Being in proximity to a half-cut cue wielding brother very recently it became painfully obvious that something has to be done about their condition, which he also made apparent with his difficulty verbalising the word ‘aborigine’.

This word is a zoological term from the Victorian era. It’s syllables are not compatible with the local languages any more than it’s meaning is compatible with empowering them individually or as a nation. The name ‘Australian’ is no more familiar to them than ‘Ayers Rock’ is to them in reference to Uluru.

I intend to make this issue my focus for some time and get feedback on what their preferred options are as a collective of tribes. This is not in any manner a republican effort as the ideal of the commonwealth should recognise the importance of UN recognition of every people’s cultural sovereignty.

What I will ultimately be promoting support for is funding for a political party with solely culturally indigenous representatives but open membership. The ultimate aim of this party would to be to supply fair representation on cultural heritage and educational opportunity issues.

……….

Before Europeans landed, there was no “Australia”. All there was was a loose collection of warring states separated by language.

It’s a bit like that with England. Before the Vikings there was no “England”.

mollwollfumble said:

Before Europeans landed, there was no “Australia”. All there was was a loose collection of warring states separated by language.

No…

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Before Europeans landed, there was no “Australia”. All there was was a loose collection of warring states separated by language.

No…

Yes

mollwollfumble said:

Before Europeans landed, there was no “Australia”. All there was was a loose collection of warring states separated by language.

It’s a bit like that with England. Before the Vikings there was no “England”.

Technically there was no England before cricket and Earl Grey tea. If they were still classified as fauna they would be considered endangered. It is not a matter for academic philosophical debate but one of fair conditions as a basic human value(not right).

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

Before Europeans landed, there was no “Australia”. All there was was a loose collection of warring states separated by language.

It’s a bit like that with England. Before the Vikings there was no “England”.

Technically there was no England before cricket and Earl Grey tea. If they were still classified as fauna they would be considered endangered. It is not a matter for academic philosophical debate but one of fair conditions as a basic human value(not right).

Who handed out the drugs tonight?

They gave you too many.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

mollwollfumble said:

Before Europeans landed, there was no “Australia”. All there was was a loose collection of warring states separated by language.

No…

Yes

Usually a simple ‘no’ is enough to make Moll scurry off back under the rock he hides under when he presents his opinion as facts but you might be made of sterner stuff.

Aboriginal languages and mutual comprehension existed on a continuum where different tribal languages were mutually understandable for close by groups and steadily more different as distances got greater. But you can rest assured that all Aborigines could converse with anyone they were likely to come across in their nomadic existence.

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

Witty Rejoinder said:

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

The aboriginals would be unique amongst humanity if the mob that was sitting in the fertile valley with permanent water, good forests and plenty of fish and game didn’t have to protect this desirable territory from incursions form other tribes trying to evict them.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

No…

Yes

Usually a simple ‘no’ is enough to make Moll scurry off back under the rock he hides under when he presents his opinion as facts but you might be made of sterner stuff.

Aboriginal languages and mutual comprehension existed on a continuum where different tribal languages were mutually understandable for close by groups and steadily more different as distances got greater. But you can rest assured that all Aborigines could converse with anyone they were likely to come across in their nomadic existence.

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

While there was contact between neighbouring groups, or even the next to the neighbours, there was no concept of “Australia” as a unique geographical entity and a common identity across the whole continent. A continent view of Australia arrived with Europeans.

party_pants said:

While there was contact between neighbouring groups, or even the next to the neighbours, there was no concept of “Australia” as a unique geographical entity and a common identity across the whole continent.

That’s only because they weren’t yet playing cricket.

AwesomeO said:

The aboriginals would be unique amongst humanity if the mob that was sitting in the fertile valley with permanent water, good forests and plenty of fish and game didn’t have to protect this desirable territory from incursions form other tribes trying to evict them.

The desire for new territory is very much connected with rising populations looking to expand which wasn’t really a consideration with the stable populations of Aboriginal Australia.

And to labour the point, the spiritual connection that Aborigines had to their land is easy to underestimate. It really is a concept alien to western ideas about spirituality and land ownership.

party_pants said:

While there was contact between neighbouring groups, or even the next to the neighbours, there was no concept of “Australia” as a unique geographical entity and a common identity across the whole continent. A continent view of Australia arrived with Europeans.

This is true.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

While there was contact between neighbouring groups, or even the next to the neighbours, there was no concept of “Australia” as a unique geographical entity and a common identity across the whole continent. A continent view of Australia arrived with Europeans.

This is true.

I think that was the point Moll was trying to make.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

The aboriginals would be unique amongst humanity if the mob that was sitting in the fertile valley with permanent water, good forests and plenty of fish and game didn’t have to protect this desirable territory from incursions form other tribes trying to evict them.

The desire for new territory is very much connected with rising populations looking to expand which wasn’t really a consideration with the stable populations of Aboriginal Australia.

And to labour the point, the spiritual connection that Aborigines had to their land is easy to underestimate. It really is a concept alien to western ideas about spirituality and land ownership.

Alien to every tribe and group ever in existence.

party_pants said:

I think that was the point Moll was trying to make.

Perhaps. I don’t know why he stated falsehoods about language and warfare then.

• And to labour the point, the spiritual connection that Aborigines had to their land is easy to underestimate. It really is a concept alien to western ideas about spirituality and land ownership.

Aah, the noble savage…

furious said:

• And to labour the point, the spiritual connection that Aborigines had to their land is easy to underestimate. It really is a concept alien to western ideas about spirituality and land ownership.

Aah, the noble savage…

Not at all. Life could be quite brutal.

There were some savage nobles in the early colonial period.

dv said:

There were some savage nobles in the early colonial period.

