European 'International Law' as it existed in the late 18th century allowed for the acquisition of foreign land in the following ways.

1. If the country was uninhabited, a European power could claim and settle that country. Thus it could claim ownership of the land.

2 If the country was already inhabited, the European could ask for permission from the indigenous people to use some of their land, or the European power could purchase land for its own use but it could not steal the land of the indigenous people.

3 If the country was inhabited, the European could take over the country by invasion and conquest, defeating that country in war. However, even after winning a war, the European would have to respect the rights of indigenous people.

In the case of Australia, Britain had the above three options at its disposal, but incorrectly chose to apply the first option using the principle of ‘Terra Nullius'. Instead of admitting that it was invading land that belonged to Aboriginal people, Britain acted as if it were settling an empty space. Under its own recognised laws Britain acted illegally in acquiring the continent of Australia.

Following on from constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people it would be a natural progression to right the wrong that James Cook of Britain perpetrated in the name of George III in 1770, and subsequent Australian governments have carried on. A treaty recognising Aboriginal sovereignty of the land and at the same time seeding governance of that land to the Commonwealth is a necessity. This is not a new concept, European colonised nations such as New Zealand, Canada and the US, have treaties with their indigenous people in place...In Australia no such treaty exists, decisions effecting Aboriginal people have been imposed by governments, often without indigenous consultation...
A negotiated treaty with Aboriginal people would mark an important break from a system that for many years has failed to take into account the needs of Aboriginal Australia,

Absolutely. Let's gather together all those natives who were around in 1770 and negotiate a treaty with them. It'll be the longest treaty in history since it'll need to be written in the language of each participant and there were over 300 languages when Cook arrived. And to be true to the times, the negotiations will need to be conducted with only males since in those times women had no rights and were mere chattels. And we'll need these 250 yr old natives to work out who exactly owned which bit of property since there were no clear boundaries and consequently constant wars over this or that piece of real estate.

But other than that I don't see a problem.

mhaze, where did you get the idea that "in those times women had no rights and were mere chattels"?

Dear Paul1405,

Apart from giving us a history lesson what exactly is the point of your topic? What are you trying to say?

Just ignore it.

He's only trying to curry some favour with his partner. I wonder what he did to get into hot water with her?

Hi Hasbeen,

I don't have any hidden agenda. I'm just curious as to what Paul1405's point is that he is trying to get at.

PS I'm still waiting to get those details and examples from you on the 'alternate knowledge' that the universities are pushing. Sounds absolutely fascinating.

"where did you get the idea that "in those times women had no rights and were mere chattels"?"

non-PC history.

Dear mhaze,

What the hell is 'non-PC history'? Is that something they're pushing at university like Hasbeen's 'alternate truth'? Sounds absolutely fascinating.

As far as I remember Cook did nothing more than explore the East Coast of Australia; confirming the charts that he had from earlier explorers.

Paul,

Under our laws it would be difficult to have a treaty with our own citizens, there would be a decided conflict of interest where the recipients of welfare from their Government were negotiating a treaty with that same Government.

We could always check what the NZ, North America and Canada did with treaties with their indigenous people? They seem to be better off in their countries that were also invaded by the British.

"As far as I remember Cook did nothing more than explore the East Coast of Australia; confirming the charts that he had from earlier explorers."

is Mise I thought you would have a better understanding of European history in Australia than that. What earlier charts, by what explorers Able Tasman? On 22 August 1770 at Possession Island near the tip of the Cape York Peninsula, Cook claimed the east coast of what was New Holland, but not known to Cook at the time,in the name of King George III for Britain, naming it New South Wales.

Paul,

Probably Portuguese charts; when the Endeavor was holed on the reef, Cook didn't head back towards the coast that he had already explored but, in a seemingly un-seaman like manner he headed off into the unknown and unerringly made it to a safe haven where he was able to repair the ship.
This indicates that he had a chart of the East Coast.
Nothing else explains his action.

