Issue Details: First known date: 2015... vol. 8 no. 2 2015 of International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies est. 2008 International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies
The material on this page is available to AustLit subscribers. If you are a subscriber or are from a subscribing organisation, please log in to gain full access. To explore options for subscribing to this unique teaching, research, and publishing resource for Australian culture and storytelling, please contact us or find out more.

Contents

* Contents derived from the , 2015 version. Please note that other versions/publications may contain different contents. See the Publication Details.
Aboriginal Performance as War by Other Means in the Nineteenth Century, Maryrose Casey , single work criticism
The author has focussed this paper 'on what happens when the people framed as possessions refuse to co-operate and insist on constructing their own identities and ontologies and assert their authority, not only in the past, but also in the present...'
(p. 2-15)
Note: Includes bibliography
[Review Essay] : The Postcolonial Eye : White Australian Desire and the Visual Field of Race, Alison Ravenscroft , single work review
— Review of The Postcolonial Eye : White Australian Desire and the Visual Field of Race Alison Ravenscroft , 2012 single work criticism ;

'The first chapter of Alison Ravenscroft’s The Postcolonial Eye: White Australian Desire and the Visual Field of Race begins with a description of a photograph, property of the South Australian Museum, series AA346. This photograph is one of thousands taken during the Board for Anthropological Research’s Harvard and Adelaide Universities’ 1938 expedition. In it, two Murri girls stare at us, one with a shaved head, the other wearing a card marked ‘N1474’. What we see in this photograph, the violence of colonial history, is striking, but equally (perhaps more) striking, Ravenscroft suggests, is what we fail to see. “Who were these girls and what happened to them after the camera closed its eye and the photographer turned away?” she asks (7). Although we can see signs of colonial subject formation—exemplified by the name ‘N1474’—no matter how closely we look, we cannot see the girls’ fate, nor the fate of the researcher behind the camera, the one “who looked upon an image from which he excluded himself but in which he was implicated nevertheless” (7). Furthermore, “How [are we] to bring such a scene into writing?” Ravenscroft asks, implicating herself (as well as us, as readers of cultural studies and co-viewers of this photograph) in the categorical violence perpetrated by the invisible photographer (7).' (Introduction)

(p. 55-57)
X