If you have lost land in a war or have been settled by a more foreign people's, how many years or generations should pass before you lose all ancestry claim to the land?
How Far Back Do We Accept an Ancient Claim to Land?
Superkid on 30/10/2024 - 00:25
Comments
And parts of Australia
They did win and they did settle.
Post world war 2, Britain and the US trained and gifted 90 ships to the Chinese navy. France wanted to to reclaim previously annexed islands such as the Spratly Island but the Chinese either got to them first or interfered. For 30 years on and off those islands were occupied by PRC or ROC. 1975 the Chinese fought French proxies with the Vietnamese and routed them all. So they claim all those islands.
The US (and the collective West) just refuse to admit it because they know deep down they condoned that part of history by gifting the original ships and sat on their hands laughing at the French. Till it's no longer funny in the 21st Century.
Philippines crying about inhabitable islands when they all their cities are inhabitable.
Sounds like this is personal to you…It's not just the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei also have claims as well.
Yes Philippines is literally the worst country in SEA, they should pull their head out and focus on what matters.
Yes Philippines is literally the worst country in SEA, they should pull their head out and focus on what matters.
Please tell us what happened to you that you appear to loathe the Philippines so much.
@TightAl: Isn't it more fair that every country around the sea, gets to claim an equal portion? Why does 1 country get to claim the entire area?
@arkie0: How is it fair that every country around PH has trains and metros, and average PH ride in jeepneys lol.
Equality on things that matter sir
The side with the bigger guns usually wins the claim. A tale as old as time.
This reminds me, oh god it's going to be a dumpster fire when/if South Korea reclaim land occupied by North Korea. North Korea and China made deals under the table around the border from my understanding, and it is not gonna be pretty.
Though, I guess it won't be pretty full stop given the political mess unification would cause.
I guess this is an example of complications caused by external stakeholder involvement.
South Korea wouldn't claim that land because they wouldn't want to claim millions of unskilled migrants and destroy their economy.
Unification side of things have been discussed previously including introducing tax to prepare for the cost of unification.
Korea did observe what Germany had to go through, and I think realistically speaking, affording the unification will cause huge issues.
I feel like it's ideological motives rather than economical, though younger you are more you tend to not support unification (culturally the countries have been separated for 70+ years). You have older generation of people who say it needs to happen and younger generation who are not as invested in that idea (and would likely be the ones who have to pay).
There may be other reasons as well (technically South Korea does not recognise North as its own country, they are illegal occupants of the land that belongs to them).
As I said, a mess.
4 potentially 5 Generations should be it in practical terms, you wont have had enough of a verifiable connection beyond that.
According to my homeland (UK and Ireland), occupation is ongoing, there is no right to claim and new migrants get greater claims than indigenous populations.
These rules tend to only apply to some. The rest of us have to put up with the victors determining policy and owning territory.
Fundamentally, I have no issue with that. So long as that rule applied to all peoples in all places
over 9000
How Far Back Do We Accept an Ancient Claim to Land?
75 years
75 years
Why? I s that when you first bought your house?
The average life expectancy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia from 2020–2022 was 71.9 years for males and 75.6 years for females:
So I rounded it to 75
It's been 76 years so the claim is now void
0 A.D.
0 B.C.
The point when it was just 0.
Gregory starts with a letter G!
You lose claim as soon as the government loses the war and the winner rewrites the laws.
Of course you can overthrow the new government and get it all assigned back.No time limits, invade any random country so long as you think you can win both the war and survive the economic sanctions from their friends.
Waiting for the Australian government to be overthrown by the Aboriginal people (or anyone really).
Hey I’m sensing the sarcasm … but to be fair they did fight back in a long bloody war. Spears are just ineffective against rifles and shot guns. It was purely a technological advantage. Once they were devastated creating dependency and addiction was the easy part.
And then you get it back when you use the conqueror's own legal system against them and win
1615 years
0 seconds
If a military might takes over land I think that's it.
You're free to have a rematch at any time if you can raise an army.
There is no ancient claim to land. None.
