Land that belongs to nobody but belongs to us.
on November 7, 2007
Category: Racism, The World
“Before white settlers arrived, Australia’s indigenous peoples lived in houses and villages, and used surprisingly sophisticated architecture and design methods to build their shelters, new research has found….
The findings, by the anthropologist and architect Dr Paul Memmott, of the University of Queensland, discredits a commonly held view in Australia that Aborigines were completely nomadic before the arrival of Europeans 200 years ago.
The belief was part of the argument used by white settlers to claim that Australia was terra nullius - the Latin term for land that belonged to nobody.
Few of the original buildings remain, because “local authorities burned or bulldozed the structures in the belief they were health hazards.”
The original piece is from the UK Guardian and reposted in Reason Magazine. If you want or need to grasp the mindset of the “white settlers” who claimed Australian land belonged to nobody therefore they had a right to take what they wanted, then read the comments of today’s equivalent.
The white colonizers were right in stating the land belonged to nobody. This was the essence of indigenous society - a communal respect for the environment and the land which was shared by everyone and whether they build permanent homes or were nomadic or both is irrelevant. But instead the colonizers came and commodified not only the environment (resources) and the land but also people. The indigenous people did not have any sanctions for trespass because you can only trespass on land that is owned. The colonizers used this as an excuse to take what they wanted and then build walls and fences by creating laws of ownership and trespass.
In Tasmania the whole indigenous population was wiped out yet there is still a debate as to whether genocide took place. In “The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, author Keith Windschuttle argues that it did not whilst the various authors of the Colonial Genocide Project insist that it did. The argument of against genocide does not hold up for the simple fact that in a space of some 30 to 40 years the whole indigenous population were gone. The point whether their deaths were as a result of a systematic colonial government policy is difficult to refute. The indigenous people fought for the right to remain on the land that was owned by nobody and maintain their dignity for which they were killed. They were killed because of who they were. The Colonial Genocide Project lists “the incidents of kidnapping and multiple killings of Aborigines by the colonists between 1803 and 1835″.
Thanks to Emeka of Timbuktu Chronicles for sending me the link to Reason Magazine
Tags:
Sphere: Related Content
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.blacklooks.org/2007/11/land_that_belongs_to_nobody_but_belongs_to_us_.html/trackback
11 Comments so far
1. Djarro Lambadgee
November 8th, 2007 at 1:29 am
All humans depend on the four elements, Earth, Wind, Fire and Water…Nobody own’s the Wind, but every breath we take gives us life…Water falls free from the sky, nobody has the right to put Water in a bottle and sell it to us…We don’t own the Land, but we own our Sovereign Space…The Land represent’s our Sovereign Space…The Land or country is part and parcel of our Sovereign Space…Nobody can steal or own The Sovereign Space of another…In our Culture and Society, men owned land for the purpose of hunting…whole families owned large tract’s of land, hunter/gathers need a lot of land…whether they were nomadic or living in one area for a season…i use the word ‘own’ because the particular area which was used by a man and his family was respected as his and his families Sovereign Space…or his country…and he was respected as a Sovereign within his own Sovereign Space…
2. anengiyefa
November 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Djarro Lambadgee, am I correct in assuming that you are a native Australian?
3. Djarro Lambadgee
November 21st, 2007 at 2:27 am
Anengiyefa…in response to your assumption…the answer is ‘NO’…i’am not native australian…but i’am Kamerran…before the english invaded our country and called our country australia…we called our land, Kamerra…which means…”Red Mother Earth”…i absolutely refuse to call myself australian or native australian and i absolutely hate the name/word aborigine also…
4. Sokari
November 21st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Djarro @ Thank you for letting us know the real name for the colonial land known as Australia. I am sure many readers do not know this. I too hate the word/name aborigine so again thanks for letting us know “Kamerran”
5. anengiyefa
November 21st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Djarro, I was careful to avoid using the word aborigine. But as Sokari has attested, most people do not know Kamerra. Thanks fo telling us.
