Make a Difference

Land Rights Lunacy

One native title claim over the whole of Kangaroo Island has already been made, by the Ngarrindjeri people, the Murray River people.

Our local paper, The Islander, reports another native title claim over the entire island, this time by the Ramindjeri.

According to most sources (eg Tindale), the Ramindjeri are a small local sub-group of the  Ngarrindjeri, resident at Encounter Bay and the Inman Valley.

There is no evidence of indigenous occupation of Kangaroo Island for about 10, 000 years prior to European settlement. Neither Ramindjeri or Ngarrindjeri have lived on the island at any time since 7,000 years before the pyramids were built.

SA Native Title Services executive officer Parry Agius said the claim would be difficult. “It requires the traditional owners to prove their physical, spiritual and cultural connection to the land. It comes down to evidence and it will be a long haul.”

Given there is no evidence either group has any physical connection with the island at all, it should be a very short haul.

But Agius is probably right. It will be a long haul, involving large amounts of taxpayer funds being handed to ‘local’ consultants, solicitors and anthropologists.



After readng Matthew’s comment below I have done some further reading and research, and acknowledge that indigenous people may have lived on kangaroo Island more recently than I indicated above.

The SA Museum, for example, suggests that some sites may have been occupied until about 4300 years ago.

It is not clear who the first people to live on Kangaroo Island were. Whoever they were, they almost certainly did not call Kangaroo Island ‘Karta.’ That is a later, Ngarrindjeri name.

Although the dating of the most recent indigenous occupation is uncertain, there appears to be little doubt those early inhabitants were not related to either of the claimant groups.

I can understand that either or both of  the Ngarrindjeri or Ramindjeri believe they had some cultural or spiritual connection with the island.

If this was shown, and it probably could be, I don’t see why anyone would have any issue with acknowledging it to be so.

What I think is lunacy (and I mean that in the ordinary sense of being not proportional or grounded in reality) is simultaneous landrights claims by two groups of people who have never lived on the island.

I am quite happy to be shown this is not so, but I am not going to be convinced by people calling me names or telling me I have no right to ask questions or to express an opinion.


  1. Matthew Fowler

    Dear Peter

    I am curious to learn your mental health credentials to use if not abuse the outdated term & definition of “lunacy”, from wikipedia, “Lunacy, term meaning mental illness, stemming from the prefix Luna. A term leftover from ancient times when the moon was thought to cause insanity and mental problems.” This is particularly of interest to me with respect to having helped Kangaroo Island Health Service zero suicide since Jan 2008.

    Irrespective, what then are your anthropological credentials, especially when we look at Kartan Culture [hence my own commercial interest with Kartan Enterprises P/L since Jan 2005].

    You then may find of potential interest if not revelation and better inform your opinion piece.

    I’d appreciate further communications with you to help clarify more precisely what could risk being perceived as unnecessary discriminating commentary.

  2. Gail

    Seriously – you can’t use the word lunacy unless you ahve mental health quailfications? Next you’ll be saying children can’t describe their new compter game as sick unless they have a medical degree!

  3. Jim T

    Matthew, I don’t see how a disputed archeological theory about a race of poeple who may have lived on KI until 7000 years ago, and who there is no reason to think were related to either of the claimant groups, helps their claims at all.

  4. Marion

    Matthew I am a little confused about why you seem so angry about this.
    You cannot support the claims of both groups – they are mutually exclusive.
    Presumably you believe one over the other on the basis of evidence.
    I would be interested to know which group’s claim you support,a nd on what evidence you made your deicsion.
    You seem to be accusing Peter of racism because he believs the evidence is in favour of neither.
    Why is his view racist and yours not?
    Peter is right. There is no evidence for occupation by either group for several thousand years.
    Surely this makes both claims a waste of time and taxpayer funds?
    If you think only one is, which one?

  5. Jake

    Matthew stood for the Democrats in the 2007 state election. The Demorcrats are the most elitist party in Australia, ignorant and arrogant. Matthew seems to think ordinary people should not have opinions or be able to discuss them, or only if he agrees with them. I’m surprised he’s not demanding people shouldn’t compare the specials at Penneshaw IGA and Drakes unless they ahve a degree in economics. If there are answers to the questions Peter asks, lets hear them, in a reasonable way, not just demanding people stop talking. If we are paying the legal fees for these claims, it is fair enough to want to know they are reasonable. Too much of our taxes is wasted on nonsense.

  6. Matthew Fowler

    Dear Peter & other Respondents

    Who’s island continent is this anyway & what really are legal fees and taxes – is legal tender really a legal fiction invented by our Bank of England when William III beat James II at the Battle of the Boyne?
    I fear you all demonstrate an amazing, simplistic lack of awareness …

    Remember over 60 years ago Ghandhi said that the British must leave India as friends and Governor Chris Patten left Hong Kong, “Hong Kong became a colony of the British Empire after the First Opium War (1839–1842). Originally confined to Hong Kong Island, the colony’s boundaries were extended in stages so as to include the Kowloon Peninsula and the New Territories by 1898. It was occupied by the Japanese during the Pacific War, after which the British resumed control until 1997, when China regained sovereignty.[16][17]” “aspiration to resume sovereignty over Hong Kong as the Qing Dynasty’s successor”

    Thank you for your interest, Update and comments to date. I sincerely apologise in not responding sooner nor in full right now as this is still the silly season over Christmas – New Year and my younger brother is over on holiday from then Lt James Cook in the name of King George III at Bedanug or Bedhan Lag “Possession Island” 22 Aug 1770 dispossessed “New South Wales” and there are a range of personal-professional commitments and responsibilities I have to others as well as myself to seek to be there for and complete.

    Especially as I am also helping “Gumilaroi Nation 16 elected Sovereign Spokesman Euahlayi Nation Leader of northwest NSW and southwest Queensland Nyoongar+Ghurradjong+Murri+Ghillar Michael Anderson 02 68296355 landline 04272 92 492 mobile 02 68296375 fax” prepare for and organise a National Canberra Conference Summit for Original Pre-eminently Sovereign Peoples’ Descendents, 1st Nations as mentioned by our 1992 “Australian High Court” Mabo Decision referring back to King George III Royal Proclamation 1763 …

    [“Call to an Aboriginal summit in Canberra

    Aboriginal political activist, Michael Anderson, is calling for Elders from around the country to join him in Canberra for a ‘New Way’ summit on 30 January 30 and 1 February next year.

    The summit will be at the Aboriginal Centre ‘Jabal’ at the Australian National University (ANU).

    “This summit is important for our future in order to take back our right to make our own decisions and stamp out the government-appointed spokespersons,” Mr Anderson argues in a media release.

    “We must set an agenda for our development and advancement. Yes, we all made mistakes but in a democracy this is our right,” he writes.

    “We all learn from mistakes, but here in Australia us Blackfullas are stigmatized as cheats and thieves who have no ability to conduct strategic planning and to properly deliver services to cater for the needs of our people.”

    Mr Anderson said the tight stranglehold government bureaucrats have over Aboriginal people’s lives and affairs must be exposed.

    “We must now assert in the strongest possible way the message that Australia was indeed invaded by a military force under the control of the British Admiralty.

    “In the Instructions to the First Fleet they were asked to ‘conciliate the affections of the Aborigines’, but this is not how it turned out.” …

    “We must inform the government that we have a right to self-determination, never mind what their views are.”

    Anderson said: “It is important for us to now pick up on where the former National Aboriginal Conference left off.

    “The NAC had got to a point where the Fraser government was under so much pressure by the negotiations of the Treaty that the powers that we were requesting that the government force down the rights that had become a focal point for the NAC in terms of Aboriginal rights then on the table,” Mr Anderson said.

    In their formal advice to the Prime Minister on July 15th 1980, the then Federal Attorney-General said that “it would be very desirable to avoid the word TREATY”.

    “He went on to say ‘account should be taken of any risk that, in the absence of explicit provisions to the contrary, a claim might be made that the agreement accord a status on which Aboriginals could base a right of ‘self-determination’ as a people.”

    “In respect of the NAC itself, the Attorney-General was extremely concerned. He said in a letter of advice to the Prime Minister, ‘the material available to me suggests that the social organization of Aboriginal Australia is different in significant respects from that of those other communities – see , for example, the description of the Cherokees in ‘the Cherokee Nation V. The State of Georgia (1831)”.

    “‘It might be that, with the development of the National Aboriginal Conference – albeit a development based upon Australian law – an Australian Aboriginal ‘community’ is developing and will develop to the point where, if the United States model are followed, it might be conceivably become appropriate to speak of an arrangement between that organized community and the Commonwealth as a ‘treaty’.”

    Mr Anderson imputes this is why the federal government, regardless of Labor or Liberal Coalition, will always maintain a divide-and-rule policy against Aborigines.

    “It is also the reason why we must now take control of all decisions that affect our lives now and in the future.”

    Mr Anderson’s release in full:

    I’m calling for a ‘New Way’ summit to take place on 30 January 1 February 2010 at the Aboriginal Centre ‘Jabal’ at the Australian National University (ANU) Canberra.

    This summit is so important for our future because we need to take back or right to make our own decisions and stamp out the government- appointed spokespersons. …]

    As I have now this morning to run off to RAH (Royal Adelaide Hospital) for another’s 9am appointment, something on-going with HealthSA Modbury Hospital – RAH since June 2007 that in effect affects 160 000 diagnosably diabetic fellow South Australians, I’m just going to respond now with the above fundamentally serious consideration & something I once heard on our “ABCRN”, Radio I like to think by … Bishop Shelby Spong

    interviewed and Bishop Spong referred to the Old Testament Ten Commandments having been collapsed into Two New Testament Commandments …

    I could not in my rush easily, quickly find that particular interview online at

    nor more generically with

    however the fundamental question I have for Peter (the Rock a name revered to this very day? with his precious, final word, “Lunacy.” is, where does using an outdated Fuedal, Medieval, Middle, Dark Ages, discredited, socially stigmatic loaded word like “Lunacy.” as a final word for an Ordained Anglican Minister who theoretical has Ministered, Preached etc on “love one another”?

    Remember here before Peter chose to “Update” in penultimate response or reaction to my 1st Response, “What I think is lunacy (and I mean that in the ordinary sense of being not proportional or grounded in reality) is simultaneous landrights claims by two groups of people who have never lived on the island.” it seems to me then that we publically online, literally are playing with over “As of 4 January 2010, the Earth’s population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6,794,200,000.[1]” people’s minds, heads and hearts.

    For a Science – Law trained Ordained Anglican Minister in the Apostolic Succession since St Peter, I find the above somewhat incongruent … I have to seriously question Peter personal, professional logic with critical peer review before I can seriously consider responding to any other subsequent Responders who essentially seem trapped in their own arrogantly ignorant & ignorantly arrogant paradigms …?

    I’d sincerely appreciate a more considered response to the above in terms of Stephen Covey’s Chapter (& separate Book) in “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”

    Unless and until we use Scientific Method from First Principles Peter, I, we are wasting each other’s and everyone elses’ time, consideration, efforts, energy etc..

    Sincerely, Matthew

  7. Gail

    What on earth does all that ranting mean?

    Apart from telling us all how busy and important you are, and suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is ‘arrogantly ignorant’, and that anyone who uses a word in a way you dislike, even though it is the way the word is normally used, is not a real christian, what are you trying to say?

    Does anything you have said have anything to do with the questions raised by Peter or any of the other commentors?

    Just in case you have forgotten, the main question is, how can two groups of aboriginal people, neither of whom has ever lived on the island, or certainly not for the last couple of thousand years, have any realistic claim to native title over the island?

    I would be interested to have an answer from you to Marion’s question. You cannot support both claims – they are mutually exclusive. So which one do you support, and on the basis of what evidence?

  8. Peter


    I thought I had been fairly generous to Matthew, allowing two long and rambling comments, neither with very much relevance to the original post. Particularly given that he had sent his first comment, along with my home phone number and address, to a long list of people, many of whom are unknown to me.

