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
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…
@smartazz104: Well there are arguments it’s only 28k or something in that realm and 40k is rather fanciful but let’s leave it at that for the sake of not making this a big debate. Yes around 3k years so how long do you think is required then for a valid claim? 10k years? 20k? It’s rather moronic isn’t it…
don’t seem to want to recognise the ancient claim that Israel has to the land,
Surely, Palestinians have a similar ancient claim.
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
Well, given you posted two very politically orientated posts on a very large public forum 2 days in a row, I'm guessing that wasn't your intention?
Given your age of between 38-48 you're at prime intellectual age for the average male to start exploring the glorious world of politics and related banter.
Poll options?
Yes
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…
Its selective fu<kery man.
I guess you could organize one if you like. There's quit a few marches going on in the US in regard to pro-choice , etc.
If it's won through military means the loser has a claim while major fighting is still ongoing. Once the guns are put down and both sides go back to daily living, the claim has been given up. Pockets of resistance may extend the claim only if they have enough resources, manpower and organisation to achieve victory against the occupiers in a reasonable period of time (maybe 10 years). Otherwise they're just terrorist. As others have said a rematch is always an option but losers of wars don't get to dictate terms to the victor.
If history has taught anything, the only thing that matters is power. Doesn't matter where you evolved from as a human being.
Yep! They wrap democracy and choice around it to dress it up, but at it's core it always come down to power. Military power and technological development.
Maybe the neighbouring muslims can all come together and assist.
Oh snap, they don't give a sh!t either. Sadly these fu<kwits cant get along well with each other either.
So until thats sorted, Enjoy.As far back as we need me to have a claim, no less and no further.
Until the claimant starts systematically and relentlessly murdering women, children, aid workers, journalists, and accusing the UN of terrorism.
Native title means Australia legally belongs to the First Nations people, as per Australian law.
People need to accept that newcomers after First Nations, born here or not, do not have a valid claim to any property or land in Australia, only a leasehold ownership of house and land.
If Aboriginal artifacts, sacred zones or elder claims are found or proven, anyone has to give up their home and land for repossession by the rightful owners of the land.
Welcome to the country everyone
And there needs to be another Voice.
We did the wrong thing by invading and committing genocide and stealing children, it’s time to atone for our sins and be sorry - otherwise it’d be ok for someone else to come in, kill your family and then take your home in the name of colonialism.
Native title may have survived white settlement, or it may not have. They can also co-exist.
It's not as simple as having your home repossessed.
Native title means Australia legally belongs to the First Nations people, as per Australian law.
People need to accept that newcomers after First Nations, born here or not, do not have a valid claim to any property or land in Australia, only a leasehold ownership of house and land.
I get the desire to right historical wrongs, but your 'first come, first served' land ownership idea is a recipe for global chaos. Let's play this out.
If we seriously applied this rule everywhere, imagine the mess where:
- Jews claiming all of Jerusalem
- Mongols reclaiming half of Asia and Europe
- Every conquered territory from thousands of years ago getting reshuffledSeriously? Who'd want to live in that world?
Humans, like animals, have always moved and fought over territory. Survival isn't always pretty. We can't just hit the global 'undo' button on centuries of human migration and conflict.
We should focus on actual meaningful reconciliation instead of trying to rewind history with those impossible land grabs.
That's a rather wild interpretation of what I said.
Australia has implemented a process under law of reconciliation. That's just a simple fact.The examples you provided would not fit the bill of native title. Where an attachment to the land has not been severed, native title might still exist.
It's not enough to wave one's hand, and say that because someone's ancestor lived somewhere a thousand years ago, it is rightfully mine.
Humans, like animals
Humans have laws which ultimately lower the odds of bloodshed.
Rouge nations like Israel have chosen land over the law, and we are seeing what results when that happens.
Very convenient to say 80 years isn't it? Coincidently since 1948 (when Israel formed on someone else's land) till now it's almost 80 years. All they have to do is hold on to these stolen lands (by whatever inhuman means) for just another 4 years.
Whoever says it's 80 or 400 years, I don't think it's as simple as that.
Throughout history Human migration (peaceful or otherwise) has been the only way we progressed across the globe; I need to establish this first. and countries and their boundaries have never been the same over the years. That's just simple fact we all need to understand. We all came out of Africa after all, no human own anything.
Having said that, capturing someone's land with an established culture for 2,000 years vs a country that's rather new (say 200 years) are completely two different things.
For example, Europeans colonised Sri Lanka for over 400 years (that's quite a few generations); they tried every possible way to convert them to Christianity and Western culture but hardly succeded. During this 400 years Sri Lankan's fought numerous times, never gave up and never gave oppressors a chance to relax and finally, they (Portuguese, Dutch & English) gave up on it. Vast majority of Sri Lankans are still Buddhists who speak their native language with close ties to their deeply rooted culture. I'm not saying it was the right thing or wrong thing, just laying out what happened.Now when you compare what's happening in Palestine and Ukraine, I think they're a little different scenarios.
I think Palastines have been living in their land for at least over 1,000 years, that's a long time. Thinking that 80 years of forceful occupation can sort that is ridiculous.I'm not a fan of either Hamas or Israel (government), I personally think they both are equally evil. But I feel for those innocent people who're dying because of someone else's business propaganda. Imagine Palastine kids whose parents are being killed, do you think they will ever forgive Israel? This war will continue until one party is completely genocided (at this stage it's pretty obvious who's going to be wiped out).
I won't be surprised if whatever Hamas did to provoke Israel was in fact all Mosad plan to begin with (chances of this is almost 100% as far as I'm concerned). Hamas just played puppet for Mosad and gave them perfect reason to wipe Palastine out. Well… History will be written by the winners right?
Hypothetic scenario and Question.
China becomes the new mega superpower and one fine day decides to invade and conquer a foreign country (might be oz).
If the conqueror (Chinese) asks the same question raised in this tread to the people of the conquered countryWhat would be an acceptable answer?
Any answer is acceptable but one gives you +100 social points and the other gives you -100.
more than 500 years. 1000 years is probably solid, works for the turks in turkey
Seventeen eighty eight.
There is no ancestral claim to any land. Ownership is determined by legal transactions and financial power, not historical ties.
how many years or generations should pass before you lose all ancestry claim to the land?
ancestral claim to land is not a thing.
Yes, let's tackle the fundamental world problems on OzBargain. That's why we're here.
Less b.s., more bargains pls.