[Pants-of-dog]

I did provide evidence for my claims.

My claim: European peoples have suffered similar land removal efforts as indigenous populations abroad.
Evidence: All those things I individually listed for you.

It's not my fault you're too lazy to follow up. I'll assume you just agree your claim was laughably false.

No. Mentioning examples of people that might have comparable situations is not the same as providing evidence that this is actually the case.

Doesn't matter - it's a legal fact, or was until 1994 (and even then, wasn't overturned in the way you'll immediately claim). The aboriginals were not legally people at the founding of the Australian legal system, and all recognition of aboriginal rights in modern Australia stem from that legal system.

So, we agree that it is not objectively correct. Thus, the question of terra nullius is dubious even if the Crown decides that people somehow magically did not live there, so that they can "legally" claim the land.

Every single one of those cases depended on a parallel Australian law existing to legitimize the claim to have any grounds in court.

I do not think that you are expert enough on Aboriginal land claims to make this sort of technical legal claim. Even if it were true, it is not relevant.

Aboriginal land rights do not exist without the consent of the Australian government - as I demonstrated and you continue to ignore.

They do exist according to Aboriginal systems of property. This is true regardless of the nature of Australia and how it relates to Aboriginal land claims.

To qualify as an aboriginal community, and to qualify for the legal rights afforded to "Aboriginal communities" you have to be declared one by the Australian government - you cannot self-declare as an aboriginal community, even if your tribe has a fifty thousand year history. You need a parallel Australian law to be able to press your claims, as an aborigine.

I am sure this is not true within Aboriginal communities. I am unsure if you are correct from an Australian legal point of view.

It is painfully clear to everyone that you have no idea what anyone talks about.

Please refrain from personally directed attacks on any other user, and try to remain courteous and respectful to other users of the forums at all times. Thank you.

Law doesn't work that way, buddy.

Terra nullius, as invoked by English law, determined whether a territory was inhabited by the presence of civilized society, which the aborigines were not regarded as, rightly or wrongly.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Every single suit by aboriginal activists taking your position - that terra nullius did not apply - has been explicitly rejected by every Australian court as absolutely without merit or basis. Until Mabo, there was no recognition of any sort of native title law at all. Even after Mabo, where native title law contradicts Australian law, Australian law supersedes. Mabo, however, upheld that the sovereign of Australia could suspend all native title law at will. And it wasn't until the passing of the Native Title Act in 1993 that native title law had any way of even being pushed into courts or a Mabo decision was even possible. Ultimately, the capability to enforce these native claims depends on the existence of a parallel Australian law.

That's nice.

None of this changes the fact that terra nullius, if it was actually used by the Crown to legitimise their claim, was not applicable since there were people inhabiting it with their own systems of land ownership.

You haven't made any effort to express an argument. Morally legitimate to you, or in general? Why is it not morally legitimate?

Like I said, it is not morally legitimate according to your criteria (i.e. cultural norms), because the Australian cultural norms do not support bare-faced lies.

[Fasces]

No. Mentioning examples of people that might have comparable situations is not the same as providing evidence that this is actually the case.

Your claim was that "Europeans have never had their land taken away from them."

Your claim is absolutely disproved. Plenty of Europeans have been expelled from their traditional homes by new powers. Or did this not happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and ... E2%80%9350)

Thus, the question of terra nullius is dubious even if the Crown decides that people somehow magically did not live there, so that they can "legally" claim the land.

It isn't.

I do not think that you are expert enough on Aboriginal land claims to make this sort of technical legal claim. Even if it were true, it is not relevant.

It is relevant, if we are judging the rightness of action by law, as you do when it suits you too. Stay consistent. Does the law matter or not?

They do exist according to Aboriginal systems of property. This is true regardless of the nature of Australia and how it relates to Aboriginal land claims.

There are no aboriginal legal institutions. There can be no property rights, or any rights, absent that.

I am sure this is not true within Aboriginal communities. I am unsure if you are correct from an Australian legal point of view.

Feel free to read any of the links I cited earlier in this thread, particularly the links on native title law. It is painfully obvious you have not done so, which makes your attitude about having me provide you with more citations even more funny.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

From Australian lawyers:

Furthermore, all members of the High Court [Mabo decision] concluded that, irrespective of the original presence of the Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common law, Australia was a territory acquired by settlement

[...]

notwithstanding that the classification of inhabited territory as uninhabited for legal purposes served different functions in international law and at common law

[...]

