The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Terra Nullius

Terra Nullius

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All
The question that I ask is whether Australia was Terr Nullius when Cook arrived, or could it have been considered a self governing state or collection of self governing states.

Terra nullius is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "nobody's land", which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state, or over which any prior sovereign has expressly or implicitly relinquished sovereignty.

The last international judgement on the issue determined that there was no discernable nation states at the point of settlement, however, the University of NSW disagrees.

Opinions please.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 30 March 2016 1:14:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

The following link explains that Captain Cook's
aim was to establish a penal colony and take
Australia for settlement, hence his
proclamation of 'Terra Nullius," (nobody's
land). However, at the time Australia was occupied by
over 400 different nations. It was not nobody's
land.

http://www.racismnoway.com.au/teaching-resources/factsheets/10.html
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 31 March 2016 4:08:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

Chinese President Xi in a speech to the Australian parliament during his visit to Canberra advised that the Chinese discovered Australia before European explorers. Therefore, China has a greater claim to the Australian continent than the Commonwealth.

China's claim extinguishes any claim that the Commonwealth has under terra nullius. China is in its initial stage of predatory expansion towards Australia. After it has consolidated its annexation of the South China Sea it will be able to move on toward reclaiming the Australian continent.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Thursday, 31 March 2016 4:34:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The university of NSW would disagree;I was reading just this morning that they wanted to re-write history to fit in with the 'invasion' view of the settlement of Australia. We need to remember things were a lot different 200 odd years ago. And we should put it behind us and concentrate on own values in the 21st. Century.

Overflowing jails in England, and the wars with France concided. It's not quite right to say that settlement was just to clear out the English jails; the French were sniffing around the continent, and the east coast was a good naval base. England wanted it before the French could settle there. That somewhere to transport convicts who could be helpful to settlement was fortuitous, not the main aim.

Certainly there were people living here, but they were disparate groups of nomads with no civic interests at all: there was no civilisation,in any sense of the word. Hence terra nullius, which was acceptable FOR THE TIMES. Personally, I view people who try to use modern law and values to criticise our ancestors who saw things differently as trouble makers with nothing better to do.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 31 March 2016 4:46:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think that Cook ever used the expression 'terra nullius'. I've typed up several thousand pages of old documents and have never come across the expression. But clearly, nobody, absolutely nobody, ever suggested the place was empty of people, never.

As for what it means, I thought it meant that the people on the land did not have a system of land ownership in a Western sense, or even in a non-Western agrarian sense - land use, yes, but not 'ownership'. In texts on the development of systems of ownership, the story usually starts with the development of agriculture, of the privatisation of land ownership: prior to that, systems of land use are readily recognised, what they called usufructuary rights in land.

There are still plenty of examples of that in English practice, individuals being entitled to the product of a particular stream or peach tree, or the right to gather firewood from somebody else's land, etc. Clearly, Aboriginal groups had a concept of a right to exclude others from their foraging grounds: these were commonly called their 'nations'. After all, the word used to mean 'family'.

In the earliest days in South Australia, the use-rights of Aboriginal people were recognised and eventually written into the Pastoral Acts, in every pastoral lease document. It still is.

But the question is: do rights to use land and exclude others from it, constitute land ownership ? Combined, I think they do, but it's a pretty fragile basis. After all, the power or force to exclude others is a sort of licence for the strongest to do just that: the principle that whoever can push others off land or exclude them from it is thereby the owner.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 31 March 2016 5:26:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

Obviously, in the earliest days, foraging groups - by not settling or staying put in particular locations - gave all observers the very strong impression that they didn't consider it necessary to do so: that since moving about in order to use the land for sustenance seemed to be more urgent and salient than holding it - that there was no point in staying on just piece of land - then a recognition of such traditional land-uses for hunting and gathering was all that was needed in early colonial law.

Perhaps that's why there has been a recent condemnation of the terms 'nomad' or 'nomadism', since they gave exactly that impression.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 31 March 2016 5:29:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This explains further:

http://www.nfsa.gov.au/digitallearning/mabo/info/defining/Nt.htm

"The High Court determined that Indigenous Peoples should be
treated equally before the law with regard to their rights
over land. The Court rejected any position in law that would
discriminate against Indigenous Peoples by denying the
existence rights that had been enjoyed freely prior to
colonisation and continued to be exercised. In this way, it has
been said that the myth of terra nullius, which asserted that
the land belonged to no-one, was rejected."

"The idea that no rights existed in land except those granted by
the "Crown" or the sovereign governments, was also re-assessed.
It was an important aspect of the decision to recognise that
native title predates the assertion of sovereignty by the
British."

"It is not a grant from the Crown like other titles under
Australian law. Native Title is unique in the sense, when
compared with other interest in law. It is inherent to
Indigenous Peoples by virtue of their status as First Peoples
and the first owners of the land. Native Title does not
depend on government for its existence, but it did require
recognition through common law in order to be enforceable
in the Australian legal system."
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 31 March 2016 6:06:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can guareentee that women had absolutely zero rights under the former 'regime'.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 31 March 2016 6:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, here is the link again:

http://www.nfsa.gov.au/digitallearning/mabo/info/definingNt.htm
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 31 March 2016 6:15:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The council gives us bins to dump our garbage in: we MAY fill them with rubbish, but we are under no obligation to fill them with our garbage all the way to the brim: we are allowed to leave at least some portion of them empty. This is especially true for smaller families with larger bins!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 31 March 2016 6:25:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Cook had nought to do with the setting up of the penal colony and as for the UNSW, they are so wrong that it is laughable.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 April 2016 12:07:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No matter how much some people carry on about Indigenous Australians, other Australians, and land rights, the fact will always remain that the Indigenous Australians WERE here first.

It is obvious that some pathetic Australians feel threatened by that fact.
They need to grow up.
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 1 April 2016 1:14:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

The requirements for declaring a land Terra Nullius don't require that the land is uninhabited only that it is ungoverned. I think those claiming that the country was invaded would struggle to show that there was a viable form of government in any part of Australia.

SOL,

I am not trying to deny that the aboriginals were here first, nor that they have some inherent claim to native title, however, I do find the claims of invasion to be fanciful.

I find the way native title is handled somewhat distasteful. roughly 70% of Australia's land mass is under native title, which is in effect owned by no one in particular and handled by nebulous tribal elders with conflicting claims and naked self interest. There is no incentive to develop the land only to sell the resources and extract rent. This was tried in Africa, and failed miserably.

I would prefer that the land under native title is divided into parcels of roughly equal value (with some sacred sites set aside) and given directly to those of aboriginal descent, to own to keep and develop, or sell after a set time.

At this point any further claims would be extinguished, and Aus could revert to a single class of citizen.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 1 April 2016 3:35:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question is based on the assumption that the European had the right to apply his norms, values and laws on indigenous people in the first place, A people who had a different set of norms, values and laws which were conveniently unacceptable, and not in the Europeans interest, which was to take over Australia for their own benefit. If they had not applied this Terra Nullius principle, they would have applied some other convenient principle, such as the Terror Gun principle, which they had applied numerous times before around the world.

In the context of what the British did to Aboriginal people would anyone have an objection to the Chinese setting up a tribunal in Bajing to determine if modern Australia is compliant with the Chinese interpretation of 'Get It For Yourself', with the objective of China taking over Australia and subjecting the "new indigenous" to the benefits of Chineseism. It would seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 1 April 2016 5:14:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
China will refuse to recognise Terra Nullius. China has a greater claim over the Australian continent than the Anglo-Australians have. Northern Australia is their ancestral fishing grounds and I'm sure they will have at least one historical admiral who circumnavigated Australia long before Cook sighted the eastern coast of Australia.

President Xi has already told Australia that China has a greater claim over Australia than the Anglo-Australians when he addressed the Australian Parliament during his visit here. He'll bring up the details when he has tied up the loose ends in China's annexation of the South China Sea.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 1 April 2016 5:49:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Terra Nullius also implies "empty land".

It was considered empty because they did not consider the aboriginals as a race of people with rights to occupy or own it - just some sort of native fauna that didn't cultivate the soil.

They weren't officially counted as people until the 1967 referendum.

The settlers were initially accepted on peaceful terms but it wasn't long before areas were fenced off with people excluded from tribal land and skirmishes began - but by then it was too late.

It was colonisation via dispossession rather than by discovery.

This can reasonably be argued to have been some sort of invasion - albeit gradual - because other British colonies in Canada, various Pacific Islands and New Zealand involved negotiation and treaties.

