rhross To say "I repeat, even in the time of King George, while token consultations were made, it was Parliament which made the rules."

It is wrong to believe that the British Parliament was instrumental in the formation of the Australian colony. The instructions to Phillip came directly from the King through his Privy Council, a body appointed by the monarch on the advice of his Prime Minister. Phillips instructions for the colonisation of New South Wales had been prepared by Lord Sydney as the Secretary of State, Lord Sydney was responsible for "the colonies" and with only minor modifications Lord Sydney's instructions were adopted by the King with the advice of his Privy Council. There was no parliamentary vote.

Trying to big note yourself, wont get you anywhere here.

@Paul1405,

Any bignoting tactics escaped me. Pray, clarify your claims or retract. Or do big words throw you? Sorry if I used some.

The introduction of King George into the discussion is utterly meaningless. I assume, it was introduced because he suffered from bouts of madness.

However, I repeat, by the time of his reign his power was limited and Parliament called the shots. Although, even if he had been a powerful monarch it would be irrelevant.

Britain decided to establish a penal colony in the land we now call Australia and whatever input George had or did not have is irrelevant.

What we do know, is that the British took an enlightened view of their project, planning to befriend, learn from and help Aborigines. So, if George was instrumental in that approach good on him and if not, good on Parliament.

This is one of those red herrings which the ill-informed throw into a debate to distract. It didn't work

rhoss.

Paul would never throw a red herring into a discussion, Paul's a true blue Aussie, he'd throw a smelly mullet.

Hi Rhross,

I take your point about British colonial rule - from what I've read of comparable colonial powers, I certainly don't think any of them would have done any better. Even the French were slower in recognising the rights of colonial populations as subjects comparable to British subject-status conferred here on Aboriginal people. Their record on slavery and their repression of ex-slaves in Haiti is forever a blot on their record.

And that meant more than just lip-service: as Paul has pointed out, i know nothing of any other part of the world apart from South Australia, but at least in South Australia, from the earliest days, Aboriginal people had to have representation in court, and interpreters if they did not speak english - and they were often released here in SA if no interpreter could be found, since in British law, a person can't be given a fair trial unless he (or she) understood what charges were laid against him (or her) properly. When one family was massacred on the Yorke Peninsula here in about 1860, the five or six men charged were secretly released, since no interpreter could be found.

Mind you, I have studied African affairs since 1961 or so, I have a book-case on the subject, including a shelf of the old Pelican African Library books from the sixties. I was very excited about Tanzania's Ujamaa policy until it went belly-up. I studied comparative colonial education policy across Africa and the racist policy of 'culturally-appropriate education'. But as Paul says, all I know is South Australia, an insignificantly small part of Australia.

Cheers,

Joe

.

Dear Loudmouth,

.

You wrote :

.

« It's a technicality, arising from its assertion of sovereignty, that in Australia, the Crown is the underlying owner of all land. It's all part of our inheritance of feudal land law, particularly after the Norman Conquest, under which the sovereign power is ceded all land which he then grants back on declarations of loyalty to its 'owners'. It's probably a feature of all governments as a consequence of their claim to sovereignty. »

I guess the Australian Aboriginal peoples were not aware of that « technicality », Joe. And I doubt that if you explained it to them today, they would would find it just. I suspect that most would consider that, prior to British colonisation, they were members of their own sovereign nations, living on their traditional lands as they had done for over 60,000 years, and quite happy to continue to do so.

This is what the Austtralian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) had to say on the question in its Report 31 (tabled 12 June 1986) :

« It may be that a better and more honest appreciation of the facts relating to Aboriginal occupation at the time of settlement, and of the Eurocentric view taken by the occupying powers, could lead to the conclusion that sovereignty inhered in the Aboriginal peoples at that time. However, the Committee concludes that, as a legal proposition, sovereignty is not now vested in the Aboriginal peoples except insofar as they share in the common sovereignty of all peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, they are not a sovereign entity under our present law so that they can enter into a treaty with the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, the Committee is of the view that if it is recognised that sovereignty did inhere in the Aboriginal people in a way not comprehended by those who applied the terra nullius doctrine at the time of occupation and settlement, then certain consequences flow which are proper to be dealt with in a compact between the descendants of those Aboriginal peoples and other Australians. »

.

.

Dear rhross,

.

You wrote :

« I repeat, even in the time of King George, while token consultations were made, it was Parliament which made the rules. »

That is true as a general rule, rhross, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, King George III was very much a « hands on » monarch, particularly during the prime ministership of William Pitt the Younger.

Pitt had been propulsed to the important position of Prime Minister by King George III in 1783 at the age of 24. His tenure was dominated by major events such as the French revolution, the Napoleonic wars and the decision to colonise Australia. Naturally, he was guided and supported by the king in the exercise of his responsibilities.

King George III announced the decision to colonise Australia to the new session of parliament on 23 January 1787 in these words :

« A plan has been formed by my direction, for transporting a number of convicts, in order to remove the inconvenience which arose from the crowded state of the jails in different parts of the kingdom. »

You also wrote :

« Beyond which, what does it matter? If the British had not colonised Australia someone else would have done it. »

Perhaps, rhross, but that is no justification for their expropriation of Aboriginal traditional lands and territory without negotiation or compensation.

And you conclude :

« Methinks applying double standards is racist. Aboriginal peoples colonised others and then got colonised by Europeans. Such is life. »

It is not « double stadards », has nothing to do with « racism », nor is it fatalistic. The same moral principles apply whoever the coloniser and colonised, and it could have been otherwise.

Also, there is no evidence that the various supposed waves of colonisation by different Aboriginal tribes at different periods had the same devastating effects to the total Aboriginal population of Australia as that of British colonisation in 1788.

.