Accepting that Australia was not in fact uninhabited in 1788, yet legally uninhabited for the purpose of acquisition of sovereignty, the High Court equated occupation of an inhabited territory with occupation of an uninhabited territory. Sovereignty was, therefore, acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... %20nullius

None of this changes the fact that terra nullius, if it was actually used by the Crown to legitimise their claim, was not applicable since there were people inhabiting it with their own systems of land ownership.

The High Court of Australia disagrees with you.

Like I said, it is not morally legitimate according to your criteria (i.e. cultural norms), because the Australian cultural norms do not support bare-faced lies.

Will you stop with this nonsense? My moral theory does not go that far. Do I have to go back to Bob the police man?

[Pants-of-dog]

Your claim was that "Europeans have never had their land taken away from them."

Your claim is absolutely disproved. Plenty of Europeans have been expelled from their traditional homes by new powers. Or did this not happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and ... E2%80%9350)

And now the Germans have their land back.

OMG. It's like I was right.

It isn't.

That is not an argument. Try again.

There are no aboriginal legal institutions. There can be no property rights, or any rights, absent that.

There are Aboriginal legal institutions within Aboriginal cultire.

Feel free to read any of the links I cited earlier in this thread, particularly the links on native title law. It is painfully obvious you have not done so, which makes your attitude about having me provide you with more citations even more funny.

Please quote the relevant text. Thank you.

From Australian lawyers:

Furthermore, all members of the High Court [Mabo decision] concluded that, irrespective of the original presence of the Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common law, Australia was a territory acquired by settlement

[...]

notwithstanding that the classification of inhabited territory as uninhabited for legal purposes served different functions in international law and at common law

[...]

Accepting that Australia was not in fact uninhabited in 1788, yet legally uninhabited for the purpose of acquisition of sovereignty, the High Court equated occupation of an inhabited territory with occupation of an uninhabited territory. Sovereignty was, therefore, acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinod ... %20nullius

This does not support your claim that terra nullius, as invoked by English law, determined whether a territory was inhabited by the presence of civilized society, which the aborigines were not regarded as, rightly or wrongly.

It say snothing about "civilzed society".

It just says that they knew that tera nullius contradicted the facts on the ground but they were pretending it applied anyway.

None of this changes the fact that terra nullius, if it was actually used by the Crown to legitimise their claim, was not applicable since there were people inhabiting it with their own systems of land ownership.

The High Court of Australia disagrees with you.

Will you stop with this nonsense? My moral theory does not go that far. Do I have to go back to Bob the police man?

Your moral theory says that justification comes through whichever cultural norms are enforced through might. Lying is not an action that can be justified that way.

[Fasces]

And now the Germans have their land back.

No. They don't. What the fuck?

Silesia and Pomerania were annexed by Poland. There were 5,650,000 Germans living in Poland in 1945. In 1950 there were 910,000. Poles took the land they left behind. They are still provinces in Poland.

Between 1941 and 1942, over a million Germans living in Soviet lands in Eastern Europe were transferred to Siberia or Central Asia. In 1945, Konigsberg was annexed by Russia. Between 1945 and 1948, nearly half a million Germans were forced to move out, and over half a million Russians were settled in their stead. Memel was a similar situation - both these lands, the core territory of the Prussian Empire, remain under Russian control.

Czechoslovakia annexed parts of German Sudetenland - 3,000,000 Germans were forcibly removed. The land has not been taken back.

You're completely removed from reality.

That is not an argument. Try again.

I did. I proved how the high court applied the law of terra nullius.

Please quote the relevant text. Thank you.

I did. You ignored it.

viewtopic.php?p=14416638#p14416638

This does not support your claim that terra nullius, as invoked by English law, determined whether a territory was inhabited by the presence of civilized society, which the aborigines were not regarded as, rightly or wrongly.

Irrespective of the original presence of the Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common law,

Again, from our lawyer friends:

Gradually, however, the doctrine of terra nullius was extended to justify acquisition of inhabited territories by occupation if the land was uncultivated or its indigenous inhabitants were not ‘civilised’ or not organised in a society that was united permanently for political action.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/U ... .html#fn25

Your moral theory says that justification comes through whichever cultural norms are enforced through might.