6. Djarro Lambadgee
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 am
Thankyou very much Anengiyefa and many more thanks to you also Sokari..it has become my personal mission to tell the correct name of my country to the international community…The name Kamerra also means ‘Sacred County’…the name and the land was held in such reverence and respect that nobody dared to speak the name…but since the arrival of europeans…the sacredness of our land has been defiled beyond description…so our Lawmen and Lawwomen released the name 15 years ago…but we are expected to speak the name with the same reverence and respect…many of my own people do not know the name kamerra…so i’am educating them also…the name/word aborigine actually means “To take From the Original and To Dispose of the Original”…this is actually a genocidal word legislated in the same manner as casting a bad spell…with the intention of committing genocide…the bad spell in the word/name ‘ab’ is…Repulse,Repel,Reject,Remove…if your look at every word in the english dictionary beginning with ‘ab’…you will feel that bad energy…eg;Abortion,Abduct,Abandon,Abuse…
7. ana
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Djarro Lambadgee,Thanks for the information.This is true testament that we learn every day from each other. I will never, ever use the word aborigenes anymore.Kamerra is a lovely name.
I am Afro Panamanian and I remember there was the same situation with one of our ethnic indigenous groups. Everyone ignorantly used to refer to them as Chocos, in terms of the region they lived. They were called Chocos because they inhabited the Choco region that divides Panama/Colombia. This wrong information was in the school texts, etc.
It was recentlly, that this particular ethnic Panamanian people came forward and said “we are not Chocos, we are Embera Wounan.” It is tantamount to being called by the wrong name.We all remember the Europeans refering to the people from the upper Northern American region as Eskimos. The proper name for them are Inuits.This foolishness has remained with many even today to continue calling the early American people Indians.Saludos.
8. anengiyefa
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I do have the greatest respect for your views Djarro, but there is also the fact that the “ab” in the word aborigine, may also be from the Latin “ab origine” which literally means “from the begining”, just as “ab initio”, in Latin, means “from the start”.
That said, it is not in doubt that words introduced by the colonialists to describe the indigenous peoples of colonial lands, were often derogatory in their intended meaning, and often associated with primitiveness. For this reason, I too refuse to refer to the various ethnic groups in Africa as “tribes”, because there is a definite sense that the colonialists’ use of the term to describe our different peoples, was meant to indicate (as they saw it) the somewhat primitive nature of our societies.
There are differences amongst the peoples of say, France, or Great Britain. But I havent heard that people of Yorkshire in England(for instance), or the Welsh, as distinct as they are, were referred to as a tribe at anytime within the last few centuries…
9. Djarro Lambadgee
November 29th, 2007 at 11:13 am
anengiyefa…Thankyou for your insight and challenge…you are !00% correct about this meaning of the word/name aborigine…( From the Beginning )This is the definition the colonist gave us also…but they didn’t tell us the flipside of this coin…The word ‘ab’ in the Latin Dictionary actually has 2 meanings…the first is ‘From’ and the second meaning is ‘To Motion Away, Distance and Separation’…remember i’am only talking about the word ‘ab’ here…not the word ‘origine’…but when the word ‘ab’ is added to the word ‘origine’ the meaning of it becomes…’To Take From the Original and To Dispose of The Original’…This really is a War of Words…we have to correct the words in order to make any real difference…
10. anengiyefa
November 29th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Djarro, I agree. I looked it up, and ‘ab’ can also mean ‘of separation’, ‘difference’. Yes, it has now become clear to me that the intention must have been to proclaim a separation
11. Djarro Lambadgee
November 30th, 2007 at 7:34 am
anengiyefa…This was not just a Proclamation of Separation…This is in fact a Genocidal word…The intention is to literally Genocide a whole race off the face of the earth with this word because it really is a war of words…This ‘AB’ word is like a very small capsule loaded with a very dangerous toxic poison…and the poison is…Repulse, Repel, Reject,Remove…This evil spirit energy is buried deep in our psyche…it works on the same princple as witchcraft and sorcery…please understand…this is not just the rantings and ravings of a madman…