Given the reliance of many Indigenous 'leaders' on a spurious interpretation of history, as pretext for a traty, recognition of nations and ultimately sovereignty, there's a fantastic long article about the 'Recognition' schemozzle in today's Australian by Greg Craven, Professor of Law, VC of the Australian Catholic University.

He absolutely nails all the talk about treaty, nations and sovereignty as phony, very divisive (even if cloaked in the jargon of 'reconciliation' and coming together). Well worth framing.

Joe

As a vegetarian, I have written on this topic before. That being in terms of Australian history, the first living species in Australia were plant and animal species (that were not human).

"The establishment and evolution of the present-day fauna was apparently shaped by the unique climate and the geology of the continent. As Australia drifted, it was, to some extent, isolated from the effects of global climate change. The unique fauna that originated in (Gondwana), such as the marsupials, survived and adapted in Australia", with both Aboriginal and European settlers impacting on what is now known (as the Australian environment).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australia

Unfortunately, this is impossible to get across to nearly all Australians (and this includes many Aboriginal people) as only around 2-5% of Australians are vegetarian or a small percentage of people have views connected with (animal rights) in general.

Also it is difficult to get this across, as far too many Australians take a very anthropocentric view, in terms of animal species, the natural environment and day to day living. So in terms of humans owning Australia, this is something I cannot accept, as simply humans did not create this country, but I do accept humans can have deep feelings towards Australia.

I am related to Aboriginal people, and of Anglo-Saxon background myself so I understand connection, but animal species have a connection too, they simply can't speak a language like humans do! Finally, they are very smart - for example they can live without money!

Not all Australian animals are smart, Nathan; in fact some are downright stupid, particularly kangaroos.

'Roos will wait until the last moment before dashing in front of a motor vehicle, this is fine in the case of trucks, buses etc. but positively damaging for the average car.
One 'roo devalued my Statesman by some $3,000 then got up and took off into the bush.
All is not lost, however, as the 'roo roadkills provide sustenance for many non-vegetarian non-humans.

Foxy... thanks, but I already posted that information here before, if you had bothered to read it then you would know Mungo man was NOT Aboriginal but here before...

One of these spanners is Mungo Man, who was discovered in 1974 in the dry lake bed of Lake Mungo in west NSW. Mungo Man was a hominin who was estimated to have died 62,000 years ago and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the younger skeletons that had big-brows and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.

The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA had become extinct. The results called into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.

Dear T800,

Actually do a bit more research.

There are contrary opinions on the subject and
especially interesting is -
what recent DNA technology has uncovered.

cont'd ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-07/dna-confirms-aboriginal-people-as-the-first-Australians/7481360