Sunday July 2nd to Sunday July 9th, National NAIDOC Week celebrations are held across Australia, its a week to celebrate and recognise the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. NAIDOC Week is an opportunity for ALL AUSTRALIANS to learn about FIRST NATIONS cultures and histories and participate in celebrations of the oldest, continuous living cultures on earth. You can support and get to know your local Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander communities through activities and events held in local communities all across the country.

This week is an opportunity to help everyone understand First Nations people, and hopefully dispel many of the mistruths and negativity that some have when it comes to our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters. There are many free events in local communities well worth the visit, you never know it might be a good experience for some, and they may come away with a better understanding of our First Nations people.

http://www.naidoc.org.au/about/naidoc-week

Thank You Paul for this discussion.
I would love to at least attend the NAIDOC Week
activities in Federation Square here in Melbourne
tomorrow. But I shall have to wait and see how my health
pans out tomorrow.

My brother sent me 3 beautiful t-shirts by Aboriginal
artists from an outlet in Brisbane. I've been wearing them
regularly and getting lots of comments because they're so
artistic and colourful.

Big crowds are expected. in Melbourne.
I am looking forward to it being successful.

Hi Foxy,

My wife also has 2 shirts a friend got through her contacts here in Brisbane, beautiful colours and designs, I think about $40 each, not sure. This week Thursday they are down for "art class", wife wants to learn the Aboriginal painting style, however she is not sure about the protocols involved. In Maori culture there are certain protocols connected with crafts like flax weaving, which she wants to teach her friend. The problem is getting the right flax, someone has a plant in their backyard, but Australian flax and NZ flax are different plants. The outcome should be interesting.

Dear Paul,

«Sunday July 2nd to Sunday July 9th, National NAIDOC Week celebrations»

You too a nationalist?

Then I can only wish you a speedy recovery, brother.

«to learn about FIRST NATIONS cultures and histories»

That you too have been infected by this cursed disease does not imply that aboriginal people have it too, or ever had.

Aboriginal people never had this Western disease of nationalism, they used to roam around freely, they never thought in such stupid terms, they were free people and such name-calling claims as if they too had "it", are adding an insult to their injury!

With all sympathy to the aboriginal people, who undoubtedly were ill-treated by the ill people who came from the West, I stay out and will never celebrate any generation of these germs, be they first, last or anywhere in the middle.

they used to roam around freely,
Yuyutsu,
Yes & No. They had their areas where they roamed freely but anyone dare to walk into another clan's area better had a speedy exit tactic. All folk all over the planet have & still are working that way. Some have been colonised as is the case here where they are compensated way beyond what's warranted, the outfall of which is obvious now.
Too much compensation led to the discontent so prevalent now.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You write: "Aboriginal people never had this Western disease of nationalism, they used to roam around freely, they never thought in such stupid terms, they were free people and such name-calling claims as if they too had "it", are adding an insult to their injury!"

Please go read up on Aboriginal history. Tribal areas were very clearly defined and while there were seasonal movement within them it was only be invitation that neighbouring tribes were able to access another's lands. Rivers and scarred trees, much like those used by early surveyors delineated boundaries and there were quite formal procedures for gatherings between tribes. These were often done at the confluence of rivers which sat at the boundaries of tribal lands.

Dear Paul,

I'm so glad that your wife also has the shirts.
They are unique. Their quality, colours, and
artistry, are remarkable and I have received
so many comments while wearing them. "Beautiful,"
is a common word used:

http://bwtribal

Ooooops. Sorry I didn't complete the link.
Here it is again. Well worth a look:

http://bwtribal.com

SR

" there were quite formal procedures for gatherings between tribes"

Or so they say.

In fact the most formal procedures between tribes was warfare. According to calculations done by Blainey, the annual percentage of aboriginals killed in warfare was greater than the percentage killed in each year of WW1. And not just one year but every year over the millennia they occupied Australia.

When the newer arrives pushed the older ones out and finally chased them into Van Diemen's Land, I wonder if they had fo<rmal procedures for that? </sarc>

Dear mhaze,

What utter drivel. Stop reading selective quotes from the Spectator and then embellishing them even more but rather go do your own research. You might find some enlightenment there.

but rather go do your own research.
SteeleRedux,
Best to go & work in Communities where you can still gather the odd fact. Research as it is commonly seen by way of University is no longer factual. Too much self-interest has blurred perception & Library content is only released to a privileged few also with much self-interest.
The average Joe Blow off the street with an interest in history gets fobbed-off quicker than he can say 'Wha. ?"
Having people with a bias in Libraries in control of selective revealing documents is not helping future generations to pursue an interest in History !

SR wrote, rather incongruously, "Stop reading selective quotes from the Spectator "

Huh? I didn't mention the Spectator and have no idea what you're talking about. I think that makes two of us.

" but rather go do your own research. "

Oh, OK. Perhaps I might read the whole of Blainey's output on the issue - you know, in books like "The Triumph of the Nomads" and " The Story of Australia’s People". Oh, wait. That's in fact what I did - read all the material and formed an opinion. Sure beats the SR 30 second google search method.

_______________________________________________________________

PS. if you did find a Spectator article on this, could you link it. I like to read everything possible on the issue - unlike some.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Okay mate. You have the books. Please provide a single quote from Blainey which supports the specific contention "the annual percentage of aboriginals killed in warfare was greater than the percentage killed in each year of WW1".

There may well be a reference from Blainey which talks about tribal warfare in loosely these terms but it is an absolute guarantee you will have over egged it to blazes.

SR wrote (with, sadly, all the eloquence at his disposal) "Lol".

Quite why you think it funny that you've just been outed as a 30 second researcher is beyond me. I'd be embarrassed.

I was going to offer to give you the Blainey quotes in exchange for the Spectator link, but then realised that you're hiding that link for a reason and would, as usual, prefer to beclown yourself rather than admit error. So I won't bother.

Blainey quotes:

After describing one battle where two men were killed he writes:

"Occasionally, there were pitched battles or raids in which many men took part. The causalities might not, at first sight, seem large; but the death of two men in a battle involving 40 meant the causalities were approaching the scale of the Battle of the Somme. An aboriginal fight could absorb a large proportion of adults within a radius of fifty mile - indeed could involve the a far higher proportion of able-bodied adults in any war of the 20th century could possible involve."

Then after a long discussion about all the evidence around deaths in aboriginal warfare he writes:

"If we go on to accept a very cautious estimate of the number of fighting deaths, we arrive at the conclusion that the annual death rate in warfare equalled 1 for every 270 in the population. That death rate was probably not exceeded in any nation of Europe during any of the last three centuries".

He also talks about how William Buckley, who spent time with, and fighting for, one native group and had previous fought in the Napoleonic Wars, was shocked at how brutal the aboriginal battles were compared to those against Napoleon.

These are all in the Chapter 7 "Birth and Death" of "Triumph of the Nomads".

In reference to dispossession of Aboriginal land I see Torres Strait included. Can someone please tell us where Torres Strait Islanders have been dispossessed because I haven't heard of any !

Dear mhaze,

Then my argument would appear to be with Blainey rather than you on this score.

The first day of the Battle of the Somme of the 120,000 who attacked 20,000 men were killed.

Other figures reflect the great losses inflicted during the war.

"Alan Ogden, the Regimental Archivist for the Grenadiers, informed me that my great grandfather's battalion had suffered 1,286 fatalities over the course of the war. Battalions were about 1,000 strong at the start of the war, meaning that new members were put in and cycled through the unit several times (4,434 men served within 1 Battalion over the whole course of the war). This gives an overall death rate of 28 percent – it was 29 percent for 3 Battalion, 32 percent for 2 Battalion and 34 percent for 4 Battalion."

As for Buckley the battles Blainey related were interspersed with quotes like: "In the morning, I found the other tribe had gone away, and soon after we left for the place my friends chiefly inhabited, and there we lived for a very long time unmolested, and without anything particular occurring."

The ghost writer of Buckley's account Morgan was a newspaper editor with an eye to selling copies so the instances of fighting were understandably highlighted. But Blainey is being disingenuous in claiming this was was happening all the time or that it rivalled the Somme.

Steele and mhaze,

Wouldn't the Battle of the Little Big Horn be a better comparison, since 100% of Custer's men died.

BTW; I found the recent talk given at our local historical society, of the 3 convicts, Parsons, Pamphlett and Finnegan marooned in the Moreton Bay area in 1823 (200th anniversary) and living for 7 months with the local aborigines most interesting. Their accounts of warfare between various groups was different to some other European accounts.

SR,

You started off confidently asserting "but it is an absolute guarantee you will have over egged it to blazes."

then meekly wrote: "my argument would appear to be with Blainey rather than you on this score."

That, I guess, is SR's way of admitting error or apologising. But we've learned over the years that SR doesn't do apology of admission of error...just changes the subject.

Now since its impossible Mr 30sec Research will ever reading Blainey's book , perhaps a quick explanation will be required. The first quote I listed was all part of a larger discussion in the book that ran over 10 or so pages and which culminated in the conclusions which I partially cover in the second quote.

As to the Somme, taken over the whole battle, deaths were around 5% ie 1 in 20 (or 2 in 40!!). Taking one day out of that battle is just cherry-picking which is quintessential SR. ie reach the conclusion and look for the data.

So returning to the actual point which SR was so desperate to discredit, aboriginal society was highly militaristic and violent. Not only were aboriginal women constantly under attack by their men-folk but so were neighbours. Warfare was constant and vicious and sometimes genocidal. (Southern Arrente in Central Australia were virtually completely wiped out in an ambush that killed around 100, mostly women and children.)

The Disneyfication of aboriginal society continues apace and we will probably arrive at a time when information like that in Blainey's books will be banned. But in the meantime, we do the current aboriginals no favours by burying their true past. As I've said previously, we can't address aboriginal domestic violence without acknowledging its ancient roots.

" the Spectator link, but then realised that you're hiding that link for a reason and would, as usual, prefer to beclown yourself rather than admit error. So I won't bother."

Indyvidual says: "In reference to dispossession of Aboriginal land I see Torres Strait included. Can someone please tell us where Torres Strait Islanders have been dispossessed because I haven't heard of any !"

If someone is fortunate enough to fly out to Mer Island one of its features that can be seen from the plane are the fish traps that have been used for hundreds of years at least.

This was one of the factors that was used to prove that the Meriam people have continually maintained their traditional association with the land.

Without the Mabo decision initiated by Meriam people the Indigenous history in Australia would be taking a very different course.

Talking to an old friend one time on a work trip to Bamaga on Cape York I asked him his thoughts on the annual 4WD tourist influx that was taking place.

His response was that he didn't understand why a lot of people make the trip.

He said that most of them huddled together and many of them seemed genuinely scared to be in a minority in their own country.

I think about that often and wonder how many people are if fact scared of being a visitor in predominately Indigenous places and how that influences their behaviour when they return home.

Hopefully National NAIDOC Week is just one more thing that can be done to give Indigenous Australians a platform that can be used to reduce people's fears.

Hi WTF,

Many times I have been the lone Pakeha (white fella) in a sea of Indigenous (Maori) folks, anything from 500 to 3,000 all in some way related to my wife. Mostly at a tangi (like a funeral but 3 days long held in the one location), at the Marae (meeting grounds). The first time was a little daunting, not understanding the language or the protocols and customs, but over the years I've got used to it. Its all about acceptance, they accept you, and you accept them, then you are not so much of an outsider. Many times I've been asked by Maori fellas; "What do you think of all this?" I tell them, I don't have a problem, although I might say kissing a dead body is a bit "hori" for me. "That's true bro", they say.

the Mabo decision initiated by Meriam people ....
WTF? - Not Again,
So, it wasn't the Lawyers smelling Dollars ?

he didn't understand why a lot of people make the trip.
WTF? - Not Again,
Like with so many aspects of life here, it's the hype that makes them do it !
Years ago before Labor ruined it all up here by flooding the place with surplus Brisbane bureaucrats, it was nice & everyone got along. No racial differences whatsoever or feigned indignation. All that divisive nonsense was brought in by Labor.

Dear mhaze,

Of course you over egged it.

Show me where Blainey says anything like: “In fact the most formal procedures between tribes was warfare”.

Next you have taken this from Blainey:

"Occasionally, there were pitched battles or raids in which many men took part. The causalities might not, at first sight, seem large; but the death of two men in a battle involving 40 meant the causalities were approaching the scale of the Battle of the Somme. An aboriginal fight could absorb a large proportion of adults within a radius of fifty mile - indeed could involve the a far higher proportion of able-bodied adults in any war of the 20th century could possible involve."

Erroneously combined it with:

"If we go on to accept a very cautious estimate of the number of fighting deaths, we arrive at the conclusion that the annual death rate in warfare equalled 1 for every 270 in the population. That death rate was probably not exceeded in any nation of Europe during any of the last three centuries".

To get this:

“the annual percentage of aboriginals killed in warfare was greater than the percentage killed in each year of WW1”

I know you struggle with figures but let's give this a go.

Blainey claims 1 annual indigenous death in 270 population.

Great Britain and Ireland had a population of 46.1 million people but lost 1,350,000 dead over the 4.3 years of WW1. Or 1 in every 147 people annually.

France had a population of 39 million people but lost 1,927,000 dead. Or 1 in every 87 people annually.

Germany had a population of 67.8 million people but lost 2,737,000 dead. Or 1 in every 106 people annually.

Turkey took the cake. It had a population of 17.3 million people but lost 2,325,000 dead. Or 1 in every 32 people annually.

Source: Brill`s Encyclopedia of the First World War.

All far exceeding 1 in 270 annually.

Finally the Somme lasted 5 months. Blainey hypothesised on one raid/battle. It is entirely appropriate to use the first day's battle.

