Paul1405,
I have on a few occasions drawn attention to what a few Australian Indigenous but most of the pseudo indigenous call the non indigenous.
The only reason why this is not an issue is because the non indigenous haven’t a clue what they’re being called.
It just goes to show that the Indigenous are no different to the rest of us, they just demand to be seen as different because that’s where the money for no effort is & without the responsibility of decency !

Indy, you don't have to be white skinned to be racists and bigoted, its not a prerequisite. I was visiting a friend last evening, we were discussing the situation in Sri Lanka and the hostility between the Sinhalese (75%) majority, and the Tamil (10%) minority, and racism plays its part in that conflict. We may say "they're all Indians to us" but not so to them, there are big differences. BTW, my friend is an Indian Tamil, and can't speak Hindi, and also doesn't like Bollywood movies.

Earlier I wrote that Paul "either dropped out of the thread or sought to change the subject."

And here is is trying to change the subject. And in a year or so, he'll be back exclaiming that no evidence for aboriginal slavery exists and demanding I provide it. The more things change....

He calls the evidence "scant" which at least is a step up from his earlier assertions that there was no evidence. Of course, there is way more evidence than I can provide here, but why bother especially to someone who will reject it no matter how extensive. All stone age peoples probably practiced slavery and wherever evidence exists it proves that point. And, if I haven't mentioned it before, the Australian aboriginals were the quintessential stone age peoples.


"where does the concept of "terra nullius", sit with you, if you accept that concept, then there was no violence towards Aboriginal women, as there were no women to be violent towards!"

Unfortunately (not the least unusually) you've misunderstood the term. It doesn't mean there were no people. It means there was no sovereignty over the land. And that is an issue that is very much in the eye of the beholder.

mhaze,

"terra nullius" meaning "land that is legally deemed to be unoccupied or uninhabited"

Now you have a new word to add to the meaning "sovereignty". No, the word sovereignty is not included in any worthwhile definition, and yours is not a worthwhile definition. Are you agreeing with the High Court of Australia that "terra nullius" was a false concept, and Aboriginal people did indeed hold sovereignty over the land at the time of the British invasion. Who in the British government prior to 1788 was considering the possibility of Aboriginal sovereignty over the land they called New South Wales. AND how was Cook in his couple of short landfalls able to establish no one held such sovereignty over said land, considering he did not observe even 0.00001% of the land mass or its people.

BTW, there is plenty of evidence that Aboriginal people, built and launched the first successful man landing on the Sun 8th May 43,256BC. The evidence is the same as yours, a little bit scant.

"legally deemed to be unoccupied or uninhabited"

Yes, legally unoccupied. But not ACTUALLY unoccupied which was your original assertion when you incorrectly used the term.

I didn't add 'sovereignty' as a new word. Its integral to the notion of terra nullius. eg

"The only territory which can be the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising sovereignty over such territory." Oppenheim's International Law.

I can't be bothered educating you on this. You'll just have to read past the headlines all by yourself.

mhaze,

How did the British government prior to 1788 determine that no people held sovereignty over the lands of the east coast of the continent. And I did ask, who in the British government considered the issue of sovereignty before dispatching Phillip? I'm not much interested in the 'Oppenheim Definition' which I am familiar with, rather I am my interested in what the High Court of Australia had to say, and they declared "terra nullius" as applied to Australia invalid.

I'll help you out, Thomas Townshend, 1st Viscount Sydney, played a leading political roll in establishing the British colony in New South Wales, and as far as I am aware good old Sid had nothing to say about Aboriginal sovereignty! They knew there were people occupying the land, but with Cook's account they believed a small attachment of marines would be able to deal with any resistance from the inhabitants. It was not long before the colonisers under government direction were conducting "punishment" raids against the Aboriginal people.