Proposed restriction on access to Lake Eyre

Yes …When does it end …..?? The almost inevitable criticism every time any aboriginal body makes a decision to exert their rights.

In this situation the quote:

"We are proud to share this part of our Country but we urge you to respect our Ularaka (stories), lore and culture and not enter the lake,”

The standard responses by many tend to be about 'perceived loss’, & somehow overlook the word ’share’.

Cuppa, "When does it end" refers to the never ending locking up of MY country, the word "share" means something completely different to some sections of the Australian population.

Yes John, I am well aware of what you meant. Sadly that sort of view is not yours alone.

Similar responses about a perception of MY country, rather than OUR country arise every time aboriginal people assert their rights, but somehow the same response rarely occurs when anyone else, individuals, companies, corporations do the same.

Some simply cannot accept that aboriginal people have any land rights.

If you came onto my property & started messing it up & I told you to stop messing it up or bugger off, I cannot imagine for a moment that there would be any outcry of ‘When does it end?’ but if it is on aboriginal land it happens every time.

Cuppa, I stand corrected, OUR country. You are right, if I came onto your land you can rightfully tell me to bugger off, as can the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders tell me to bugger off from THERE land, but where does it stop? Have a look at the map, the percentage of OUR country under control or under claim by 3% of our population is absurd, that is why I say, "When does it end?

"According to its latest figures, the Native Title Tribunal has determined that 49.3 per cent of the Australian continent now belongs to Aboriginal people. And there are still more claims waiting for another 13.4 per cent of the continent to be formally determined. So the combined total of land to be defined by the tribunal as belonging to Aboriginal people now amounts to 62.7 per cent of the continent. Only 37.3 per cent of the continent belongs to the rest of us".

John, [SIGH]

It is attitudes such as displayed in your posts in this thread, underpinned by a relentless distrust of aboriginal people, which result in a willingness to share being gradually rescinded.

Thus it is this very distrust which is the root cause of the problem you perceive .

If instead a sense of gratefulness & respect were to replace that distrust, the loss of access that you perceive as increasing would not be so.

Stop blaming aboriginal people for exercising their rights & be prepared to trust & to respectfully share & your problem stops being a problem.

No, don't leave Pinko, the original post was meant to be in the "Joke" section. Bit like that divisive referendum last year.

If you read the history of the Lake you will find that the locals would not go near it because it was haunted and were scared of it.
It is all about control and money, farmers who wish to landform their farms are paying large amounts of money for cultural surveys, as are land developers. Wait till they get water allocated to them from the Murray Darling basin plan, they will sell that water on the temporary market for a quid.
Our local council was putting a walking track beside a local creek until they received a stop work notice from the local tribe. They had to pay $3.2 million of ratepayers money to allow the footpath to go ahead.
Cuppa go and cry on someone else's shoulder, I have had enough. Anyway I swam and boated in the lake in 1975 and it was real salty and they can have it.

Lindsay, how can you read the history?
They never developed a written language so their history was passed down by Chinese whispers with each generation adding bits and forgetting bits and basically making it up as they go along.
When I was a lad growing up in an outback town with a high percentage of indigenous residents from time to time, their culture any one person did not own anything but it was for everyone to share. How billions of dollars change history hey.

Lindsay - any crying on any shoulders belongs to the 'When does it end’ mob who fail to understand that they are the cause of their own grief ;)

Cuppa I don’t understand what you mean when you say that is we respect the aboriginal people the issue goes away

Are you saying they won’t continue to lock these places up if we show them respect or……..

Pretty much Alby…… given time. Showing genuine & consistent respect is a basic buildng block of establishing trust.

If the amount of effort which goes into maintaining division were put into genuine ways of co-existing, of walking together, then I have no doubt that offers of sharing which are currently ignored would be very possible. However to believe that one first has to believe that aboriginal peoples are not inherently bad/worthless peoples as many choose to believe.

So long as things remain as they are, we will remain on a lose-lose path. It doesn’t have to be like that.

I very much believe we (Australia) missed a significant opportunity to change the course of that path with the failed referendum, which some here still like to crow about as a some sort of victory despite the fact that they also continue to complain in just the same way as they did prior to & during the referendum - so I fail to see how it was it a victory for anyone other than to keep things as they still are.