This is fun.

Given the mhaze logic, if there are four people in a car accident and one is killed, then the loss of life in that car accident is statistically greater than lives lost at the Battle Of The Somme. That makes it safer to face machine guns, than venture onto the roads in a car. WELL DONE MHAZE.

mhaze,

You quote Blainey; "According to calculations done by Blainey, the annual percentage of aboriginals killed in warfare was greater than the percentage killed in each year of WW1. And not just one year but every year over the millennia they occupied Australia." You even have a ratio of exceeding 1 in 270. Where did that come from?

Where is Blainey's evidence you confidently regurgitate, that for millennia Aboriginals slaughtered each other at a rate greater than the European carnage of WWI? Elsewhere you are demanding evidence from me.

SR,

Ya berk. What have I told you about playing with numbers....never do it because you end up looking even more foolish.

We are talking about "fighting deaths". The numbers you use are not "fighting deaths". (You never did understand the concept of comparing apples with apples did you? Your thinking is come up with a number that suits and just go with it). I didn't check all your figures but...

Since you didn't link to your source, I can't help you work out where you went so wrong, but I suspect you took the numbers of total deaths as opposed to "Fighting deaths". Blainey's was talking about the numbers who died in actual fighting. I suspect the difference will go over your head.

So you claim Britain had 1.3 million war deaths. In fact they lost 744000.

But hilarity ensues when you move onto Turkey (actually the Ottoman Empire but who can be bothered to explain that nuance to you). You say the Ottomans lost 2.3 million. In fact they lost 305000. I suspect you included all the deaths from the Armenian genocide but who knows - certainly not you!!

Still having fun?

But all this is just poor old innumerate SR trying ever so hard to not learn that aboriginal society was highly militaristic and violent.
I get that people like SR want to believe that pre-contact society was the height of peacefulness with the men filing in their time by picking daisies to give to their beau. But in fact it was brutal, misogynistic, militaristic and genocidal. And he'll never understand that.

So no apology from SR. About what you'd expect.

Meanwhile, silly old Paul goes off on some moronic rant about fantasising a car death compared to a shooting death. I'd try to understand what he's on about and explain the logic failure, but Paul's understanding of numbers makes SR look numerate, so why bother.

I would love to meet Geoffrey Blainey and sit
down and talk to him about Australia's early
history. I believe he's in his 90s today.

John Maynard's article in The Sydney Morning Herald
is worth a read:

http://smh.com.au/entertainment/books/geoffrey-blainey-takes-a-fresh-look-at-australias-early-history-20150314-14340n.html

Dear mhaze,

You really do flail around when you get sprung on numbers don't you.

Direct from Blainey's calculations where he arrived at the 1 in 270 of the POPULATION:

“A slow count of the deaths inflicted in the battles and raids described by Buckley reveals a total of at least thirty seven of whom 10 were women and children.”

WOMEN AND CHILDREN!

But sure, let's do the figures just on soldiers deaths for giggles, especially since you have set this up so nicely. Again I'm using Brill's figures which I did reference in my post. I did not provide a link but neither did you to Blainey's because they are both books, so please stop being so hypocritical.

Great Britain and Ireland had a population of 46.1 million people but lost 750,000 military dead over the 4.3 years of WW1. Or 1 in every 264 of their population annually.

France had a population of 39 million people but lost 1,327,000 military dead. Or 1 in every 126 of their population annually.

Germany had a population of 67.8 million people but lost 2,037,000 military dead. Or 1 in every 143 of their population annually.

All these figures exceeded the 1 in 270 Blainey claimed of one group of indigenous Australians.

Now Blainey might have been able to scrape his way around this but because you couldn't help yourself and decided to over egg it with “the annual percentage of aboriginals killed in warfare was greater than the percentage killed in each year of WW1” you really have no where else to go do you.

Time to move on old boy. And yes I am still having fun, lots of it in fact. Thanks for asking.

SR,

What no mention of Turkey? Another, YET another, one of those monumental errors from SR that he quickly sends down the memory hole and pretends to forget. Ever heard of Liz Warren? Well, pretends is unfair. I'm convinced he actually DOES forget these constant and repeating errors. Still in this case he was only out by 1000% which shows some level of improvement from his previous errors.

Still, having not read Blainey, SR purports to have an intimate understanding of his numbers.

But do you get what you're doing here SR. You're trying to show that aboriginal society wasn't in a constant state of warfare by showing that the annual death toll from warfare was marginally better than the death toll in the most catastrophic war in European history. And even to do that you have to use dodgy numbers AND dodgy calculations eg the war lasted more than 4 years.

So according to SR, aboriginal society, year in and year out over the centuries, over the millennia was as deadly as Europe was in a highly unrepresentative 4 year period.

And this is the basis of the claim that the aboriginals were peaceful. Struth.

Dear Steele,

The following may be of interest:

http://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2021/04/23/1382962/the-frontier-wars-undoing-the-myth-of-the-peaceful-settlement-of-australia

Interesting that Thomas Pamphlett in his account of the 7 months he and his two companions spent living with the natives around Moreton Bay in 1823 that there was only one hostile action between clans in that time. Pamphlett described it as large numbers on both sides gathering, including women and children and after much talk and gesturing, a spear was thrown wounding a native from the other group. According to Pamphlett both sides were satisfied with that action/outcome and then dispersed. Pamphlett did not reference any severe hostile action between the various groups in the entire 7 months he spent with them. There is also no European accounts of native hostility on a sizeable scale between large groups of Aboriginals around Sydney Cove during the early years of European Settlement.

mhaze, can you reference any large scale pitched battles between native clans/groups, which resulted in mass deaths? How about some more of that Blainey BS, where he offers speculation but with no concrete evidence to back it up.

Dear mhaze,

Now you are just being pathetic.

Stop scratching for scraps when there are none.

I didn't mention Turkey because you wanted to exclude all the women and children slaughtered including the Armenians during the war even though Blainey's figures included them for the Wadawurrung.

Then there was this from you: “Still, having not read Blainey, SR purports to have an intimate understanding of his numbers.”

I quoted directly from him you berk. Here you go:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9Ip_TyXUTIoC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

And this: “marginally better than the death toll in the most catastrophic war in European history”. The most? For Russia, Germany and Austria WW2 was far more devastating. Or Poland which lost 6 million of its 35 million population. You are talking gibberish.

Or this: “dodgy calculations eg the war lasted more than 4 years.” Indeed it did which is why I used 4.3 years in my calculations, something I spelt out clearly.

You couldn't help yourself and you over-egged a dubious claim by Blainey. You got found out. Now you are grasping at non-existent straws.

There are none. Give it away.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. Yes there is a lot of material debunking the myths about precolonial history. Just getting the myopic buffoons to read it is the challenge.

D and A testing on pre-colonial Aboriginal skeletal remains indicates many lived in excess of 70 years, whilst the life expectancy of
the English in 1790 was less than 40 years, according to records. Early accounts of Europeans on the First Fleet indicate there were many elderly Aboriginal folk living peacefully around Sydney Cove in 1788.

Paul,

Firstly it is DNA, not D and A, secondly, age is determined by the bones and not the DNA, Thirdly, a few samples of aboriginals living to 70 does not make that the life expectancy of the group.

SR,

There is no instance in history or prehistory where small independent tribes did not engage in war with each other and the greater the tribes/nations became the larger the conflicts but the smaller the proportion of people that died from warfare.

That pre-colonial aboriginal tribes co-existed with each other in bucolic harmony is laughable.

SM,

You and others, mhaze for example, are quick to accept the word of Blainey as fact, when there is no supporting evidence, and there is no way Blainey could have knowledge of how Aboriginal people lived tens of thousands of years ago. The study of skeletal remains, dated by DNA testing (to determine the age of the bones) these remains indicate there was a high proportion of Aboriginal people living beyond 70 years. Where as the life expectancy of the Pom in 1790 was only 39.7 years.

I gave you the first hand account by Thomas Pamphlett (Moreton Bay 1823) of Aboriginal hostile interaction, and that indicates "battles" were more a case of posturing and fained aggression, more so than outright bloodshed, which served no ones purpose.

What you or mhaze can't produce is any evidence of battles involving large numbers of Aboriginals, which resulted in high numbers of deaths. Far more Aboriginals met their end at the hands of the European than were killed because of tribal conflict!

Well as we know, a negative narrative suits your mantra so you claim it as fact. What I will say is there is not overriding evidence one way or the other, and the "historian" Geoffrey Blainey's BS is simply that, BS.

Frst Dtrrlr.

The myopic buffoons no longer matter in the history of this
country. They will be left behind especially as the
younger generations reach voting age. Look what happened
with same-sex marriage, and at the last election. The majority
of Australians will get it right this time around.

NAIDOC Week is being celebrated around Melbourne and
all the major cities. There's so much going on.
From photographic exhibitions, dreamtime stories,
all libraries are joining in the activities. So much to see
and do. It makes me proud that so much is being achknowledged
and shared.

The following link brought so much joy:

http://abc.net.au/news/2023-07-02/black-excellence-indigenous-leaders-honoured-at-naidoc-ball-2023/102550988

Yes, Foxy we voted for Gays to marry, and we got transmen having babies and trans women in women's sport and persons identifying as non-gender. There is subsequent flow on to other hidden Woke behavior.

Josephus,

By allowing same-sex couples to marry we took a
major step towards full equality for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender people. We made
significant progress towards treating people as equal
citizens.

Many Australians celebrated the strength, resilience and
diversity of LGBTIQ communities. These Australians
believed that the recognition of marriage equality was
an issue of equity and was an important step towards
improving the mental health of LGBTIQ people.

We as a nation need to be proud to celebrate diversity and
to stand up[ for equality in our community. It is for that
reason that many of us continue to advocate for
non-discriminatory communities, systems, policies, and
institutions because we know discrimination can lead to mental
health conditions and suicide.

Marriage equality is not the end of the journey for many,
and therefore people are going to keep advocating for
change - just as the 1st People of our nation are now trying
to invite us all to do.

Of course you are against supporting them as well.

No surprises there. Just shame and disgust!

SR,

You keep claiming that I misrepresented Blainey even though you've already conceded that I didn't misrepresent Blainey ( "my argument would appear to be with Blainey rather than you on this score."). Consistency in thought requires consistency in logic. Oh well.....

In the meantime, what we have is the usual aboriginal apologists trying to convince us (or convince themselves) that aboriginal society was a utopia of peace because they think that they can show it wasn't quite as violent as WW1 Europe. Imagine a world where the annual death toll (year on year, decade on decade, century on century) just from warfare was on a par with that of Europe in 1914-18 and then imagine the warped thinking that such a society was a utopia of peace. That's the garden path the aboriginal apologists lead themselves.

Meanwhile, the perpetually clueless Paul asserts " mhaze can't produce is any evidence of battles involving large numbers of Aboriginals, which resulted in high numbers of deaths.". I offer the genocide against the Southern Arrente tribe in Central Australia where the entire tribe, other than a few hunters who were away at the time, were ambushed and utterly wiped out including women and children. Those who didn't die in the initial attack, including toddlers, had their limbs broken and were left to die 'naturally'. The perpetrators were the Matuntara people. The death toll was between 80 and 100. There's an interesting story of how the survives then launched a 12 year clandestine campaign to murder the leaders of the ambush.

Were Paul to read Blainey (giggle) he'd find many such stories of massacre, pitched battles and revenge attacks.

It was a highly misogynistic, militaristic and genocidal society. Only those who've fallen for the 'Noble Savage' myth think otherwise. Of course, those same apologists rely on the fact that there is no written account from the aboriginal side of these massacres as evidence tat they didn't occur, using the totally illiteracy of the race as a virtue, or excuse. Its as though the extinction of the dinosaurs never existed because no eye-witness accounts survive.

Paul made a wholly fictitious claim that aboriginal life expectancy exceeded that of poorer Europeans by 20-30 years at the time of settlement. To try to justify his fabricated claim he compares two entirely different things - life expectancy at birth and maximum age. That is quite apart from Paul's utter misunderstanding about how age at death is determined.

Its true that European life expectancy at birth around 1800 was under 40. But its also true that many Europeans lived into their 70's just as some aboriginals lived into the 70s. But aboriginal life expectancy at birth was below 30 as was the case for all stone age societies. For a start, we have good evidence that infant mortality (including rampant infanticide) in aboriginal society was in the range of 40% to 60%. Even if every person who got to age 5 lived into their 70's, life expectancy wouldn't have exceeded 35. But they didn't. We know that maternal death rates were high especially since many young girls fell pregnant in their early teens. That is why so many tribes had a male-to-female population rate that approached 2 to 1, which in turn explains why there was so much warfare over women. (see how it all fits together Paul?).

Paul won't understand so I won't go into too much detail. But the evidence is that in 1800, life expectancy at birth for poorer Europeans was around 38 and for aboriginals was around 29

Yes, I agree with Foxy when she wrote " It is for that reason that many of us continue to advocate for non-discriminatory communities, systems, policies, and institutions".

So let's all show our virtue and love of non-discriminatory policies by voting to establish a body that discriminates against all Australia's other than one favoured race. Because nothing fights discrimination like having racial biased policies. <sarc off>

"Blainey's brand of conservative populism looks dated,
a record of partial truths and unexamined assumptions.
To update his story of the Australian people he didn't
return to the archives, or the last two generations of
history books and ask himself a fundamentally new question:
"Who are the Australian people?" He remains locked in an
"us" and "them" mentality."

"Blainey might have found a tad more room for "them" in his
narrative, but the "us" remains steadfastly - white, male,
middle-class, and Protestant. A bit like the old dog himself."

