Neither of your links are reliable historical sources. I suggest you do some real research. If you did have the facts you would have immediately recognised the many errors in the two sites you have linked.
And you would know that Terra Nullius did not arrive with the First Fleet but was first recorded as one reference, in documents in 186…
Neither of your links are reliable historical sources. I suggest you do some real research. If you did have the facts you would have immediately recognised the many errors in the two sites you have linked.
And you would know that Terra Nullius did not arrive with the First Fleet but was first recorded as one reference, in documents in 1864 and then was revived and re-invented in the 1970's as part of a highly subjective campaign.
Do you even know what Terra Nullius means? Clearly not. It does not mention ethnic cleansing or settler-colonialism but was an aspect of English law where efforts were made to establish ownership. As I said Terra Nullius did not become a part of the conversation until the 1970's. I can give you some reading links if you like.
Terra Nullius simply meant, 'nobody's land' or 'land belonging to nobody. ' In legal jargon, terra nullius means 'land over which no previous sovereignty has been exercised.'
No doubt similar views regarding ownership, applied of course when the Romans invaded and colonised Britain so it is not wise to retrofit modern values to the past.
Since there were 350 to 500 different groups of peoples in Australia in 1788, bit of guessing I am sure given the capacity to know in the times, who were not united, had no common language and who were often no more than family clans, it was deemed in the times, that there was no sovereignty, because by the laws of the times there was no sovereignty.
The British first called them Indians, then Natives and finally settled for Aborigines, more Latin, meaning in essence there when the British arrived.
This is why aborigines were never a nation either. They had no common language and were not united. This is why no Treaty was ever done as happened in New Zealand. They would have needed as many as 500 Treaties.
The biggest tribes were in Queensland because this area is rich and fertile. But they were also mostly at war with each other and smaller groups, clans, would camp next to the settlers for protection.
Hahaha a link to the archive of historically-scientifically affirmed texts is not a valid source (the same goes for the rest)? Your perceived logical incoherence is ingrained, Roslyn. Ergo the same mindset as that of the (Israeli) Zionist zealots. Ergo you have fun monologuing in your terra nullius echo-chamber. ✌🏼
No, the link does not go to historically-scientifically affirmed texts. It goes to a list of revised history trying to make various cases for genocide which was never policy. And none of the cited sources relate to Terra Nullius.
The second link is to a website, with no historical or archaeological credibility . Neither provides data, historical facts, relevant to our conversation.
Let us deal in facts, historically proven, recorded, documented facts.
Quote: Terra nullius came to Australia from Algeria, not England. An obscure term, confusingly defined, it was not the legal doctrine behind the 18th Century British occupation of Australia. An argument of modern racial politics, it is not the basis of national sovereignty. In 1977 Paul Coe of the Redfern Legal Service introduced terra nullius into a case he was arguing before Justice Mason of the High Court. Before then few Australians had ever heard the term. Coe, claiming restitution and compensation for Aborigines, argued Australia had not been terra nullius at the time of European settlement. No-one in the 18th Century had said it was.
Coe had not found terra nullius in the Historical Records of Australia, but in the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, on the 1975 dispute between Algeria and Morocco over Western Sahara. The Algerian lawyers defined terra nullius as a “territory belonging to no-one”. Seldom reported is the Moroccan lawyer’s comment on Algeria’s arguments as a “real piece of intellectual conjuring”.6
Coe rightly sensed the usefulness of terra nullius for the emerging political arguments in favour of Aboriginal land rights. Today it scarcely seems possible that in the mid-1970s Senator Neville Bonner argued in the Senate for recognition of the Aborigines’ prior ownership of the land without using the term. If terra nullius were accepted as the basis of British settlement, the opportunities for eternal legal battles over land were alluring, but Coe’s arguments went nowhere. His case was dismissed by Justice Mason, and two years later, in 1979, his appeal was heard by four High Court Justices. Returning to the courtroom, Coe argued both terra nullius and that Australia had been conquered by the British. His case was disorganised and badly prepared. In dealing with it Justice Gibbs called it “embarrassing”, while recognising “that some of the allegations hint at the existence of questions that might be regarded as arguable”.7
It was the dissenting opinion of Justice Lionel Murphy which moved terra nullius into modern Australian politics. Summing up Coe’s case, he made terra nullius – which appeared in no dictionaries or history books, and very few texts on international law – seem to be the accepted legal and historical explanation of Australian sovereignty.