However although aboriginal society had no hierarchy and no single representative who could sign a treaty on behalf of all their Nations, the real reason for no attempt at a treaty was the notion that the natives were not people.
Posted by rache, Friday, 1 April 2016 8:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

If you can quote the local indigenous law from the time, then you may have a valid point, however, given that at the time there were no permanent structures, no discernible governing body, and between 3000 and 6000 different language / dialect groups, I think that by the standards of the time Australia was clearly Terra Nullius. That this was agreed by pretty much every civilized nation on earth at the time (1780) gave the British the right to settle the area.

Obviously the principle of Terra Nullius does not exist anymore, but given today's laws cannot be applied retrospectively, the law of the time stands.

China is already trying to annex most of the south china sea, but is already running foul of the US and its neighbours.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 1 April 2016 9:06:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suse,

Not that it matters, they were here before we were by several thousand years, but apparently there is evidence to say that there were people here before them.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 1 April 2016 9:09:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

The High Court of Australia determined that Indigenous
Peoples should be treated equally before the law with
regard to their rights over land. The Court rejected
any position in law that would discriminate against
Indigenous Peoples by denying the existence rights that
has been enjoyed freely prior to colonisation and
continued to be exercised.

In this way, it has been said that the myth of Terra
Nullius, which asserted that the land belonged to no-one,
was rejected. The idea that no rights existed in land
except those granted by the "Crown" or the sovereign
governments, was also re-assessed. It was an important
aspect of the decision to recognise that native title
predates the assertion of sovereignty by the British.

This makes native title unique in the sense when compared
with other interest in law. It is inherent to
Indigenous Peoples by virtue of their status as First
Peoples and the First owners of this land. And this was
a decision decided by the High Court.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 April 2016 9:12:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

You are confusing native title with Terra Nullius. TN does not assume that the land is owned by no one, it only assumes that there is no discernable government to request permission to settle.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 1 April 2016 9:23:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rache,

Where to start ?

No, 'terra nullius' does NOT imply 'empty land'. Get it through your head that it means 'land over which there does not see4m to be a meaningful system of land ownership'. Land-use, yes, just as hunting and gathering peoples elsewhere, and pastoral people too, did not lay claim to 'own' any specific areas of land, but most certainly had customary rights to USE the land.

If you are suggesting that people who forage are no more entitled to ownership of the land on which they forage than animals who might roam about, then that is you problem. I think it's grossly offensive to suggest such a comparison.

Aboriginal people were counted - at least here in South Australia - from Day One, as soon as they were given rations. They were counted every month, at every ration station. And incidentally, as soon as a ration system was initiated in an area, that seemed to be the end of, or at least a hiatus in, systematic hunting and gathering - why spend all day gathering grass seed to grind down when you could just use flour ? So some areas were (temporarily in people's minds, surely) abandoned while people could camp near a ration station.

In SA, Aboriginal people in contact with ration depots were counted as a State-wide population. The men could vote as soon as all men could vote, in about 1856. The women could vote as soon as ALL South Australian women got the vote, in 1894. However, enumeration and those voting rights were not extended to the federal level after Federation, due to deals made between States, principally objections by NSW and Victoria to WA and Queensland counting estimates of 'out-of-contact' Aboriginal populations in calculating the number of parliamentary seats for each State.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 1 April 2016 9:40:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

Rache,

As you suggest, ".... Aboriginal society had no hierarchy and no single representative who could sign a treaty on behalf of all their Nations.... ". Doesn't that suggest, in other words, that Aboriginal groups - since they didn't need to, for sixty thousand years - didn't have what could remotely be recognised as 'governments' ? Little groups of elders deciding who might have killed someone, yes, courts, maybe, but governments ?

Or what is termed in Latin, 'res nullius' - 'a political entity without a government' ? Did Aboriginal groups have governments ?

And of course, one of the primary duties of any government is to validate and safeguard the land ownership of the group.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 1 April 2016 9:42:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister, do you not find it a little degrading that the Europeans decided which lands were ripe for invading simply because the inhabitants did not 'govern' like they did?
Not all historical facts are morally or ethically correct...
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 1 April 2016 10:18:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Shellbapples, Friday, 1 April 2016 10:51:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is just disgusting, I found this on ninemsn. I don’t think it would qualify as a “news report” as it really just a relay of a quote from a young lady with no intelligence or any understanding of history.

http://thefix.ninemsn.com.au/2016/03/30/10/21/fix300316jesinta-campbell-talks-racism-and-australian-invasion-day

Jesinta Campbell - I don't think a white person can determine what's racism and what's not, what affects someone and what doesn't affect someone, 'cause it's not our experience."

Lowest intelligence rating within our county...?

How about the treatment of the Irish by the English.
The French and the Spanish, what would you call this?
The ethnic tensions in the Balkan's.
One can only assume, she has never hear of the term "Nazi"
Have you read the history of Poland, do you know any European history?

This is only a fraction, this is a new's report based on the opinion of someone that clearly doesn't know any history.

"Not our experience," Jesinta Campbell... get real. I have experienced racism and I am white, do you live in a bubble?

I experience extreme jealousy in the form of racism.

Jeremy Halligar the reporter/journalist states in the title of the report "Jesinta Campbell gets real about Australian 'invasion'"

You get real Jeremy, obvious you have an agenda of your own which has nothing to do with equality or peace. Why use a quote from a source of no quality or suitability to create greater segregation, how about a positive approach.

Everyone cares about their own agenda, what good is this for our nation
Posted by Shellbapples, Friday, 1 April 2016 11:37:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shellbapples, what an aggressive, nasty post for your first one on Online Opinion Forum. Charming indeed.
Have you been here before in another guise?

Just so you know, I don't usually respond to racists who discuss skin colour like you do.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 1 April 2016 11:48:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by Shellbapples, Friday, 1 April 2016 12:04:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suze,

Historical facts are either correct or not, in themselves are neither moral nor ethical. Judgements and opinions on the morals and ethics are based on the time frame in which they are made, and the bent of the author.

While the settlement of Aus was opportunistic and dismissive of the natives, given the primitive nature of the aboriginals, there no doubt that at some time within a couple of decades some european or asian power would have settled Australia, and history has shown that the indigenous populations in British colonies in general fared far better than in other colonies.

Shellbapples

Grow up.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 1 April 2016 1:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for this discussion.

I've learned so much from it.

It's interesting learning so muxh more about British
colonisation and subsequent land laws which were
established on the claim that Australia was terra
nullius thereby justifying acquisition by occupation
without treaty or payment which effectively denied
Indigenous people's prior occupation of and
connection to the land.

I Googled the Mabo case and learned that on 20 May 1982
Eddie Mabo and 4 other Indigenous Meriam people began
their legal claim for ownership of their traditional
lands on the island of Mer in the Torres Strait. They
claimed that their people had:

1) Continuously inhabited and exclusively possessed
these lands.

2) They lived in permanent settled communities.

3) They had their own political and social organisation.

On these grounds the Mabo case sought recognition of the
Meriam people's rights to this land.

I was amazed to learn that the case was heard over ten
years. Finally it came before the High Court of Australia
and on the 3rd January 1992 the High Court ruled by a
majority of six to one - for the Meriam peoples.

cont'd ...
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 April 2016 1:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

The High Court's judgement in the Mabo case
resulted in the introduction of the
doctrine of Native Title into Australian law,
thereby removing the myth of terra nullius and
establishing a legal framework for Native Title
claims by Indigenous Australians.

The judgement ruled that the common law as it
existed:

1) Violated international human rights norms.

2) Denied the historical reality of Indigenous people's
disposition.

Native Title recognises that Indigenous Australians have
a prior claim to land taken by the British Crown since
1770. It also replaces the "legal fiction" of terra nulius
which formed the foundation of British claims to land
ownership in Australia.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 April 2016 1:50:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont'd ...

My apologies for having left out this
link in my previous posts from which I
gleaned the information:

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/mabo-native-title
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 April 2016 2:00:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dearest Foxy,

I could be wrong but the earliest reference to 'terra nullius' that I'm aware of was in Justice Blackburn's decisokn on gthe Milirrpum v. Nabalco case (the Gove Case) at the end of 1971, which provoked the setting up of the Aboriginal Embassy, and also the making of a single nation-wide Aboriginal Flag.

Perhaps the term is used in earlier works on 'the Law of Nations' by Vattel in the eighteenth century, or Maitland or other legal authorities in the nineteenth.

We are perhaps not aware that Australia was in a unique position, an entire continent populated by foraging people, completely (as was thought) out of touch with anybody else in the world. Even the Bushmen and Pygmies in Africa had strong trading relations with neighbouring groups, and had had for centuries. But not the people here, except for Timorese and Javanese and Macassarese for sandalwood and trepang.

But even the Bushmen of southern Africa were also cattle herders, not just foragers. How does a government recognise the rights - what rights to recognise ? - of people who don't seem to be farming the land, or even pasturing animals on it ?