And sadly like the old guys on this forum.

There's more at the following:

http://smh.com.au/entertainment/books/story-of-australias-people-review-geoffrey-blaineys-conservative-populism-20161229-gtjc1r.html

Dear mhaze,

My goodness, I really have to take this slowly for you.

No I never conceded that you didn't represent him. You did over blow it. Blainey may have been able to worm his way out of it by saying the time frame was over any of the last 3 centuries. You however restricted it to WW1 thus have absolutely nowhere to go.

You claim: “For a start, we have good evidence that infant mortality ... was in the range of 40% to 60%.”. No we don't.

At the same time Engel was writing: “The great mortality among children of the working-class, and especially among those of the factory operatives, is proof enough of the unwholesome conditions under which they pass their first year.” William Scott at Port Stevens was admiring the fact that aboriginal children “were not weaned until six or seven years of age.” and remark “a people that could treat their children and pets in this fashion could have little guile or evil in their hearts.”

But this takes the cake from you: “Even if every person who got to age 5 lived into their 70's, life expectancy wouldn't have exceeded 35.” In the very book you are quoting Blainey clearly states: “It would be difficult to estimate what proportion of children in each society could expect to live to the age of forty: probably a new-born baby had a higher prospect of living to the age of forty in eastern Europe rather than in Australia, but after the child had reached the age of two the expectations of life probably favoured the Australian.”

Your “It was a highly misogynistic, militaristic and genocidal society.” applies to the colonialists in spades. In Victoria aboriginal numbers were reduced to under 200 within a number of decades. The massacres of women and children were brutal and commonplace.

Blainey followed the tropes of the times with an eye on book sales no doubt. That you seem to slavishly follow his every word but given what we know today is down to you but it can't becoming from a pleasant place.

mhaze,

"Were Paul to read Blainey" sometime back I read his "The Tyranny of Distance", Blainey was a prolific author, more so than an historian. You have nothing to indicate regular pitched battles between Waring Aboriginal tribes resulting in massive casualties over the past 60,000 years?

SR,

Well I did demonstrate the facts of the matter as regards WW1 and that the normal deaths per year in aboriginal society equated with the deaths in the worst period in European history.

As to life expectancy, I was talking about life expectancy at birth. This is going to confuse you but this means we look at life expectancy at birth not life expectancy at 2 or 5 or whatever number you think might suit your purposes.

We know that in all societies over the millennia, the first few months of life were the most fraught. This was true even for advanced societies up to the mid 19th century when infant mortality rates began declining in western Europe. This was also true of aboriginal society.

But the big difference for aboriginal society was the outsized instances of infanticide. Again, outsized as against Europe but not for stone age peoples. There were lots of reasons for aboriginal children to be executed not long after birth. Since women had to carry the young as the tribe roamed their domains. more than one child was impossible. So any child born to a women who already had a toddler was surplus.

"Victorian government surveyor Philip Chauncy saw a young woman, shortly after her child’s birth, scratch “a hole in the sand behind her hut and having given it a ‘little’ knock on the head, laid it in the hole and kept on crying, the child crying too, till she could bear it no longer, and she went out and gave it another little knock which killed it”. Asked by Chauncy how she could do such a thing, she “replied pointing to the bag on her back that there was room only for one child, and she could not possibly carry another”.

"“The natives are generally much attached to their children … and yet there is no doubt that infanticide prevailed to a fearful extent.”

/cont

/cont

"connected with the difficulty of bringing up a child in the conditions of native life in Australia, and namely: the long sucking of the child at its mother’s breast, and the necessity of carrying the child on her back for several years during the wanderings inseparable from a roving way of life."

"Some authorities even assert that 50% of the new-born children died a violent death immediately after birth."

"says of the parts of Central Australia known to him, that at least 60% of the women committed infanticide. He tells of one woman that she had five children, three of whom she murdered immediately after birth, and she explained in her broken English: “me bin keepem one boy and one girl, no good keepem mob, him to[o] much wantem tuckout!” Therefore the women of the bush daily murder their children and do not wish to raise more than two."

This is before we even get into the issue of killing one child to feed another which ws widespread but something I'd prefer to not assail your sensibilities with.

So quite apart from the normal travails of birth and birth defects, at least 20% and maybe up to 60% of normal births results in infanticide. Thus the chance of a child getting to the age of 1 year was around one in two. Mathematically therefore, if all the rest survived into their 70s (and they didn't) then average life expectancy at birth was still in the low 30s.

As Blainey says, once the child got past the toddler stage, they probably did as well as the poorest of Europeans. But they had a much lower chance of getting there. BTW Blainey's lack of bias is on display here. It shows his work as the search for truth as opposed to the search for confirmatory data. The concept will be alien to you.

"You have nothing to indicate regular pitched battles between Waring Aboriginal tribes resulting in massive casualties over the past 60,000 years?"

And you have no evidence that they didn't have such battles, because (and please sit down to read this because you're gunna be shocked) aboriginals did write anything down.

Therefore everything has to be inferred based on what evidence is available. This is the case as regards all stone age societies.

Its fascinating that the aboriginal apologists constantly tell us that their society remained unchanged forever (swoon swoon genuflect, swoon) but as soon is its pointed out that this means that bad things that applied in 1800 also applied in 60000BC they suddenly decide that things weren't always the same. And they call this truth seeking!!

BTW Paul have you noticed that no one, including yourself it seems, is prepared to support your ignorant assertion that aboriginals lived 30 years longer than Europeans. Even silly old SR is just trying to argue their life expectancy was similar.

mhaze,

How can any of us take you seriously - when your
research is so limited on so many subjects.
Your entertainment value is fading.

mhaze,

"You have nothing to indicate regular pitched battles between Waring Aboriginal tribes resulting in massive casualties over the past 60,000 years?"

"And you have no evidence that they didn't have such battles, because (and please sit down to read this because you're gunna be shocked) aboriginals did write anything down." Not sure what you are saying, is it they wrote things down, but not that thing. Please note, Aboriginal people did not write anything down, as far as I am aware.

Based on the above anyone can make a claim, and its up to others who might disagree, to debunk that claim. I didn't claim they had, or didn't have, pitch battles, resulting in mass deaths in the year dot, although I believe it unlikely, based on the need for survival. Now you say there are no written records for the year dot, so you, Blainey, or anyone else can't substantiate such claims.

Given your logic, should I say; "Aboriginal people landed the first man on the Moon in the year 50,000BC, that would be true if I read it in some blokes book, or if the Aboriginals had written it down, or until proven otherwise?

Dear Paul,

Very few Australians know much about the history of
our Indigenous people. Goodness me, Australians did
not stop being British citizens until 1984.
It's no wonder that some Aussies still buy into the
misinformation of some so called "historians."

Lets look at some facts:

http://amnesty.org.au/five-things-about-indigenous-history-you-probably-didnt-learn-in-school

Paul,

The logic (sorry to use words that you don't understand) is that, since there is nothing written down about what happened in say, 10000BC, it has to be inferred from what we do know. Now doing that is a problem where societies have changed dramatically, but since you claim that aboriginal society is unchanged over the millennia, the way they were in 1800 is the way they were in 10000BC. Follow? And since we know they were highly militaristic in 1800 then we can infer they were highly militaristic in 10000BC. We can seek to back-up that inference by looking at archaeological evidence and when we do that (or at least, when we used to do that) we find a much higher level of bone fractures than would be expected from a peaceful life.

So to take your moon-walking native illusion, if we found that aboriginals were indeed able to reach the moon in 1800, then, yes, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assert they walked the moon in 10000BC. Still, to do that they'd need to have written stuff down, and did I mention that the didn't write stuff down?

Foxy wrote: "How can any of us take you seriously - when your
research is so limited on so many subjects."

Oh dear Foxy, you've become so very puerile these days. I once had such high hopes for you.

mhaze,

You said they wrote stuff down, but not all stuff, let me quote you;

"because (and please sit down to read this because you're gunna be shocked) aboriginals did write anything down." What did they write down? Anything that came into their heads, like the Theory of Relativity, which like the records of their Moon trip in 50,000BC (you said 10,000BC, out by 40,000 years! Get it right son) were destroyed in the Great Fire of July 7th 13,253BC.

p/s The Theory of Relativity, states; everyone has relatives!

This is absurd, as YOU know nothing, but pretend YOU know everything. And of course YOU never make a mistake.

Dear Paul,

Take no notice of mhaze. He and Josephus have so much in common.

Here's a link for you:

http://newcastle.edu.au/newsroom/featured/new-evidence-reveals-aboriginal-massacres-committed-on-extensive-scale

"aboriginals did write anything down."

Well yes, a typo....should have read "aboriginals didN'T write anything down." So yes I do make the occasional error. I hope that hasn't shattered your understandable veneration of me.

So again, do you think aboriginal society was unchanged over the millennia and that we can make assumptions about what they were like in the dim past based upon what they were like in the recent past? Or does the claim of an unchanging society only apply when it suits?

Dear Paul,

I was fortunate to catalogue an Aboriginal oral collection
at the State Library of Victoria. Aboriginal people relied
on oral histories, artwork, pictographs in various
material (eg. the Maya and Inca recorded history in stone).
Our Indigenous people were able to pass down their history
through stories, songs, and oral communications.

These stories have been considered accurate enough by the
Supreme Court of Canada when in 1997 it held that oral
testimony and oral history was admissable as evidence in
court when the history could be corroborated.

This is indicative of the weight put on the spoken jword by
Aboriginal peoples.

Foxy,
I am not buying into who is right or wrong in this discussion but to place too much reliability on oral history is a wee bit fraught. It is only a matter of a generation or three that it slips into the category of folklore no matter who is so involved.
Even a written history is affected by the bias of the author. Our indigenous folk have a claimed 80,000 year history, the nuances and interpretations over that period of time would be mind boggling let alone the last 1000 years.
It is not lies just individual interpretation of events which will vary from individual to individual depending on their bias or experience.
Take it easy.
SD.

mhaze you were right about one thing, there was mass killings of natives, but it wasn't Aboriginals massacring Aboriginals, rather those "civilised" European Colonials, you're so fond of, (was there a great grandpa mhaze?) massacring thousands of innocent men, women and children of the native population. Do you think they murdered greater numbers than the "civilised" Europeans murdered during WWI? You love your facts, do you not!

Thanks Foxy, for the link to Newcastle University research on the subject of the hundreds of massacres of thousands of Aboriginals carried out by Europeans during the first 140 years of colonisation. Maybe that's where Blainey got his evidence from, which mhaze agrees with!

mhaze, my dear friend, YOU WRONG! not possible, you tell us how right you are often enough, and how dumb we mere mortals are. Can't be wrong, maybe you were just mistaken.

Dear Paul,

I admire your continuing to argue. I am losing
patience - when there is so much accurate information
available that has been corroborated by many sources.
People need to simply do their research, visit
libraries, and museums. The information is available.
It's only a question of wanting to know - and seek the
truth.

Dear Shaggy Dog,

To access the accuracy of any historical source of
course questions need to be asked, especially -
is the information corroborated by other reliable
sources and are there clues of bias in the sources
which suggest they may be in accurate.

It all depends upon how much time the historian has
spent chasing up other sources to corroborate the
initial ones. Bad or careless historians cut corners
for either professional gain or personal bigotry and
bias and we have seen many of these. Some historians
have gone with the flow of what they felt would be
acceptable by the majority. We've had this repeated
in our schools and educational institutions.
Finally, truth-telling is beginning to raise its
head - and it is long overdue.

If it available - if one is prepared to look and find it
no matter how confronting it may be.

"but it wasn't Aboriginals massacring Aboriginals"

Finke River Massacre? http://tghstrehlow.wordpress.com/1922/10/11/wednesday-the-eleventh-day-of-october-1922/

Many moons ago I was involved in a project on oral history. In the late 1970s a group gathered the oral recollections of 20 or so Gallipoli veterans about the events in 1917. These recollections were then given to three people versed in writing history but not particularly knowledgeable about WW1. They were asked to write the history of the Gallipoli campaign based solely on the oral records of the veterans.

Needless to say, the final report bore little resemblance to what actually happened.

Oral history (its not really history... but whatever!) gave us, the Iliad and Odyssey, it gave us the first five books of the Bible which so many here would rapidly deride. I read of a tribe in Arnhem who 'know' that Cook visited them.

But if all you've got is fables....

A bit more unwanted history, including ahem....oral history:

"When a child looks well, is “well-fed,” or “fat,” it may happen that one of the men, or even the whole community, murders it for cannibalistic purposes in the absence of its mother … We do not think that such cannibalism was common, though there are many references to it … It was only in periods of drought and famine that child-eating assumed large proportions … In hard summers the new-born children seem to be all eaten in the Kaura tribe. [Explorer Alfred William] Howitt inferred this from the remarkable gaps that appeared in the ages of the children … [I]n the Birria tribe during the years 1876-77, in the drought, not only were all the infants devoured, but even the younger grown children. However, in some tribes this practice appeared, even in a normal period, not to be so very rare. At least, if the gossip that circulated among the tribes were to be believed, cannibalism was even more extensive than we suppose. For instance, one tribe relates of another that it marks at birth those infants which are to be eaten later on; again the children of some women were always killed and eaten as soon as they got fat enough. According to [doctor and squatter Richard] Machattie, a tribe numbering 250 when the Europeans came, during the next six years ate seven children, i.e., about 3% of the whole population."

Primitive Society and Its Vital Statistics by Ludwik Krzywicki

"So again, do you think aboriginal society was unchanged over the millennia..."

mhaze,

As described by the Lutheran missionary Carl Strehlow, as "The Running Waters (Fink River) Massacre" which according to Strehlow took place in Central Australia in 1875. The reports were of 80 to 100 Arrernte people murdered by a party of 50 to 60 Matuntara men. Although there is some dispute as to the accuracy of Strehlow account, we can take it that a disturbing incident resulting in a number of deaths did take place at Running Waters between two groups of Aboriginals in 1875.

