January 26th is called Australia Day. The question for me is, who physically was here first? Animals like Koalas, Kangaroos, Crocodiles, Magpies, Penguins, Lizards, Fish.....

We are however told Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of this land. Why? I don't know and I'm related to Aboriginal people myself (having two Aboriginal nephews).

So why do some humans keep purposefully destroying the wildlife, habitat, environment and the homes of the first ones here - native wildlife - when I feel no Australian people truly own this land?

If my home was destroyed by a vandal - it would not be tolerated.

< If my home was destroyed by a vandal - it would not be tolerated. >

Unless the vandal had a bigger gun/army than you, then you'd tolerate it like everyone and everything has since time immemorial. Welcome to planet earth where psychopaths set the rules.

Nathanj Gday and welcome.
Today we celebrate the British first settling Australia.
It may well have been the French.
And emerging evidence tells us many other country,s and peoples came here before them,
'Dirk Harthog [sorry about the spelling] put his plate up long before Others.
But who owns England, it has been taken over by Vikings Romans so what culture belongs there.
And tell this protector and defender of Aboriginal culture how many remember even understand the culture of their ancestors back on that first settlement day.
All of us do not fully know our blood lines ancestors, so how many of our first Nation would never have been born if the parents from other cultures never came?
I think great leaders from First Nation should re consider invasion day, look again at the progress that never happened for some, because they did not make the effort to lift them selves away from what is in all truth not the culture of their ancestors or bought about by other than their own actions.
Let every Australian from every race and back ground enjoy this day Australia without doubt belongs to us all, what we make of it is in our hands

Nathan, mans intervention into wildlife has been somewhat of a double edged sword in many cases.

On the one hand we have destroyed much of their natural habitat, while on the other hand we have also provided them with a more regular source of food and water than they enjoyed prior to our intervention, with crops.

Now that's the bush side of the story.

As for urban areas, well, we have destroyed much of their habitat but then again we are fully aware of this and, we take reasonable steps to accommodate them, something I seriously doubt would have occurred had they been rulers.

As for them owning the land, sorry, doesn't fit for me as the rule in the animal kingdom is eat, or be eaten. A bit like a Hitler mentality.

I also doubt anyone can claim ownership to something unless they actually pay for it, or they inherit it, or have title to it, indigenous ownership, although against my opinion is an exception.

seen we all die I would suggest we are stewards not owners of this land or any other land for that matter. Overall Australia has done much much better than most others when looking after the country. If you travel to third world nations you will see much of it covered in trash.

who really owns this country?
NathanL,
I'd like to think those who worked for it.

Dear Nathan,

Aborigines are Australians whose ancestors were the
first people to live in Australia. The word comes from
the Latin phrase "ab origine" meaning from the beginning.
When spelled with a small "a" the word "aborigine"
refers to any people whose ancestors were the first people
to live in a country.

Aborigines have lived in Australia for at least 50,000
years or longer. Most scientists believe that Aborigines
originated in Southeastern Asia. When Europeans began to
settle in Australia in 1788 there were at least 300,000
Aborigines living on the continent. It was their land.
Their country.

The religious beliefs of the Aboriginal people stressed
their position in the environment. While many other
religions focus their attention on their churches or temples
the Aborigines believed that it was the plants, the
animals, and nature around them that held the secrets of
the gods. They believed that most of the features of the
landscape had been made by legendary ancestors.

They believed in reincarnation and they believed that
the spirits of the dead would return to the tribal lands,
and live on in plants or animals. If an Aboriginal died
outside the tribal lands, it was thought that the dead
person's spirit would not find its way home, and that
the homeless spirit would die, deserting the creatures it
was to protect.

Just as the Bible relates the Christian legend of how the
earth, and life on this earth started, so in Aboriginal
legends of the Dreamtime, all the mysteries of nature are
explained.

Aborigines were nomadic hunters and food-gatherers, who
travelled within their tribal territory, taking enough from
the land to survive. When the food supply seemed to be
running out, they moved on. They did not exhaust the
natural resources, as present day Australians do.

Because the Aborigines were nomads they has no visual proof
of their land ownership. So the Europeans thought that as
the Aborigines were not working the land
(not in the European tradition of farming)
they should make way for the
"superior" race. Resistance took place. We all know the sad
history that followed

cont'd ...

Aborigines are now getting some of their ancestral lands
back. Inthose areas where mining and other development took
place, they were displaced by companies which promised to pay
them compensation for their lost lands. In some cases,
these arrangements have been fair, but in others the
Aborigines did not get a fair deal.

Although it now generally accepted that the Aboriginal people
have some rights to their lands, there remains the question
of just how much and which land.

As Kath Walker wrote:

"Though baptized and blessed and bibled,
We are still tabood and libelled.
You devout salvation sellers,
Make us equal not fringe dwellers."

Just to add some backing to what I originally posted.

Five parts of what our sate parasites are doing to the country!

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebP43RlZW3Q

psychopaths the lot of them!

I'm all for having our National Day on 1st January.

Because:"Before 1901, Australia was not a nation. At that time, the continent consisted of six British colonies which were partly self-governing, but subject to the law-making power of the British Parliament. Each colony had its own government and laws, including its own railway system, postage stamps and tariffs (taxes). This caused a lot of problems and people began to think about the benefits of uniting as one nation, under a federal system of governance."

See: http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/federation.html

January 1st is the anniversary of the founding of the Nation, the 31st is the anniversary of the founding of the Colony of New South Wales.
The British didn't claim the whole continent and in fact the French claimed the west but never bothered to found a settlement, otherwise, mes amis, all that iron ore royalty might have been filling the coffers of Paris and not those of Perth and Canberra.

I remember hearing the mad read head say that comment, or was it Rudd.

I also remember thinking they were kidding themselves, because apart from loosing land for farming, we were also facing theprospect of not being able to pay the costs associated with food farming.

I also made a comment about China's interest in our farming land, saying that at least they recognized that the dam and would be there, but we (Aussies) COUKD not afford the costs, but China, bringing their own people in could.

As you rightly say, RM, they are psychopaths, or dreamers at the very least.

I have read that DNA testing was done quite some time ago & it was apparently found that the was a strong link between some Bangladeshis & australian Aboriginals. It is not impossible that the Aboriginal people were colonialists of some kind themselves. I think everyone would agree that the australian Aboriginals have been here longer thatn any other & they are the indigenous of this continent. As who to owns this continent is a totally separate & different story altogether.
The Aboriginal people would not even have had a name for the continent as a whole as they would not have had the slightest concept of another world other than theirs. So, in my way of thinking and, please feel free to contractict/prove me wrong the owners are those who made it a Nation. One thing is for sure Cook was not the first outsider to view the shores of this continent, he was however the first to claim it be that right or wrong in hindsight.

Can we go back to a time when millions of bison roamed the plains of, the now, continental U.S.A.? Or, before shallow seas and land-bridges enabled human migration to continental Australia?
Can we, could we, should we?

Hunting and gathering (without any vestige of 'farming' or stock domestication) requires large areas and small human population exploiting the land's natural resources sustainably - particularly in an ancient, eroded, and time-worn land such as mainland Australia.
Who would go back?

We live in a conundrum, of how to reconcile history with the present.
Moving forward offers promise for all - but in a new, inclusive way.
Shall all get on board, willingly and skillfully manning the now cosmopolitan Nation and Land called Australia?

Throughout history peoples have toiled to improve their lot, to create cities and 'civilization', ever moving forward.
To conserve, peoples must have foresight, must fight to preserve those facets and features of their culture and their environment which are most precious to their present and to their vision of the future.
Living in a lost past is no way to live, but more like a slow and depressing death.

Australia for all Australians; precious, but vulnerable to internal and externals shocks and challenges.
Unity is strength; division, from any cause, a challenge to be overcome.
Can there be reconciliation of the spirit, retaining the essence of culture whilst wholeheartedly embracing the promise of present and future prospect, or is the world (and Oz) to be forever challenged by the sins of the past?

Foxy,

I'm related to Aboriginal people (with two aboriginal nephews) and other relatives who are aboriginal - but I am also a strong environmentalist.

