The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Legitimising white supremacy > Comments

Legitimising white supremacy : Comments

By Irene Watson, published 28/8/2007

The belief in European supremacy legitimised the violent theft of all things Aboriginal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All
kartiya jim - it is not my attitude.

It is an attitude of those calling to cast votes for them on 24th.

On the other hand, how do you offer re-sharping Europe, for instance, on a basis of a "Moomba case"?

And you know a meaning of "Moomba" in an original language, perhaps.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 16 November 2007 12:54:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michaelk,
Apologies , missed a line .

Shocka appears to ignore the basis of international property law ie, historic possession .

If he flogs stuff off someone, it doesn't make it his .

Henry Reynold's, The Law of the Land is a great read to help understand what has happened in Australia and elsewhere.
Posted by kartiya jim, Friday, 16 November 2007 8:33:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kartiya jim, if you're going to refer to property law and possession, you should know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

I already addressed this in my first post:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6277&page=0#92914

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

You've heard of squatter's flats? Here's why they can.

Adverse possession is a common law property right.
You may possess the property of another simply by *occupying* it exclusively for a sufficient length of time.
Is 200 years long enough?

"Adverse possession" is the formal name for Genghis Khan's approach to property acquisition.
And it applied in Australia too, even if the British weren't quite as brutal as Genghis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession
"Possession of a thing for *long enough* can become ownership.
In the same way, the passage of time can bring to an *end* the owner's right to recover possession of a thing."

Possession, even if obtained wrongfully, is *itself* a property right.
I have a VCR, I took it from your home.
It's mine *unless and until* you can prove you have a *better right* to possession than I do.

Considering Aboriginals were nomadic, warriorless, and didn't "use" the land in any way other than exploiting what nature put there, your claim to "possession" is inferior to the white settlers who built permanent towns, roads, railways and farms, and have done so for 200 years.

You may have *once* been the rightful owners of this land, but that right has expired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle

The Homestead Principle says you can own land simply by being the first to make use of it.
Aboriginals weren't *everywhere*, so anywhere they *weren't* was up for grabs.

You lose the "warrior" argument, so you cough up "treaty".
When I address the complexity of the treaty issue, you *ignore* it, and cough up "property law" (which I'd already addressed before).

I seems you know nothing of any of the concepts you refer to.
Your comments are based on emotional blackmail, not facts or law.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 17 November 2007 5:04:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spank me, Father Jim.

Teach me a lesson. Ow!
Put me in my place. Ow!
Wipe the smirk off my face. Ow!

Don't hold back. Give it to me.
That's right. Spank my pale white arse.

I've been a naughty, naughty white boy.

OW!
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 17 November 2007 5:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shocka , wrong again!!

The average English Lord hunts grouse once a year in his back paddock and moves around the rest of his property for the rest of the year shooting rabbits here and pheasants there!

Try and tell him you're moving into his back paddock for keeps and see how you go.

You are still showing an abyssmal understanding of Aboriginal Traditional Culture .

They don't need a piece of paper for their hunting and land rights .

If you have a look at the map of Australian Languages you will realise who really are the rightfull owners .
Posted by kartiya jim, Saturday, 17 November 2007 7:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Shocka, wrong again!!"

No, Father Jim, *you* are wrong again.

I can set up my caravan and vegie patch in Lord Toffleton's paddock tomorrow.

It's up to Lord Toffleton to get me evicted.

If he *fails* to do so within a reasonable length of time, the paddock will remain in my "possession".
If I "possess" it long enough, I can even claim "ownership".
Right again, Shocka!!

"You are still showing an abysmal understanding of Aboriginal Traditional Culture."

I don't need to understand Basque culture to live in Spain either.
Only Spanish culture.
(Bitch!)

Universal concepts like "warrior", "territory" or "property" transcend time and place.
The Chinese built the Great Wall to protect their territory from invasion by warriors, not rabbits.

"They don't need a piece of paper."

Didn't I just say that?!

Then *why* do you want one?
And could you actually address the numerous thorny issues I raised about this.

"If you have a look at the map of Australian Languages you will realise who really are the rightful owners".

You mean the *original* owners.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/pathways.asp
Look at that map and you'll see why a treaty was *impossible* in 1788 or any time thereafter.

"Ownership" is not an eternal right. It is conditional.
It can expire.
And it has.
First by either never having or losing "possession", and then losing "ownership" through the loss of "possession" over an extensive period of time.

The British invaded and conquered Australia (Ask *them* for an apology).
The land has new owners.
End of story.
(And no matter how much you spank me, I'm not going to feel guilty for sins I didn't commit.)

Could you answer MichaelK's question: "How do you offer re-sharping Europe on a basis of a Moomba case?"

I presume he means reshaping Europe on the basis of a "Mabo"-like case.

You argue about "historical possession".
So, who exactly is the "rightful owner" of Budapest, Hungary?

The Celts?
Romans?
Huns?
Mongols?
Turks?

Magyars, the ancestors of today's Hungarians, originally came from western Siberia!

Who are the "indigenous" people with "traditional" rights to Budapest?
Who "owns" Budapest?

Please explain.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 19 November 2007 3:10:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy