Oh, don't worry, Alan B. Foxy only rarely responds to my posts anyway, and she never answers any pertinent questions. I think that Foxy is a rooly nice lady who has been brainwashed to think that sticking up for the "oppressed" is what a decent person like her should do.

The problem is, that this makes her vulnerable to the neo Marxist message that the world is divided into "oppressors" and the "oppressed." The commie bastards then air brush history with outright lies like "Dark Emu" which Foxy wants to believe is true, so much. "Belief" is an amazing thing, Alon B. People can want to believe things so much that they will believe in the most ridiculous nonsense. Runner thinks that the universe was created in six days. Why does he believe such nonsense? Because he needs to believe it. He has based his entire hopes of eternal life on it, so he is willing to believe in what any rational person realises is complete crap to fulfil his deep psychological need.

Foxy needs to believe she is a humane and intelligent person, and there are plenty of pampered middle class like people like Foxy. My personal view is that most of these have deep feelings of guilt about their own privileged middle class childhoods, so they work off their guilt, by being the defenders of the "oppressed."

The Marxists know this, and they just pretend that they are part of the same morally pure and intellectually advanced caste. Then they dictate who the "oppressed" and who the "oppressors" are. Foxy is walking around with her eyes wired shut if she can not see that the Marxists today are demonising the whole white race, her race, to gain political power.

The whole idea of multiculturalism is to displace the white race in their own homelands by mass immigration. Then the Marxist present themselves to every non white ethnicity and disaffected minority, as their protectors.

It worked in the USA, with a bit of election fraud. Now the US has a senile President and a complete fool for a VP.

To Foxy.

Most historians agree that there are seven stages in the development of human societies. From hunter gatherers to advanced civilisation. Aboriginal people lived at the very lowest level of human existence, and it was impossible for them to change their circumstances because of Australia's unique environment. Australia has no herdable animals nor harvestable crops.

Because to get to the next level of human development, you must be able to obtain a more or less reliable food supply, in order for some people in the tribe to have the resources to think of other things, like creating technologies not directly related to obtaining food. Like storing food for later use.

Now use your brain.

Aboriginal people were hunter gathers, weren't they? They did not even possess the technology to make skins for clothes. They were naked savages. They could not even store food.

For you to claim that saying what is self evidently the truth is "racist" is just potty. You don't want people to think you are potty, do you?

Saying that aboriginal people were "very advanced" hunter gatherers does not alter the fact that they were still hunter gatherers. Saying that they had "advanced" "spiritual" beliefs does not alter the fact that they were hunter gatherers. You already know that every hunter gatherer society had spiritual beliefs, because "spirits" were the only way that they could make sense of the world.

You say you went to uni so you must have some brains. An intelligent person would look at "Dark Emu" and realise that the authors were trying to promote a ridiculous and easily refutable ideal, that somehow very primitive aboriginal society was somehow advanced. An intelligent person would realise that is farcical. Only a person who wants to believe something so much that he or she will ignore plain reality would accept it.

Ask yourself, is your compulsive need to think that you are intelligent and morally above reproach blinding you to self evident reality? And is that the way intelligent people think?

If you want to be smart, Foxy, start thinking smart.

LEGO,

So much "noise" coming from you.

Have you actually read any of the books under
discussion? Including Bruce Pascoe's book?

It's not me making all these assertions
about the Aboriginal people. Bruce Pascoe started it
and now - it's Sutton and Walshe - highly respected
historians and researchers - who
in their book (which is available as of today)
are the people who strongly repudiate the notions of
Aboriginal hunter-gatherers as living in a primitive
state. Pascoe's and Sutton and Walshe's books ask
Australians to develop a
deeper understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal
society and culture.

Sutton and Walshe provide extensive evidence to support
their arguments. While Pascoe asks us to look at
Aboriginal people in a different light.
He used historical records and
the journals of explorers and colonists, plus he supplied an
extensive Bibliography for people to do further
research. Sutton and Walshe found differences in
their research - which makes it all quite interesting
and is now shinning a light of discovery and putting
these issues on the table for further discussion.

What have you got to support your claims and accusations?
Judging from your posts - merely just a bag of wind and noise.
Including making up weird and false
assumptions about me as well. And you wonder why I
rarely reply to you?

Seriously?

There are legitimate issues and questions regarding
Indigenous history but it is up to the researchers and
historians to divulge this material. And so far they are
doing a good job. Go to your local library or good
book shop and get hold of Sutton and Walshe's book.
It is worth reading.

Dear Paul,

Once again - Thank You for your concern.

But I must be doing something right to continue to get
these responses. If people follow what I post, watch
me, and read what I write - lets face it - they
are fans - big time!

LOL!

See you on another discussion.

It seems that Foxy is determined to miss the point. She's constantly going on about Sutton/Walshe " strongly repudiate the notions of
Aboriginal hunter-gatherers as living in a primitive
state."

Well its true that they do say that SOME aboriginal groups didn't live in a primitive state, but that's only a surprise to someone as clueless as Foxy.

But the crux of the Sutton book is about utterly debunking Pascoe's rubbish. Yet Foxy is determined to not see that. She's also determined to ignore the truth that Suton used sources that Pascoe ABused to prove how Pascoe lied. She's also determined to ignore the fact that this misuse of sources was pointed out to her years ago.

Foxy and friends pretend to not see all these issues and then pretend that they are acting in a scholarly fashion.

Sutton et al don't reveal new information. Anyone who cared to look at the truth of aboriginal society knows that what Sutton reveals isn't a revelation at all. Its only a revelation or a surprise to those who cluelessly fell for Pascoe's fantasies.

Its best to just ignore Pascoe. He offers nothing to advance an understanding of aboriginal society. Aboriginals, pre-Cook, were a stone age people who had adapted to their circumstances enough to allow them to survive all but the worst draught events. Their lives were short and brutish. Their women were treated a chattels, beaten and sold as needs be. War was rampant. Intellectually their society was a dead-end and would have not advanced one iota in the next 40000 years in the same way as they hadn't advanced in the last 40000 years.

That some can so delude themselves that they can swoon over this backwater society is one of the few revelations worth considering in this debate.

LEGO,

Basically what you say is very true, although it seems it falls on deaf ears.

Just one point. You write: " Australia has no herdable animals nor harvestable crops."

Although its true that Australia has no herd animals now, this is because the aboriginals had wiped out the megafauna many millennia ago, some of which were, it seems, herbivore herd species.

As to harvestable crops, there are any number of such plants available in Asutralia. The problem wasn't that the plants weren't here, but that the aboriginals failed utterly to develop them. If you look at the original wheat and maize plants that still exist in the wild, they don't look in the slightest bit promising. You wouldn't look at these species and opine that it could be turned into fields of grain. But the peoples of the Levant and South America did just that.

Take for example a plant like Lomandra which is native to Australia. Even without intensive breeding it yields large volumes of edible seed. But none of the multitude of aboriginal tribes ever farmed it. Yet it is very much a harvestable plant.

We are constantly reminded by those who swoon over aboriginal society that they had a large variety of 'bush food'. But again not a single tribe ever tried to cultivate that bush food. And that's why they remained an intellectual and economic backwater.