Looking from the standpoint of non-indigenous peoples, it is obvious that the housing conditions of indigenous peoples are different from that of the dominant population. Such a difference is usually the result of difficult economic conditions. The living conditions of indigenous peoples involve a common problem – poor quality or inadequate housing supply. The range of issues concerning “indigenous housing” is broad and complex (Duane Champagne et al. 2005). When investigating this problem, it is necessary to compare the circumstances faced by a single indigenous people with the entire greater environment in which they live.
1.0.0. Australia
In Australia, the investigation of the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that in 2001 there were about 460,140 Aboriginal people compared to the total population of Australia of around 21 million. According to Burke’s (2004) research, the indigenous Australians have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, and health care problems. In addition, a disproportionate number of Aboriginal Australians live in rural and remote areas, and of the 40% of Aboriginal people that state that there are structural problems in their habitation, 58% of these live in remote areas.
The origin of the housing problems of Aboriginal Australians can be traced back to the pre-colonial settlements period. During that period, due to factors such as geography, climate, food and water, Aboriginal Australians adopted a nomadic lifestyle, having no fixed abode and often building simple, temporary shelters from available materials in the area. These temporary structures were their “houses” (John Minnery et al. 2000). For Aboriginal Australians, their “house” was not merely a shelter; the campsite and landscape were also emotionally linked. Paul Memmott (2000) has explained that the aspects Western “house” (artificial, behavioral and sensory) “are best construed in the Aboriginal context to be embedded in and between the domiciliary space and the camp rather than in the shelter per se” (Memmott 2000:5) Thus, the Aboriginal Australian notion of “shelter” tends to be linked with the land itself, and not simply with something that is considered a structure for temporary need.
The development of Aboriginal Australians changed drastically with the arrival of European colonizers. As the National Housing Strategy (1991) acutely pointed out, this led to two major periods of cultural trauma for Aboriginal Australians: the “settlement phase” and “mission” era. The “settlement” phase refers to the period in which European pastoralists and nomadic, hunter-gatherer Aboriginal Australians began to be in contact. For the European pastoralists, ownership of private land, material possessions and permanent housing symbolized wealth. However, Aboriginal Australians valued the family group, sharing, and a nomadic lifestyle adapted to their surroundings, linked to their feelings for the land. Such differences remain a complex part of the dominant government’s handling of Aboriginal Australians’ housing problems, and this requires careful consideration. During the “settlement” phase, the diseases that settlers brought to the homeland of the Australian Aborigines led to the migration of Aboriginal peoples
from Southern and Eastern Australia to northern Australia, and this process rendered them unable to continue with their traditional lifestyles and cultures.
The second period that caused cultural trauma among Aboriginal Australians was the “mission” era. In the early colonial period, practically all mission stations were established in remote areas of Australia. Beyond religious conversion, a purpose that they strove to achieve was to change the Aborigines’ traditional lifestyle so that they would live more “civilized” lives. In short, the colonizers at first created Aboriginal reservations as part of the housing strategy, separating indigenous people from non-indigenous people. A later policy moved the Aborigines out of the reservations and integrated them with non-indigenous people. The problems stemming from the Aborigines’ loss of land rights and subjection to the land use regulations of the “White people” stem from the inappropriately drafted policies of the dominant government (Annie E. Coombes 2006). The housing problems of the Aboriginal people remain an insurmountable challenge to this day. As Michael Heppell (1979:1) stresses, “without adequate housing, programs in the health, education and social development fields are doomed to failure.”
The effort to change Aboriginal peoples’ traditional lifestyles and accustom them to European style housing and lifestyles has not only failed to achieve the goal of cultural assimilation, but has also resulted in yet more problems. Aborigines have found that the degree of comfort of the shelters in which they were accustomed to living was far better than that of the “civilized” housing. Moreover, reasonable and adequately good- intentioned responses from the dominant government regarding necessary conditions like housing policy and funding support has yet to be seen. In addition to this, the majority of Aboriginal Australians do not have an appropriate income, indeed, many do not have an income at all, to be able to afford private rental or ownership. The racism permeating the world of the non-indigenous peoples has made the lifestyle adaptations of Aboriginal Australians even more difficult. Currently, a small number of people live in housing provided by the government, while others who left the reservations were forced to seek inadequate and improper housing on the private market. In short, Aboriginal people’s current housing does not meeting housing needs, especially for those who live in remote areas. And unfortunately, tackling the housing problems of Aboriginal Australians is an extremely complex and difficult challenge on numerous levels, including historical development, cultural differences, funding support and psychology.
