puredingo wrote:Hallu wrote:There is no debate here. When you migrate to a land devoid of people, inhabit that land, don't abuse its resources, and teach to respect it, for thousands of years, it's yours. Anyway we're just talking about Uluru there. When you visit Monument Valley and realise some bits you can't visit, you don't tell the Navajos "hey are you sure this is your land ? Can we debate this ?". There are places I can't visit in France. Some are rock art caves like Lascaux, others are certain regilious buildings, some are nature reserves. It's fine...
That sort of logic is easy enough to apply here on this continent but what about Europe or the other parts of the Americas...how far do you turn back the clock before you can lay claim to ownership of lands?
Imagine if one day they discover a race of people who pre-date the current Aboriginal and those people were driven into extinction...wouldn't that throw a few ownership spanners in the works? ( probably not, come to think of it)
Are there any examples of prehistoric people claiming ownership of land more recently occupied by Indigenous people? This does seem to be a strawman or red herring argument.
there is an oft quoted example in Australia of a purported ehtnic group predating Australian Aboriginal people who created the 'Bradshaw paintings'. This has been debunked by archaeologists, but this doesn't answer your point.
In tasmania, for example, the original group that occupied Tasmania has been traced back (linguistically) to Indigenous groups occupying the Warnnamabool region. Subsequent migration by Aboriginal People from the Yarra region displaced or merged with these people some 10000 years ago (during the last glacial maximum when sea levels were lower). If Tasmanian Aboriginal people had not been largely, but not completely, killed and nearly culturally extinguished, is it possible that the displaced people of the Midlands area could claim ownership as the original-original custodians? That seems fanciful - mainly because it is so far back in time that we do not know whether subsequent migrations were merged peacably or violently; that is there may have been no displacement or theft of land and could never be proven in a court of law as there is insufficient evidence.
You could state this about anywhere in Australia - if there was strong evidence that a Traditional Owner had displaced an earlier occupant, and that occupant claimed title - there would have to be eviednce that would be testable in court. the fact that this has the capacity to b etested in court does not invalidate Native Title claims in general. Any more than ownership of all motor vehicles is invalidated by one motor vehicle being stolen from a previous owner. It just means that the original owner has to test their ownership in court.
Compare that to more recent times where the palestinians in Israel, the Kurds in the Middle east and the Australian Aboriginal people in Australia can claim cultural, ethnic and ancestral links to land with uncertain, unknown or prehistoric previous evidence of land tenure.
When you consider these examples it becomes much clearer that the possibility of a historic previous tenant on land does not invalidate a later claim.
i am not accusing you of this, but those who vehemently oppose Indigenous rights use this argument (and the Bradshaw paintings) as some kind of fait accompli to invalidate Native Title claims. In Australia all land is legitimately that of traditional Owners (that is what the High Court determined in the Mabo ruling) and there are rules around what determines a Traditional Owber. importantly, the High Court determined that freehold land is not subject to Native Title claim.
In effect, Mabo determined that the familiar map of Australia ought to have the AIATSIS map superimposed over the top. https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/articles ... -australia
In which case I was born in Panninher country and also the State of Tasmania. Currently I live on Dhudharoa country and also the State of Victoria. How much we acknowledge the Indigenous country on which we live is a matter of personal preference (or sometimes of local Government policy) but as far as the High Court is concerned there is a kind of national duality in Australia.
Most Australian citizens cannot tolerate this as a concept because we are brought up to see Australia as the Commonwealth nation/state - but the reality is that continental Australia is composed of Indigenous nations with the Commonwealth superimposed over the top. This binary state is still playing out in the courts (via Native Title and fishing hunting claims) and in the living rooms, radio waves and internet forums.
But we cannot escape the Mabo High Court decision - there was no Terra Nullius. We all have to come to terms with it.
