Hi Yuyutsu,

You're right, so what aren't the Government kill-joys planting more money trees ? Ideally, they could be self-planting, of course, but that's next-technology.

Joe

.

Dear Joe,

.

« I think you've answered your own query. Put the time in, my boy, and you may learn something. »
.

Thanks for the advice, Joe. So you say it took you 50 years to learn all about the Aborigines? I’m a slow learner. It might take me at least twice that much. I’ll come back to you on that just as soon as I can.
.

« Humans learn, usually the hard way, how to manage their environments. Aboriginal people have been no different [what ?! no different?! NO.] Everybody has over-used and buggered up their environments until they learn otherwise, the hard way. »
.

As an eminent authority on Aborigines noted recently: “Some slight exaggerations there, but I suppose hyperbole is easier than evidence”.

If you, too, are willing to “put the time in, my boy”, I should be delighted to consider your evidence.

In the meantime, given the track records of Aborigines and Caucasians in the eco-system, the following observations make a lot of sense:

« Now we’re stuck between two cultures, two worlds; we can’t go back to the old way because the natural environment has been destroyed. Nothing is there in its natural state anymore. We can’t get into your system because many of us don’t understand it. » (Bob Randall, elder of the Yankunytjatjara Nation).

« In our system we have the answer not only to Australia’s problems but to the world’s problems. Our system has stood the test of time. In our system we hold the key to the sustainability for the survival of planet earth and the human race. It is all bound up in this system we are trying to explain to you. » (Wadjularbinna Nulyarimma, elder of the Gungalidda Nation).

Both Aborigines and Caucasians migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago so we have a pretty good time scale to work on.

I agree with your observations on the negative effect on the eco-system of excessive pastoral and (industrial) agricultural activities by Caucasians - plus mining and industry.

We are the champions, Joe!

.

Dear Banjo,

As a short-cut, if you check out my web-site (www.firstsources.info) look up a short article titled "Re-Thinking Aboriginal History". It's a potted summary of a few years of transcribing documents.

I'm suggesting that, throughout human history, many groups have been catastrophically decimated by their misunderstandings of things like droughts and floods, as well as the denudation of landscapes, de-forestation, over-sue of fragile environments, including Austtralia's.

Aboriginal people certainly had far less impact on the Australian environment than elsewhere. But droughts, I suspect, were literally devastating on Aboriginal groups. Look at the current drought in Queensland, covering more than half a million square kilometres. What would have happened in pre-Contact times during a three- and four-year drought like that ?

First, mothers' milk would have dried up, so any children under four or five would have died. Died. not just gone a bit thirsty. Died. As a drought bit deeper, mature and fit people would have moved quickly towards where they thought there might be water, therefore animals, therefore food. The old women would have been left behind. They would have died. Some of the less agile older men would also have fallen behind and died.

If droughts were more extensive and lasted longer still, no children would have been born. The youngest person would have been four or five years plus the length of the drought. A ten-year drought would have meant that the youngest person was fifteen, while nobody would have been over forty or forty five.

One drought here, around 1200 AD, lasted thirty two years. What would have been left of any groups enduring that ? Bugger-all: after that sort of drought, neighbouring groups would have slowly re-colonised the empty areas, perhaps over centuries.

That's not just privation, but devastation.

By the way, after a ration system was introduced, what do you think would have happened during a drought ? Everybody would have survived, congregated near to rationing points for the duration. Yes, that's how it went down. What might have been the impact of culture in those circumstances ? Intense, uninterrupted transmission, I'd suggest.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

I wrote :

« They (Aborigines) burned the bush to renew and reinvigorate grasslands for hunting purposes. »

And you replied :

« That is a myth, the dreaming of politically correct multicultural apologists. They burned the bush to harvest part-cooked animals that through injury and shock were much easier to locate and catch. It was and is environmental vandalism and cruelty affecting thousands of hectares and a myriad of wildlife, destroying rainforests and encouraging rapid takeover by eucalyptus. »
.

That certainly sounds feasible, onthebeach. I should like to investigate the idea further with you. Would you be so kind as to provide a little more detail? Are you speaking from personal experience? If not, could you refer me to the appropriate historical and/or research documentation?

Unfortunately, I have not been able to find anything on the web to substantiate your information. Perhaps Loudmouth has something on it. The closest I could find is as follows:

« The use of fire was an important part of Aboriginal life, apart from its use in cooking. For example, it was used for hunting to drive wallaby or kangaroo into a trap. Particular parts of the bush were set alight in such a way that the wind would drive the fire towards a place where the hunters were waiting. The animals were driven into that area due to the fire and some could then be speared or clubbed as needed. Of course the Aboriginal people had to be careful not to let the fire get out of control and burn the animals and themselves! It took a lot of practise and skill to judge the right time and place to light the fire. »:

http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tyndale.edu.au%2Flibrary%2FJunior%2FHSIE%2FYear5%2FWebQuest%2FAlphabet%2FFire.doc&ei=SwQ5VfP5DYvB7AaClYGQCg&usg=AFQjCNGYLPfK2FhFFF8IgB1cRUUGPI1T2Q&sig2=FAbdJBw7OarPALLoloQaDg

A Stanford University research team came up with similar findings in a 2010 study:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/april/martu-burning-australia-042910.html

The Alice Springs Desert Park indicates:

« Fire was an important aid in hunting but was rarely used to actually kill animals directly. Instead, areas were burnt in such a way as to direct animals to where they could be easily speared. »

(http://www.alicespringsdesertpark.com.au/kids/culture/fire.shtml)

.

.

Dear Joe,

.

« Re-Thinking Aboriginal History »
.

Thanks, Joe. I read that summary article of the Protector’s account of mission life for Aborigines in South Australia from the 1840’s to the 1950’s and the Journals of George Taplin, the missionary who set up the Point McLeay Mission on Lake Alexandrina.

It does shed an interesting light on the life of the Aborigines in the missionaries at the time. However, as you indicate, « between 1840 and the present, the Aboriginal population on Missions never exceeded more than 18 % of the total Aboriginal population in contact with the state, except during the depression when it rose to about 30 %. In other words, for most of the time, more than 80 % of the entire Aboriginal population lived away from Missions, across the State. »

I suspect that where the problems arose was with the 80%.

Also, I have no doubt that the hardships you mention due to natural disasters such as droughts must have been quite devastating for the Aboriginal populations just as much as they were for the flora and fauna throughout the country.

Finally, allow me to add that I find you and your wife’s passion for the Aboriginal community quite touching. Keep up the good work, Joe.

Cheers,

.

I wonder did Aboriginal hunting fires ever get out of control?

Anyone got anything on their bushfire prevention code?