.

(Continued …)

.

And I remarked :

« In any event, if Aboriginal peoples were deemed to not own their land, on the pretext that they did not farm it (« till the soil ») – despite it having been their life-source for over 60,000 years – then logically, the British Crown, the squatters/pastoralists and the British speculative investors did not own it either, because they did not farm it (« till the soil ») after they appropriated it. »

I also posted two important chapters of the Mabo decision, noting that : « the seven High Court judges carried out a very thorough analysis of the legal aspects of British colonisation. They found that the British Crown and government had acted on the legal fiction (so far as the colonisation of Australia is concerned) of "the enlarged notion of terra nullius". »
.

I hope I have not misrepresented anything in this summary, Joe, nor missed-out something you consider to be important, but please let me know if you think I have.

.

.

Dear rhross,

.

You ask :

« Can I ask you why, it was okay for different waves of people to colonise Australia prior to 1788 and yet, as I read you, not okay for the British to do it ? »

I never said that, rhross. I consider that each case should be judged on its merits.

« Why was it okay for Aboriginal peoples, or peoples we came to call Aborigines, to walk out of Africa and colonise other parts of the world and it was not okay for Europeans or even Asians to do the same thing? »

Europeans and Asians did not « do the same thing ». The Europeans walked out of Africa and colonised Europe. The Asians walked out of Africa and colonised Asia.

The more rigorous conditions, larger populations, greater competition and fight for survival in Europe and Asia accelerated the natural evolution of human societies. They quickly became culturally and technologically more advanced than the Aboriginal peoples living in relative isolation from the rest of the world in a natural paradise, perpetuating their traditional lifestyles.

The vast island-continent of Australia was largely sufficient to accomodate the simple needs and desires of the Aboriginal peoples. The Europeans had other needs and other desires as did the Asians to a lesser extent.

In my opinion, the British colonisation of Australia in 1788 was not intrinsically immoral or reprehensible. It was the failure of the British Crown and government to recognise the Aboriginal peoples as the legitimate owners of their lands and negotiate the conditions of colonisation loyally and peacefully with them. The UK considered itself, at the time, a highly evolved and civilised nation, respectful of the international law on colonisation it had agreed with all the other major European colonial powers.

It was not the principle of colonisation but the method employed that was unjust. The British colonisers were the aggressors. The Aboriginal peoples were the victims.

It follows that the violent acts committed by the British aggressors were, a priori, reprehensible, whereas those committed by the Aboriginal victims were, a priori, acts of self-defence.

.

So somebody's ancestors raped, killed and plundered someone else's ancestors.

So what?

It's all history.

Banjo,

A bit hard to know where to start, but here goes:

1. The British, at least in SA, formally and explicitly recognised the rights of Aboriginal groups to use the land as they always had done, i.e. by hunting, gathering, camping on, performing ceremonies on, etc. the land of their ancestors. Those rights still exist in SA.

Of course, many other factors got in the way to prevent Aboriginal people from re-claiming their lands, until the Mabo decision; and after all, Europeans were out to take over as much land as they could, fair means or foul. And that almost certainly happened out beyond the frontier of government control.

2. Pastoralists in Australia, i.e. those who make a living pasturing animals and raising them for market, do NOT own 'their' land: they lease it for a set period from State/Territory governments, renewable, - leased on very specific conditions, including (1), which has to be written into every pastoral lease (at least in SA).

On a more minor point, Europeans didn't walk out of Africa, or Asians out of Africa: Africans did. We're all Africans. In fact, it seems that Europeans had dark skins until barely a few thousand years ago.

Another point: in British towns (as we saw on "The Good Life"), there is still a lot of commons land, on which people can pasture a set number of animals and, probably on council-owned land and with definite conditions, can use similarly commons land ("allotments") to actually cultivate and grow fruit and vegetables. Being closer, you may know more about this than I do. The point is that people there may have the rights to use land without owning it.

But I wouldn't be surprised if people using their allotments can't plant fruit trees, which represent a much longer-term form of land use and threaten council proprietorship by 'adverse possession'. In other words, allottees can grow only annual crops: for all I know, there may be a ceremonial 'closing' of the allotments on one day of the year, to symbolise and reinforce the council's underlying freehold ownership.

Joe

@Steele,

So, while the Aboriginal practice was to kidnap and rape women from other Aboriginal tribes you are saying that the same did not happen to European women? Given that the women generally ended up dead and the ability to assess, even if presented with a body, that rape had taken place was minimal, I am going to err on the side of Aboriginal men being human like all the rest.

There are accounts of European females, taken captive after shipwrecks, showing that Aboriginal men did not have an aversion to European women.

We can also assume that where cannibalism was practised, and it was in many areas, that not much body would be left to know exactly what the women endured.

I am sure there were instances of rape by European men, but it would be delusional to claim that Aboriginal men did not also rape European women since rape was a part of 'traditional' Aboriginal culture. Indeed, a punishment for women and girls who 'misbehaved' was pack rape.

You said: Much of the violence from Aboriginies stemmed from the abduction, rape,and murder of their women by whalers, sealers and settlers.

Prove it. There are numerous reports of Aboriginal women taking up with European men and refusing to leave them. The most common comment was:'he don't beat me.' Now, I am sure there were violent European men but the treatment of women in most if not all Aboriginal groups was horrific. From the first reports we can see that they were violently abused and more recent studies of skeletons shows massively higher level of head trauma for females.

Whack her over the head with an axe or lump of wood for the slightest mistake. Spear her, shove a burning stick into her face - shall I post you some reports? Can do.

And while we can take into account mitigating factors, i.e. Aborigines defending their land, what really got the settlers upset, understandably, was the slaughter of helpless women, children and babies. Shall we call that excessive violence?

@Banjo,

You said: Europeans and Asians did not « do the same thing ». The Europeans walked out of Africa and colonised Europe. The Asians walked out of Africa and colonised Asia.

Do we agree the many different Aboriginal peoples, numbering more than 300 groups because of the language differences, often with no common language source, were Homo Sapiens?

Ergo, Aborigines walked out of Africa and colonised Australia in various waves of migration. Of course they all did the same thing.

Ah, so they lived in a natural paradise. What a joke? Is that why some of the earliest reports by sailors touching shore were of abject misery and malnutrition? Some paradise. I am sure some groups did have it easier but to call stone-age life a paradise is delusional.

Since British records show the goal was to befriend, learn from and assist Aborigines then what did they not recognise?

Ah, the land ownership. Well, when earlier waves of people who came to be called Aborigines wandered in and slaughtered those they found, was that recognising legitimate ownership? Nope. You apply double standards.

You need to do some more reading because clearly you have no understanding of the British approach to creating their convict settlement, nor the regulations put in place to attempt to protect Aborigines.

Sure, at times it failed, as in the best laid plans of mice and men, but they did try.

Since Aborigines were illiterate we have no idea what plans they had to be fair to the peoples whose land they took