BLACKS I am offended by the use of that word
Belly,
what about Whites ?

Dear mhaze,

Buckley speaks of the incredible kindness he was shown by the Wathaurung during his time with them. It is in many ways a touching story including Buckley's reluctance to leave them even when the opportunity to reconnect with those of his kind.

As to some Aboriginals engaging in cannibalism Buckley relates;

“It is true they are cannibals - I have seen them eat small portions of the flesh of their adversaries slain in Battle - they appeared to do this not from any particular partiality for human flesh - but from the impression that that by eating their enemies they would themselves become more able warriors - many of them are disgusted with this ceremony and refusing to eat, merely rub their bodies with a small portion of fat as a charm equally efficient”

This isn't the same as the eating of human flesh by the survivors of the Batavia for instance.

Sturt too speaks well of those whom he encountered on the Murray; “Here are broad instances of honesty that would do credit to any civilized nation.” and before the Frontier Wars started in earnest he remarks “All I can say is that they have submitted to our occupation of their country with a forbearance that commands our best sympathies.”

Next you sat this statement out on its own;

“One great cause of the deaths amongst the Aborigines is their liability to pulmonary diseases from being constantly in the water. They are much annoyed by rain, nor will any thing induce them to stir during wet weather, but they sit shivering in their huts even in the height of summer.”

These were people on the Murray who were constantly in the water fishing thus likely to be often cold even in summer.

“The fish-hooks they procure from the Europeans are valued by them beyond measure, since they prevent the necessity of their being constantly in the water, and you now see the river, at the proper season, lined by black anglers, and the quantity of fish they take is really astonishing”

Distortions indeed.

My point in raising Buckley is that he's journal doesn't help the narrative that Pascoe et al are trying to create, therefore he's ignored.

"This isn't the same as the eating of human flesh by the survivors of the Batavia for instance."
OK! So what? Did you utterly miss my point or were you just trying to change it. I'll try again. Picking out selective quotes from Sturt to advance the narrative is dishonest and an utter distortion. I was illustrating how that game is played by showing how a selective quote from Sturt could be used in the same way as Pascoe uses his selective quotes to try to show the entire race as cannibals...which they weren't. Do try to keep up with the rest of the class.

"These were people on the Murray who were constantly in the water fishing thus likely to be often cold even in summer."

Except what he was talking about were people who hadn't the wherewithal to protect themselves from the rain and suffered thereby. It was right in the quote in my post. Yet you cherry-pick my quote from the very post you are critiquing. How dumb is that?

Look. Again, I'm not saying the aboriginals weren't somewhat effective at what they did. They were primitive stone-age peoples and probably as advanced as many other stone-age peoples but less so than many others. But this notion that finding that one group did this-or-that means that this was an aboriginal trait is historically and logically invalid. In the main they were nomads and no amount of sleight-of-hand will alter that fact.

mhaze, SR is basically chasing semantics.
His response should have been, 'OK so they were cannibals, but not to the extent that they chose to eat humans as part of their usual diet; BUT they DID eat human flesh, so by definition and in truth, they WERE, cannibals.
I don't think there is a threshold that quantifies how much human flesh you must eat before you can be classified as a cannibal.
What I would like to caution all of you about is that after following all the debates and submissions by everyone, and I try to read them all, I find that the 'experts' are not always right.
It fortuitously reinforces my belief that all the research and results under the sun are sometimes or more often than not, 'best guess' scenario's.
Like this latest epiphany, that the blacks were the authors of these rock huts.
I have no doubt it was early travelers who decided to settle, but it is not the work of the aboriginals that you all so really wished it was.
You know you are a racist lot, suggesting that the Aussie natives need some kind of recognition because as they are now they are an un-assuming and un-inspiring lot, lacking any distinction or merit.
How about stop trying to raise their profile and world standings.
They are what they are and if that means they lack any qualities of distinction or merit, so be it, they are still human and don't have to prove anything to you lot or any other busy-body for that matter.
If they wanted to prove something the evidence would be there, and we would have seen it as early as the first settlers, and we would not have to go 'searching' for any because it had been known all along and therefore was obvious.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves, yes you all know who I'm talking about.

// In the main they (Aboriginal people) were nomads and no amount of sleight-of-hand will alter that fact.//

mhaze, there is no evidence to support that what so ever, in fact the evidence is that at the time of European settlement, and there after, most tribes encountered by Europeans were settled people.

mhaze what evidence do you have to support your claim. Certainly when Phillip arrived in 1788 he found the people of the Sydney region, well settled and in no way nomads.

Paul, what is YOUR definition of settled?
Or better still, which definition would you prefer?
There are more than one, if you look it up.
One can be settled in a country, or in a neighborhood, or in a house, or in a bush hut, or in an area under the stars.
Do you follow?
It might be considered the opposite to transient, but again one would have to be careful, because one can still be settled in a section of Australia and still be transient within that section.
And I mean something the size of a cattle station or similar.