OriginalCinna t1_izmbrm6 wrote
For those that don't want to read the article and why it's bittersweet;
The native title request was submitted in the mid 90s, and all the original people who had their names on said request have died.
Their families have re-inherited their native land, their country.
The Aboriginal Affairs Minister noted that "native title is difficult" and "putting a white legal construct over what's happened on this country for tens of thousands of years" is why.
Always was, always will be.
bulletproofmanners t1_izmt4m0 wrote
I don’t get. Is the title the problem or the legal construct?
OriginalCinna t1_izmw15g wrote
The white legal construct to get the native title.
First Nations/Indigenous Australians have to go through legal loopholes to have them recognized as the traditional custodians of the land. 20+ years on this particular title is an average, some others have been going since the 70s ircc.
With legal support they have to apply for a native title for the government to be all like "yes I guess you can have your land back that your ancestors were murdered for and had stolen from them".
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izmwuq6 wrote
It’s remarkable that such a thing even exists, a government willingly surrendering land as a matter of values. Almost all land on this planet has been conquered from others. I suppose the granting of a title still implicitly recognizes that the government of Australia possesses jurisdiction over the land.
thedailyrant t1_iznmmfy wrote
That’s why Mabo was such a landmark decision in framing indigenous rights in Australia. It is great there is an avenue for recognition of title like this.
Quantum_Kitties t1_iznchj2 wrote
I wonder if there is a “cut-off”, for example some people can’t make a land claim because their ancestry is not old enough or they conquered it from someone else so they don’t have the right to it… Though I guess the latter means almost the entire world doesn’t have rightful claim to “their” land lol.
AinoTiani t1_izr4a5u wrote
In the case of Aboriginal title they have to show that they still have a connection to the land, i.e, go there regularly to hunt/gather or for religious ceremonies etc. So you can get competing claims because one tribe used the land, but then were pushed out by another tribe and they're both making claims to the land, so the court has to decide which group gets the title.
bulletproofmanners t1_izqqqd1 wrote
I love that classic argument, it allows for legitimacy of English people to sail over, conquer, capitalize and constrain the Aboriginals because they must have done so too. But it doesn’t work the other way, if the Aboriginals get armed, fight, push off the current European descendent inhabitants, no one will accept, “well almost all land on this Earth was conquered, they conquered us, I guess we have to accept it now”. Because something might have happened in the past, which is a big claim without evidence, there is no moral argument to do an unjust act.
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izqrsgu wrote
Aboriginal intertribal warfare did occur, and it even involved transfers of property in the form of women.
See the section on traditional aboriginal warfare
WikiSummarizerBot t1_izqru08 wrote
[Australian frontier wars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars#:~:text=In 1840, the American-Canadian ethnologist Horatio Hale identified,ritual trials, raids for women, and revenge attacks)
>Australian frontier wars is a term applied by some historians to describe violent conflicts between Indigenous Australians (including both Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders) and non-Indigenous settlers during the colonisation of Australia. The first conflict took place several months after the landing of the First Fleet in January 1788, and the last frontier conflicts occurred into the early 20th century, with some occurring as late as 1934. An estimated minimum of 40,000 Indigenous Australians and between 2,000 and 2,500 settlers died in the conflicts. Conflicts occurred in a number of locations across Australia.
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
bulletproofmanners t1_izqv597 wrote
I did & shockingly it happened after the arrival of the Europeans per the link you provided.
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izqwn8w wrote
You think the tribes didn’t fight each other before the Europeans arrived?
bulletproofmanners t1_izqyre8 wrote
I don’t. But you can provide a link to prove me wrong. Make sure you show me how they would take away whole territories from losing tribes, put them in reservations and try to convert them. Also, a link on how these tribes would sale to Europe to colonize European territories too.
From your link: “The fighting of a war to conquer enemy territory was not only beyond the resources of any of these Aboriginal groupings, it was contrary to a culture that was based on spiritual connections to a specific territory. “
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izr0rio wrote
They didn’t do so on account of their not having the ability, not out of moral superiority. They still fought over property, such as a women.
Why do you think they started treating women as property and killing each other only when Europeans came?
bulletproofmanners t1_izr1f77 wrote
Your link states it was contrary to their culture to conquer for territory. Was the original point? Why do I think they started women as property? Maybe the Europeans were so deranged from centuries of genocide they tried to brainwash the natives using coercion and threats, the natives felt they had no option?
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izr6xv9 wrote
You think the Europeans tried to encourage the natives to attack other tribes for women?
bulletproofmanners t1_izr75co wrote
Yes. They had a history of divide & conquer
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izr8sl9 wrote
You have no evidence that this policy on native women was ever conceived, let alone implemented.
Also, why do you subscribe to the noble-savage myth? There is plenty of evidence against it.
bulletproofmanners t1_izr8ybr wrote
You have no evidence against it, why should I believe in you vs my own opinion? Why do you subscribe to Eurosupremism?
