This article needed to more strongly convey the message that the scarcity of meat was a major impediment to the development of our indigenous people beyond the most basic level. The relative supply of reliable water was the other major factor. At times Aboriginal tribes came close to perishing. Living a life close to the margin for survival is not conducive to development.

Unlike Australia, there were herding animals in North America - but there were none which could be corralled and domesticated. In South America there were herding animals which could be domesticated. Because of this advantage, and in contrast to North America, there were real towns in South America and not villages of tents.

Large herds of buffalo and caribou resulted in North American settlements of hundreds of people while in Australia the settlements were generally less than 100 individuals. It was the relative large size of the North American tribes which made it easier for the whites to establish treaties [every one of which was dishonoured]. There was no mention in the article of the clash in this country between black and white and reports in the historical records are fragmentary. As the whites were the only ones writing the history, cover-ups can be expected.

The bow and arrow was more accurate than the spear and woomera. Otherwise, the North American native was not technologically more advanced than the Australian native. In the Middle East, Asia and Europe it seems that the beginning of modern society as we know it began with the desire to construct buildings of stone. The weight of the material led to the invention of apparatus to move heavy stone. From then on one technical advance led to another. Sometimes there was no technological move forward for a few centuries and then there was a sudden jump to be followed by another long delay.

It is time to thoroughly address the question of "who is indigenous?"
I understand that, in North America, the standard is one grandparent who is of "full-blood". If that standard was applied here then I believe that a number of the most outspoken activists who presume to speak on behalf of "their people" would be ruled out.
There also appears to be a belief out there that a "traditional way of life" has to be preserved and that this is what people want. Is it? Do indigenous people really lack the same aspirations as other Australians or are we asking them to maintain a separate way of life so that we can feel good about 'preserving their culture'. The reality is surely that 'their culture' is now a myth so corrupted by contact with other cultures that it has altered forever. Do we really want indigenous children growing up not speaking English and not having basic concepts to cope with the 21st C because their languages did not need and therefore do not have words to cover them.
Indigenous people do not need an apology and most do not want one. It is political activists who want the apology. Indigenous people want to get on with life - and they have no chance while the activists who claim to work on their behalf keep blocking every move to try and help them on the grounds that their culture and way of life has to be preserved.

The notable element missing in this entire article is the notion of self-determination.

It is the indigenous communities themselves who will decide whether their culture has validity. It is the indigenous communities themselves who will decide whether an invasion occurred, whether they deserve a treaty and whether Jan 26, 1788 will be marked as "invasion day".

Certainly not half-baked commentator with less than a undergraduate's understanding of anthropology.

@commuunicat
'It is time to thoroughly address the question of "who is indigenous?"'

Amazingly, this is also defined by the communities themselves. Want to become an aboriginal? Live with them long enough, interact with them long enough, abide by their norms and conventions and soon enough you will find that the elders will vouch for you. Just like they did for Buckley.

This is the most sensible and enlightening/enlightened article on the subject to come this way!

Thank you, Brian Holden.

Some quibbles with Holden's article:

The struggle for land rights was not motivated by some idea about "the preservation of a culture in its original form" - it was based on the need for some justice to occur in relation to Indigenous rights to property - i.e. their legal interest in the land.

Holden arrogantly states that culture "has no validity after the loss of the original environment it evolved out of". Obviously culture grows out of physical reality, but it is the responsibility of Indigenous people to work out how to adapt their existing culture to contemporary realities. We can't simply wave a wand and tell them that their culture no longer exists, so they should just forget it. Apart from anything else, that simply won't work.

Holden's broad brush dismissal of Aboriginal activists displays his own ignorance.

For example, one of the firebrands of the 1970s land rights movement, Marcia Langton, produced (in 1990) a groundbreaking report on the dysfunction in NT Aboriginal communities for the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission. It forthrightly spotlighted the enormous violence, alcohol abuse, sexual degradation and child neglect in forthright terms. It was called "Too Much Sorry Business", and is worth seeking out and reading now in light of recent events. Many other Aboriginal women have made similar brave public stands over the last couple of decades.

Holden may be erudite and articulate, but he is somewhat more lacking in knowledge than he may care to admit.

G'day, There is just too much said here That I take issue with, to comment about in one post.Raving about animals and food and about the 21stcentury. I would suggest you step into anothers shoes just while you read some history, try Henry Reynolds, author. the only real efforts to publish some truths concerning ' the invasion'
realise the sustained concerted efforts of govt to demolish a nation of humans in every way possible. For one reason only, " their land"
It takes a large amount of thick hide and arrogance to look an indigenous person in the eye when you hate them for still being here to remind you of what you have taken and still possess.
Yes once you start talking about the colour of skin the amount of mixed blood, you are far down the road of racism, you realise of course that indigenous australians didn't colonize the land of white skins where we white anglo saxon english speaking christians come from it was us that penetrated their genes with ours not the other way round. Yes invasion,and I have to say, to get off the subject. "spears vs bow and arrow?" have you ever seen speer throwing? I know which one I'd rather have shot at me. I actually watch on tv just last week, " primitive games" where the crazy engish run around with spears and arrows on a course.. the two winners were one with bow and arrow and one with " australian style spear with woomera" and he came to australia to copy the throwing style to perfect his skills. right dead centre of the bulls eye.
agriculture, fire? and land management animal management with indigenous australians?
Boundaries. all indigenous tribes have very strict land boundaries that the stupid british failed to comprehend. Trade there was much trade between tribes.
I'm flabbergasted.
Three things that indigenous australians need.
Sovereignty, Power of veto, and massive compensation.
That's what this country needs to begin to put things right. No apology just do the right thing.
Cheers Neil P.S. had to edit out 40 good words.N