How do we know that this isn’t still happening?

From “The Native tribes of Western Australia”:

“Infanticide has been practiced in all tribes, the causes being babies coming too quickly, insufficiency of food, some special physical deformity, and to both the Murchison and Disaster bay and other districts, a special fondness for babies as an article of food. The woman when shifting camp had to carry not only all the household goods but also the weapons, baby and a toddler. This being impossible, one of the children had to be killed, usually the baby. The father usually killed the infant … Many mothers in the Kimberley district will carry even the corpse of their dead children about with them, the stench of the decaying body eventually causing her own death.”

There’s more there, including a case where a baby was buried alive with a mother who died in childbirth.

mollwollfumble said:

How do we know that this isn’t still happening?

From “The Native tribes of Western Australia”:

“Infanticide has been practiced in all tribes, the causes being babies coming too quickly, insufficiency of food, some special physical deformity, and to both the Murchison and Disaster bay and other districts, a special fondness for babies as an article of food. The woman when shifting camp had to carry not only all the household goods but also the weapons, baby and a toddler. This being impossible, one of the children had to be killed, usually the baby. The father usually killed the infant … Many mothers in the Kimberley district will carry even the corpse of their dead children about with them, the stench of the decaying body eventually causing her own death.”

There’s more there, including a case where a baby was buried alive with a mother who died in childbirth.

Quickly dons flak jacket, clamps helmet to head, dives for slit trench)

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

How do we know that this isn’t still happening?

From “The Native tribes of Western Australia”:

“Infanticide has been practiced in all tribes, the causes being babies coming too quickly, insufficiency of food, some special physical deformity, and to both the Murchison and Disaster bay and other districts, a special fondness for babies as an article of food. The woman when shifting camp had to carry not only all the household goods but also the weapons, baby and a toddler. This being impossible, one of the children had to be killed, usually the baby. The father usually killed the infant … Many mothers in the Kimberley district will carry even the corpse of their dead children about with them, the stench of the decaying body eventually causing her own death.”

There’s more there, including a case where a baby was buried alive with a mother who died in childbirth.

Quickly dons flak jacket, clamps helmet to head, dives for slit trench)

One day soon, they will probably track him down.

PermeateFree said:

captain_spalding said:

mollwollfumble said:

How do we know that this isn’t still happening?

From “The Native tribes of Western Australia”:

“Infanticide has been practiced in all tribes, the causes being babies coming too quickly, insufficiency of food, some special physical deformity, and to both the Murchison and Disaster bay and other districts, a special fondness for babies as an article of food. The woman when shifting camp had to carry not only all the household goods but also the weapons, baby and a toddler. This being impossible, one of the children had to be killed, usually the baby. The father usually killed the infant … Many mothers in the Kimberley district will carry even the corpse of their dead children about with them, the stench of the decaying body eventually causing her own death.”

There’s more there, including a case where a baby was buried alive with a mother who died in childbirth.

Quickly dons flak jacket, clamps helmet to head, dives for slit trench)

One day soon, they will probably track him down.

By the way, Daisy Bates the instigator of the above, was heavily criticised writing about this, which damaged her credibility throughout her life, despite her living with and helping Aborigines for many years.

Are you going to supply some references?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to supply some references?

I presume you direct the above post to moll, but the reference is contained within and article written by Daisy Bates who privately investigated Aborigines in WA Such in-field investigations were unusual in the late 1800s and early 1900s even by the professionals of the day, but her being a woman, plus a journalist was held in contempt despite her dedicated efforts. She was accused of sensationalising accounts to promote and sell her Aboriginal stories to a Perth? Newspaper.

The SA Museum many years ago used to produce (paperback) books of various natural history topics (Red and Green Algae, Crustaceans, Mammals, Aborigines, etc). They were detailed scientific studies and well produced, but today have long been out of print. Anyway, there was mention of Aborigine infanticide in the Aborigine one, but the book was not promoted and disappeared without trace.

