The Forum > Article Comments > Terra nullius and the ‘history wars’ > Comments
Terra nullius and the ‘history wars’ : Comments
By Lorenzo Veracini, published 10/2/2006If we dispense with the term 'terra nullius' we will still must face a ruthless and unlawful dispossession in Australian history.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Or, to cut a long story short, the term "terra Nullius" and its use or non-use is not important - the fact that any form of land ownership was denied [under what ever term] and land taken when there really was ownership existing was what eventually gave judges the duty of recognising potential land rights 200 years later.
Posted by Bob James, Friday, 10 February 2006 11:07:58 AM
| |
The history of the world is chock full of occupation of land and dispossession of the original inhabitants by newcomers. Usually by force. It seems clear that Terra Nullius was not used by The Crown in occupying Australia, but simply a statement to the effect that England was now in charge.
You appear to try and justify the use of the Terra Nullius argument by lawyers, I assume out of sympathy for aborigines. It would be far more effective for aboriginal welfare to forget the divisive, expensive and unfair lawyers picnic that this very dodgy theory has provoked, and work to establish a fair and well organised system to maintain traditional knowledge and languages for all our benefits. Posted by Bull, Friday, 10 February 2006 12:49:58 PM
| |
If I understand correctly the logic used here, the reason you can't find historical references to terra nullius is because everybody knew it existed.
>>the fact it did not enter public discourse and was not legally specified until later only means that its application had gone without saying for a long time.<< I am no historian, but is this an acceptable level of proof? "Your honour, the fact that no-one mentioned that the defendant was a serial rapist only means that everybody knew it to be the case." or even "So what did you do in New York?" "Kept it free of tigers" "But there are no tigers in New York" "Good, aren't I?" Posted by Pericles, Friday, 10 February 2006 1:55:48 PM
| |
In my opinion there is only one truth, and that is this country has been occupied for 80,000 year by Aboriginal people 'terra nullius" or not, as simple as that.......I am a white Anglo-Saxon 50 year old male........
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 10 February 2006 2:35:18 PM
| |
Hmmm.. yes, I fail to see why it takes so much woffle to say something very simple...
1/ Australia was populated by Indigenous people (as every land was except antarctica ?) 2/ For historical reasons which most of us know, Britain took more than a passing interest in the place. 3/ 'Rights' only exist under a power structure. He who has the power, dishes out the 'rights'. 4/ The Indigenous people of Australia were DISPOSSESSED... by a force more powerful than they. WELCOME to the history of the world !since Cain whacked Abel ! 5/ Now, we all should get on with the job of doing the best to right any rightable wrongs, and reaching out to all well meaning members of the population, and getting along. 6/ Land not 'owned' and called 'Crown Land' should be so only for its protection against rampaging capitalist exploiters. This would need to be handled delicately between national interest (including defense) and Indigenous sensitivies and include a reference board of Indigenous trustees. The Indigenous concept of land stewardship, can be accomodated within the European concept of 'ownership'. Even 'owned' land. Why do we go to such unbelievable lengths to even waste time trying to 'justify' the unjustifiable. Move on...face the facts.. and aim for reconciliation as best we can do. (practical as well as emotional and spiritual) Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 10 February 2006 3:32:15 PM
| |
Pericles is right; the logic in this article doesn't stand up
"Terra nullius was not tested because its legality was not in doubt: this is one proof of its existence, not the contrary. Ironically, Connor’s research actually confirms terra nullius’ pervasive application." and "When one speculates about erasures, lack of evidence might itself be quite solid evidence" This is paranoid logic at its finest, comparable to - of course there are communists in the White House - the fact they've never been discovered just show how clever they are at concealing themselves. "Terra nullius has the remarkable characteristic of denying itself ex post facto by its very being operative." Remarkable indeed. But if this is true, how can native title be "recovered", as the author goes on to say in the next sentence? "While terra nullius identifies native title so that it can be denied, native title establishes terra nullius so that it can be discontinued" This is surely the point that Connor etc are trying to make - it was necessary to invent "terra nullius" to justify (the also recently invented) "native title". Neither existed in the 19th century, according to Connor. "This polemic ultimately proves how disturbing it is for some Australians that Aboriginal dispossession should happen and that someone should mention it" This is a blatant ad hominem "Connor perhaps thinks that if terra nullius is proven to be a fabrication Aboriginal dispossession would also disappear as well as its purported redress" He hasn't said this, and I doubt he would. Like other posters here, I don't want to deny the fact of Aboriginal dispossession or its injustice. Nor do I want to overturn native title or turn back the clock. But I don't think we need to invent nasty legal fictions, to or re-write the past, in order to justify doing the right thing now. Posted by Rhian, Friday, 10 February 2006 4:13:48 PM
| |
Reading this article made me think firstly of Jack Cabe's famous remark: "The first thing we do, let's hang all the lawyers.", and secondly of Dr. Johnson's polite dictum that "he did not wish to speak ill of any man behind his back but he thought the gentleman was an attorney."
The whole objection to the aboriginal industry can be illustrated by this article. Instead of approaching the land problem in a non-confrontationist manner, and negotiating to pay existing property holders for the acquisition of common title rights by aboriginal groups to their land, the industry has spent oceans of taxpayers money in innumerable court cases which mainly enriched the lawyers. The so-called "rights" only succeed making all groups feel deprived, either that they are not getting their "rights", or are having to give them up. In comparison, look at the sensible way the British Government ended slavery in the empire by purchasing the slaves and then setting them free. If this had happened in the US, the civil war could probably have been avoided. Instead, by emphasising "rights", millions were killed and enormous devastation occurred. Posted by plerdsus, Friday, 10 February 2006 4:53:31 PM
| |
The Mabo case proceeded on the proposition that British law recognised pre-existing relationships to the land,(as it did in other colonised places, USA, New Zealand, Canada) subject to it being overridden by the introduced law. Incidentally all these nations have a history of entering into treaties with their respective Indigenous people. None has every been entered into here.
None of the aforementioned nations were determined to be no man's land but in 1889 the British Privy Counsel declares this here. Federation was in 1901. In fact, Cook’s instructions were to negotiate with Aboriginal people on issues of land. This did not occur. Mabo, and therefore the recognition of "native title" emanated (belatedly) from the fact that British law recognised pre-existing relationships to the land – set in international precedent. But where is Connor’s acknowledgment of this? Right wing apologists for dispossession and genocide are not new to me. Their ravings are yet more proof about they have a deep psychological problem with [apparently] being denied their "birthright" by admitting we Aborigines (despite their best efforts) continue to exist Posted by Rainier, Friday, 10 February 2006 5:40:37 PM
| |
Ranier... the LAST thing you could ever want is a 'treaty' with the British.
