me sick to my stomach. I can’t give a complete critique because looking at this makes me want to wretch.  It’s wrong. It’s racist. It’s definitely not something you should buy a print of, or wear as a shirt. I can’t imagine the visceral reaction I’d have if I encountered this in the real world.

This is disgusting and makes my heart hurt.

Picture hidden for being revolting. Click through to see:

[image: A drawing. A young person in shorts and a tshirt is sprawled, baring their large monster teeth. A person dressed in Native clothes (mocassins and a feather in their hair) stands behind them, with a hand under their chin and a knife to their forehead, scalping them. The background is a smeared red triangle. It is super gross and racist.]

(via djkjfjglgk-deactivated20120430)



“Journalist and political commentator Andrew Bolt has been found guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act over two articles he wrote in 2009.

Bolt was being sued in the Federal Court by nine Aboriginal people including former ATSIC chairman Geoff Clark, academic Professor Larissa Behrendt, activist Pat Eatock, photographer Bindi Cole, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson, and lawyer Mark McMillan.

They alleged two articles written by Bolt for his employer, the Herald and Weekly Times, implied light-skinned people who identified as Aboriginal did so for personal gain.

The articles were headlined “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black”.

Bolt’s lawyer, Neil Young, had argued the articles represented his client’s genuinely held views on matters of public interest.

Bolt argued his articles were fair and were within the laws of free speech provisions.

But barrister Ron Merkel SC, appearing for the applicants, said the articles took a “eugenics approach” that was frozen in history.

Today Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg found Bolt had breached the act because the articles were not written in good faith and contained factual errors.

He said the articles would have offended a reasonable member of the Aboriginal community.

Speaking outside court, Bolt described the verdict as “a terrible day for free speech in this country”.

But there was jubilation inside the court as the decision was handed down.

“It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discuss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves,” he said. 

“I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings.”

Ms Eatock said she was not holding out hope of an apology from Mr Bolt.

“I will never get an apology from Mr Bolt. He made that clear giving his evidence earlier in the year,” she said outside court.

“But we will, I hope, get some sort of acknowledgment through the press that what he wrote was just unacceptable, totally unacceptable. He set out to offend from the word go and in fact he acknowledged that in his evidence.”


(via mymilkspilt)