So what is your point, does the above prove that for 60,000 years Aboriginals were massively slaughtering each other, well no it doesn't. Did Aboriginals murder each other, I would say like the British did to their brethen, Aboriginals most certainly did to theirs, but maybe not to the same degree, like you and Blainey, none of us know.

Oral histories can correct, confirm, and add to
historical records. Without them incorrect written
records can go unchallenged and have done so, and still
do, in our nation's history.

Some historians make the mistake of not consulting an
original collection of oral records assuming the details
in the written records are correct since oral histories aren't
"trusted" by these historians in the same way print sources
are.

That is wrong. There may be dubious reasons behind the
print sources. Oral histories help to recapture lived
experiences that are not written down in traditional sources.

C.S. Lewis once noted that "a single second of lived
time contains more than can be recorded" and therefore we'll
continue to know next to nothing about history if we rely
only on written records.

While we can rely on the existence of memos, letter, and
physical documents to learn about the events of the past,
oral histories can show us things about people we study that
archival records alone never could.

Historians NEED oral history. Whenever possible we need to
seek out people or the experiences of those people - who
lived through the times we study and share their memories with us.
Doing so helps us get a more real picture of the times.

I think it was Winston C. who said "The truth is so precious that she must be protected by a bodyguard of lies." I have studied Folklore at a tertiary level and have written a tad. I also have a collection of some 500 short stories, yarns if you like, where the truth was not a constant as it oft times gets in the way of a good story. I lived and worked in the NT in the 60s, covered most of it. Some time in TPNG and travelled, as part of my work, in to some rather odd places and and have listened to many a story along the way. I developed the habit of scribbling a note in my diary as a reminder of a story I heard that evening or whenever. Getting a story up from a one line entry requires a bit of tampering with the actual but I suggest it would be more accurate, a wee bit, more accurate anyway, than one committed to memory only. SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

I have catalogued a large Indigenous oral history
collection at the State Library of Victoria where
I worked. There are many other sources available
today for people to access and get to truth-telling.
One simply needs the will-power to want to do the
research.

What concerns me is that Australia now risks a
Brexit-style social and political polarisation, and
setting back progress on reconciliation, and
overcoming Indigenous disadvantage. Voting no would
be a disaster. What a shame that the Coalition can't
see that.

Foxy, My work and personal life had me involved with Indigenous folk close up, not via a library. Some were friends with my kids as well and often slept over. My experience is not theoretical and based on reading others experience. The TPNG experience was totally different to that of Oz. Later years had me as far afield as the Amazon and other less than salubrious locations. I can get along with most folk black, white or brindle, colour is of no issue. SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

I've lived and worked in the US for close to ten years
where I mixed with people of various colours and races.

I've lived and travelled over Europe, Mexico, Canada,
I've run Storytime Sessions for various multicultural
groups. I've worked in Institutions of
Learning, government departments, corporate, private
sectors, even consulates ( representing the Brazilian
at the Sydney Royal Show). So I've had a very varied
life and work background.

I'm pleased to learn that you have as well.

Well done.

Foxy,
Well done Foxy.
My experience is nowhere near as esoteric as yours. Just day to day association with indigenous folk be it in Oz or other places. Take care. SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

Thank You. I regret not having much contact with
our Indigenous people and envy your experiences.

My younger brother who used to live in Kempsey, NSW
was a teacher (now retired) has had plenty of experiences
with Indigenous kids and their parents. His views are
different to mine. I suspect he'll be voting against the Voice.

Whereas - my older brother is the one who sent me the
three t-shirts from Aboriginal artists in Brisbane:

http://bwtribal.com.au

So you see - even family members don't always agree

Paul after asking for evidence of " Aboriginals massacring Aboriginals" and my providing it, asks "So what is your point"? The point was to provide an answer. The point was to show aboriginals massacring aboriginals which the aboriginal apologists here seem determined to not know about.

I have plenty of other examples of such warfare, but you don't want it to be true and therefore, in your mind, it isn't true. Its funny that you will, at every opportunity denigrate British society, but as soon as you run into some aspect of aboriginal society that you can't hide from, you want to claim that the natives were no worse than the POMS. To Paul, the Poms are to be abhorred and the aboriginals were no worse than them.

"So again, do you think aboriginal society was unchanged over the millennia..."

"And of course YOU never make a mistake." Its all rather childish that someone who could so cluelessly write "D and A" would make such a big deal of someone else's typo.

Dear Shaggy Dog,

I gave you the wrong link earlier for the aboriginal
t-shirts. Here it is again:

http://bwtribal.com

Foxy.
Finding a match for my blue eyes is a bit of an issue. Best I stick with my khaki shirts, Rugger shorts and Crocs. :-) SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

There are some great matches for blue eyes at the link
I gave earlier:

http://bwtribal.com/collections/unisex-fishing-polos

My brother bought me the sea turtle and pelican ones
and I've received so many comments on them.

mhaze,

A short list of 10 Aboriginal massacres in a single year where the population as it was, is shown to have been decimated by that 1:270 number you quoted, in a population of 800,000 that's about 3,000. Of course you will have some exceedingly bad years in the past 60,000 to throw out my way, you may have examples of say 10,000 massacred in a particularly horrendous year.

Sunshine, I admit I make mistakes, lots of them, but I don't make stupid statements about something of millennia past, like YOU do, and claim them to be gospel, when they are nothing more than your opinion. I can only assume your narrative is driven by some bias you have against "black people".

"So again, do you (Paul1405) think aboriginal society was unchanged over the millennia..."

How would anyone possibly know the definitive answer to that, you, me, Blainey we don't know.

Dear Paul,

In Australia we like to think of ourselves as
giving everyone a fair go. We're told that no
matter who you are, or where you come from, if
you work hard and stick to it, you can achieve
anything.

Sadly, the reality is that not everyone gets the
same chance to thrive.

For example, First Nations children are overwhelmingly
represented in Australia's youth detention centres:

http://amnesty.org.au/campaigns/indigenous-justice/

Foxy, I do not know about achieve any thing but one can certainly achieve a great deal in Oz. SD

"How would anyone possibly know the definitive answer to that, you, me, Blainey we don't know."

Its fascinating that the aboriginal apologists constantly tell us that their society remained unchanged forever (swoon swoon genuflect, swoon) but as soon is its pointed out that this means that bad things that applied in 1800 also applied in 60000BC they suddenly decide that things weren't always the same. And they call this truth seeking!!

I think Paul1405 perhaps has a bias against Anglo-Australian's and White people.

mhaze,

You asked a question, and I said it was impossible to know the answer. You used the word "think". Its as silly as asking do you "think" Foxy likes chocolate ice cream? When I have no evidence or knowledge to base an answer on, then what I say is immaterial. When it comes to Aboriginal behaviour in relation to massacres over 60 millennia its the same, no evidence, no knowledge. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.

Your crap that you claim its "fascinating", (you are easily amused).... "that the aboriginal apologists, (ever who they are) constantly tell us, (who are us) that their society remained unchanged forever (swoon swoon genuflect, swoon)" is stupid. All cultures are dynamic and not static and change over time. Except in your case and a couple of the other forum Old Farts who are still trying to relive the glory days of the Third Reich, I see the Kudos Kid has arrived with his usual guff, and he hasn't mentioned the "communists" slipping!

YOU, can't even supply examples of any year since 1788 where Aboriginals were massacring each other at a rate of 1:270 (your figure). That's why YOU are full of it! Hint; with a population of 800,000 1/270th is about 3,000. What's the running total for this year, man of knowledge?

Dear mhaze,

Ouch. Pretty average replies from you. Given up?

You said “Well I did demonstrate the facts of the matter as regards WW1 and that the normal deaths per year in aboriginal society equated with the deaths in the worst period in European history.” No you didn't. Go look at the posts.

You said: “As to life expectancy, I was talking about life expectancy at birth. This is going to confuse you but this means we look at life expectancy at birth not life expectancy at 2 or 5 or whatever number you think might suit your purposes.”

It isn't my purposes you twat. You were the one who introduced the 5 years old not me, remember? “Even if every person who got to age 5 lived into their 70's, life expectancy wouldn't have exceeded 35.”

As to infant mortality there is no doubt that indigenous people lacked the tools of our modern society to effect abortions. Economic necessity in some developing countries see quite high abortion rates to live births.

“Vietnam has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. A study conducted by the Hanoi Central Obstetrics Hospital found that 40% of all pregnancies in Vietnam are terminated each year."
Wikipedia.

But for you to be diving back into Quadrant for your material after I had dealt with Blainey's myopia is a little disappointing.
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2020/10/life-and-death-in-pre-contact-aboriginal-australia

This really does seem to be your go to rag on this stuff. It is unsubstantiated, cherry picked rot for the most of it and you would do far better finding your own sources than rely on the nasty, agenda driven, unsubstantiated garbage that emanate from its pages.

"It is unsubstantiated, cherry picked rot for the most of it and you would do far better finding your own sources than rely on the nasty, agenda driven, unsubstantiated garbage that emanate from its pages."

So when you can't argue the point, throw a tantrum.

Unsubstantiated? Well, the well-read would know it is very much substantiated.

Cherry-picked? The claim from those who don't want it to be true, but can't work out how to discredited it.

better finding your own sources?
Well, as I've demonstrated, I have plenty of my own sources such as to confuse the 30 sec researcher. But they aren't digitalised and it much easier to quote from digitalised sites that use the same sources. Have you ever read Krzywicki? If you did you'd realise why he's not been digitalised and why his findings are largely unknown to the 'woke'. He wrote from a time when history was the search for truth rather than a political exercise.

Paul wrote: "where Aboriginals were massacring each other at a rate of 1:270 (your figure). "

Well actually its Blainey's figure. That was made clear a few days back. Do try to keep up. If you read (and understand) Blainey's work and the extensive discussion he has to arrive at the 1:270 figure, you'd understand where the number comes from. But that would require a desire to get the truth rather than the mythology and well....it's Paul.

Dear Shaggy Dog,

My parents did work very hard and they did manage
to give better lives to their children. Our families
have prospered and thankfully continue to do so, and
I trust will continue to do so. However, this is not
the case for everyone - as realistically we all know.

Of course -
Australian politicians, interest groups,
and political and social commentators have long drawn
on the idea of a "fair go." However, the reality is
not the same for everyone in this country.

A disproportionate burden is placed on lower income families
in the country's budget. We have never ended poverty in
Australia. There isn't equality of opportunity as many
can testify. A child from a working class family may be
disadvantaged because their school does not have access to
what a rich kid gets in their education.

Single parents, people with disabilities, the homeless,
our elderly, and of course our Indigenous people can testify
to the fact that not everyone gets an equal slice of the pie.

Still, despite all this - I would not live anywhere else.
I love this country, and am grateful for what my family has
achieved thus far. I look forward to even more achievements
especially from our younger generations and their generations
making their contributions.

We try to pay our dues where we can - and this time we have
been given the rare opportunity to give our Indigenous
people what they are asking. A Voice in policies and
laws that affect them - and a chance to improve their lot.
It would not be a "fair go" to deny them this opportunity.

mhaze,

You are yet to provide evidence of large scale massacres by Aboriginal people perpetrated on each other, post 1788? Any large numbers of mass graves of women and children, who were obviously massacred, that you can identify to support your supposition?

You used Blainey's figure as proof of your belief, so it became YOUR figure.

What is your interpretation of Thomas Pamphlet's first hand account of how Aboriginals around the Moreton Bay region dealt with inter tribal hostility in 1823. Pamphlet was an eye witness to one such event, and he described it as more or less postulating than outright violence. Although one person blood was spilt, and that seemed to satisfy the belligerent group.

Foxy
My start to life was a wee bit different to most being raised in an institution from a very early age. A ward of the state. I moved from one side of the country to the other and started work in Sydney at age fifteen. Did not know a soul. I effectively raised myself from that point on. Did all right. I studied hard, worked hard, travelled widely and ended up in senior management positions in my chosen profession. A land of opportunity is Oz. For interest, over the years I have visited Wadeye, The Tiwi islands, Warburton Mission and many other locations where indigenous numbers were high. No stranger to the problems that exist now and have been there for many years. I am none too sure that the Voice will achieve over much in the short term if ever. The solutions whatever they may be are going to take time, lifetimes, and will not be seen in our time. SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

Thank You so much for sharing your story.
You must be a very strong person to have survived
so much. I can only bow to your knowledge, and lived
experience which I appreciate greatly. Of course
things will take time. I only hope to still be alive
to see some of it happen.

Again Thank You for sharing, and for your understanding.

Dear Paul,

I admire your tenacity of arguing with mhaze.

I wish that our War Memorial in Canberra would
acknowledge truth-telling and that the archival records
of the Frontier Wars were displayed and acknowledged.

http://theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/12/australian-war-memorial-ignores-frontier-war

Paul,

Pamphlet and his companions witnessed a series of fights during their travails. In the fight witnessed by Finnegan overall three warriors were killed. Its difficult to discern exactly how many people were involved but at one point a figure of 500 is mentioned. Three in 500 is a much greater proportion than 1 in 270. Also those three were all from the side favourable to the castaways. There is no way to know how many died on the other side.

So despite what you want to believe, the events surrounding the the Moreton Bay castaways validates the figures I've previously mentioned.

"You are yet to provide evidence of large scale massacres by Aboriginal people perpetrated on each other, post 1788?"