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izr9ap6 wrote
Because, hopefully, you care about truth. A claim with no evidence is baseless. Why do you subscribe to Indigenophilia?
[deleted] t1_izr9ew2 wrote
[removed]
SpectralMagic t1_izouqum wrote
Which I suppose is a good thing so other foreign nations willing to take it from them cannot claim it. A slightly necessary evil for continued reservation, but yea it shouldn't have to come down to this
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izpx1ds wrote
Why do you think conquest is evil?
SpectralMagic t1_izpz6df wrote
Ascertaining new land from someone because of greed doesn't sound very pleasant for both parties
Shining_Silver_Star t1_izq0eq1 wrote
Conquest wasn’t just done for greed. It was also a means of security, at least in antiquity.
AinoTiani t1_izr3x9t wrote
It's also not straightforward because often there are many different groups that claim the same piece of land. Or where they can't decide the boundaries between the different mobs lands. I believe they also have to show that they have a continuing connection to the land and not just "my great great great grandfather lived here".
Also title to the land doesn't necessarily mean they own the land it just means mining companies and local government have to negotiate with them, and possibly provide compensation for the use of the land. But very often they can't just block mining companies from mining the land all together.
Quantum_Kitties t1_izncb6f wrote
Does this mean that they can decide what happens with and on the land, for example could they build on it (or let others build on it) or can they give it away (to family) or sell it if they are so inclined? Could they ask the people who live on that land to leave? Or is the land ownership only in title?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, I’m not a native Australian but would really love to know more about these things.
delta4956 t1_iznfe0f wrote
Sure, I'm not indigenous but have grown up with many kaurna friends and have ways felt a kinship The preferred term is indigenous or aboriginal - native was sometimes a slur and still holds generational trauma for some. There is a relationship with the land that really doesn't involve wanting to build or on sell or divide up to ownership. Custodian is a significant term, the land is for everyone and the elders will choose what's best for the clan. Not all subscribe to this thinking, but custodianship is (normally? Idk particulars here, so this is an assumption ) placed with responsibility on the elders to guide use of, so very unlikely and I don't actually think there's any instances of them selling or developing the land. The significance here is that a title was granted over a symbolic statement, I think. I will no doubt get corrected on legalities, my knowledge here is very "my friend told me this" and drinking buddies aren't the most reliable sources even if they're mob
Quantum_Kitties t1_izng2ht wrote
Thank you so much for explaining that! I really appreciate it ♥️
Also my apologies for using the word “native”, I’m not Australian (I’m European) and English isn’t my first language, I know of the term “(non) native speaker” so I thought I could also use that word to describe myself. But I will just say “I’m not Australian” next time :)
checksanity t1_izod1gn wrote
Your use of that word was fine. It seems there was a mix up on their part with regards to reading comprehension, wherein they conflated the content of your questions with how you actually used that word. The confusion stemming from forgetting or not considering the multiple uses for the word “native.” Especially when written in lowercase*.
*To be fair, it’s difficult to rely on that level of grammatical detail on the internet.
delta4956 t1_izpc5rs wrote
Not at all, it was written for education not correction you were interested so I shared. Language isnt quite the same here as America for example, it's not going to start riots, and I'm sure there's plenty of indigenous Australians who wouldn't think twice to hear it.
thedailyrant t1_iznmu1y wrote
Your use of the word ‘clan’ is interesting. I grew up with loads of Noongar fellas and never heard anyone call the Noongar nation a clan.
delta4956 t1_izpb1a8 wrote
I asked for you:
"white friendly version of a kaurna'war word, but "clan" is local fellas other kaurna mob or nearby peoples like ngarrindjeri mob but that's more honorary. Usually call em mob one of us but not of us fellas."
Few messages later, he said it's also PC term as they werent tribes or sovereign nations so clan is what is official. Paraphrasing this one to clean it up though
thedailyrant t1_izq6gye wrote
Right yeah I wouldn’t think clan is particularly PC either but cool. I guess different mobs look at it different.
Hour-Ad-3635 t1_izod53n wrote
Sounds similar to a 1997 court case in BC Canada : Delgamuukw v. British Columbia https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1569/index.do&ved=2ahUKEwi5pr6kwu_7AhVQGzQIHU3nBXEQFnoECAkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3Ug0CTE5dWbtc4W0f9eXAH
Hour-Ad-3635 t1_izodq4j wrote
Saddly Canada government is forcing a pipeline through these unceded Wet'suwet'en lands without proper and informed consent. Shame. Canada. Shame Trudeau.
Hour-Ad-3635 t1_izoek4l wrote
Also worth mentioning. Shame on the Company Teal Jones Located on Vancouver Island for continuing to Log the last Old Growth forrests in Canada near fairy creek in the Cowichan valley that should be conserved especially during Climate Crisis. (Some of theses trees being cut down stand at almost 20 stories tall search Big Lonely Doug for example.) UN ARREST THESE CRIMINALS. Lol
[deleted] t1_izod2q4 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments