Dearest Issy, you made reference to Pascoe's book, claiming to have "perused" said book, where and with what we do not know, I suggested you used your electric toothbrush to do some kind of external scan to determine if it was "badly written, badly edited". As my learned colleague SteeleRedux has called for, using the appropriate legal jargon, put up or shut up! Me thinks it time to comply.

If you fail to comply with the above, the 'Court of Fair Go Mate', will have no alternative other than to award you, yet again a PORKY AWARD!, your umpteeth such award for 2019.....Unfortunately the presiding judge and executioner, that's me, is at this very moment donning the black cap! Sorry pal its coming your way!

What has the book got to do with Pascoe's claims of Aboriginal ancestry?

I'll have another look at the book, when I get a chance.

Pascoe occupies positions, with salaries and other benefits, as if he was Indigenous. He has not demonstrated in any way that he is. He is taking someone else's position, and claiming other people's benefits. The Left has adopted a crook as one of their own.

As for Aboriginal farming, anywhere one likes to look in all of Australia, there is no evidence of it, even if Pascoe's fraudulent claims were remotely accurate. There is simply no evidence anywhere of farming, no tools, no fences, no storage areas. No towns, no nations, no trade. No group anywhere has developed natural wallaby grass or kangaroo grass or Mitchell grass into more productive strains: that task is now, for the first time (in 120,000 years) being attempted.

No tool-makers, no organisation, etc. as one would expect from wide-scale and long-term [120,000 years] farming.

That's the [Marxist] economic infrastructure. Nor is there, anywhere, any cultural superstructure, no legends, songs, no planting or harvesting rituals, no farming-related words in any of the 300-500 Aboriginal languages.

However, this rubbish is now being taught as reality and history in Victorian schools. This is not going to end soon, or well. Not in my life-time.

Joe

Sorry Joe, that is not correct.

I have found the Arnhem Land National Aboriginal Choir performing the very song you asked for, as first performed at the annual Didgeridoo Festival in the year 7396BC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad54bH-nQTM

If not satisfied with the above, I have the 'Stony Desert Aboriginal Trio', performing a traditional Native song back in their traditional Stony Desert homeland, all in their native language with traditional instruments . p/s please excuse the setting it was filmed during a severe drought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zWZu-QupWU

ENJOY!

Hi Steele,

My wife tells me she believes there are 17 dialects of the Maori language. Like all languages their language is always developing. An example is the word for the colour "pink" the traditional way to say pink is 'ma whero'....ma white, whero red, where as a modern speaker would use a derivative of the English word pink as in 'pinke'. Many words are becoming anglicised in that way. When she speaks Maori to another, she can quickly tell if they were traditionally taught, or learned the language through school, by the way they speak. many of the younger people are school taught.

Paul,

I am glad that you are learning to read and hope that you can graduate from your diet of childish fantasies like Noddy and Dank Emu and other left whinge fictions to real books. Then perhaps you could read my link which explains most of what you are asking.

Woke historians have redefined agriculture and aquaculture to include for example Budj Bim which is at best a sophisticated fish trap.

I ask you to provide genuine examples of agriculture, permanent dwellings etc from the millenia pre colonisation.

Secondly, my quote does not include "indigenous Australians were not hunter-gatherers" if you use "" then include the actual words not what you interpret otherwise you are being dishonest.

SR,

"As a generalist rather than an historian Pascoe gets a bit more licence from me on these things and I would agree there are some things he pushes to the limit"

In that sentence you admit that BP is firstly not a historian and secondly that much of what he suggests is based on conjecture which is exactly the point I was making.