Indigenous Sovereignty Demands

[willedoo]

I know very little about Pascoe but one of Australia’s leading anthropologists, Peter Sutton, co-authored the book 'Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate' with archaeologist Keryn Walshe. Sutton and Walshe accuse Pascoe of a lack of true scholarship, ignoring Aboriginal voices, dragging respect for traditional Aboriginal culture back into the Eurocentric world of the colonial era, and trimming colonial observations to fit his argument. They write that while Dark Emu purports to be factual it is littered with unsourced material, is poorly researched, distorts and exaggerates many points, selectively emphasises evidence to suit those opinions, and ignores large bodies of information that do not support the author’s opinions. Quote: “It is actually not, properly considered, a work of scholarship,” they write. “Its success as a narrative has been achieved in spite of its failure as an account of fact.”

 

I'd have to read both books to form an opinion, but I've spent a lot of years working with anthropologists and archaeologists and would probably accept their side of the story before Pascoe's. I've had different opinions at times than that of the established theory that anthropologists and archaeologists go by, but I respect the extent of their work.

[onetrack]

It's entirely likely that the signs of Indigenous agriculture that Pascoe talks about were the result of shipwrecked Europeans trying to develop agricultural practices amongst the tribes who befriended them. I know this is extremely likely in the Kalbarri region of W.A., where it has been found that numbers of Dutch sailors survived the common Dutch shipwrecks along the W.A. coast.

[pmccarthy]

The Kalbarri story is covered in a book called "And their ghosts may be heard" which I have on my bookshelf. Lots of evidence of the Dutch survivors.

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

But does this nullify the claim of first nations people being first nations people?

No. It is well accepted that prior to, say 60,000 years ago, there were no humans on the continent.

 

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

that does not make the First Nations peoples automatically subjects of the king

Perhap we, today, are misinterpreting the intent of the declaration that the indigenous people were "the King's subjects". I see it as a royal order to the English to treat the indigenous as a person in Great Britain would be treated. Unfortunately, that cut both ways. The indigenes were expected to follow the laws of Great Britain which were dropped on them like a tonne of bricks without any education and explanation. 

 

As for the disinterest of the aboriginals to the arrival of the Fleet in Port Jackson, you have to remember that the movement of the ships up the coast would have been reported from the time they were first seen. The the Fleet moored in Botany Bay for a couple of days before moving into Port Jackson. Also, it was only 18 years since the first contact of these people with the British when Cook arrived in Botany Bay in 1770, and there would be some indigenes in their mid to late 20s who remembered that. Cook sailed away and no other ships are recorded to have arrived before 1788. Perhaps the locals thought that these ships would go away, too. There would also be the memory of the wounding of two of their number by Cook's men, so teh locals might well be wary of the occupants of these " moving islands under white clouds". 

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I really think you should bone up on the real history and not what was taught in schools - at least in our day.

That's true. And you should consider that Aboriginal activism as we see it coming from the cities is based on a large degree on the racial activism by Afro-Americans in the second half of the 20th Century. I live in a town with a high Aboriginal population. I don't see protesters in the main street. There are some who have caught the activist bug, but their protests seem to be about the flying of the Aboriginal flag at the war memorial on Anzac Day (a topic for discussion in another thread). From what I see, the Aboriginal people here are happy that respect for each of them as people is improving and they just want to get on with life. Sure there is unemployment, but that's typical in country towns for both Aborigines and others.

 

52 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

there seems to be acceptance there was Aboriginal agriculture before Europeans arrived

Agriculture is defined in its broadest sense as using natural resources to produce commodities which maintain life, including food, fibre, forest products, and horticultural crops. Non-Aborigines have recently been introduced to Aboriginal forestry methods that use fire to promote plant regeneration of plants which act as bait for hunted animals, with the added benefit of minimising catastrophic bushfires. The ability to cultivate food plants is dependent on the topography of the land and the quality of the soils. That makes plant agriculture very much a regional thin. Even the First Fleeters found that cropping around Sydney isn't easy. That's why the Aborigines of Port Jackson tended to exist by hunting and gathering. Further afield, in the plains country, it would be possible to establish small areas of plant cultivation. 