Try the Treaty of Waitangi ? (deceptive dual language versions) or The Treaty of Nanjing.... or.. any of the other treaties where the weaker party was punished to the point of economic subjugation. The treaty of Nanjing was a result of China losing over the Opium trade and man oh man..were they PUNISHED.. the compensation for the losses to the Sassoon family (who ran the Opium trade for the Brits) and the British government, was the moral equivalent of taking the Chinese males, lining them up and shooting every 3rd man. A treaty ? for Australia ? What would it do ? simply confirm the present 'structural racism' which you are so often going on about. It would also emphasise DIFFERENCE, which I don't think is desirable in these days. While I'm sympathetic to Indigenous issues, the greatest issue is that of dignity. This can never EVER be recovered in terms of the pre British ways. They need to find a new dignity, and as I'm also often putting forward, that dignity is found in the knowledge that we are all Gods creation, and are loved by Him. I fully support increased recognition of Indigenous cultural and tribal realities, and I see more and more evidence of this in places around Gippsland, like Orbost. If this is a way where Indigenous people can feel better about the surrounding reality, then good. I don't believe it will answer the ultimate questions of life though. The Sengoi of Peninsula malaysia are equivalent to Aussie Indigenous people, and they live a traditional lifestyle in terrain much like the great dividing range. I'd be happy for you and others to do the same. The Penan, jungle nomads of Borneo are adopting a settled life now, learning how to plant crops etc..there IS life after colonization. Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:01:32 PM
| |
Lorenzo is right but took a very long way to get home.
The essence of the concept of Terra nullius is the denial of a property right. And denial, by its very nature, is the avoidance of an obvious fact or condition. The concept is not new. It started long before the Norman conquest of Britain and was the mechanism whereby Princes and Kings were able to subordinate the rights of others to their own claimed "God given" right to rule. They simply denied that their subjects had any rights at all. Interestingly, the Celts all over Northern Europe, had developed an advanced expectation that rulers actually had obligations to their people. And it is the ascendancy of these democratic, community based values that urban centric historians describe as the "Dark Ages". (they weren't too dark for the ordinary Celts). These expectations were trashed by William the Bastard, the illegitimate son of a norman king who became known as W. the Conquerer. It is no small irony that he went on to fully exploit "denial" in his dispossession of Anglo-celtic landowners because his very ascendancy to the throne of Normandy was the result of brute force in denial of one of the most fundamental of community values, legitimate succession. Magna Carta was a partial re-establishment of these obligations placed on rulers but by then the fruits of denial, the anglo-celtic lands and their subjects, had been consolidated in a new legal system. But that legal system still continues today with no controls on the capacity of the crown (state) to deny the existence of property rights if it chooses. And it has done so with our first firestick farmers and is doing so again with farmers today. Posted by Perseus, Friday, 10 February 2006 9:25:32 PM
| |
I don't give a hoot about history. Can't change it. Terra whatever, is in the past.
Here and now is what I am responsible for along with the other 20mil that live in Australia. And we have evidence here and now that many aboriginal people do not or cannot live a western lifetstyle. This could be a good thing as a western lifestyle is not all that great. We have tons of land that has not been settled in any major way. Aboriginals are expected to modernise in so many ways, why not the land ownership way? So we allow them to actually own parcels of land wherever they are connected, with a view down the track to even having their own states, then if they wish there own mini nations (as they had). I do not agree with land squabbles that rely on where my "ancestor" lived. In that case half the aborigines would own Ireland! lol But like squatters rights they should be just given land they are on now (plus any surrounding land not owned, or if only a few owners, toss em) and be allowed to do whatever they want in the future. I hate that aboriginal culture has been buried by the politics. If aboriginal people were allowed to breathe again their culture could grow itself into it's own 21st century version instead of ours. Posted by Verdant, Friday, 10 February 2006 10:14:04 PM
| |
Lorenzo, Well argued and to the point. Thanks
Perseus, Interesting take on the terror. You are correct in identifying the doctrine of tenure as historically derived from Norman England and its feudal system of land infrastructure. However, there are questions relating to constitutional laws and their legitimacy in terms of upholding the feudal system of tenure in this country that remain unresolved if not substantially untested. - Questions remain in terms of defining the nature of colonial acquisition. Was acquisition enabled by rules of settlement: rules of conquest: or rules of cession? Connor does not address these questions in his quest to become a noted historian and conservative academic. Verdant, you made some excellent points. Boaz, hope you're having fun. :) posting to me. But this game is getting a touch boring. Posted by Rainier, Friday, 10 February 2006 11:18:27 PM
| |
This debate to me is good,but it should be made very clear that,the term Terra nullius,is outdated,there never was any piece of this globe (earth ) that that term can be applied to,as for Australia ,the british used it for their claim,to occupy this country,and tried to influence,the ignorance of historians,that supported the system of colonisation,the case of C. Rhodes in Africa had the same political reason,not Terra nullius,but the nature of his writing,was in the interest of colonisation.much more can be wrtten about the subject of Terra nullius,but its political debate about the reasons for using the term,has now in this century failed,as we are,no longer subjected to theory.
Posted by KAROOSON, Saturday, 11 February 2006 6:02:29 AM
| |
Fascinating. Utterly fascinating.
