If articles were countries that one would be a classic 'sh1thole'. For starters, the Mabo decision was in relation solely to Mer (Murray) Island and its annexation by Queensland in 1869. It had nothing to with native title around the rest of the country. That was established by the Native Title legislation by the Keating government as a response to the gaping holes in the Mabo decision. And Native Title is seperate from Land Rights.

In the judgement (a long read) the Justices who found in favour are clearly cautious with their use of settlement and use quotation marks on it constantly. A clear indication they were not happy with the term being used to mark any peaceful form of colonisation.

That is reinforced by the consistent reference to violent encounters and occupation. That is recognised as happening from the very early days of invasion; 'As time passed, the connection between different tribes or groups and particular areas of land began to emerge. The Europeans took possession of more and more of the lands in the areas nearest to Sydney Cove. Inevitably, the Aborigines resented being dispossessed. Increasingly there was violence as they sought to retain, or continue to use, their traditional lands.'

That clearly describes invasion. As does this: "The dispossession of the indigenous inhabitants of Australia was not worked by a transfer of beneficial ownership when sovereignty was acquired by the Crown, but by the recurrent exercise of a paramount power to exclude the indigenous inhabitants from their traditional lands... Dispossession is attributable not to a failure of native title to survive the acquisition of sovereignty, but to its subsequent extinction by a paramount power."

Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/high_ct/175clr1.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=^%20mabo%201992

In regards to Governor Phillip's 'benevolence' towards Aboriginal people the author does not seem to know about, or deliberately ignores, the kidnapping of Arabanoo who was kept in shackles in order to ensure he didn't escape. Arabanoo later died in the smallpox outbreak that killed around 80% of the Aborigines in the local Port Jackson area. A disease brought by the invaders and possibly used as a biological weapon.

Then there were the orders by Phillip to massacre 12 Aborigines and have their heads returned to him. That was in retaliation for the killing of his gamekeeper, a convict who on his deathbed admitted to interfering with Aboriginal women and stealing from them.

How about the Tasmanian experience where war was officially declared? It seems the author is either ignorant of the war or again deliberately ignores it in order to present a false argument. Or just perpetuating outright lies.

Evidence uncovered recently by historian Nicholas Brodie clearly shows the administration in Tasmania organised and co-ordinated roving parties in order to eliminate the Aboriginal 'threat'. The administration wanted to be rid of the Aborigines and did what they could to ensure that happened. That included offering bounties and declaring martial law with a shoot on sight order for any Aborigine found to be in a 'settled' area...it was unclear where the boundaries of settled and unsettled lay though.

For the author to state violent clashes were 'the exception' is stating an outright lie. And it was laughable that only one instance of a massacre actually having a just outcome was given as an example. Massacres, other indiscriminate killings, rapes and other crimes against Aboriginal people was common across many parts of the frontiers. In most case there was no law on those frontiers.

And from the Mabo Judgement: In an earlier despatch to King, Hobart had expressly acknowledged(279) ibid., vol.4, p 684 the extent to which the practice in the Colony had departed from "the wise and humane instructions" of his "predecessors" and that the Aborigines had been "too often" subjected to "unjustifiable injuries"

Yes, there were certainly many atrocities committed against an aboriginal population, none worse than the attempted extermination of a whole people, the Tasmanian aborigine.

And not for the first time nor exclusively at the hands of the English invader, who'd already annexed Irish and Scottish lands and enslaved the original inhabitants. Many of who made up the number of the forcibly exiled and transported halfway around the world numbers.

Where they ultimately were forced to fight for their right to survive; and against all comers, some more belligerent, with just cause perhaps, than others.

There are some recorded instances of white invaders, distributing blankets known to be contaminated with smallpox and leprosy to the American Indian. But not here as a deliberate act.

There's no way to justify the annexation of other people's sovereign land, but has been common (legal) practise for millennia and here and before white settlement!

None of which can ever be reversed or adequately compensated for by succeeding generations!

The only percentage that has anything going for it, is to embrace the white man's culture and education, advances in science and health care etc. And then strive to lead in all of the above and politics!

No other path presents even a snowflake's chance in hell of even coming remotely close to addressing past wrongs! Simply put, those that live in the past, have no future let alone a viable one!

As for little's assertions, well he would say that wouldn't he. And in no way has the corroborating article confirmed anything? Except a confirmation bias toward an unchangeable, set in concrete, position. Which lacks scientific rigor or a few pertinent facts.

One of which is climate change and consequently, nigh on impossible cool burns? Which instead, can be fanned by stronger wind factors and get completely out of control in minutes.

As they have in countless past times to contribute to deforestation and desertification of a landscape once verdant forest, from the pacific coastline to the Indian.

Moreover, abuse is not debate, just obnoxious abuse!
Alan B.

Alan B Your obnoxious abuse is a case of the pot calling the kettle. Climate change has got nothing to do with out of control burns. Dense scrub is too damp and shady to burn under mild conditions. If it's hot and dry and windy enough to ignite, it explodes into unstoppable fire storms. In December 1792, when blackfellas still maintained open woodland on the Hawkesbury Sandstone country, fires were burning northwest of Parramatta under howling dry northwesterly gales and temps in excess of 43 C. Settlers at Parramatta/Toongabbie beat the fires out with green branches. Yesterday, in dense, unnatural scrub in Royal National park, with moderate temps and a humid northeasterly breeze, all the airtankers and fire engines and paramilitaries couldn't control the fires, and the the econazi dictators in the Rewards for Failure Service couldn't work out why.

If the descendants of the first convicts went back to England and demanded
title to English land, do you think it would be granted I dont think so.

It may be wrong, it may be wicked and unfair but nobody ever gives up control
of land and countries, without a war or civil war.

After all, control of land and countries is what they fight over in the first place.

Countries wouldnt keep armies if they didnt care who overran their countries.

Mabo never had any connection with mainland Australia, & should never have been applied to aboriginals in any way.

It was entirely a decision regarding islander tenure in Torres strait islands. The islanders are a totally different people, & their tenure & customs of land occupation is completely foreign to Australian aboriginals.

If this lady can get this so far wrong, there is no value in any of her opinions.