Mikk wrote:

"All Australians should be taught the ways of the real owners of this land as a matter of course. Aboriginal culture is in many ways so much more superior than our insane culture of greed and exploitation and neverending growth. They managed this land and survived on it for 60 000 years or more…."

To which sonofgloin responded:

"You are correct when you said "They managed this land and survived on it for 60 000 years or more". The reason they did not impact the land is because they were a "stone age" culture, the first residents impacted nothing except a few walls in caves with campfire smoke and wall paintings, in all of 60,000 years of habitation."

You may both be wrong. If a new theory about the ecology of rain forests turns out to be correct the Aborigines may have turned large parts of Australia into a desert.

Quote:

"The theory suggests that past civilisations could have had a much greater impact on global climate than we thought. Australia once had forests but is now largely desert. Gorshkov and Makarieva argue that Aborigines burning coastal forests may have switched the continent from wet to dry by shutting down its biotic pump."

RAINFORESTS MAY PUMP WINDS WORLDWIDE, Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 1 April 2009.

(Despite the date of the article this is not a spoof)

This may also settle the question of whether the Aborigines were responsible for the extinction of Australian megafauna. See:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/megafauna/

One school of thought suggests it was climate change, not the Aborigines that killed them off. However the Aborigines MAY have induced the climate change through forest burning.

Since the Aborigines were a pre-literate society there are no records to guide us.

In any case to talk about stone-age societies "managing" the land is ridiculous.

Foxy,
Being a librarian you might be able th shed some light on the following;
Why is when an ordinary member of the public is trying to get information from libraries, there is nearly always a shortage of staff. However when an academic researcher enquires about the very same information it is speedily provided. And, please don't insult anyone by saying this doesn't happen.

Foxy,

Any connection between Windschuttle and Aboriginal
historical reality is scrupulously researched with academic integrity.

Any connection between Reynolds and Aboriginal
historical reality is scrupulously cherry-picked with a black armband.

Windschuttle is a historian.
Reynolds is a relativist,
which is why he appeals to you.

stevenlmeyer>> However the Aborigines MAY have induced the climate change through forest burning.<<

"A major feature of the geological record of Aust is a large peak in charcoal approximately 51,000 years ago, with high values sustained through the last glacial period. This feature has been related to the timing of early human settlement in the Australia". (Kershaw et al. 2006).

Stevenl, my comment about no physical impact in 60,000 years related to the archeological remnants that you would expect a society of 60,000 to leave behind, metal implements, pottery or vessels, stonework, designated burial sites. The only sign of the culture that was here is scratching in stone, cave paintings and the soot stain of mans campfire.

My point in raising it in a previous post was to contrast their society 200 years ago to my forebear’s society 200 years ago. The point to that comparison was that yesterday these people were Stone Age, with all the developed faculties of a Stone Age mind and today they are 21st century. They obviously cannot cope, and they have different values to Europeans (ownership and management of goods and chattels is one).

I have been close to two aboriginal colleagues over the years, both university educated and accredited. Their understanding and the following application to a resolution is excellent from both, but they are working on a different time scale to modern society.

The job can take you away from home for weeks or sometimes for months at a time and to keep in contact we had script pagers, radio, and mobiles. My friends would just go missing, they would go to see someone they knew, or just go to somewhere literally to see what is there. One was worse than the other at going missing, but they always came back, although they did not always finish the task in the time allocated, one got fired and the other now does local work.

These guys are not mission aboriginals, they are savvy cosmopolitan denizens, who really do value things and time differently to the European benchmark of societal expectations.

Dear Individual,

It depends where a person searches for
information. In public libraries there
are reference librarians to help with
inquiries. A shortage of staff does
exist - however, your inquiry will be
attended to by a professional, all you
have to do is ask.

Academic libraries are considered special
libraries and librarians are there to serve
the needs of both students and faculty.

It is now possible to explore the past by
means of a large number of books, articles,
films, novels, songs and paintings.
Many voices have filled out the space once
claimed as "Australia's Great Silence."
We can know a great deal now about the history
of indigenous-settler relations.

As I've stated previously - all you have to do
is go to your regional public library or your
national library - the information is there to
be had.

Dear Proxy,

Tolerance and understanding have broadened out.
Bigotry for most people is in retreat.
Black-armband history is often distressing,
but it does enable us to know and understand the
incubus which burden us all.

When the transplanted genocidal pom first arrived in Oz they were required to either to make a Treaty with the Original Australians or to otherwise make a declaration of war. They did neither, instead classifying the Original Australians as animals under the "Flora and Fauna Act."

Details can be found in the early law books in such places as the so called "Aboriginal Affairs department."

*Mabo* could have resolved the matter but did not, and access to
"The Head of State in Council"
(currently *Lizzie Winza*)

who may well authorise a *Treaty,* has been made more complex.

..

Even after the horrors of WWII the transplanted genocidal pom continued to dehumanise the Original Australians, destroying their families, stealing their children and refusing to count them, and in so doing contravened

"The Genocide Convention Act"

which expressly forbids the transference of children from one group to another.

The right wing extremists, argue that this was done "For their own Good," but this in my view is just one more heinous lie.

..

And now, with the 10 point scam of john howard and his mates who even in this modern era, have been found to have knowingly detained children in conditions that bring about mental harm,

(just ask psychiatrist and Australian of the year)

they refuse to allow the descendants of those families utterly destroyed to return to their lands on the grounds that they cannot demonstrate an ongoing connection.

That in part is what connects the evils of the past
(race science & eugenics)
to the here and now.

..

Of course, much of the land that was stolen has great wealth under it. Which in turn is also in part why so called native title legislation only allows you to perform "traditional purposes."

..

A unique form of land title is your birthright as the original people and you have the choice to participating in a process which will eventually bring that about, but know that you won't get that from the slime of either of Australia's two major parties as things currently are.

...Adam...