[nomadpete]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

This meant that, in accordance with the European laws at the time, the land was actually taken by conquest

Are you sure that the High Court used the words 'taken by conquest'?

 

Or is that an extrapolation?

 

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

like saying all kids of the Greek, Italian, and others that settled after WWII aren't somehow Australian -

The above leans toward my thoughts on the matter.

Every human currently on the continent should have equal value (today) as an Australian, under the present law of the land. (For a moment Leaving aside the debates about new immigrants)

 

There is no way to right the wrongs of the past. And many attempts to do so, result in dividing people, and/or creating abuse and waste.

[gareth lacey]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Maybe, but while I found debate over the extent of Aboriginal agriculture, apart from what seemed more radical sites, there seems to be acceptance there was Aboriginal agriculture before Europeans arrived, including from the University of  Sydney..  https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/our-research/research-areas/life-and-environmental-sciences/indigenous-grasslands-grain.html

 

(Unless universities no longer rely on evidence)

 

As I recall they also invented the world's first aerofoil

I have no issue with facts,but a fraud like him and his ilk are only in it for the money,people are getting very tired of the "poor me"attitude that some in the indigenous community are spouting,generational trauma,give me a break,my own family tree has trauma going back generations but we dont hang on it for government hand outs or guilt,its the 21st century, move on get educated and prove your worth,many have done it,i would not say sorry for past injustices done ,horrible as it was those people did not have the same education as us and they did at the time what they thought was right, lets just all get on and stop with chip on the shoulder(of some)

[old man emu]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/our-research/research-areas/life-and-environmental-sciences/indigenous-grasslands-grain.html

That reference DOES NOT indicate any positive effort on the part of the indigenes in the Central West of NSW to positively engage in what meets the definition of agriculture. Come out to my place in late summer and see hectares of native millet ( Panicum decompositum, known as windmill grass here). This picture is pretty close to a scale of 1:1. See how small the seeds are? The seeds are easy to strip from the plant when ripe. Actually, this plant distributes its seeds by having the stem break off near the ground and then the plant is blown across the land by the wind, shedding seeds as it goes. 

The other grass, Mitchell Grass, doesn't have big seeds either. Harkening back to "pennies make pounds", it would be quite possible to gather sufficient seeds to make enough flour for johnny cakes. However, the object of plant agriculture is to obtain a store of the produce for use out of season. The indigenes didn't make grain storage facilities for long term storage of grain.

 

I'm not deriding the scientific investigation into the agronomy and nutritional application of these plants. Knowledge is good, but to try to extrapolate the knowledge that indigenes ate the seeds of these grasses, or parts of other plants into a claim that they engaged in "agriculture" is just plain wrong.

[facthunter]

After the war there was an article in the state school magazine  NSW, "Oona Gathers Nardoo seeds. With grain they could travel further via a string of waterholes etc Shown in most of the Paintings as blue circles. (I think).  Nev

[nomadpete]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

After the war there was an article in the state school magazine  NSW, "Oona Gathers Nardoo seeds. With grain they could travel further via a string of waterholes etc Shown in most of the Paintings as blue circles. (I think).  Nev

A source of starch such as this would be important nutritionally. But the presence of those grasses and the use of them doesn't confirm a structured farming practice.

 

And, either way, what does that have to do with present day nutrition, or land rights?

[facthunter]

Aw Cmon Plenty of others mentioned grains and my comment is relevant and factual..THEY preserved what is useful to them.  Nev

[old man emu]

Nardoo is a fern, not a grass. It is an aquatic plant, so it is logical that indigenes could travel along waterways and be fed by collecting the sporocarps, which could be mistakenly called seed. A sporocarp is a specialised type of structure in the aquatic ferns of the order Salviniales whose primary function is the production and release of spores. Formation of sporocarps is rare in water but occurs on drying mud as the water recedes, hence the reference to "waterholes", not streams.

 

Saying "with grain they could travel further via a string of waterholes" is putting the cart before the horse.

[facthunter]

The grain bit is related to another source and    I did not mean to write string of waterholes in the literal sense. The tracks go from one to another not along a riverbed.  Nev

[nomadpete]

I suggest that what some are calling 'agriculture' in this debate, would also label Johnny Appleseed as practicing agriculture.

