shadow minister,

To me logic dictates. Being out in the open, living
off the land, and all that nature provides,
with crystal-clear waters, river, lakes, and streams,
as opposed to rows of houses in rat-infested cities,
where the sewerage flows freely - it makes sense
who's going to be healthier.

Still it's your choice. I know where I'd rather be and live.

Foxy,

As I thought, your logic is based purely on your feelings. The reality is that generally, people living in the country in the clean air with clean water etc. have lower life expectancies than those in the city.

Hunter gather's diet is usually far from optimal.

Pauliar,

You really are a poisonous individual. As for the paedophiles that the greens seem to engender at a rate far more frequent than any other party, I like them punished while your response was first to claim that they were no longer greens and then tried to claim that one individual hadn't been convicted when he had actually pleaded guilty. That your token Muslim councillor turned out to be violently homophobic and a thief that your party is covering up to the hilt shows that while you pontificate about justice etc the green party is rotten to the core.

shadow minister,

Lets get serious for a minute.

You claim that we don't know their life expectancy
prior to the arrival of the colonists. Ok Fair
enough. But we certainly know what happened to them
after the arrival of the colonists don't we.

I rest my case.

Hi Foxy,

SM tells me I don't know the life expectancy of Indigenous people, yet nummy makes the claim "Before colonisation, there was little to no indigenous sanitation and on top of it, there would have been frequent lethal clashes with other tribes which is typical of all tribally based systems."

In fact my evidence is from accounts of early colonial explores and their descriptions of the physical appearance of people, along with the known diets and lack of European style diseases. As for war, constant war served nobodies interest, and well defined tribal boundaries were the norm. In North America the Plains and Eastern Indians were confederations of tribes serving a common interest. Your best warriors are also you best hunters and not in the tribes interest to have lots of fit young men killed. In Aotearoa there were clearly defined tribal boundaries, which still exist today. The war between Maori broke out with the introduction of the European musket and the Europeans desire for land. "The Ngapuhi (my wife's tribe) chief Hongi Hika is usually seen as responsible for beginning the Musket Wars." Of course the English never went to war with the neighbouring tribes, Scots, Welsh, Irish, French, Spanish, Dutch, Germans and a whole bunch of others, nah a very peaceful lot were those English.

Foxy, this sick dude who likes to constantly talk about paedophiles, Steele remarked that there is obviously something mentally wrong with him, or worse, and I tend to agree. Its an obsession of his, maybe by talking about paedophilia on the forum it's his way of getting his rocks off. Strange dude, he brings it up regardless of what the topic is.

Also, just finished a book on Gandhi and now reading Shashi Tharoor 'Inglorious Empire'. Not sure if Issy will discuss it, it may not be on his approved reading, 'Dark Emu' wasn't. It could even be on ttbn's books for burning list.

Dear Paul,

You're simply amazing!

Finding the time to read must be very satisfying.
I'm trying to keep up but I'm starting to get a
bit depressed with what's going on around me at present.
So much bad news all around. And we can't go anywhere
or meet with people to get a change of scenery. Still,
I shouldn't complain, I know. There's people and places
far worse off.

Thanks for making me laugh on this forum. Believe me it
is appreciated. I look forward to your posts.

Pauliar,

As for talking about paedophiles in the greens, you couldn't shut up about these monsters while the royal commission was in progress, but when it is in your backyard suddenly we have radio silence and you doing your best to cover up.

Secondly, American Indians fought frequently as did the Maori, the Africans etc. Your claim that they were peaceful is wishful BS on your side.

"Aboriginals were not “warlike” because war typically requires organisation, planning and coordination of large groups of warriors - and war implies “profit” - what you get as a result of the war.

Aboriginals didn’t have a sense of ownership of territory, since they were hunter-gathers who travelled vast tracts of land, which were jointly used by people in the same linguistic group. In that sense, there was nothing to fight over.

However, Aboriginals certainly did have disputes that involved people getting killed. We still have examples of wooden shields used for protection against spears during these fights.

You would need to have great eyesight and a high level of skill to survive these fights - just like modern warfare, really.

There are also examples of cannibalism in the north of Australia - not talked about nowadays but no question about having occurred. Whether cannibalism was more widespread is unknown.

The idea of Aboriginals being “peaceful” and “noble” is a myth. They were just normal people eking a living from a harsh land in a difficult environment."