This topic is regarded as very anti-PC and to mention it in Aboriginal circles is to be asking for a lot of trouble that will be not only be from Aboriginal Activists, but from Academics and Professionals as well, so not usually mentioned these days. As I said before, Aboriginal politics is not an area people other than those with something to gain will be involved and if you take my advice you would be wise to do likewise.

it’s an intolerable subject, so no matter the extent of truth of it few would want to speak of it, certainly shy from it in public conversation, and most would stay clear of it in private conversation also

I don’t find the subject that offensive because i’m familiar with the subject, though I think it likely to be offensive to many people because the title and OP are about aboriginal infanticide, which makes me feel uncomfortable

there was a time infanticide was necessary, a practical necessity. The law, ethics and medicine today forbid it (medicine influences morality), and all three (among other things) contribute to behavior controls, formal and informal

a lot of specialization in fact contributes to behavior controls, it’s like compartmentalization

probably worth mentioning the state these days has a monopoly on rightful killing of humans, granted military people fighting a declared enemy, for example

From Dawson (which I’ve referred to in other aboriginal interest threads here and is a primary source) about the Western District of Victoria:

“Large families of children are unusual among the aborigines. However many may by born, rarely more than four are allowed to grow up. Five is considered a large number to rear. Twins are as common among them as among Europeans; but as food is occasionally very scarce, and a large family troublesome to move about, it is lawful and customary to destroy the weakest twin child, irrespective of sex. It is usual also to destroy those which are malformed. Malformations, however, were so rare before the arrival of the white man that no instances could be remembered. When a woman has children too rapidly for the convenience and necessities of the parents, she makes up her mind to let one be killed, and consults with her husband which it is to be. As the strength of a tribe depends more on males than females, the girls are generally sacrificed. The child is put to death and buried, or burned without ceremony; not, however, by its father of mother, but by relatives. No one wears mourning for it. Sickly children are never killed on account of their bad health, and are allowed to die naturally.”

Some Native American tribes didn’t name a child until some cycle of the moon, in that time if the mother detected something wrong with it, or the time wasn’t right it could be set out to die of exposure and because it didn’t yet have a name spirits and bad medicine didn’t get invoked.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Are you going to supply some references?

Don’t know it’s on the web, from the book “Daisy Bates: The Native Tribes of Western Australia” ed. Isobel White. pp 142-143.

But you’ve all missed the point of the original post. Are there places in Australia where native laws, which allow such things without complaint, dominate over white laws?

Wikipedia has: “since the late twentieth century, the Australian Law Reform Commission (1986) and the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2005) have written extensive reports investigating the desirability of recognising the role of native law in legal situations involving Aboriginal Australians. In the Northern Territory, some statutes and courts make explicit reference to native law where such is useful in identifying relationships or social expectations. These changes have sometimes been controversial, especially in cases where customary law is imprecise or infringes upon human rights.” But what does the actual law say?

One of the changes to West Australian law in 1905 following Roth, and continuing into at least the early 1940s, was the non-interference of white law in tribal killings. I like that. But I want to know just how far that non-interference stretches these days.

——

On a lighter matter, you know how I’ve been retranslating biblical terms in secular language such as “the ark of the covenant” as “the box containing the contract”.

Reading Daisy Bates has given me another translation. She talks about aborigines taking special efforts to avoiding breathing the air around an old woman dying, to avoid her strong spirit.

So
“spirit” = “germs”, or to put it another way, microscopic organisms. “Poison” may or may not be included in the definition
“holy spirit” = “sperm”

So finally, the religious statement of a person’s spirit surviving after their death makes sense. A person’s germs do survive and multiply after their death. Eventually, those germs disperse in the wind, often mistranslated as a person’s spirit going the heaven.