I can see that Lorenzo Veracini has a big future ahead of him as a PR man for the ABC . His mastery of “diseased English” will no doubt be noted by any prospective employer who needs to pull the wool over the eyes of the public. To those not familiar with diseased English, could I humbly submit a translation? Mr Veracini’s ideological mates have a problem. Yet another historian has submitted evidence that the entire concept of “Terra Nullius” was an invention of the usual bunch of anti everything intellectuals, who never tire of attacking Western civilisation and who presently infest our universities. Lorenzo response is certainly a novel one. He proposes that since Terra Nullius did not officially exist, that proves that unofficially, it did exist. Now, a most people would give that one the hairy eyeball. So, his extraordinary premise has to be put in diseased English in order to slip under the critical analysis circuits of the readers. The purpose of diseased English is to hide the truth by submitting a statement wrapped in such flowery rhetoric that the writer appears to be an exulted authority, while his potential critics are intimidated at their inability to figure out what in the Hell he is even talking about. People unfamiliar with diseased English may be interested in it’s mechanics and history. English contains approximately 25% of French and Latin words. This rises to 50% when diseased English is used. This is because it has been used by English rulers and their minions to keep the English peasants ignorant since 1066, when a bunch of Frogs from Normandy usurped the English throne. Lorenzo has used a couple of specimens that are real gems. “Paradoxically, as a consequence of its inner functioning, it was only at the moment of this legally endorsed partial termination that terra nullius could be properly articulated.” ….“should be integrated by a better understanding of the dynamics of settler colonial practice” The Australian people usually call this practice “baffle them with bullsheet.” Nice try, Lorenzo. You'll go far. Posted by redneck, Saturday, 11 February 2006 7:33:39 AM
| |
Boaz-David
I sense you are in favour of and support reconciliation. I think there is a great deal if unintended insensitivity abounding in this topic. I must disagree about the extent of the lenghts we need to go to to reach genuine and real understanding. It would need to be much further than the distance run in Kipling's unforgiving minute...from his poem 'If'. I think that minute might be here now, too. I don't think it's a treaty with the British that is being spoken about. I think you need to listen a little louder. :-) Your God may love all people but your God is a Western male construct and probably doesn't realise he might be offensive to women and others. (I mean that as a little humour.) Like you I also don't think restoring title is the only solution needed. I see also a need for us all to understand Indigenous Culture is an evolving thing and has evolved successfully through and inspite of the last 230 years. It's retention of it's identity does not extend any longer to living as nomads in the bush. You do in a way like many others fail to recognise the colonised take often the best from the coloniser but wish to retain the essence of themselves. And that ain't about planting crops unless it is of course in a commercial enterprise. Verdant, I see your heart is in the right place. You are on a similar path I have taken. I think you are right when you say in your original way 'If aboriginal people were allowed to breathe again their culture could grow itself into it's own 21st century version instead of ours.' It's the manner in which the breathing can be arranged is what we are all starting to seriously think about. Regards to you both Posted by keith, Saturday, 11 February 2006 7:21:22 PM
| |
Keith
you cannot restore something which didn't exist. "Title" .. is in itself a Western idea. 'Habitation' is what existed prior to white settlement. Raniers waxing eloquent about identifiable boundaries between tribes would be workable unTIL the first drying up of the water supply or drought or whatever pressure on the resource base of one population group. Then, they would have done what every other human being since Adam has done "pushed and shoved" for a share of whats available. Such boundaries also exist in Borneo, but they are rather rubber like and depend as much on the whim or more powerful tribes as anything. I honestly don't know WHAT Ranier and company want.. giving 'native title' is a western exercise in itself. In Sarawak they have a law, 'No land belonging to Indigenous people can be sold to non indigenous people' and the Chinese marry into them :) I certainly want Crown land regarded as Aboriginal myself, and sacred sites on owned land recognized, and access given. But no matter which way u cut the historical cake.. they will still be left with the same challenge every society faces when they have suddenly woken up to find 'The world is different' and they are surrounded by white trash like u and me :) I like Verdants expression, and another I've used which I heard from an Torres Strait Islander is "You want us to dance like warriors but not act like them". Take away manhood, and you destroy a people. We are experiencing this to a degree in our own community. Confusion over gender roles.. social cues no longer there.. I want to be a "warrior" (true male) too, I think we all do deep down. My God is also 'God'. He exists whether or not His creation admits it. Reconciliation to Him, is the first step to reconciliation with fellow man :) P.S. Ranier.. I have never claimed to be 'An Anthropologist' I've had specific training in the field..thats all. Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 11 February 2006 7:49:11 PM
| |
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds of distance run Then yours is all the world and what's in it And what's more you'll be a man my son. Kypling. If. Nothing about dancing or warriors in his definition of manhood. Lot's about taking chances and opportunities though. That's what I've always considered as manhood. It requires a great deal of courage, self-belief and a great emphasis on individualism. What is attempted to be taken away currently (Last 150 years) is that emphasis on individualism. I don't think anyone as trash. I think Indigenous people haven't just woken up. They've lived through their nightmare and the evidence is clear, they're rising to it's challenge. Posted by keith, Saturday, 11 February 2006 9:52:40 PM
| |
Thanks Keith, Boaz, may I suggest you dialogue with this man. A few short sentences from Keith shows that his wisdom and openness to embrace possibilities for all concerned is not impeded by a dogmatic God – rather by a belief in our need to strive for the common good. Solutions come easy when we are all on the same page.
Back to the topic at hand: Terra nullius was not just an absence of the recognition of Aboriginal connections to land and the prevailing and deafening white silence that accompanies it. Anthropologist W E Stanner described this silence as 'a cult of forgetfulness' or 'disremembering' that has been 'practised on a national scale'. Connor’s book in yet another symptom of this disremembering. Boaz, it’s been quite obvious to me that while you can hear me, you cannot listen. Dancing warriors? How quaint! Your little story reminds me of those romanticised adventures in phantom comic strip books. Um, Boaz, you do know this comic was works of fiction? Or didn’t you? I do wonder Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 11 February 2006 11:04:10 PM
| |
The denial of a property right that is inherent in the notion of Terra nullius can only work if it is employed with a reversal of the burden of proof. So we have people who have been here for 50,000 years or more but who are expected to show proof of their continuous attachment to the land. And they must do so to people who were clearly not here before 1988.
This is William the Bastard's trap that has endured for almost a millenium. And the extended focus on the restoration of specific lands to particular individuals continues to play into this trap for most of the southern blackfellas. Posted by Perseus, Saturday, 11 February 2006 11:19:35 PM
| |
Perseus, yes, the Yorta Yorta case demonstrates your point exactly.
The Native Title Act’s preamble says, “the people of Australia intend to ensure that Aboriginal people receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire”. Yeah sure. In nearly every culture, “history” has two meanings: events as they happened in the past and the reconstructed version of these events in later times. In many ways Connor, Windshuttle, Howard are not so much interested in wars of history but in positioning themselves as hero’s of the present and part of how history will be recounted in the future. They will be remembered. Terra Nullius is not just a land law doctrine but also a means by which historical disremembering on a national scale was enable. In the post Mabo determination it was a shock for many white Australians to learn that this country was inhabited by ‘Other’ peoples prior to ‘peaceful settlement’. For those knew it was as if a burden had revisited them in the still of the night. I recall being asked at school ‘which country did you come from”? by white children who were oblivious to my and their joint history. Back then Aborigines were [and continue] to be spatially organised in memory to inhabit the outback, a curiosity, on tea-towels, referenced in Harry Butler documentaries and in the last chapter of Australian history books [or not mentioned at all]. While white Australians could always tell immigrants to go back to where they came from, but were dumbstruck when confronted with my mob. But it seems Connor et al have discovered a cue to this national psycho-social 'Terra'. The hope is that white Australians will triumphantly return to the halcyon days of white armband ethno-nationalism. What is on trial in Native title claims is not just memory and continuation of custom and tradition, but memory of how cultural continuity was impaired by white incursion. Who speaks for these people, policies and practice? Nullius! See this cartoon. http://home.ca.inter.net/~dmonet/cartoon/archive/e02.gif Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 12 February 2006 11:22:11 AM
| |
Ranier....