When all he really did was drop some seeds along his travel path.

 

However, I say again, 'What has this to do with sovereignty?'

Edited August 9 by nomadpete

[Jerry_Atrick]

59 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I suggest that what some are calling 'agriculture' in this debate, would also label Johnny Appleseed as practicing agriculture.

When all he really did was drop some seeds along his travel p

I don't know who Johnny Appleseed is, but I would hazard to guess if the High Court of Australia found in the Mabo case the land was cultivated (an essential ingredient of land agricultire, I think), then I would tend to think sufficient evidence was tended for them to arrive at that conclusion:

"The cultivated garden land was and is in the higher central portion of the island. There seems however in recent times a trend for cultivation to be in more close proximity with habitation."

 

I am guessing it iwasn't a simple dropping of seeds, or a wholly natural (i.e. without human action) occurence of what otherwise would appear to be organised cropping.

 

10 hours ago, onetrack said:

It's entirely likely that the signs of Indigenous agriculture that Pascoe talks about were the result of shipwrecked Europeans trying to develop agricultural practices amongst the tribes who befriended them. I know this is extremely likely in the Kalbarri region of W.A., where it has been found that numbers of Dutch sailors survived the common Dutch shipwrecks along the W.A. coast.

Entirely likley is not the same as "is". Be that as it may, even if that is the case, so what? People from different cultures and countries are learning and applying what they learn from peoples of other countries and cultures. Does that make the practice and establishment of First Nations agriculture a non-fact? Does Australia not have a manufacturing industry because whatever manufacturing we do were techniques importted from other countries?

 

8 hours ago, gareth lacey said:

would not say sorry for past injustices done ,horrible as it was those people did not have the same education as us and they did at the time what they thought was right, lets just all get on and stop with chip on the shoulder(of some)

The apology is not an apology by individuals living today - this is the conflation people like to come up with. It is an apology from the government/institution of Australia for largely historical institutional transgressions. Note, the head of the NT Police officially apologised for current day transgressions and institutional racism this week: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/nt-police-apology-to-indigenous-kerrynne-liddle/104191246. This does not mean each individual NT police officer apologises, but the institution that let this happen does.. and it requires an institutional response. In, I think the 90s, the German government made reparation payments and apoligised to various communities it was brutal to; this was not German citizens of the day apologising - it was an institutional apology. Should that not have happened?

 

9 hours ago, old man emu said:

As for the disinterest of the aboriginals to the arrival of the Fleet in Port Jackson, you have to remember that the movement of the ships up the coast would have been reported from the time they were first seen. The the Fleet moored in Botany Bay for a couple of days before moving into Port Jackson. Also, it was only 18 years since the first contact of these people with the British when Cook arrived in Botany Bay in 1770, and there would be some indigenes in their mid to late 20s who remembered that. Cook sailed away and no other ships are recorded to have arrived before 1788. Perhaps the locals thought that these ships would go away, too. There would also be the memory of the wounding of two of their number by Cook's men, so teh locals might well be wary of the occupants of these " moving islands under white clouds". 

I haven't found anything authorative on the ignorning the first fleet, but there seems there were some who did and some who didn't.. and the above seems consistent with why those who didn't didn't.

 

8 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Are you sure that the High Court used the words 'taken by conquest'?

Absolutely, Court reports and judgements are verbose things so to quote with full context would be not great, so you can read it for yourself if you are interested: https://jade.io/article/67683. Para 33 is a statement of how land could, at the time, be legally aquired in terms of colonisation... Basically the accepts that if it is not terra nulliius, it is a conquest, and that the declaration of terra nullius was defective and therefore illegal - at the time. However, this article from the University of Qld Law Journal summarises it for you:  http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/UQLawJl/2005/2.html

 

 

 

5 hours ago, nomadpete said:

And, either way, what does that have to do with present day nutrition, or land rights?

 

59 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

However, I say again, 'What has this to do with sovereignty?'

Well, read the court report and you will see agirculture (or lack thereof) was one of the tests to determine if terra nullius/cessation or inception of the invaders' country's laws was valid.