No - it states that cultural norms are amoral, regardless of what they are. And that's it.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. They don't. What the fuck?

Silesia and Pomerania were annexed by Poland. There were 5,650,000 Germans living in Poland in 1945. In 1950 there were 910,000. Poles took the land they left behind. They are still provinces in Poland.

Between 1941 and 1942, over a million Germans living in Soviet lands in Eastern Europe were transferred to Siberia or Central Asia. In 1945, Konigsberg was annexed by Russia. Between 1945 and 1948, nearly half a million Germans were forced to move out, and over half a million Russians were settled in their stead. Memel was a similar situation - both these lands, the core territory of the Prussian Empire, remain under Russian control.

Czechoslovakia annexed parts of German Sudetenland - 3,000,000 Germans were forcibly removed. The land has not been taken back.

You're completely removed from reality.

None of this is comparable to the ongoing theft of land from Australia. Those were the results of wars of conquest. Australia never had such a war.

I did. I proved how the high court applied the law of terra nullius.

Which does not show that the use of terra nullius is not dubious. In fact, the lawyer's quotes supports my claim that such a use is in contradiction to the facts.

I did. You ignored it.

http://politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopi ... #p14416638

The text quoted in that post does not support your claim that "to qualify as an aboriginal community, and to qualify for the legal rights afforded to "Aboriginal communities" you have to be declared one by the Australian government".

That was your claim. I.e., that terra nullius, as invoked by English law, determined whether a territory was inhabited by the presence of civilized society, which the aborigines were not regarded as, rightly or wrongly. Those are your words.

Irrespective of the original presence of the Aboriginal inhabitants, on the basis of the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine at common law,

Again, from our lawyer friends:

Gradually, however, the doctrine of terra nullius was extended to justify acquisition of inhabited territories by occupation if the land was uncultivated or its indigenous inhabitants were not ‘civilised’ or not organised in a society that was united permanently for political action.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/U ... .html#fn25

Do you agree with the paper's assertion that terra nullius is not applicable, but this other doctrine (the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine) is applicable?

No - it states that cultural norms are amoral, regardless of what they are. And that's it.

Okay. Then it is wrong according to the cultural norms that are enforced through might, and not your criteria.

[Fasces]

None of this is comparable to the ongoing theft of land from Australia. Those were the results of wars of conquest. Australia never had such a war.

You didn't say a damn thing about conquest (not that it matters to me, your definition of conquest is completely out of touch with reality).

You said Europeans had never had "their land taken from them wholesale". This is blatantly false.

So I'll ask you: Have white Europeans been forcibly removed from their land in the past? Yes? or No?

The text quoted in that post does not support your claim that "to qualify as an aboriginal community, and to qualify for the legal rights afforded to "Aboriginal communities" you have to be declared one by the Australian government".

You mean beside the first damn line?

The National Native Title Register (NNTR), maintained by the NNTT, is a register of approved native title determinations. A determination can be that native title does or does not exist.

I'll also go ahead and preempt your response by stating that I was talking about native title rights - you're the one who changed the topic to "aboriginal communities".

Do you agree with the paper's assertion that terra nullius is not applicable, but this other doctrine (the ‘desert and uncultivated’ doctrine) is applicable?

It states that terra nullius includes the 'desert and uncultivated' doctrine. In the very first sentence you yourself quoted. It says the definition of "terra nullius" was expanded.

Gradually, however, the doctrine of terra nullius was extended to justify acquisition of inhabited territories

The paper concludes explicitly:

Sovereignty was, therefore, acquired under the enlarged notion of terra nullius.

I expect in your next post you'll tell me about how 2+2=5 and the sky is red.

Then it is wrong according to the cultural norms that are enforced through might, and not your criteria.

Thanks for telling me. Again.

And for the fiftieth fucking time, I don't care and I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

[anarchist23]

Why are you so hellbent on using debate terminators like "racism" anyway? Would the fact that I were a racist change the merit of my words? Hitler was a racist and a vegetarian. Does that say anything about vegetarianism? .

Again you do not check the validity of your statements.We are dealing in facts not bullshit.
Hitler was NOT a vegetarian.Where is your relevant source??

[Pants-of-dog]

You didn't say a damn thing about conquest (not that it matters to me, your definition of conquest is completely out of touch with reality).