There are extant Portuguese maps of Australia's East coast and this

"A tiny drawing of a kangaroo curled in the letters of a 16th century Portuguese manuscript could rewrite Australian history.
The document, acquired by Les Enluminures Gallery in New York, shows a carefully-drawn sketch of kangaroo (know as a ''canguru'' in Portuguese) nestled in its text and is dated between 1580 and 1620. It has led researchers to believe images of the marsupial were already being circulated by the time the Dutch ship Duyfken - long thought to have been the first European vessel to visit Australia - landed in 1606.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/the-roo-that-could-rewrite-history-20140115-30vaw.html

//A tiny drawing of a kangaroo curled in the letters of a 16th century Portuguese manuscript could rewrite Australian history.
The document, acquired by Les Enluminures Gallery in New York, shows a carefully-drawn sketch of kangaroo//

Unless it's an aardvark.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/17/comment-thats-no-kangaroo-manuscript-so-what-it

Dear Toni Lavis,

How do you know it's not an engineer? They're odd and difficult to make sense of.

I do not understand the concerns and fears of some Australians of European ancestry if they were to recognise Aboriginal sovereignty over the continent of Australia. Do they fear that they may be treated as "illegals" and be shipped off to some forsaken third world country like New Guinea or Nauru, as they like to do themselves with more recent arrived boat people? Do they fear they would be required to pay billions in compensation? Such fears are unjustified given that no such dire consequences have materialised in other places where a majority British occupation has occurred, US, Canada and New Zealand.
Once a partnership between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians has been established and the Commonwealth of Australia has been legitimised, through the extending of governance by indigenous Australians to all, then both indigenous and other representatives can legally make laws to cover all Australians. Not laws made by some, to cover all, as the case is now. An ideal situation.

Hi Is Mise, an aardvark is not a kangaroo, its not even a wallaby, heck its not even native to Australia, they come from Africa, although I have met a few Tasmanian's who could easily be mistaken for aardvarks. Could your drawing be an armadillo, or a three toed sloth? They to are often confused with kangaroos, but never with wallabies.
Just last week I was walking down George Street Sydney with a friend, when he fell over. He jumped to his feet and exclaimed "I've just fallen over a kangaroo!". I replied "No you haven't, its an aardvark!", he said "terribly sorry, my mistake." I said "Don't mention it, they are easily confused." People that is, not kangaroos and aardvarks.

Is there an truth to the rumor that you got your genuine 17th century Portuguese manuscript from a couple of uni students for ten bucks, who knocked it up on 'Photshop' just the night before? Also is there any truth to the rumor you once shot a polar bear, believing it was the abominable snowman? Just asking.

It could be genuine, it could be a kangaroo or a wallaby.

Paul,

"It could be genuine, it could be a kangaroo or a wallaby."

I agree.

Got anything to say on Cook's seemingly reckless reckoning on getting to a river where he could careen his ship?

Perhaps its a kangaroo. Perhaps not. Nowhere does the article say the map is of eastern Australia. Even if it was and even if the Portuguese did sail down the east coast, its by-the-by since they clearly didn't advertise it and therefore played no part in the eventual opening of the country.

And even if the map existed, that doesn't mean that Cook had access to it and therefore was able to use it. Its not as though he was able to Google "Maps of the South Land" while preparing the trip.
_________________________________________________________________

As to the status of women in aboriginal society (and this goes for most stone age societies), if you look beyond the disneyfied histories where aboriginal society is treated as some utopia, you'll find lots of information to show the real status of women. Just a few of many examples:

* For centuries before Europeans arrived, Chinese traders had been coming to northern Australia to buy women who were much sought after in the Chinese slave markets and harems.

* Reading Sturt's diary of his pioneering explorations to find the great inland sea, he mentions being offered women on several occasions in return for food or guns. The commentary is rather amusing has he opines that the women were possibly attractive if you could get past all the animal fat and dirt smeared on themselves to ward off mosquitoes and the very un-European hygiene regime

* one of the main reasons for the decline of the Tasmania aboriginals was the decline in their birth rate, caused in part by the practice of selling their women to sealers and fishermen in return for food and alcohol.