>Reading Daisy Bates has given me another translation. She talks about aborigines taking special efforts to avoiding breathing the air around an old woman dying, to avoid her strong spirit.

aversion and spooky superstition have a long history, in the instincts, the biological mechanisms

they often aren’t precise of what applied, respond to, really they can’t be, experience and culture (group norms etc) tweak them

what you’ve mentioned isn’t much different to me avoiding larry’s bad breath, or keeping my distance after he rolls in chook shit

transition said:

>Reading Daisy Bates has given me another translation. She talks about aborigines taking special efforts to avoiding breathing the air around an old woman dying, to avoid her strong spirit.

aversion and spooky superstition have a long history, in the instincts, the biological mechanisms

they often aren’t precise of what applied, respond to, really they can’t be, experience and culture (group norms etc) tweak them

what you’ve mentioned isn’t much different to me avoiding larry’s bad breath, or keeping my distance after he rolls in chook shit

Yes. and for the same reason.

I really hate to call aboriginal law, ‘law’ because it is so incredibly biased towards the bullies, the ruthless and the treacherous.

But like white law it does divide between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is for victimless crimes. Civil law is for crimes with victims with living relatives. Actions up to and including murder of victims without living relatives are not crimes at all according to aboriginal law.

Criminal law, penalty death, is for marrying the wrong person, eating the wrong food, for a man being within 20 metres or so of a woman having her period, etc. Not too different from some aspects of old testament law.

In civil law, the penalty is any amount of injury, up to and including death, imposed on the perpetrator by the relatives of the victim. For example, by law a man must support his wife’s father from the moment of betrothal, even if the betrothal is to a baby girl, call it a dowry. Non-payment of dowry leaves a man open to death by spearing or clubbing, if his wife’s father (and friends) can catch him. Murdering a wife is a civil matter, the murder is not considered the crime, the crime is that murder leads to non-payment of dowry, so it’s up the the wife’s father’s friends to avenge the death by any penalty up to and including death.

There are a huge number of other injustices. In a recent TV program on Florida an 18 year old who had a girlfriend aged 14 was branded a sex-offender for life, even after leaving prison. In aboriginal culture, a grey-haired old man marrying a girl of age as young as 9 years old is par for the course. The girl-wife is beaten by his older wives (no limit on the number of wives) as a matter of course, and often dies in childbirth. Older men always get younger wives, it is rare in tribal life for a man to be married for the first time before the late 20s.

A wife is a man’s property to do with as he wants, to prostitute, sell, bash or starve. If a man allows himself to be henpecked by his wives then he becomes an object of ridicule, and if this continues then his brothers will spear him.

But I didn’t want to just talk here about injustices. I want to look into the practical reasons behind some of the strangest laws.

• The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding. Even though the tribal aborigine doesn’t believe that copulation causes pregnancy, still the totems forbid marriages up to and including first cousins.
• The system of totems also provides protection against food diseases. Suppose a particular food develops a disease that is 100% fatal to humans, then the restrictions on what food can be eaten ensures that at least 25% of humans will survive.
• A man may not accept any gifts from his mother in law, or give gifts, or speak face to face. Well, that’s just good common sense, those gifts may be poisoned.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>Reading Daisy Bates has given me another translation. She talks about aborigines taking special efforts to avoiding breathing the air around an old woman dying, to avoid her strong spirit.

aversion and spooky superstition have a long history, in the instincts, the biological mechanisms

they often aren’t precise of what applied, respond to, really they can’t be, experience and culture (group norms etc) tweak them

what you’ve mentioned isn’t much different to me avoiding larry’s bad breath, or keeping my distance after he rolls in chook shit

Yes. and for the same reason.

I really hate to call aboriginal law, ‘law’ because it is so incredibly biased towards the bullies, the ruthless and the treacherous.

But like white law it does divide between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is for victimless crimes. Civil law is for crimes with victims with living relatives. Actions up to and including murder of victims without living relatives are not crimes at all according to aboriginal law.

Criminal law, penalty death, is for marrying the wrong person, eating the wrong food, for a man being within 20 metres or so of a woman having her period, etc. Not too different from some aspects of old testament law.