You old duffer. I mentioned the Finke River massacre and you agreed that it happened. Have you memory-holed that already?

mhaze,

You mentioned one in one particular year, that massacre was 80 to 100 persons, well short of 3,000 per year for every year. Finke River, one in one particular year, I'll give you 100, where are all the other massacres for the year 1875, you are about 2900 short. You have 60,000 years to choose from surely you can present evidence of 3,000 Aboriginals massacred by other Aboriginals for at least one of those years. Where is your evidence, nowhere to be seen!

Now as for Finnigan, you admit the number involved is ifey at best, and of course there are the "deaths" on the other side, again you don't know, you are clueless, but to suit your narrative you want us to believe it was also greater than your magic ratio of 1:270.

Paul,

I don't know why I need to explain this to you but the deaths weren't all massacres. As you've now found on the Moreton Bay incident, there were innumerable battles with small numbers involved, and a few deaths. You just make up these scenarios out of thin air (been spending too much time around SR) and then pretend they are facts. Read Blainey (or plenty of other historians) to see how these death rates are achieved. But just putting hands over both eyes and then saying you can't see the data is bonkers.

" to suit your narrative you want us to believe it was also greater than your magic ratio of 1:270."

Well we know it was greater than 1 in 270. We know it was at least 3 in 500 and probably more than 3.
You're so funny. You went from asserting that there were no deaths witnessed by the Moreton Bay castaways to telling me that I should know there were more than 3.

Sorry Paul, I'm done. Even a cat gets bored playing with his mouse victim.

mhaze,

I didn't say there were no deaths, never ever, I said Pamphlett recounted an incident he observed between two groups of Aboriginals. After their return to "civilisation", it was Pamphlett's account that was recorded, not Finnegan's, as Pamphlett was a 'ticket-of-leave' man, whereas Finnegan was still a convict. Even so, you call 3 deaths in 500 between two armed parties a "massacre", loser!

The Native American tribes massacred Custer and his outfit, by killing the lot. If Custer had lost say 3 men in his 100 odd, would you call that a massacre?

You did get one massacre right, of possibly 100 Aboriginals, at Finke River in 1875, that's well short of 1/270. To get your ratio correct, the total Aboriginal population of Australia in 1875 had to be no more than 27,000, which we know it was substantially greater than that.

Just give me one year where Aboriginals massacred 3,000, if you can't then I say you are full of it

Dear mhaze,

You are so transparent it makes me laugh.

A little innocent “Have you ever read Krzywicki?”.

Of course I have, he is directly quoted in the Quadrant article you have pulled you material from. He never visited Australia. He is the Warsaw professor who put his lazily researched and flippant book together in 1934. You know the one, your little 30 sec read where you decided it was too hard to delve any further because it wasn't digitised.

Its lack of rigour means it is not highly referenced except by the excited the agenda driven and the titillated.

Of course you yourself were titillated when you teased us with “This is before we even get into the issue of killing one child to feed another which ws widespread but something I'd prefer to not assail your sensibilities with.”

Then a few posts later you were dragging out the full Quadrant quote. But at least they had the courtesy of acknowledging the source.

Quote: “A swagman, Phil Moubray, relates that he found in the basin of the River Mitchell the Aborigines roasting and eating their own children”.

A bloody swagman!

Balance this against the Buckley account which, although salacious in its own manner, does not make mention of any “killing of one child to feed another” despite his over 30 years living with them. Your contention is somehow woke forces abounded in 1835 preventing him from mentioning it? What utter garbage.

Look, there are quite a few accounts from the period which through dehumanising the tribes legitimised their slaughter and dispossession by squatters and the like. Much of it does not stand up to more thorough study today. Only the scurrilous continue to quote them.

There were some pretty wild clashes between Aborigines, Maccassans & British Australians in the Arnhem Land region as late as 1870.
Hard to get this information past the sanitising filter system now.

Foxy.
I have a photo somewhere of my young bloke, probably around six years old, with his best mate of that time. Both fast asleep sharing a bunk. My young bloke is fair, blonde hair. His mate is indigenous and about as dark as they come. This is where it starts, where it has a chance, not with feuding adults from both sides.
Forcing people together will never work, when we reach the stage, if ever, of wanting to be together there we will find the solution.
That is something for the distant future and some rather different thinking.
The Voice appears to being doing the reverse, pushing those involved further apart.
SD

Dea Indyvidual,

Your "Hard to get this information past the sanitising filter system now." really should read "Hard to get this information past the sanitising filter system back then."

The secrecy with which many a massacre was carried out by colonists is widely recognised. Much harder to get away with it now. An no, materials do not get destroyed or ignored by reputable historians.

materials do not get destroyed or ignored by reputable historians
SteeleRedux,
It's nigh impossible now for non-academics or non-indigenous to get information from the Archives !
Trove appears to be morphing into a closed circle filing cabinet !

"Even so, you call 3 deaths in 500 between two armed parties a "massacre", loser!"

Nup. Never did call it a massacre. Do try to keep up.

SR,

Yes I get it. Any information that doesn't square with your preconceived notions about how truly wonderful aboriginal life pre-contact was, is immediately rejected. You don't need any valid reasons for rejecting it, just the assertion that its wrong because its wrong. That is of course not how historical research (or any research for that matter) works. But you won't get that.

Dear Shaggy Dog,

For this referendum to succeed will be a monumental
achievement for this nation. And to arrive at this
much needed destination explanations are needed to
explain to Australians WHY the Voice is needed.

Indigenous policies are alien to most people and the
loudest voices on the subject are often the politicians
who were most ineffective in this policy area.

Pat Anderson told a story decades ago at the National
Press Club.

It's about an old man from the Top End. He's now long gone
but this is what happened to him. He was living quietly
on an outstation near Kakadu.

One day some government workers drove up in a 4 wheel-drive
while the old man was sitting out the front of his tin shed.
He got up and introduced himself and showed them around a bit.

As they were leaving they asked him if there was anything he
needed?

"Oh yeah," he said. "If you're coming back this way, you could
bring me a couple of packets of tomato seeds. I'd like to try
to grow a few tomatoes here for myself."

Well, the government workers went back to town and told their
boss about the old man, who wanted to grow tomatoes on his
outstation. And their boss told their boss, and so on.

After a while people start arriving at the old man's outstation.
Geologists come and take soil and rock samples. Meteorologists
arrive with all sets of gadgets to measure wind speed and
rainfall. Ecologists set up camp to study the ecosystem and
do environmental impact studies.

Agronomists arrive to do flexibility studies on market gardens
in the tropics. All the while the old man sits in front of
his tin shed watching this very entertaining activity.

Eventually, after several months, one of the scientists comes
up to the old man and asks him how he is?

"I'm fine," says the old man. "But I'm still waiting for the
packets of tomato seeds."

Foxy, I have been watching the problems close up for nigh on 60 years and have seen little change for the better if any at all. Rather the reverse. I lived in Alice Springs in 1964 and have rarely been any distance from all the problems since. The Voice may ring some changes if passed but I doubt for the better. Sadly I feel it will turn out to be just another layer of bureaucracy. SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

The 1967 referendum when Australians voted YES to
the federal power to make laws for Aboriginal people
recorded the highest YES vote in the history of
Australian referendums.

I have faith in the fundamental decency of the Australian
people. The 2023 referendum campaign will determine whether
the faith is misplaced or not.

Journalist Niki Savva wrote: " While it's not true to say
that every Australian who votes no is a racist. You can bet
your bottom-dollar that every racist will vote no."

The cumulative wealth and power of the rusted-on no voters,
their prominence in media ownership and on corporate boards,
their conservatism and unwillingness to commit to social
change can easily be juxtapositioned with Australians who
believe in social change and inclusion.

The last election demonstrated a ground swell for action on
federal corruption, climate change and the Uluru Statement
From The Heart, Many Australians are beginning to see a need
for action and that the old ways are not working. People
who have experienced bureaucracy as mean-spirited and punitive
even the hundreds of thousands who experienced 1st hand the
robodebt scheme - now begin to question everything.

As I said- I have faith in the Australian people. New Australians
from the rump of the majority. The YES voters that are the
heavy lifters of multiculturalism and social cohesion in this
nation. People who come from the Middle-East, North Africa,
South Asia, followers of Islam, Buddhism, Greek Orthodox, and
Catholic faiths. People with low incomes who live in working-
class areas - these are the new Australians that will make
the "fair-go"a reality for all

Dear mhaze,

Get your hand of it mate.

This is about critical thinking.

The main basis for the child eating trope which you and Quadrant have tried to run was ultimately oral evidence from a swagman. There wouldn't have been a solitary Australian swagman worth his salt who couldn't spin a good yarn. Must have sounded authentic to a Polish professor sitting in Warsaw though.

The second thing offered was this: “In hard summers the new-born children seem to be all eaten in the Kaura tribe. [Explorer Alfred William] Howitt inferred this from the remarkable gaps that appeared in the ages of the children”

So age gaps appearing in children means you go straight to 'Well they must have eaten them all!' Back then that conclusion might have been understandable with all the lurid tales of 'Blacks' circulating but it is just stupid now.

Come on, even someone as agenda drive and gullible as yourself must see how tenuous all this is. Enough already.

I bow to your knowledge and expertise Foxy. My comments are only what I have seen and experienced over many years and are obviously limited as a result. SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

I've made my decision of supporting the YES vote to
the Voice based on the research I've done. I can't
pretend to know all the answers or have all the
solutions. The issues are complex and all I can do
is vote what to me seems right. That's all any of us
can do.

"The main basis for the child eating trope which you and Quadrant have tried to run was ultimately oral evidence from a swagman. "

SR,
Just because that's the only evidence you're aware of doesn't make it the only evidence. The 30 minute research isn't likely to yield too many results.

The items I listed were the only ones I could find that were digitalised. But there are plenty of others, although all of them are from the time before historians and aboriginal activists decided to whitewash the bleak aboriginal past.

Books like "The Australian Aboriginals" by Elking (I think) which has several examples of child cannibalism not to mention many other examples of the cannibalism of defeated foe or old revered leaders. Another book I recall reading on the same lines as "Man in Ochre" (I think) (no idea who wrote it) which talked of survivalist eating of kids in bad times as well as general cannibalism.

All the pre-digital age books I read on this were from the Mitchell Library if you're interested.

The fact is that the survivalist practice of eating kids and the old in bad times is well established among stone age peoples the world over. Aboriginal tribes were stone age people....QED

Foxy,
I have seen so many projects, solutions etc fail over the years that I have no solutions or ideas as to what would improve the existing situation. The Voice has all the feelings of yet another one. Which way I will vote will have to wait until the day. SD

mhaze,

The British may not have eaten their children - but their
record of abusing them is well documented. Not only in
the past with child labour, but half a million children
a year suffer abuse in the UK today. Study the country's
history. Do your research before pointing the finger
at "stone-age" people.

And regarding massacres of Aboriginal people:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/04/the-killing-times-the-massacres-of-aboriginal-people-australia-must-confront

Dear Shaggy Dog,

It's true, much has been tried to solve the "aboriginal problem"
by various governments. However, this will be a first to let
them have a say on the laws and policies that affect them.
It's worth a try - I'm sure you'll agree.

Dear mhaze,

You didn't list anything mate, it was Quadrant as we both know.

But to your new found sources. I have looked at Elkins's The Australian Aborigines. There is utterly zero talk of eating children. In fact he made this interesting observation:

“Fear of the unknown. A more striking manifestation of the
tribal sentiment is seen in the attribution of “evil” practices
to other tribes, an attribution which increases with distance.
Thus the cannibals and the savage treacherous natives are
always those of the next tribe or the next but one, though
when the investigator visits and studies them, he finds them
quite as peaceable and courteous as those he just left, but
now it is the latter who are credited with savage attributes.”

Which is exactly what you are doing here isn't it. Rather telling.

Elkin does relate some ritualistic eating of human flesh, but only of the bodies of important people who had died.

“Cannibalism, too, practised in
Queensland as part of burial, was considered a most hon-
ourable rite, to be used only for persons of worth. It was
incidentally a quick method of preparing the bundle, the
flesh being eaten instead of dried. In some tribes, at least,
in which interment was the only burial-rite, much more
ceremony was observed in the case of those who were
deemed of special importance, such as men of much know-
ledge and medicine-men, than for other persons.”

Keep in mind the tradition of the symbolic eating the flesh of and drinking the blood of Christ which are as much a part of our rites.

None of this supports the scurrilous and unsupported notion of children being killed for sustenance. For Quadrant to have propagated such rubbish is bad enough but for you to be using it as part of the No campaign is completely unacceptable. Repent!

Hi mhaze, Foxy and Steele,

There is 10 years between meself and me younger brother, do ya thinks me mum and dad ate a couple of me brothers and sister, and feed em to us other kids as fried chicken, we ate a lot of fried chicken, after all me mum did have Aboriginal blood. Mum used to talk about eating "Poor House Johnny Cakes" as a child, hummm, I though they were made from flour and water, wrong, now I know what happened to poor Uncle John, ended up as a "Johnny Cake"! Mum did say 5 of her sids died before the age of 5. BTW are children high in cholesterol, like doughnuts?

Foxy wrote: "The cumulative wealth and power of the rusted-on no voters,
their prominence in media ownership and on corporate boards,
their conservatism and unwillingness to commit to social
change can easily be juxtapositioned with Australians who
believe in social change and inclusion."

A really fine post there Foxy. Fully of erudite observations.

Too bad you didn't write it....
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/19/new-australia-v-old-indigenous-voice-referendum

(I was trying to leave unharassed, but you couldn't help yourself)

So Foxy is unsure the Voice will make a difference with this statement. "However, this will be a first to let them have a say on the laws and policies that affect them. It's worth a try -"

So we put something in the Constitution that is just to trial to make a difference. It is better to legislate a trial which can be managed by the Government, than placed permanently in the Constitution.

