Indigenous Sovereignty Demands

[willedoo]

I'm not very familiar with the history of coastal tribes, but from what I know of the outer areas I would use the term 'managed' the land rather than our concept of farming it. For instance, something like burning has multiple benefits and reasons dependent on the type of country. Burning off can manage fire hazard by staggering the burning of adjoining areas. It also provides a lot of tucker by driving reptiles and animals to a certain area where they can be easily hunted. Another side of it is seed regeneration, but that's a long way from cultivating soil and planting seed and watering crops.

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch to look at fish traps as aquaculture. The way I see it, it's fish hunting, not fish farming. If the Aboriginals trapped fish and kept them in fixed stone enclosures while they fed them and grew them, then I'd call it fish farming. As far as that Pascoe bloke goes, I'd put more faith in the peer reviewed work of anthropologists and archaeologists. While I might not agree with every single thing they teach, at least it's well researched and peer reviewed. Theories and guesswork alone don't make science. There has to be some believable corroboration involved. I think a lot of his media fans give him oxygen because he's saying something they want to believe.

Edited August 27 by willedoo

[spacesailor]

Aboriginal farming. 

The large farm/station in the lower CapeYork .

Was given to them & it was reported " they let the farm

Stock starve to death ". 

Were was the RSPCA . Not a word from them .

spacesailor

 

[onetrack]

The same has happened with several Aboriginal Corporation-run Stations in the W.A. Kimberley region. The RSPCA investigated, but couldn't pin down any "responsible person".

Part of the problem is the structuring of the Stations ownership under leasehold title. This goes counter to the trend of returning the land to the Aboriginals as freehold land.

But the main driver of the problem is a lack of managerial ability amongst the few higher-educated Aboriginals, as regards running the stations effectively.

 

Too many white scumbags moved into prime positions in the Aboriginal Corporations and then conducted fraudulent activity with Corporation funds, resulting in massive losses for the Corporations.

And a number of the senior Aboriginal Corporation executives transferred funds to family members illegally, or spent the Corporations money on unauthorised purchases.

Oversight of Aboriginal Corporations management has tightened a bit, but it still has a way to go.

 

https://wafarmers.org.au/freehold-the-land-to-save-the-mob/

 

[onetrack]

A couple of stories below on the pursuit and fining of Aboriginal Corporations over stock deaths on their stations ....

 

https://nit.com.au/29-01-2021/1713/two-aboriginal-organisations-charged-over-hundreds-of-cattle-deaths

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2024-01-05/yandeyarra-cattle-death-fine-criticised/103256696

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-02/pga-slams-animal-welfare-sentencing-over-kimberley-cattle-deaths/101603238

 

Edited August 27 by onetrack

[nomadpete]

The issue of what to believe about indigenous historic culture and indigenous capabilities will only get murkier and murkier as time passes.

Too many people are sharpening their ability to manipulate unverifiable stories, to help justify their agendas, on either side.

Too many decisions are made by people who do not have first hand experience with the people most affected by the outcomes of high level decisions about large amounts of money.

 

The recent generations are not particularly closely connected to their ancient culture. They were born into a newer spectrum of cultures that are mostly neither mainstream (ie like the majority of the present population) nor of the historic traditional indigenous values and behaviours.

 

Whatever. Arguments aside,  I don't believe that many (or any?) indigenous or part indigenous would choose to return to their great grand father's life on the land, even if that was possible. It is not The same goes for the rest of the population of Australia. So the question is, "just what do these disenfranchised people wish to achieve?"

 

Therein lies the biggest cause of the constant noise.

Edited August 27 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

You've got to admit that the vast majority of the non-urban land still occupied by its original inhabitants, is useless for any value-producing economic activity. Sure, you can raise cattle, but that is not an activity that creates a wide range of employment opportunities. 

 

What is the point of stressing education when being educated does not result in an individual's economic advancement? What is the point of tribal elders passing on the ancient survival skills to the young when the requirements for survival can be obtained at the local store? These people have had an alien lifestyle dropped on them without any way for them to take advantage of it other than at its very base level.

[facthunter]

So have we all. Try building a house from your own timber on your block or good second hand stuff.. Nev

[spacesailor]

A lot of ' immigrants ' have suffered the same starting point , when arriving in this " ALIEN " country. 