"Aborigines have lived in Australia for at least 50,000 years or longer..... But what about Australia's wildlife?

In terms of people, why is Australia 'their' land? I really feel however Australia is different as it was native animals here first - humans second.

This website gives basic details giving an overview: http://panique.com.au/trishansoz/animals/animals.html

I remember a story on the ABC where an Aboriginal person was spearing an animal to death, saying it was part of their culture and their right. Luckily, another aboriginal person didn't agree saying wildlife should be protected and not speared.

Nathanj two of my nephews wed in to that community.
I was working for and looking after many in my last job, usually having to save their jobs too.
Whites needed that help too.
I want an end to the horrible life some live in Citys or more often in the mish [missions].
But if you want truth look to members of that community great members.
Noel Pierson for a start.
Truth is often unpleasant but it and only it can bring about change.
I grow weary of folk with as much white blood as other talking about a culture they can never be sure existed in the way they reform it.
Nathan an ugly truth too many Aboriginals hold views that would brand me racist if I held them, about them.
Even more have no education and no idea what they would do with this country if we left.
I know that answer, as they have done with almost every bit of freehold land they ever got sell it.
Review the failed land councils and know some stole from their own people.
I demand we end all this but first our first Nations people must getup and improve their own ways.

Hi Individual,

You note that Aboriginal people couldn't have had a concept of 'Australia', just of their own territories and those of their close neighbours.

I would go a bit further and suggest that land-holding groups were not 'tribe'-wide, but based on what might be called clans, or more accurately sub-clans, local descent groups, extended family groups, of which there must have been tens of thousands back in 1788.

If there is ever going to anything like a treaty, its proponents would have to take this into account, and also the historical fact that many of them have been forgotten by the people themselves.

Fifteen-odd years ago, I compiled a 100-page file of genealogies of my wife's group, the Ngarrindjeri, around the mouth of the Murray, lower Lakes and Fleurieu Pensinsula here in SA. I included 'clan' names for each family - it wasn't all that difficult to find this out from the Berndts' 'A World That Was' - and passed it onto somebody who is now an authority on Indigenous studies. He said, 'What's this ?' about those 'clan' names. After some discussion, he still couldn't see any point of including them, they obviously meant nothing to him.

But that might be the organisational level that anybody serious about a Treaty would have to work with. I don't know how it is in FNQ but I'm sure that people up there would have a much deeper understanding of their local 'clan' groupings and their significance.

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Nathan,

Animals and plants and nature and the environment
are part of the religious beliefs of the
Aboriginal people. As I mentioned earlier -
The religious beliefs of the Aboriginal people
stressed their position in the environment.
While other religions focused their attention on
the churches or temples, the Aborigines focused
their attention on the plants and animals and
the nature around them.

They believed that most of the
features of the landscape had been made by legendary
ancestors. They only took enough food from the
land to survive. They treated the animals and plants,
and the environment with respect

It is possible today to learn about Aboriginal civilisations,
not only from their wonderful legends, but also from the
finds of archeologists (who study the remains of
civilisations) and of anthropologists (who study the
development of the human race). We can therefore put
together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle by looking at:

1. prehistoric skeletons that have been dug up.

2. artefacts (tools, utensils, and ornaments) that have
been excavated or found in areas where Aborigines lived.

3. cave and bark paintings.

4. The many different languages, legends and customs that
have been passed on by word of mouth.

Be proud of your Aboriginal ancestry and try to learn more
about it. Ask relevant questions and listen, not only for
the answers, but for the silences. You will learn how they
lived. What they thought of themselves and the world.
And how they solved their problems.

Did you know that at the time of European settlement it is
estimated that there were about 500 different
Aboriginal languages and dialects (variations of a language)
spoken throughout Australia. Therefore there must have been
at least as many tribal groups.

Each was a community in itself, and within this community the
clans and family groups lived in individual units in a big commune.
Just as, in the European tradition, each family had its own
surname, the clans had their 'totem' to distinguish them
from others. These totems were usually animals or plants
that had special importance for the clan.

Belly,

You aren't recognising or understanding my point.

