Hi Banjo,

Some slight exaggerations there, but I suppose hyperbole is easier than evidence.

By the way, some Aboriginal people were assigned convicts: Maria Lock, for example, and the people on Flinders Island.

And from the outset, at least here in South Australia, English law recognised the rights of Aboriginal people to use the land as they always had done. I'm told that is still the law. But, of course, if people DON'T use the land but choose to stay fairly close to ration depots, what is any government supposed to do ? Well, actually, what they did do was to supply people with boats, fishing gear and guns [yes, in SA, Aboriginal people have always had the unrestricted right to use guns], to induce people to actually make use of their country.

As well, by the turn of the 19th century, a few dozen Aboriginal people in S.A., including women, had been granted land leases, rent-free, 160 acres, and often provided with fencing wire, implements, etc., as well.

As for restrictions on movement, people came and went, came and went, as they pleased. As in other States, people were provided with free rail and coach passes. It's all on www.firstsources.info

Sorry for the bad news :)

Joe

Dear Suse,

<<as they were expanding their 'empire', but the Aboriginals of today are still paying the price.>>

So you don't think that the Aboriginals of today have any responsibility for their predicament? Despite having privileges that you and I can only dream of?

After all, unlike those dark times, they are now allowed to roam in the outback, resuming their ancient culture in all its glory, free from the corrupt Western culture of their invaders. Who else gets such a chance? Why would they choose instead this corrupt Western money, spiritless Western doctors and school-teachers to indoctrinate their children into their invaders' greed and arrogance? And why would they still choose to imbibe the toxic ales of their invaders, now that nobody makes them or even tempts them to do it any more?

Had I been living in the outback in a small like-minded community, I would only consider it a boon that the Australian government fails to send its agents to disturb our peace!

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

« Well said, Banjo, inaccurate and unscientific, but well said none the less »
.

Thanks for the comment, Is Mise. If you would care to be a little more specific, I shall be happy to compare my sources with yours and agree on necessary corrections.

.

Dear (Joe) Loudmouth,

« Some slight exaggerations there, but I suppose hyperbole is easier than evidence. »
.

You may be right there, Joe. I’ve never tried. Am I right in thinking you’re not speaking from personal experience either?

Any “slight exaggerations” I might have made are, perhaps, partly due to my lack of formal education beyond age 14. I do my best to cross-check “evidence” from whatever sources I can access but … I may still get it wrong. Doubt is my only certainty and vice versa.

If you’d care to be a little more specific, as I just wrote to Is Mise, I shall be happy to compare my sources with yours and agree on corrections.

Thanks for your info on the historical status of Aboriginal people in South Australia and the link to www.firstsources.info.

A cross-check with Wikipedia indicates that from 1788 until the British Parliament passed the South Australia Act 1834 (Foundation Act), it was part of the colony of New South Wales. From 1834 the doctrine of "terra nullius" (land belonging to no one) ceased to apply to the new province of South Australia.

Wikipedia :

« The Letters of Patent attached to the Act acknowledged Aboriginal ownership and stated that no actions could be undertaken that would affect the rights of any Aboriginal natives of the said province to the actual occupation and enjoyment in their own persons or in the persons of their descendants of any land therein now actually occupied or enjoyed by such natives.

Although the patent guaranteed land rights under force of law for the indigenous inhabitants it was ignored by the South Australian Company authorities and squatters. (Ngadjuri Walpa Juri Lands and Heritage Association (n.d.). Gnadjuri. SASOSE Council Inc. ISBN 0-646-42821-7) » :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Australia (cf., History)

.

Yuyutsu , "
So you don't think that the Aboriginals of today have any responsibility for their predicament? Despite having privileges that you and I can only dream of?"

Of course they should take responsibility for their current ways of life. Many could never live like the rest of society because they don't have the education or employment opportunities the rest of us had.

What 'privileges' do they have that are not available to all Australians? If they do have them, then I don't want them because many of them don't seem to be doing well at all.

Yes, I do have some experience working in Aboriginal health areas, and it seemed to me that the only Aboriginal people with houses and jobs and reasonable lives were those who were children of 'mission' raised parents who were educated fairly well.

Education is the only hope for the Aboriginal children in the future.

Banjo Patterson,

"The Australian aborigines lived in perfect harmony with their natural environment for 60,000 years"

They didn't, they kept setting fire to it and gradually altered it to what it was in the early 19th century.

Burning the countryside was not living in harmony with it, it was farming by fire.

Hi Banjo,

My sources ? Check out my website: www.firstsources.info - you will find about twelve thousand pages of hard-to-find documents there: protector's letters and annual reports, royal commission evidence, conference transcripts, mission letters, a missionary's 300-page Journal, etc. etc. Just try it.

Experience: I won't go into my association with Indigenous people or Indigenous affairs yet again, except to say that it now covers fifty years. You learn a lot in fifty years. Best of luck on your long journey !

Joe