Lose-lose. More reason to complain, to point fingers & to blame - to maintain the entrenched dysfunction between black & white. But that, it seems to me, is how some here want it to be. Somehow some seem to need a whipping boy, something to blame & whinge about - but my view is that it is a self fulfilling prophecy, like any form of ‘otherisation’. A case of reap what you sow - in this case more to whinge about - increasing loss of access. A stupid, ignorant & circular set of circumstances which can only change with a preparedness to step of the perpetual merry go round to see things from a different perspective instead of forever doing ‘more of the same ‘ & blaming others because it doesn’t work.

That’s all from me in this thread. I hope that some can respect my views regardless of whether they agree with me.

Cuppa, with regard to the "Voice", did you actually do any of your own research on what a Yes vote would bring about or did you just blindly believe the Lefts propaganda.... me thinks not, end of discussion.

John, no intention to take futile argument (not discussion) around in further circles, but I do take issue with your veiled personal attack inferring that I may have simply followed ‘left propaganda’ without thought.

Of course I did my own research & yes I was a passionate advocate for the Yes vote.

The fact that that the referendum was subject to gross manipulation to ensure it became a Left/Right issue, when fundamentally it was a human rights issue ensured that many were more than happy to be blinded by their tribal (left/right) manipulators & spin doctors.

Your comment suggests that indeed you were (& still are) one of them.

Don’t try to throw mud at me as it only reveals the source of your mud.

Can you give a link to the documentary?

Went searching but nothing came up.

bill

Sorry Bbuzz it must have been an article I read, I can't find a doco either.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/indigenous-communities-end-of-mining-boom/8657418

Allan B, a few responses to your post, but I doubt they will be the responses you seek.

Sadly my ‘drum’ is not loud enough to be ‘heard above the dominant cacophany in this (& many other similar threads). Being shouted down is something I find disappointing , but not surprising, particuarly from our age demographic.

What you appear to miss when you suggest ‘there is little in your argument in regard to compromise', is that I am replying to folk who will not/cannot contemplate compromise. I do agree with you that I will not compromise in seeking compromise, bearing in mind that compromise involves both give & take to reach an outcome which can be considered a win -win.

There often appears to be a disingenuous use of the term compromise which equates not to 'win-win', but rather to ‘win'. ie. compromise used as a synonym for 'resolution’ rather than actual compromise. Just more patronising - telling them how to be & to be happy about it.

Those who think along those lines simply don’t get it, and as long as that sort of approach persists those using it *will* have more & more to whinge about as their access to aboriginal country is increasinglty restricted. Howling of ‘But it’s MY country’ will become ever more shrill. The process is not that different to local councils closing free camps because people abuse the privilege afforded to them.

Your language does not mirror mine. 'Wholesale right- giving’ are your words not mine. Mine were ‘sharing & respect'. My problem is that I cannot understand how you & so many others continue to confuse or misconstrue these very different things.

I don’t accept that there an ‘ongoing & increasing demand for land rights as you suggest. Most Land rights claims are decades old when & if they are granted by our legal system. Certainly there is an increase in exercising those rights today, & the point already made is that this should be expected in light of the lack of respect shown to aboriginal people, their culture & the fact that they have these hard fought for rights.

Much of the ‘howling’ is essentially attempts to deny those rights & the louder the ‘howling’ the more those rights will be exercised. The is no other way as things stand.

I couldn’t agree more with your final sentence about the need for a treaty & ceasing our patronising behaviour, but sadly I also believe that many folk would still far rather ‘finish it once & for all, to ‘win’ & to do away with all semblance of aboriginal culture - the antithesis of a treaty.

Bit of a problem with a couple of things you mention.

First off Australia was never invaded and if the British did what the Spanish and Portuguese did, there would be no Aboriginal people left today.

Secondly re the Treaty.

Australia had around 800 different clans of aboriginal people on colonisation.

They were never a united group and in many cases hated other groups with a passion.

One aboriginal that I knew from the APY lands hated the Pititjanjurra with a passion.

Bobby was born on the land but a Yankunytjatjara man and one time during our many great chats, he made the bold statement, “ one day we are going to get our land back?”

I then quizzed hm what do you mean you have all your land in the APY Lands.

He then said, no those bloody Pitjantjatjara….

What are you on about…..

In around 1910 the Pitjantjatjara invaded Bobby’s home land and won the battle, they were a smaller group but very fierce.

So for over 110 years Bobby’s mob hated the Pitjantjatjara for what they did and took.