One thing you may be absolutely certain. 'Self Determination' would never be other than 'under the umbrella' of the current power structure of this country. Why ? simple, -hell will freeze over before we allow some firebrand like Micheal Mansell to cozy up with Libya's Gadaffi, and be white-anted from within! Yorta2 (I disagree with the court decision) They demanded that Aboriginal people be given full citizenship rights, including the right to land, self determination and to retain their own unique cultural identity. Social justice and equity were a major part of their policy objectives and the issue of land rights and compensation were at the forefront of their struggle (Horner, 1974:75-80).. Sure..why not ! Next issue please...... "Compensation"....should be 'Indigenous'. i.e. in terms of what is 'valued' by them, not by us. Money is out of the question. A major aspect of the claim was for 'food resources lost' by Paddle Steamers scaring them away. Ok.. lets restrict them to other areas ! "Land Rights" Some choices. 1/Those who currently occupy Yorta Yorta traditional land can open their fences to Indigenous people for free access. Would this help ? 2/ Government can 'buy' property from owners and give it to the Yorta Yorta ! (no problem with that) Condition being, the Yorta2 will use it 'traditionally' not commercially and canNOT "sell" it. LONG TERM. If the Yorta Yorta wish to have their 'culture,heritage, and land' back.. do they also want the 'white' trappings ? Then.. will they want 'self government' and as population increases..will they want MORE land ? and then MORE ? and then will they want to have recognition as a 'state or Indigenous Nation ' ? Will they have a 'Senate' so all tribes can have equal representation? and so it goes on IMPORTANT. Anything of this nature is prone to 'politicization'. The most obvious sign of it is in the area of MONEY, access to it and control over it. These issues should be limited to compensating in real terms the things actually lost, and IN TERMS OF INDIGENOUS culture. Not Western. Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 12 February 2006 3:50:18 PM
| |
David
Why is there a condition they have to use the land in the traditional way? We never have and ruined it in the process. It is only important they have that choice. No reason to me aborigines have to stay stuck in a time capsule. Their choice. I think from my illegal perspective that they should just stand up and say "btw, we own Cape York, Palm Island or wherever and if you disagree fight us for it. I doubt there would be much resistance. Imagine the horror worldwide if Australia engaged in a civil war over land they don't place much value on? Even if said land is paradise? And with aborigines? Do they really know how much power they have? The only reason stopping them is welfare and we should not stop that but suggest that with land ownership comes assets and assets provide money and money means you may not qualify. Ooops they have been weaned off welfare. That is bad? Don't think so. The only drama is to get rid of cattle, and that causes so much destruction to the land maybe a good thing. If they want to take over land that has been improved or mined then they have to get a royalty or pay them out. Still cannot see how it would be a major problem unless they want to take over Sydney then I would have to say "too late"! But before it is too late get your hands on where you still are the major population! And they will probably get more mainstream support than they realise, people just want an end to all this victim business, whoever it is. Everyone respects the aboriginal and I have no doubt for their basic human rights as well. Posted by Verdant, Sunday, 12 February 2006 4:24:22 PM
| |
Dear Verdant
Acknowledge all your points.. well said. Please read this: http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aar/yorta.htm One thing I find curious about the article above and the claim of native title, is that they seek a ‘legal basis’ in the constitution. Do they realize that in so doing they are defacto recognizing the very power structure which they claim to resent ?. I have another reason for saying ‘use it in a traditional way’ and to compensate them in the ‘traditional’ way. Simply because they are crying out about ‘lost culture and traditions’ and to me, the simplest way for them to regain them is to USE them in any dealings. This also reduces the possibility (no..the CERTAINTY) of politicization. If there is no ‘money’ involved, but instead, other more culturally appropriate measures.. the greedy hangers on in the “Indigenous industry” will quickly lose interest I’d hope. The issue at the heart of aboriginal social problems are loss of dignity. They can recover this in one of 2 ways. 1/ Recapture their traditional life as much as possible. 2/ Discover a new foundation for their lives, such as spiritual conversion. I much prefer the 2nd. My wifes tribal culture in Borneo was pretty much the same as the worst excesses in Aboriginal society here now. They were drunk more days of the year than sober, disease was rife, population dying out, starvation, malnourishment, so much of their rice crop was used to make Arak (Alchoholic Rice Wine) they always experienced starvation prior to the new crop being ready for harvest. But, to put it bluntly, and boldly they found Christ. (they went and ASKED the missionaries to come to them) Today they are a renewed and transformed progressive people. Please read this link to find out about them ( I know personally many of those named in this story and some are relatives by marraige including the late Dr Judson Sakai, and the late Kalip Besar (both killed in helicopter crashes) Kalip lived across the grass Airstrip from me. http://allmalaysia.info/news/story.asp?file=/2005/7/25/state/11314576&sec=mi_sarawa Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 12 February 2006 7:53:20 PM
| |
Boaz-David
Who is Gadaffi? Yorta-Yorta I'm not familiar. But if it is as you say- then i'd ask- SURE WHY NOT, we can afford it? and I'd yell it... well... until you listened louder. So 600,000 people are going to have a seafood picnic, create a modern middin (in a day) and dance around like warriors on Yorta Yorta land and so destroy it's agricultural value...Boaz-David I'm not often sarcastic but this seemed just so funny an image to me. Sorry mate. But seriously, I do understand your concerns with regard to the financial and sovernity issues. I'd suggest they are not as much an overriding concern as you suggest. I'm sure such issues should be discussed and concerns alleviated with agreed compromises. That's only fair and such occurs in the daily lives of us all. Yep I agree with you, it is best to keep the politicians out of this discussion. But David the Indigenous in this country have a spirituality that has been in existance far longer than that of the Christians. Why is Christian Spirituality superior to Indigenous Spirituality? Would Indigenous people need to abandon their traditional Spirituality to embrace the European concept of spirituality? Verdant There are many other things stopping them...peacefulness is one. You are speaking a great deal of 'truth'. Regards to you both Posted by keith, Sunday, 12 February 2006 10:31:44 PM
| |
Boaz,
Not that I have a hope in hell of shifting you from your “Christianising and Civilising” missionary perspective I would like to point out that while your comparison with Borneo people has some relevance, it's contextually inaccurate and stereotypical. Which Indigenous people are you speaking of and where? You are clearly out of your depth in this field of knowledge but I doubt if you would concede this because it would require you to admit that the questions you ask are also devoid of any substantial understanding of the people and the issues. You state “Do they realize that in so doing they are defacto recognizing the very power structure which they claim to resent?” Have you ever read any of the vast amount of literature written by Indigenous and non-Indigenous people who have succinctly put up their reasons on why legal and constitutional reform is required? The unresolved status of Indigenous people in law and Australian civil society requires major reform. What we do resent is the terra nullius in these legal and constitutional arrangements. You seem to swap and change your questions to suite your own lack of knowledge in this regard. Nonetheless, I want to thank you for posting as your comments are wonderful examples (for all to see) of the ramblings that most missionaries, mercenaries and misfits (the 3 M’s) who infest and unnecessarily complicate the world of Indigenous people in this country. Just part of the problem, not the solution Posted by Rainier, Monday, 13 February 2006 10:40:33 AM
| |
from:
http://www.un.org/WCAR/e-kit/indigenous.htm "Specifically, in the fifteenth century, two Papal Bulls set the stage for European domination of the New World and Africa. Romanus Pontifex, issued by Pope Nicholas V to King Alfonso V of Portugal in 1452, declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioned and promoted the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories." "Inter Caetera, issued by Pope Alexander VI in 1493 to the King and Queen of Spain following the voyage of Christopher Columbus to the island he called Hispaniola, officially established Christian dominion over the New World. It called for the subjugation of the native inhabitants and their territories, and divided all newly discovered or yet-to-be discovered lands into two - giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe and Portugal over the other." "The subsequent Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) re-divided the globe with the result that most Brazilians today speak Portuguese rather than Spanish, as in the rest of Latin America. The Papal Bulls have never been revoked, although indigenous representatives have asked the Vatican to consider doing so." "These "doctrines of discovery" provided the basis for both the "law of nations" and subsequent international law. Thus, they allowed Christian nations to claim "unoccupied lands" (terra nullius), or lands belonging to "heathens" or "pagans". In many parts of the world, these concepts later gave rise to the situation of many Native peoples in the today - dependent nations or wards of the State, whose ownership of their land could be revoked - or "extinguished" -- at any time by the Government." So, it is "international" law of the day. Posted by Sapper_K9, Monday, 13 February 2006 12:37:38 PM
| |
Sapper, so what enables the many treaties (US,Canada,NZ) to have contemporary relevance in the legal advocacy of Indgienous peoples?