From the sound of her statement, it will be self-government by unelected elders over executive decisions. The Uluru statement is a war document to hobble the colonizers Government.

Paul, SR

As there are no records prior to civilisation, everything is largely conjecture as you have pointed out. Therefore there is a complete lack of evidence for

The 60 000 continuous culture,
The extended life expectancy,
Intertribal warfare not existing.

In small pre-state communities, low-intensity warfare was a common and almost continuous state of affairs and suggesting that this did not affect aboriginal communities would infer that they are different from all other humans.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631615

SM,

"As there are no records prior to civilisation", that is not quite true, there are archaeological records that give evidence of human occupation of the continent for millennia. That exact length of time is undetermined, but there is creditable evidence of human occupation for 60,000 years from the Kimberly region of WA. You say; "complete lack of evidence (of).... The extended life expectancy, Intertribal warfare not existing." That's not true either, from skeletal remains, both age at death, and in some instances the cause of death can be determined. In the case of Aboriginals there are not large concentrations of mass graves that would indicate "massacres", just as there is not evidence of a high proportion meeting a violent end. There are many human remains found, aged 70 plus years, a high proportion of the total thus found, which lends weight to Aboriginals having a reasonable life expectancy. Certainly Aboriginal life expectancy dramatically declined with European occupation, small pox and guns tend to do that.

Certainly Aboriginal life expectancy dramatically declined with European occupation, small pox and guns tend to do that.
Paul1405,
And, whose Health & Welfare system do you attribute the increase in the number of indigenous lately ?

Indy,

Its people like you, who choose to be blind to the fact, Aboriginal Australians live on average 10 years less than the rest of us. Often dying from easily preventable diseases. I expect nothing less from a bloke who would share around a shameless photo of a poor intoxicated Aboriginal old man, and think its funny!

Paul1405,
So, After tens of thousands of years of healthy existence or so you et al are trying to tell us plus 200 years of modern medicine thrown in they still die younger ?
Our fault as per usual, nothing to do with being a different DNA ? Nothing to do with a different outlook to life ? All the self-proclaimed Indigenous with 99% Caucasian DNA can therefore look forward to a long existence ? Where's your perceived if not imagined problem of discrimination ?
You're simply exploiting sad & unfortunate facts dictated by DNA & blame them ALL on Europeans. It's a well known fact that European, Asians, Africans, American Indigenous & many in between have suffered discrimination, exploitation & generally much suffering at each others' hands & the Aborigines are no different as they too had tribal clashes hence the many "Warrior" legends & stories !
Civilisations for want of a better word come & go as they rise because of ability & fall due to having it too good for too long. Australia is no different !

I've been thinking a great deal about the upcoming
referendum. I can't help wondering how many Australians
know much about our Aboriginal people, their history,
the problems they currently face, and so on. Truth-telling
has not been part of this country's history.

Most of us live in our own bubbles and yet we are being
asked to decide outcomes for our native people. No wonder
some are torn about the big decision that awaits us all.

Instead of fighting with each other and demonizing each
other personally - perhaps we should quietly be working
towards finding answers to the bigger questions that we should
be asking such as - what we can do to improve the lives and
self esteem of our Indigenous people? Why not allow them
to have a say in their own lives? Why not give pride to
younger generations in their ancestry - so that their self
esteem will rise. And the list goes on.

If we keep putting people down and treating them as children
then we shouldn't be surprised that many of them haven't and
won't continue to progress. If we keep doing things for them
and telling them how they should live nothing will change.
Why not let them have a say? What we've done to date has not
worked. It is time for us to listen and give them what they
are asking.

Paul,

I'm not disputing that Aus was inhabited 60 000 years ago, just that there is no proof that the culture then bears any resemblance to the culture today or even the culture 1000 years ago.

Similarly in ancient Rome, the average lifespan was in the mid-30s but about 7% lived to be over 60 years old so a few skeletons of aborigines that lived to 70 is not proof that the AVERAGE age was greater than say 35.

Finally, I never used the word massacre, you did. The conflict between small tribes tends also not to involve more than a few people at a time but far more frequently. As tribes get bigger the clashes are far bloodier but less frequent. The net result according to anthropologists is that the larger the tribes the lower the average losses per 1000 people to conflict become.

Given the 6000-odd individual tribes in pre-colonial Australia and assuming that Aborigines don't differ from other humans, it is extremely unlikely that the statistics that have held for all other humans don't hold here.

If it had not been English settlement in Australia it would in all probability have been settled by French, Dutch or a mixture of nationalities
There is no doubt there would have been conflict between a mix of nationalities and I suspect any consideration toward indigenous folk would have been far less than where we are now.
We do have a civilised base to work from as compared to other countries whose history has been a real shambles.
Blame does not make a good foundation for anything worthwhile nor do politicians and posers.
Best there be small steps rather than sweeping changes as from what I have observed one size will not fit all.
Far from it.
SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

The Voice to Parliament is a small step. It's merely an
advisory body with no power. It's a start.

And the British Empire has a woeful reputation in its
behaviour. Even King Charles has acknowledged that.

Antigua, Barbados, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize,
Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines - have all asked for an acknowledgement of
past atrocities.

At a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of State in June last
year, King Charles said:

"While we strive together for peace, prosperity, and
democracy. I want to acknowledge that the roots of
our contemporary association run deep into the most painful
period of our history. I cannot describe the depths of my
personal sorow at the suffering of so many as I continue to
deepen my own understanding of slavery's enduring impact."

Foxy,
My work has taken to me the great majority of those countries you mention plus quite a few others that have a colonial background from other powers.
It would appear no one has a real answer or solution to the deleterious effects of early colonisation for the sake of a name.
The process is still going on it would seem and I doubt it will ever cease, this of course with varying outcomes. Some good and some not so good.
It would appear to be the nature of homo sapiens to dominate where and when possible. We are still evolving of course and none too long out of the trees.
Treaties and such like will be broken as it suits those with a vested interest.
SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

I hear what you are saying. And of course human nature
plays a vital part. However, this time we are being given
the opportunity to give a down trodden people a chance
to improve their lot. Who of us can really say no?

Foxy.
Is that a Royal "WE"?
I have no answers and to date have not seen anything else that made any worth while changes to the lives of indigenous folk unless they went after it.
More of the individuals desire than a group. Then that applies to all of us I guess.
Time Foxy is where the answer is, and plenty of it.
SD

Dear Shaggy Dog,

The "we" I referred to was all of us as Australians.
And it is a rare opportunity that we're not often given.
We can make changes - to help others. Whether the others
take it up - is up to them. We're merely giving them
the chance to do so. We can't do more.

"In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley. "

"In the Wotjobaluk tribe, a couple who already had a child might kill their new-born and feed its muscle-flesh to the other one to make it strong. The baby was killed ritually, by striking its head against the shoulder of its elder brother or sister."

But it doesn't really matter how many examples I unearth, does it, since you'll reject each for entirely spurious reasons (oh all swagman lie) and then proclaim that there's no evidence. Even if I unearth a pre-1788 video of an elder talking about how they had KFC (Kourri Fried Children) once a month, it'd be rejected.

The study of history is about gathering all the evidence, fare and foul, and then making a judgement, not making a judgement and then rejecting the evidence that contravenes that judgement.

Many aboriginals have risen to the top of our society to achieve well above average in their fields. These people do not need a Voice to overcome disadvantage because of race. Their race is not an impedance.

Those pushing for the Voice see it as a position to gain power, if the voice were coming from full blood aboriginals living in remote unserviced communities, one could believe their voice needs to be heard by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. But NO! It is a Voice pushed by the elite, to gain power over Government.
VOTE "NO" TO STOP UNELECTED BODY HAVING POWER OVER ELECTED GOVERNMENTS.

Once and for all - the Voice to Parliament is an
advisory body. It has no power. Legislation remains with
the government. Anybody saying anything to the contrary
is spreading misinformation and is a liar. Pay no attention
to them. Like barking dogs - annoying - but harmless.

mhaze,
I've told the account of a Missionary family rescuing an unwanted twin girl child from an ant's nest - they did not believe.
If you believe there were two persons 65,000 years ago that migrated to Australia, double the population every hundred years, and see what you figure. I went to 2,500 years and got a figure of 33,554,432, it is ridiculous to believe that aboriginals did not kill each other and kill off children at a high rate. Australia would have a population greater than India and China combined, and there were no invading countries before 1788. Then the British killed of how many by disease and murder?

It has been our inbreeding with them and our medicines that have improved their lives, is the reason for the expediential growth in their numbers. .

SM,

"Just that there is no proof that the culture then bears any resemblance to the culture today or even the culture 1000 years ago." Agree, culture is not static but dynamic, over a large population its not even homogenises. There are different cultural/religious/political practices and beliefs by sub groups within the overall group. A small example, speaking with my Tamil friend the other day I said; "Hindus don't eat beef", he said; "Not true many Hindus eat beef, and see nothing wrong with it, in fact beef is widely sold in towns and villages all over India".

Language is a very important part of culture, and its also one of the most diverse things in any culture.If you read Chaucer and his 'Old English' very different from modern English, language undergoes cultural change all the time.

The word "massacre" was not mine, it came via mhaze. As for life expectancy, lower down the social order the less ones life expectancy, that would be true with the Romans as well as the British, still true today. There is no evidence that there was any great social difference within Aboriginal clans and groups, the "elites" lived much the same way as the "peasants" and both in general probably lived about the same life span.

If the aboriginal population has existed for 65,000 years and as is proposed by some to live long lives and not kill each other. Then try doubling the population ever 100 years x 650 times which will give a supposed population of aboriginal in !788. I got 33,554,432 after 25 times which is 2,500 years, and that is greater than the population of Australia currently.

The idea that just because there are a lot of skeletal remains that are from people around 70 yrs of age means that most aboriginals lived to that age is just plain bonkers.

Most Egyptian mummies we've found are either pharaohs or high priests. Therefore most Egyptians were pharaohs or high priests!!

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

Are you still trolling through discredited journals for your mythical evidence of widespread cannibalism?

This is getting a little wearisome, especially since you refuse to provide references.

Let me know where you plucked: "In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley." and I will do the research and deal with it.

Dear mhaze,

Don't bother.

You had whinged: “But it doesn't really matter how many examples I unearth, does it, since you'll reject each for entirely spurious reasons.”

Except they aren't fresh examples are they you dolt. It is just you rehashing quotes you have forgotten we had dealt with already.

This was in part of the Quadrant article you quoted earlier Posted by mhaze, Saturday, 8 July 2023 9:58:19 AM

“In hard summers the new-born children seem to be all eaten in the Kaura tribe. [Explorer Alfred William] Howitt inferred this from the remarkable gaps that appeared in the ages of the children”

I had addressed it with:

"So age gaps appearing in children means you go straight to 'Well they must have eaten them all!' Back then that conclusion might have been understandable with all the lurid tales of 'Blacks' circulating but it is just stupid now."

You have then gone off desperately fishing for other examples of cannibalism and found a different source but this time mentioning McKinley instead of Howitt.

To be clear it would seem that McKinley recorded the age gaps and Howitt inferred from this that in hard summers the new-born children were all eaten by the tribe. See page 794 The Native Tribes of South-East Australia. But it is the same as your original quote isn't it.

Of course your latest iteration just says “"In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley.”.

However that original from Howitt's book says: “In hard summers the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide ; this might be inferred from the remarkable gaps that appear in the ages of the children.”

So where did you get the quote complete with the misspelling of McKinlay? Here: http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/austral1.html

The result of you googling Cannibalism and Australia?

Give it away.

I don't really see the relevance of what you parents did. Maybe the Aborigines inhabited the Australian continent, living long, healthy and fulfilling lives in harmony with the environment and their co-inhabitants. Then came along the sickly English invaders, murdering, pillaging, and spreading diseases.

Alternatively, the Aboriginal population may have suffered the tragic decimation common to many primitive cultures encountering technically and socially advanced civilisations.

Surely what matters is that people have the opportunity to develop without prejudice, and that should depend upon the person, their inclinations and abilities, not their ancestry or heritage. I see equal treatment of all citizens as a worthy goal. I don't see how the constitutional establishment of heritage based privilege will achieve this.

Well said Fester ! SD

Jose'

What are you going on about, 33,554,432, redo your calculations the answer is 33,554,433, you missed one, did you run out of fingers and toes?

Paul I could only go 2,500 and realized the 65,000 was a beat up on the proposed long life and healthy life theory that it was a myth. lots of young women dies in childbirth and the child also did not survive. Malnutrition and tribal wars took out many before the settlers arrived.

I remember while in Alice in 1961 building a home and school for aboriginal children in the out-of-town camp, so they would not be removed from their family connection a young 21 year old mother died during childbirth, and we had to dig the grave hold the burial ceremony and commit her to the ground. No one of her friends or relatives were present, as in their culture the dead were not mourned. At the time I thought this was sad.

Paul,

It's good that you agree with the claim that Aboriginal culture has not remained unchanged for 60 000 years is bollocks.

As for life expectancy, you have nothing other than wishful thinking to show that pre-civilisation Australia had a longer life expectancy than the British.

Dear Fester,

First Nations communities are rarely invited to the table
to make decisions that affect their lives and lands. Yes we
do have some Indigenous people in our parliament but they
represent their parties and their electorates, and not
the First Nations people. First Nations people are not
recognised in our 122 year old Constitution. First Nations
people have asked for that recognition to be through something
very practical and simple - a Voice to Parliament.