    Yesterday he sent another five comments which I did not approve. I sent him an email explaining why:

    Hi Matthew,

    I appreciate the time and thought you have put into your responses to postings on Qohel.

    However I have decided not to approve your series of five comments posted this afternoon.

    There are two reasons moderation is used on a blog – to filter out insulting or libellous comments, and to ensure discussion stays on topic.

    These are the two reasons have decided not approve your latest comments.

    First, you seem to assume that anyone who thinks differently from you is either stupid or evil.

    I am prepared to tolerate insults about my faith or knowledge or integrity, but I cannot in fairness accept post after post which calls other readers arrogant, ignorant or malicious.

    For example, in one post you talk about another contributor’s “arrogant ignorant rudeness, disrespect & since it was raised, possible racism.” That is unjustified and unacceptable.

    There is nothing in anything I have written, nor in anything other contributors have written to suggest they are unaware of or unconcerned about aboriginal issues or history, or that they oppose indigenous land rights in general. They may think differently from you, but that is not a reason to abuse them.

    It is reasonable for people living on KI, or elsewhere, to be concerned about the impact and cost of native title claims. And It is reasonable for people on KI to wonder about and talk about how two different claims by groups of people who have never lived on KI, can be justified.

    You may disagree – although it is hard to tell exactly what your opinion is – and you are welcome to explain why. But you may not insult people who do not share your opinion. Not on Qohel, anyway.

    The second reason is that your very long comments do not appear to relate to the question at hand.

    The story of Kondili the whale may be interesting, but it does not have anything to say about a continuous association of either claimant group with KI.

    A series of excerpts from Colonel Light’s records may be interesting, but it does not mention either group in relation to ongoing residence on KI.

    If you can refrain from abusive comments about other contributors, you are more than welcome to put your point of view, along with any evidence that supports it.

    Like one of the commenters, I would very interested to know which of the claims you believe is legitimate, and what evidence you think supports that claim and not the other.

    Best regards,

    Peter Wales

    Matthew responded as follows:

    Peter, enjoy your blog, life & God
    no idea where you got the word “evil” from but clearly you seem to enjoy being a judge in your own court …
    you are right, I obviously invested too much of myself, I wont bother any further
    I think it is time you got out of your sanctimonious rut & off your butt to speak with Karno other Sovereign Speakers
    If you have any copies of what I actually made & took the time etc to contribute which it appears you deleted without editing, I see no further point in casting pearls into the narrow minded people of the narrow winding streets … I forgive you for it seems you know not what you do …

    Such a pity. Matthew is obviously an intelligent person, and I really would have been interested to know what he thought and why.

  9. Allan

    There are some people who, if you admire them and agree with everything they say, will treat you like their best firend, but if you disagree with them, or question anything they tell you, will decide you are the scum of the earth and need to be exposed.

    People like this can be dangerous, because they will often enlist others to hate you – including sending private contact details to as many people as possible.

    There is no reasoning with them, because they cannot see anything except in black and white, and if you have disagreed with them, in their mind you are definitely on the dark side.

    All you can hope for, if you have already gotten on the wrong side of someone like this, is to ignore them as politely as possible, and hope they will decide to move on.

    Be safe!

  10. Peter

    I appreciate the support.

    I think we need to draw a line under this now.

    In fairness to Matthew, while I have still not approved his comments from yesterday, I have approved another he sent this morning. This may provide further illumination on a number of issues.

    It will also be the last comment from anyone which does not specifically address the issues in the original post.

  11. Matthew Fowler

    Caveat lector – there may be unintentional errors or omissions, any corrections or other constructive contributions would be gratefully received.

    I, a Queen’s Scout by Royal Charter &/or Royal Warrant 1983, acknowledge Yerta, Land around “Adelaide”, as the Traditional Lands of 9x todate formally identified Apical Ancestral Pre-eminently Sovereign Original People of this island continent sometime known as La Australia del Espiritu Santo (the southern land of the Holy Spirit), Terra Australis incognita and that I respect, recognise, support and seek to help resource in good faith, their descendants’ Spiritual, Physical, Economic, Mental and Social-Emotional relationship with their Country’s Sovereignty in perpetuity. I also recognise the Sovereign Custodians before our 1986 “Queen of Australia” & 1836 “Adelaide Region” and that their inherent Cultural and Spiritual beliefs continue to sustain descendants living today.