They have to adapt super fast . New language,  new laws , new foods . Now you require to restart Australia under a different sovereignty. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Or have free and fair elections while we still can, by people who are not fed $#!t in the media.  Nev

[willedoo]

11 hours ago, facthunter said:

So have we all. Try building a house from your own timber on your block or good second hand stuff.. Nev

If you look at people of Anglo-Saxon descent here in Australia, if you go back long enough our ancestors were warriors who would hunt and wear animal skins and light fires with flint stones. Now most are stuffed if a Wooliies and Coles aren't close by. The same thing that happened to us is happening to the Aboriginals. The only real difference is over what time frame it happens. It took our society and culture a long time to change. The Aboriginals haven't had the same amount of time, only from 1788 to now.

[willedoo]

23 hours ago, onetrack said:

But the main driver of the problem is a lack of managerial ability amongst the few higher-educated Aboriginals, as regards running the stations effectively.

 

Too many white scumbags moved into prime positions in the Aboriginal Corporations and then conducted fraudulent activity with Corporation funds, resulting in massive losses for the Corporations.

And a number of the senior Aboriginal Corporation executives transferred funds to family members illegally, or spent the Corporations money on unauthorised purchases.

Oversight of Aboriginal Corporations management has tightened a bit, but it still has a way to go.

I probably don't have enough first hand experience to know too much about the management side of things; most of what I've heard is hearsay from people. One story I heard was of a station handed over to an Aboriginal corporation whereby they mustered all the stock, sold it off, spent the money and ended up with no breeding stock. True or not I don't know.

 

When I first worked in the Kimberleys in the early 80's we were doing a large prospect on Billiluna and Sturt Creek. We were camped on Billiluna and it was Aboriginal owned then. I remember my boss telling me that when the Wilsons had it before that it had one of the best Hereford herds in the Kimberleys. It was fairly run down when we were there under Aboriginal ownership and the cattle were a mixed up lot and certainly nothing to write home about. They had a white manager as far as I can remember. They were still semi traditional; the men used to go and play with the cattle during the day while the women went out in the spinifex hunting snakes and lizards.

 

It's a small world. We ended up doing another job in the Flinders Range area a couple of years later and got to meet the Wilsons who then owned Frome Downs. Bill Wilson opened up the Tanami track as a stock route in the early 60's being the first to drove cattle across there. Times have changed - the new NT government is promising to seal the track on the Territory side.

[Jerry_Atrick]

On 28/08/2024 at 2:56 AM, spacesailor said:

A lot of ' immigrants ' have suffered the same starting point , when arriving in this " ALIEN " country. 

They have to adapt super fast . New language,  new laws , new foods . Now you require to restart Australia under a different sovereignty. 

spacesailor

Immigrants come to a new country on their own volition (normally), so why would the not be required to adapty to their new conuntry's culture.

 

Your argument sort of falls short. The first fleet were immigrants, yet they imposed their culture on the existing peoples and did not adapt to the "ALIEN" culture you speak of.. Which way do you want it? Either way, the people whp were here first, as found by the High Court, acted illegally in the settlment of Aus - by their own laws and not the laws of the First Nations people.

 

 

I honestly do not understand the logic of your arguments, unlessw human life started in 1778.

[nomadpete]

The high court, of which you speak, can only rule about the acts of the first fleet. The recent indigenous people born in this country (ie the rest of us) are not of the group that may have had a leader who, hundreds of yearss ago,  claimed ' terra nullius'.

 

please stop burdening the rest of us recent indigenous australians with this historic aggreivance.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@nomadpete - I am genuinely not sure of the point you make re only ruling on the acts of the first fleet. The HCA ruled that the settlement was illegal. That is a fact.

 

And it is not me who is burdening with a historical aggreivance. I think you will find there are many current First Nations people who still harbour the aggrevience. And if there is a systtemic and collective grievance, will brushing it under the carpet alleviate that aggrevience - or will the "burden" of it persist?

And I was merely pointing out the flaw in Spacey's argument - the first fleet (and beynd) did not adpopt the culture and lifestyle of their new country - they volunatrily came to. i.e. the very argument he is stating to justify requirign First Nations to adapt is flawed. That's all.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 29 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

Here . Here .

