| > It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government. Not arguing one way or the other here, nor do I know much of the context. But going only from the original comment in this thread, it sounds like this would mean taking the rights to the land away from the current set of tribal elders. There's an argument to be made that this sort of cultural heritage belongs to the whole tribe; and not only those currently alive, but those who will be part of it in the future; and possibly not only of these particular tribes, but of all Aboriginals in Australia. It may be that those elders have considered that large group in their decision, but it's also quite possible that they have not; or even that they're corrupt and lining their own pockets. It's also possible that this move is seen as the lesser of two evils to those elders: that they want to keep the sites, but feel they need the money to help support the tribe in other ways. If that's the case, then it's still a case of injustice. (As an interesting aside: Recognition that "selling your land" might not really be voluntary was recognized so early that in ancient Israel, it was legally impossible to sell your land permanently: Every 50 years, all land went back to the original owners or their heirs, and you could only lease land until the next 50-year "reset".) While I'm certainly in favor of letting groups decide for themselves what kinds of protection they need or don't need, there are lots of ways in which "tribal elders signed an agreement" could happen while still being "injustice to natives". |