A small correction. Yours is the common and popular definition, especially for lefty types. The legal doctrine of Terra Nullius actually means land not claimed by any Nation or Government. From the Latin, nobodies land. Eg Cook the explorer was supposed to make treaties with “native” governments, kings etc. Which he did or tried to do wherever he went. But when he got to Oz they couldn’t find any, or any organisation visible beyond a nomadic Stone Age family group. So no treaties or agreements. Torres Strait is very different, no Aborigines at all. Those people had boats, market gardens, bows and arrows etc. They generally showed they just wanted you to leave by trying (often successfully) to kill you, no talking or treaties needed. Eddie Marbo was Torres Strait Islander (TI), had a property dispute with other TI, and proved in Australia Court they did have a traditional system of land ownership, and it was his land and fish traps etc. Aborigines after this were granted legislated rights over land, as they couldn’t prove the same as the TI.
How ignorant that statement is Aboriginal law is and custom is stringer than TI will ever be they know it but you have to justify your colonism actions because the land mass at stake and natural resourceses
Terra Nullius does not mean no one was there, it maeans that the land belonged to no one. Extension of that is that there is no nation claiming ownership - including no Aboriginal person, king, chief, Presodent. The largest political unit in pre 1788 Aboriginal culture is the extended family - -Grand parents down to toddlers.
😂😂😂 how con venient for yas,if we was ere then obviously it was our home,we had laws and territories ere,how con venient you people made rules that benefited your own kind and rob bed us of everything,really con venient lies
Don't you know white people own the whole world that's why they are always invading land Wether it's black people lands or middle eastern God I can't stand these demons in human form
@@aaronfranklin6863 Maybe this is your inconvenient truth - there were no "First Nations" before the British arrived i n Australia and anybody telling you otherwise is a liar. Lydia Thorpe thought she could label the settlers, but her own have proven that what I have written is fact, sorry. The current referendum will not help those Aborigines in rural and remote areas - it is a power grab by the so called east coast elites ns communist/socialist ideologues in Canberra. My Aboriginal friends are urging me to vote no, and I urge everyone to do likewise.
Some 500 tribes with different languages and customs. There were some 600-800 dialects. So who would the British form a treaty with when there was no leadership or nation.? That would have been impossible.
Lol, I love how you just assume that the British taking over was fine/inevitable and it's just a shame that the peoples here weren't organised in a way that made it convenient. I guess the option of not violently invading and appropriating a continent wasn't on the table?
@@LlywellynOBrien Since when did humans ever shy away from land grabs to increase their tribes access to resources. This would include Aboriginal tribes before the British tribe's arrival in 1788. How else would the boundaries of the roughly 500 Aboriginal Nations have been forged? Unless you think it was polite conversations around the campfire. Aboriginal law may stipulate that a people should not trespass on another's ancestral lands without permission, but you don't need permission if your intent is to wipe out your neighbor and take their land.
@@LlywellynOBrien Just noting the obvious that unfortunately human history is violent no matter which continent we talk about. Hopefully we can do better in future.
Probly didn’t count them because there were so few to start with ,I doubt there were that many because of the “sacred sites” that I know in the Berowra valley, in particular,middens ,where aboriginals ate shellfish together ,don’t show a big concentration of discarded shells ,indicating it wasn’t a big tribe that lived there
Colonisation of Australia in the 1700's was absolutely inevitable. It could have been the French or Dutch or Spanish or Portuguese. We have to thank our lucky stars it was the British. If it had been any of the others, we would still be a colony and the original population would have been far worse off.
