That's probably true, but it wasn't what I was discussing. I was speaking specifically about Europeans in Australia and saw no reason to bring in any other group, as that was not my point any more than it would be your function as a geologist of central Australian land forms to include the geology of Pluto.
Is it? I am not saying that what you recount here is untrue, but the pbuttive voice in your setnence makes that rather vague. I have never heard of that, but then history is a pretty big subject and I don't apologise for not knowing all aspects of it - including those that may turn out relevant to a discussion.
You mean Javanese fisherman or who? Arabs? Ahh, forget that, it doesn't really matter, but I was just interested in descriptions of these Muslims and why they were identified by their religion alone in these original tales.
Very possibly. I was referring to the dominant group in Australia in the past couple of hundred years and saw no reason to bring in other groups to the discussion, because regardless of what they may or may not have done, it doesn't change a thing in terms of what immigrant Europeans did when they got here.
If Mosley believes his ancestors were happy with the deal got for the land they bargained away, that's cool. The fact is, not many of them had any opportunity to make any decent bargain based on any legal principles they understood, especially because they had no right in British law to the land they occupied for millennia. By British law Mosley's ancestors couldn't make that bargain! The only reason Mosley's ancestors were allowed to 'own' the land for that deal was that the whites they bargained with conveniently allowed them to 'own' it only for as long as it took to get it off them.
Rifty
-- Academic and Computing Help
