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]