In civil law, the penalty is any amount of injury, up to and including death, imposed on the perpetrator by the relatives of the victim. For example, by law a man must support his wife’s father from the moment of betrothal, even if the betrothal is to a baby girl, call it a dowry. Non-payment of dowry leaves a man open to death by spearing or clubbing, if his wife’s father (and friends) can catch him. Murdering a wife is a civil matter, the murder is not considered the crime, the crime is that murder leads to non-payment of dowry, so it’s up the the wife’s father’s friends to avenge the death by any penalty up to and including death.

There are a huge number of other injustices. In a recent TV program on Florida an 18 year old who had a girlfriend aged 14 was branded a sex-offender for life, even after leaving prison. In aboriginal culture, a grey-haired old man marrying a girl of age as young as 9 years old is par for the course. The girl-wife is beaten by his older wives (no limit on the number of wives) as a matter of course, and often dies in childbirth. Older men always get younger wives, it is rare in tribal life for a man to be married for the first time before the late 20s.

A wife is a man’s property to do with as he wants, to prostitute, sell, bash or starve. If a man allows himself to be henpecked by his wives then he becomes an object of ridicule, and if this continues then his brothers will spear him.

But I didn’t want to just talk here about injustices. I want to look into the practical reasons behind some of the strangest laws.

• The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding. Even though the tribal aborigine doesn’t believe that copulation causes pregnancy, still the totems forbid marriages up to and including first cousins.
• The system of totems also provides protection against food diseases. Suppose a particular food develops a disease that is 100% fatal to humans, then the restrictions on what food can be eaten ensures that at least 25% of humans will survive.
• A man may not accept any gifts from his mother in law, or give gifts, or speak face to face. Well, that’s just good common sense, those gifts may be poisoned.
  

> The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding

Oops, inbreeding.

On the topic of breeding – in the 1900s, full-blood aborigines had few children but half-blood aborigines had many. The reason is unclear to everybody. Could this be an example of “cross-bred vigour”, with the mutations building up in the tribal aborigines gene pool causing problems? Or could it be a consequence of aboriginal customs such as the oldest men having the youngest wives and the death penalty for both parties on marrying the wrong woman.

I haven’t yet seen any description of how half-caste or mixed blood aborigines fit into the tribal system. There is no doubt that they can, because even whites can be adopted into the tribal system.

I bridled earlier about Roth (1905) saying that no Aborigine should be allowed to plead guilty.

Particularly so since I had read of a case (1946) where an aborigine had killed his wife’s brother, boasted of it in front of his wife and tribesmen, then later to a policeman, the bones were found on directions from his tribesmen who had helped him bury the body, the bones were carried to court, his wife testified to the death in court – and he was acquitted.

But now I’m starting to understand. Reading in a book from 1970:

“Now the fun begins. At Aboriginal native is the most obliging witness. Both prosecuting and defending counsel go grey tryimng to stop him from being obliging. He goes out of his way to agree with whatever is suggested to him. Prosecuting counsel asks him if he saw the accused kill the victim. “Youie.” he says, “bin killim dead.” Counsel sits down satisfied. The case is ended. Then defending counsel suggests to the witness that he did not see the killing at all, but was 200 miles away, and the witness agrees affably, “Youie. Me bin walkabout long way that time. Bin gettin goanna.” and from 1853 “we know they (aborigines) will at any time admit or say anything which they think will please their interlocutor”.

Hmm. Also has implications outside the courtroom.

transition said:

it’s an intolerable subject, so no matter the extent of truth of it few would want to speak of it, certainly shy from it in public conversation, and most would stay clear of it in private conversation also

I don’t find the subject that offensive because i’m familiar with the subject, though I think it likely to be offensive to many people because the title and OP are about aboriginal infanticide, which makes me feel uncomfortable

there was a time infanticide was necessary, a practical necessity. The law, ethics and medicine today forbid it (medicine influences morality), and all three (among other things) contribute to behavior controls, formal and informal

a lot of specialization in fact contributes to behavior controls, it’s like compartmentalization

probably worth mentioning the state these days has a monopoly on rightful killing of humans, granted military people fighting a declared enemy, for example

They used it in the final episode of MASH

mollwollfumble said:

I bridled earlier about Roth (1905) saying that no Aborigine should be allowed to plead guilty.

