[Mr. Smith]

I am curious to feel how many Australians feel about the continuing Aboriginal rights cases going on in Australia.

Since the concept of Terra Nullius was reversed many aboriginies are claiming territory used for mining and other productive things for themselves.

I personally feel that the Aboriginies would most likely do likely little productive things if some mineral rich lands where given back to them. If this continues then most of Australia would infact have to be returned.

Thoughts?

[CasX]

What's Terra Nullius?

personally feel that the Aboriginies would most likely do likely little productive things if some mineral rich lands where given back to them.

Which is no reason whatsoever for no addressing historical grievences in a democratic way. By 'productive' I'm guessing you mean exploiting the land.

Many aborigines would probably treat the land very environmentally respectfully from what I know. What's wrong with that, if that's what they want?

[GandalfTheGrey]

I don't know much about it, so I can't really offer any opinion on it. Since the terra nulius thing was overturned there have been two landmark decisions: mabo (which was overturned) and wik. There was enormous controversy, and the campaign against them was led by the Howard government (the decisions were made by the High Court). On the one side, the conservatives fear that land claims will mean that the land will be taken away from their white owners. The Aboriginal activists (I think) argue that it will be more of an in-principle land claim, and in real terms it will not really mean that the Aborigines will take over and force the owners off their land. I think (and again, I may be wrong) that the whole point of it is to give recognition to the fact that Aborigines inhabited the land before Europeans arrived, and they have a rightful claim to the land. So its more of a symbolic gesture.

[Ocker]

Ahh, yes, terra tullius, another of the great decisions of Australia

CasX: terra tullius has two meanings, one; 'A country without a leader recognised be European government', and 'land not owned by anyone', For Europeans of the time, a land could be terra nullius even if people were living on it. For the land to be owned, the people had to have farm and social, religious or political etc. buildings on the land.

The Aboriginal way of life did not require these things, they did not need buildings for farming or religious needs, and as they did not practive 'private ownership' of land by individuals, there were no fences,

Like CasX said, here is a quote:

Land can mean many things to Aboriginal people. It can mean home, camp, country, life-source, totem place and spirit centre. To Aboriginal people the land was not just soil or rock or minerals, but the whole environment... Aboriginals were part of the land, and the land was part of them. When they lost the land the lost themselves.

If you want to research further on the gradual rejection of terra nullius, I suggest you search 'Eddie' Koiki Mabo.

[Efrem Da King]

This is my dads area, its his job, he is a lawyer for aboriginal land claims in NSW.

[CasX]

Cheers for that Ocker.

Care to add anything to that Efrem?

[Efrem Da King]

I guess I should shouldn't I. Well I will say that the newer laws really screw it up, making you have to do practiacally impossible things, like prove connection to lands they have been denied acess to for 100's of years. I think the tribes should be given their little places, and allowed to let their culture flourish, and I also think that aboriginal languages should be taught at all australian schools, we should be proud of our cultural heritage.


hheehhe I forgot to write stuff in my last post sorry.

[Proctor]

I remember thinking that was weird when I lived in Australia. Where in New Zealand we learn Maori in primary school (sort of), in Australia they learn Indonesian. And I thought, wouldn't it make more sense to learn aboriginal languages?

[Yeddi]

we actually learnt abit of italian at primary school, though the language program wasn't introduced until i in grade 4.
Then in at my Secondary School, French, Japanese and Indonesian are offered.
From my point of view, Any of these languages would have been of more use than an aboriginal language. Because i've met more Japanese people, more French people, and more indonesian speaking people than Aboriginals.
And i don't know how it is in NZ, is maori a universal language?, but there are over 250 different aboriginal languages

Hmm, thinking bout this, what happened to Aus? The aboriginal people of NZ are Maori's, the aboriginal people of canada, inuits... but the aboriginal people of australia are known as.... Aboriginals

[Efrem Da King]

Hmm we had italian in grade school. I could never figure out why the f*ck we would learn italian??? ANyway at my highschool you can do, chinese, german, french ancient greek, latin and hebrew. I think thats all.

[Proctor]

there are over 250 different aboriginal languages

Yes, I can see how that could be a problem.

People say the same things in New Zealand, that Maori is a useless language and we're better to learn something else. Problem is, New Zealand has two official languages, so it seems a little bit silly to completely shun one of them. I think it's good for primary students to learn some Maori.

[Mr. Smith]

Isn't the purpose of learning a foreign language to learn one from a different country. The fact is it would be pointless in my eyes to learn either Maori or Aboriginal. Thats like me learning to speak Amerind. Nobody speaks it anymore.

It's not like in your travels you will need to speak Maori, In the states we usually learn either French or Spanish. French being the more popular until the slew of hispanic immigration. Now 90% learn Spanish.

[Nox]

Aboriginies

I always thought the correct word was Aboriginals. Am I mistaken.

I personally feel that the Aboriginies would most likely do likely little productive things if some mineral rich lands where given back to them.

My guess is ... it depends upon which members of the group control the assests. The 'Holy Men' would probably preserve the land. The non-holy men (intentionally left uncapitalized) would be the next group of exceedingly RICH exploiters.

Nox

[GandalfTheGrey]

I always thought the correct word was Aboriginals. Am I mistaken.

Aborigines or Aboriginals - same thing.

[Political Interest]

In my opinion they are beeing greedy they both have in my opinion the same rights as White men and woman so I dont see why they want more where all one people now.

[Political Interest]

I do agree I call NZ Aotearoa instead of what the Dutch called it.

[Thin Spirits]

What is more concerning, I feel is the inequality between the Australian Aboriginal population and non-Aboriginals.

Aboriginals represent a very small minority group in Australia... something ridiculous like 5 per cent. Yet they are a majority both below the poverty line and in our gaols. Similtaneoulsy Aboriginal culture is becoming sidelined by the Australian integration of so many other cultures that have become prominent in our population in the past 50 years.

I grew up in a small country town where the Aboriginal population far exceeded the norm for most towns in Australia, and I was taught pitjanjitjatjara to a certain extent. As well I was taught Indonesian...
But in most my experience of Aboriginal people living in rural centres is that of them drunk, robbing people or being in general abusive. This is certainly a generalisation but it is not an extension of the truth.
The rich aboriginal cultures is by far both misrepresented and overshadowed by the current perception of the aboriginal.

[unbalanced zealot]

I don't know much about it, so I can't really offer any opinion on it. Since the terra nulius thing was overturned there have been two landmark decisions: mabo (which was overturned) and wik.

Just out of interest - there's also the terra mare thing in relation
to Indonesian fishermen in the Timor Gap. In which Australia has always
worked with the theory that there were no 'real' people out there.
I didn't realise that Mabo was over-turned ... never looked into it
properly - but it's pretty important part of recent Australian history.

[Mr.Hedgehog]

the aboriginal people of canada, inuits... but the aboriginal people of australia are known as.... Aboriginals Confused

Only the Natives in northern places like the NWT, Yukon, Nunavut, Northern newfoundland, and norther Quebec are Inuit. In the rest of Canada they are 'Natives'. Aboriginal just means original, here we have a channel (that is really crappy) called "World People's Aboriginal Television Network".

So to me they seem to be nameless races: "Native Australians" "Native North Americans."

[Thin Spirits]

So to me they seem to be nameless races: "Native Australians" "Native North Americans."

I guess that has to do with the fact that as a whole, these people dont have a name. If you went to certain areas, however, you would find different 'peoples' or 'tribes' that woul dhave a singular identity, such as language or borders. But when you classify all the different groups of native peoples within a nation calling them 'natives' or aboriginals' is accurate I guess.