Yep! What most Aborigines don't seem to understand is that other more advanced people were in the process of exploring the World and creating Empires to help alleviate their population problems. So if it wasn't the British who Took Australia it could been any of the other superpowers back in the 18th Century. It was just a matter of time. After 60 000 years of no technological Advancements meant the Aborigines were going to be taken over by a Superior Civilisation. Thank god it was British and not say the French, Spanish, Dutch or Irish. 😂👍🇬🇧
@@iamgod6464 what whites don’t seem to understand is that whatever faux idea of “advancement” they have means literally nothing, particularly when people in the “advanced civilisation” are living unfulfilling and miserable lives. People don’t exist on a continent for 60,000+ years without being as finely in tune with the environment as is necessary, and not every people group has been bequeathed with the depraved desire to conquer and subjugate other human beings they view as lesser. Also, the suggestion that Ireland (a colony) would even have the opportunity to colonise this continent, let alone commit the genocide that the British did both in Australia and Ireland, says a lot about how convoluted your view of history is. Go back to school
@@iamgod6464 What most whites don’t seem to understand is that their faux idea of “advanced civilisation” means literally nothing and that any society that inhabited the same continent for 60,000+ years would’ve stopped existing entirely if they hadn’t fine tuned the art of living sustainable, fulfilling lives without the need for 9-5 office jobs and 6 lane motorways. Claiming that Ireland (a colony) ever even had a prospect of colonising this continent, let alone committing a crime so heinous as those committed by the BRITISH in Australia AND Ireland also says a lot about your terribly convoluted view of history. Go back to school
The key is in the name "aborigine". It means NOT original. The prefix "ab" means "not" or "away from". The term "aborigine" was coined by Pope Urban VI to describe natives (Indians) who were NOT the original persons or species, indigenous to the lands they invaded. King George III and his East India Company were on a land grab. The ownership of the earth belongs to the Ellines (Greeks) who are the First Nation, and for a time, the only nation. "Terra Nullius" was an ideological fiction applied by the Roman overlords and their successors, to effect possession over all Ellines (Greek) land around the earth. The "aborigines" were not "stone age" as claimed, but a remnant of the vast Dravidian invasion that was launched by the East India Company. The "aborigines" were left as "sappers" to fend for themselves. They had no skills in food or shelter production because they were warriors (kshatriyas). When they ran out of food, tribalism, fighting and cannibalism became rife. One might say that King George III of the East India Company, who employed them in the first place, was their "King". However, he and his Company and the British were trespassing in the first place. King George's servants ate the Ellines (Greek) people and their King so the Ellines (Greek) King couldn't come forward to claim the land either. Clever George! His successors knew, that they could not build a civilization without a touch of Ellines (Greeks). Too bad they were all dead by "aboriginal" genocide. The Ellines (Greek) people's closest relatives lived in Anatolia. The Anatolians and other Ellines (Greeks) were later forced by genocide, committed against them this time by the Turks (who are relatives of the "aborigines"), to form part of a multiethnic working class in Australia.
Comment mainly for the algorithm. Thanks for the content. Very worthwhile. And rare.
A small correction. Yours is the common and popular definition, especially for lefty types. The legal doctrine of Terra Nullius actually means land not claimed by any Nation or Government. From the Latin, nobodies land. Eg Cook the explorer was supposed to make treaties with “native” governments, kings etc. Which he did or tried to do wherever he went. But when he got to Oz they couldn’t find any, or any organisation visible beyond a nomadic Stone Age family group. So no treaties or agreements.
Torres Strait is very different, no Aborigines at all. Those people had boats, market gardens, bows and arrows etc. They generally showed they just wanted you to leave by trying (often successfully) to kill you, no talking or treaties needed.
Eddie Marbo was Torres Strait Islander (TI), had a property dispute with other TI, and proved in Australia Court they did have a traditional system of land ownership, and it was his land and fish traps etc. Aborigines after this were granted legislated rights over land, as they couldn’t prove the same as the TI.
How ignorant that statement is Aboriginal law is and custom is stringer than TI will ever be they know it but you have to justify your colonism actions because the land mass at stake and natural resourceses
Terra Nullius does not mean no one was there, it maeans that the land belonged to no one. Extension of that is that there is no nation claiming ownership - including no Aboriginal person, king, chief, Presodent. The largest political unit in pre 1788 Aboriginal culture is the extended family - -Grand parents down to toddlers.
😂😂😂 how con venient for yas,if we was ere then obviously it was our home,we had laws and territories ere,how con venient you people made rules that benefited your own kind and rob bed us of everything,really con venient lies
Don't you know white people own the whole world that's why they are always invading land Wether it's black people lands or middle eastern God I can't stand these demons in human form
@@aaronfranklin6863 Maybe this is your inconvenient truth - there were no "First Nations" before the British arrived i n Australia and anybody telling you otherwise is a liar. Lydia Thorpe thought she could label the settlers, but her own have proven that what I have written is fact, sorry. The current referendum will not help those Aborigines in rural and remote areas - it is a power grab by the so called east coast elites ns communist/socialist ideologues in Canberra. My Aboriginal friends are urging me to vote no, and I urge everyone to do likewise.
Some 500 tribes with different languages and customs. There were some 600-800 dialects. So who would the British form a treaty with when there was no leadership or nation.? That would have been impossible.
! tribe at a time.
Lol, I love how you just assume that the British taking over was fine/inevitable and it's just a shame that the peoples here weren't organised in a way that made it convenient. I guess the option of not violently invading and appropriating a continent wasn't on the table?