//How do you know it's not an engineer?//

It doesn't have a slide rule.

Hi mhaze,

Across most of Australia, and perhaps a major portion of the total Aboriginal population, societies were patriarchal: the land was the possession of the men; such societies were virilocal, women came to live in the men's country, as sort of non-citizens for life; their role was to produce the next generation of men as 'owners' and of girls to trade.

In the early documentation here in SA, once the ration system was set up in early 1837, pretty much the entire Indigenous population of the region settled at the Native Location. Roughly every year in the early days, at least one Aboriginal bloke would beat his wife to death. But the courts went pretty light on them, observing that it was, after all, part of their culture. Seriously.

Paul,

'Terra nullius' has never meant 'uninhabited country': no explorer was that stupid as not to see people all over the place. Cook writes about never being out of sight of the smoke from campfires.

The term refers to the concept of country over which there is no system of land ownership, proprietorship, or possession. Occupation yes, and once the British got their act together in the 1840s, they recognised the right of Aboriginal people to 'occupy or enjoy' and use their lands as they always had done, and that was written into all pastoral lease documents:

" .... reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made."

[TBC]

Mr Opinion, I thought that was clear, but here it is again.

"A treaty recognising Aboriginal sovereignty of the land and at the same time seeding governance of that land to the Commonwealth is a necessity." You may have a different opinion.

mhaze English will be fine, the Maori signed a treaty in English, some did sign a Maori version but it was a little different to the English version, so we don't want confusion, do we. If the British monarch is to old and feeble to attend the signing, then she can send Charlie.

Hasbeen, "Just ignore it" well, that has been the attitude of the gubba for 228 years.

Is Mise; The big chief in Washington was giving out welfare in the form of corn and blankets to Native Americans at the same time as he was making treaties with them to steal their land. "Under our laws" what laws are those? So again we have a precedent to cover your concerns.

[continued]

Clearly, British law did not recognise that Indigenous people farmed, or cultivated, or planted anything on, the land, and therefore had a concept of land tenure above foraging on it - which the British eventually recognised formally, and Australian law still does, at least in SA.

In those days as well, the British did not recognise that Aboriginal groups had systems of government - the country was therefore 'res nullius' - without government.

Given the tens of thousands of clans, land-using groups, 'nations', across pre-1788 Australia, in which one could say that traditional 'ownership' resided, and given that most Aboriginal people now really couldn't name their clan or clans or the land that it/they foraged on traditionally, there might be some problems with either recognising 'nations', or getting signatures on a treaty, or recognising sovereignty, whatever it might mean, in 2016.

Joe

The English had a treaty with the American Indians which did not allow European settlement west of the Allegheny Mountains. When the United States became independent from England the new country no longer recognised the treatment so citizens of the new nation poured into Indian territory. In general the American Indians supported England during the Revolutionary War because they knew what would probably happen if the USA became independent.

The US later made many treaties with the Indians but broke them all. Where there is a disparity of power the more powerful party to a treaty can easily break it as there is no compulsion to keep to its provisions. Such treaties are meaningless as I suspect would be a treaty between the Australian government and the Australian Aborigines.

The American Revolution was also bad for blacks as England abolished slavery in 1833, but it took a horrendous Civil War to do it in the United States.

Hi David,

I would hope we would be a little more enlightened these days and not simply enter a treaty to then muscle the indigenous out of it.

Hi Joe,

If you do not recognise British authority as valid in the first place then this; " once the British got their act together in the 1840s, they recognised the right of Aboriginal people to 'occupy or enjoy' and use their lands as they always had done, and that was written into all pastoral lease documents:", is invalid and the pastoral lease documents are not worth a cracker. Very magnanimous of the British to do that.

You could apply the same logic to Germany's occupation of France during WWII. The French should not have resisted, and simply obeyed German law. Like the British, Germany was the governing power.

Hi CDavid,

I agree that " .... Such treaties are meaningless as I suspect would be a treaty between the Australian government and the Australian Aborigines."

Apart from the horrendously difficult matter of who would have the power to sign such a treaty here - and we would be talking about many thousands of potential signers, clan leaders, elders - what on earth would be the conditions of such a contract ? Since the Australian government represents all Indigenous people under its responsibility, it would be a treaty which it would have to sign with at least part of its own population: in that sense, both parties to a treaty would be representing Indigenous people. Ludicrous.

Unless it's just some vapid 'we recognise that Indigenous people once had control over land across the country' sort of stuff, it would be pretty pointless. After all, the land currently in the possession of non-Indigenous people is not likely to come under Indigenous control, is it ?

If some sort of sovereignty was recognised, what rights would Indigenous people then have in 'non-Indigenous Australia' ? Who would sign for THEM ? Would a separate Indigenous government have to be formed, and recognised ? Would Indigenous people living in 'non-Indigenous' Australia' have to turn to 'their' government for welfare payments ? Would they be shut out of involvement with the non-Indigenous government in whose territory they had always lived ?

Forty-odd years ago, I believed this stuff too: I asked a visiting Native Canadian singer what she thought of the idea of a separate Aboriginal State ? She looked at me as if I was an idiot (as of course I was) and asked, 'Who would leave their own country to live there ? And whose country would you be on ?' That sunk that crazy notion. But I get the idea that it has not quite died yet. Perhaps a lump of wood might do it.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Paul,

".... once the British got their act together in the 1840s, they recognised the right of Aboriginal people to 'occupy or enjoy' and use their lands as they always had done, and that was written into all pastoral lease documents.... "

Right or wrong, what else were they supposed to do ? They weren't going to pack up and go home, and leave the place to the French or Germans.

Speaking of whom, your suggestion vis-à-vis the French and Germans, the British did not make special laws for Indigenous people here*, only to recognise what was specific such as their traditional uses of the land, and then to confer on them all the rights of British subjects. Yes indeed, without their consent. Terrible. Unforgivable.

So what do we do now that has any actual significance ? Treaty ? Fecognit9on ? Maybe a new flag ?

There are very serious issues facing Indigenous people here, which in my view they are barely aware of, and this is not one of them. You would be able to make comparisons with Maori people and may not agree that Aboriginal people here, the Aboriginal Cause if you like, is in very serious crisis, one which is rapidly becoming an existential crisis.

Joe

* generally, it was illegal to supply Aboriginal people with grog. I'm sure many people made a steady living out of that, by the cartload, and that Aboriginal people had a great time outwitting the law.

This crap gets sprayed around annually. Nobody needs to waste time yabbering about what happened 200 plus years ago. Whatever was done was done. Get over it.

Dear ttbn,

Are you a lawyer? Because you sound like the judge who has just given a rapist murderer the usual minimum 8 years with parole sentence and then turns to the family of the girl who was raped and brutally murdered and says 'Get over it and get on with your lives'.

Hi Joe,

If the British bestowed "British Citizenship" on Aboriginal people and all the associated benefits that, that citizenship entailed, I fail to comprehend those benefits, certainly protection from invasion was not such a benefit. what were those benefits? Land tenure was not a benefit, Aboriginal people had that prior to colonisation. Additionally if citizenship was such a great benefit why did the wise men of federation deny Aboriginal people citizenship of Australia, and the Commonwealth continue it for 67 years, was it malice?
Also why did the British have great difficulty themselves in applying British law in cases of Aboriginal v Aboriginal?

"There are very serious issues facing Indigenous people here," I totally agree, but to say that in itself should prevent discussion of other issues including a treaty is unwarranted. All issues are worthy of discussion, granted some should be of a higher priority than others, but that does not mean some issues should be totally ignored.

<<This crap gets sprayed around annually. Nobody needs to waste time yabbering about what happened 200 plus years ago. Whatever was done was done. Get over it.>>

ttbn, do you apply that to all things that sit uncomfortably with you? The problem of Indigenous Australians did not start and finish 200 plus years ago, they are still ongoing and relevant today.