 

9 hours ago, old man emu said:

That's true. And you should consider that Aboriginal activism as we see it coming from the cities is based on a large degree on the racial activism by Afro-Americans in the second half of the 20th Century. I live in a town with a high Aboriginal population. I don't see protesters in the main street. There are some who have caught the activist bug, but their protests seem to be about the flying of the Aboriginal flag at the war memorial on Anzac Day (a topic for discussion in another thread). From what I see, the Aboriginal people here are happy that respect for each of them as people is improving and they just want to get on with life. Sure there is unemployment, but that's typical in country towns for both Aborigines and others.

Firstly, does it matter how an issue is brought to our attention for redress? In reality, a degree of activism is involved in every societal change - the more fundamental the issue, the mode vociferous the activism. Are you saying that womens' suffrogettes (sp?) gay rights and various civil wars improving peoples rights - because they were activism - were not valid and not, in the end positive (mostly)? Secondly, when someone or a population are very downtrodden and don't see much of a future and are under threat (refer again to the NT experience), they are unlikely to become active until something or someone inspires them. Those with natural leadership qualities will be motivated from the inspiration of the black movement in the 20th century and realise they can achieve their rights, too. What is wrong with that? Also, think of when various individuals come out against what is seen as a powerful force to be reckone with, how others come out, from the catholic priests pedophillia to the #meetoo movement (yes, some are vexatious, but on the whole)?

 

 

Basically, the High Court found many things believed and used to justofy continual oppression and non-recgognitioon of First Nations people, are in fact myths. Other cases have also since found more myths. The concept of being the kings subjects was illegal at the time, and, as OME so eleqouently puts it: "... was dropped on them like a ton of bricks." In fact, without the invention of the doctrine of native title, the High Court found that the settlement (and therefore, subsequent colonisation and indeed federation) was illegal without treaty (and yes, it would have probably had to be a treaty in which all the first nations consented).

 

The fact that first nations cultures persist today rather than being forced wholly into a European culture is testimony to the strength of ther culture despite the social problems, which are arguably the result of intergenerational oppression, disposession of land and peoples, etc. However, I don't agree with all soverign demands, for example this one: https://world.time.com/2013/05/30/australias-aborigines-launch-a-bold-legal-push-for-independence/

 

I don't think that will achiieve anything, nor do I think it is logistically practical to implement.

 

Edited August 9 by Jerry_Atrick

[nomadpete]

I'll only answer one point at a time.

 

Re: The Eddy Mabo case .

I was not aware that the High Cout based their decision on agriculture carried out on Murray Island in Torres Strait.

Thanks for enlightening me on that.

 

However, it is rather strange to see that the judgement is automatically applied to mainland indigenous. You may notice that ATSIC stands for two distinctly different races/cultures. An indication that there are (at least) two very separate cultures from two geographically separate places, people that do not even like to be in the same room. This has been indicated to me personally by the people I met on Torres Strait islands, and by numerous Cape york inhabitants.

 

I note also, that it might be questionable whether British ever declared Torres Strait as being terra nullius. I do not know when whites started inhabiting Torres Strait area but it sure wasn't  related to the Botany Bay exercise.

 

Aside from the above, the island people were not nomadic in the way that mainlanders were. So it comes as no surprise that they planted food and built permanent homes. I do not see a valid comparison with the nomads of the mainland who generally followed their seasonal food sources, carrying literally a handful of weapons, tools or food.

 

I guess, if the early colonisers specified terra nullius applied to all islands up to and including New Guinea, the ruling applies, but to base the court ruling on one small group of islanders growing crops, and applying it to all Australia, when the vast majority in a different location (mainland nomads) probably didn't,  seems rather biased.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Absolutely, Court reports and judgements are verbose things so to quote with full context would be not great, so you can read it for yourself

Thanks for the clarification.

 

It is set in concrete. So be it.

 

So, now that we have established that, what do suggest to help that particular demographic group of Australians to improve their lot?

 

How do you suggest we solve the soverignty conflict?

 

Shall we send all those dreadful white invaders back to where they csme from?