Marx would say that different types of economic systems develop different relationships to the land - foragers, agriculturalists, and capitalists. People embedded in one system find it very difficult to imagine how people in another system can possibly have a proper sense of land proprietorship or ownership, since they are using it in such a different way from themselves.

Still, the British - at least here in SA - recognised the use-rights of Aboriginal people from the outset. I'm not sure what else they could have done. Sometimes people stumble through history: the early administrations here didn't, couldn't, foresee that, with a ration system, the local Aboriginal people would abandon foraging in preference for sitting down. I guess we're still learning that lesson.

Lots of love and best wishes to your lucky husband,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 1 April 2016 2:11:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy: It is inherent to Indigenous Peoples by virtue of their status as First Peoples and the First owners of this land.

Did they infact OWN the land or did as, their folk lore says, they were Caretakers of the land.

Loudmouth: If you are suggesting that people who forage are no more entitled to ownership of the land on which they forage than animals who might roam about, then that is you problem. I think it's grossly offensive to suggest such a comparison.

Why, just because it’s Politically Incorrect does not negate a fact of life.

SOL: Not all historical facts are morally or ethically correct...

Maybe not by today’s standard, but they were 230 years ago, which is as it was, at the time it happened.

My Grandfather narrated a story to me about a big fight over a corner of Sandy Creek near Ravenswood. About 100 worriers on either sid lined up & threw spears at one another until blood was drawn. That was the end of that & the one that drew blood won the rights to the corner of the Creek.

On Ravenswood., my Grandfather said they often found very old Chinese Crockery when they took the pieces to the Chinese miners they said that they were hundreds of years old. There were some places around Ravenswood the Chinese wouldn’t go because of the Ghosts of the Old Chinese that were buried there. Booran or James Morrell was a prick relation I’m told.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 April 2016 2:19:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont.
In the Taiwan Museum there is a map with Australia mapped from the mouth of the Murray River to around Hughenden & Richmond. It was also well known that the Chinese ventured inland a long way to find Sandalwood. There are Chinese Maps showing the best places near Wyndhum to forage for Sandalwood. They also frequently used the East coast of Australia as their fishing grounds.

It is also understood that James Cook had a map from the Portuguese of the East coast of Australia. A part of his mission was to check it out as a possible place to settle Convicts. Which the subsequently did. The Logistics for such a massive expedition with so many Convicts would have taken more than 5 years of Planning. I do believe it is wrong to say James Cook “Discovered” Australia. It could be said he mapped the East Coast & took Possession of the Land for the British Empire on Possession Island.

I doubt whether you could call the Settlement an Invasion either. Seeing that they nearly all starved to death until relief provisions arrived. Don’t forget the same thinking almost killed the settlers of James Town in America. The thinking at the time that if crops weren’t planted in neat furrows then they were heathen food & if it wasn’t Pig or Cattle the game couldn’t be eaten. Phillip didn’t have much trouble with the Natives in fact he allowed himself to be speared in the Thigh because he had transgressed a local Law. It was subsequent Governors who had a disdainful outlook towards the local Aboriginals heathens that started the trouble.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 April 2016 2:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb, Cook was here in 1770 and left the UK in, what 1769 ?
The purpose of sending convicts here was brought about by
the Nth American colonies revolting in 1776 because they could no longer
be sent to the Americas.
I have never seen mention previously that Cook's commission included
finding convict settlements.
I could of course be wrong.

Anyway the aboriginals might ask the Tibetans if they would have
prefered China to have avived first.

Will Native title fade away with continued merging of the races ?
Hide me from 18c.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 1 April 2016 3:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shellbapples

your post makes heaps of sense. Don't worry about Susie, she appears bitter and never allows facts to fog up her story.
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 April 2016 3:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The best analogy for the justification of the takeover of Australia by quoting British or international law is in the 'Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy', when the Earth is destroyed by the Vogons to make way for a new Hyperspace Bypass.

The Vogons didn't see any legal need to desist from destroying the earth, or to consult with the Earthians, because after all, they were working under Galactic law. They were certain they were justified in applying Galactic Law to Earth, even if the Earthians had never heard of it.

The concept of no legislation without representation predates the discovery / settlement / invasion (disinvastlement?) of Australia, and led to the American War of Independence.

Whether or not the Aborigines 'owned' the land in the British legal sense is irrelevant. They owed no allegiance to either British or international law because they had no representation in those laws.
Posted by Cossomby, Friday, 1 April 2016 4:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Whether or not the Aborigines 'owned' the land in the British legal sense is irrelevant. They owed no allegiance to either British or international law because they had no representation in those laws.'

Cossomby narrative shows exactly why aboriginals have continued to commit crime, get locked up and maintain a victim mentality. He/she shows why so called 'academics'will continue to promote the chip on the shoulder attitude to keep these people in welfare and crime. Oh well it makes the black arm brigade able to carry false guilt for the rest of us. Thankfully their are a few Indigenous leaders who are now starting to challenge such rot after decades of guilt money/handouts achieving on ly more drunkedness, more child abuse and more prison. I wonder why the incarcaration rates are so high?Drrrr!
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 April 2016 4:19:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

The use of the Mabo findings on mainland Australia was and is ridiculous, it's like saying that Irish Brehon Law could apply to Europe.

Mer is an island out of sight of the Australian mainland and far from sharing law and traditions the people of Mer only occasionally had a meal with the mainlanders, and that was not a cultural link but a purely gastronomic one when the Islanders cooked and ate a Mainlander.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 1 April 2016 4:26:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The High Court's judgement in the Mabo case
resulted in the introduction of the doctrine
of Native Title into Australian law, removing
the myth of terra nullius and establishing a
legal framework for Native Title claims by
Indigenous Australians. Hence it's importance.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 April 2016 5:19:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, there is an element of truth in what you say, but you still seem not to understand why.
The British just said to the Aborigines - obey our laws or you are in trouble. They did not ask what the local law was (just assumed it didn't exist). They just stated: we, and our law, are now in charge, like it or lump it.
Why should the Aborigines have accepted it? They fought back in places but were smart enough to see that they were out-numbered and out-gunned and generally gave up and tried to come to some accommodation. The British, becoming Australians, just expected them to die out. They didn't and we are all, black and white, dealing with the consequences.
So runner, when the Voltrons (or the Chinese) take over and impose their laws, are you are going to be a good little lad and do what they say? What if everything you have is taken away? Your land, your house, your language, your culture? You'll fight back? But they've got bigger guns, and some nasty diseases - your children, relatives and friends die around you. You realise you have totally and absolutely lost.
Some of your descendants go mad, others escape by means of those amazing new drugs the new masters sell you, some shrug and say why bother, we'll take what we can get. Probably they'd end up in crime (well, crime under the new laws that the new regime never consulted you about), drunkenness etc. Even if you decided, I'll make the most of the new system, what if you and your descendants get blocked for generations from education, land ownership, real careers?
So put yourself in that situation. What would encourage you to be ambitious and improve your lot under the Voltron regime? Then you might think how this might apply to Aboriginal people.
(But do try and ignore the Voltrons waffling on about false guilt and black-arm bands. Of course you could remind them that they should consider what they'd do if (when) it happens to them too.)
Posted by Cossomby, Friday, 1 April 2016 5:34:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dearest Foxy,

The Mabo case was very hard-fought, on both sides. If it had been mounted by anybody from an Aboriginal group, relying on traditional land-use as Keiki Mabo did, I doubt that it would have won: as Is Mise hinted, the Mer Islanders used the land differently, they settled on and cultivated the land privately or in small family units, as subsistence farmers, and also had specific marking stones out from the shore to demarcate individual and family-owned fishing grounds.

In other words, they definitely did NOT use the land in the same way to that Aboriginal people did: they cultivated, and privatised, the land, and lived in settled villages. Could they have gained recognition if they had been foragers, and not settled cultivators ? I'm not so sure.

Elsewhere in the British colonies, throughout the colonial period, British authoriti4es recognised whatever the land-use and -ownership may have been: check out the 'Land' Page on my web-site: www.firstsources.info for reference to C. K. Meek's comprehensive work (1948) on Colonial land policy.

Love always,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 1 April 2016 5:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Thanks for the information.

I learn so much from this forum.

I appreciate your knowledge and expertise on this
subject.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 1 April 2016 5:51:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby

You ask what would I do if everything was taken away? Good question that no one could answer unless in that situation. The other question is what would you do if you were given everything for zero return. You have a hospital to go to when your man beats you, police when your uncle wants his promised 13 year old, housing given to you, free grog and food money. I would be thanking God everyday that it wasn't Chinese or Japanese or Dutch or Muslims. I would suggest a culture not being thankful for this needs some serious self examination instead of the usual activist Cr p that keeps the victim mentality in place for generations to come.
Posted by runner, Friday, 1 April 2016 7:32:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby: what if you and your descendants get blocked for generations from education, land ownership, real careers?