Paul,

Who is going to sign a treaty on behalf of all the Aboriginal peoples? [plural intended].
Would they have an Australia wide vote on the issue and would women be allowed to vote?
Would women be allowed to stand for the positions? [plural intended]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for some very thoughtful suggestions.

Yes, the British claimed sovereignty over, first eastern Australia, then all of it. Right or wrong, inevitable or not, in their eyes that gave them the right, and obligation, to extend British law over Australia, to its territory and to its inhabitants. But of course, as we know now, how does a colonial government extend rights and obligations to a population who live in a radically different way, and have radically different concepts of land holding and what we call now human rights ?

So: ultimately, the British forced colonial administrations to recognise traditional Aboriginal concepts of land use - see above, and Reynolds' and Dalziel's key article:

http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/17_reynolds_1996.pdf

As well, knowing the impact of alcohol on traditional populations by that time, they banned the supply and sale of grog to Aboriginal people - pretty much across Australia until the 1960s.

At least here in SA, probably because they perceived local people as indigent, governors ordered the provision of rations to all Aboriginal people (later modified to those who couldn't work). But the combination of 'right to use land as traditionally' and 'rations for all' provoked a serious conflict: people abandoned their land (I'm sure, in their own minds, not forever) to live on rations.

I'm talking about a time when, across the world, welfare for indigents was pretty rudimentary, so this provision of rations was probably seen as quite progressive. It certainly took the burden of foraging off the shoulders of the able-bodied, if you think about it.

By 1900, all States had self-government, so their decision to retain control of Aboriginal affairs and not cede them to a new Federal government, was not something that any British government could do much about. So Aboriginal people couldn't vote in Federal elections unless they were already on the books for State elections - and States wouldn't extend the right to vote in State elections to Aboriginal 21-year-olds after Federation.

As welfare benefits were initiated at Federal level, the old-age pension, widow's pensions, and later child endowment, Aboriginal people were not included

[TBC]

[continued]

until much later, and not without political resistance. I suppose, legally, they were not regarded as Australians, but as subjects of the State they lived in.

As for legal cases of Aboriginal v. Aboriginal, there were great problems in allowing Aboriginal people to testify as witnesses - such as finding interpreters, being able to swear on the Bible, etc., and cases against some Aboriginal people had to be dropped, including that involving the murder of an entire family on Yorke Peninsula in the early 1860s.

Judges seemed to hand down very lenient sentences for Aboriginal-against-Aboriginal cases, such as the murder of wives, or what were deemed to be traditional killings. In the correspondence, there seems to have been a lot of to-and-fro involving the State Solicitor-General and Advocate-General, to get firm legal opinions.

I certainly agree that, just because there are very serious and urgent issues facing Indigenous people, that some of these other issues should be neglected. Of course not. It's a package. But having been around for some time, I don't have much time for symbolic 'issues' which won't amount to much except a huge amount of confusion and recriminations within the Aboriginal population, and produce trivial outcomes, if anything.

As for a Treaty, I think we a very long way down the track from a Waitangi-type agreement, and in very different foundational circumstances from those in New Zealand, and for very different purposes than those involving the iwi and hapu whose chiefs signed that Treaty.

Serious and urgent issues ? For example, the massive Gap which is ever-growing between the Indigenous populations oriented to either welfare or to work, mainly that between remote and rural populations and the working urban population (and there are serious differences in the trajectories within those populations). With catastrophic health and social problems in remote (and rural) populations on the one hand, and mainly an urban population with forty thousand university graduates on the other, and no 'leaders' with the wits to understand the significance of that Gap, I fear that the entire Indigenous population will

[TBC]

[continued]

fracture, fragment, with large sections, mainly in the cities, simply fading into the general population, over the next generation. And I don't think we have a generation to do something about all that.