    Yes Jake in Response to your Response above, I, as an “ordinary” mere Mayo male, did stand “for” our “2007 Australian Parliament” after our 2006 Kangaroo Island Council Mayoral Campaign, as I realised I was no longer living in the country I grew up in, with helping invade in the “Coalition of the Willing” from “WMDs” (Weapons of Mass Distraction) & kill 100 000 Iraqis & 45 000 Afghanis (many women and children), etc as daisy cutter bomb diplomacy in exchange for a few thousands in Two Towers – akin for me like the WWII Nazis killing 10 French Civilians for 1 Nazi killed by the French Resistance … “evil happens when good people say and do nothing …” & remember fellow South Australian David Hicks, etal was held through “extraordinary rendition” without real charge as a Prisoner longer than any WWII POW … & yes I was initially standing for Mayo Independently then as I’d met again then SA Senator Natasha Stott Despoja but this time in the Penneshaw Pub, I’d been invited & encouraged to do so by (SA Division Inc) Secretary & Mayo Branch Treasurer Rosemary Drabsch. Only I was asked by CAC (Candidate Assessment Committee) to Campaign Kingston which I did as you can see above and restored the Australian Democrats Party Kingston Branch, revised and SA Council ratified our SA Division Job Descriptions & so far 3/4 revised our 1993 SA OCBA Registered Constitution thus bringing (sometimes dragging kicking and screaming) at least the SA Dems into the C21st at the dawn of our 3rd Millenium …? There is more I could say but this is really getting too long again already … however as Peter was an Ordained Anglican Minister & now in fact the only one on KI in the Parish, I remind him at least of “… of integrity and truth,
    we pray for wisdom as we prepare to vote in the Federal election.”:

    I have already squandered considerable consideration, time, effort etc in good faith to respond to the above questions and slurs to my professional-personal reputation. Peter is not allowing them to pass through “Moderation” as his online Qohel managing editorial prerogative (“a common facet of feudal law.”

    From an Emailed Reply I wrote, “I see when I actually still click the link [to:]

    Responses that the text content is actually still there so you can read and decide for yourself if Peter’s claims, “to filter out insulting or libellous comments, and to ensure discussion stays on topic.” & “I am prepared to tolerate insults about my faith or knowledge or integrity, but I cannot in fairness accept post after post which calls other readers arrogant, ignorant or malicious.

    For example, in one post you [me Matthew] talk about another contributor’s “arrogant ignorant rudeness, disrespect & since it was raised, possible racism.” That is unjustified and unacceptable.”

    Clearly there is at least a difference of opinion or perspective and as Email / text is stripped or wiped of intended body language, facial expressions, voice modulation, tone, timbre etc maybe the intent is being misconstrued?

    What really got me was the use of the word “evil” which took me straight back to Medieval[, Superstitious Dark Ages under King James I of England & VI of Scotland (from which as Supreme Governor of the Church of England the King James Version of the Bible came)] & former President George Bush [“Axis of evil”] & our SA Attorney General’s recent Hansard recorded description [in] our mainstream Murdoch Media so called “Aboriginal Gang of 49” or SAPOL’s “Operation Mandrake”[ as “pure evil”]:

    You be the judge, what do you think-feel?”

    so I am now according to Scientific Method First Principles bringing us all back to the basics and basis of logic because it very sadly seems to me at least that both Peter and others simply do not really know or – nor practice good First Principles Scientific Method deductive logic: “In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or “propositions”) known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or “proposition”) known as the conclusion. Aristotle held that any logical argument could be reduced to two premises and a conclusion.[1] Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises, e.g. in

    Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal.

    It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:

    Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.

    In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, “all men are mortal” and “Socrates is a man”) are the premises, while “Socrates is mortal” is the conclusion.

    The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.”