The trouble is all the so called do gooders think that because they were all black, they loved each other….which is very far from the true.

They may have been black, but so were the English and French all white hundreds of years ago with no love loss between the two countries.

.
Cuppa, I am disappointed. Considering the expressed criticisms by some white people on land-rights exercises, I offered you opportunity to express your thoughts on the subject. Instead, your reply set out to criticise the expressions of my question and descended into semantics.

I would have thought that my use of the term "compromise" would have been clear to you, but you deflected that by referring to misuse of the word. I do understand the meaning of the word and did not seek a lecture on its perceived misuse. I did not seek your perceptions of current behaviour but
did say that "would really like to learn your considerations" of a way forward.

I referred to "wholesale right-giving policies" which you seem to prefer calling "sharing & respect". Nice words but with no bona fide meaning. The whole point of the public unease is that there is often no "sharing" in access. it is perceived as a grant of suburban property title with exclusive rights.

But if you decline my genuine invitation to express your views on a practical way forward and put aside the complaints of some commenators then I am truly disappointed.

.
Hi Stephen,

If Australia was "never invaded" then what word would you use? Occupy, conquer, take over, secure, overwhelm, or something else?

In 1770 Lieutenant James Cook climbed to the highest point of Possession Island and claimed the east coast of the Australian continent for Britain, naming it New South Wales.
In 1787 Captain Arthur Phillip commanding two armed RN ships and nine others sailed into Botany Bay then soon repositioned to Port Jackson to disembark at the place now known as "the Rocks". On board were 228 armed Marines and 972 other people.
If I was standing on the shore I think I would have called it an invasion. They certainly were not cruise ships. From there we have proceeded to occupy and define "our" territory extensively.

On the issue of Treaty, is your story to suggest that having a large number of discrete Aboriginal "clans" would preclude the possibility of raising a Treaty? That is a question for people more expert than myself in such matters but it could be better than what we have now and would be nice to try.

I call it Colonisation.

In todays terms, the word invasion is what Russia did to Ukraine, with the intention of claiming if as part of their homelands, mass distraction, killing every Ukraine they see etc.

Yes there were many shocking stories of what the new Aussies did, but you never hear of the good things they did.

Cheers

Stephen

Allan, I recognised your request , but my answer in the context of this thread was to a wider ‘audience than just yourself. This is not about you or me, It is about the difficulty in seeking compromise when different ‘languages ‘ ( culture) involved.


I deliberately avoided answering your question (hence my opening statement about doubting my response would be what you sought from me.

My reason is that to do so would only serve to draw more argument & I am not seeking to argue. There has been far too much of that for far too long & it hasn’t helped a bit.

What we need to do is something we haven’t done before, something for which there is no charted path or instruction book on how to do it & to expect me in a forum post to come up with a solution is , at least as I interpret it somewhat disingenuous & an invitation only for me to provide a target to be further shot at. I cannot & will not do that. If that was not your intent I apologise, but I still wont attempt to provide what you asked for.

What I will do is suggest, as I have, that for any way forward there are certain things which need to be in place before we can begin exploring that path to a solution together. Those foundations are respect & trust. Without them there is no way forward … at all.

As I see it what we rejected when we voted NO was an opportunity to do things differently in an attempt to establish those foundations. It was a vote which said “We don’t trust’. I think that for many the process leading up to the vote was marred by deliberate politicalisation & disinformation, leading many to vote along political lines. The real possibilities of building some useful foundations for a way forward were all but drowned out in the noise. Even now mention the referendum & the response is more noise.

Much of what has been written by others in this thread echoes precisely that. Distrust. I’m sure many folks on both the white & black side of the fence have what they consider good reason not to trust those over the fence. My point is simply that that is not helpful & we need to find a way past that. The only way to do that is to give some ground, to take a risk, to show good faith ….. and perhaps some vulnerability. Not an easy ask of the tough guys eh?

I was & am incredibly disappointed that Trump style campaigning was so effective, & see the opportunity we rejected as detrimental to every Australian.

I am sorry if you felt my intent was to lecture, it wasn’t. I try to write with integrity about the process as I see it here. Not easy when I am responding to what feels like negativity. I do my best with words, but obviously if you felt lectured my best was not good enough.


I did not suggest, that ‘ Wholesale right -giving policies’ were what I called sharing & respect.

I juxtaposed the two things to demonstrate the huge difference in language that is used when these issues are discussed which can make presumed understanding incorrect. Your response demonstrates that well.

