You must log in or register to comment.

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.,ritual%20trials%2C%20raids%20for%20women%2C%20and%20revenge%20attacks.

See the section on traditional aboriginal warfare


WikiSummarizerBot t1_izqru08 wrote

[Australian frontier wars]( 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?


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_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


Grogosh t1_izlgffj wrote

Always WAS their land


Anskora t1_izlrhzu wrote

And still is, aboriginal peoples have their land recognised here, its a pretty common thing and this isn't unusual


Internal_Emergency93 t1_izlv1pm wrote

I worked for a tribe in the US for over twenty years, this fact was obvious from the start. The older Feds (USFS) would throw out “we are the landowners”. This pissed me off being a non-native to no end..


weenieforsale t1_izmet4d wrote

Well, you don't know that. It's highly probable they took it from another people at some stage.


KTPU t1_izny79n wrote

Its almost certain. The history of this the human race is genociding the native population of the place you want to live.


Orgidee t1_izm3bq8 wrote

Stop exaggerating. Humans haven't existed always. Neither have they always inhabited Australia.


Anskora t1_izmb9ft wrote

It has been their land for 80,000 years.


Drakotrite t1_iznl8ef wrote

No it hasn't. The oldest signs of aboriginals in Australia only date to 47,000 years ago. Also, aboriginal Australians aren't a single nation, it is extremely unlikely that a single member nation has owned any piece of land for more than a thousand years. Next you will be arguing we should give Algeria back to the vandals.


Anskora t1_iznqghh wrote

It is 80,000 years ago

And no, they aren't a single nation, that's why each group has claim to their specific land, not any more nor less.

And, the Aboriginal Australian version of possession of land is different than the European version, the land is not "owned" but rather it is tied to a people through religion, culture, hunting, etc.

Please learn something about Australia before making ridiculous comments


Drakotrite t1_iznrfvr wrote

Did you actually look at the source you listed? The very next article explains why 80,000 years is wrong.

>but rather it is tied to a people through religion, culture, hunting, etc.

That's quite literally how every nation works. It's not some unique thing. Every nation has religious, cultural and resource tied to its land. Trying to claim this is an aboriginal idea is both racist, see the noble savage trope, and ignorant of European history and development.


Orgidee t1_izn12pc wrote

Yes How long is always?


Anskora t1_izn1jy8 wrote

If you want to get into the semantics of it, we can:

Always has always had a range of meanings, the most common being "forever" or "every single time"

Another common usage of it is using it to exaggerate sentences.

In this context, it is using definition number 2

Always has been their land means "it has been there land [for a very long time]"

Just like how European land is considered "always European", Aboriginal Australian land is considered "always Aboriginal Australian"

Another reason people say that is the Aboriginal Peoples of Australia have a unique connection to the land, more so than other cultures do to the land they are on

Their religion, lifestyle, presence, culture is uniquely tied directly to the land that they claim.

I'd suggest speaking to an Aboriginal Elder for a better explanation as I'm merely an Australian who only knows the gist of things


gilahank t1_izmfbqz wrote

I would be interested in a conversation about the ethics of dedicating land solely to one race of people. I’ve never seen an honest debate about that, just racism or accusations of racism. In the modern world, why is it ok for a handful of people to claim land for their race forever, but we’d all think it racist and wrong if Japan, South Korea, Iceland, or most any other country said that their borders are solely for people of one ethnic heritage?


BalrogPoop t1_izmi7b4 wrote

We'll, regarding Japan, they sort of did this for a couple centuries and as a sovereign state they were entitled to do it, provided they can bear the consequences.

It wasn't until the USA sent a warship into the harbour and said "At least open yourself up to trade or well make things very unpleasant for you" that they allowed any foreigners in at all.

Even now, it is incredibly hard to emigrate permanently to Japan as a non citizen unless you have some sort of ancestry I imagine. In many countries you cannot own land as a foreigner.

It's "okay" because they are a sovereign state and can make whatever laws they feel like and short of going to war or applying sanctions noone can do shit about it. Same as Indonesia can make pre marital sex illegal, or outlaw being gay.

Countries don't really operate on ethics the same way individuals do is my short answer.


Drakotrite t1_iznlj6c wrote

>we’d all think it racist and wrong if Japan, South Korea, Iceland, or most any other country said that their borders are solely for people of one ethnic heritage?