    Hopefully then with Ocham’s Razor we will now deduce and conclude more elementary and accurately?
    See also:

    I note too that Peter has yet to answer:

    1/ “learn your mental health credentials to use if not abuse the outdated term & definition of “lunacy” …? [“This is particularly of interest to me with respect to having helped Kangaroo Island Health Service zero suicide since Jan 2008.” after 7 suicides in 3 years 2004-2007 with our KIHS Mental Health Promotion, Prevention and Early Intervention Action Plan from our 1992-2008 National Mental Health Strategy & SA Premier Appointed Social Inclusion Commissioner Monsignor David Cappo’s Recommendations]

    2/ “Irrespective, what then are your anthropological credentials, especially when we look at Kartan Culture [hence my own commercial interest with Kartan Enterprises P/L since Jan 2005]”?

    You then may find … of potential interest if not revelation and better inform your opinion piece.” [While my reference certainly helped “better inform” I remain uncertain of the logic and veracity of the subsequent opinions … especially as none seem to have bothered 1st communicating with 1st Nations people, especially Karta “SA Government Gazetted, Kangaroo Island Murray Lagoon” living Ramindjeri Sovereign Spokesman Karno Walker?

    3/ “I’d appreciate further communications with you to help clarify more precisely what could risk being perceived as unnecessary discriminating commentary.” that risk seems to have increased by further lack of awareness or actions to increase Respondents awareness?

    4/ “however the fundamental question I have for Peter … with his precious, final word, “Lunacy.” is, where does using an outdated Fuedal, Medieval, Middle, Dark Ages, discredited, socially stigmatic loaded word like “Lunacy.” as a final word for an Ordained Anglican Minister who theoretical has Ministered, Preached etc on “love one another”” fit in? [Especially as subsequent Email correspondence from Peter revealed he quite happily puts the amazingly derogatory words, “stupid and evil” into my mouth or hand … apalling & galling, especially for an Anglo-Saxon Anglican (Protestant) Ordained Minister of God in the! This reminds me of the Sectarian Troubles in Ireland …]

    Until we address these key core concerns, Spiritual & Temporal, what seriously is the point of me as a mere male White Ango-Saxon Protestant, indoctrinated since birth be bothered answering any other questions when I was not even born on this island continent (thus nor “Kangaroo Island”), arrived 1965 by boat on my father’s passport, paternally descended from the highest ranking 1798 United Irish Rebellion General sent where even, it was revealed in 2006, Joseph Holt’s 250th birthday as was Mozart’s, that Capt Nicholas Baudin had Napoleonic Secret Sealed Orders to visit my Apical Ancestor (4x Great Grandfather) from Genernal Joseph Holt’s Irish Rebellion through the French 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen When “Baudin then stopped at the British colony at Sydney for supplies. In Sydney he bought a new ship — Casuarina — named after the wood it was made from.”

    I remind all then that from p119 in “The Book of Common Prayer is the common title of a number of prayer books of the Church of England and of other Anglican churches, used throughout the Anglican Communion. The first book, published in 1549 (Church of England 1957), in the reign of Edward VI, was a product of the English Reformation following the break with Rome.” the “Nicene Creed”, in the “Anglican Communion Book of Common Prayer version (1662)” “And of all things visible and invisible: … Being of one substance with the Father, … And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church. … And the life of the world to come.” Does then Peter as an Ordained Anglican Minister believe & in what?

    Again I have put too much of my mind into this as I feel I’ve run out of neurotransmitters to think straight any more this morning so I’m simply submitting this as is and ask again then that if there are any errors or omissions then that Readers and Responders simply respectfully raise them with more empathy and compassion without sympathy as part of standard scientific method critical peer review.

  12. Yeti Hunter

    Oh Matthew, you are a card.

    I stumbled upon this site while trying to find evidence for the extent of the Ramindjeri claim on KI and the Fleurieu – nice to see you here! I too am interested to know which of the two claims you support and why?

    Interesting side note, Norman B. Tindale doesn’t even mention the Ngarrindjeri – just the Ramindjeri (see Funny how they were once considered the “main” tribe, and yet now it seems to be the other way around.