You said Europeans had never had "their land taken from them wholesale". This is blatantly false.

So I'll ask you: Have white Europeans been forcibly removed from their land in the past? Yes? or No?

Rather than discuss your weird semantic issue, I will simply repeat that the two situations are not historically comparable. The European groups actually had their land taken by force and then had it (mostly given back or then had it taken back by force. The Aboriginals, on the other hand, had their land simply settled without their permission.

You mean beside the first damn line?

The National Native Title Register (NNTR), maintained by the NNTT, is a register of approved native title determinations. A determination can be that native title does or does not exist.

I'll also go ahead and preempt your response by stating that I was talking about native title rights - you're the one who changed the topic to "aboriginal communities".

Okay, thank you.

That clarifies the Australian position. However, I still think that Aboriginals communities do not find this to be valid.

It states that terra nullius includes the 'desert and uncultivated' doctrine. In the very first sentence you yourself quoted. It says the definition of "terra nullius" was expanded.

As long as we agree that the doctrine was expanded from "uninhabited land" to "land that is actually uninhabited but we are going to pretend is not".

Let's look at what they were saying at the time:

It is asked whether a nation may lawfully take possession of some part of a vast country, in which there are none but erratic nations whose scanty population is incapable of occupying the whole? … [I]n establishing the obligation to cultivate the earth, that those nations cannot exclusively appropriate to themselves more land than they have occasion for, or more than they are able to settle and cultivate. Their unsettled habitation in those immense regions cannot be accounted a true and legal possession; and the people of Europe, too closely pent up at home, finding land of which the savages stood in no particular need, and of which they made no actual and constant use, were lawfully entitled to take possession of it, and settle it with colonies. The earth … belongs to mankind in general, and was designed to furnish them with subsistence: if each nation had, from the beginning, resolved to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants. We do not, therefore, deviate from the views of nature, in confining the Indians within narrower limits. [26]

So, they decided that they could take land that they knew was being used by other people because they weren't using it the same way as the British.

Which is what I claimed on page two.

Thanks for telling me. Again.

You're welcome, though I know you don't really care.

And for the fiftieth fucking time, I don't care and I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Please try to remain courteous and respectful to other users of the forums at all times. Thank you.

[Fasces]

Rather than discuss your weird semantic issue, I will simply repeat that the two situations are not historically comparable. The European groups actually had their land taken by force and then had it (mostly given back or then had it taken back by force. The Aboriginals, on the other hand, had their land simply settled without their permission.

Either they fought back or they consented. You cannot have both. Silence/failure to act is tantamount to permission.

As long as we agree that the doctrine was expanded from "uninhabited land" to "land that is actually uninhabited but we are going to pretend is not".

The semantics do not matter. What matters is that there is no legal continuation from aboriginal society to Australian settlement. They represent two different legal traditions, and only one is sovereign.

Hitler was NOT a vegetarian.Where is your relevant source??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitl ... etarianism

One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian.

The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat.

An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is harmful to humanity. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also.

[Fasces]

dlt

[Pants-of-dog]

Either they fought back or they consented. You cannot have both. Silence/failure to act is tantamount to permission.

This has nothing to do with the discussion as to the reactions of Europeans in terms of acquiring and giving back land to indigenous and European peoples.

The semantics do not matter.

You are correct. This is clear when we see that they simply "expanded" a definition to mean exactly the opposite, in order to rationalise their theft of land.

What matters is that there is no legal continuation from aboriginal society to Australian settlement. They represent two different legal traditions, and only one is sovereign.

That is the next step: creating a space for Aboriginal systems of self governance and sovereignty.

[Fasces]

This has nothing to do with the discussion as to the reactions of Europeans in terms of acquiring and giving back land to indigenous and European peoples.

The fact that many white Europeans were the victims of displacement, and nations like the Papuans were allowed freedom, completely undercuts your assertion that racism is the primary motivation behind population displacement.

This is clear when we see that they simply "expanded" a definition to mean exactly the opposite, in order to rationalise their theft of land.

Define theft. Aboriginal concepts of property were not comparable to the British settlers.

That is the next step: creating a space for Aboriginal systems of self governance and sovereignty.

Creating such a space is exclusively the responsibility of the aboriginal people. Australians don't owe them shit.

[Pants-of-dog]

It completely undercuts your assertion that racism is the primary motivation behind population displacement.