To close that Gap, while urban, working populations are getting on with life beyond official surveillance, the ball will be in the court of the remote, rural and welfare-oriented populations - the very people who are least capable of doing anything whatever about it UNLESS somehow they can be persuaded that change can come about only through their own efforts - effort is the missing ingredient.

I would dearly love to see an ABC video shot of Aboriginal people in communities actually working, doing SOMETHING for themselves, instead of waiting for more and more to be done for them. As Chris Sarra says, government agencies should work WITH Aboriginal people, not doing things TO them - or, one could add, FOR them.

The old Community Development principle of 'not doing for people what they can do for themselves' seems to have been ignored for generations. I'm not saying people are lazy or too dopey - but a hunting-gathering ethic does seem to morph easily into a welfare ethic, where stuff drops out of the sky, maybe through the magic of the old men, but not through perceived effort.

Perceived effort seems to be a characteristic of agricultural and post-agricultural (and pre-academic/intellectual) societies. How to get cross that, out here in the real world, people actually do work for what they get, and pay tax besides, that nothing much is ever dropped in their laps, not houses, not cars, not no-work 'jobs' (except perhaps for many in the intellectual class - see above).

How to bring about that monumental shift in people's entire ethical universe - I fear that that may be far too difficult. So I fear for the unity, such as it is, of the Indigenous population, and the direction of the Aboriginal Cause, which I have been supporting (in my own weird way) for fifty years.

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Hi Joe,

Thanks for that, and I wholeheartedly agree, as they say you can't save a mans soul, until you save his body. Malcolm Turnbull in his 'Close the Gap' report, put up 5 indigenous figures which are shameful for all Australian's;

1 Infant mortality.
2 School retention.
3 Employment.
4 Jail,
5 Life expectancy,

But there is optimism that things are getting better. but the road is a hard one, and a long one, with much still to be done.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/closing-the-gap-five-numbers-that-should-shame-australia-20160210-gmqlbl.html

Dear Paul1405,

One doesn't need to be a sociologist to see through Turnbull's political machinations.

Why didn't he include provision of health services, provision of educational services and provision of economic opportunities on his list (which the lack of are things that his government should be ashamed about)?

He probably knows that all of the indigenous issues will eventually be buried when the new Sino-Australian nation is fully established and the only thing that matters is whether or not one is Chinese. And he and his cohorts are working for this end. Any one for a free Rolex?

Hi Pail,

With respect, you are not saying anything new. Nobody is. And this is part of the problem: that so many people, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, make a good living intoning solemnly how much needs to be done in bla bla.

But nobody ever dares to suggest that much of that work should, and can, be done by the people themselves. They make rubbish, they can clean it up: do they except a horde of Filipinas to come in and do it for them ? They can look after their own kids - why not ? They are as able as anybody to train to fix tap washers, unblock drains and toilets, etc. They're not useless and it appals me that. implicitly, in so much hand-wringing, that's the rock-solid assumption.

And what's happened to all that AFE training over the last thirty years - in the NT, thousands of Aboriginal people have been enrolled, year after year, in TAFE courses, pulling in Study Grant year after year. Either that or somebody's been fudging the figures.

Maybe I'm a complete simpleton but I've always thought that self-determination meant 'doing things for yourself and your community'. Cleaning up your own rubbish, fixing your own fence or gate or Hill's Hoist, mowing your own lawn.

As well, there seems to be an assumption in many remote communities that public funds will provide an endless supply of fridges, washing machines, TVs, etc. Does that happen out here in the real world ? Just let me know, and I'll be down at Centrelink ASAP.

Clearly, people in remote settlements have totally unrealistic understandings about the real world. And yet agencies are supposed to 'consult' with them. Consult with people who can't change a tap washer ? Clearly, bureaucrats in remote settlements have totally unrealistic understandings about the understandings of the people they are working with, and what should be expected of them as ordinary human beings an parents. And so the circus goes on.

[TBC]

[continued]

Surely 'self-determination' and 'empowerment' require the agency of the people themselves if they ever to be genuine ? Where is the magic ingredient - EFFORT ?

Meanwhile, in the cities, there could be seventeen or eighteen thousand Indigenous people at universities this year, and another couple of thousand graduates - in the cities, one in every six Indigenous women is already a graduate. Two totally different populations, rapidly going off in totally different directions. That's a crisis. That's pretty much the definition of a crisis.

We can fluff around with symbolic trivia and feel-good pseudo-initiatives to our heart's content, but it won't make a scrap of difference out in remote areas, where everybody expects people to sit and receive forever, and put no effort into their lives, except maybe to knock each other around. But unless real issues are faced up to, not only with there be little change but - if it's possible - things will get worse and worse. The definition of insanity, as Einstein said, ......

Joe

Loudmouth,
"I would dearly love to see an ABC video shot of Aboriginal people in communities actually working, doing SOMETHING for themselves, instead of waiting for more and more to be done for them."

Does this one fit your requirements?
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/landline/video/201208/r987287_10864682.flv

Paul,

Terra Nullius did not require that there zero inhabitants. When the British arrived, the aboriginal population was sparse, had no form of writing, no permanent buildings, no nation, no government and as a result no one to negotiate treaties, pacts etc.

Terra Nullius was in those days an appropriate call.

Hi Aidan,

Fantastic ! Just wonderful ! The Colbungs have always been get-up-and-go. This combination of environmental rehabilitation, sheep, cattle, tree-planting, growing for the perfume industry, and building TAFE courses on those programs, shows what can be done, in locally-specific sways, right across Australia.

It also shows that low expectations are, indeed, racist, that people in communities don't have to just sit around and have things done for them. Clearly, there are no excuses for the racism of low expectations.

I urge everybody to watch this video: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/landline/video/201208/r987287_10864682.flv

Somebody should send it to Tom Calma and Mick Gooda. Thanks, Aidan.

Joe

Hi SM,

I think you're right up to a point: even if they perceived that hunter-gatherers didn't have a recognisable system of actual land ownership, as people did in Africa or India or New Zealand, the British still recognised the rights of Aboriginal people here to use the land as they traditionally had: to hunt and gather, camp, collect water, perform ceremonies, etc. That's still the law in SA.

Nor could the British discern any coherent system of government, and hence there has always been the problem of who to negotiate agreements or treaties with - and about what, if they couldn't also identify any system of land ownership.

The colonial authorities tried to sort of invent a system of government, kingships, chiefs, etc., giving out plaques for 'King Billy', 'King Charlie', 'Queen Louisa" and so on, but I don't think any other Aboriginal people took much notice of that.

And it's probably far, far more difficult nowadays to identify who might be the 'chiefs' or elders of groups: so much water has flowed under so many bridges since those early days.

Joe

Hi Paul,

I checked out that SMH item:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/closing-the-gap-five-numbers-that-should-shame-australia-20160210-gmqlbl.html

A few things leap out:

* infant mortality is now a tiny fraction of what is was fifty years ago. It's probably on a par with southern Europe's. All thanks to far better health services, not to better parenting.

* Completion of Year 12 has doubled in barely fifteen years. My bet is that that improvement is almost entirely in the cities, amongst working people. Amongst welfare-oriented people, I'd say it's barely shifted. In remote areas, maybe not at all. It takes effort, after all.

* Incarceration rates are probably in line with crime-commission rates. Don't do the crime, you don't do the time.

* Life expectancy: people often completely misunderstand this: they think that yes, they will all die at 67.2 or whatever while whites all die at 78.8 or whatever. No. Early mortality, accidents, murders, deaths from addictions which might bugger up people's kidneys, liver, etc., mean that many people die much earlier than they should. If people can negotiate around the obstacles of beatings, accidents, murders, addictions, poor diet, etc., and get some regular exercise, they will live as long as anyone else, into their eighties and nineties.