Edited August 9 by nomadpete

[Jerry_Atrick]

5 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

However, it is rather strange to see that the judgement is automatically applied to mainland indigenous. You may notice that ATSIC stands for two distinctly different races/cultures. An indication that there are (at least) two very separate cultures from two geographically separate places, people that do not even like to be in the same room. This has been indicated to me personally by the people I met on Torres Strait islands, and by numerous Cape york inhabitants.

The fact there are two cultures is immaterial. It is the act of taking the land that was already inhabitied and settled that is the issue.. As there was no treaty, the action of taking sovereignty of the land without treaty while there was settlement is conquest and required - by law at the time - a treaty. Also, the High Court has jurisduction over all of Australia in constitutional and soverign matters, and a decision in law they make is binding across all of Australia (unless they expressly restrict it to a certain location). Nothing strange about that; otherwise each state would have to contest the same overreach of federal powers. Also, the offical case name is Mabo and Others v Queensland No. 2 (1992).. To be honest, I do not know who the others are, but I am guessing they may well be mainlanders - but it is just a guess.

 

Note, there were over 250 distinct mainland cultures, too. Just because they were on the mainland did not mean they were the same culture. About the only thing that was shared was the concept of moeity, and eventhen it meant different things to each first nation.

 

13 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I note also, that it might be questionable whether British ever declared Torres Strait as being terra nullius. I do not know when whites started inhabiting Torres Strait area but it sure wasn't  related to the Botany Bay exercise.

 

As I recal, it wasn't unitl 1850 that Governor Bourke made the formal declaration - well after the first fleet. However, a formal declaration is not required; it is the act of seizing land by cessation/conquest and inception of the foreign law into the land that is proof enough - and that was well established by the time the formal declaration was made (and it only affect the Colony of NSW - I don't think any other colony made a formal declaration).

 

15 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

in the way that mainlanders were.

This is a common misconception. The mainlanders were "nomadic" within their defined nation. And a map of the actual first nations of Australia  is here: https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/map-indigenous-australia

 

Thee were distinct laws, customs, cultures, and languages; there were laws or protocols of traversing others' nations, etc. There was even trade between those nations. It was a very structured set of societies; similar in concept to Europe, but built on different social paradigms.

 

20 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

guess, if the early colonisers specified terra nullius applied to all islands up to and including New Guinea, the ruling applies, but to base the court ruling on one small group of islanders growing crops, and applying it to all Australia, when the vast majority in a different location (mainland nomads) probably didn't,  seems rather biased.

To re-iterate, the High Courty only has jurisdiction over Australia. It is a nonsense to suggest the land was not inhabited and setlled, and if their only means of hunting food was spears and boomerangs, that is indifferent to anything.

 

This isn't the article I was looking for, but goes into the discoveries leading anthropolgists to conclude there was mainland agricutlure (I haven't read all of it): https://www.abc.net.au/listen/radionational/archived/bushtelegraph/rethinking-indigenous-australias-agricultural-past/5452454.

 

But even if there wasn't, agrciluture, it is but one test; the fact that there were boundaries, that there were established laws and customs would have been enough in those days (according to Blackstone's English Law) to establish inhabitance and require a treaty as they all assert rigths to an identifable piece of land separate to others. That is the basis of the decision of the High Court.

[Jerry_Atrick]

19 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

So, now that we have established that, what do suggest to help that particular demographic group of Australians to improve their lot?

Unf, I am no expert in this area. It is my current study of Aussie law that has provided me with the info I have today. However, there are a couple of things I can think of:

• Simply digestible education for all of the facts and issues to break down what are natural barriers for understanding the issues and incorporating change. Also, I don't know what the current primary and secondary curricula for history is, but
• Making it mandatory for school kids to learn the First Nations general culture in a contextual way and the conflicts between modern culture.  This isn't diving into everything about it, but the general principles Also, ensuring the historical elements tell both the European and first nations elements - not as it was in my day - just the European.
• Constitutional recgonition of first nations peoples; and recognition of what we call customary law (which is really just first nations laws). Now, I hear people saying we can't have people being speared in the streets. Obviosuly, there has to be limits, but spearing is not the only punishment or action taken. Most punishments are community shaming and as first nations cimmunities are very tight knit, this is considered serious by both the community and the individual. Temporary and permanent ostracision is probably more problematic for those being punished than being speared in the leg (yes, today, without antibitocis, they probably would have died, but they probably had more diverse immunities before Europeans).
• Recognition of first nations culture in our legal processes. European based cultures are much more individual-centred than first nations cultures. So, while if we get caught red handed doing something, we can expect to be separated from society for a bit while the investigation continues and we get bail, this is apparently a complete anathema and stressful for first nations people (who live in their communities); because decisions are made collectively - usually in the presence of elders. To ask a first nations person (who lives in community) to make a decision, or provide information, etc, without letting them consult their mob (a lawyer won't do it) apparently causes great stress so to get it over with, they just ple guilty a lot of times, etc. Also, I imagine as they don't react the same way Europeans do when in custody, it probably results in a l ot of frustration by the authorities, and the tinderbox is alight.

These are a few I can think of, but based on only what I have been taught in Aussie law. Obviously resources are required, but before any real change can occur, the majority of th epopulation have to understand what is going on and what went on.. Then at least people have the facts to base their opinions on. Of course, people may still think the same - that is OK if it is based on fact - that is a value judgement,. But somehow, I think when people learn more, like me, their minds will change.. and when there are votes in it, you can bet the pollies will really put the resources in to change things.

 

[onetrack]

I'll only make one point. The Aborigines were and are nomads, and are recognised unilaterally as nomads.

 

Nomadic lifestyle and the agricultural lifestyle are not compatible, they're completely at odds with each other.

 

Edited August 9 by onetrack

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Unf, I am no expert in this area. It is my current study of Aussie law that has provided me with the info I have today. However, there are a couple of things I can think of:

• Simply digestible education for all of the facts and issues to break down what are natural barriers for understanding the issues and incorporating change. Also, I don't know what the current primary and secondary curricula for history is, but
• Making it mandatory for school kids to learn the First Nations general culture in a contextual way and the conflicts between modern culture.  This isn't diving into everything about it, but the general principles Also, ensuring the historical elements tell both the European and first nations elements - not as it was in my day - just the European.
• Constitutional recgonition of first nations peoples; and recognition of what we call customary law (which is really just first nations laws). Now, I hear people saying we can't have people being speared in the streets. Obviosuly, there has to be limits, but spearing is not the only punishment or action taken. Most punishments are community shaming and as first nations cimmunities are very tight knit, this is considered serious by both the community and the individual. Temporary and permanent ostracision is probably more problematic for those being punished than being speared in the leg (yes, today, without antibitocis, they probably would have died, but they probably had more diverse immunities before Europeans).
• Recognition of first nations culture in our legal processes. European based cultures are much more individual-centred than first nations cultures. So, while if we get caught red handed doing something, we can expect to be separated from society for a bit while the investigation continues and we get bail, this is apparently a complete anathema and stressful for first nations people (who live in their communities); because decisions are made collectively - usually in the presence of elders. To ask a first nations person (who lives in community) to make a decision, or provide information, etc, without letting them consult their mob (a lawyer won't do it) apparently causes great stress so to get it over with, they just ple guilty a lot of times, etc. Also, I imagine as they don't react the same way Europeans do when in custody, it probably results in a l ot of frustration by the authorities, and the tinderbox is alight.

These are a few I can think of, but based on only what I have been taught in Aussie law. Obviously resources are required, but before any real change can occur, the majority of th epopulation have to understand what is going on and what went on.. Then at least people have the facts to base their opinions on. Of course, people may still think the same - that is OK if it is based on fact - that is a value judgement,. But somehow, I think when people learn more, like me, their minds will change.. and when there are votes in it, you can bet the pollies will really put the resources in to change things.

 

That has all been tried before.

 

You can lead a horse to water...

 

Do you have a plan B?

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

The fact there are two cultures is immaterial.

So, a key point in the decision (cultivation) was based on a fact that applied only to a small island in Torres Strait, but not in the vast expance of the Australian continent. Hmmm....

[nomadpete]

Jerry, pls number your points. There are too many per post for me to think about.

[Jerry_Atrick]

36 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

You can lead a horse to water...

That's why I would suggest school curriculum is updated accordingly... I don't think that has been tried terribly well yet, though happyh to be corrected.