Like all property land does not belong to peoples. It belongs to a person. They obtain it from another person by a legal process. Like inheritance or purchase. It does not belong to a person who obtained it by an illegal process, like stealing it. But once the person who owned it when it was stolen is dead, and so is the person they would have passed it on to, that breaks the chain of legal ownership. So does a scenario that totally rewrites the laws of ownership.
So I sympathise with the native people of Australia, and New Zealand, and Taiwan and Japan, and lots of other places, but history can't be rewound and "fixed". You can not throw a child out of a land they were born in. They do not inherit the guilt of their parents who stole it. You just have to make the best of what happened back then, and stop it when it is happening today before it becomes facts on the ground. Like with the Jewish "settlements" in Palestine, while the people who are the legal owners, or at least their children, are still alive to get back what it being stolen off them. Because once its history, its history. Like the Jews claim that Israel belongs to them.
claim that Israel belongs to them.
It's probably the only country with a 3000-year history, which began in 1948.
So I sympathise with the native people of Australia, and New Zealand, and Taiwan and Japan, and lots of other places, but history can't be rewound and "fixed".
Except for many of these there was actually no change of ownership (Mabo) or there was a treaty which should have been legally binding but was not followed (NZ, USA)
It belongs to a person
that isnt how property rights work. My property rights are not extinguished by theft; and my property rights go to my beneficiary and become their property rights and so on down the chain. Unless you belief that theft does extinguish property rights.
Now if you frame this as 'conquering' vs 'theft' then its a different legal issue. Had the British (for example) accepted that they were conquering Australia then there would be no native title rights.
I just hope both sides are having fun :)
When one side is homeless and one is not. I dont imagine being homeless can be fun. They never seem to be enjoying their day.
Depends on who wins and what the international rules say.
In other words speak to a lawyer and stop trolling.
Most land in Australia are now purchased by the Chinese or Indians, They work hard and build the biggest houses on them, while we Aussies just end up renting from them
Nothing in that sentence is true.
You can obtain land in many ways. They are just playing the game.
i dont want to sit another 1 month ban ….so ill leave it at that
You are fearful of an internet ban on a website. What do you do when your Speedo reaches the speed limit. Pass a number 2 in your pants?
To answer the original question - I think ancestry claims to land should be compensated in some form while the people whose land was taken are doing worse than the people who took it.
At the very least, indigenous Australians should have free access to the best healthcare and education while the disparity in health and education between them and people who took their land remains so great.
I’ll add: I don’t feel guilt for owning land in Australia. However the institutions we created to help us were built on the income from stolen land. We should use those institutions to help the people who were harmed by this.
Compensation - Tribals and nomads didn’t own land. They moved from place to place in search of food. They were territorial at most so what ancestral claim?
Also, taking compensation makes indigenous people weaker. No more priviledge after that, “got paid, now equal.”Free healthcare and education - Look there are two ways of life. Civilised or Uncivilised.
If you wanna live jobless, no contribution, off the grid, away in a remote corner. Good Luck but no free stuff for you. If you hurt your knee in the jungle, call your witch doctor. If he can’t help, you rot and die. No free knee replacement for you. Only basic healthcare for you.
If your kids don’t like the nomadic way, they are free to enter civilised way. Free education for them but when they grow up, they work for their own money. No free car.Guilt - And humans think they own land and they have right to own the land. Its wrong way of thinking.
Actually, you have duty or custody to protect and take care of land.
As long as you keep the land in your custody natural and sustainable, don’t feel guilty.For me, it doesn't really matter whether they owned the land. They had a way of life and living with land that that was mostly devastated when the settlers came. So much so, that their communities and lives fell apart. This devastation occurred because of the settlers - even if you only considered the diseases they brought.
So I think it is moral to offer top quality healthcare and education free to the indigenous people while they are still suffering the effects of colonisation.
Aside: I'm not sure there is much of a difference between "having custody of land" and "owning land" if in both cases you can use the power of the state to remove people from your land.
How long should their way of life be subsidised? Why are we flying kangaroo tails from Adelaide to remote communities with airplanes? 1000 years of payments in return for bringing the flu and measles?
