EDIT: PS - very impressive knowledge of Australian History cookie
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Anyways, a lot has been done about this, but it is still somewhat questionable (from the POV of an outsider). But the main point of azn angel was, I think, that there are a lot of white Austrialans who are completely oblivious to those facts and still do as if they "own" Australia and have every right to claim whatever land they want and calling the original inhabitants immigrants.
Yeah, obviously that is completely wrong as the Aboriginals in my view have exactly the same rights as any other Australian - white, black, infact any colour, race, culture or religion.
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
I hear what you're saying, but what happened in Australia is actually quite different than what happened in most other countries. For starters there wasn't even a war (fair or not) to begin with.
(I noticed you quoted 'war' though, but still...)
Yeah sorry, i quoted 'war' because as you explained it doesn't exactly fit nicely in that category as some other events in the past can. It was a very unique situation.
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Even the fact that most stuff happened around the 1900s, a time when you would think people would have learned one or two things from the past
Its amazing how blindly people can act. However, once again, what makes this situation unique is that the English believed that the Aboriginals did not own the land as they had not cultivated it or used it for cattle etc. Obviously we can see now how flawed that view was but that is what they thought back then.
The truly unique aspect of this part of Australia's history is that from a legal perspective Australia was found in the eyes of the English as "terra nullis" (feel free to correct my spelling
) - meaning of course "land belonging to no one". I won't go into the technical aspects of the implications of this but lets say it wasn't exactly an exciting 300 page read
. Essentially from this day the current common law legal system of England was in place in Australia governing the conduct/autonomy of the Aboriginals. If instead, the British conquered the Aboriginals "winning" the land then the English common law system would have actually had to be positively implemented for it to take effect. So basicially, the laws that worked in England.. and i think its safe to say could not be said to be perfectly adapted for Australia were technically in force. Interesting stuff...
quote:
Originally posted by CookieRevised
Let alone that still up to this day, the indigious inhabitants are still being tricked and land is still being stolen from them, despite land right acts (which where made far too late to begin with)... Not to mention that economy is still dictating what land owners (or rather, those who did owned the land but were bought out) get (or rather not get), which is something you'll only see happening in 3rd world countries anymore...
I'm sorry but that is completely wrong. Land is not being stolen from Aboriginals today. It may have been stolen in the past from the Aboriginals who rightfully owned it but i highly doubt land is being stolen from Aboriginals to this day that rightfully own the land. Aboriginals have mostly an equal standing with all other Australians and i haven't heard of them being tricked in any way ever in my life time in the manner you are referring to. Many Aboriginals have taken their cases to court and the landmark decision was in the early 1990s with Mabo v The State of Queensland where Aboriginal land rights were recognised and became part of our law.
As you said, these rights were long overdue and thats exactly what the judges of the High Court said themselves (of course, the HCA had to wait until a case actually came before them to alter the law).
As for the economy dictating what the Aboriginals get in regard to their stolen land: well i'm not exactly sure what you mean in regards to the economy. This is a human rights issue and it is not a simple one. The fact is that despite that in the PAST some Australians have stolen the land of previous generations of Aboriginals, those Australians are not likely to be the ones owning the land that Aboriginals today are claiming. Its a conflict of rights between the innocent present Australians owning the land that will lose out substantially if the land is given back to the Aboriginals and the Aboriginals who their ancestors had their land stolen from them.
That is why their is a high onus of proof on any Aboriginal tribe/group claiming land on the basis of native title - they need to establish they've been living and using the land since "time immemorial". Basicially they need to establish they've always been living there, including up to the present time. Obviously it is going to be hard for anymore Aboriginals to claim native title as as time goes on they still need to be living on the current owners land etc.
Now whilst this may seem unfair to the Aboriginals, it is a very complicated issue of land rights which the Australian courts don't treat lightly and as such there should be a high onus on anyone trying to claim someone elses lawfully aquired land.
It is even debatable in the first place that native title should exist. Whilst i'm not knowledgeable on this, how many other conquered races in the world have been given their land back by their conquerors (or the generation after generation of the race that conquered them)?
Australia
/ –