The term moved from the High Court to the historians, seemingly as something that had always been firmly imbedded in the 18th Century.
In 1980 Professor Alan Frost wrote an article, New South Wales as Terra Nullius: the British Denial of Aboriginal Land Rights”.8 He defined it as “ ‘no person’s land’, that is, belonging to no-one”. Perhaps it could have been made clearer that terra nullius was something to do with international law. Frost gave it historical reality when he wrote that James Cook, on seeing Australia, had to ask two questions:
“Had a population established a right to possess the territory ; or, was it a terra nullius? [I]f it were a terra nullius, was he the first European discoverer of it?”.9
This is supposition, speculation, imagination, but it reads as if it actually happened on the Endeavour.
The phrase was unknown to 18th and 19th Century Australian colonists; it was not referred to in colonial courts or the Privy Council; it was never used by the British government to explain their appropriation of New Holland. It was so new that it didn’t appear in the first edition of the Macquarie Dictionary in 1981. It isn’t in the Oxford English Dictionary. If terra nullius had been sitting in the dictionaries all the time, perhaps it would not so effectively have been able to colonise modern minds.
In 1970 Charles Rowley’s The Destruction of Aboriginal Society put forward a modern tragic version of Australian history, and did not mention terra nullius. Building on Rowley’s work, Henry Reynolds rapidly became the best known and most trusted historian on Aboriginal and white conflict. He was prolific; he dealt with the media skilfully, and his books were quickly accepted into schools and universities. Admitting he had never heard of terra nullius as late as the 1960s, by the late-1980s it was the theoretical underpinning for his best-selling narratives of racial conflict.10
In 1987 Reynolds published The Law of the Land. A book called The Law of the Land should never have been written by an historian. A lawyer, a judge should have done it – and preferably a dull, boring, conscientious creature seriously concerned to do justice to the topic.
Revisionist means a change, to revise something older. I present original facts so they cannot be revisionist.
The revisionist history for Australia began to be written/invented in the 1960’s. The data from 1788 up to about 1950 is reliable particularly when accessing Aboriginal Protector’s Reports (beancounters); Missionary records (reading through the God talk); journals, records, reports of explorers, botanists, anthropologists, archaeologists, settlers, police and any other source from the times. The newspapers beyond their purple prose, and even then, a taste for the sensational, are also good sources and Trove is invaluable.
Everything pertinent to the discussion was laid out in a factual manner, and substantiated with factual sources. When this fails and, scientifically speaking, the perceived logical incoherence kicks in, there is no point in keeping up with the afactual, i.e. void discussion. Especially not when the latter has entered the domain of, again scientifically(factually) speaking, theory of bullshit (Meibauer, 2016). 🤷🏼
Your sources were not substantive. We were discussing Terra Nullius and I challenged your interpretation and provided data to show you were wrong.
You posted a link from Google scholar, for heaven's sake, something kids use, which brought up a heap of sources for genocide, not Terra Nullius.
The other link, Australian Native Tribe is not an academic or professional site but a propaganda site which does not even appear in a general search and neither is their information on the page your link brings up providing information as to who is behind the site. That does not cut it. As a basic to be credible you need to state who you are and your qualifications for the material you are presenting.
As an example of how unprofessional the site Native Tribes is, it presents a page on Unveiling the Indigenous Essence: A Journey Through Australia’s Cities with Their Original Names.
Now, since there were no cities before the British built them the original names of the cities were and are the names the British gave them. Any of those cities would have had a few tribal aboriginal clans hunting through the area where the city was built but those groups were at war with each other so whose name is chosen to represent those early peoples? Pick one of six or ten.
And that page uses a map which if you go to the source of the map you find admits it is guesswork and it is a language/dialect map and not a map indicating areas where tribal clan groups were permanently resident. The map is dishonest and you would know that by tracking down the source of the map and finding out who put it together. It is not hard.
The map alone says to anyone who has studied Australia's history that the site is not reliable.
I did substantiate. Not sure what you believe I missed. XIU who is Roger in Asian form, posted two links. One was a generic google search on genocide and the topic was Terra nullius and the other was a non-academic website for aboriginal issues. Neither provided the data required.
I posted a link to an article on Terra Nullius, from Dr Michael Connor in the Australasian Legal Information Unit. At the bottom of the article which runs through the history, the real factual history of the use of the term Terra Nullius, there are substantive sourced end notes. I am not sure how much more I could provide in terms of factual data.
Neither of your links are reliable historical sources. I suggest you do some real research. If you did have the facts you would have immediately recognised the many errors in the two sites you have linked.
And you would know that Terra Nullius did not arrive with the First Fleet but was first recorded as one reference, in documents in 1864 and then was revived and re-invented in the 1970's as part of a highly subjective campaign.
Do you even know what Terra Nullius means? Clearly not. It does not mention ethnic cleansing or settler-colonialism but was an aspect of English law where efforts were made to establish ownership. As I said Terra Nullius did not become a part of the conversation until the 1970's. I can give you some reading links if you like.
Terra Nullius simply meant, 'nobody's land' or 'land belonging to nobody. ' In legal jargon, terra nullius means 'land over which no previous sovereignty has been exercised.'
No doubt similar views regarding ownership, applied of course when the Romans invaded and colonised Britain so it is not wise to retrofit modern values to the past.
Since there were 350 to 500 different groups of peoples in Australia in 1788, bit of guessing I am sure given the capacity to know in the times, who were not united, had no common language and who were often no more than family clans, it was deemed in the times, that there was no sovereignty, because by the laws of the times there was no sovereignty.
The British first called them Indians, then Natives and finally settled for Aborigines, more Latin, meaning in essence there when the British arrived.
This is why aborigines were never a nation either. They had no common language and were not united. This is why no Treaty was ever done as happened in New Zealand. They would have needed as many as 500 Treaties.
The biggest tribes were in Queensland because this area is rich and fertile. But they were also mostly at war with each other and smaller groups, clans, would camp next to the settlers for protection.
Hahaha a link to the archive of historically-scientifically affirmed texts is not a valid source (the same goes for the rest)? Your perceived logical incoherence is ingrained, Roslyn. Ergo the same mindset as that of the (Israeli) Zionist zealots. Ergo you have fun monologuing in your terra nullius echo-chamber. ✌🏼
No, the link does not go to historically-scientifically affirmed texts. It goes to a list of revised history trying to make various cases for genocide which was never policy. And none of the cited sources relate to Terra Nullius.
The second link is to a website, with no historical or archaeological credibility . Neither provides data, historical facts, relevant to our conversation.
Let us deal in facts, historically proven, recorded, documented facts.
Quote: Terra nullius came to Australia from Algeria, not England. An obscure term, confusingly defined, it was not the legal doctrine behind the 18th Century British occupation of Australia. An argument of modern racial politics, it is not the basis of national sovereignty. In 1977 Paul Coe of the Redfern Legal Service introduced terra nullius into a case he was arguing before Justice Mason of the High Court. Before then few Australians had ever heard the term. Coe, claiming restitution and compensation for Aborigines, argued Australia had not been terra nullius at the time of European settlement. No-one in the 18th Century had said it was.
Coe had not found terra nullius in the Historical Records of Australia, but in the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara, on the 1975 dispute between Algeria and Morocco over Western Sahara. The Algerian lawyers defined terra nullius as a “territory belonging to no-one”. Seldom reported is the Moroccan lawyer’s comment on Algeria’s arguments as a “real piece of intellectual conjuring”.6
Coe rightly sensed the usefulness of terra nullius for the emerging political arguments in favour of Aboriginal land rights. Today it scarcely seems possible that in the mid-1970s Senator Neville Bonner argued in the Senate for recognition of the Aborigines’ prior ownership of the land without using the term. If terra nullius were accepted as the basis of British settlement, the opportunities for eternal legal battles over land were alluring, but Coe’s arguments went nowhere. His case was dismissed by Justice Mason, and two years later, in 1979, his appeal was heard by four High Court Justices. Returning to the courtroom, Coe argued both terra nullius and that Australia had been conquered by the British. His case was disorganised and badly prepared. In dealing with it Justice Gibbs called it “embarrassing”, while recognising “that some of the allegations hint at the existence of questions that might be regarded as arguable”.7
It was the dissenting opinion of Justice Lionel Murphy which moved terra nullius into modern Australian politics. Summing up Coe’s case, he made terra nullius – which appeared in no dictionaries or history books, and very few texts on international law – seem to be the accepted legal and historical explanation of Australian sovereignty.
The term moved from the High Court to the historians, seemingly as something that had always been firmly imbedded in the 18th Century.
In 1980 Professor Alan Frost wrote an article, New South Wales as Terra Nullius: the British Denial of Aboriginal Land Rights”.8 He defined it as “ ‘no person’s land’, that is, belonging to no-one”. Perhaps it could have been made clearer that terra nullius was something to do with international law. Frost gave it historical reality when he wrote that James Cook, on seeing Australia, had to ask two questions:
“Had a population established a right to possess the territory ; or, was it a terra nullius? [I]f it were a terra nullius, was he the first European discoverer of it?”.9
This is supposition, speculation, imagination, but it reads as if it actually happened on the Endeavour.
The phrase was unknown to 18th and 19th Century Australian colonists; it was not referred to in colonial courts or the Privy Council; it was never used by the British government to explain their appropriation of New Holland. It was so new that it didn’t appear in the first edition of the Macquarie Dictionary in 1981. It isn’t in the Oxford English Dictionary. If terra nullius had been sitting in the dictionaries all the time, perhaps it would not so effectively have been able to colonise modern minds.
In 1970 Charles Rowley’s The Destruction of Aboriginal Society put forward a modern tragic version of Australian history, and did not mention terra nullius. Building on Rowley’s work, Henry Reynolds rapidly became the best known and most trusted historian on Aboriginal and white conflict. He was prolific; he dealt with the media skilfully, and his books were quickly accepted into schools and universities. Admitting he had never heard of terra nullius as late as the 1960s, by the late-1980s it was the theoretical underpinning for his best-selling narratives of racial conflict.10
In 1987 Reynolds published The Law of the Land. A book called The Law of the Land should never have been written by an historian. A lawyer, a judge should have done it – and preferably a dull, boring, conscientious creature seriously concerned to do justice to the topic.
https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SGSocUphAUCon/2004/7.html
And I must say your last para reminds me of a former abusive poster by the name of Roger.
Whatever rocks your revisionist boat, Roslyn. Take care and be well. 🤝
Revisionist means a change, to revise something older. I present original facts so they cannot be revisionist.
The revisionist history for Australia began to be written/invented in the 1960’s. The data from 1788 up to about 1950 is reliable particularly when accessing Aboriginal Protector’s Reports (beancounters); Missionary records (reading through the God talk); journals, records, reports of explorers, botanists, anthropologists, archaeologists, settlers, police and any other source from the times. The newspapers beyond their purple prose, and even then, a taste for the sensational, are also good sources and Trove is invaluable.
Keep it factual please. Roslyn, please substntiate. Xiu, comment or argue with fact against it.
Everything pertinent to the discussion was laid out in a factual manner, and substantiated with factual sources. When this fails and, scientifically speaking, the perceived logical incoherence kicks in, there is no point in keeping up with the afactual, i.e. void discussion. Especially not when the latter has entered the domain of, again scientifically(factually) speaking, theory of bullshit (Meibauer, 2016). 🤷🏼
Your sources were not substantive. We were discussing Terra Nullius and I challenged your interpretation and provided data to show you were wrong.
You posted a link from Google scholar, for heaven's sake, something kids use, which brought up a heap of sources for genocide, not Terra Nullius.
The other link, Australian Native Tribe is not an academic or professional site but a propaganda site which does not even appear in a general search and neither is their information on the page your link brings up providing information as to who is behind the site. That does not cut it. As a basic to be credible you need to state who you are and your qualifications for the material you are presenting.
As an example of how unprofessional the site Native Tribes is, it presents a page on Unveiling the Indigenous Essence: A Journey Through Australia’s Cities with Their Original Names.
Now, since there were no cities before the British built them the original names of the cities were and are the names the British gave them. Any of those cities would have had a few tribal aboriginal clans hunting through the area where the city was built but those groups were at war with each other so whose name is chosen to represent those early peoples? Pick one of six or ten.
And that page uses a map which if you go to the source of the map you find admits it is guesswork and it is a language/dialect map and not a map indicating areas where tribal clan groups were permanently resident. The map is dishonest and you would know that by tracking down the source of the map and finding out who put it together. It is not hard.
The map alone says to anyone who has studied Australia's history that the site is not reliable.
I did substantiate. Not sure what you believe I missed. XIU who is Roger in Asian form, posted two links. One was a generic google search on genocide and the topic was Terra nullius and the other was a non-academic website for aboriginal issues. Neither provided the data required.
I posted a link to an article on Terra Nullius, from Dr Michael Connor in the Australasian Legal Information Unit. At the bottom of the article which runs through the history, the real factual history of the use of the term Terra Nullius, there are substantive sourced end notes. I am not sure how much more I could provide in terms of factual data.