1.0.1. Taiwan
In Taiwan, the standard categorization of indigenous peoples was in place by 1945: those who lived in the mountainous administrative areas were categorized as “Mountain Aborigines”; those who lived in the plains administrative areas were categorized as “Plains Aborigines”. The Mountain Aborigines had reservations assigned to them, mostly in forested areas, whereas the Plains Aborigines had no reservations assigned to them, and so from early on the Plains Aborigines have made up the majority of the population of urban Aborigines.
According to the census of the Council of Indigenous Peoples (行政院原住民族委員會 全 球 資 訊 網), in 2007 the number of indigenous households in Taiwan was about 176,000, out of a population of people of about 484,000, making up 2.1% of Taiwan’s total population of people. For the indigenous peoples who were living in the mountain areas, the population of people accounted for 32.5% of the total indigenous population, and among indigenous peoples who were living in the plains areas, over 60% of people were resident in urban areas. Looking at the course of Taiwan’s historical development to this day, with the successive colonial dominion of the Qing Dynasty, the Japanese Empire and the Republic of China (ROC), the land of the indigenous peoples has been gradually taken as state property, and the original living spaces of the indigenous peoples has been ruthlessly seized. Over the past decade, the issue of housing problems of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples has come to the fore, especially regarding the ROC government’s Shandi Pingdi Hua policy (“Make the Mountain Aborigines like the Plains Aborigines”), which aimed to assimilate indigenous peoples.
The ROC proclaimed the Shandi Pingdi Hua assimilation policy in 1983, with the intention of forcing indigenous peoples to end their mountain lifestyle and settle into a plain lifestyle unsuited to them. A large number of indigenous peoples left their original communities, but the unintended consequence of this misguided policy was the beginning of multiple problems today. For example, many Amis people moved into isolated urban lifestyles in the cities of Hualien and Taitung for economic reasons. The housing problems created because of this migration have caused many problems for Taiwan’s local governments. Unable to bear the burden of paying rent, and used to communal living, these newly urbanized Amis chose to live by the side of the rivers and build simple houses, and after a long period the area developed into a community-like organization. The land was property of the national government, and with plans for urban renewal, the government tore down these illegal structures. Compelled by the need for a living space, these Amis squatters had only one choice, which was to rebuild their homes in the same place. This drama continued to be replayed, with the government unable to come up with a constructive solution.
To this day, people in Taiwan’s society tend to hold a prejudiced view toward the indigenous peoples of the island, regarding them negatively as impoverished and backward. Tracing the roots of this attitude, it is clear that, besides cultural diversity, it is the lifestyles of the indigenous peoples living in illegal housing in the peripheries of urban areas that deepens the feelings of prejudice among mainstream society. Yet despite the numerous policies initiated by Taiwan’s government to solve indigenous peoples’ housing problems, abrupt implementation, without detailed consideration of the special cultural needs of indigenous peoples, has created not only housing problems, but also problems in areas such as social status, economic condition and education. Such circumstances can weaken indigenous peoples to the point of collapse. Throughout the development of democracy in Taiwan, the Han Taiwanese authorities have failed to put themselves in the shoes of the indigenous peoples regarding their rights to exist, and have failed to think from the perspective of being forced into a disadvantaged position. Therefore, the problems of Taiwan’s indigenous peoples have continued to exist. The timing of when Taiwan’s indigenous peoples will be able to regain their dignity and live
free of discrimination or threats is a responsibility that the Han Taiwanese population must bear. And yet, indigenous peoples must also muster the courage to defend their own right to exist, pressing the government to play the role of contributor and supporter, providing assistance that meets the true needs of the indigenous peoples and finding appropriate solutions that get to the roots of these injustices.