.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« And so, one can speak of 'sovereignty' far more easily with farming societies than with foraging societies ? … Is that how it works for the three wise monkeys ? »
.

Not any longer, Joe. That's dead and buried. The seven High Court judges in the Mabo case declared it null and void and not applicable in Australia.

In any event, if Aboriginal peoples were deemed to not own their land, on the pretext that they did not farm it – despite it having been their life-source for over 60,000 years – then logically, the British colonial graziers should have been deemed to not own their land either.

I see that Alastaire Davidson, professor emeritus in politics at Monash University, appears to be of a like mind. This is what he wrote in his book "The Invisible State (1991) :

« …, it was already clear from the many reports of those who had lived with and studied the Aboriginese, even before the now-defunct protectorate system, that the Aboriginese were not completely nomadic and did cultivate the fruits of the earth and the sea. … They roamed much less than did stockmen. Moreover, they had stone dwellings, eel-races and, through burning-off, cultivated the land (in a way which could not be reconciled with that of the whites).

« Graziers continued, however, to rely on the terra nullius doctrine to assert their claims to the ever more extensive tracts they occupied. They were not always without contradiction, even from lawyers. The purely ad hoc nature of the terra nullius argument was recognised even by graziers, as Wentworth's repudiation of the concept to defend his own land purchases in New Zealand, because there had been a treaty there, revealed. »

.

Hi Joe,

Why do you refer to Aboriginal sovereignty as a "goose chase"? Is it because to accept it as a reality would, as I said previously opens a Pandora's box of problems for white Australia. You have tried a number of inefficacious arguments to deny the concept of terra nullius existed among Europeans in relation to Aboriginal sovereignty, even going as far as questioning when and by whom the term terra nullius was applied, 1770 (Cook), 1778 (Phillip), 1992 (Mabo).

What is undeniable is the close intertwined relationship that existed between Aboriginal peoples lives and the land for hundreds of generations before white settlement. Regardless of how you want to cast Aboriginal people pre 1788, merely as simple hunter/gatherers, or something more sophisticated, it don't matter, the fact of Aboriginal sovereignty has clearly been established. Now what should be done about it? It seems for you and many others the answer is nothing. Is that true for you Joe?

Watched a piece of historical film of the 1938, 150th reenactment of the landing of the 'First Fleet' at Farm Cove Sydney. To the beat of a military drum a party of Red Coats, muskets pointing ready to fire, advanced up the beach driving back "menacing natives" as the voice over described the party of blacks on the beach. Phillip then stepped ashore, the Union Jack was unfurled to the cheers of thousands of white folk watching the spectacle.

The irony is the "menacing natives" in reality had been press ganged into playing the party under the threat of having their rations taken away if they did not cooperate. The "menacing natives" had been held in prison cells the night before the reenactment. Not much changed in the first 150 years.

Hi banjo,

You write:

"In any event, if Aboriginal peoples were deemed to not own their land, on the pretext that they did not farm it – despite it having been their life-source for over 60,000 years – then logically, the British colonial graziers should have been deemed to not own their land either."

So many non sequiturs ! Australian graziers do not own the land they and perhaps their family have been working for generations - that land is held under pastoral leases. Some land lease in Queensland and WA were issued freehold in the nineteenth century (I thunk) but elsewhere they are still held as pastoral leases, usually on a 42-year renewable lease. If pastoralists do not renew their leases, they can be compensated for any improvements, fences, yards, bores and watering-points, dams, etc.

Your quote from Davidson is also full of both non-sequiturs and imaginative re-definitions of what farming involves.

I'm still puzzled: why this insistent denial that Aboriginal people were foragers ? That there is little tangible evidence - and certainly not of incontrovertible and unambiguous evidence - that farming took place - i.e. by the standard definition of 'farming' - anywhere in Australia except on the tip of Cape York.

'Sone houses' ? Yes, usually just the first two or three feet of walls, the rst may be branches or sea-weed or grass: yes, in areas along rivers or around lakes where there is plenty of food for foragers, plenty of fish, birds, mammals, roots, fruit, etc. But that abundance itself obviously went against even the thought of farming: why put a year or more into clearing land, cultivating the ground, putting in seed, weeding, fencing, parolling, harvesting, transporting, storing, etc., when you can get plenty of food every day without moving more than a mile or two at most ?

In such circumstances,

[TBC]

[continued]

In such circumstances, foraging - gathering, fishing, hunting - is clearly superior in terms of effort and time spent than farming. But that only accounted for a minuscule percentage of the area of Australia, and was held as jealously-guarded clan territories, sometimes (at least down the Murray and southern Lakes) only a few square miles in extent.

Historically, there are many innovative steps, fundamental differences, between foraging societies and farming societies. Farming has been originated in only a handful of places in the world. Why do people think it was so piss-easy to flip from one to the other ? The practice of farming took five thousand years to make its way across Europe from the Middle East, more by the physical migration of farmers than by the diffusion of ideas amongst foragers.

Paul,

It's a moot issue now whether the term 'terra nullius' was actually used, but did Cook or Phillip ever use the term, as you claim ? Phillip seems to have tried to ensure that people could use the land as they always had, and that was written into law explicitly around 1849-1850.

Did foragers have a recognisable system of ownership of land ? Possession, yes. Occupation, yes. Right to use, yes. Ownership ? I don't know, but textbooks on Australian Land Law invariably start with the Crown declaration of sovereignty, and the parallel claim of underlying Crown title to all land before they launch into an exposition of the development of land law here from its British feudal roots.

As for Aboriginal sovereignty, surely that would have to be recognised at the clan level, since that was the traditional unit of land-use control ? So are you suggesting that there might have been five or ten thousand sovereign territories - nations if you like - each with 50 to 200 members ? [More like whanau than hapu ?] Even at the language level, there would have been 300-500 'nations', each with 500-2000 members. Is this what you mean by 'sovereignty' ?

Joe

Paul,

When and where did Cook use the term "terra nullius"?