Hi Rhross,

Yes, our remote ancestors came out of Africa 200,000, 100,000, and/or 60,000 years ago. It would have taken the ancestors of Australian Indigenous people ten or twenty thousand years to slowly, without being aware of it, spread across southern Asia, into central and east Asia and back again, down to what is now Indonesia and Papua-New Guinea, and on to Australia - maybe a kilometre a year on average. There would have been spurts of movement, fifty km a year, then maybe staying in one region for a thousand years or so.

But eventually those ancestors got here, and spread around the coasts, over another five thousand years or so. n good times, people would have moved inland up river valleys and colonised drier parts of the country. But perhaps by forty thousand years ago, pretty much all of it (being better watered and vegetated than now) would have been colonised. Of course, Australia was still attached to Papua-New Guinea, and until only ten thousand years ago.

I'd assume that people came here in 'waves', perhaps thousands, or tens of thousands, of years apart, and filled empty or sparsely-settled country especially along the coasts, but they were even more likely to have been beaten back by people who knew their country - but of course, that's all conjecture, there's not much evidence of its happening.

There will come a time, I hope, when a great many Australians have Indigenous ancestry - and African, and Vietnamese, and Iranian, Czech and Lithuanian etc. ancestry. I hope also that there will come a time when those in need, regardless of their ancestry, are provided for - equally.

Already, according to the last Census, more than a third of Indigenous people own, or are paying off, their own homes, up from 10 % or so back in 1981. Of course, another huge percentage is living in State-provided housing with no intention of moving out. I suspect that the average Indigenous income is not much less than the Australian average, if at all. Sorry for the bad news :(

Joe

Hi Leoj,

One problem with believing a very negative Conventional Narrative is that one can't believe any good information, and is always looking for more bad news, which one eagerly believes without much, or any, evidence.

The current Conventional Narrative -

* massacres, throwing babies down wells, poisoning waterholes;

* being driven off their land;

* being herded onto Missions;

* being starved and made to working slave conditions;

* being stopped from getting an education (I heard this last night on Q & A);

* missionaries forcing children to stop speaking their languages;

* and, of course, the Stolen Generation.

etc., etc., has - at least in South Australia, but I don't see why SA should have been so different - very little or no evidence to support it. I wish there was, if only so that I could re-join the Left :( But no, I can't find any evidence, in fifteen thousand pages of document - in fact, quite the reverse: I was struck by this remark in the Annual Report of the Protector in 1874, from Police trooper Richards at Fowler's Bay:

"The quantity of rations supplied here is quite sufficient. I have a difficulty getting women's dresses made. The want of a net is much felt, the old one being in use for nearly five years, and I have not had time to make a new one."

All in our book, 'Voices From the Past', on Amazon :)

People believe their narratives passionately, even religiously: counter-evidence is sometimes non-existent, or any demand that they provide evidence, are fought off angrily. But I have to say that I have made the flip and it's hard to re-believe again, it would take a lobotomy.

Joe

Hi Joe,

I have read material suggesting that Homo Sapiens came out of Australia and I suppose, who knows. I have also read that the original Mungo Man conclusions which had no connection with Aborigines has been debunked and now it seems there is a connection.

Given the distortions inherent in the politically correct academic climate I am not sure I believe the ‘new’ data about Mungo. Not that it matters.

Where I take issue is that if we accept the view that because someone can trace ancestry back to a land, for thousands of years, it means they have a greater connection with and/or right to that land.

It also threatens the democratic basis of equality as citizens because it creates a construct where superiority is vested in the length of ancestral connection, and inferiority in the brevity of it. Now, in times past this was of course the basis of tribalism, although everyone was at some point nomadic and moved around, invading, occupying and colonising so connections to land were made, broken and made somewhere else.

Does it matter if a Scot is found to have Celtic ancestry going back tens of thousands of years? I think it is interesting but why should it make them ‘other’, or better? And that is the problem with this stretching of Aboriginal ‘history’ for it is a guestimate and ignores the fact that some Indigenous might be newcomers as well, with links to New Guinea, Indonesia, Pacific Islands etc.

And even if the Aborigines the British found in 1788 could trace themselves back for 40, 50, 60,000 years or more, what does it say about their lack of development, their inability to evolve, and their consistently primitive culture? How is that anything to be admired in any way?

Your news is not bad, it is common sense and reason. It just differs from the ‘accepted’ narrative. Quelle Horreur.

rhross,

I delight in pointing out the obvious, but Homo Sapiens has been around for over two million years, not 200,000.

Dear Joe and Big Nana,

The following link explains what I meant to say but
perhaps did not do it as well. I hope it clarifies
the meaning for you:

http://www.convictcreations.com/research/aboriginalrights.html

Thanks Foxy,

At first I thought that, in advising us in little words how to suck eggs, I should ask which end to suck and which to blow ? Some of this stuff is close to the truth, and probably the author means swell. But I noticed that there so many were misconceptions, mistakes and outright lies throughout this file. I'm sure Big Nana, after fifty-odd years right in the middle of it, would be a bit more dismissive.

I'd advise you to read around a little bit more, don't let yourself get hoodwinked by just first impressions.

Joe