Any treaty should consist of 2 blank paged. The second one in case the significance of the first one being blank is missed by the bureaucrats & the bleeding hearts.

[continued]

use the land for foraging.

Now, imagine if even able-bodied people had got rations: how much use of the land do you reckon they would have made ? And in time, nobody would have gone foraging, except out of boredom. People would, over time, have forgotten their land, how to use it, how to forage, etc. Maybe like now, in the North ? I couldn't possibly comment.

Authorities in SA also gave the able-bodied fishing gear, boats, and guns so that they could use the land as traditionally, but with better technology, with repairs done free for older people. I'm not saying how wonderful or how dreadful, simply describing as it was.

Yes, Indigenous people weren't supposed to drink: anybody supplying them with alcohol could do time, a publican would lose his licence. So imagine if there had been no resrictions on grog: does anybody honestly think that anybody would have been left after, say, twenty years ?

Doog,

Do you understand the difference between food-gathering, and cultivation ? Fish traps are a method of fish-gathering: nobody would have had fish-farms. In fact, ordinary fishermen these days would readily admit that they are gatherers rather than farmers.
In a sense, pastoralists, pasturing sheep or cattle, are partly gatherers: they may need to select animals for breeding, vaccinate animals, provide watering-points, stock-yards, fences, etc., and draft steers and heifers, etc., and in that way plan way ahead, but basically they are glorified gatherers.

On the other hand, farmers have to prepare the ground, cultivate, sometimes two or three times before they plant, then spray for disease, etc., then harvest and transport their crop to silos, etc., and do the whole lot over again, every year. Planning well ahead, not just responding to now.

Get hold of 'First Farmers' by Peter Bellwood: brilliant.

Joe

What would an Aboriginal treaty be about?

Aboriginal demands for what should be included in a treaty are as diverse as Aboriginal nations and individuals. Here are some of the main ideas.
Sovereignty. Acknowledge that Aboriginal people have at no time ceded, relinquished or acquiesced any part of their sovereign existence and status. They want a “a space of our own, free from influence of government”.
Land rights. Recognition that Aboriginal people have always maintained a property right in land and the natural resources according to their law and customs. They want an acknowledgement that Australia has not been settled. They want freehold, not native title. People who cannot reconnect to their traditional lands need to be included.
Shared power. A sharing of power with non-Aboriginal people through allocated seats.
Representation. A permanent national Aboriginal body.
Guaranteed consideration of interests. Too often governments don’t consider Aboriginal interests in their decisions. A treaty could be an “insurance policy” that puts Aboriginal interests at the forefront of Aboriginal policy.
Recognition. Recognition of Aboriginal people as the First Peoples of Australia and the distinct rights that flow from this. (This is not referring to the governments ‘Recognise’ campaign which many Aboriginal people reject outright.) But also recognising the past, the need to first acknowledge what has happened to Aboriginal people. For many it’s about recognising that Australia was invaded and not colonised.
Reforms. Agreements on the reforms required to reach a more just society and account for Aboriginal dispossession.
Statutory entitlements. This can include reparation, compensation and benefit sharing.

Loudmouth: I have no problems whatsoever with very pale, blue-eyed, blonde Indigenous people who have been raised by their Indigenous mother and so on, way back before living memory: after all, who else would they be able to count as an ancestor?

I have no problems with Blond, Blue eyed Aboriginals. After all, when it comes down to it. Australian Aboriginal: Race, Caucasian, Sub race, Australoid. So really, they are just darker skinned White People.

Loudmouth: what could be in a 'Treaty' that Indigenous people don't have the benefit of already (and therefore be somewhat redundant and pointless), because otherwise wouldn't a 'Treaty', enunciating different rights and presumably demanding 'sovereignty', etc., lead inexorably towards separatism, a separate State at first, then a separate country?

Exactly. It’s the Socialistically educated Aboriginal CEO fantasists that want to stir up trouble that want a Treaty. They want a Treaty so they can push Court Actions all the time for monetary gain. They will push for a Treaty that is impossible to fulfil & always be before a Court. This Treaty thing is a Scam.

These Aboriginal (Shite Stirrers) go to Aboriginal Schools & spread their tails of Woe & Misery caused by White men 200 years ago. The kids come home angry at White people then pick on white kids, people & property & end up in jail then the Stirrers have a field day pointing out how badly Aboriginal kids are treated.

My wife plays cards, a lot, one of the ladies she plays with is part aboriginal & her Grand Kids come around after their Saturday Classes at the Aboriginal Centre. They always come in, angry, with stories about how badly treated aboriginal people are treated by white people, now. When I asked who told them these stories, they tell me it’s their Aboriginal Teacher or some man talked to them. So these people are going around stirring up trouble on purpose, mostly so they can keep their lucrative jobs.

Hi Jayb,

I'm getting to think (I'm a very, veeeery slow learner) that much of the Conventional Indigenous Narrative is paranoid, overlooking precisely what rights Indigenous people already have - and have had since Year One - in order to paint a sh!tty picture of loss and suffering, etc., in order to foster a 'them' and 'us' dichotomy, which gives rise to people like Doog.

Hi Doog,

Do you ever read what anybody else has been writing ? We've gone over much of what you seem to think is amazingly original. No, it ain't. But what it is, is crap.

Joe

Jayb: "These Aboriginal (Shite Stirrers) go to Aboriginal Schools & spread their tails of Woe & Misery caused by White men 200 years ago. The kids come home angry at White people then pick on white kids, people & property & end up in jail then the Stirrers have a field day pointing out how badly Aboriginal kids are treated."

Some kinds of woe and misery were inflicted less than 200 years ago. I've recently been looking at the NSW Aboriginal Protection Board records for the first half of the 20th century. I know a fair bit about Australian history, including Aboriginal history, but I was taken aback at some of the language used. There was a practice of sending young girls (13-15 years) whose families lived on the government Aboriginal stations to work as servants on pastoral properties. The records note when a request for a girl came in from Mr so-and-so from such-and-such a pastoral station or farm. The records then state "(name of girl) disposed of" - like second-hand furniture, or unwanted kittens - to that station or farm. These girls were effectively slaves, if they ran away they were not allowed back on the Aboriginal station where their families were, but were sent back or to another place, and unsurprisingly, many got pregnant. This was the 1920s and 30s; some of these 'disposed of' girls could still be alive, certainly their children and grandchildren are. They didn't learn about their mothers' or grandmothers' experiences at school, but within their own family. However contrary to your negative stereotype, the Aboriginal descendants I know are warm and generous people, who want the world to know what happened to stop similar things happening again.