I maybe , the ' immigrant ' . My legacy is , my GGchildren have " Aboriginal " blood line . By way of a full Aboriginal GGmother , on their grandfathers side . 

[spacesailor]

SO , the ' aggrieved '  .

would have " every new Australian " spend twelve months in jail . No matter the consequences. 

Just to appease those few Australians . ( by numbers ).

 who were here first .

I say bring back " 24 months of conscription " for

Every Australian . No matter what Ethnic faction they belong to .

spacesailor 

[Jerry_Atrick]

 

6 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

O , the ' aggrieved '  .

would have " every new Australian " spend twelve months in jail . No matter the consequences. 

What on earth are you talking about? Where are you getting this stuff?

[Litespeed]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

 

What on earth are you talking about? Where are you getting this stuff?

I often wonder..

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I am genuinely not sure of the point you make re only ruling on the acts of the first fleet. The HCA ruled that the settlement was illegal. That is a fact.

 

In an attempt to clarify my point, I am asserting that I was not part of that early settlement of people that the high court made a judgement about. The judgement really refers to the bureaucracy behind the activity a bunch of people who are long dead.

That is all about historic issues.

 

We now have current issues that deserve being addressed. The whole terra nullius issue is unlikely to change the standard of living of ANYONE in this country.  Had there been no statement that it was terra nullius, would the outcome today be any different? I think not.

And the peoples - that is all the people of today's Australia should be working toward harmonious coexistence.

[nomadpete]

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

And I was merely pointing out the flaw in Spacey's argument - the first fleet (and beynd) did not adpopt the culture and lifestyle of their new country - they volunatrily came to. i.e. the very argument he is stating to justify requirign First Nations to adapt is flawed. That's all.

In my view, the culture of any place will trend toward whatever the majority of the population does.

 

This is not a result of of governmental agreements.

 

It has already been acknowledged that, for instance, our more recent multicultural society has benefited from the arrival of many different nationalities of migrants. As such the culture has adopted many changing attitudes, religions, foods, etc. The culture is directed by the majority. Just as early British influences grew to override the indigenous culture, the British has benn totally changed due to large numbers of arrivals of other cultures.

My grandparents would not recognise todays culture. People adopt the changes that suit them. The indigenous have done this, just as the rest of us have. We bleat about the good old days, but they are gone.

 

So, regardless of a relatively recent judgement about early settlers, the culture of the country will always bend to the culture of the majority.

 

The early european settlers would have died if they tried to adopt the indigenous life. I do not see the point you are making about that.  The indigenous only survived for tens of thousands of years by adapting to a changing world. Otherwise they would have died out long ago. All cultures evolve and adapt to changing conditions.

 

Just as the life and culture that the early settlers knew, is gone forever, so the life and original culture of the original indigenous is mostly gone. The reality is, todays people are adapting to the new culture as it evolves.

 

Which brings me back to my earlier question...

 

"What kind of sovereignty do some indigenous desire, and what are the implications of it?" How will it improve the lives of the most disadvantaged members of their demographic group?

Edited August 29 by nomadpete

[old man emu]

18 hours ago, nomadpete said:

My grandparents would not recognise todays culture.

You don't have to go back that far. I certain in my belief that the culture of Australia today is not what it was when I was starting high school in the 1960s. Even the culture of today's young people of Anglo-Celtic ancestry is far different, without taking into consideration the inputs from other European, Asian, African and Polynesian cultures. I'm happy to say that, for the most part, it is a better culture, but there are some parts that disappoint those who know of the earlier one.

[Jerry_Atrick]

23 hours ago, nomadpete said:

In an attempt to clarify my point, I am asserting that I was not part of that early settlement of people that the high court made a judgement about. The judgement really refers to the bureaucracy behind the activity a bunch of people who are long dead.

That is all about historic issues.

OK - understood (I was reading/tapping while at back to back meetingd at work, and was a little bored so 1/2 listening to the meeting and 1/2 looking at this).