.
Thanks Cuppa, I'm sorry you perceived my invitation to discuss a Treaty as being a bait to argument. Never mind, my interest has lapsed.

.
OK Stephen, 'colonisation' it is then.
Although I thought that came after we declared ownership, stepped ashore and set up uninvited.
The Aboriginals seem to think it was "invasion".
Ahh, words with differing meanings through different eyes?

Personally I couldn't be bothered discussing this "issue" with any Lefty, especially any imported Lefty who couldn't handle life in their own country but has the misguided allusion that they can come to MY country and tell us born and bred Aussies how we should run OUR country. Don't like our attitude, there are many flights outward bound.
My one and only contribution on this issue and will not read any further Lefty responses.
Cheers.

Keep squabling among yourselves and ignoring the big and very real threat.
The Muslims are quietly going about their business under the radar and out breeding all of us.
Soon their very high number of brainwashed children will be of voting age and our culture will be gone forever.

I agree with Stephen L about the aboriginal tribes fighting amongst themselves. They still do it today. The hatred many communities have towards another is quite real. 20 years in remote aboriginal communities taught me that we will never have reconciliation until the aboriginals themselves learn to get along with their fellow people. You only have to see the weekly feuds/riots out west and in the top end to realise something is drastically wrong within many communities with superstitions and rumour pushed until ignition point whereby once again violence breaks out. I couldn't care less whether we invaded the land, we colonised the land etc.etc...the world has been like this since animals landed here. Every species of life seeks to dominate and grow. Life is so short that you can either get on with it and live for today with an eye on the future or you can live for the past and struggle for today with no real future.

.
Qldcamper posted:
"Keep squabling among yourselves and ignoring the big and very real threat.
The Muslims are quietly going about their business under the radar and out breeding all of us.
Soon their very high number of brainwashed children will be of voting age and our culture will be gone forever."

Qc is right of course, but …… "quietly"? ….. I think not.
Credible commentators put it as about 500 years for Australia to have at least 50% of citizens identifying as Muslim, and the number would increase exponentially. Pauline Hanson puts it as a much shorter time but Pauline is not exactly a 'credible commentator'.

Well before that 500 year point, Christianity in Australia will have decayed to below 50% being replaced by atheist. So Muslim dominance has little resistance and will prosper due to the Australian characteristic of "Garn, she'll be right mate, don't worry about it."

Can only imagine what will happen to Aboriginal Dream Songs when that occurs.

Very true Allan, but you don't need 50% of the population to win an election.
A good percentage of citizens will accidentally vote for Muslim representatives because they simply don't look at the ballot papers and just write numbers to get out of there as fast as possible, an increasing number of young people simply don't bother register to vote. In 20 years there will be a substantial percentage of Muslim voters all with a common goal.
You are correct also with Christianity fading in this country because it simply isn't needed any more, I believe that religion is how the powers brainwashed the masses into doing what they wanted,middle eastern religions are still powerful even in Australia.

This follow-up is for Allan.

Hi Allan, thanks for your perceptive contributions here; sounds like you haven't lost your normal good form.

But... one observation, and that is - 500 years or even a bit earlier is a verrrrry long term forecast.

Yes, hopefully the Christians will have finally extincted themselves, but at the same time sensible secularism will also have had it's magic effect on all those of different faiths, as well, in this most marvelous multicultural country that this is Australia...

Cheers.

JB.

.
Hi John,
The numbers and forecast are not mine, I am merely the messenger.
Yes, 500 years is a long time but it could be sooner and the effects will likely be felt well before that time.
Somewhat later in WA of course. lol

Two or three hours later depending on whether it's summer or winter?

So there must be documented history of this DANGER.. right?

The leader of the Opposition is David Speirs.. he has a great track record of standing up to the likes of SA's Dept of Environment Water.. there is 100% two factions within that department - the "Greens" and the "Browns".. the greens want to lock people out of as much as they can.. the browns not so much.

David was also central to getting the new national park just south of Adelaide created and opened to the public (Glenthorne National Park).. it was previously CSIRO land and not accessible to the public.

He was also instrumental in getting some of our reservoirs opened up for Public Access.. much to the chagrin of the Department of Environment and Water (again)..

David's heart is in the right place in all of this.. he's just a clumsy pollie at times.

Abc interview

Three Cheers for David Speirs.