@mustang87401: Until they are no longer suffering I reckon. Life expectancy, poverty, drug abuse, domestic abuse. These things need to be sorted out and we have a responsibility to do so and make sure it sticks.
I'll add though, that we seem to have no effing idea of how to go about it.
@mustang87401: I would rather my tax dollars be spent on subsiding indigenous people than boomers in aged care.
Tribals and nomads didn’t own land. They moved from place to place in search of food. They were territorial at most so what ancestral claim?
What does 'ownership' mean to you? A registered title at the land titles office, or that through force or agreement you are entitled to use/roam that land and someone else is not entitled to use/roam the land? Does it require a single person to own it, or can ownership be on a tribal or group basis (or even multiple groups) (before you answer, think about how companies can own things)
In remote places of Asian and African countries, there’s millions of villages which quickly became empty as people relocated to urban areas as well as overseas. The villagers who moved out don’t ever go back. The land won’t sell for much because Noone will buy it. The ownership papers will rot eventually.
Meanwhile, Westerners including Australians who got sick of the “fast materialistic Western lifestyle” have settled in the same villages, occupying one of the abandoned houses, tilling land and living peaceful life. Some also marrying locals there.
50-100 years past, who will/should get the ownership papers.
The great-grand children of the former villager who have been living in New York?
Or
The children of the new settlers/squatters?
I say the new settlers.Doesn’t matter who owned what, time and again WORLD RESETS.
During reset, people will get ownership papers of whatever land they have been using and required.
Great comment. You want to be sovereign and have claim to huge swaths of land that most of their ancestors never set foot upon but don’t want to get the welfare and healthcare removed. Cherry pick the benefits. Give them some land and stop all the commonwealth payments and see how long they’ll live there.
Click here to claim the land in your area
Lonely land plots are waiting for you
Skibidi land
All claims end with a war until a new war is won. Process has always been the same only means change.
Might is Right.
If Egypt had enough power, it could claim the whole of the world based on the existence of pyramids in Americas, China, and Australia.I call Poe’s Law on this one. Sadly leaning towards sincere alt.archaeology though.
Anyone that supports Israel should really be packing their bags and leave so Australia can be returned
(by their logic)
Under international law, there are only three ways to claim sovereignty over land: Conquering, Treaty, or Terra Nullius.
Time is largely irrelevant.
You might wish to research Mabo and the surrounding cases.
Legally speaking, since the doctrine of Terra Nullius was found not to apply to Australia in Mabo, and we have no treaty, Australia has not been legally settled and our claim to sovereignty is weak.
Unless we acknowledge that we conquered the aboriginal people through violence. A truth that perhaps noone is willing to admit.
I disagree.
Sovereignty is recognised by international consensus, which the Commonwealth of Australia absolutely has. As a result our sovereignty is as near to unanimous as you can get.
Nothing weak about it. Even the Uluru Statement recognised Commonwealth sovereignty.
Ownership and sovereignty is not the same thing.
This is right. The whole native title is ridicules and nothing like it exists anywhere else in the world. Huge swaths of land given to some aboriginal corporations where corruption is rife. It’s all to appease the crazies.
No one recognises the two extra flags we put everywhere and no one recognises aboriginal people to have any sort of sovereignty and they are not in a position to even exert ownership or sovereignty.They don't have sovereignty, "we acknowledge" they are "traditional custodians" of a "meeting place" that they just happened to temporarily occupy for thousands of years.
It is disgusting meaningless doublespeak carefully crafted to ensure ownership isn't recognised.
They are also referred to as "mob" and "blak" in media that pretends to promote their causes, implying they aren't even capable of speaking English.
A disgusting stereotype that clowns like Lidia Thorpe enjoy spreading while pretending to care about their issues.
if you have money, can manipulate politicians and media, you can claim it after 3000 years. Though your ancestors do not have to be from that land. You only have to believe in a book, which says the land is yours.
1 generation. Then stfu and move on
Hey everyone mug this guys kids
And if I or they don’t do anything about it at the time why should the thieves children and grand children then pay for it?
