@Paul1405,

Eyre's comments are relevant to the peoples whose lands he crossed. There were hundreds of different groups in Australia, descended from different waves of migration and just as stone-age tribes in Europe differed, so no doubt did these early Australians.

The peoples of what became Queensland appear to have been more aggressive and violent toward other Aboriginal groups and the Europeans but then they probably descended from immigrants from New Guinea who had and still have a reputation for violence and aggression.

A tribe marking out its territory, is a primitive and common response. All stone-age peoples did it and with males generally dominant, they all parcelled out rights and land to men. Divvying up the possessions amongst sons has been common in all human cultures from the beginning.

And as traders, most peoples were prepared to accept certain groups - study the history of Europe/Asia where we have a written history - because of perceived later benefits. It is hardly surprising that some, maybe many, stone-age peoples did the same thing.

And 'well treated' may simply mean, not instantly getting a spear in the guts.

Although the earliest reports of corroborries, an agreed meeting of tribes, by the literate Europeans, appear to record high rates of ultimate violence between groups, even with earlier permission given.

Still, little different to all human groups for thousands of years I would say.

@Banjo,

I said: And the idea that invasion and colonisation by those with pale skin is wrong and the same acts done by those with a bit more colour is right, is utterly racist »

You said: Yes, I agree if your expression "the same acts" includes "by the same or similar methods".

So, your view is that migration and colonisation are perfectly acceptable and the only issue is method?

My point was, colonisation is colonisation and it is racist to decree that more primitive methods make it acceptable.

By comparison to stone-age methods, colonisation by the British was benign. Does that make it better? Well, to the degree that you don't end up dead and your colonisers are trying to help you move into a more modern world, Yes.

We spend millions today trying to help people in the Third World join the First World so I fail to see why it was wrong for the British to attempt to do it in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The world required colonisation as part of its evolutionary impetus. We no longer need it, but when we did, then all colonisations are if you like, pretty much equal.

Without migration and colonisation no-one would have left Africa and that includes Aborigines and Europeans alike

You seem to have little understanding of primitive cultures. Babies were killed if they were not convenient, many women must have died or failed to bring a child to term given their horrific abuse by the males, the old and sick were left to die as was common in all such primitive societies.
Sounds very much like the vast majority of Europeans about the time of Cook.

//And each group considered everybody else's district as fair game, a bit like clan attitudes everywhere//

Now Joe, when Phillip arrived in 1788 just in the tiny region around Sydney Cove there were at least four tribes coexisting in a very small radious; the Cadigal, the Birrabirragal, the Gorualgal and the Cammaigal. Bennalong's tribe the Wangal were a little up river, although Bennalong spent much time fishing in the closed waters of the harbour. Yet Phillip makes no mention of waring tribes, considering these groups were very much confined. How do you explain so many small groups coexisting in relative piece given everything was "fair game".

I once more rely on my wife's knowledge on the "slave" tradition in her own Maori tribe, the Ngapuhi. The Western notion that slaves can only be obtained by force was not always the case with her people. An expedition to The Waikato could, and often did, result in obtaining "slaves" by means of peaceful exchange.
We have spoken previously of the indentured servant trade in the early colony of NSW, slavery by another name. Phillips convicts, again slavery by another name.

Unofficially slavery finally finished in the United States in 1942. I can explain.

BTW, I'll try and lay my hands on those two books you mentioned.

Can you give me a comment on the John Macarthur 10,000 acres. Did Lord Camden err in not considering native title? When did Lord Camden of Lord Anybody ever consider the natives. Remember Lord Sydney referred to them as "savages".

Hi Paul,

I'm certainly not asserting that it was just and proper, or even legal, to seize lands, and it's possible that even when land was overrun, whether by Aboriginal groups or Scottish clans or Maori hapu or anybody else, the original (?) land-users were still the legitimate 'owners'. Perhaps the jury is still out on whether or not 'ownership' is an appropriate term. The Waitangi Tribunal is still teasing out all of that in relation to 'original' owners of land (the land conquered by the Ngapuhi being a case in point).

As for 'native title', the High Court may have originated the term in the Mabo decision in 1972.

'Savage' was the term used by Friedrich Engels, Marx's colleague, in his 'Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State' and by Lewis Morgan in 'Ancient Society'. In fact, from memory, when I was working in the meatworks at Otahuhu, some of my Tongan work-mates used the term in reference to Australian Aboriginal people. I was quite shocked.

As for colonial theft of land, this is very useful, concerning shifting cultivators in Borneo:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amity_Doolittle/publication/231992454_Colliding_Discourses_Western_Land_Laws_and_Native_Customary_Rights_in_North_Borneo_1881-1918/links/55e04c7108aede0b572d242e/Colliding-Discourses-Western-Land-Laws-and-Native-Customary-Rights-in-North-Borneo-1881-1918.pdf

Colonial policy everywhere was to appropriate ('thieve') land wherever possible and whenever 'necessary' in attracting settlers. But it's been pretty much the rule throughout history. We know better now.

Joe

@Joe, aka Loudmouth.

Well said again. I really struggle with this concept that migration and colonisation were okay for our darker-skinned brothers and sisters but an act of pure evil if done by those with less melanin, i.e. the paler-skinned human beings. Indeed, paler of skin through no fault of their own but the result of necessary evolutionary development. As was migration and colonisation necessary evolutionary development.

I find, hidden in this belief, a rather nasty kind of racism which holds pale-skinned persons to a higher standard of behaviour than our darker-skinned human compatriots. In other words, it smacks of old beliefs regarding 'inferior races,' based on the colour of skin.

Personally, I figure that when two groups do the same thing then it should be judged by the same principles and skin colour is irrelevant.

Hi rhross,

//Personally, I figure that when two groups do the same thing then it should be judged by the same principles and skin colour is irrelevant// Yes, agree, you have not provided any evidence that Aboriginal people did the "same thing". Its all assumption on your part, if you have evidence then put it up.

The Japanese were not white, but their aggression of 80 years ago cannot be justified.