Did these people even know what education was in the Western sense of the word? I don’t think so. You are pushing “now” 21st. Century thinking into 16th. Century. Even 16th. Century Europeans didn’t get an education as we do today.

Aboriginal people (children) in towns, settlements & Cities, are begged to go to school, to learn & work in Australia. But most are more interested in skiving off because their "drunk uncle" & their parents are so brainwashed to hate Whitey by the "Uncles" that they do everything they can to disadvantage themselves. Sad, so Sad.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 April 2016 7:59:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have a look at:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/why-australia-lies-to-itself-about-its-indigenous-history-20160330-gnuo4t.html

Why do we feel so strongly about and commemorate our failed invasion (Gallipoli), but refuse to recognise our successful one (Australia) as an invasion?

I'll respond to other comments tomorrow.
Posted by Cossomby, Friday, 1 April 2016 10:31:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby, what is the best point of this article?

The author used an example from another country "Gun violence in America," to explain what?

Why didn't he use an example of American Indian's and compare the treatment of the natives of both countries at their times of "invasion."

Why did he avoid this?

Cossomby - Why do we feel so strongly about and commemorate our failed invasion (Gallipoli), but refuse to recognise our successful one (Australia) as an invasion?

Because Australian's were involved in Gallipoli.
There were no Australians involved in the invasions of Australia. Simple

This whole issue should be sorted out with the British Empire, the average Australian cannot answer for the British Empire.

The word "whitewash" I have seen it thrown around recently in the media, yet don't think they are using it correctly at all or understand the meaning.

Why is the average Australian being harassed about this issue?
Posted by Shellbapples, Saturday, 2 April 2016 7:25:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How do you say Terra Nullius in Chinese?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 2 April 2016 8:10:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rache,

Where do people get this stuff ?

".... it wasn't long before areas were fenced off with people excluded from tribal land and skirmishes began ...."

When squatters started moving their sheep and cattle out into the vast areas of open country, tolerating an animal killed here and there as a sort of tax, fences were a long way into the future. Pret6y quickly, they realised they would have to rely, at least in part, on local labour, just as many Aboriginal people also realised that access to all these new bright shiny things could be got by doing a bit of work for the newcomers.

Some pastoralists may have even built weirs on seasonal rivers in order to encourage Abori9gtjnal people to camp nearby, so that they could tap into the able-bodied labour available.

And once the pastoralists cottoned on to the ration system, i.e. rations to be provided to all NON-able-bodied people, which inevitably meant the able-bodied would camp with their more dependent relations, many were happy to provide store-rooms, transport etc. In SA, one pastoralist manager ran a ration depot for nearly forty years.

Savage droughts periodically ravaged inland Australia, when groups scattered to the four winds. What happened to older people, nursing mothers and their young children, in pre-Invasion times ? They died. What happened to them regardless of the weather conditions, with a ration system in place ? They survived.

What impact might that continuity have had on the transmission of traditional culture ? Perhaps they could discuss this at the Uni of NSW.

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:03:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rache, you note that:

" .... although aboriginal society had no hierarchy and no single representative who could sign a treaty on behalf of all their Nations, the real reason for no attempt at a treaty was the notion that the natives were not people."

A mighty leap into the hypothetical :) And quite a racist leap it is, equating foraging societies with the animal world. Is it possible that treaties were not signed here because ".... Aboriginal society had no hierarchy and no single representative who could sign a treaty on behalf of all their Nations" ?

And still don't, by the way: I don't think people in any one 'Nation' (clan/extended family), anywhere, would tolerate someone from another group purporting to sign any document on their behalf.

Of course, this begs the question: a treaty to recognise what ? What would be in one today ? What magic clauses ? What changes would those clauses, that are supposed to be so crucial, make to Indigenous lives, if we don't even have any idea what thy are ? Or is the notion of a Treaty just another Silver Bullet, another One True Sure-Fire Solution to All Ills, yet another Cargo Cult ?

Just asking :)

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cossomby,

I don't recall from history the British settlers storming the beaches, nor facing any resistance from the native population whatsoever. The only resistance came much later when the settlement expanded.

The definition of an invasion is:
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity.

This never happened.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:25:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look, the crux of the matter is the aborigines HAD to be jerked into
the modern world.
It was coming ready or not !

They could have done worse than have the British arrive.
The aboriginal culture had stabilised at somewhere around 30,000 years
ago or so and except in the NT had no knowledge of the rest of the world.

When Cook arrived the world was expanding at a never before seen rate
and the world map was being completed.
The world was on the cusp of the Industrial revolution.

How on earth could anyone expect to stay in the same
economic/cultural glass belljar in those circumstances ?

Isn't it time that aborigines accepted the world as it is and joined in ?
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:37:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no direct translation but;

wú rén zhů yňnɡ de tǔ dě, 无人无用的土地, Vacant Land. Don’t forget it’s written backwards.

Empty, 近义词: barren; blank; discharge; drain; eliminate; evacuate; hollow; let out; run out; vacant; void

Area, 近义词: district; expanse; extent; neighborhood; region; section; size; space; territory; zone

Vacant, 近义词: barren; desolate; empty; unoccupied; void

的. Empty sign. Note the empty block on the left & the Enclosure on the right with a small tick in the centre donating empty.

无人, The People signs. Note the 人 has no arms, 无 Has two sets of arms & the crooked bottom leg donates movement. So no people moving around.

无用, Area sign. So an area with no people moving around.

词, Also donates “Empty.”Note the open Enclosure with the empty Square in the centre.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:41:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry for the numbers. Obviously the Chinese Characters didn't translate. NMF.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:45:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bazz,

You ask, most perceptively:

"Isn't it time that aborigines accepted the world as it is and joined in ?"

And of course, they have done, ever since 1788: nobody lives, or seems to even want to live, in completely traditional ways any more, bare-arsed and hungry around a piddly fire on a winter's morning. And why don't they ? Because they're not bloody half-wits, they are intelligent people, who can see benefits in choosing Course B over Course A like anybody else.

Of course, nobody will admit it, that Indigenous people have said good-bye and good riddance to sixty thousand years of living bare-arsed and hungry, but there you go. Perhaps those Uni of NSW classes could discuss this, and lynch anybody who suggests any value whatever for Indigenous people being now in the modern world: women could wear little stick-on beards while they are doing it.

Phillip (i.e. the British) beat La Perouse (i.e. the French) to Sydney by two weeks. They both probably beat the Dutch and Russians and Japanese by several decades. But who in their right mind thinks that the world would have left Australia alone ? Christ, even the Maoris, as they were becoming experts in modern shipping and trade before 1840, would have had a go.

So it's all done and dusted. We can argue over terms, just as we can still argue over how many angels can fit on the point of a pin - great fun, a lot of spleen vented, people (esp. Abbott and Howard) cursed up and down, but ultimately pointless.

What to do about the current situation that a minority of Indigenous people in outlying areas have got themselves into, and how to somehow motivate them to do something about it ? Or is that too hard ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 2 April 2016 10:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow, if you are going to accept that the British were right to turn up in 1788 with their bag of English laws an apply them to the indigenous people of Australia, so be it. Then to give you another case, the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws, which ultimately led to the deaths of millions of Jews in Europe. Why was it deemed unacceptable for Nazis on trial at Nuremberg tp use the defense that they were only following orders which had a basis in law, the Nuremberg Laws.

I don't think it was a case of TERRA NULLIUS for Aboriginal people with the arrival of the British in 1788, it was more a case of another British law, TERRA FYING.
Posted by Paul1405, Saturday, 2 April 2016 1:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jayb,

Thanks for that but Chinese for Terra Nullius is 'Australia'. Or as the Chinese more commonly like to refer to Australia: 'Our Lebensraum'.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 2 April 2016 1:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let put it another way. I wasn't an Invasion as in D Day. It was a slow infusion over 200 years.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 April 2016 3:33:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The new Australians I feel have recently done as much as they can to accommodate the original peoples into a modern society. Any one less than 1/8 aboriginal should be considered as mainstream and not considered aboriginal. We should not place guilt on our society as activist want; but be every bit neighborly toward each other. Governments do assist in developing resources to help communities become self supporting.
Calling British settlement today an "invasion" is a racist attitude, to breed hatred, and social division.
Posted by Josephus, Saturday, 2 April 2016 7:31:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Josephus: Calling British settlement today an "invasion" is a racist attitude, to breed hatred, and social division.