While I understand you are referencing property law as it evolved in specific nations and states (as a legal inevitability) it does not explain the evolution of differences jurisdictions and land tenure/governance within any given nation state. Norfolk Island is a case in point Posted by Rainier, Monday, 13 February 2006 2:13:22 PM
| |
The wisest words so far have come from Redneck, who was right to say that Lorenzo's English was bastardised to the point of saying nothing. I like bastardised over diseased as when the father of English, Anglo-Saxon, is forgot, then nothing is clear. As Churchill - wiser than most on nearly every matter - put it, when having to choose between the Anglo-Saxon and the Romantic, take the Anglo-Saxon. Congratulations, Redneck, on being the first to point this out. The plain English which should be taught in schools is replaced by this turgid, lifeless, bollocks; any student of Classics who studies English in Form 6 would know this well.
Posted by DFXK, Monday, 13 February 2006 10:39:41 PM
| |
To more pressing matters...
"The Indigenous in this country have a spirituality that has been in existance far longer than that of the Christians. Why is Christian Spirituality superior to Indigenous Spirituality?" The Catholic church officially recognises that there is a whisper of Truth in Aboriginal spirituality, well, more that a whisper. "Rainbow Serpent Theology" is an example of this, which explains how Aboriginal spirituality could be thought of as the half-way point on a journey to a Christian understanding of the world. Aboriginal spirituality taps into one potent part of Christianity - Tradition - and thus to all the obligations that we have for one another (Loving One's Neighbour), especially in families, clans, and as a race. What it lacks, however, is a challenge to ethical standards. Aboriginal society, without the influence of a Christian idea of redeption and progression, would abide by its tradition of raping fourteen year-old girls, as a recent case in the Northern Territory shows. Tradition, or the well documented policy of Aborigines in the now-Sydney basin to remove the little fingers of all women, only when enfused by the living challenge to the Spirit of Christ, can reach a truer spirituality and goodness, otherwise it lives only by obstinant reference to the past. Thus, I feel that Aboriginal spirituality, unable to be renewed and to improve itself without a Christian sense of an objective moral standard to which one must aspire eternally, is lesser than a Christian one, though it is a potent part of a Christian one in its sense of interconnected responsabilities and ties, and the respect that these should foster. As a conservative, rural-loving monarchist who prefers his hymns on the organ rather than guitar, and his architecture Neo-Gothic rather than Modern, I know where they're coming from. Posted by DFXK, Monday, 13 February 2006 10:39:56 PM
| |
DFXK
Aboriginal Spirituality merely a half way point... I know a few Muslims who think Christianity a point in the development of the ideal religion. How is it that 'Aboriginal spirituality taps into one potent part of Christianity -...' when Aboriginal Spirituality and christianity developed in utter isolation? An isolation of 40 odd thousand years. Wouldn't your logic, given the time frame, dictate the opposite. Christianity taps into one potent part of Aboriginal Spirituality? 'What it lacks, however, is a challenge to ethical standards.' That I cannot contest simply because I am no expert in Aboriginal culture and do not understand Aboriginal Spirituality in it's totality. I will however contest an inference contained in your expressed view. Development of moral standards is not and was not the exclusive preserve of the christian religions in the West. As a liberal, mostly supportive of the constitutional status quo, who prefers the Greek Classics to the traditional Hebrew literature I too understand where from they are coming. I prefer the Harp to both the Guitar and Organ, but that's more to do with an Irish heritage than any quest to be angelic. :-) Regards Posted by keith, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 3:39:47 AM
| |
Dear Rainer.... another insult :) ‘bless you’
“You are out of your depth”.. we can add that to ‘go away pious old man’ and ‘You are a meddler’ and I could regurgitate “Well you are not going to be around much longer” (that you said to another rather terminally sick poster ) One cannot help but be attracted to the conclusion that the ‘deleted’ one is more indicative of your hmm.. lets be kind here.. Lofty sense of self importance ? :) I’m wondering old son, -if "this" is how you speak to those supporting Indigenous rights, how would you treat Keith who is telling me Hollllld on a minute thar ma boy.. thars money in that thar land...agricultural money..lets not be too hasty to give it back” Ranier...I truly wonder how many average Aboriginal people who simply have a longing in their hearts for dignity can relate to your ‘intellectualization’ of their situations ? The technical point of ‘Terra Nullius’ in various documents probably means zippo to those who just want to get on with ‘being’ Aboriginal and catch a Murray Cod without being chased off by some farmer. But there I go again..’meddling’ :) Keith.. just to address your reasonable question b4 I run out of breath counselling young Ranier here... I don’t advocate huge slabs of land being suddenly given back at unsustainable cost to the country. I DO agree that most things can be worked out in a realistic compromise way, but I am also of the view that there are certain areas, like that of the Yorta Yorta, which could benefit GREATLY by the government buying out some properties around the area, (close to the river) and for Aboriginal people to have opportunity to actually live more akin to the beat of their hearts. When I drive though areas on the Murray which have been commercialized to the nth degree by our approach to land use, I feel rather depressed. The land has lost it’s soul. I value your sarcasm... its a stepping stone to better understanding as dialogue continues. Back to Ranier..... Next post. Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 6:21:38 AM
| |
Keith,
