Dear Foxy,

Yes, NM: I was trying to follow an article from some months back concerning an assertion that Aboriginal people had agriculture, and on a large scale: seven miles of grain crops in one part of NSW, already stooped ['stooked'?], according to Major Mitchell, according to the author. I was intrigued how they quickly they cultivated seven miles of land (and why so much: that could be a hell of a lot of grain), and why such tools have never been found. Did cultivation tools evolve ?

I'm wondering why the production system wasn't copied elsewhere in Australia. And whether or not the cultivators put fences around their crops, as everywhere else in the world, not least against foraging animals like kangaroos or emus, and jealously guarded them from other groups, and whether or not they lived in permanent defensive villages for mutual protection. Did they trade their grain for meat, like groups living near 'Bushmen' do in southern Africa, and have done for hundreds of years ? How did they store excess grain throughout the year ? What cultivatable grain are we talking about ? Are there still wild fields of it ? Did white farmers ever plant it ?

Professor Megan Davis suggests that, if Aboriginal people were foragers alone, then 'settlement' may be an appropriate term, but if they also cultivated, i.e. used land in a much more proprietorial way, then the country was invaded. The problem with that formula comes in assessing how much of Australia was cultivated, and how much was used for foraging alone.

So many intriguing questions ! Thanks, NM !

Love,

Joe

Paul,

I'm sorry you struggle with English so I'll use smaller words.

Foxy,

I have never claimed that anyone is unbiased as you mendaciously claim. However, the NM has almost never presented news, and certainly never presented a conservative POV, compared to newscorp which presented news and opinions from a wide spectrum of political viewpoints.

Dear Joe,

I'm glad to read that New Matilda has brought you
some fresh ideas and new information. They don't
duplicate the stories and perspectives available
in other outlets.

Dear SM.,

New Matilda has published the work of many, many, writers,
including - journalists, current and former politicians,
lawyers, academics, critical and creative thinkers,
bloggers, policy makers and even satirists. NM publishes
commentary on current events, as well as
breaking news, and investigative journalism. With shrinking
media diversity and huge changes underway in delivery
there are fewer and fewer outlets publishing independent
minded journalism like New Matilda.

I realise that you don't approve of NM. And that's
fine. It's your choice after all to stick
to the sources that you feel comfortable with.
We interpret things according to our own values, make
subjective judgements, and state our personal opinions.
That's what makes this forum so interesting.

Shadow, as my old Granny used to say; "No news, is good news." so like you, she must have been am avoid reader of Uncle Rupert's no news newspapers. Do you have 'The Daily Telecrap' home delivered, or simply rely on old copies you find on the bus seat for your daily dose of shock horror?

Foxy, I totally agree with what you have said about New Matilda. The contributes to NM are far more diverse than the narrow bunch of mostly right wing talking heads you find in News Corp publications. Which mostly pander to the conservative predispositions of people like SM, that is why they find those publications so acceptable.

Dear Paul,

I would love to tell some butt-head,
to go stick it where the sun don't shine.
Instead I'll probably come
out with, "Each of us is inclined to perceive
facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly". :-)

cont'd ...

I'm glad that you can see the value of New Matilda.