  13. Blackmail

    Fowler you trump,

    Why did you leave SA and continue sending your email bombs from Bali. You worked with the Kaurna people before you began Kartan Industries(Ramindjeri associations), who welcomed you with open arms into their community/country/culture/spirit of place. You then proceeded to bash them around the ears with your queens scout bloodline bullshit, where you manipulated the Kaurna people or members there of on many occassions at public events and most notably in the front of the Governor of South Australia where you presented your own agenda in a letter through a black hand. You used the Kaurna People to establish yourself, as you and your partners business was not doing to well at the time. I don’t know if any of you readers out there who have been responding to Mathew know that there is a major dreaming story that talks of the creation of KI and it from the west, so if there was anyone to claim and or prove cultural/spiritual etc relationship to that place it would be the people whom still hold the sacred songline for it, and you’ll have to go to Pt Pearce to Adja Durah country to speak to the people not a book. Our country is our bible and you growing up they way you did you should have this understanding and respect, but you still continue to this day to rip pages out of the Kaurna to support your own agenda and one person (KARNO WALKER) and not the Ramindjeri nation. To let you all know that the word Karno does not feature in the Ramindjeri or Ngarrindjeri word lists, but it does feature in the KAURNA word list from 1840, and in there the meaning they have been givin is that it means Mountains, and then there is Karnu warra – which means a northern hills/mountains language dialect, from the very people(King Rodney – Northern clansman of Kaurna) of which he has stated his ancestors fort against….there own clan. This hypocracy gone mad, or are you just looney while playing your own tune. Hey you just might be the new age whitefulla dreaming man aye, with birthrites to this country. I remind you of your support and the role you have played in orchestrating and what you have brought to bear for the people here while you sit in Bali and sympathise with the Balinese. You have been a good little scout haven’t you?

    Read on…please!

    “I have always said that Ramindjeri … has got blackfella/whitefella dreaming together and they’ve got nothing to worry about,” Mr Walker said. “All we want is simple recognition. We want the same respect, I can’t put it any simpler than that.”

    Your not not looney, your a nut case.


  14. Matthew Fowler

    On 6 September 2011 13:41, Stephen Yarwood wrote:
    Dear Matthew

    Thank you for your recent emails regarding Ramindjeri ownership of Victoria Square.

    The National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) has considered the Ramindjeri application, but this application failed the registration test pursuant to section 190(A) Native Title Act 1993. This decision was made by the NNTT 24 March 2011 and means that the Ramindjeri claim, as presently set up, cannot be registered under the Native Title Act.

    Although the Ramindjeri’s application has not passed the registration test, the Federal Court may still refer the application to the Tribunal or another body for mediation or for a determination to be made.

    The next directions hearing on Native Title is listed in the Federal Court for 7 October 2011. Considering these legal proceedings, the Lord Mayor& Councillors and the administration are not in a position to comment any further on this matter.

    Thank you for your correspondence and I wish you all the best.

    Yours sincerely

    Stephen Yarwood

    Think before you print!

    The contents of this e-mail are confidential and may be subject to privilege and copyright. This e-mail is intended for the named recipient only and if you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Adelaide City Council immediately on +61(8) 8203 7203 . The views expressed in this e-mail are, unless otherwise stated, those of the author and do not reflect the views, policy or position of the Adelaide City Council and the Adelaide City Council accepts no responsibility for any such opinions, advice or information.

  15. Matthew Fowler

    Further, “The Ngarrindjeri (literal meaning The people who belong to this land) are a nation of eighteen “tribes” (lakinyeri) consisting of numerous family clans who speak similar dialects of the Ngarrindjeri language and are the traditional Aboriginal people of the lower Murray River, western Fleurieu Peninsula, and the Coorong of southern, central Australia. “Much of the early literature on this south-eastern region refers to the Aborigines collectively as the Ngarrindjeri ‘confederacy’ or ‘nation’, but in the Berndt’s view this is misleading. Although there was freedom of movement over the region, and many bonds linked the culturally similar ‘tribes’ or dialect-named units that comprise the Ngarrindjeri, there was no political unity to warrant the ‘nation’ or ‘confederacy’ labels.”[1]

