Hi Minotaur,

Why do people insist on this fiction that the British claimed that Australia was 'an empty land' ? Of course, they didn't. Cook reported never being out of the sight of smoke from fires all along the east coast. Every explorer wrote of encounters with Indigenous people. So whoever said the continent was empty ? Nobody. Move on.

If you mean by that, 'terra nullius', then again no, 'terra nullius' didn't mean there were no people, only no system of alienable land ownership. Was there ? This is quite a crucial issue: were the relationships that hunter-gatherers had with the land those of ownership or of use ? Of course, hunter-gatherers used the land and the British - at least here in SA - recognised that from the outset. But did they 'own' the land ? Certainly groups, i.e. clans, exercised rights to exclude non-clan members seeking to use the land without permission, so I think the answer may be 'yes'. But pick up any book on land law, check out the first, historical, chapters and see for yourself. There should be plenty in your uni library.

As for treaties, with whom back then ? Would Aboriginal groups have understood what was being proposed, since after all, it was unprecedented in their experience. Who with ? Clans, i.e. the land-using groups ? Elders ? Speaking for whom ? This raises the issue of whether or not Australia was a 'res nullius', i.e. a land without government or administration. After all, clans didn't need anything like government above the level of clan, or family. Can you talk about families having government ? I suppose so, but only over clan or family members. Were there any functions of government higher than this level ?

And what would be the point of a treaty, or a multitude of treaties, now, 230 years after the event ? To specify what ? Equal rights ? Or do Indigenous people want a bit more than 'equal rights' ? It would be nice if that could be spelled out honestly.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

"The real question is:

"Since everyone used spears, how come not many people came up
with the woomera?"

Many ancient people did. see: "atlatl" on Wiki and elsewhere.

Most of inland Australia is suitable for the use of the wheel, being flat to undulating, wheel-barrows come to mind for people who walk.

There is some evidence that they existed in ancient Greece.

Hi Joe, condescending comment is not usually part of your replies and it doesn't suit you. However, it is my understanding that Cook was under instruction to not claim any land that was occupied being 'used' by indigenous people. So, what did he do, claim the land by putting the British flag on an unoccupied island to the north of Australia. Of course, in Cook's defence he was very much in appreciation of the Aboriginal people and described them favourably and living lives that were happier and more prosperous than Europeans. However, it would seem his attitude changed after being attacked.

I'll have to recheck but I do recall Watkin Tench, who was part of the First Fleet and whose writings are invaluable records of early colonisation (before it became a full blown invasion), expressed surprise to find so many indigenous people present. They had been led to believe that the land was basically 'unoccupied' and ready for the taking. And let's not forget that in the Mabo case the High Court stated that terra nullius was a lie.

As to treaties, well many early colonisers seemed to be able to reach agreements with indigenous peoples all over the world. However, when one group comes in with an attitude of extreme superiority and does not take the time to even begin to understand local peoples and their nations then you get invasion. Of course, part of the problem, and somewhat unique to Australia, was that many of those early colonisers were convicts who took the chance to oppress those they believed to be below them on the social scale of the time.

On a final note for now, I don't support any calls/moves for a treaty now. Aboriginal Australians are now far too diverse and mixed for any such thing to happen. It would simply be tokenism at its worst...and even more divisive than the current moves to have recognition for our 'First Peoples' in the Constitution (which will never happen as no one will ever agree as to what form it should/could take).

Is Mise, using Wikipedia is not a means of establishing credibility. However, as you raised the point of such technology, specifically boomerangs, being found elsewhere that means very little. And when it comes to those in Europe or other places they weren't as isolated as Aborigines in Australia were. Technology advances could be traded and communicated across a wide range of peoples.

I really don't see any relevance to your comments about the lack of a 'wheel' being invented by Aborigines either. They didn't need one, hence there not being one invented. As the old adage goes, 'necessity is the mother of invention' (ok, I probably butchered that but you get the gist of it).

Actually, you disappoint me Is Mise as I thought you may have been able to counter me by arguing that Aboriginal people didn't invent 'hafting' of tools (ok, I didn't mention it but a knowledgeable person would have noted the omission). I'll save you a google search though...'hafting' basically means putting a handle on stone tools to make them more useful. That technology didn't come to Australia until around 5-6000 years ago (when the dingo arrived too). That implies that some others had to have introduced it (and the dingo) from outside. Now there's a thread for you to follow!

nicknamenick, if I failed to appreciate your use of irony and/or satire I apologise and retract my accusation of you being a 'racist crunt'. My hackles were raised by other comments by the true racist (and bigoted) crunts prevalent on OLO (yes, you ttbn and your fellow like thinkers) and I reacted to your comment accordingly.

Dear Minotaur,

Well argued and Thank You.

It is greatly appreciated.