Dear O Sung Wu,

I must have been simply tired yesterday.

I'm not upset at you at all and nothing's wrong.

I enjoy reading different takes on issues.

If we all agreed - the forum would be a boring place.

So by all means keep up the good work.

You always tell it like it is - minus the insults
for which I'm grateful.

Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

Still luv you!

Bazz,
There's a sad circle that people are locked into. Can you explain logically why Aboriginals must be Christian Anglo-Saxons? Why are most in deep hostility and pain if it's good to be north-west European, like Adolf said?

The Bugi of north Indonesia sailed wherever the king sent them in SE Asia before Portuguese arrived , with claims they sailed to Madagascar Africa. ( The Forum blocks my ref quotes).
Aboriginals sailed back to Moluccas and married and Macassans had children in Oz. How do you define Democracy, Bazz?

but there's more...ships from the Roman port of Arikamedu in south India sailed to Bali 2100 years ago. India had big ships for the China trade which sent ceramics to Britain and these are found today in mud on the Thames river. Probably Greek Romans were involved as they were at Korkai port also in Tamil Nadu. Ships around Oz are old news.

Nick, what are you talking about ?
You said;
Can you explain logically why Aboriginals must be Christian Anglo-Saxons?

Where did that come from ?
The rest of it also seems disconnected.
You second post is not news, but it is one thing for there to be
frequent, seasonally, visits from Indonesia to Northern Australia
and quite something else to presume that Indonesians sailed out into
the Pacific and down the coast as far present NSW.

In the 1600s only the Dutch & Portuguese had ships capable of such
voyaging in the area. If such voyages did occur there would be many
such reports back to Lisbon and Amsterdam. Captain Cook 150 years
later would have known of it before he even left Britain.
All he knew was that there had to be an east coast somewhere around 150 deg east.

Dear Bazz
umm.. for years there were churches in Britain. Gov Philip was directed to promote religion in the colony. Generally , Aboriginals were forced into "missions" run by Churches. You say the new reality had to happen. Why?
Again, why did Aboriginals have to go to Europe? Do you think that Asian ships aren't real ships ? If Maoris paddled log canoes from the Equator to NZ why were Asian ships unable to reach eastern Oz? My point is that all the foreign countries in 2000 years didn't seize this land and so why do Aboriginals have to be forced into foreign ownership?

Hi Nick,

Where to start ?

Austronesian traders were taking goods from PNG and - probably - the north coast of Australia (especially sandalwood, which was used in Rome) across to the east coast (the Coromandel coast) of India perhaps thousands of years ago. They colonised coastal areas of South-East Asia - there is still a group in Vietnam which speaks an Autronesian language - and of course pushed out into the Pacific, and across to the African coast and Madagascar. Not on log canoes but bloody great double-hilled sailing ships. Check out Peter Bellwood's 'The Austronesians', brilliant.

The old myth of Aboriginal people being 'forced' onto missions needs to be scrapped once and for all: single missionaries had far too much to do to attempt forcing people anywhere. Most missions - at least in SA - were set up as ration stations and schools, both roles attracting people quite voluntarily. No SA mission ever had a fence around it. Didn't happen.

And quite a few Aboriginal people went to Europe even early on, half a dozen from SA before 1860, usually as boys and young men. Some went to school there.

The Austronesians and Indians were traders. Seizing land would have been pointless: that wouldn't have arisen until capitalism was well-developed and capitalist enterprise needed resources, and land to grow tradeable crops and raw materials like wool and cotton and sugar. The vast proportion of Australia has been used for pastoral purposes, which - in law - co-exist with traditional Aboriginal land-uses such as hunting and gathering.

And your comment that ' .... for years there were churches in Britain. Gov Philip was directed to promote religion in the colony' - are you suggesting that that has anything to do with anything ? Some of us out here in cyberspace are not too bright, Nick, we can't see the obvious connections that you make so easily.

Cheers,

Joe