Particularly so since I had read of a case (1946) where an aborigine had killed his wife’s brother, boasted of it in front of his wife and tribesmen, then later to a policeman, the bones were found on directions from his tribesmen who had helped him bury the body, the bones were carried to court, his wife testified to the death in court – and he was acquitted.

But now I’m starting to understand. Reading in a book from 1970:

“Now the fun begins. At Aboriginal native is the most obliging witness. Both prosecuting and defending counsel go grey tryimng to stop him from being obliging. He goes out of his way to agree with whatever is suggested to him. Prosecuting counsel asks him if he saw the accused kill the victim. “Youie.” he says, “bin killim dead.” Counsel sits down satisfied. The case is ended. Then defending counsel suggests to the witness that he did not see the killing at all, but was 200 miles away, and the witness agrees affably, “Youie. Me bin walkabout long way that time. Bin gettin goanna.” and from 1853 “we know they (aborigines) will at any time admit or say anything which they think will please their interlocutor”.

Hmm. Also has implications outside the courtroom.

>……will at any time admit or say anything which they think will please their interlocutor”.

keen to impress the white superiors, too, probably has some similarities to people willing to give accounts of whatever on TV, unaware it lends to a broader audience, an overdetermining social force, largely a mixed bag of indifference, at best

It would have only be recently in history the human race has the required resources to look after for lack of a better word burden children, if a child was disabled in some way and would be unlikely to contribute to a tribe it would become a liability and some course of action would be required. Plus its not like children haven’t been mistreated worldwide throughout history

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

I bridled earlier about Roth (1905) saying that no Aborigine should be allowed to plead guilty.

Particularly so since I had read of a case (1946) where an aborigine had killed his wife’s brother, boasted of it in front of his wife and tribesmen, then later to a policeman, the bones were found on directions from his tribesmen who had helped him bury the body, the bones were carried to court, his wife testified to the death in court – and he was acquitted.

But now I’m starting to understand. Reading in a book from 1970:

“Now the fun begins. At Aboriginal native is the most obliging witness. Both prosecuting and defending counsel go grey tryimng to stop him from being obliging. He goes out of his way to agree with whatever is suggested to him. Prosecuting counsel asks him if he saw the accused kill the victim. “Youie.” he says, “bin killim dead.” Counsel sits down satisfied. The case is ended. Then defending counsel suggests to the witness that he did not see the killing at all, but was 200 miles away, and the witness agrees affably, “Youie. Me bin walkabout long way that time. Bin gettin goanna.” and from 1853 “we know they (aborigines) will at any time admit or say anything which they think will please their interlocutor”.

Hmm. Also has implications outside the courtroom.

>……will at any time admit or say anything which they think will please their interlocutor”.

keen to impress the white superiors, too, probably has some similarities to people willing to give accounts of whatever on TV, unaware it lends to a broader audience, an overdetermining social force, largely a mixed bag of indifference, at best

probably add that to the definition of state, along with a monopoly over violence

it has considerable power, instruments to deliver whatever into the aether of overdetermination, civilized man’s firing squad

Also just read this.

“The Bishop with 150 wives”
The Most Rev. Francis Xavier Gsell (1872-1960) was a French missionary who became Catholic Vicar of Darwin and had a vast diocese of some half million square miles. He did much to eliminate evil magic, and the marrying of young girls to elders of the tribes. He purchased native girls from their families so that they became, by tribal law, his own wives. By this means he was able to arrange marriages for many of them to young men.

Looks like it may be worth looking up.

mollwollfumble said:

Also just read this.

