To AJ

I have long been interested in the estimates of how many aborigines existed in Australia prior to white settlement. I have read many estimates over he years from books, newspaper articles, and magazines. The lowest was 150,000. The highest 700,000. But the figure which most consistently came up was a midrange 250,000-300,000, a figure repeated in the book "Guns, Germs and Steel" by sainted trendy lefty author Jared Diamond.

"In addition, Australia's infertility, aridity, and climatic unpredictability limited the hunter-gatherer population of Australia to a few hundred thousand people." Page 312

"Tasmania's population of four thousand hunter gatherers........." Page 313.

"Mainland Australia's 300,000 hunter-gatherers were more numerous and less isolated than the Tasmanians......" Page 313

This is a bloke who's opinion that "all humans are equal" conforms to your own worldview, but who (unlike your good self) at least tries to present a well reasoned argument as to why he thinks that way.

I can agree with Jared Diamond that all people are equal, if the more time that any group of humans spends in a civilised state will increase their intelligence. Aboriginal people are capable of acquiring the same intelligence as Asians, provided that they had 5000 years of civilisation behind them. But what we are dealing with today is the intelligence levels of aboriginal people in their present state.

Socialist egalitarians insist that aborigines are equal to whites in every way. Therefore, they insist that aboriginal dysfunction is a product of white oppression and white discrimination. In order to "close the gap", billions of dollars are wasted every year by organisations who love wasting billions of dollars every year trying to prove their ever failing social theory is correct. In the NT, two thirds of the NT Education budget goes to one third of the population who are aborigines, with the only result that there is a 90% failure rate in aboriginal NAPLAN examinations.

So what do we get from the Socialists to solve this problem? Constant demands to stop all examinations of all children for sundry politically correct reasons

LEGO,

I find it difficult to believe that the 250,000-300,000 estimate was the figure that continuously popped up in all your reading of pre-settlement Australia. I have linked to two articles that reference the most authoritative sources for estimates, and the median estimation hovers around the 750,000 mark, which is more reliable than, “Well everything I’ve read said 250,000-300,000.”

<<This is a bloke who's opinion that "all humans are equal" conforms to your own worldview, but who (unlike your good self) at least tries to present a [well-reasoned] argument as to why he thinks that way.>>

Really? You're already starting that this early in the piece? In all our discussions you are the only one who has given an unreasoned response:

“If you listen real hard, you can hear the cashed up professionals in Madison Avenue, Saatchi & Saatchi, and Mojo laughing their heads off at that one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17896#318497)

Try give one example of an unreasoned response from me.

*Crickets chirping*

Anyway, what matters is what this Jaren Diamond’s sources are. Has he found a bunch of 250,000-300,000 estimates that no-one else knows about? Or has be compared them all and decided that the Radcliffe-Brown estimate was the most accurate? And if he did, how did he come to that conclusion? Because, if he’s just seen the 1930s Radcliffe-Brown estimate and then used it, then citing his book doesn’t strengthen your argument.

<<[Socialist egalitarians [whoever they are]] insist that aboriginal dysfunction is a product of white oppression and white discrimination.>>

More so just oppression and discrimination. The fact that it was done by white people is irrelevant. I know you want to make that an issue, though; just as much as these fruit loops, who wish they weren’t white or refuse to have children because they’ll be white, want to make it an issue. Only for different reasons.

But you forgot to mention the biggest factor by far: cultural dispossession.

Do you have evidence against this?

Hi AJ.

If you read Radcliffe-Brown's exposition on the Aboriginal population, you may understand how he came to his total of 250,000. Australian Year Book,1930: it's available in most large libraries.

Your two citations using a figure of 750,000 are not any more reliable than Radcliffe-Brown's. I think he was a bit of a blowhard, but his survey of the possible figures was pretty thorough and he knew his business.

Joe

Thanks for that, Joe. I didn't mean to imply that the higher estimates were more reliable, I'm just interested in why the lower estimate should be preferred for reasons other than trying to portray Indigenous Australians as hopeless, or better off after 1788.

Pointing out the fact that Australia suffers from a lot of drought alone isn’t a reason in itself because we don’t know that a population of 750,000 doesn’t take this into account, and that the Indigenous population would be closer to 2,000,000 had it not been for drought. As a couple of my links pointed out, recent archaeological findings suggest that a population of 750,000 Indigenous peoples could have been sustained.

Radcliffe-Brown may have been thorough, but we know more than we did back then and it's hard to gauge just how thorough and accurate he was without comparing his estimate to those of others.

Hi AJ,

The term "cultural dispossession." has been around for a very long time, but I've never figured out what it is supposed to mean, and how it is supposed to have occurred. Yes, a lot of 'make it up as you go' has gone into its construction, to which you are free to add to your heart's content, but back on the ground, it does need some untangling, and some foundation.

I suppose we can fart around over a sort of CEM Joad's 'Well, it depends what you mean by .... ' things like culture, and processes of change, amongst which may or may not include 'dispossession'. But whatever people dram up, or seize upon, they still need to provide some evidence.

Cultural change over time, and in a wide variety of circumstances, is an incredibly complex and involved set of processes, and it's easy to stand back and say 'dispossession', but I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as that. Would you like some examples, and evidence ?

Cheers,

Joe

AJ,

" .... trying to portray Indigenous Australians as hopeless.... "

Why even assume that ? Australia was a very harsh environment to live in, most of it, so great ingenuity must have been needed to survive. The tragedy was that people were trapped here without any opportunity of moving beyond hunting and gathering. All credit to them

Joe