|
Peter - I think that the land recognition simply boils down to modern man's guilt of what our ancestors may have done, or did do, to our indigenous Aboriginals. Remember, 100,000+ Tasmanian Aboriginals were butchered to clear the land for white fellas. I think a lot of politicians and people do feel bad about this, and even though we're not directly responsible, I do think we should be morally brave enough to say sorry. Compensation for these past crimes by giving out land is rather silly.
Let me just add something to this thread - consider Uluru. As a photographer, I CANNOT take a photograph of it without the permission of the local Aborigionals who are supposedly the traditional "owners" of the surrounding lands. I have to provide them with a copy of each and every image that I've taken, and they can veto any or all images, without so much as a valid reason. I must then destroy the images. If I want to sell images, I have to pay the government in order to do so (which gives money to the aforementioned Aboriginals) - something in the vicinity of $1000/day. This is just plain silly. The land belongs to mother nature. Not man. It never has, and never will.
Dave
edit: the costs for shooting Uluru have to be paid, by the photographer, up front, irrespective of whether all or any images are vetoed by said Aboriginals, or even if they sell (or whatever price that the image might even fetch as a working pro). Silly eh?
|