“The Bishop with 150 wives”
The Most Rev. Francis Xavier Gsell (1872-1960) was a French missionary who became Catholic Vicar of Darwin and had a vast diocese of some half million square miles. He did much to eliminate evil magic, and the marrying of young girls to elders of the tribes. He purchased native girls from their families so that they became, by tribal law, his own wives. By this means he was able to arrange marriages for many of them to young men.

Looks like it may be worth looking up.

Looks like they were still considered property though

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Also just read this.

“The Bishop with 150 wives”
The Most Rev. Francis Xavier Gsell (1872-1960) was a French missionary who became Catholic Vicar of Darwin and had a vast diocese of some half million square miles. He did much to eliminate evil magic, and the marrying of young girls to elders of the tribes. He purchased native girls from their families so that they became, by tribal law, his own wives. By this means he was able to arrange marriages for many of them to young men.

Looks like it may be worth looking up.

Looks like they were still considered property though

marriage and pair bonds are always ownership in some way

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>Reading Daisy Bates has given me another translation. She talks about aborigines taking special efforts to avoiding breathing the air around an old woman dying, to avoid her strong spirit.

aversion and spooky superstition have a long history, in the instincts, the biological mechanisms

they often aren’t precise of what applied, respond to, really they can’t be, experience and culture (group norms etc) tweak them

what you’ve mentioned isn’t much different to me avoiding larry’s bad breath, or keeping my distance after he rolls in chook shit

Yes. and for the same reason.

I really hate to call aboriginal law, ‘law’ because it is so incredibly biased towards the bullies, the ruthless and the treacherous.

But like white law it does divide between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is for victimless crimes. Civil law is for crimes with victims with living relatives. Actions up to and including murder of victims without living relatives are not crimes at all according to aboriginal law.

Criminal law, penalty death, is for marrying the wrong person, eating the wrong food, for a man being within 20 metres or so of a woman having her period, etc. Not too different from some aspects of old testament law.

In civil law, the penalty is any amount of injury, up to and including death, imposed on the perpetrator by the relatives of the victim. For example, by law a man must support his wife’s father from the moment of betrothal, even if the betrothal is to a baby girl, call it a dowry. Non-payment of dowry leaves a man open to death by spearing or clubbing, if his wife’s father (and friends) can catch him. Murdering a wife is a civil matter, the murder is not considered the crime, the crime is that murder leads to non-payment of dowry, so it’s up the the wife’s father’s friends to avenge the death by any penalty up to and including death.

There are a huge number of other injustices. In a recent TV program on Florida an 18 year old who had a girlfriend aged 14 was branded a sex-offender for life, even after leaving prison. In aboriginal culture, a grey-haired old man marrying a girl of age as young as 9 years old is par for the course. The girl-wife is beaten by his older wives (no limit on the number of wives) as a matter of course, and often dies in childbirth. Older men always get younger wives, it is rare in tribal life for a man to be married for the first time before the late 20s.

A wife is a man’s property to do with as he wants, to prostitute, sell, bash or starve. If a man allows himself to be henpecked by his wives then he becomes an object of ridicule, and if this continues then his brothers will spear him.

But I didn’t want to just talk here about injustices. I want to look into the practical reasons behind some of the strangest laws.

• The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding. Even though the tribal aborigine doesn’t believe that copulation causes pregnancy, still the totems forbid marriages up to and including first cousins.
• The system of totems also provides protection against food diseases. Suppose a particular food develops a disease that is 100% fatal to humans, then the restrictions on what food can be eaten ensures that at least 25% of humans will survive.
• A man may not accept any gifts from his mother in law, or give gifts, or speak face to face. Well, that’s just good common sense, those gifts may be poisoned.
  

> The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding

Oops, inbreeding.

On the topic of breeding – in the 1900s, full-blood aborigines had few children but half-blood aborigines had many. The reason is unclear to everybody. Could this be an example of “cross-bred vigour”, with the mutations building up in the tribal aborigines gene pool causing problems? Or could it be a consequence of aboriginal customs such as the oldest men having the youngest wives and the death penalty for both parties on marrying the wrong woman.

