@Loudmouth: "So what is it about Aboriginal culture that is supposed to be unique ?"

Now that's a great question.

I recommend Starting here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533&page=1 and see what may relate to your question.

Don't believe anyone. Do your own research and find your own facts, especially if you're seriously interested in finding a range of instructive answers to your question.

A few share some ideas in the different pages that may be an answer, or partial answer, to your question. Feel free to disagree of course.

Some disagree about what defines a 'civilisation' - is it stone buildings or writing or Law or agriculture or art or philosophy or a high ethical / moral culture or something else.

I suspect some would also disagree about what does or doesn't fit the term "culture" as well.

Alt go here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=So+what+is+it+about+Aboriginal+culture+that+is+supposed+to+be+unique

Alt browse these results:
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=unique+Australian+Aboriginal+culture&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Alt browse these other search results:
http://scholar.lmgtfy.com/?q=Unique+continuity+aboriginal+culture+oldest+on+earth

They are just few examples of how to use search boxes and get different kinds of results.

Dig deeper into the papers and books by the academic researchers mentioned in this series
http://www.sbs.com.au/firstaustralians/

Ask this lady your question, see what she says: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2901951.htm

She'd know much more than I ever will, imho.

I have put my various views and feelings on the matter under discussion.

Take it or leave it.

Trust your own instincts and thoughtful conclusions on the matter.

I really do not think it matters what either of us "believe" or "say".
-

No Thomas, I don't think anybody should trust their instincts, so much as seek for evidence. Your way is the lazy way of a spoilt snotty twelve-year-old.

As for unique+continuity+aboriginal+culture+oldest+on+earth, the naïve racism of that claim is blown out of the water by the simple (well, perhaps not to you, Thomas) realisation that, if we all came out of Africa, and there are people in Africa, then the oldest cultures in the world, the thousands upon thousands of them, are in Africa. We're all Africans. That makes me quite proud.

I've been learning up on all of this for sixty years or more. The first time I went to an Aboriginal community would have been in about 1960, Delissaville. I've lived in a couple of others since. My wife and I made the first Aboriginal Flags in 1972 [ask your grandmother]. I've put ten years voluntary labour into typing up fifteen thousand pages of old documents, around two millions words. It's all on my web-site: www.firstsources.info

It will be a long time before you come close, sonny.

Joe

Thomas,

I trawled through your links, and could not find any substance to the continuity of Aboriginal culture. Nothing to suggest that Aboriginal culture in 1788 resembled in any way the culture of 1588 let alone 40 millennia prior.

Hi Banjo/Rodney, I am now back from visiting my cousin in Beaudesert, Qld. and I can now respond to you.

You are suggesting that race is a social construct, and that it has no basis in objective reality. Objective reality says that three primary races exist, and that those races are genetically different from one another. White Scandinavians can easily be distinguished from black Zulus. They are different in appearance and physical abilities because their genetics makes them so. If they are different in physical appearance and physical abilities, there is no reason to think that they must be identical in either intelligence or personalities.

There are 40 species of brown bears throughout the world. All of them are dangerous. But one of them is particularly dangerous, and that is the Grizzly Bear. The Grizzly Bear is a brown bear. But it is bigger than other brown bears and it looks different ("grizzled" appearance) to every other brown bear. Whatever genetic difference it has to every other brown bear would be infinitesimally small. But that infinitesimally small difference means a lot.

There are four species of African buffalo. All of them are dangerous. But one of them, the Cape Buffalo, is particularly dangerous. It is so dangerous, that it forms one of the five species of "dangerous game" (Lions, Tigers, Rhino, Elephants, Cape Buffalo) hunted by "big game" hunters. Whatever infinitesimally small differences in DNA account for the difference between cape buffalo and other African buffalo, it is very significant.

Your position seems to conform to the latest leftist thinking on sex. This suggests that the differences between the sexes is also a social construct. All one has to do to accept that peculiar position, is to deny the objective reality of the existence of vaginas and penis's. Whenever leftist thinking has a problem with objective reality, the default lefty position, is to dream up some now ideology that can ignore the inconvenient facts. They then use a perverted psuedo-science or bizarre logic to make their round ideological "facts" fit the square holes of reality.

Wrong again, AJ.

My position is, (see, unlike yourself, I am not afraid to state a position I am willing to defend), that IQ is related to civilisation. The longer are race or ethnicity has to evolve their higher learning intelligences, within a civilisation which needs those intelligences, the higher the collective IQ.

But I have no idea what your position is, because you are too frightened to state it. If you come right out and state a position, it will oblige you to defend it. And that is way beyond you. So, your tactic is to be completely negative, snipe away at me, and get whatever mileage you can get from that. That is the safe way of pretending to debate. But any impartial observer would see my willingness to state a position and defend it with reasoned logic, is much more convincing.

Okay, LEGO, but that doesn’t mean I was "wrong" (let alone “again”).

<<My position is … that IQ is related to civilisation. The longer are race or ethnicity has to evolve their higher learning intelligences, within a civilisation which needs those intelligences, the higher the collective IQ.>>

It just means that your position has changed. You forget that I quoted you from an earlier post expressing a very different idea.

So where is your evidence for this, anyway? I linked you to an article effectively discredited the above in my last response.

<<But I have no idea what your position is, because you are too frightened to state it.>>

My position is that there is no evidence for your above claim.

Don’t bother starting with the “… unlike yourself, I am not afraid to state a position I am willing to defend” nonsense. I already discredited that in the last thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18530#330100) If your position is reasonable and grounded-in-reality enough to withstand criticism, then, “I think you’re wrong”, is the only position you need from me. Of course, I've told you this many times before, sometimes going into great detail as to why, but as Thomas O’Reilly alluded to earlier, that doesn’t mean much where you’re concerned. You just repeat the same rubbish over and over and over.

Speaking of which, I had discredited every one of your claims in your post to Banjo Paterson in our first discussion on race (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#276108). Now here you are, repeating them all over again, probably in the hope that Banjo Paterson isn’t as aware of the numerous problems with your racial theories.

Good luck with that.

<<But any impartial observer would see my willingness to state a position and defend it with reasoned logic, is much more convincing.>>

I think your "impartial observers", on whom you are so narcissistically focused, would be more impressed with the need for evidence before spouting off naive assertions because they sound, to the uneducated person, like they should make sense.