Issy and Joe,

Both of you admit to not having read Pascoe's book. Now you try a new tack, discredit his work by say its impossible. That is like discrediting a book on the 1969 Moon landing without reading it, just not believing the event ever took place. You both look very silly on this.

Joe, Steele is repeatedly asking you for misquotes in 'Dark Emu', but not having read the book, you can't provide them, hence the new tack..."it can't be true" because I say so.

Paul,

I skimmed the book, looked up things in the index and reached my conclusions and as I said I'll read the book when I can get a cheap enough copy; none of my local libraries have a copy and it's not worth the inter library borrowing fee.

Issy, my iter-library transfer fee is 80c, what's yours? Anyway, read the book hopefully one day, and then draw your own conclusions. I read the book, it was an easy read, its not history as such, but Pascoe makes some interesting points. I have said all along I believe Aboriginal people were predominately hunter/gatherers. This is not about the question, farmers verse hunter/gatherers, but rather the hard right, people like Bolt, are shot scared of anything that might lead in someway to Aboriginal sovereignty over the land, something they vehemently oppose.

Paul, and your NOT?
You should be ashamed of yourself, under what pretext do you even begin to think that the blacks have any overarching rights over this country than the rest of us?
You are to be verbally attacked, and abused for espewing such vial and somewhat treasonous language and attitude.
Why do you say this rubbish when you know you're way off.
It is a well known fact that the blacks did not believe in land ownership, and were confused as to the concept.
So what gives you the right to make such outrageous and egregious statements, alienating the majority or white population of Australia.
Your comments and suggestion is counter to the whole concept of this land being conquered and taken, in the name of Queen Victoria, not an Elder of the outback.
When these words were spoken, this land now called Australia, immediately became the property of Queen Victoria and added to her list of countries already acquired by force or by claim.
So it is arrogant and somewhat treasonous of you or anyone else to imply that anyone but the current Queen is the rightfull owner of Australia.
The blacks definitely are not and should not be revered and treated as if they were.
Disgusting, poor show, very sad, and it shows you have a problem.

Altie old cock, you are running off at the mouth there over something I have not said. Re-read what I posted, and then hopefully with reasonable comprehension, you will see I simply made an observation about the hard right in relation to Aboriginal sovereignty, These guys, and you seem to also, shudder at the very mention of the word sovereignty in relation to Indigenous Australians.

For what its worth, without the outpouring of dramatics, the question is a complected one that requires more than a simple yes, no, answer. I did on a recent visit to Aotearoa have a informative discussion on that very topic with two learned (Maori) gentlemen. One with a very forthright view in support of Maori sovereignty, and the other with a far more pragmatic opinion. Both realise there would be great practical difficulties in implementing sovereignty, and both see it like me, not with that simple yes, no answer, but something that requires a lot of discussion with all stakeholders before coming to any kind of agreement.

Paul,

There have been archaeological investigations all over the country for more than a hundred years, encampments have been found, some dating back many thousands of years, such as Roonka on the mid-Murray here in SA. Ancient human remains have been found in very many places. Middens (ancient rubbish heaps) have been excavated thoroughly around all of our coasts. As far as I know, archaeologists have never found anything indicating farming anywhere in Australia. Anywhere.

No farming tools, i.e. hoes or spades, like hetiheti or karaune in NZ. They presumably would have been made of very hard wood, which probably had to be traded with some distant group. Any evidence of that ? Any evidence of sharp-edged harvesting tools or quarries for the mass-production of sharp-edged harvesting tools ? Any evidence of farming at all ? Not just a few observations by non-farmers passing through, creatively fashioned by Pascoe ?

Nor, by the way, have archaeologists found any evidence yet of massacre sites. I hope they keep looking.

That pretty much does it for me.

Joe