How does your comment "Either they fought back or they consented. You cannot have both. Silence/failure to act is tantamount to permission. " completely undercut my assertion that racism is one of two primary motivations behind the different acts of population displacement and their continuance or lack thereof.

Define theft. Aboriginal concepts of property were not comparable to the British settlers.

Theft: taking something that belongs to someone else without their consent.

I agree that Aboriginal concepts of property were not comparable to the British settlers. British settlers should not have the right to steal things simply because they do not understand something.

Creating such a space is exclusively the responsibility of the aboriginal people. Australians don't owe them shit.

That's nice that you can be so open with your opinion.

Anyway, something that could go far in terms of eradicating the ignorance of settlers would be to teach Aboriginal languages in the public school system. It would be difficult to get recognition of Aboriginal self-governance if Australians remained ignorant about them.

[Fasces]

How does your comment "Either they fought back or they consented. You cannot have both. Silence/failure to act is tantamount to permission. " completely undercut my assertion that racism is one of two primary motivations behind the different acts of population displacement and their continuance or lack thereof.

It doesn't, I must of scrolled up when responding or something. Been up for almost two days now, had a brain skip.

Anyway, something that could go far in terms of eradicating the ignorance of settlers would be to teach Aboriginal languages in the public school system. It would be difficult to get recognition of Aboriginal self-governance if Australians remained ignorant about them.

Why should Australians learn economically dead languages of a culture that isn't their own?

[Pants-of-dog]

It doesn't, I must of scrolled up when responding or something. Been up for almost two days now, had a brain skip.

Don't worry about it.

We have been going at it quite hard, and the subject does not lack complexity.

Why should Australians learn economically dead languages of a culture that isn't their own?

It would go far in terms of eradicating the ignorance of settlers. It would be difficult to get recognition of Aboriginal self-governance if Australians remained ignorant about them. It would also help Australians understand their own history as a nation, and understand how Australian settler cultures have been influenced by Aboriginal cultures.

[Fasces]

It would be difficult to get recognition of Aboriginal self-governance if Australians remained ignorant about them.

You don't need to get Australian consent for Aboriginal self-governance - aboriginals should teach their own language in their own communities, and create a cohesive identity among their own people. They shouldn't attempt to create a hybrid identity with a people who outnumber them, because they will be swallowed up. They need to look at the Hebrews, Welsh, Scot, Basque, and Catalans of the world, and see how they protected their own customs against centralizing authority, and how this alone, with or without the consent of the citizens in the capital, helped preserve their identity.

[anarchist23]

^
Hitler ate meat prior WWII and then consumed animal fat in his meals,bone marrow and had injections of placenta,bovine testosterone and extracts of seminal vesticles.Hitler might have believed he was a vegetarian but he wasn't..

[Fasces]

I don't see what it matters.

Hitler wanted to be a vegetarian, and its a fact that he committed to that diet (regardless of what his doctors did without his knowledge). He's a vegetarian. There is nothing wrong with vegetarianism simply because Hitler was one. I'm sure Hitler believed in gravity as well.

[Pants-of-dog]

You don't need to get Australian consent for Aboriginal self-governance - aboriginals should teach their own language in their own communities, and create a cohesive identity among their own people. They shouldn't attempt to create a hybrid identity with a people who outnumber them, because they will be swallowed up. They need to look at the Hebrews, Welsh, Scot, Basque, and Catalans of the world, and see how they protected their own customs against centralizing authority, and how this alone, with or without the consent of the citizens in the capital, helped preserve their identity.

You do need Australian recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty in order to get Aboriginal self-governance, even if that recognition is limited to non-involvement.

I am not claiming that a hybrid identity be created. I am claiming that a relationship of respect has to be created between Australian settler society and Aboriginal communities. To do this, we need to get Australian settlers to understand the Aboriginal position. And to do this, language would be the best tool.

[Great Smell of Brut]

don't pretend to be an expert so I won;t comment on specifically Aboriginal issues Wht I would like to ask Asarchist is to show me a single issue where he backs a white position over a non white one or does he just back the non white position in every case (obviously an out and out bigot like maas will always do so)

secondly I hope every American who attaks Australia wants to give all the land of the USA back to the native Americans and leave as soon as possible or does their 'manfst destiny' gove them special rights of conquest>