Paul
It seems that 'chooks' covers most tame bird life , from Yorkshire "chickens", Cockney "fowls" merging as Cornish " chowks". We must also add:
5 Rabbits
Gov. Phillip’s Greyhounds
Rev. John’s Cats ( although Charles may have no title to them)
(rabbits are his , except 10 yr old kids' pets).

Joe
The Aboriginal Revolutionary Royalists would lead a joint One Nation-CFMEU Forest-Green ticket for all of Windsor-Land , Tasmania and Nauru Arab resort.

So in 1786 the majority of this nation inhabitants (being indigenous) voted to recognise King George III?
Geez thats new...
If you want to make an argument it helps to helps to start with your feet on the ground and to then apply some basic logic...
Outlining your ideas a little more clearly might help the rest of us understand what the hell you're on... or on about at least.

NNN,

Wad're yer smokin?
Wa'ever it is it's effective!!

NNN, well done, you actually managed to slip this "thread" past GY for approval, and also suck in a few of the "oh so serious brigade" to go along with your funny humor.But most just couldn't understand it.

Hi Paul,

Oh, I think we 'understand' it all right, it's laid on so thick
that we can almost see it coming.
A bit like making a salad with dressing, but forgetting the salad.
Yum, says Nick.

AC, it's possible that, in a very clumsy way back in the eighteenth century, the British differentiated between political sovereignty on the one hand and forms of land tenure on the other - that, elsewhere in their imperialist experiences over hundreds of years, when they seized a territory, the British Crown replaced the former sovereign power, but the land remained undisturbed, the peasants going about their work with no change in their relationship to their land.

So, when the British gained a dim awareness of the unique relationship between Aboriginal people and their land, claiming political sovereignty over all of eastern Australia, even declaring Aboriginal people to be British subjects, were the easy parts: what to make of the relationship that Aboriginal people had with the land ? Certainly, from the outset, recognise, loosely, their continuing right to hunt and fish and gather, but what else ?

And we've been working on that ever since. In SA (and presumably all of Australia), under the direction of the British Colonial Office, all pastoral leases (and unreserved Crown Land) was, from about 1849, subject to a clause recognising the traditional rights of Aboriginal people. Those rights are still recognised in SA. Not the right to exclude, however. Clearly, otherwise there would still be nobody else here.

So it would not have been legal to try to drive people off their land, both as fellow-British subjects AND as having their rights to use their lands as they always had done enshrined in colonial law. Of course it was done, often brutally, although a bit of proof of that would be useful.

Cheers,

Joe

Ah, found it:

From 1851, all pastoral leases in South Australia had to contain this clause:

“And 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.”

I've found this intriguing: " ... in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made." i.e. on all non-reserved, non-granted, non-sold Crown Land.

But that begs the question: if people had rights to use the land, why didn't they exercise them ? What was stopping them ? Official policy allowed it, it was written into leases (i.e. contracts), co-existence was possible on pastoral leases (and still is). So why not ?

One possible, partial, answer may have been the ration system: if people could get rations, enough for a loaf of bread and a pound of meat etc., etc., per day, then why go out foraging ?

Incidentally, if you think those rations were pathetic, try it for a week: a loaf of bread each day and a pound of meat each day, a packet of tobacco each week, matching tea and sugar (now, THERE's a hands-on research project for all those kids doing Aboriginal 'Culture). A blanket per year, fishing gear (lines, hooks, netting twine), children all being schooled (at least in Adelaide) in their own language ?

And camping right next to the comparative bright lights of a growing town (yes, there was a time when Adelaide was quite vibrant). That ration system was set up right across agricultural and pastoral South Australia, up until well after the War.

{TBC}