I agree. If you are looking for Racists you don't have to look past the Aboriginal Activists. But, I apologize. Apparently, because of Political Correctness, you are not allowed to articulate that, or, possibly even think it.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 April 2016 8:33:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

The Nazis at Nuremberg were tried for genocide and mass murder which was not lawful even in Nazi Germany, and as Germany had signed the Geneva convention there was no doubt as to the illegality of their actions.

By contrast the principle of Terra Nullius was widely accepted worldwide, and the British actions of settling in Aus was not considered illegal by any other country.

Even the Mabo trial did not try and reverse the settlement, granting native title only to the land not already settled.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 3 April 2016 7:42:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow, "By contrast the principle of Terra Nullius was widely accepted worldwide, and the British actions of settling in Aus was not considered illegal by any other country."

By the colonizing countries and given Britain was a super power and at war with another European super power at the time, France, there was little anyone was going to do about it.

The concept of Terra Nullius was alien to Aboriginal people and if it was not they were given no opportunity to contest 'the laws' validity as applied to them by the British. Hardly seems fair.

How does this Terra Nullius law stack up against the principle of 'jurisprudence'?

The English word jurisprudence is based on the Latin maxim jurisprudentia: juris is the genitive form of jus meaning "law", and prudentia means "prudence" (also: discretion, foresight, forethought, circumspection; refers to the exercise of good judgment, common sense, and even caution, especially in the conduct of practical matters) ...
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:05:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow minister, not true the senior National Socialists were charged with:
Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
War crimes
Crimes against humanity

The word Genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin after the war to describe the actions of the National Socialists from the Jewish perspective.
Ethnic cleansing would be a more accurate term to describe the official National Socialist program of deportations and widespread mass shootings of Jews in Eastern Europe but again, there's no comparison to be made between Australia and Europe in that regard.
There's no evidence of either formal or informal plans to ethnically cleanse Australia of it's pre 1788 population, quite the opposite conclusion can be made from even a cursory study of official records and the journals of early colonists.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:08:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The High Court's Mabo Judgment

On the 3rd of June, 1992, after a decade of litigation, the High Court ruled that the land title of the Indigenous Peoples, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, is recognised at common law. This Indigenous Peoples' land title, or native title, stems from the continuation within common law of their rights over land which pre-date European colonisation of Australia. In the absence of an effective extinguishment by the crown, this title presents through inheritance the original occupants' right to possession of their traditional lands in accordance with their customs and lores. The judgement has, at long last, rejected the "Terra Nullius " legal fiction, bringing Australia almost in line with remaining common law countries, ie USA, Canada and New Zealand.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:12:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul1405: How does this Terra Nullius law stack up against the principle of 'jurisprudence'?

You are trying to push, what was acceptable then against what is acceptable now. It's just not possible to do that.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:20:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Newsflash from Beijin:

Anyone found talking about Terra Nullius after the transfer of ownership of the Australian continent from the Commonwealth of Australia to the Peoples Republic of China will be taken out and shot.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:47:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul,

We forget that imperialism was the rule up until very recently, everywhere and always, going back as far as you like in history.

We also forget how unique the situation was that the British came across here in Australia: nowhere else in the world did they encounter people who were purely foragers, hunters and gatherers, and certainly not on an entire continent. Everywhere else, Indigenous people were either cultivators, such as the Maori and Polynesians, or pastoralists AND cultivators, such as across Africa. Even the foraging Bushmen in southern Africa traded meat and skins with neighbouring cultivators and pastoralists (as did Aboriginal groups in Canada, who used muskets after about 1650). After all, the word 'Indigenous' covers a vast range of different societies, economies and political systems.

Different systems have different relations to land: here, as far as the British could observe, people roamed over the land, hunting and gathering, and not much else. What could they recognise, as they had done in Africa and New Zealand ? The right to hunt and gather.

Which they did officially in legislation from about 1850, at least down here in SA. And why here and not in the other colonies ?

We also forget that those early settlers were us, then. We are them, now. I was surprised to learn that governments, at least here in SA, funded all the missions' expenditure, supplying rations, school and medical expenses, and materials for the building of cottages, but NOT the salaries of the missionaries - that had to be provided by urban parish collections. Can you imagine urban populations these days having to fund the salary expenses for bureaucrats on Aboriginal 'communities' ? I think they would all, as my dear old grandmother would say, die in the arse.

In SA, the right of Aboriginal people to use the land as they always had done traditionally, to 'occupy or enjoy' it, was recognised from 1836, in what they call the King's 'Letters Patent', setting up the colony. It is still more or less the law.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 9:10:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

Thanks for that great piece of anthropology. If I didn't know it was you saying those things I would have guessed it was coming from a Year 8 secondary school student.

You talk about Aboriginals but are you aware that in the future Sino-Australian nation you will be looked upon by the Chinese as a White Aboriginal? Some politically incorrect Chinese might even call you a 'White Abo'. Then you will be able to get first hand experience of what the Australian Aboriginals have had to cope with under Anglo-Australian rule. Just keep your fingers crossed that the Chinese don't decide to conduct a form of genocide along the same lines as the Anglo-Australians have done.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 9:35:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

You quoted an opinion piece where the author stated his opinion on the meaning of the judgement.

You can find the complete judgement here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/high_ct/175clr1.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=~mabo

"International law recognized conquest, cession, and occupation of territory that was terra nullius as three of the effective ways of acquiring sovereignty. No other way is presently relevant... As among themselves, the European nations parcelled out the territories newly discovered to the sovereigns of the respective discoverers, provided the discovery was confirmed by occupation and provided the indigenous inhabitants were not organized in a society that was united permanently for political action ..... To these territories the European colonial nations applied the doctrines relating to acquisition of territory that was terra nullius. They recognized the sovereignty of the respective European nations over the territory of "backward peoples" and, by State practice, permitted the acquisition of sovereignty of such territory by occupation rather than by conquest"

Then

As the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony were regarded as "low in the scale of social organization", they and their occupancy of colonial land were ignored in considering the title to land in a settled colony. Ignoring those rights and interests, the Crown's sovereignty over a territory which had been acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius was equated with Crown ownership of the lands therein, because, as Stephen C.J. said, there was "no other proprietor of such lands".

So in a nutshell Terra Nullius gave the settlers the right to settle uncultivated land, however, the "enlarged" version where the assumption that the land was unoccupied and allowed the crown to take ownership of all land was invalid. Thus Mabo allowed the minimalist version of Terra Nullius which permitted settlement, but not the expanded version which gave the crown control over all lands, thus awarding "native title" to crown lands.

Thus Mabo upheld the validity of Terra Nullius, but recognised the original ownership claims of non settled land.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 3 April 2016 10:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I assume that your accusation of me using mushrooms is due to your unceasing use of them.

This explains your frequent lunatic rantings about corruption when no one, not even ICAC has made such findings.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 3 April 2016 11:01:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

When you suggest that " .... I would have guessed it was coming from a Year 8 secondary school student....."

I don't understand what you are referring to. Please feel free to elaborate :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 11:25:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry

Last post was in the wrong thread.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Sunday, 3 April 2016 11:33:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

It's your level of knowledge on the topic. It's at the same level as what I would expect to see from a Year 8 secondary school student.

Most people on The Forum OLO have a knowledge base less than a Year 8 secondary school student so if I was you I would take it as a compliment.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:01:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Opinion,

Nope. I still don't understand. Any specifics, beyond "China will refuse to recognise Terra Nullius", whatever that may mean ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:12:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

It's a compliment. Just think of it as a compliment.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:36:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O: Old Loudy seems to have a better grasp of the situation, in SA at least, than you do, ol' mate.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:48:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jayb / Loudmouth,

Prove it! Give me some proof that you know what you're talking about.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 12:58:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

No worries: check out my web-site at www.firstsources.info, you might find a bit of useful information there. Anything specific that you want ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 1:07:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul 1405,
The Murray Island situation has been covered in depth and the key point is that the people in that community had a very different, considerably more advanced society to those found on the mainland, it has more in common with PNG than prehistoric Australia.
Where the British found a system of laws and evidence of an actual society in the lands they settled they respected those systems and offered treaties, the reason no treaties were offered to indigenous Australians until recently is because they had nothing to negotiate with and no concept of what the treaty might mean.
Now that most if not all indigenous Australians have adopted a modern understanding of private property and common wealth and having many educated people among their clans to look out for their group interests treaties can and are being signed.
I don't know what the actual figure is but Aborigines today, by way of treaties with the Crown have land rights over something like 20% of the continent yet 60% of them live in the eastern capitals.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Sunday, 3 April 2016 1:10:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

That's nice, but what is your level of expertise? And please don't tell me you went to the University of Life. That's the sort of thing an idiot would say.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 2:04:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

Apart from what you can pick up on that web-site, I'm not sure what you want: "level of expertise" ? Since you specifically rule out life experience, do you mean academic degrees in the study of Indigenous people ? No, I don't have any of those specifically, only in relation to other areas of study. Surely you don't mean only that sort of thing ?