I haven’t yet seen any description of how half-caste or mixed blood aborigines fit into the tribal system. There is no doubt that they can, because even whites can be adopted into the tribal system.

You do not seem to be gaining any understanding moll, perhaps it is because you are attracted to sensationalism, completely ignore white history and are unable to empathise. Reading your reports, it is easy to see how Aborigines were considered to be sub-human and were so badly treated.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yes. and for the same reason.

I really hate to call aboriginal law, ‘law’ because it is so incredibly biased towards the bullies, the ruthless and the treacherous.

But like white law it does divide between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is for victimless crimes. Civil law is for crimes with victims with living relatives. Actions up to and including murder of victims without living relatives are not crimes at all according to aboriginal law.

Criminal law, penalty death, is for marrying the wrong person, eating the wrong food, for a man being within 20 metres or so of a woman having her period, etc. Not too different from some aspects of old testament law.

In civil law, the penalty is any amount of injury, up to and including death, imposed on the perpetrator by the relatives of the victim. For example, by law a man must support his wife’s father from the moment of betrothal, even if the betrothal is to a baby girl, call it a dowry. Non-payment of dowry leaves a man open to death by spearing or clubbing, if his wife’s father (and friends) can catch him. Murdering a wife is a civil matter, the murder is not considered the crime, the crime is that murder leads to non-payment of dowry, so it’s up the the wife’s father’s friends to avenge the death by any penalty up to and including death.

There are a huge number of other injustices. In a recent TV program on Florida an 18 year old who had a girlfriend aged 14 was branded a sex-offender for life, even after leaving prison. In aboriginal culture, a grey-haired old man marrying a girl of age as young as 9 years old is par for the course. The girl-wife is beaten by his older wives (no limit on the number of wives) as a matter of course, and often dies in childbirth. Older men always get younger wives, it is rare in tribal life for a man to be married for the first time before the late 20s.

A wife is a man’s property to do with as he wants, to prostitute, sell, bash or starve. If a man allows himself to be henpecked by his wives then he becomes an object of ridicule, and if this continues then his brothers will spear him.

But I didn’t want to just talk here about injustices. I want to look into the practical reasons behind some of the strangest laws.

• The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding. Even though the tribal aborigine doesn’t believe that copulation causes pregnancy, still the totems forbid marriages up to and including first cousins.
• The system of totems also provides protection against food diseases. Suppose a particular food develops a disease that is 100% fatal to humans, then the restrictions on what food can be eaten ensures that at least 25% of humans will survive.
• A man may not accept any gifts from his mother in law, or give gifts, or speak face to face. Well, that’s just good common sense, those gifts may be poisoned.
  

> The system of totems first provides protection against interbreeding

Oops, inbreeding.

On the topic of breeding – in the 1900s, full-blood aborigines had few children but half-blood aborigines had many. The reason is unclear to everybody. Could this be an example of “cross-bred vigour”, with the mutations building up in the tribal aborigines gene pool causing problems? Or could it be a consequence of aboriginal customs such as the oldest men having the youngest wives and the death penalty for both parties on marrying the wrong woman.

I haven’t yet seen any description of how half-caste or mixed blood aborigines fit into the tribal system. There is no doubt that they can, because even whites can be adopted into the tribal system.

You do not seem to be gaining any understanding moll, perhaps it is because you are attracted to sensationalism, completely ignore white history and are unable to empathise. Reading your reports, it is easy to see how Aborigines were considered to be sub-human and were so badly treated.

Here you go moll, just a small example of Victorian attitudes and in case you don’t read European history, it was a substantial way they obtained their wealth and could afford to build their gunboats, etc..

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/may-be-earliest-known-image-slaves-cotton-180973705/

Someone was telling me in South Africa they dig a small ditch, squat over it and the baby pops out, they then just cover the baby with dirt and walk away.

In Spartan times a baby would be inspected at birth, if it didn’t meet expectations I’d deformed, mongoloid or some other affliction the baby would be taken up to some spot in the mountains and going off a precipice.