A few nations, including Japan, do this. The only place where it is called racist is the US but only if it's white people.


weenieforsale t1_izmfzek wrote

I don't get it. No one in history was able to keep their land if they couldn't defend it... still can't. And I don't get the 'I was here first' argument. Well.. what about the people that were here before you? Chances are you took it from them and didn't recognise their claim that 'they were here first'. Also, you know what people did when they first got to Australia? Pretty much hunted to extinction 90% of the fauna that lived here for hundreds of millions of years.

Also when people say this land, or this rock is 'sacred', I also don't understand why in 2022 we still accept this as a factual statement. I don't believe in any religion or superstition, and we should be striving to keep church and state separate. You can believe anything you want, but there is no scientific backing to you saying something is sacred or not, and having it written into law.

edit - this is so weird. I was expecting to be downvoted into oblivion. Very strange for reddit.


verysillyhats t1_izmxlor wrote

Aboriginal Australians have been here at least 60 000 years. Could be 100 000. Forced off land. Hunted and killed. Enslaved (yes it happened) or blackbirded. Culture ripped away as children were stolen and made into second class white citizens. Generational wealth stolen and withheld.

And your gripe is with belief in sacred rocks? It's culture.


weenieforsale t1_izmynsa wrote

Yeah, I think it's at least 80 000 years, so to think that the people that were here when English explorers first arrived, were the 'first people' is insane.

Human beings have been pretty shitty to the environment and each other for as long as there have been human beings. Aboriginal Australians didn't get it any worse than any other populations that were colonized at that time.


verysillyhats t1_izn0p4z wrote

They were ad far as our understanding the first people ? So confused as to your point. I think you may need to read up on indigenous history and better understand what happened. It was brutal.


weenieforsale t1_izn2uu3 wrote

I agree with you, you seem to be very confused. Google 'genocide' and then tell me about brutality, that might be a good start for you.


verysillyhats t1_izn3255 wrote

Lots of indigenous peoples did experience genocide. Look at Tasmanian history.


obooooooo t1_izoh6s0 wrote

insane to go “well, why are the crying? they weren’t the only community who was killed, enslaved, raped, robbed, etc”


no_active_ingedient t1_izo0kmf wrote

I am surprised that you are surprised to not be downvoted into made you position known and it doesn't smell like veiled racism. Reddit, generally, likes to be informed of different opinions- as long as they are a. opinions and not trolls picking fights and walking away, or b. not statements that are made just so someone doesn't overtly come across as racist, homophobic, fascist, etc.

The indigenous people of Australia were there for a very long time and it is suggested that they have a stronger connection to their land than someone that invaded for expansionist reasons only. The invasions of the lands now called Australia, New Zealand, North America and South America were not done with superior war tactics, but with dishonesty, bad faith acters, and smallpox blankets. And to kick them down even more their culture and language (and knowledge-base therein. Invaders that caused genocide (Genghis Khan et al) are mired because of their hubris. Invaders that coalesced to a higher degree (the Roman Empire) are lauded for their military might, but balanced with a degree of integrity.

I have not heard of the indigenous people of Australia hunting to exctintion 90 % of the fauna that was there, but I suggest it less bad than the current dynamic that is sending the entire world to exctintion....

The second paragraph comes from a materialistic mindset; nothing wrong with that but I imagine that you express a degree of respect at a cemetery, or a funeral. Though you may believe it is 'just a dead body in s box' I imagine that you would keep your opinions to yourself around the grieving....? The indigenous people of Australia re not compelling you to believe anything, they are merely saying that a. agreements done in bad faith should have no status, and they not have to 'suck it' as a result, and b. the cognitive dissonance is unfathomable- you came here, tricked us out of lands and because common law has no receipt for 'connected to the land' we have to battle past the term of life of many???. Not having it written into law is the problem, but back in 1788, the indigenous people of Australia didn't have lots and plots, and we still throw terra nullis around like it has no cruel intentions....


weenieforsale t1_izqymgh wrote

Wow, a thoughtful response. I genuinely appreciate it, the only thing I disagree with is:

>Reddit, generally, likes to be informed of different opinions

Over the past 5 years, I have found the opposite of this to be the case.


verysillyhats t1_izlycx8 wrote

One day we might be able to bridge the giant cavern of hurt, betrayal and atrocities. And non indigenous Australians might be able to reconcile the land we live on. My greatest fear is how long that may take and the time spent on being a lost and disconnected people.


Shining_Silver_Star t1_izmwn4x wrote

What do you mean by reconcile?


verysillyhats t1_izmxa6u wrote

Non indigenous Australia needs to reconcile with itself what has been done and what steps are honest, fair and just to move forward in a manner that befits how we speak of Australia already. Mateship. A fair go. Free.

These things aren't easily obtained by many indigenous people and is much much more easily obtained by white Australia. Systemic racism is a problem but in my opinion generational wealth and wellbeing is what has been stolen. Something so many of us take for granted.


Shining_Silver_Star t1_izmxhw3 wrote

What steps do you think should be taken, in an ideal world?


verysillyhats t1_izmy352 wrote

That's trickier. Especially with our history of taking pretty awful measures in the past. I have opinions on the problems but solutions take smarter folk.

I do think more education on the topic is essential. The hot takes your average person has on the subject is either uninformed or negative.


poopyhelicopterbutt t1_iznbry4 wrote

Serious question. What does ‘always was, always will be’ actually mean in real terms? Like, what are the sincere beliefs and practical implications beyond lip service for people who say that? If you’re living in a house or sitting in a park on land that doesn’t belong to you, surely you’d give it back to its rightful owner of you believe it’s theirs, right? I don’t understand the very vocal assertion that it’s their land but only if I don’t have to give up anything of mine. Seems like it’s just a thing to say for brownie points.


MildColonialMan t1_izoyjsf wrote

Not Indigenous but as I understand it, in their cosmology, links between people and country (and between country and language) are permanent and part of the natural order of things. It's a logic of relationships rather than one of possession, and the permanent relationships were/are established in the Dreaming. You belong to country in a similar way to how you belong to a family. Same as I am always related to my family even if I'm totally estranged from them, they're always related to country.

The relationships between language and country were/are also established in the Dreaming. So Dharug Country is always Dharug Country even if nobody speaks Dharug on it any more.

At a more basic level, it's been theirs for at least 60,000 years. That's a lot of ancestors in the ground, literally becoming part of it.


Borkso t1_iznowwq wrote

Oh cool it’s ours? Then can we self govern? “Haha, no”


GodzillaHunter1 t1_izn8hen wrote

The time has come A facts a fact It belongs to them Let's give it back


[deleted] t1_izok6nz wrote

But who will enforce the land ownership?


AutoModerator t1_izla35m wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Orgidee t1_iznix6h wrote

Yes that's why I said don't exaggerate. I only read the first few lines of your reply. Tldr


dandav1956 t1_izpj448 wrote

So opinions are not permitted in this free society.... Interesting indeed


craigrostan t1_izoh26y wrote

Aye right, believe it if you like. When was the last time white men kept a promise/treaty?


[deleted] t1_izok2q6 wrote



craigrostan t1_izok7lc wrote mean that toothless old man's club?


[deleted] t1_izokofq wrote

You downvoted my comment just because I answered your question


craigrostan t1_izokxbo wrote

Sorry, but I didn't down vote you, I only answered your comment.


Physical_Average_793 t1_izoxtef wrote

I don’t understand the “I was here first” thing like it’s unfortunate but if you lose I mean you lost

Still a nice gesture tho


Trotsky12 t1_izndzn3 wrote

Alright so this has nothing to do with this post but I made a post on r/askreddit and barely got a response.

So I've seen a lot of anti-USA sentiments on Reddit. What's that about? What is so horrible about the US? Describe this to me please


epicvoyage28 t1_iznprut wrote

Well, part of it is just the lighthearted ribbing that most culturally similar countries give to each other. Some of it is criticism of their godawful healthcare system and workers rights. Some of it is a criticism of their foreign policy, read imperialism, although that is arguably not as bad as in other countries that have actively invaded places.

Then there are the stereotypes; such as excessive national pride in a low average country, that could so easily do so much better.

There are countless other things also, but how many of them are America specific is debatable. It would probably be easier to ask people individually what their opinions are, as they are likely varied. Do those expressing this sentiment not inherently state their issues? Why not ask them directly?


Trotsky12 t1_j0g2xu1 wrote

I really appreciate your reply, and with a lack of vitriol.

I'm curious because people constantly berate the states. And I think there's plenty to admire and love about this place.

My issue is I think people have a fundamentals misunderstanding of history and where their lives have managed to be plopped into on the time scale

Sure, there are things left to be desired. But to flat out say the US is this horrible, monolithic entity is just ... Fucking moronic AT BEST.


Salt-Artichoke5347 t1_izn1f3n wrote

roflmao virtue signaling when do the turks leave anatolia?

It is not your land if you lost the wars. If so when do the arabs go back to arabia etc see if british people said it would always be their land they would be considered racist. Why are the standards is its ok for non whites to claim racial ownership of land but not for whites?


Mageris t1_izlmx9v wrote

The audacity.