This means having a say in matters that affect their families
and communities. It's about making sure the real experts in
communities - grassroots First Nations people can give advice
to Parliament and the government about issues that affect their
families and communities.

Constitutional recognition through the Voice will help us as
a nation take steps towards delivering a better future for
the First Nations people of Australia.

We are now closer than we've ever been to secure Constitutional
recognition for the First Peoples of Australia through a
Voice to Parliament. This is an opportunity for all
Australians to play a part in history and do the right thing.

Foxy is on about constitutional recognition, which is not what the Voice represents, it is about having a racial based Voice in Executive Government. We all agree that they should have been recognized as the first Australians, but this is not what the Voice is intended to do.

A look at the culture and life of the Sentinelese gives some link to ancient tribes 60,000 years ago and their link to Australia. They use the same weapons and culture.

http://www.grunge.com/588948/the-truth-behind-the-sentinelese-the-most-isolated-tribe-in-the-world/

http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/who-are-the-sentinelese-the-tribe-who-allegedly-killed-us-national-in-andamans/320597

Creating an Indigenous voice to parliament is NOT
racist. On the contrary, it presents an opportunity
for Australia to address and overcome racism and
discrimination.

The argument that a voice would create inequality by
inserting race into the constitution is not only
disingenuous. It is also plain wrong.

The Australian constitution already includes several
provisions about race, one of which gives parliament
the power to make laws for - "the people of any race
for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws."

This is often referred to as the race power, and it makes
Australia the only country that has empowered its federal
parliament to make laws based on race.

Aside from being incorrect, claims that a voice will
create racial inequality are also disingenuous because they
are not made to support greater equality in Australia,

Denying Indigenous Australians a voice in decisions that
affect them will only serve to maintain racial inequality and
continue the marginalisation and disempowerment of First
Nations people.

Jose,

After your litany of lies about indigenous Australians posted on the forum which have been exposed by myself and Steele, its hard to trust anything you say; "building a home and school for aboriginal children"..."dig the grave hold the burial ceremony and commit her to the ground" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say, good for you.

As for the Sentinelese; "The tribe have made it clear that they do not want contact. It is a wise choice. Neighboring tribes were wiped out after the British colonized their islands."

"especially since you refuse to provide references."

Oh I got it from the Spectator!!

"trolling through discredited journals"

And why are they discredited? Because they say things SR would prefer to think of as untrue. As I said "you'll reject each for entirely spurious reasons".

Oh btw, I previously guessed the name of one of my original sources was Man in Ochre. After some checking my old notes I now realise it was "Adam in Ochre". (there were a series of Adam in... style books.)

____________________________________________________________________

Slightly off topic but nonetheless interesting. When reading the full account of the people marooned in Moreton Bay which Paul originally thought showed no deaths but later realised it actually supported Blainey's numbers, I came across this story. While with the natives the westerners put a pot of water on the fire to boil. But the natives had never witnessed boiling water before and recoiled in terror, taking to the bush. They only returned when the evil boiling water was tipped onto the soil and was then covered over. Imagine....such a highly developed society <sarc> as the aboriginals and completely clueless about how to boil water!!

"A remote desert elder says he will vote against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament in the upcoming referendum, arguing there is not enough information and people do not know what they are voting for. "

"Mr Hargraves argued the Voice would not help with issues impacting First Nations people,"

"He added he did not trust the Voice to properly represent his community."

As we are constantly told here and in the media, only racists oppose the Voice. So obviously this "remote desert elder" is racist against the poor oppressed natives, no other possible explanation.

As journalist Niki Savva wrote recently: "While it is
not true to say that every Australian who votes no in the
voice referendum is a racist, you can bet your bottom dollar
that every racist will vote no."

This has been done before.
"THE FIRST PEOPLE — WERE NOT THE CURRENT ABORIGINALS
There has been a lot of claims about who was the oldest continuous race on earth, interestingly modern science has turned most upside down. Simple logic tells us wherever people came from then that was older than those who went to other countries and claimed such.
As current Australian Aboriginals are proven by mtDNA to have come in India about 4,230 years ago, then the people of India are older than they are, and where the Indians came from those folk are older still.
There are skulls of many different races that have lived in Australia, including endocast skullS that are skulls filled with volcanic ash and or minerals and turned to stone, one found by Rex Gilroy in volcanic ash, the NSW Department of Geophysical Survey advise the last volcano in that area was over 10 million years ago — thus dating the skull. That also changes the ‘known’ history of Hominids into the ‘unknown’ until a lot more study is done.
It also proves the balderdash of Australian Aboriginies being the original people to occupy Australia, they are not and never were — they fraudulently claim the artifacts and art of earlier races belonged to them. That bunkum falls over with the discovery of so many different skulls and Skelton’s, some totally unrelated, and one an unknown species of Hominid as yet with no proven ancestor?
Extracted from a soon to be released book, ‘The ‘UNKNOWN’ History of Australia’.

Many racists will vote YES for the Voice because they hate white skin British colonialism.

Dear mhaze,

Mate. Are you really back for more?

Just to be clear you found the name of the book in the link I gave because it quotes directly from it and lists the reference as: Colin Simpson, Adam in Ochre, Angus & Robertson, 1938.

http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/austral1.html

So no you didn't suddenly retrieve it from your notes at all did you.

To rehash, the author was the one who so deliberately re-engineered the original line in Howitt's work which had read: “In hard summers the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide ; this might be inferred from the remarkable gaps that appear in the ages of the children.”

Under his agenda driven penmanship it become "In hard summers, the new-born children were all eaten by the Kaura tribe in the neighbourhood of Adelaide, according to Dr McKinley."

As I said earlier at least Quadrant properly attributed the 'inference', but not your bloke. No mention of inferred, no mention of the correct 'inferrer' either (Howitt), just a preparedness to turn an inference into a bald assertion with a slip of the pen, and to top it off he misspells McKinlay.

How utterly scurrilous and unprofessional of him, yet this is someone you have held up as a reliable reference and one you have been prepared to defend despite all the proof I have put before you.

Racist tropes from racist people.

Shame.

To accept other people's experiences would make us all
a bit wiser.
Foxy,
Tell journalist Niki Savva that !

"So no you didn't suddenly retrieve it from your notes at all did you."

I'd mentioned the book loooong before you'd done you 30 minute research.

The author you've decide, for no valid reason mind you,(some might even say spurious reasons) is "agenda driven" was a well respected journalist who worked for the ABC among others. And we all know that ABC journalists never lie.

Dear mhaze,

Colin Simpson was a documentary writer for the ABC after writing for the tabloids.

His agenda later was to sell his books and as his Wikipedia entry spells out: "Those books sold very well. They were not "authoritative contributions to anthropology" but simply aimed to "interpret" these indigenous peoples "to the layman"."

But tell me, are you going to concede Simpson misquoted Howitt or not? Any reasonable assessment would indicate that he did and that his works form part of the Chinese whisper you lot engage in propagating mistruths.

Dear Foxy,

Using the race powers of the constitution is an interesting justification for the Voice. There is opinion that it is an archaic part of the constitution designed to support the white Australia policy that was all the rage in the new federation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-04/races-power-in-constitution-should-change-say-retired-judges/12312362

I'd gladly vote yes in a referendum to have the race powers removed from the constitution. Establishing race or heritage based privilege seems like a back to future moment I have no desire to see repeated.

SM

"It's good that you agree with the claim that Aboriginal culture has not remained unchanged for 60 000 years is bollocks (your favourite word)." I don't know who is saying that, I often hear about Aboriginal culture as being "continuous" rather than "unchanged". Its my belief that all cultures by their very nature are dynamic, and therefore subject to change. What is a big driver of cultural change is the arrival of outside influences, such as colonisers, Roman Britain is a good example of colonising change. Some scorn the fact that certain cultural behaviours are recent developments within Aboriginal society, such as "dot painting" time is irrelevant, one could say the same thing about the "boomerang" as also being a recent development.

Dear Fester,

You said: "Using the race powers of the constitution is an interesting justification for the Voice."

And: "There is opinion that it is an archaic part of the constitution designed to support the white Australia policy"

Permit me to make the following argument.

The race laws in the Constitution can hardly be regarded as archaic after they had been used in a punitive fashion by Howard during the Intervention. Indeed he had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to do so.

However most Australians including myself can not envisage them being used against any other race, I really don't think Australians would stand for it. Yet it is not difficult to see them being directed again at Aborigine communities by future governments, in other words the reality is only our indigenous folk likely ever to be impacted those powers.

Given that, the Voice can be quite reasonably seen as a counter weight to those powers, and an important one.

I too would have preferred there was no need for the Voice, that our indigenous people enjoyed the same benefits and opportunities that the rest of us have. That they weren't living 20 to a 3 bedroom house and suffering from diseases of poverty like trachoma.

But the gaps in life outcomes are far too entrenched, and at this stage seemingly too intractable, not to strengthen pathways of dialogue aimed at bridging those gaps.

That is what mature and well resourced nations do.

If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India, they had spears, boomerang shaped sticks and bow and arrows. The aboriginals in the top of NT were using spears and bow and resin tipped arrows. Both have low resistance to common diseases.

Steele, is Voting Yes because he believes it will give them better housing and health. I thought that was Linda Burney's responsibility already. They prefer to live in a family community - all in together. They do not want three-bedroom houses, they want open plan living no walls, with an open fire in the middle as has been stated by their women elders. As for improving their life span, they need to have children outside their race. The Voice will not improve their life span as they have low immunity to diseases, they need genetic changes.

He said "I too would have preferred there was no need for the Voice, that our indigenous people enjoyed the same benefits and opportunities that the rest of us have. That they weren't living 20 to a 3 bedroom house and suffering from diseases of poverty like trachoma."

He said, "But the gaps in life outcomes are far too entrenched, and at this stage seemingly too intractable, not to strengthen pathways of dialogue aimed at bridging those gaps. That is what mature and well resourced nations do."

Here is a brief Aboriginal History:

http://aboriginalheritage.org/history/history/

Much can be learned from it.

'you can bet your bottom dollar
that every racist will vote no."

Well I would think that every anti-white racist will vote yes.

"If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India"

What a pig ignorant statement from an unapologetic troll.

Go away.

" We encourage all Australians to read reliable
research to make sure we're well informed about
what the Voice is, and what it is not."

"Don't get sucked in by myths like the 10 we've
debunked above. The Voice is nothing to be scared
of. On the contrary we should be proud of. Amending
our constitution to give First Nations people a
Voice to Parliament would demonstrate we're a mature
nation, one that's ready to recognise the past
injustices and committed to building a better future in
which the rights and dignity of all Australians are
protected equally."

There's more at:

http://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2023/02/27/1385518/voice-to-parliament-debunking-10-myths-and-misconcenptions

Voting YES will save lives. No, will invalidate them:

http://theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/mar/23/australia-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-vote-yes-will-save-lives-no-will-invalidate-them

Paul,

With no records, there is no indication that the culture was even continuous. Cultures can change a bit in a single generation.

Wow SR, you're basing your entire rejecting on a typo? McKinlay, McKinley? And you don't even know who made the typo!!

The problem with the way you do what you'd probably call research is that you end up with only one or two data points. If one, you proclaim that to be the one true fact and do a victory lap. If two, you decide to choose one of those, being the one that suits your predetermined judgement, and then do a victory lap.

But the fact is there is usually many data points if proper research is done. Over the years I've seen more than a few investigations into stone age people's need to consume their own in times of severe want. It's neither good nor bad....just a thing. Its how they survived when the environment turned against them or when their neighbours stole their food supplies.

I get that you are enamoured of the Disneyfied world you think the natives existed in pre-contact. But it just wasn't so. Struth, they didn't even know how to boil water, so a good cuppa was out of the question. How primitive is that?

Foxy,
A Yes/No vote is a try at a quick fix.
It will fail as many other well intentioned ideas have. Too divisive.
Time and education is where the real fix is if there is ever to be one and even then it will need to be ongoing well beyond our lifetimes and that of our children. SD

Dear mhaze,

Bollocks.

You can't regurgitate a data point and call it two like you just attempted. That is post-truth thinking and idiotic.

I went to the source and have plainly shown your bloke not only misspelt the author's name but, far more egregiously, fudged the content to make it sound as though it was an observed fact rather than the inference it clearly was, but you refuse to acknowledge it.

So the question really is why it is so important to you and the author to propagate this evident mistruth?

You claim: "I've seen more than a few investigations into stone age people's need to consume their own in times of severe want". Yet you can't provide a single reliable one about Aboriginal Australians. Rather telling really.

"What a pig ignorant statement from an unapologetic troll.

Go away."

Don't worry Josephus, that's just SR throwing a tantrum when his most cherished fables are challenged.

I am well aware of the research that shows substantial contact between aboriginals and Indians 4000-odd years ago (although its more accurate to say 141 generations ago) and that that contact may well have been so substantial that the current Carpentarian aboriginals are in fact the descendants of those immigrants.

As I understand it, mtDNA from aboriginals across the top end shows connections with peoples from India around 2000 BC which also lines up with the arrival of the dingo, some new technologies and new food processing methodology.

Therefore, if you have any links to this upcoming book you speak of, I'd be very interested.

It has long been supposed that there were at least three waves of aboriginal arrivals long before Cook which roughly equate to the three ethnic groups of Carpentarians, Murrayans and Tasmanians. But this new research might end up moving the Carpentarian invasion to fairly recent times. Much of what I've read on this suggests its too early to make definitive assertions. So again I'd be interested in any new research or interpretations.

On the downside however, I'm understand that aboriginals are so worried about the ramifications of the research that they are now claiming ownership of the mtDNA and trying to put an end to its testing. So the whole thing could be a race against time between the censors and the researchers.