There are many conflicts around the world at the moment based on 'we once had this land, therefore we should have it now'. Putin's justification for war on Ukraine is a good example.
My counterpoint is this: if we take that to the logical conclusion, Europe should immediately burst out into a never ending war based on old or ancient borders. Germany for example should take back territory from Poland (Szczecin). Poland should take back Lviv from Ukraine. There are people alive today who remember those old borders.
Austria and Hungary? They've got a lot of work to do. And let's not start on Italy, who could claim everything from Syria to near Scotland.
funny you say that
there is a very high percentage chance that it will happen in the next 30 years
Good point, and it’s actually not as far-fetched as it sounds.
The war in Ukraine, initiated by Russia, stems from a mix of motives, including Russia’s view of US and European interference in Ukraine. It’s also become a real test of international law and the UN’s credibility. If more countries start seeing the UN as ineffective or overly Western-influenced, we could be in for all kinds of global hijinx, along with growing calls to denounce the UN as illegitimate.
a claim has been lodged by the untraceable ancestry of Australopithecus - apparently there claiming the lot :)
Yes, let's tackle the fundamental world problems on OzBargain. That's why we're here.
Less b.s., more bargains pls.
It's actually 2 different questions with different answers.
My view, infinite. The question is whether you wish to use peaceful legal strategy, or a violent and warlike strategy. That changes things entirely.
Seven days sounds about right
whoever has the biggest stick.
Hong Kong was under British rule until they gave it back to China in 1997 under a 100 year contract.
That’s an interesting question. Lefties will say 3k years ago is too long to make native land claims for Israel but for aboriginal 40k years (so they say) is perfectly reasonable. It makes no sense.
No native title claims should ever be granted, truth is whoever exerts violence and takes the land and has it recognised by the governments around the world is the real owner. This has always been this way and will continue this way.
You seem confused, do you think British settlement in Australia occurred 40 thousand years ago?
He was a slow one Hahahahaha
No it didn’t but the point is that most people on the left don’t seem to want to recognise the ancient claim that Israel has to the land, they are very much indigenous to the land maybe as much as the aboriginal people here. You have a look what they are saying at the protests/rallies/camps around the country. The same people will say the aboriginal people here have been here 40k years and we have to respect their claim, pay them, recognise them, basically do everything for them. It was just an observation that shows hypocrisy on the left that’s all.
Isn't 40K > however long Israel claims they've occupied those lands though…
Some historians make us, especially Hon P.Wong believe that in the year 610 to 613 CE the world has been reset back to the very best of morals.
Forget about cultures that are so new like a tiny 3500 years have no more right to exist and have to be bombed away.
As for the land down under nobody can go past the fact that every human has some sort of migratory background, once time is out by more that 40% one simply can't ignore hard evidence.
This needs a poll
I'm surprised how many responses this post has gotten
One million years.
Australia is wholly encompassed by native title, as such Europeans and later immigrants have no claim to any land.
Mabo won a stunning victory in court to show that Australians are just outsiders, not natives
So when are you packing your stuff and going back to… wherever?
You only loose the claim to the land when you loose the ability to fight for it. Effectively it is a game of force that ends in a few specific ways.
If you have become so weak you no longer pose a threat (Australian Aboriginals)
There is none of you left to fight (Mayans)
You become incorporated into one bigger group in which you didn’t loose the land, just the old title and a bit of identity. Think something like (Venetian, Sicilian, Roman - is now modern day Italy)
As far back as you need to.
Personally i'm of the opinion that If you aren't actively using the land you should lose any claim to it. That goes for ancient claims, current land bankers or whatever. You either need to be doing something with it or have plans to do something with it within the next few years or too bad. Use it or lose it.
Owners of empty plots sweating right now.
If only it were the case legally.
Prior to the last few years, we have lived in the most peaceful time in human history. This is due to countries respecting sovereign borders and understanding that breaching these sovereign borders will trigger a war of that country and its allies. Regarding the question, in my opinion there are two ways to answer it.