 

The judgement does refer to a decision of people made who are long dead; yes. But the judgement is about the legality of that  decision according to the laws of the people who made that decision at the time the decision was made. OK, I agree that we should not feel guilty about that - we weren't there and I am sure if the decision were made today, the decision would probably be different. But to say that there are no future ramifications of a past illegal decision becuase the people have died is like saying a dead person defrauded you, but becauuse they are dead, you have no claim on their estate. I get that there are many generations and my analogy would say that the estate has been disprsed, but in this case, the estate (soverign lands) as not been fully dispersed. Has anyone had to give up their homes because of native title? No. Do we have to pay a bit more to see Uluru because it is now granted native title? Well, I am not sure. Yes, we have to pay how when we didn't back in the 70s (or at least I didn't see my parents pay anything). But with the governments these days, I would contend that status quo would not have lasted. But that is an aside, because, the (ancestors) of the peoples who were wronged have had their claim on the undispersed estate, so to speak. In my analogy earlier, say you were defrauded and then you died. The executor of your estate (ancestor) would have a fiduciary responsiblity to your estate to pursue the debt. Again, this is no different - except there are many generations (as at 1992, when the decision was made).

 

So, yes, they are historic.. but does that not mean that redress for those adversly impacted is not to be available. And it doesn't mean that we hand over the country and leave, either. That has nothing to do with you or I at an individual level and there should be no guilt felt by thge current generations, except for a refusal to entertain redress - of course, not personally/individually, but at a sovereign, or governmental level.

 

What that redress is, is not known. Clearly, handing the keys to the country and going back to our European ancestoral countries is not going to cut it. And there is a group, something like the alternate aboriginal parliament (not the tent parliament) that want to have parallel nations within Australia. That is probably not going to cut it either.  What we should do is listen to the demands and reach a compromise. Not all of their demands are about financial redress or land redress, by the way.

 

Some of it is about cultural recognition in the law. Obviously (as you have previously pointed out) it is impossible for customary law in its entirety to sit alongside our current Westminster based law. But, what should be sought is a compromise; Simple admonishment and ostracisation in First Nations customary law is a very serious punishment - for example, so for lesser crimes, maybe that is an acceptable alternative to incarceration... But this is just an example - it is a societal rcognition of a very different culture and implementing machinery to respect that culture.

 

And of course, one of them would be the reduction and removal of instirutional (not individual) racism. Just last week, the NT government issued [yet another] formal apoligy for racial discrimination towards First Nations peoples.

 

23 hours ago, nomadpete said:

It has already been acknowledged that, for instance, our more recent multicultural society has benefited from the arrival of many different nationalities of migrants. As such the culture has adopted many changing attitudes, religions, foods, etc. The culture is directed by the majority. Just as early British influences grew to override the indigenous culture, the British has benn totally changed due to large numbers of arrivals of other cultures.

My grandparents would not recognise todays culture. People adopt the changes that suit them. The indigenous have done this, just as the rest of us have. We bleat about the good old days, but they are gone.

To think that First Nations peoples would live in a bubble like those on an island off the Indian coast while this large landmass gifted with abundant natural resources, is, of course, a furphy. We all know that, and I am sure First Nations know that. The problem for First Nations people is that from the time of white settlement until well into the 1980s. there has been not a systematic effort to evolve an Australian culture based on fusing First Nations culture (apart from some town names) with European culture; there were systematic attempts to extinguish entirely the First Nations culture.

 

There were three offical government policies; Not in Chronoloigical order, they were "integration" (integrating First Nations in European Culture), "Protection" (isolating First Nations fom Europeans hoping they would die out), and I can't recall the name of the other, but that and Integration were the main drivers of the stolen generations.

 

If there was a genuine attempt at integrating First Nations cultures with European cultures, we may be in a very different place today, and of course, the benefits of multiculture to the First Nations people would be positive and a fact of an evolving global neghbourhood.

 

On 29/08/2024 at 2:09 PM, nomadpete said:

This is not a result of of governmental agreements.

It sort of is. See above

 

On 29/08/2024 at 2:09 PM, nomadpete said:

The early european settlers would have died if they tried to adopt the indigenous life. I do not see the point you are making about that.  The indigenous only survived for tens of thousands of years by adapting to a changing world. Otherwise they would have died out long ago. All cultures evolve and adapt to changing conditions.