I think that's my fourth post :(

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 2:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Terra Nuillius,
Who really cares.
The important thing is to allow our Aboriginal community to be self funded.
This means returning the A.C.T. freehold land to the Aboriginal
peoples,unless this happens we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The income from the leases of the ACT should equal the welfare payments made toward the Indigenous communities.
Why not have a referendum by the Aboriginal Communites of Australia if this move should be made.
Posted by BROCK, Sunday, 3 April 2016 2:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

You tell me. What is your level of expertise? You convince me that you know what you're talking about.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 2:42:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear BROCK,

Totally agree. A lot should have been done a long time ago to address the damage that had been done by the Anglo-Australians to Aboriginal peoples. From any early stage they should have been incorporated into the nation-state of the Commonwealth of Australia, being granted land rights, eradication of racial inequality within the polity, law and economy, and located constitutionally within Australian society as a symbol of the world's oldest surviving culture.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 3 April 2016 2:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

"You convince me that you know what you're talking about."

I would have thought that the sheer force, and obvious truth, of my arguments would have been enough.

No, I still don't know what you mean. What would convince you ? Perhaps you could show me yours first, to give me an idea, then I'll show you mine :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 3 April 2016 5:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jay, "Where the British found a system of laws and evidence of an actual society in the lands they settled they respected those systems and offered treaties"

The only treaty I have any knowledge of is the 'Treaty of Waitangi'1840, between the British and the Maori, a document which left out more than it included. A one page effort which left a lot to be desired from a Maori point of view. Firstly I must say, I do not believe there was any malice on the part of William Hobson the British Lieutenant Governor who was given charge to make a treaty with the Maori, or any other of the British involved. Hobson had no experience in treaty making what so ever, and had only a few days to come up with something. Hobson relied on a few other treaties and agreements he had in his possession along with the input of a local British resident James Busby (from Sydney). After reading Hobson's first draft, Busby told him the Maori chiefs would not wear it, so they drew one up together with some help from James Freeman, Hobson's secretary.
Then Hobson had to rely on two Methodists Missionaries father and son Henry and Edward Williams to draw up a Maori translation, although they were fluent speakers of the Maori language, their translation contained a number of errors, particularity around the words sovereignty (British version) and governance (Maori version) this was a mistake and i don't believe it was done intentionally. Some say many Maori Chiefs would not have signed if they believed they were seeding sovereignty of the land to the British. The Waitangi Tribunal has been trying to deal with this issue and many others, including Maori clams of treaty violations, for years.

p/s My partner "T" is proud of the fact her ancestor (from her whakapapa) Paramount Chief Hone Heke (born around 1800) was one of the original signatories, believed to have been the first to sign, the Treaty Of Waitangi.
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's hope that this thread doesn't turn into an Opinion-ated one.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 3 April 2016 8:50:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise, why do you say that? After all this is the 'Online Opinion' site. If you removed all the opinion, and left the rest, there wouldn't be much of interest, now would there. This is my opinion.

"Let's hope that this thread doesn't turn into an Opinion-ated one."

Is that your opinion?
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 4 April 2016 5:42:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess that the excerpts from the actual Mabo judgement have settled the argument.

1 There was no invasion,
2 Australia was settled on the Basis of Terra Nullius as the law stood in 1780, based on the lack on any discernable government.
3 The Mabo Judgement recognised that Australia was inhabited prior to settlement, and according to the original basis of Terra Nullius had rights to the land that the judges rectified by awarding Native title.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 4 April 2016 7:22:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

Its advised (by whom is unclear) that you shouldn't "argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Which btings us to Mr O. Its futile to argue logic or facts with the man since he has no respect for either.

For example he wrote "President Xi has already told Australia that China has a greater claim over Australia than the Anglo-Australians when he addressed the Australian Parliament". Yet here (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F35c9c2cf-9347-4a82-be89-20df5f76529b%2F0005%22) is that address and Xi said nothing remotely like it. Now, will pointing this out give Mr O pause? Not a bit of it. He'll carry on as though what he said was true because he wants it to be true.

The best idea is to ignore these types.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 April 2016 8:09:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, Do not worry about Mr O as he believes in the invasion of the yellow hordes coming from the North, as similar view held in the 1940 - 60's.
Posted by Josephus, Monday, 4 April 2016 8:31:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument over the legal status of the land that became Australia in 1788 is irrelevant. We may as well argue as to the legality of the Roman expulsion of the Jews in the first century or the legal status of the Bradshaw peoples.

The land that is Australia was going to be colonised because its inhabitants were stone age peoples unable to defend their land even if that had a concept of it being their land. That those colonisers were British was extremely fortunate for those then inhabitants since they were colonised by the most benign of imperial powers. Had they been colonised by any other of the potential contenders, there wouldn't be arguments about land rights or legal status or recognition since those original cultures and populations would have long since been destroyed.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 April 2016 8:33:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze: The land that is Australia was going to be colonised because its inhabitants were stone age peoples unable to defend their land even if that had a concept of it being their land.

Careful Hazie, there are those on here who "might/will be" be offended by suggesting that the Aboriginal Peoples were "Stone age." Even if they really were/are.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 4 April 2016 9:12:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear maze,

I read about it in a news article posted online. Given the excerpt you just posted it now looks like that news article was incorrect.

Dear Paul1405,

Is Mise is referring to me, being Mr Opinion. He and his engineer colleagues on The Forum are upset with me for letting people know that engineers are knuckleheads. Engineers like to think that they are on the same level as doctors. If that is correct then why is it that one needs a degree in medicine to be a doctor but one does not need a degree in engineering to be an engineer?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 4 April 2016 9:17:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

In order to comply with your requests, and at the risk of referring in any way to 'the University of Life', I tentatively venture to suggest that when I went from Wagga High School to Darwin High School in the late fifties, and coming from a very left-wing family, it wasn't possible to ignore Aboriginal students, or Aboriginal people generally or the various situations they were in at the time in Darwin. Signing up for the Works (now Nightcliff) Rules team, in the B Grade Colts (reserve), I was justifiably the butt of much good humour from the other Aboriginal kids for my kicking and marking skills.

My wife of 43 years was Indigenous, she's been gone now nearly eight years. Our kids are Indigenous. We made Aboriginal Flags in the early seventies, back in the days when no 'leader' would come near us for one, except at the back door. We ran and funded a scurrilous journal, 'Black News', 1973-1974. We lived for some years in an Aboriginal community. Later we worked for many years in Indigenous student support. From about 1984, we wrote articles mainly about Indigenous success and issues in higher education. I ran a series of about thirty Career Workshops in 1994 for a total of 1200 Indigenous kids, from Grade Six upwards (and once, accidentally - and delightfully - for a Grade Four class at Koonibba), from northern and western NSW (down to Ivanhoe: 'Where the hell is Ivanhoe ?' said a sticker that I bought there) and western Victoria up to Leigh Creek and across to, well, Koonibba. Very proud of that.

I've kept an Indigenous higher education database for more than twenty years. And then, of course there is my web-site: www.firstsources.info - I've been working on that, on and off, for twenty years.

Apart from that, I don't know what you want. If you can spare the time, I would be grateful if you could clarify your requests.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 4 April 2016 10:02:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Loudmouth,

So basically you're in teaching, education and community services with extensive participatory involvement in indigenous activities and affairs.

I was trained separately as an anthropologist, a sociologist and a historian. My predilection is for anthropology with specialisation in Melanesia supported with auxiliary studies in Asia, Australia, and the Pacific. Doing additional postgrad work (outside of working in engineering which I absolutely abhor) but now getting involved in transdisciplinary research where I can incorporate the scientific knowledge gained from my engineering degree with the humanities. Mr Opinion might be my nom de plume but I really only want to hear about the facts.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 4 April 2016 10:25:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

Well, no, not any more, and not in a paid capacity for around twenty years. As a free agent, I can please myself what I study and write about. Christ, nobody would employ me anyway :)

So you've been a student of various fields ? Would that include any actual hands-on experience of real people ? Aboriginal people ? You've been to Aboriginal funerals ? Weddings ? Football games ? Or am I verging too much towards the 'University of Life' ? Sorry :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 4 April 2016 10:35:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb wrote "there are those on here who "might/will be" be offended by suggesting that the Aboriginal Peoples were "Stone age." Even if they really were/are."

Its not (necessarily) a derogatory term. Just a statement of fact. They had no metallurgy and all implements were made of wood and stone. QED.

Pre-European Australia wasn't alone in failing to discover metallurgy but it remains more than a little curious that no group over that extensive period worked out how to manipulate metals. Then again, some aboriginal groups had even forgotten how to make fire so perhaps its not so curious.