1. Recognise sovereign borders as they are officially presented and recognised and agreed to by the greater international community through the UN.- Recognise historical land claims as far back as we understand the history. E.g. history and the world did not start in 1948 so we cannot claim the rightful owners of that area based on that date.
Sure, previous wars have happened with their inherent atrocities and the nice guy hasn't always won - but respecting sovereign borders has proven to be the best method of preventing ongoing wars. People also need to stop claiming that they are directly affected by a colonial venture that happened 150 years ago and that it is the core reason that their lives are worse off by any means.
There is no duration of time. It depends on only two things: the compassion of a population to give back the land freely, or, the will and means to take it back by force. Compassion doesn't have a date-stamp. Funnily enough neither does force.
Captain Cook, (he was no masterchef), landed on the east coast of New Holland and claimed it for HM in the UK. The Yanks landed on the moon and planted the American Flag - does this mean the moon belongs to the USA, it is a real terra nullis.
You can't live in the past.
To the victor gets the spoils. It's a cold hard reality of human triumph. The more powerful/technological race wins.
The only way the 'loser' gets it back is if they fight back later on, or pester the winner long enough to get it back.You can make as many claims to your ancestral land as you want. But thoughts and prayers and feelings alone won't give it back to you.
Is Russia right in invading Ukraine? No.
Is Israel right in scorched earthing Gaza? No.But that level of force can only be met with force, and if the world isn't prepared to take appropriate action to reverse these hostilities strongly (and demonstrate to others that penalties will be paid if you do so), then powers will continue to TAKE WHAT THEY WANT.
If you don't stand up to bullies, they continue to bully. Smacking them on the wrist won't stop them, and won't deter others looking to do the same.
Until then, Russia and Israel will continue to do whatever they like. And due to the inaction by the rest of the world, others like China will soon follow suit.
There's no "claim" to anything. Not Aboriginal, not Islamic, not grand poohba. None.
You either take and hold with power, or get it back with power.
Democratically or via a Regime is just a preference label on how those people chose to live. At the end of the day it's still MILITARY POWER that rules the day. There's no good or bad, "axis of evil" or "free world". Just perceptions, and military might.There is how the world should be and how the world is. The truth hurts but this comment is accurate.
The USA rules the world because they won WW2, beat the USSR and have maintained military strength ever since. China knows how it works and is building up forces as quick as possible.
Yep! I'm not talking about fairness or how it "should be". It's HOW IT IS!
Here in the West we consider the USA the "good guys". They are good in our eyes because we are allied with them, not because they are "good".
They are still a military superpower…. just one that happens to have our back and share some lifestyle ideals we have.But it's all perspective. There's approximately 1.5 billion people who think India is the "good guy", and another 1.2 billion who think China is.
It IS how the world is. Always was, always will be. That's human nature… build military strength, gain technological advances, and use those to influence the world around you. It's great for us as (Australia, UK, USA etc) because the world is currently slanted to have democratic nations set the 'rules' for trade and prosperous economies.
But all that has come from military dominance.
Then, with the "peace" that brings (we've had a lot of it over the last 5 decades up until recently) diplomacy is allowed to pretend like it controls things. But it really doesn't. The only reason the world listens to the USA is because it carries a big stick.
So does Russia, China, UK, India etc.But can you imagine a world without the USA? Who would be the top dog militarily, and what 'rules' would they implement? You can bet it won't be favourable to anyone not aligned with them! That's what the USA did. That's what Rome did. That's always been that way.
That's what makes the whole Trump thing so scary. He really does have the power to completely change the world order- and due to his lack of intelligence, not in a good way! It would be a gift to Russia and China. A blessing to do whatever they like unopposed. A Trump USA would move heavily into protectionist isolationist mode. Short term that would save them a lot of money, but long term it would completely destabilise the world- with other nations looking to take advantage of that.
It really is a big deal…. much much bigger than whatever damage Trump will cause to his own country. It's what his inaction will do around the world.
why are there never any marches about the oppression of women and their rights?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-27/taliban-bans-womens-v…
China claiming all of the west Philippine sea - So you don't even need to lose a war or settle in it to be able to claim it.