Would early European settlers have died if they tried to adopt indigenous life? I think Australian history is littered with examples where they died for not adopting indigenous life.. Mainly explorers, but pastoralists that that contracted diseases that were cured with local plants First Nations had been using for years, etc. Yes, Indigenous culture wasn't about mass production to support massive dense populations, but that is more about, what do we call it these days... immigration control, right?

 

I am not suggesting that First Nations people should stay in a time warp.. and with few exceptions, there is no evidence that they all believe they should either. As Bruce points out, they are very happy to use modern methods to hunt traditional foods - why wouldn't they. But it doesn't mean they have to completely replace their cultures, beliefs, and norms as a result. It is sort of a maass scale missionary process then, isn't it? And there aren't too many who think missionaries are particualrly great.

 

On 29/08/2024 at 2:09 PM, nomadpete said:

"What kind of sovereignty do some indigenous desire, and what are the implications of it?" How will it improve the lives of the most disadvantaged members of their demographic group?

I don't think they are after soverignty per se' a bit more self-determination to live their lives they want to in their communitiesl; and respect. At the moment, a little more than lip-service is paid to this.

 

When you think about it, the recoignition the delcaration of terra nullius was invalid means that, at least at the time, there was a requirement for the Brits to enter into a treaty with the First Nations, as they did in New Zealand. As a conquest (in the legal sense), the Brits  would have required the treaty to take into account the land rights and laws of the First Nations people. This does not mean that they are adopted wholly; but it would have meant not a complete inception of British law overriding everything either. And the culture of Australia as a collective of First Nations and European settlers would have evolved.. No guarantees how, or peacefully, or satisfactorally to one or the other camps.. But at least with a respect for the First Nations culture rather than not.  But even today, what would be wrong with trying to come up with something that is mostly satisfactory to both echelons?

 

On 29/08/2024 at 1:41 PM, nomadpete said:

We now have current issues that deserve being addressed. The whole terra nullius issue is unlikely to change the standard of living of ANYONE in this country.  Had there been no statement that it was terra nullius, would the outcome today be any different? I think not.

And the peoples - that is all the people of today's Australia should be working toward harmonious coexistence.

Are you sure about that? Firstly, if we are talking economically, it has already changed the economic outcomes for First Nations, by way of native title.  Native title has given First Nations people direct rights to the land - mostly unoccupied, but sometimes parallel. Permits for certain areas result in revenues going directly to the local First Nations communities that were not there previously; So, as the declaration of the illegality of terra nullius resulted in the new common law docrrine of  native title, which then resulted in the Native Titles Act, I would argue it has improved economic outcomes (regardless of whether or not communities have taken advantage of them).

 

However, standard of licing is not always economic. In fact, it would appear, there is little correlation to economics (in a financial sense) and First Nations culture. What native title gives them is control over the land for their customary/cultural purposes, and I would argue, from that standpoint, it increasses their standard of living - but while I could argue it, it would be better that came diect from the horses mouth, as that is just my opinion based on my readings.

 

 

[nomadpete]

7 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I am not suggesting that First Nations people should stay in a time warp.. and with few exceptions, there is no evidence that they all believe they should either.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Where do I  start? My major motive is to tease out the thorny problem of "So, what can we do to improve things all round?"

 

Taking your above quote, it seems that there are only two options:

 

1:- Integration to bring harmony via compromise. (Didn't work in the past).

 

2:- Provision of a time warp bubble to preserve old ways. (Didn't work in the past).

 

I am looking for the all new item 3.

 

I'll make one last observation before I move away from the whole redress for old injustices arguments.

 

There have been a few notable such international compensations carried out in recent history, but there must be many thousands that were left to fade as nations merged and shifted through the ages. It would do little to resolve the resentment that rises when one culture gets swamped by another.

 

I can only see it being a divisive approach to our conundrum.

 

 

Edited August 30 by nomadpete

[willedoo]

I don't know if there will ever be an option three. We're all having the same discussion that people were having twenty years ago and will probably still be having in another twenty years time.

[Bruce Tuncks]

Suppose that you lived back then ( first fleet) and could determine just which lot colonised you. I bet that you would, after a lot of reflection, choose the poms as the least worst. Just compare the present riches of the australian abos with that of the latin american indigenous, for example.