@@LlywellynOBrien Since when did humans ever shy away from land grabs to increase their tribes access to resources. This would include Aboriginal tribes before the British tribe's arrival in 1788. How else would the boundaries of the roughly 500 Aboriginal Nations have been forged? Unless you think it was polite conversations around the campfire. Aboriginal law may stipulate that a people should not trespass on another's ancestral lands without permission, but you don't need permission if your intent is to wipe out your neighbor and take their land.
@@redbomberr4594 I don't really follow your point. Of course conflict existed both within and between groups before colonisation?
@@LlywellynOBrien Just noting the obvious that unfortunately human history is violent no matter which continent we talk about. Hopefully we can do better in future.
Probly didn’t count them because there were so few to start with ,I doubt there were that many because of the “sacred sites” that I know in the Berowra valley, in particular,middens ,where aboriginals ate shellfish together ,don’t show a big concentration of discarded shells ,indicating it wasn’t a big tribe that lived there
Vote No
Colonisation of Australia in the 1700's was absolutely inevitable. It could have been the French or Dutch or Spanish or Portuguese. We have to thank our lucky stars it was the British. If it had been any of the others, we would still be a colony and the original population would have been far worse off.
Yep! What most Aborigines don't seem to understand is that other more advanced people were in the process of exploring the World and creating Empires to help alleviate their population problems. So if it wasn't the British who Took Australia it could been any of the other superpowers back in the 18th Century. It was just a matter of time. After 60 000 years of no technological Advancements meant the Aborigines were going to be taken over by a Superior Civilisation. Thank god it was British and not say the French, Spanish, Dutch or Irish. 😂👍🇬🇧
I suppose the holocaust wasn’t bad because someone else would’ve done it anyway? What kind of point are you even trying to make?
@@iamgod6464 what whites don’t seem to understand is that whatever faux idea of “advancement” they have means literally nothing, particularly when people in the “advanced civilisation” are living unfulfilling and miserable lives. People don’t exist on a continent for 60,000+ years without being as finely in tune with the environment as is necessary, and not every people group has been bequeathed with the depraved desire to conquer and subjugate other human beings they view as lesser. Also, the suggestion that Ireland (a colony) would even have the opportunity to colonise this continent, let alone commit the genocide that the British did both in Australia and Ireland, says a lot about how convoluted your view of history is. Go back to school
@@iamgod6464 What most whites don’t seem to understand is that their faux idea of “advanced civilisation” means literally nothing and that any society that inhabited the same continent for 60,000+ years would’ve stopped existing entirely if they hadn’t fine tuned the art of living sustainable, fulfilling lives without the need for 9-5 office jobs and 6 lane motorways. Claiming that Ireland (a colony) ever even had a prospect of colonising this continent, let alone committing a crime so heinous as those committed by the BRITISH in Australia AND Ireland also says a lot about your terribly convoluted view of history. Go back to school
Mcdribble.!!
Would you like lies with that.?!
😂😂😂 don't go there son,lies is your own language like ya daddy tha devol
No one knows !
Dont forget haepatitis B, and Blumberg!
Is this a piss take or what??😂🤣
It's hard to tell, isn't it.
The key is in the name "aborigine". It means NOT original. The prefix "ab" means "not" or "away from". The term "aborigine" was coined by Pope Urban VI to describe natives (Indians) who were NOT the original persons or species, indigenous to the lands they invaded. King George III and his East India Company were on a land grab. The ownership of the earth belongs to the Ellines (Greeks) who are the First Nation, and for a time, the only nation. "Terra Nullius" was an ideological fiction applied by the Roman overlords and their successors, to effect possession over all Ellines (Greek) land around the earth. The "aborigines" were not "stone age" as claimed, but a remnant of the vast Dravidian invasion that was launched by the East India Company. The "aborigines" were left as "sappers" to fend for themselves. They had no skills in food or shelter production because they were warriors (kshatriyas). When they ran out of food, tribalism, fighting and cannibalism became rife. One might say that King George III of the East India Company, who employed them in the first place, was their "King". However, he and his Company and the British were trespassing in the first place. King George's servants ate the Ellines (Greek) people and their King so the Ellines (Greek) King couldn't come forward to claim the land either. Clever George! His successors knew, that they could not build a civilization without a touch of Ellines (Greeks). Too bad they were all dead by "aboriginal" genocide. The Ellines (Greek) people's closest relatives lived in Anatolia. The Anatolians and other Ellines (Greeks) were later forced by genocide, committed against them this time by the Turks (who are relatives of the "aborigines"), to form part of a multiethnic working class in Australia.
?
Cool spin