A man of influence - wants to rescue Aboriginal affairs from white romantics

Perhaps a little historical perspective is needed here.

The British explorers happen upon the Continent of Australia during the Colonial period and find it sparsely inhabited by a semi-nomadic people who live largely as hunter gathers. These people have no sense of land ownership and the British explorers claim the continent for the British Crown.

The Native Australians having no notions of land ownership and having no government organization beyond the tribal level have no inclination to object to this invasion. In effect all of the land of the Australian Continent becomes the property of the British Government by the law of Conquest.

Cut to the 1970’s Australia has become an independent country and member of the British Commonwealth. White guilt is all the rage in the land. The Australian government decides that the Aboriginals have been treated poorly in having there land taken from them in the colonial days.

Large tracts of land are deeded to the aboriginal tribes with no possibility of land being deeded to individual tribe members.

This has the effect of has the effect of giving one the pride of ownership with none of the financial benefits. The land can not be sold, borrowed against or improved upon with out tribal consent. More or less it is a private reserve for the tribal members.

To the best of my knowledge there is no prohibition to aboriginals owning property outside of the reservations. It seems likely that Mr. Mundine as the owner of a title service would be a property owner.

As for the land coming from the government, it already has, only problem is that it is held in common by the tribes and cannot be bought or sold.

As for increasing dependency at least it would put a time limit on part of the dependency. Eventually the tribal land would be all apportioned to the tribal members.

And the point of exploitation of the new land owners and government adding another link to the chain of Abor. Dependency. Deed restrictions are nothing new. I see no problem in having a deed restriction giving tribal members the right of first refusal on the sale of tribal land for a finite period of time. This would provide some insurance that tribal land would not be low balled to land speculators.

Thank you for replying so quickly to my original post. This is an interesting subjuct, and if it is acceptable to you I would like to continue it a but longer.

================

...Cut to the 1970’s Australia has become an independent country and member of the British Commonwealth. White guilt is all the rage in the land. The Australian government decides that the Aboriginals have been treated poorly in having there land taken from them in the colonial days....
Perhaps you can help me out here: I believe it was in the 1930s or so that for reasons now thought abhorrent various Abor. children were taken to be raised with/a "White" people. Were follow-up studies ever done on these children-now-adults(-now-seniors)? If so, did Nature or nurture prove the winner? I've wondered about that.

Large tracts of land are deeded to the aboriginal tribes with no possibility of land being deeded to individual tribe members.

This then is not private property, it is the Holy Grail of liberalism -- community owned property. Which in turn leads to the old saw: "When everybody owns everything, nobody takes care of anything." And it's curious that all this property was deeded in such a way as to make it impossible for individual members of the tribe to get their own,privately owned, plot of land-- however small. Why? Didn't they trust the Abors.? Didn't they think them (the Abors.) capable of handling/managing private property? If so, is this not an example of the soft bigotry of liberalism?

For it's hard -- nay, impossible -- to treat a group "fairly" when you refuse, in whatever manner, to treat every member of that group like a human being.

This has the effect of has the effect of giving one the pride of ownership with none of the financial benefits.

I question this. There is very little, if any, "pride of ownership" over something that is communally owned. What is keep in better repair, what gives better evidence of pride of place: a communal/welfare housing unit or a privately owned apartment? Your average city park or your average homeowners lawn and garden? Both you and I know that if the two of us unexpectedly dropped by one of these Abor. community-owned reserves, we would find, as I said before, "When everybody owns everything, nobody takes care of anything."

The land can not be sold, borrowed against or improved upon with out tribal consent. More or less it is a private reserve for the tribal members.

With all due respect, what we have here is not a "private reserve". What have here is a white elephant: A vast area of land that can not be divided into private property; that can not be sold; which can not be leased, likewise its mineral, air, and water rights; than can not be used as collateral for loan(s) to be used to improve the land and/or the lives of those who reside there. This land is worse than unproductive -- it is worthless.

Oh, of course,of course, the givers of this land magnanimously added the provision about "tribal consent", but what does that mean? Consent by the tribal leaders? If so, are these leaders elected? Or will decisions on this land be decided by the unelected, unresponsible, and unrespresenative?
Or by "tribal consent" to mean the entire tribe? If this is the case, does it need 100% agreement (ever try and get 100% of a group to agree on anything??), or will a simple majority do? And what if the Abors. decided to divide the land into plots of their own design, and give the land out to tribal members as private property? The government must them step in and forbid this -- per condition. Then, so much for "tribal consent".

As for increasing dependency at least it would put a time limit on part of the dependency.

Good lord, my friend, has there ever been a government that has put a time limit -- and stuck to it -- re: the dependency of its citizen(s) on itself? Dependency = Power, and power is the name of the game.

Eventually the tribal land would be all apportioned to the tribal members.

"Eventually" is the key word here, seeing that it has been a few centuries already.

And the point of exploitation of the new land owners and government adding another link to the chain of Abor. Dependency. Deed restrictions are nothing new. I see no problem in having a deed restriction giving tribal members the right of first refusal on the sale of tribal land for a finite period of time. This would provide some insurance that tribal land would not be low balled to land speculators.

Again may be detected the subtle presence of the soft bigotry of liberalism. We do not impose limits, conditions, provisos, restrictions, et. al. in the name of "protecting them" on people we consider our equals. As I said before, one can't be fair to group until and unless one treats each individual in that group like a human being.

Yes, there are always those concerns but life isn't fair.

It's time to unchain these people and give them the opportunity to prosper on their own.

And the Left keeps telling them they can't do it without them.
But what's interesting is, capitalism works where ever it's tried.

Merry Christmas.

I imagine many individual Aborigines would like to take the money and run.

Let them use this nest egg to invest in other ventures or to move freely into society with some change in their purse.

Integration into society will be good for them and their descendent's. Of course LIBERALS/environmentalists don't want that. They want all these native groups to remain unhealthy, uneducated and scratching in the dirt rather than have us impose our culture on them. Who in the hell gave these elites on high the right to hold these people back?

Good points.

"As for government: "It has been an enslaver of Aboriginal people for 200 years. It's time we got them out of the way so we can move on independently."

I think this statement says it all....and is reflective of native cultures across the globe. These people should have the right to develp their land like any other population. "We" have tried, unsucessfully to "manage" these populations, as if they were zoological specimans. First we attempted conversion, later the politically correct decided it would be best if they went back to their tribal roots. Enough already.