______________________________________________________________

"I read about it in a news article posted online. "

Suuuure Mr O. We all believe you. Now go away and let the adults talk....there's a good boy.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 4 April 2016 11:47:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr O: then why is it that one needs a degree in medicine to be a doctor but one does not need a degree in engineering to be an engineer?

Excuse me. I know us Engineering Tradespeople like to give our Engineers a bit of Stick every-now-an-again. They do have a Degree, in Paperwork at least.

Mr. O: (outside of working in engineering which I absolutely abhor)

Oh, I can just imagine you saying that, an it gave me sucht a giggle Ducky. ;-)

Hazie: Its not (necessarily) a derogatory term. Just a statement of fact. They had no metallurgy and all implements were made of wood and stone. QED.

Well, you know that & I know that & he/she knows that, it just apparently not Politically Correct to mention it in Polite Circles. You know what I mean. Some people "might" even cry. ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 4 April 2016 1:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Opinion is saying he can call himself an 'engineer' without the necessary qualifications and professional recognition.

Similarly he can in his own lunchtime be an 'anthropologist', 'sociologist' or Peter Pan. Or even warring factors of the lot!

Dreams in the bottom of a glass.

Of course there are those with intellect and through very hard work have turned their dreams into reality and are constantly working to improve our lives. Good on them! They are highly valued, much appreciated and many are underpaid.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 4 April 2016 1:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sodomologist. Now there is a new word. :-)
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 4 April 2016 1:21:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodness gracious! I get the impression that every second person on The Forum OLO is an engineer.

When I started out in engineering in the early 70s I estimated that only about 30% of engineers had degrees. Today that has been reversed to the point where I would say that about 70% of engineers have degrees.

What engineers with degrees want people to believe is that only engineers with degrees have the right to be called engineers. Sorry fellas (and the 10% of you who are women) that just doesn't hold water because what you do can't be put in the same category as the roles in which a degree is a must.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 4 April 2016 1:37:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Opinion could be one of those as well. It is his lunchtime and his choice. The possibilities are endless.

A previous work colleague tells the story of the moderately senior manager, a branch head (?!) in a federal public service department who told the most outlandish stories about himself. There was a new grand and outlandish story (to others at least) whenever he was about. Two examples,

- this PS manager happened upon two robbers escaping in a car in Goulburn, NSW (near Canberra) and he managed to chase them down in his very hot sports car (a Mini?) and was thanked by police; and,

- another time he and his wife were setting off on a very expensive ship cruise. The sequel was that one of his staff had spotted him at home at the same time. How the fellow's wife cooperated with that, staying in the house with curtains pulled shut, goddess knows.

He too could have been an engineer, a sociologist or anything he chose and he would have done something with it!
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 4 April 2016 1:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What does it mean to 'own' land ? You can't carry it around. You can't occupy more than part of a square metre of it. But does 'ownership' mean different things to foragers, or pastoralists, or subsistence farmers with hand-tools, or to investors in capitalist enterprises using thousands of hectares ?

Yes. So what is the basis of 'ownership': does this vary also ? Again, yes. Foraging societies would have strict rules about intruders coming into their family or clan lands without permission (and some tribute), and would have stories about different parts of their own 'country'. They may share some of those stories, or parts of them, with other groups, as being descended from a common ancestor. Stories may be much more group-wide, perhaps with a commonly-shared core, indicating common ancestry, and extra bits relating only to specific clan lands, which only those clan members can know about. Of course, sites similarly.

Subsistence farmers would have long stories about ancestors farming that land since 'time immemorial'. They would know, through marriage and friendship, of the similar histories of neighbouring areas of land.

Modern farmers would be able to produce documents of grant, lease or purchase, validating their rights as owners or lessees. Banks would hold mortgage documents showing their stake in land.

So this thing called 'ownership' would vary from one type of society or economy to another. However, back in the early nineteenth century, even the British, with their broad experience by then of different land-use systems, may have puzzled over the relationship between foragers here and the land that they foraged on. Was it 'ownership' ? Then who was or were the owner/owners ? The entire group ? Of all of this land which they didn't seem to be using, just picking over ? So all the people in a group owned all the land together ?

That must have been difficult to grasp even then. Did they use the land ? Yes of course, so it was possible to recognise the right of foragers to use the land - which administrations did from around 1850.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 4 April 2016 2:06:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

Ownership and usufruct are governed by the laws and customs prevailing in a particular place at a particular time. In traditional Aboriginal society it mattered who you were and what your position was in the local kinship group. One traced his or her relationship to the land through descent. One had to know what moiety, clan or lineage one belonged to as well as understanding the intricate interrelationship between kinship, religion and custom.

The Europeans of the late 18th century did not understand this. For them ownership of property such as land was governed by the State. One could claim rights over property through inheritance but legality of such ownership was construed in terms of the written laws administered by the State apparatuses. These were non-existent in Australia at the time of contact.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 4 April 2016 2:30:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Mr Opinion,

Yeah, well, that's what I was suggesting. The British didn't have immediate, encyclopedic knowledge of moieties, clans, families and land boundaries across the country, nor much experience of similar concepts of land use and land ownership elsewhere. Bastards !

Of course they knew of such things as usufructuary rights - they still apply in Britain. They knew of rights of commons, but by definition, the right to use common land was not an ownership right, nor did it confer ownership: commons land remained commons, and still does, as the documentary series on the BBC, 'The Good Life', showed in detail.

However, it was 'owned' by the village or shire or whatever, and couldn't be alienated by even a lord or the king - come to think of it, it couldn't be alienated at all, even by the village. i.e. it was unsellable.

So was land in Australia customarily perceived as common land in a similar way ? I suppose a land lawyer or historian would have an idea. I don't think an anthropologist would have a clue.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 4 April 2016 5:29:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

Actually it is the anthropologist who has the skills and knowledge to best understand these things. Anthropology is the study of humankind in all of its manifestations and is particularly concerned with stateless societies.

When I said 18th century Europeans did not understand these things I was referring to the intricate interrelationships between culture, polity and economy in pre-literate societies. It is only the anthropologist who is skilled in this type of analysis.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 4 April 2016 6:07:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, right. Why didn't Phillip bring a few out to act as a sort of Grand Council - bastard !

Can you recommend any anthropologist with expertise in customary land law these days ? Or one back in 1788, if possible ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 4 April 2016 6:27:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Loudmouth,

There were no anthropologists in 1788. Anthropology as a field of study didn't start to take root until the mid 19th century.

There are plenty of anthropologists working for the Land Councils across Australia. Try contacting the land Council in your area for a list of people they use.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Monday, 4 April 2016 6:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

You missed the hyphen.
Posted by Is Mise, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 2:01:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MrOpinion,

Again, that's what I was suggesting. Oy. How were the British to know what the relationship of foragers might have been to the land ? Their main experiences with hunters, still active in Britain itself, was that they used land but didn't own it - in fact, were just as likely to be poachers using it illegally.

Usufructuary rights were and still are recognised in English common law, i.e. the right to 'use', to hunt, gather, ramble over, but which did not constitute ownership. Still the case.

But - at least here in SA - those rights were also recognised - and still are. Yet again, anthropologists are completely superfluous in understanding that.

But interestingly, the most dedicated proto-anthropologists and linguists in the nineteenth century were usually the missionaries. Rev. Taplin's book (1874) on the Narrinyeri [Ngarrindjeri], for example, which can be found on my web-site; www.firstsources.info.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 5 April 2016 8:52:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lo and behold ! I was talking to a bloke last night from the Adelaide Hills and he just casually mentioned that he used to cross the common in his town to get to school. Maybe rural towns across Australia use their park areas as commons, pasturing the odd sheep or goat, and they have much the same legal status as commons in English law ? i.e. land 'reserved', i.e. not for sale, for common purposes ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 6 April 2016 10:30:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see the question as relevant in Straya today.I have some abbo blood, sympathize with their struggles, but enjoy the Judeo-christian way of life and rule of law, am happy with the Asian invasion as they're hard working and understated polite, quiet people, don't mind the Lebs and their ways except for the hard core wife beaters and Jihad fools.

All in all, Australia is still the best place in the world, and I have been to over 50 countries in my time, and lived in 4.

Lets move forward, enjoy the weather and let go of the past
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 7 April 2016 12:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe, I was reading the history of 'Alexandria Park' near Redfern in inner city Sydney. Back in about 1880 a local was granted permission to graze cattle in the park in return for attending to, protecting and watering the trees, to the councils satisfaction, Moreton Bay Figs planted by the local council. The cattle are long gone, but the fig trees remain and they are whoppers, must have been all of that cow dung. I wonder how he kept the cattle away from the trees, must have had them fenced off.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 7 April 2016 8:12:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
I've never read so much from a dedicated, denialist apologist.

