Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I gave you the following link ages ago - you know
full well what sovereignty means - if you don't
then you really need help tying your shoelaces.

Here's the link again:

http://www.australianstogether.org.au/stories/detail/why-treaty

Dearest Foxy,

With respect, why do you keep posting the most banal, childish URLs ? For God's sake, we're not in primary school.

That URL barely touches in the definition of 'sovereignty', and it certainly slides over the mechanisms and processes by which sovereignty can be surrendered, usually by default and inaction rather than by agreement. Usually, if one group or state takes something very material, such as its complete dependence, from another entity (and perhaps for a statutory time, say seven years or fifteen years) then it has surrendered its sovereignty, if it ever had it.

Jean Bodin, in 1577, initiated a useful definition of it: "Sovereignty is that absolute and perpetual power vested in a Commonwealth." By that crude and early definition, Aboriginal groups, jealously guarding their particular patch of family land (my wife's clan land covered maybe twenty sq. miles), rarely coming together to form anything like a 'Commonwealth', may not have actually possessed 'sovereignty' to begin with. Certainly, the perpetual taking of rations and other supplies for, say, more than a century, when the alternative option of foraging as traditionally done was freely available, may have vitiated any claim to sovereignty.

It's difficult to find any evidence that any social system without group-wide governmental powers and responsibilities, has ever been considered to have possessed sovereignty. In New Zealand, from memory, only representatives of iwi ('tribes'), not hapu (extended clans) or whanau (families), signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. In fact, in that Treaty, the tribes ceded precisely their sovereignty in exchange for British protection, mainly from each other.

So Aboriginal groups have two tasks: (a) to demonstrate that their systems of organisation amounted to sovereignty above the level of clan; and (b) that by accepting outside assistance for so long, from 1788 up to the present, they have not surrendered whatever claim to sovereignty that they may have.

You won't see deliberations of that nature in Primary School material :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I was going to reply to you in greater detail but
I've decided not to. I can see that no matter what
references I would cite, you would find fault with
each and every one, as you've done thus far. No matter
what either Paul, Cossomby, or myself may point out it
apparently makes no difference to you.

I entered this discussion in good faith with good
intentions and I took things seriously. I made a mistake.
Still it's not all doom and gloom. You're in good company
with kindred spirits like Big Nana, leoj, and others.

All The Best.

Foxy,

We're probably operating on different planes of understanding. You are happy to dish out the most basic stuff, written for children, and accepting it totally, no questions asked. I think the issues are a bit more complex, especially given that no textbooks on international relations (which is what 'sovereignty' is about) seem to give much attention to such sub-national entities as clans.

Sovereignty, by the way, has little to do with land ownership: I suspect that many activists completely confuse the two. One may LEAD to, or facilitate, the other, but the two concepts are quite distinct, represented by two entirely different bodies of law.

I was looking through a couple of books by the distinguished New Zealand Prof. Hugh Kawharu: one on the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the other on Maori Land Tenure. There was very little cross-over: one concept or issue did not presuppose the other, as it were. They were clearly, in his view, concerned with two distinctly different bodies of law.

So I hope that confusion has been resolved.

So the questions are: could Aboriginal clans be said to have had 'sovereignty' ? Did they surrender it, by living off a 'foreign' government for more than a century: did that constitute relinquishment of sovereignty, if it had existed ? If so, is it still a relevant concept in most of Australia ?

Joe

Foxy,

If you really must have that win/lose, black and white, adversarial argument that is used by the media (ABC shows like Q&A seem to have a patent on it) to build dumbed-down audiences for ratings, allow me to show you how you can really win. In a real sense, I mean.

All you have to do is question and test knowledgeable people like Big Nana and Loudmouth, but with an OPEN mind, not one that automatically applies the go/no-go filters of PC and inevitably lapsing into default.

That is winning, where you gain knowledge and you get to test it as you go. You win. You have very likely changed your thinking along the way. But that isn't really a loss where the 'information' held was highly contestable to begin with.

That is different to digging in the heels and arguing against, as a matter of principle (make that habit). Where even if you win you lose because the other side (as you have cast them to date), eventually have better things to do and walk away.

Maybe you are not aware that no-one here is trying to make you believe what you don't want to believe and even if they wanted to (and they don't), they couldn't do that anyhow.

For myself, I believe 'treaty' is at best magic that will not improve anything. I struggle to believe that many of the activists, black or white, are concerned about improving the lot of indigenous women in the here and now or are genuinely worried and taking action for the long-term benefit of youth.
tbc..

continued..
Sorry in advance to both veterans and Aborigines, but I am reminded of the stereotypical WW2 entitlements claimant who has resolved to continue smoking to build up his TPI from part- to full-TPI. Do you imagine that anyone could convince him of the enormous advantages to himself, family and the nation, by taking up the available opportunities to get better and enjoy life instead?

There are some very simple choices and actions most 'disadvantaged' indigenous could take up now that would better their lives overnight. What is preventing them from doing so? Clue, it isn't the well-intentioned public who work and hand over their taxes, hoping year after year for some lasting improvements.

How come some communities bloom but others do not?

How come some indigenous, particularly girls it seems, can take up education opportunities and get jobs but others do not?