'Gellung Warl' and other Victorian Aboriginal words that are part of Australia's first Treaty

Australia's first treaty with Aboriginal people signed in Victoria

Aboriginalism is Africa's way of saying "Give us" or else.

For a people who originally said "We don't own the land, we are one with the land". They sure have a contradiction to their current pursuit to own land. Now if the are one with the land like a tree or rock. Then by right, they are owned by those who, by global legalisation, who owns that land.

Treaty with First colonisers?  Can't be done.

As for the land grab - all that land long ago passed into consolidated land ownership and is now only available by the same route as everyone else - you can't just say - "Oh, we invaded it first so it must be ours"  these days - you have to buy it since it long ago passed to another entity.

A 21st-century parliament creates an 18th-century treaty using 19th-century racial categories with people whose forebears did not form nations, own land, or exercise sovereignty

Victoria’s so-called “Treaty Process” is not a treaty in any historical, legal, or anthropological sense. It is a political capitulation to organisations whose members, whatever their claimed descent, do not represent the tiny kin-bands that existed in 1835 when Melbourne was founded, nor the clans of 1788 in New South Wales. The same pattern now unfolds in NSW with its path to treaty. Queensland came within months of signing a treaty before its new government shut the process down, and other states signal they may follow Victoria down the same dark path.

The people now claiming treaty have long been absorbed into British and Australian society. They are neither racially nor culturally continuous with the pre-contact groups of 1788 or 1835, and they inherited no political authority from any Aboriginal society capable of treaty-making. Their modern organisations bear no resemblance to the micro-bands that existed at settlement—groups that possessed no sovereignty, no chiefs, no territorial jurisdiction, and no capacity to bind anyone to a treaty.

If a treaty were possible in Australia, it could only have been made at the moment of first settlement, in 1788 at Sydney Cove or in 1835 on the banks of the Yarra. A treaty cannot be made two centuries later to infer rights that no longer exist, or to resurrect political structures that vanished long before Australia became a nation. Whatever rights indigenous groups now claim, land, citizenship, legal protection, property, wages, infrastructure, hospitals, schools were created by British law, funded by British institutions, and guaranteed by British sovereignty. Modern treaty processes attempt to graft contemporary identity politics onto a period where no treaty-capable polities existed, and then demand retrospective benefits built entirely on British exceptionalism. A treaty cannot be written now for peoples who did not possess sovereignty then, nor can it confer rewards in 2025 for rights that did not exist in 1788 or 1835. Any modern “treaty” is therefore not a historical correction but a political invention.

The modern language of “First Nations,” “sovereign peoples,” and “nation-to-nation agreements” is not truth-telling; it is propaganda invented by activists and embraced uncritically by the political class. It bears no resemblance to the micro-societies that inhabited pre-contact Australia, groups that owned no alienable land, whose territories were surrendered/ceded by the very act of settlement, and who had no political system capable of treaty-making at all.


Read the rest here
https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/aborigines/treaty-as-exercise-in-the-surre...

Brian Ross wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2025 at 10:34am:


Hardly a real blackfella amongst them.

Lot of pretenders there.

Especially that former Premier scumbag in the front.

Done nothing of value for Victoria - just made it woke & sent it broke, turned it into a terrorist supporting protesting crime haven ...... BYO machetes.