Ttbn,

So everybody who exercises their right to free speech and march in protest against police brutality, is a thug ? And anybody who supports those rights, even if they disagree with the protestors, is also some sort of thug by association ?

Alternatively, anybody who commit a violent offence when they are children or teenagers deserves the death penalty thirty years later for supposedly (we haven't heard much about the veracity o the accusation) trying to pass a dud $ 20 note.

Get a grip. Of maybe loosen it for once before you go blind.

Joe

Dear Big Nana,

With the Vincent Lingiari case I was merely giving
an example of how things really were for many Indigenous
people on cattle stations at the time.

Of course it might seem appalling to some
that a 12 year old could be forced to work mustering
cattle, but as you suggest these were indeed different
times, when child labour was a cherished part of everyday life.
And of course lets not forget - as was institutionalised
racism and the belief that Aboriginal people were
subhuman.

Forcing Aboriginal people to work for them was a longstanding
tradition for the Vesteys and the Wave Hill station. Like
many Aboriginal nations, the Gurindji had found their
traditional way of life somewhat squeezed by white settlers.

The white settlers of course were only following their own
traditional way of life, i.e. theft and genocide, so it was
a real clash of cultures.

The waterholes that Aboriginal tribes had depended on had been
fenced off by pastoralists or polluted by their cattle,
which also destroyed desert plants that were an important
resource for the original inhabitants.

Meanwhile white hunters shot the Aboriginal hunting dogs
and the kangaroos that were a staple food for the locals -
kangaroos were a threat to the white invaders because
they competed with cattle for grass and water, and were also
symbolic of natural grace and beauty, two things that the
British Empire had vowed to wipe off the face of the earth.

With their traditional food sources running short, the
Aboriginal communities came up with the eminently
practical idea of grabbing a bit of British beef for
themselves. This seemed only fair since it was the cattle that
had decimated their society, but the whites, operating
on the tried and tested imperial principle of -
"when in doubt, shoot everyone", did not take kindly to the
people whose land they had stolen trying to stay alive.

And so the Gurindji found themselves forced to move to the
cattle stations and work as stockmen and servants, and
child labourers, for no or at best - meagre rations.

Big Nana,

There you go - I trust that clears things up for you.

I'm surprised though that you with over 50 years experience
of living amongst Aboriginal communities would not have
known all of this.

But there it is again: history!

Foxy,

I'm sure that Big Nana would have known all of the truth about the Gurindji walk-off, from first-hand reporting as well as Frank Hardy's book. She probably yarned with Phillip Nitschke and Don Atkinson and others who were deeply involved in supporting the Gurindji cause. [Check out Charlie Ward's new book on the issues.]

We've been over this before, but you might have forgotten that, in law relating to pastoral leases, Aboriginal people's rights to use the land as they always had done, were recognised (AFA Annual Report, 1935: pp. 35-37 - on my website: www.firstsources.info - AFA Page). In Federal law, once the Commonwealth had taken over control of the Northern Territory from South Australia and got its act together, they enacted such recognition in the early twenties - this clause had to be inserted into every pastoral lease:

“ And reserving to aboriginal inhabitants of the said State and their descendants during the continuance of this lease full and free right of egress and regress into upon and over the said lands and every part thereof and in and to the springs and surface waters therein and to make and erect and to take and use for food, birds and animals ferae naturae in such manner as they would have been entitled to if this lease had not been made. ”

So Aboriginal people had rights recognised to live on their own land and make traditional use of it. What attracted people to pastoral stations, apart from the excitement of being with horses and chasing wild cattle, were rations and later the cash remuneration.

In different wording, those land-use rights are still in force in South Australia, except that now, people have to apply to an Aboriginal committee.

Joe

LOUDmouth,

You have an odd way of using 'dispossession' and 'exploitation' and 'colonialism'.

Dear Joe,

You really need to study the history of this country
written by a wider variety of sources than the ones
you prefer to read.

Regarding the Vincent Lingiari case - you need to get
the facts. He was opposed by a society that had dedicated
the best part of two centuries to the brutal
dispossession and oppression of his people.

Lingiari stood firm and declared he would not submit.
He was after something bigger and more fundamental:
the return of Gurindji lands to their rightful owners.

Anyway - I won't go into the details here. You're someone
who believes that historical evidence shows a
"Black-Armband" version of Australian history is
deeply flawed and that Aboriginals were NOT "herded"
onto missions, driven from their lands of have countless
children stolen from their families.

So what's the point in continuing to have conversations
with you on any Aboriginal issues. It merely gives you
a platform - which I am no longer interested in doing.

I'm sure that you'll find plenty of "kindred spirits"
on this forum who will gladly support your viewpoint.

I'm just not one of them.

You wrote to me on another discussion that I "didn't
have a bloody clue, I accept that you believe that.
And therefore as I said - talk to those who in your
wisdom you think do.