All religions attempt to explain one thing: the transcendental reality. That's why, at Vatican II, the declerations on religion were so very necessary, because they explained why there are similarities between religions and also why there are differences. Basically, it said that we are all trying to understand this one thing, and therefore there is a grain of truth in all religions, whilst it stated that the Christian message is the holder of the most true Truth. Aboriginal spirituality is based around the image of the rainbow serpent, a localised belief only appropriate for this one island (and that anomaly to our south), that creates the world, and all things stem from that. It is only adaptable to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle which people had before settlement. By replacing the serpent with God, and adding the challenges of the Gospel, many Aboriginal people have found that their culture can continue in the modern word, as it taps into the underlying profundities of Aboriginal spirituality, and perfects those imperfections. Thus, one cannot see Christianity as having a portion of Aboriginal spirituality, but the parochial Aboriginal spirituality speaking something of the universal Christian one. Whilst I did not say that only Christians have moral standards, what I referred to was the attempt at moral improvement of society that is owned by Christianity. Aboriginal spirituality asks only for tradition, Christianity asks for tradition to be critiqued (son turned and father...) yet also respected (honour thy mother and father), to allow for moral improvement. That is the fundamental difference, and is why progress as an idea which holds sway over all of Western Christian culture, now extended into the scientific and material. Aboriginal society wouldn't bat an eyelid at a girl being promised to and duly raped by her uncle of three times her age, because that was tradition. Those areas of Aboriginal culture that were Christianised, much like those areas of Islander culture, have allowed tradition to be maintained, but also improvement made to it. To think otherwise is to fall for the myth of the noble savage. Posted by DFXK, Thursday, 16 February 2006 3:28:51 PM
| |
Thankyou DFXK. I am digesting your much clearer explanation. Initial impression is it has a 'ring of truth'.
We've advanced greatly from the theories of Rousseau's noble savage and Shakespeare's Caliban. Posted by keith, Friday, 17 February 2006 2:06:28 PM
| |
Following the publication of Lorenzo Veracini’s “Terra nullius and the ‘history wars’”, Captain Kookaburra sailed forth to discover Australacademia. Finding no sign of intelligent life he declared it cognitus nullius, and dug a flag hole to claim sovereignty – or so the myth goes. Cognitus nullius gained remarkable currency in a number of public discourses, but when Lorenzo searched the hallowed halls he could not find cognitus nullius, and concluded that it was fabricated. Lorenzo is a necessary contribution to the dialectic process but does not understand that cognitus nullius had very different applications at different times (relating to Hilda Hegel, Daffy Dewy, Wilting Wittgenstein, Chumpy Chomsky and the Marx brothers). But the fact it did not enter public discourse and was not academically specified in words only means that its application had gone without saying. Cognitus nullius was not seen because its existence was not in doubt: this is one proof of its existence, not the contrary. Ironically, Lorenzo’s search actually confirms cognitus nullius’s pervasive existence. How else would you prove a cognitus nullius except by not finding it? One of its characteristics is that in its operative logic and by definition cognitus nullius covers its tracks. Indeed, Lorenzo proves how his cognitus nullius successfully ruled cognition out of academia.
Lorenzo exhaustively shows how cognitus nullius was bred through and by way of academia at a much later stage: but this is because cognition constitutes its dialectical counterpart. Lorenzo collapses the process of academic resurrection with the “fabrication” of cognitus nullius because he misunderstands both and their intimate and mutually constituent relationship. Put another way: cognitus nullius is one of those things that the more it is effective, the less you get it. It must be frustrating: Lorenzo believes he was demonstrating absence of cognition while, really, he put forward compelling proof of a cognition of absence. This absence, again, ultimately proves the very opposite of the opposite he intended. Posted by John Dawson, Sunday, 19 February 2006 12:06:30 PM
| |
When one speculates about academic achievement, lack of evidence might itself be quite solid evidence. At the same time, Lorenzo’s words decisively underscore the ways in which cognitus nullius works – which is to say the way it doesn’t not-work. Cognitus nullius has the remarkable characteristic of denying itself ex post facto by its very being operative. It could therefore be detected and cognitively assessed only by way of recovering the not-knowing - as it has been not-done - also ex post facto. This dialectics of reciprocal recognition between cognition and its denial need to be understood if we want to make sense of the issues Lorenzo doesn’t not-raise.
cognitus nullius and academic non-intelligence are not mutually exclusive. A commonly received narrative has it that first one had academic cognition, second, after cognitus nullius became established, that cognition ceased, and one has no more cognitus nullius . While this narrative is in many ways unsatisfactory and should be integrated by a better understanding of the dynamics of academic practice, it should be emphasized how cognitus nullius and academic non-intelligence are mutually constitutive. In the past, many, including Big Bad Wolfe (in "Academe and Wank: Discursive Continuity in the Post-Modern Era", Social Analysis, B4I#U2), have noted that contrary to other interpretations, actually constituted a peak in the illogic of cognitus nullius as well as its partial demise. Paradoxically, as a consequence of its inner functioning, it was only at the moment of this academically endorsed partial termination that cognitus nullius could be properly articulated. Cognitus nullius and academic funding are so dialectically intertwined that they conceptually need each other: while cognitus nullius identifies the tax paid funding so that obligation to the tax payer can be denied, academic funding establishes cognitus nullius so that it can be not-known. There is no fabrication here - it’s dialectics. This is no postmodern uncertainty - it’s solid Western rationalism of its antithesis. Posted by John Dawson, Sunday, 19 February 2006 12:07:45 PM
| |
Onya John Dawson.. but next time please spread it out a bit mate..easier to read.. k ?
DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS OF RECONCILLIATION. This morning I went to Maroondah Festival 2006 at Croydon park. There was a stall there being run by the "Council for Aborigal Reconciliation" The Stall was manned by mostly 'white' people. One an Anglican lady married to an Indonesian Muslim, (?)a Sth African lady (looked mostly white) and various other all whites, but there was ONE Aboriginal man there, of mixed blood. I raised a QUESTION.... "What...do you WANT" ? NON ABORIGINAL ANSWER: (from those at the Reconciliation Stall) Funding... Funding...and more FUNDING. -Equality -Employment -Advancement -Access to health services -Culturally responsive banking, to facilitate better access to CAPITAL. etc etc ABORIGINAL ANSWER: The primary goal is cultural. We have a connection to the land, spiritual. It is worth mentioning, that there is a possibility of the Aboriginal answer being 'tailored' to suit my 'white' sensibilities, but I did not get that impression. excuse me for appearing 'duh' ignorant, but what the heck has 'better access to capital' got to do with Aboriginals regaining their cultural connection with the land ? i.e. they addressed the SYMPTOM and even then, viewed the concept of reconciliation through 'white' eyes. In fact, if one analyses what was supposed to be 'reconciliation' according to them, it meant just being 'well integrated white people' (see above list). Whereas the Aboriginal man himself, was more focused on the 'actual' issue of alienation .. from -the land -the connection -the culture. If I may 'chirp' a bit here, this is what I've been ranting about all along. 1/ Prime issue numero uno 'Dignity' 2/ Prime cause of loss of uno.... 'Alienation'. 3/ Prime solution to the above.. 'Restoration of Dignity' (not 'better access to capital.) Prime means of achieving 1,2& 3 above... Addressing such injustices as the 'reservation' mentality around Melbourne. (interesting story) Restoration of significant land to Aboriginals for 'INDIGINOUS' cultural use (not capital intensive exploitation) Educated acknowledgement of Aboriginal heritage in our relationships. Friendship. Social contact. Basic human love. Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 19 February 2006 2:49:26 PM
| |
Why ask questions Boaz if all you want is a responses that concurs with your own cocked up social theories, mixed up theology and paternalistic racism?
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 19 February 2006 4:31:38 PM
| |
Welllll Ranier..*touching a nerve* ?
The more I look at the 'Roadmap to Reconciliation' the more I see it as a 'white mans roadmap to racism' I'd be interested to know 'who' was on the Reconcilation committe and their color :) I suggest returning signficant land TO the Aborigines and "Your a cocked up paternalistic racist" now now.. amazing stuff... There is no pleasing you Ranier. "ROADMAP" ..some quotes. 1788 "Australia" (which did not exist)was 'owned and occupied' by ..Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders" Ummm..which ones ? did they 'own' this bit or that bit ? were there ever territorial disputes ? wars ? which tribe owned most?, what tribal alliances existed ? of course not because those things only happen in 'other' countries :) we all know that. Here is a good one "Aboriginal and TSI children .. many were forcibly removed from their families as children, effecting whole communities." most of these were of mixed blood (unless otherwise can be shown) and do you notice how the 'white' ancestry is suddenly 'disappeared'(stolen ?)It has ceased to exist and now they are purely 'Aboriginal'. sorry, you cannot deny the paternity and white ancestry of so many of these mixed children. LEGISLATION "State and Territory Governments are to take account of 'traditional laws' in sentencing." Ooo...k.. to a point, I'm not ok with female children being given to old men. Just like I'm not ok with the Kelabits of Borneo putting salt in the mouth of twins and letting them starve to death over a week. There are areas where traditional law will work under the umbrella of the legal system, and those where it will not. "Self determination within the nation" Ok.. lets call spades spades. There is only ONE 'Nation' here.. and that is the one we see all around us. Your either with us or agin us. How can there be self determination unless you have a country ? Which 'tribe' is boss ...More to say on this, but am basically sympathetic. Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 19 February 2006 6:07:56 PM
| |
Boaz,
No nerves touched with me. To me what your speak of is not new and are simply a dinosaur that somehow managed to survive and in complete isolation from the 30 years of progressive thinking. I would not be surprised to learn that the only reason you engage is because you see these types of discussions as a bit of cheap sport. Do people think of you as a bit strange? But I also sense that one of the fears you have is that we don't need or seek out people like you to support us. That our Borneo brothers and sisters have to endure your presence is truly sad to me. They, like us, do suffer fools paternalistically nesting themselves in our lives, but not for long. The people at the stalls you spoke of are at least walking their talk. What have you ever done? Perhaps you need to reconcile with your own lack of credibility in this discussion first? To do this you'll have to get over yourself first. Yes, I know I'm asking for the impossible, but I'm hopeful. Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 19 February 2006 6:47:57 PM
| |
BOAZ_David, I don't agree that all of your ideas exist only in the time of the dinosaur however, just as you wish others to see the obvious, you must, in turn, recognise what is clearly apparent.
The inevitability of colonisation does not diminish its impact nor vindicate its manifestly unfair application. The children removed from families and communities ripped apart are not echoes of history but continued to happen within our lifetime. Stories such as 'Rabbit Proof Fence' engendered a belief that anthropologists roamed the countryside stealing off-white children for Europeanisation and exploitation. This, I believe, allowed a 'soft' reproach for ourselves. We could blame 'the man' or the system, anything undefinable that would always shift the responsibility just off centre and not quite on us. We embraced this story because science was wrong, the government was wrong, everybody but us was wrong. I am sure that many white missionaries were wonderful caring people and much legislation was put in place for all the best intentions. But the aura of good intention does nothing for the colonised to whom the underlying assumptions of those good intentions created fear, death and families ripped asunder and cast adrift from corrupted communities. Rabbit Proof Fence gave one story in a mirrorball of reflections that we cannot even begin to comprehend. I have talked to some of those directly affected and came away profoundly affected myself. None that I talked to denied their white legacy but were simply proud of their black heritage. You talk of black almost as if it is a colour that should come off on your hand. You do yourself, your God and Indigenous peoples a great disservice. I am not sympathetic to Rainier's intellectualisation of Indigenous Australia nor its focus at times, but his sentiments have a factual basis that you refuse to see. Perhaps I have a problem with that one issue. That it is not that you cannot see but that you choose not to. I know that we need pragmatic solutions to contemporary Australia but never underestimate the damage we wrought in defining our country Posted by Craig Blanch, Sunday, 19 February 2006 8:15:39 PM
| |
Hi
Ive just found this site, good to see a serious discussion happening. My blogspot -http://johntracey.blogspot.com/ has some articles on the subject if anyone is curious. This one - http://johntracey.blogspot.com/2005/12/neo-colonialism-in-australia.html is directly related to this thread. Another site to check out is http://www.kalkadoon.org/ This is the site of Aboriginal Women Reclaiming Culture and Land (AWRCAL) Baganan, who owns the site, operates from a position of Aboriginal sovereignty. However this has nothing to do with native title. Ideologically it is obvious that native title is a white construct. In practical terms it has caused divisions amongst traditional owners which need not exist, has become a mechanism to extinuish land rights instead of affirm them and it has delevered next to nothing in real terms to Aboriginal Australia. In the raw power struggles of society, sovereignty means "getting in the ring" and asserting will. On Baganan's case, this is the basis of economic development strategies which will, apart from address welfare dependancy, provide an economic power base, as opposed to a legisitive "rights", for traditional owners to flex muscle on their country. - sovereign power in real terms. Take it easy, but take it. King Canute Posted by King Canute, Monday, 20 February 2006 4:58:07 AM
| |
By emphasizing that cognitus nullius is slippery, and until recently quite uncertain as an academic category, Lorenzo wittingly excuses academia’s deliberately unspecific use of tax payer’s funds.
Academic liars are ultimately right - in response to critics - in detecting symptoms of the return of truth and rejecting them as a category of intellectual inquiry. I shouldn’t really need to point this out, but this polemic ultimately proves how disturbing it is for some academics that their disposal of government funds and sanity should be noticed and that someone should mention it. Lorenzo perhaps thinks that if cognitus nullius is proven to be a myth it would disappear. This is odd - like expecting a lie to disappear if we prove that it was intended when executed. This is also odd because the doctrine he specifically attacks actually showed how cognitus nullius had not been academic non-policy and that there had been oscillations in its relevance. Is Lorenzo sure that a description of the insanity of academia’s “solid Western rationalism” rather than cognitus nullius would be preferable for academia’s “national asylum”? If we abolish cognitus nullius from the public understanding - indeed if we ensure that one of its versions becomes again fully operative and that one of its specific characteristics, its invisibility, becomes reintroduced - we will still need to face a lot of ruthless and senseless unknowing of the dispossession of sanity for lack of a better term and despite Lorenzo’s efforts, we may end up calling it cognitus nullius after all. Academics don’t like to be reminded that sanity dispossession is one foundation of academic history, Lorenzo and his enthusiastic inmates intend to censure the cognition that undermined itself. By doing so, not only do they prove that cognitus nullius did not non-exist; they also indicate that it persists to exist and non-exist until a new non-existent existent is synthesised. John Dawson You see - I can ejaculate words onto a page too. Can I have my Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Australian National University now? Posted by john Dawson., Monday, 20 February 2006 9:57:53 AM
| |
JD wrote "You see - I can ejaculate words onto a page too"
Arrh yes, but very few of us can do it from the top of one's head. Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 25 February 2006 12:00:33 PM
| |
Thanks all for an interesting read, to all fairness I only got halfway on the posts and gave up on the verboseness of academia.
So is it correct to retrospectively use the word 'Genocide' when it was never around prior to Hitler's Jewish solution? The fact is yes, as inflammatory as some may see it. I am currently studying Indigenous Studies at Uni as part of my Bach of Education. Yes our terminology for past Imperialist and Colonialist actions may be 'post' however ... to some extent 'So what' if the term makes it clearer what's the problem? K.I.S. (Keep It Simple and we'll drop the last S to make the term less labelling!) It's all growth in enlightenment! (grins) I would be interested, in light of the topic, if anyone is aware of details of the first intended Governor for South Australia. I saw a TV program (I would love details on this program) which stated he refused the appointment in England unless the new colony of S/Aust was recognised as having pre-existing inhabitants (the indigenous) so that he could utilize the Crown's Laws to protect the indigenous as the Monarchy's representative. The program led to believe this issue was debated in English parliament and recorded in Hansard. His request was refused and so he refused to accept the appointment. Regards to all, Ausdriver. Posted by Ausdriver1961, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 11:21:56 PM
| |
Set aside your bickering over who can use the biggest words and argue the most. When I read some of your comments, I thought to myself 'who the hell are you to be arguing what indigenous Aboriginal people need' and how dare you use an issue as important as this to compete with each other. How could you possibly understand what they need?
All of you sending retorts back and forth, save the petty arguing for the school yard and start thinking about what the people involved want instead of what YOU think is best for them. Posted by Oakley, Sunday, 27 August 2006 2:34:56 PM
| |
So the point of this great argument is that neither James Cook nor Joseph Banks or Governor Philips had ever heard of ‘terra nullius’?
So what - the poor fellows are not alone! Carl Linnaeus, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, Thomas Malthus, Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, the whole lot of the poor buggers died without having ever heard the word - ‘Social Darwinism’ Are we then to argue that ‘Social Darwinism’ never existed? Poor Adolph Hitler hardly lived long enough to hear the word ‘racism’ and he definitely never herd the word ‘genocide’ So according to this argument we will have to argue that he was not a racist and he never committed genocide? Few colonials ever lived to hear the word ‘Colonialism’ Few of the romantic poets ever lived to hear the word ‘Romantic period’ How many in the renaissance was aware they were living in the ‘renaissance’? All of the ‘Golden age’ painters trotted happily about their business without ever knowing that they painted ‘golden age’ paintings! Millions of people were equally walking around ignorant to the fact that they were living in ‘pre history’, ‘Stone age’, ‘Bronze age’ or ‘Iron age’ – we could carry on and on with similar examples of descriptive terms we as historians use to explain phenomena in the past. Thank God no one new they lived in the ‘dark ages’ – or – may God forbid - perhaps we are experiencing a recurrence? And this is what Connors writes a whole book arguing - or what? Or are he going to tell us that terra nullius – that fact that Australia land was classified as no mans land and that no bit of land taken up by the invading Europeans without anyone ever paying for it – is all nonsense? At least ‘redneck’ below did not live out his live without hearing the word ‘redneck’ Perhaps Michael Connor is going to live out his life without knowing the meaning of the letters 'LOL' Posted by Mr Ristinge, Friday, 13 October 2006 9:15:08 PM
| |
Music to my ears Mr Ristinge, music to my ears.
May I add that "If the land had not been terra nullius in 1788, then the only two legal alternative means of acquisition available under British and International Law, were conquest or cession. In either of these two cases the Crown would then have been obliged to negotiate with the Indigenous peoples with regard to compensation for the loss of their lands." http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/essays/essay_2.html Posted by Rainier, Friday, 13 October 2006 11:12:52 PM
| |
Craig.. point taken (impact) but in the bigger picture of history, I'm thinking the best solution is absorption :)
Ranier... better to be absorbed and assimilated to an 'us' than remain as a 'them' ? In the long run, we are all people.. and have to make the best of life as the cards are dealt to us. Look at the racial background of probably most of us here and you will find we are a right mix of many. cheers Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 14 October 2006 2:17:00 PM
| |
Boaz, I / we know your religions, your customs and traditions, we speak and write English better than most, I'm educated in both worlds, I ignore most white rednecks because they just bore me to tears, I've lost my inheritance that my parents tried to provide me (land, stolen wages, large parts my extended kin) but still you want us to absorb? How many whitefellas speak an Aboriginal language? (there were at least 350 here)
Are you sure you're not confusing this with asking as to be white? You know this is not possible but still you hold the bar up high as if we actually want to jump over it and you have the right to order us to jump? We didn't die out and you guys didn't go home, but we're the ones who have to absorb? Puleeze! Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 14 October 2006 3:44:29 PM
|