* Employment: funny, I was just talking to someone yesterday, and someone else today, and they both talked about Aboriginal friends who have never worked a day in their lives. You may know of a few like that. And of course, the welfare population expects that their kids will also be on welfare for life, so what's the point of education ? If they ever do realise its importance, it's usually far too late. So generation after generation, people avoid education, avoid getting skills, and happily stay unemployed. And bored sh!tless most of their lives. And leave this earth with absolutely nothing for anybody to remember them by. Maybe not even a photograph. That's their choice, pure and simple., no excuses.

[TBC]

[continued]

Meanwhile, around one hundred and twenty thousand Indigenous people have been enrolled at some time at universities since 1980. Forty thousand have graduated now. Eighteen thousand will probably be enrolled this year. [A young-adult age-group numbers around eleven thousand]. By 2020, fifty thousand will have graduated. By 2030, more than eighty thousand will have graduated, one in every four Indigenous women in the cities - but bugger-all out in the remote settlements.

Australia's is a relatively open society. So much Indigenous policy seems determined, perhaps unintentionally, to keep it as closed as possible for as many as possible. It is often the enemy of Indigenous people, but it's what many want. Go figure.

Cheers,

Joe

For anybody interested in the ingenuity and artistry of traditional Aboriginal society, there is a fascinating article in today's Australian by Christopher Allen (pp. 14-15, Review) with photos of the most exquisite artifacts, an amazing spear-point collected in the 1820s, a magnificent basket from the Birdsville area, collected in the 1890s.

Aboriginal society may have been technologically primitive but the people often had the most amazing skills, in crating artifacts which had functional and everyday value.

Well recommended :)

Joe

I think we can correct the "invasion"of Australia.
All people who are not registered today as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders,should be forced to sell up and move back to where they are indigenous.
My ancestors are Londoners.
This agreement should be made by the UN.As when I return to my traditional lands. I would want the people occupying London to be forced to move back to their traditional lands.
Mass Migration is now the norm.

Hi Brock,

My ancestors, as far as I can tell, are from all corners of the British Isles, and perhaps a couple of other places. My kids' ancestry would also include Italy and China, as well as the lower Murray here in SA. Which bits go back where ?

I like this place. It's more or less all I've known. Scotland hasn't had enough global warming yet to tempt me back, nor Ireland, nor Wales. Not that I would be there much, since I would be travelling around the world visiting my kids. Would that be allowed ? And maybe long-term stays ?

Apart from that ...... when are you leaving ?

Joe

BROCK, I can only assume you are making such a facetious statement to prompt others to disagree. As Joe rightly asked; When are you leaving?

Even the most ardent supporters of Indigenous Australians would never seriously propose such nonsense as to ask almost 24,000,000 other Australians to vacate. Ridiculous, if that is all you have to add to this debate, well... see ya later sunshine!

Hi Paul,

"Even the most ardent supporters of Indigenous Australians would never seriously propose such nonsense .... "

You'd be surprised. Even Dame Germaine Greer has selflessly decided not to besmirch herself by staying in Australia with the rest of us convicts and racists. But don't forget that the Kale-and-Soy-Latte set are experts in advocating something which they have no intention of doing themselves.

And of course, there are initiatives that they would not even dare to advocate for fear of somehow being bound to them themselves, such as, say, spending a week or two (around Pension Day) in a remote Aboriginal settlement. There are not many, chatterati or politicians, who would think of doing that. Only one comes to mind.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,
Sorry not to have replied sooner, had to rush off for 6 days to NZ for a Tangi, my partners brother passed away in Brisbane suddenly. As is Maori custom his body was returned to his ancestral home for burial after all necessary protocols have been observed, it was a big one with over 1,000 people in attendance, due to the circumstance and his community stature it was stretched from the normal 3 or 4 days to a whopping 9 days including time in Brisbane, with the use of 2 Marae, again very usual. The logistics for this are unbelievable, but the whole community comes together, and all is run with military precision.

As for the Kale-and-Soy-Latte set, well best left to themselves. All problems like this require practical long term solutions. I do believe a partnership between white and black Australia is possible and workable in the context of the 21st century. We all have to recognised the wrongs of the past, but at the same time focus on a better future for all.