Many aboriginal people do very well - but stereotyped by too many. Both of my nephews have an aboriginal step sister who is working in an arts company and their step brother has a aboriginal partner - both with very good jobs, along with two children - all nice people.

A woman however gave a very hateful official opening speech about we were on "her" land at an official NYE event last year. I was offended by it.

But my question was - who owns this country? Why aren't we recognising this point - that being the native wildlife of Australia, being here first - because humans dominate?

Larger animals that can kill (say like Sharks) and some people want them dead, even though humans are in 'their' territory.

Foxy,

Mu understanding is that people inherited their totems, either from their father or mother, or sometimes both. I don't know that people could simply choose any totem they liked.

And when you write,

"Each was a community in itself, and within this community the
clans and family groups lived in individual units in a big commune."

I have to respectfully disagree: families yes, larger units, maybe and sometimes, 'tribe'-wide, not necessarily and maybe hardly ever: groups down this way were as likely to fight other groups within the 'tribe' as with outsiders, even within the same dialect group, and often fatally. People didn't normally share with anybody outside their own family group, unless there was something like wife-exchange going on - this seems to have been common across Australia. Individual could put us right on that score :)

In one case down this way, I think in the 1870s, a man had promised his daughter to two different men, who each duly gave him many gifts. Eventually she decided - not her father, that's how it went down this way - to marry one of the men, but the father grabbed her, stripped her naked and, with some other family members, strung her up so that the other man could have his way with her through the netting. Then she could go off and marry her choice of partner.

It was a pretty rough old world. But call it 'communal' if you like :)

Cheers,

Joe

Actually, come to think of it, no-one really "owns" any country. It's those who keep the economy going & who provide the basis for all to have a reasonable time between birth & death who are the ones who can claim to exercise authority over that country but do not morally "own" its land..
Indigenous people in any region of this planet have an unquestionable right to reside in the area of their birth just as their compatriots have the right to expel them if they become disruptive.
All this talk about owning land by groups of people who have not contributed to making that land more productive in food availability is totally unprogressive in this day & age.
All idealism goes out the window at the same rate food becomes scarce.

Foxy, Aborigines would not have had any conception of "owning" specific parcels of land, for being precisely the type of people you describe them as: (a) nomads and (b) pantheists.

Nomadic pantheists would find the notion of "possessing" a materialist parcel of nature utterly inconceivable!

If they were so attuned to nature, where are all the giant fauna?
They hunted them to extinction!

If they were territorial to any significant degree, they'd have a warrior class to defend "their" land, as has occurred everywhere else in the world.

I've only heard of one such case (and they lost the battle with the settlers, so its not "their" land now).

Warriors have weapons.
All Aborigines had were *hunting* tools (spears, boomerangs).

Yes, we once had similar fairyland explanations for life, the universe and everything.
Then we grew up and invented Science.

"there were about 500 different Aboriginal languages. Therefore there must have been at least as many tribal groups."

And all defined by shared *biological* ancestry.
But how dare White Australians do the same! NAZIS!

No, our "tribe" we must be open to everyone and anyone, *irrespective* of ancestry!

Is Mise, all the colonies except Western Australia were once part of NSW.
Therefore the founding date has just as much relevance to them as it does to the now-much-smaller NSW.

And one day, the states may be dissolved, reverting "Australia" back to a single political entity.
Which began on 26th January, 1788.

The country rightly belongs to its inhabitants and its inhabitants rightly belong to the country.

The country consists of both the inhabitants and the land that is defined by its borders.

The inhabitants are those living in the territory who were born in the territory or have been accepted as inhabitants by those living in the territory.

Dead people are not inhabitants. “We” are not those who created Australia’s history (pre or post 1788) and can’t take credit or blame for what our ancestors did, but only for what we do in the light of what our predecessors did. The moral right to derive profit or penalty from the activities of individual or ethnic ancestors is strictly limited and is often grossly exaggerated.

The date December 03 1854 marks the rebellion at Eureka which – with the contributions of ultimately millions of people to this day - led to an Australia based on the Enlightenment, in contrast to dates and symbols based on participation in colonial wars. If we value the liberty won in the Enlightenment we'll uphold its values