Steele, I am quoting the DNA evidence, and its links to an India DNA. Their DNA is linked back to 55,000 years to a common ancestor the same as the Sentinelese.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2017/release/dna-study-of-indigenous-australians

Dear Shaggy Dog,

The Voice referendum is NOT a "quick fix," but a
turning point for our nation.

If the Voice succeeds our Indigenous people will be able to
have a say in the decisions that affect them and put forward
solutions for the challenges they face which currently
are being made without them.

Read the link I gave earlier by Dr Josie Douglas.

mhaze,

How white are you?
And who has ever discriminated against you

BTW: It's all right to be white.

"Yet you can't provide a single reliable one about Aboriginal Australians. Rather telling really."

Well I've given more than a few examples on this issue. Reliable is in the eye of the beholder. But when you reject each one for entirely spurious reasons (oh he's just a swaggie, oh he misspelt the name etc etc) you end up convincing yourself (but only yourself) there is no evidence.

Dear mhaze,

Rare, tenuous and unreliable assertions about aboriginal people eating their children for sustenance have been recognised for what they are by most scholars, hyped nonsense from the day.

None have withstood serious scrutiny but they are being trotted out by people like you recently for obvious reasons.

As to Josephus that bloke has even more disregard for the truth than you do.

His assertion "If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India" is a glorious mix of young earth thinking with unabashed attempts to tie the inhospitable, missionary killing north Sentinelese with Australian Aborigines. There is utterly zero evidence that Aborigines were decedents from them. Where does the information come from? A yet to be published book.

You blokes really do struggle with this stuff don't you.

A common ancestor 50,000 years ago.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.12219#:~:text=Northern%20Aboriginal%20Australians%20can%20trace%20as%20much%20as,tool-making%20techniques%20and%20the%20ancestors%20of%20the%20dingo.

http://www.sbs.com.au/language/hindi/en/podcast-episode/the-story-untold-links-between-australian-aboriginal-and-indian-tribes-part-1/yiv2rgxq4

http://www.science.org/content/article/almost-all-living-people-outside-africa-trace-back-single-migration-more-50000-years

SR,

" a glorious mix of young earth thinking "

Wow SR, you really have no idea how this works, do you?

"There is utterly zero evidence that Aborigines were decedents from them."

The fact that you don't know about the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now I've never heard that the data is refined enough to have narrowed it down to one particular group from the subcontinent, but the data that large numbers of Carpentarian aboriginals have what appears ro be subcontinental Indian mtDNA has been around for a while. Just because you don't want it to exist doesn't negate the facts - except to you.

Now I'm not saying I buy the Sentinelese claims. But I'm not rejecting them either. I'll await extra data. Hence my interest in seeing this book Josephus talks about. (See how that works, SR? Gather the data then make a call. Completely different to make a call and reject all competing data).

Personally I think the notion that there was a massive wave of immigrants around 2000 BC who either displaced whoever was at that time in northern Australia or melded with those inhabitants in such a way as to utterly change their culture, seems more than reasonable. Where Josephus is, in my view mistaken is to think that they replaced ALL aboriginals. Clearly there is little DNA evidence that they displaced the so-called Murrayian peoples, and its impossible to see how they could have displaced the Tasmanians.

So, Indians displacing or overwhelming the northern Australian peoples around 4000 years ago? Somewhere between possible and probable. Indians displacing southern tribes? Unlikely.

PS

"Wow SR, you really have no idea how this works, do you?"

I was going to leave it there since you really don't care anyway. But... the researchers show or claim to have shown that the mtDNA dates the new arrivals at 141 generations ago. Their rule of thumb is 1 generation = 30 years. So 141 x 30 =.... well I'll leave you to ponder that calculation.

The religious nut jobs believe the world was created in the evening, 23rd October 4004BC. Josephus, you agree with that nonsense, mhaze will produce the evidence shortly.

Dear mhaze,

I am calling out the claim that "If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India".

I fully accept that there appears to be around a 10% DNA matching between North Aboriginal tribes and the Indian genome which is possibly the result of migration around 4,000 years ago. There is zero evidence it came from the Sentinelese.

But what our resident troll is attempting is to link them directly to the Sentinelese, to insinuate the Aboriginal culture is recent rather than 60,000 years old, and to tie them to the violence the Sentinelese have shown to intruders.

He started with: "A look at the culture and life of the Sentinelese gives some link to ancient tribes 60,000 years ago and their link to Australia. They use the same weapons and culture." and linked to the death of the missionary.

Then went straight to: "If you take a look at the Sentinelese tribes from which the aboriginal tribes descended 4.230 years ago out of India, they had spears, boomerang shaped sticks and bow and arrows. The aboriginals in the top of NT were using spears and bow and resin tipped arrows. Both have low resistance to common diseases."

Of course there is extremely little known about the culture of the Sentinelese because of their determined isolationism but that didn't stop troll boy claiming similarities. Low resistance to European disease is common with first contact and there is simply no evidence that the Sentinelese using boomerangs.

Now you are claiming "Indians displacing or overwhelming the northern Australian peoples" which doesn't equate with 10% DNA matching.

Agenda driven, over hyped, with little scientific basis seems very much the go around here.

Dear Foxy,

"How white are you?
And who has ever discriminated against you"

One of my grandfathers was illegitimate and felt ashamed his whole life for this as people of his age were shamed by the community for this circumstance.

In this discussion I see history being used in like fashion, as it was in past times, to make people ashamed of their heritage and of themselves.

It is good to see that indigenous Australians are now proud of their heritage instead of feeling shamed by it, but I feel that things will be better when people live their lives by who they are and are not judged by their heritage. Using an archaic part of the Constitution that upheld the white Australia policy does not seem like the right path to advance.

you agree with that nonsense,
Paul1405,
No more than agreeing with people turning into a lump of rocks etc.

SR walks back his " young earth thinking" assertions but pretend forgetting that he said it.

"I fully accept that there appears to be around a 10% DNA matching between North Aboriginal tribes and the Indian genome which is possibly the result of migration around 4,000 years ago. "

Oh good. SR did some of his famous 30 second research.

"There is zero evidence it came from the Sentinelese."
So far. Josephus says the information will be forthcoming and I'm prepared to wait and see.

"Now you are claiming "Indians displacing or overwhelming the northern Australian peoples" which doesn't equate with 10% DNA matching."

Well that's not at all what I claimed. You really are pretty slimy at times. I posed the question and answered that it's a possibility pending further data. It is well known among those who do more than 30 minute research that there was a dramatic change in northern-end technology and lifestyle around the time, so 'possible' seems the reasonable response.

Oh and by the way, this is about mtDNA not DNA.

Dear Fester,

That's the whole point. If people learn the truth about their
ancestry - and the richness of their culture they will have
every reason to take pride in who they are and what they
can achieve. We need to give them the chance they are asking.

Dear mhaze,

Are you really trying to walk back “Somewhere between possible and probable.”? That is disingenuous right off the bat.

And you keep trotting out “SR did some of his famous 30 second research”. Mate you are the one pushing Simpson's distorted narrative when even the most basic of research would have shown it for what it was. Added to that you didn't even recognise it was a direct rehash of what you had tried on before. If mine is 30 second research then yours is the 2 second variety.

And I'm certainly not walking back my young earth analogy. While I don't think Josephus is an outright creationist he has quite blatantly sought to insinuate aboriginal culture is imported and only 4,000 years old rather than the estimated 60,000.

As to you waiting for the supposed book I wouldn't be holding your breath.

SteeleRedux,
I think the confusions come from the terms used in such discussions because culture is given the same meaning as existence !

Dear indyvidual,

Merriam Webster dictionary gives a pretty straightforward definition:

"the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group".

I really don't know where the confusion lies.

SR asks rather disingenuously "Are you really trying to walk back “Somewhere between possible and probable.”?"

Of course nothing I said suggests that I withdraw that claim at all but he was obviously stung by being outed for the inane "young earth" claim and need to respond, no matter how childishly.

" While I don't think Josephus is an outright creationist he has quite blatantly sought to insinuate aboriginal culture is imported and only 4,000 years old rather than the estimated 60,000."

But that is what "young earth" means. the earth created around 6000 BC. Now I don't know if SR looks the moron for making a claim he knows is inane on the face of it, or if he's a moron for not knowing what "young earth" means.

Dear mhaze,

Lol.

You really are a lot like a little squid. Backed into a corner you squirt a cloud of ink then think you have gotten away with something.

Quite amusing to see you when you get like this. Rational argument out the window and all that is left is bluff, bluster and bombast.

You attempted "'possible' seems the reasonable response" to downplay your "Somewhere between possible and probable.”. They aren't equivalent at all. The rest is you clutching at anything you feel you can even the slightest purchase on.

Quite amusing as I said.

Play on young fella.

I really don't know where the confusion lies.
SteeleRedux,
You do, you just can't admit it !

SR,

I'm loathe to use numbers here because I know it confuses you, but if I say the temperature tomorrow will be somewhere between 10 and 20 degrees, it doesn't mean I think it'll be 20.

Somewhere between possible and probable doesn't mean I think its probable. It means I'm withholding judgement until better data arises. You should try that one day.

In the meantime, since your 30 sec research is obviously failing you....

http://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211927110
(this is 10 years old. More and better data may now be coming)

And since you obviously want to run and hide from your 'young earth' idiocy....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Proud Boy Jose', his book 'The Pesky Black Fella' It will soon be available at all good (racists) bookshops. Or you can order you personally autographed copy from KKK Books Whitesville Alabama. Its loaded with statistics! ALL BAD!

Whenever the facts don't suit what Paul rooly-troolly wants to be true, he unleashes in inner 10 yr old.

Isn't that better than being a smarty and
joining the Nazi party? (smile).

They're the only options - acting like a 10 yr old or being a Nazi? Methinks that in the adult world there are a few other possibilities.

mhaze,

I'm so glad that you recognize that.
Having a sense of humour of course helps.

mhaze,

Not even you should fall for another load of clap trap from the Forum's leading liar when it comes to all things Aboriginal. You say you are waiting for the publication of the evidence in a unnamed, unpublished book, by a mystery author, Proud Boy Jose' claims it might be on its way. Well its been shown many times here that Jose' simply lies about Aboriginals to suit his racists narrative. This "book" claim is probably, or possibly, just another one of Jose's lies. Name the book, name the author!

Paul,

Book or no book, the information is already out there that there was a significant migration from the sub-continent into Australia's north round 2000BC and that these new immigrants had a significant effect on the lifestyles and culture of the Carpenterians. See the references I offered to SR.

The issue is that SR, unable to argue against the known migration, zeroed in on one aspect of Josephus' claims - that the immigrants, already known to have come from India, were from a specific part of India ie the Sentinelese. That might to true, false or disputed and its that aspect that I'm prepared to wait on. But it doesn't change the central fact that the so-called First Peoples of Carpentaria were, at the very least, heavily influenced by the immigrants of the 2000BC migration.

Whether they came from Bay of Bengal or some other part of India, is a mere historic curiosity, as is whether they came directly or via some island hopping migration. But to try to avoid facing the fact that a migration occurred, SR chose to try to discredit one minor part of that story.

There is a world of new information that is likely coming down the pipe on the mtDNA of various aboriginal migrations over the millennia and how various first peoples were pushed out by new 'first peoples', none of which is going to be welcomed.

Was told by an indigenous friend that the Arts for the Cairns Naidoc celebrations received $2 Mill Govt funding.
are those sort of amounts really warranted for Art ? I mean if your Art is good & interesting enough, shouldn't the artists make their money from sales & that includes all non-indigenous artists !

mhaze,

There is nothing in the research you have posted that substantially debunks the isolation theory of Aboriginal occupation of the continent for at least 60,000 years. Its been long known that Aboriginals in Northern Australia had some limited contact with people (mostly traders) from further north. Jose' tries to claim that a replacement population of 'Sentinelese' in some way substantially influenced Aboriginal culture through inter-breeding 4230 years ago. There is no evidence for that spurious claim, what so ever. More likely a limited number of northern people became interspersed within the Aboriginal population at various times. But there is no mass migration evidence to support the rubbish claims of Jose'. We'll just have to wait for that mysterious book to get the "real" facts will we not?

"There is nothing in the research you have posted that substantially debunks the isolation theory of Aboriginal occupation of the continent for at least 60,000 years"

Oh so did you miss, or not understand, the research I posted about the mtDNA findings for Carpentarian peoples? I would completely agree that the evidence isn't conclusive. But to claim it doesn't exist is like closing your eyes and then saying you can't see anything.

To summarise, it finds " a signal of substantial gene flow between Indian and Australia populations before European contact". It's unlikely to be just the result of casual trading contact because the gene flow isn't found in other populations that also partook in that trade. So it wasn't some trader getting the odd shiela knocked up during his visits. It was substantial migration around 2000BC. Whatismore, a significant change in technology and food processing methodology occurs around the same time suggesting significant influence over the native population.

I get that you'd prefer this wasn't true, but thems the facts.

It's funny how the always-follow-the-science crowd suddenly don't want to know about the science when it doesn't suit.

mhaze,

Note, my use of the word "substantially" meaning; "to a great or significant extent" so I did't make the claim; "it doesn't exist" you made that up. With the close proximity of other peoples there must have been contact between Carpentarian Aboriginals and those others. What Aboriginal people learned and absorbed from that contact is not well known, you say so yourself; "I (mhaze) would completely agree that the evidence isn't conclusive". Settlement is far more influential on development than simple contact. A good example today is the Indian influence on Indigenous Fijians, their arrival and settlement only began about 140 years ago. But with increasing numbers, now about 35% of the total population, the Indian influence with the natives is growing, although both groups still retain significant cultural differences.