Hi Paul,

We forget that imperialism was the rule up until very recently, everywhere and always, going back as far as you like in history.

We also forget how unique the situation was that the British came across here in Australia: nowhere else in the world did they encounter people who were purely foragers, hunters and gatherers, and certainly not on an entire continent. Everywhere else, Indigenous people were either cultivators, such as the Maori and Polynesians, or pastoralists AND cultivators, such as across Africa. Even the foraging Bushmen in southern Africa traded meat and skins with neighbouring cultivators and pastoralists (as did Aboriginal groups in Canada, who used muskets after about 1650). After all, the word 'Indigenous' covers a vast range of different societies, economies and political systems.

Different systems have different relations to land: here, as far as the British could observe, people roamed over the land, hunting and gathering, and not much else. What could they recognise, as they had done in Africa and New Zealand ? The right to hunt and gather.

Which they did officially in legislation from about 1850, at least down here in SA. And why here and not in the other colonies ?

We also forget that those early settlers were us, then. We are them, now. I was surprised to learn that governments, at least here in SA, funded all the missions' expenditure, supplying rations, school and medical expenses, and materials for the building of cottages, but NOT the salaries of the missionaries - that had to be provided by urban parish collections. Can you imagine urban populations these days having to fund the salary expenses for bureaucrats on Aboriginal 'communities' ? I think they would all, as my dear old grandmother would say, die in the arse.

In SA, the right of Aboriginal people to use the land as they always had done traditionally, to 'occupy or enjoy' it, was recognised from 1836, in what they call the King's 'Letters Patent', setting up the colony. It is still more or less the law.

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

Thanks for that great piece of anthropology. If I didn't know it was you saying those things I would have guessed it was coming from a Year 8 secondary school student.

You talk about Aboriginals but are you aware that in the future Sino-Australian nation you will be looked upon by the Chinese as a White Aboriginal? Some politically incorrect Chinese might even call you a 'White Abo'. Then you will be able to get first hand experience of what the Australian Aboriginals have had to cope with under Anglo-Australian rule. Just keep your fingers crossed that the Chinese don't decide to conduct a form of genocide along the same lines as the Anglo-Australians have done.

Paul,

You quoted an opinion piece where the author stated his opinion on the meaning of the judgement.

You can find the complete judgement here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/high_ct/175clr1.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=~mabo

"International law recognized conquest, cession, and occupation of territory that was terra nullius as three of the effective ways of acquiring sovereignty. No other way is presently relevant... As among themselves, the European nations parcelled out the territories newly discovered to the sovereigns of the respective discoverers, provided the discovery was confirmed by occupation and provided the indigenous inhabitants were not organized in a society that was united permanently for political action ..... To these territories the European colonial nations applied the doctrines relating to acquisition of territory that was terra nullius. They recognized the sovereignty of the respective European nations over the territory of "backward peoples" and, by State practice, permitted the acquisition of sovereignty of such territory by occupation rather than by conquest"

Then

As the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony were regarded as "low in the scale of social organization", they and their occupancy of colonial land were ignored in considering the title to land in a settled colony. Ignoring those rights and interests, the Crown's sovereignty over a territory which had been acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius was equated with Crown ownership of the lands therein, because, as Stephen C.J. said, there was "no other proprietor of such lands".

So in a nutshell Terra Nullius gave the settlers the right to settle uncultivated land, however, the "enlarged" version where the assumption that the land was unoccupied and allowed the crown to take ownership of all land was invalid. Thus Mabo allowed the minimalist version of Terra Nullius which permitted settlement, but not the expanded version which gave the crown control over all lands, thus awarding "native title" to crown lands.

Thus Mabo upheld the validity of Terra Nullius, but recognised the original ownership claims of non settled land.

Paul,

I assume that your accusation of me using mushrooms is due to your unceasing use of them.

This explains your frequent lunatic rantings about corruption when no one, not even ICAC has made such findings.

Hi Mr Opinion,

When you suggest that " .... I would have guessed it was coming from a Year 8 secondary school student....."

I don't understand what you are referring to. Please feel free to elaborate :)

Cheers,

Joe

Sorry

Last post was in the wrong thread.