    Ngarrindjeri is in fact the name of the language group; Europeans subsequently used it as a collective name for the lakinyeri following colonisation. Variations in spelling are common due to their use as clan names and include Narinyerrie, Narrin’yerree, Narrinjeri and Narrinyeri. In Ngarrindjeri grammar the –nyeri -ndjeri suffix means belonging to a specific place or area.[2] The name Kukabrak also refers to the tribes of the Lower Lakes, however the name Ngarrindjeri was popularised in the 19th century by missionary George Taplin.[3][4]” …

    “Whalers and sealers had been visiting the South Australian coast since 1802 and by 1819 there was a permanent camp on Karta, Kangaroo Island. Many of these men were escaped convicts, sealers, whalers who had brought Tasmanian Aboriginal women with them but they also raided the mainland for women, particularly Ramindjeri.” …

    “Norman Tindale’s research in the 1920s and Ronald and Catherine Berndt’s ethnographic study, which was conducted in the 1930s, established only 10 lakinyerar. Neither Tindale or the Berndt’s had any formal linguistic training and although they remain a major source of material for the Ngarrindjeri people today their accuracy in this area should not be assumed. Tindale worked with Clarence Long (a Tangani man) while the Berndts worked with Albert Karloan (a Yaraldi man).[2]” in effect Rev George Taplin started the South Australian Museum’s Anthropology Department’s especially Tindale’s published popularisation of “Ngarrindjeri” & “Kaurna” .

    Please also note, “The other Applicants on the claim, who are also members of the native title claim group, are descendants of King Condoy, a Ramindjeri man of Rapid Bay, Encounter Bay and Kangaroo Island, and/or were self-identified as Ramindjeri people for the purpose of Section 61(4) of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) at the Ramindjeri Native Title meeting held on 16 December 2009 at the Box Factory Community Centre, 59 Regent Street South, Adelaide.” On my Honour as another of HM’s Queen’s Scouts (NSW 1982), BSc (UWoll 1988) then immediate past Australian Parliament Kingston Candidate Campaign, I was there … states,
    “Ramindjeri are a clan (“lakinyeri” in Ngarrindjeri language) of Australian Aboriginal people forming part of the Kukabrak[1] (since popularised due to 19th-century missionary Rev George Taplin as Ngarrindjeri) people.[2] Ramindjeri land is the most westerly of the Ngarrindjeri, covering the area around Encounter Bay in southern South Australia, including Victor Harbor and Port Elliot,[2] however an ongoing native title dispute asserts a much more extensive territory and other paradigm shifts.[3]

    Ramindjeri were amongst, if not the first South Australian Aboriginal people to come into regular contact with Europeans since 1802, with Karta (Kangaroo Island) based sealers raiding Ramindjeri territorial lands for women in the early 19th century, pre-1836 settlement.[4] Ramindjeri men began working as whalers around Encounter Bay in the 1830s.[5]” … “Ramindjeri as “Encounter Bay blacks” were observed holding a full moon ceremony at Onkaparinga by John Bull’s 1837 water exploration party, guided by pre-1836 Sealer Nat Thomas.[9]

    Ronald and Catherine Berndt’s ethnographic study, which was conducted in the 1930s, identified six Kukabrak[10] subsequently described as “Ngarrindjeri” clans, the Ramindjeri lakinyeri occupying the coast from Cape Jervis to a few kilometres south of Adelaide.”

    Hopefully that literature review will help raise other readers, commentators awareness if not actually facilitate more meaningful community conversations.

  16. Peter

    I said some months ago I would not allow any more responses from Matthew. This one is as completely irrelevant to the original post as all his previous comments. But it may be of interest to some, so …

  17. Des

    Please consider that the Nurunderi story talks about the far west coast of Kangaroo Island. There must be a conection to the people of the tribes in this story.

  18. Theresa Campbell

    Well that’s was fun thank u to Peter and Co
    Mathew is a male form a gold digger as u r well aware
    Peter I’d love to talk with u I am of Both communities I’ll inbox

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2024 Qohel