You make it seem that the English came to liberate the aboriginals from themselves and fifty thousand years of occupation must have been an meaningless accident.

Perhaps it serves them right for not being familiar with the intricacies of British Law.

Try inviting somebody into your home and watch as they exclude you from each room in turn until they eventually put their name on the deeds and offer you a bit of space in the back yard.

Just because it didn't happen overnight doesn't change the outcome. They were here first and now they are second-class citizens - just the same as every other conquered or displaced indigenous native group in history.

It's nothing to be proud of, no matter how many axe heads and blankets we gave them before poisoning their waterholes.

One documented role of the 73rd Troop Regiment was to "suppress the resistance of the Aboriginal population to British settlement" and the first recorded deaths of two convicts occurred only months after the Union Jack was raised. The Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars lasted from 1790 to 1816.

We were never told about this in school. All I was taught in the 1960s that they were "a dying race" and would disappear by the end of the century - as well as being read "Little Black Sambo" in Primary School and the only view I had of Aboriginals was from Jolliffe cartoons that either represented them as noble savages or objects of ridicule.

Even PM Harold Holt once admitted to Nugget Coombs that he had never met an aboriginal person so what chance did we have of being told the whole truth?
Posted by rache, Thursday, 7 April 2016 6:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache,

The whole truth? Who knows 'the whole truth'? (Particularly as so much depends on who's telling the story, and on what particular axe they have to grind.)
Are you really interested in the truth? Or, are you more interested in a re-writing of history to reveal a nation-wide bloodbath devoid of any consideration for the welfare or future of the original inhabitants?

Shadow Minister posted on 2 April:
An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity.
This never happened.

So, by definition, no invasion. (So, what's UNSW on about?)

Occupation? Essentially inferring the domination and making subservient of another nation or peoples.
So, were the native inhabitants enslaved or made servitude? Were they corralled and beaten into submission?
Were they never individually or collectively offered subsistence or care - then or now?
Were they widely prevented from pursuing their traditional lifestyle, culture or religion?
Was there no attempt at peaceful coexistence? Anywhere?

So, settlement, obviously, but not occupation. (UNSW?)

'Terra Nullius' is an unfortunate descriptor - being inaccurate, misleading, and unduly derogatory.
Would that the law or legal system applicable at the time were more comprehensive in its available descriptors for the various national/occupational/cultural territorial circumstance which might be seen to prevail throughout the world. Alas, British brevity.

In one point I disagree with Shadow, in that, considering the evolution and development which has prevailed, and the greatly changed circumstances which now apply, I do not agree that native title should universally entail full transfer of ownership and entitlement to any developmental purpose or sale.
Traditional culture was being pursued, and should be enabled to prevail for current and future generations. Hence, the land should be deemed in a form of trust.
Was it not traditional culture which deemed that 'we are merely the custodians of our children's inheritance'?
Truth in word and deed? Or forever, self-interested and exclusionist?
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 8 April 2016 4:53:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loud,

Thanks, Joe, for your most informative and invaluable contributions.

I may not always agree with you, or with your mode of delivery, but here you have demonstrated mastery, conviction, and an extraordinary degree of goodwill.

Why then do you dismiss global warming (or at least any significant human contribution to this)? Or, may you have revised your position on this?
(Or, is my memory in error in this?)

Since you are a person of great knowledge, and much wisdom, why is there so little concern being expressed generally about the future impacts of population growth and accelerating industrial development?

War, mass-migration, climate-change, China, North Korea ....
Where are the three (or more) wise men?
Is politics destined to forever inhibit genuine human evolution?
(Or perhaps plastics will in due course make any such questions moot?)
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 8 April 2016 5:28:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rache,

I'm sure like most people, that Aboriginal people suffered in a multitude of ways from the piecemeal invasion of Australia, particularly out beyond the reach of the law, and often, judging by some of the policies of Governors like Macquarie and Arthur and Darling, justified officially within the law as well.

Perhaps not so much here in South Australia, which had the benefit of the fifty years' experience of the eastern colonies. Coming from Sydney, I agree that policy was often grossly mismanaged by authorities in New South wales (i.e. up until the 1850s, including Victoria and Queensland).

By settling/invading a vast open country, the British, through their local administrations, opened up a geographical Pandora's Box of huge proportions, distances, and opportunities for land-grabbers from the Gulf to Gippsland, three or four million square kilometres in which squatters must have fallen over themselves to get as much as they could, no matter how. One day, thorough forensic examinations are going to be carried out on suspected massacre sites to establish the truth of those allegations.

In SA, the right to use land as traditionally was recognise from the outset. A ration system was installed from the outset. Aboriginal people were declared to be British subjects from the outset, with the full protection of the law, at least officially. The first school in Adelaide was for Aboriginal kids, taught in their own language, Kaurna.

Of course, it probably couldn't be anticipated that

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 8 April 2016 10:22:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

recognition of traditional use-rights and the ration system cancelled each other out: if one can get rations for nothing, why go foraging ?

The ration system was used very effectively to defuse frontier conflict: in one region, south of the Gawler Ranges, the Kokatha people used to move down into Eyre Peninsula during droughts, raiding out-stations as they went. But once ration depots were set up to the north-east (Port Augusta and Franklin Harbour) and the north-west (Wallianippie and Venus Bay) of the Peninsula, even before pastoralism had been extended to those areas, the raiding stopped, more or less. People still came freely right down to Port Lincoln, being given rations along the way, for example at Poonindie.

I'm trying to sort out in my mind whether 'invasion' or 'settlement' would have occurred, one way or another, sooner or later, across Australia; whether the British broke their own laws in doing so; and whether or not, on balance, Aboriginal people (a) would genuinely prefer to return to completely traditional lifestyles, or (b) are better off, despite their violent history, being part of a modern Australia. So far, my tentative answers to myself are: yes; yes; and (b).

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 8 April 2016 10:24:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rache, one of the best analogies on the subject I have read. What I do disagree with is there was no invite, the star boarder simply moved in and took over. On British law, there would be a problem with understanding, given the fact that no Aboriginal person graduated from university with a degree until Charles Perkins in about 1965.

Found this timeline 1900-69 very interesting.

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-history-timeline-1900-1969#axzz45BmJNroe
Posted by Paul1405, Friday, 8 April 2016 10:27:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know many Aboriginal people and not ONE of them wants to return to pre-1788 culture.
Many of them are extremely grateful that they were taken away from their families (for whatever reason) and the opportunities that were opened up for them.

It's now almost fifty years since Australia voted for Aboriginal people to be treated the same as other Australians; there is no cultural excuse for breaking Australian law.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 8 April 2016 8:40:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

And they probably look upon you as the Great White God. Especially given that you are one of those omniscient engineers you and Aidan are always raving on about. All hail Is Mise! All bow to Is Mise!
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 8 April 2016 8:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Saltpetre,

You suggest,

"Why then do you dismiss global warming (or at least any significant human contribution to this)? Or, may you have revised your position on this?
(Or, is my memory in error in this?)

"Since you are a person of great knowledge, and much wisdom, why is there so little concern being expressed generally about the future impacts of population growth and accelerating industrial development?

"War, mass-migration, climate-change, China, North Korea ....
Where are the three (or more) wise men?"

You may have me confused with someone else, but anyway:

* No, I'm a genuine sceptic about global warming (perhaps current early autumn-winter weather here in Adelaide reinforces this); when the sea-level rise tops an inch in fifty years, I'll take it seriously: at that rate, I know I'll have barely two thousand years before I'm very suddenly flooded and drowned;

* Population growth: perhaps from people living longer, rather than increasing birth rates. But you're partly right: native populations in developed countries, even Australia, are barely rising and even declining - while migrants, being young, have much higher birth-rates. But I suspect that, for example, the Indigenous population in Australia is rising at barely the same rate as that of non-Indigenous Australians, 1-1.4 % p.a.;

* 'accelerating industrial development' ? What, in Australia ? You mean Arrium, General Motors, Ford, another company every week ? Or do you mean 'how can we find ways to accelerate industrial development' ?

Oh well, BTT: as you write, "....I do not agree that native title should universally entail full transfer of ownership and entitlement to any developmental purpose or sale."

Obviously, a problem with group 'ownership' and sale, is who benefits ? Given the Indigenous predilection for self-promotion, elitism and corruption, and the attenuation of urban population from cultural knowledge, especially about specific group land rights and boundaries, how can a situation be avoided where the squeaky wheel gets the bounty flowing from land 'ownership' and - if it was allowed - eventual sale ? We need to learn from NZ mistakes.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 9 April 2016 1:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 19
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy