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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.