Issy, you don't have to use a term to apply a term, I said "even going as far as questioning when and by whom the term terra nullius was applied, 1770 (Cook), 1778 (Phillip), 1992 (Mabo)." The application of the concept predates the use of the words themselves. Is it not obvious that by raising the British flag in 1788 without any reference to the native occupants that the British seen NSW as a unoccupied land their's for the taking, hence "terra nullius".

Hi Paul,

Where to start ? You give us the benefit of your full knowledge:

"Is it not obvious that by raising the British flag in 1788 without any reference to the native occupants that the British seen NSW as a unoccupied land their's for the taking, hence "terra nullius"."

Well, no. Raising the flag suggests an act of sovereignty, that this new country didn't hitherto have any form of government or sovereignty - i.e. it is/was a "res nullius". It now does.

Please try to understand that nobody, NOBODY, not Cook or Phillip or Dampier or Tasman or Hartog, ever claimed that there were no people here: whether they had systems of government (res nullius) or land tenure (terra nullius) was another matter. Why do people insist on remaining pig-ignorant about that ?

On the assumption of sovereignty, the Brits declared all Aboriginal people to be British subjects, subject to all the laws, rights, responsibilities and privileges of all other British subjects, such as they were at the time. In SA, they even appointed a Protector of Aborigines a few months before actual Settlement/Invasion; and explicitly, in 1849-1850, the rights of Aboriginal people to use the land as they always had done, was recognised in all pastoral leases.

When Australians became actual citizens of Australia in 1949, so did Aboriginal people (after a fashion). In SA, when men got the vote in 1856, Aboriginal men got the vote. When women got the vote in 1894, Aboriginal women got the vote. I just heard on the wireless that Swiss women didn't get the vote until 1971.

Did Aboriginal groups have systems of land tenure or not ? That is one of the issues. Did Aboriginal groups have systems of government or not ? That's the other issue. Why do people insist in getting them confused ?

Joe

Paul,

Cook didn't raise the British flag, from his journal"...caused the English coleurs to be raised".

I'm sure that Cook knew the difference between the English flag and the Union flag, just to be pedantic, none of them raised the Union Jack.

Hi Joe,

Trying to extrapolate from your knowledge of the South Australian experience, a state with a very small indigenous population to begin with, to the whole of Australia is misleading. Pre 1788 the British government had scant knowledge of the life practices of Aboriginal people in Australia. All they relied on were the vague accounts from people like Cook and Banks. They were really not that interested in the well being of the inhabitants of Australia, they were more interested in establishing a penal colony as far away from Britain as possible.

Painting a picture of equality is also misleading, regardless of voting rights or whatever, in theory there may have been "equality" but in practice that was not the case. To answer your questions;
//Did Aboriginal groups have systems of land tenure or not ? Did Aboriginal groups have systems of government or not ?// In my opinion, and that of many others the answers to both are yes.

Paul.

//Did Aboriginal groups have systems of land tenure or not ? Did Aboriginal groups have systems of government or not ?// In my opinion, and that of many others the answers to both are yes.

Indeed they did, you are right.

Land tenure: this is our tribe's territory and if you come into it you're dead.

System of Government: The old blokes rule the roost and get the young girls.

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

« Some land lease in Queensland and WA were issued freehold in the nineteenth century (I think) but elsewhere they are still held as pastoral leases, usually on a 42-year renewable lease. »
.

In Queensland (my home state), I seem to recall that 30-year rolling leases are fairly common but there are also perpetual leases. Also, almost a third of the land area of the whole state is owned freehold or on freeholding leases that become freehold when the leases are fully paid off.

Initially of course, British colonisers took possession of Aboriginal land as squatters. They bought and sold land among themselves without anything being officially registered. Later, freehold land was granted under the New South Wales Land Act until Queensland broke away from NSW and became a separate, independent state in 1859. I suspect the situation developed more or less along the same lines in other states until the governments organised themselves and took control of land possession and occupation, passing individual state land acts. In the meantime, the squatters had become pretty firmly entrenched and the governments found themselves "devant le fait accompli".
.

Commenting on Alastaire Davidson's reference to Aboriginal cultivation of "the fruits of the earth and the sea", you remark :

« I'm still puzzled: why this insistent denial that Aboriginal people were foragers ? »
.

I don't think Davidson is denying that Aboriginal people were foragers or hunter-gatherers. I think he is simply pointing out that they did all that was necessary to get the best out of the abundant natural ressources that were readily available - "cultivating" them intelligently - an obvious allusion to farmers "cultivating" the soil - the hard way !

As you say, why should they do more : "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 ? "

.