 

And not all of it has been tried yet  - certainly not reform of the criminal legal system. And I would suggest Mabo is probably the last time the common law will be used to progres the law in this area without explicit parliamentary involvement.

 

31 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

So, a key point in the decision (cultivation) was based on a fact that applied only to a small island in Torres Strait, but not in the vast expance of the Australian continent. Hmmm....

That is the point of the article I referenced - even on the mainland, there is evidence of cultivation  - and not only hunter/gathering. The point of the law at the time was that terra nullius only occured if there was no permanent assertion of rights over the land by the indigenous population; even if they were hunter/gatherers, there was assertion of rights over the land through ways other than agriculture - it is one test.. the fact there were different nations, with different cultures/customs/languages; Each first nations country had different rules about how they would let people from other first nations countries traverse their land; there were specific areas for hunting/gathering, agriculture, living, religious ceremonies/significance that did not change, etc. all points to a permanent assertion of rights of specific areas of land. Even if there was no agriculture per se, there is enough of other components of society to refute terra nullius. Otherwise the High Court would not have found it applied to all of Australia.

 

I would have loved to be in the judges chambers formulating judgment and wondering how the heck they are going to get around an illegal settlement and effectively an illegal modern country - which was the birth of the Australian common law doctrine of native title. My guess is, if they could limit fidning terra nullius defective to a small parcel of land, it would have made their job a lot easier and they would have taken it.

 

BTW, I am not saying first nations act entirely honestly in all of this either. Wasn't there the case of "secret womens' business" in Portland, Victoria about 40 years ago - somethign to do with the smelter. I think it was found to be a croc.

 

I really suggest people watch the SBS series I reference as a first peek into the history of settlement. It was fascinating stuff.

 

39 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Jerry, pls number your points. There are too many per post for me to think about.

As I was largely regurgitating, I will going forward.

 

[old man emu]

7 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I would suggest school curriculum is updated accordingly...

Unfortunately those who would be involved in establishing a curriculum very often have never been beyond the outer suburbs of the cities they live in to learn the cultures of eh people whose lives are lived by those cultures. I find the actions of that sort of person not much better that the paternalistic responses of the 19th and 20th Century. 

 

We are fools if we don't learn as much as we can from the indigenes about the medicinal and nutritional content of the flora of this country. We spoke of the indigenes gathering grass seeds and Nardoo, but it is obvious that for food production, introduced plants produce more food per hectare than native plants. But we must also remember that we are producing more food some native plants, such as the macadamia, that was ever possible prior to the application of our agricultural practices. There has been increasing interest in the cultivation of other plants and trees which have been known by the indigenes as being beneficial. There is also the knowledge of the controlled use of fire to reduce the risk of catastrophic bushfires that is being studied with a view to its application.

 

Moving away from the use of plants and trees, there are many other fields of learning that are now being helped by going to the indigenes and hearing their stories. One interesting area is palaeontology. It is known that at the time of the arrival of humans, there were many species of huge animals living here. However, this megafauna went extinct after the arrival of humans. It wa initially thought that humans killed them off, but by listening to, and interpreting traditional stories, it has been found that humans spent more time avoiding the megafauna than hunting it because the megafauna was too dangerous. Examination of megafauna bones found to be contemporary with humans show no signs of butchering.

 

With my interest in words and language, I'd like to see a comparative study of indigenous languages, which we could expect to represent the very early sounds and structures of human speech since there does not seem to be much innovation in the cultures since they first developed. There was no need for innovation. What they had and did was sufficient for the type of culture they had.

 

So, YES, let's develop a curriculum to teach our children about the humans who inhabited the land for millenia, but make it concentrate on the good things from before 1788. By all means acknowledge the mistakes made since 1788, but also include the good things relating to the indigenes since 1788. 

[facthunter]

I'd dispute calling them Nomads. .Nomads live by moving around and pillaging often . There are hundreds of different languages with these tribes,  incomprehensible to those quite near, Why would people who take only enough to not kill plants not encourage their growth in other ways?  The fact Plants grow from seed could hardly pass unnoticed. Like when the rains come the desert  springs into life.. Nev