And they were self conscious enough just over the clothing thing.

sibeen said:

party_pants said:

While there was contact between neighbouring groups, or even the next to the neighbours, there was no concept of “Australia” as a unique geographical entity and a common identity across the whole continent.

That’s only because they weren’t yet playing cricket.

Or forging birth certificates that linked them to God and sovereignty over Europe and Jerusalem.

The word snuff is in the title on two counts. One for the jovial air it lends to Victorian philosophical debates and the other for the type of underground movie that has been given the moniker. Being all sophisticated with fob-watch pockets and a maniacal fixation with what burns better and how to contain that so it only kills savages used to make great prime time.

Many words are similar in many of these languages. Borders and languages weren’tdefined in the way we see them. There is more misinformation that actual knowedge about the state of previous society in this land we called Australia.

What you must understand is the period of time Aborigines have been in Australia of in excess of 40,000 years, which also includes possibly the most dramatic sea-level movement in human history. This was due to climate change, which made land available as sealevels dropped, but uninhabitable in many inland regions. These changes happened over thousands of years and when you consider Europeans have been less than 250 years it was a very long time, where the significance of lands vacated, was reduced or disappeared, thus making them available for the peoples who came later from PNG when a land bridge existed.

As the climate changed back and sea-levels rose again, the uninhabitable inland areas became habitable again (even more so than today). This vacant land was then occupied by the later arrivals, which extended to near coastal regions in WA that the first people occupied. Being from different countries and from different times they spoke a different language that was unintelligible to each other. Relationships between these groups, largely did not exist and trespassers into each others territory was likely to result in death, so each remained where they were and as the land area of each was large and more than provided for their needs, there was no need to trespass.

Their developing spirituality and ancestry, would also mean there was no desire to leave their own lands. However, the Bibbulmun Nation, whose territory runs around the coast from east of Esperance to Geraldton, a distance of over 1500 km, where climate and vegetation types changed considerably, therefore sections were divided amongst tribal groups, where related peoples from other areas could visit and even stay for extended periods, with the permission of the tribe who occupied the land. In these instances, language did vary, but they could understand each other.

> Usually a simple ‘no’ is enough to make Moll scurry off back under the rock he hides under when he presents his opinion as facts.

That’s because I don’t feed the trolls.

> Usually a simple ‘no’ is enough to make Moll scurry off back under the rock he hides under when he presents his opinion as facts.

True.

It’s called “not feeding the trolls”.
It’s also called “never argue with an idiot, people may not know the difference”.
It’s also called “avoid polarisation of views created by resolution of cognitive dissonance”.
It’s also called “you can’t change the facts by debating them”.

It’s also because I wish to avoid becoming even more cynical about the intelligence of mankind. “A cynic is an idealist who has lost his rose-coloured glasses, thereby improving his sight”.

It’s also because, on joining the original forum, my aim was to write a single succinct and correct response to the OP of every thread. An ideal that it’s difficult to live up to.

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

dv said:

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

True, but we know from the book on the aborigines of south east Australia (I don’t have the exact title with me) that two tribes on meeting always met by throwing spears at each other. And we have evidence of blood feuds between tribes.

We also know that causes of death recognised by aboriginal tribes included death by violence, death by witchcraft, and on very rare occasions death by old age. But death by disease was unknown and ascribed to witchcraft – requiring violent retribution.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

True, but we know from the book on the aborigines of south east Australia (I don’t have the exact title with me) that two tribes on meeting always met by throwing spears at each other. And we have evidence of blood feuds between tribes.

We also know that causes of death recognised by aboriginal tribes included death by violence, death by witchcraft, and on very rare occasions death by old age. But death by disease was unknown and ascribed to witchcraft – requiring violent retribution.

They also made shields, you don’t need shields for hunting.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

True, but we know from the book on the aborigines of south east Australia (I don’t have the exact title with me) that two tribes on meeting always met by throwing spears at each other. And we have evidence of blood feuds between tribes.

We also know that causes of death recognised by aboriginal tribes included death by violence, death by witchcraft, and on very rare occasions death by old age. But death by disease was unknown and ascribed to witchcraft – requiring violent retribution.

They also made shields, you don’t need shields for hunting.

What if a cassowary comes after you?

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

True, but we know from the book on the aborigines of south east Australia (I don’t have the exact title with me) that two tribes on meeting always met by throwing spears at each other. And we have evidence of blood feuds between tribes.

We also know that causes of death recognised by aboriginal tribes included death by violence, death by witchcraft, and on very rare occasions death by old age. But death by disease was unknown and ascribed to witchcraft – requiring violent retribution.

They also made shields, you don’t need shields for hunting.

barramundi’s a bloody big fish…

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

True, but we know from the book on the aborigines of south east Australia (I don’t have the exact title with me) that two tribes on meeting always met by throwing spears at each other. And we have evidence of blood feuds between tribes.

We also know that causes of death recognised by aboriginal tribes included death by violence, death by witchcraft, and on very rare occasions death by old age. But death by disease was unknown and ascribed to witchcraft – requiring violent retribution.

Are these reasons those left with us should be swept under the rug?

Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

We don’t have much information about the state of intertribe warfare in pre-colonial Australia.

True, but we know from the book on the aborigines of south east Australia (I don’t have the exact title with me) that two tribes on meeting always met by throwing spears at each other. And we have evidence of blood feuds between tribes.

We also know that causes of death recognised by aboriginal tribes included death by violence, death by witchcraft, and on very rare occasions death by old age. But death by disease was unknown and ascribed to witchcraft – requiring violent retribution.

You’ve got to be kidding about the “swept under the rug”. I first became cynical about Australian Aborigines when they voted to allow uranium mining on their sic “sacred” land. It became very clear there that all they cared about was the money.

Rather than being swept under the rug, I see the opposite problem, politicised racism.

Are these reasons those left with us should be swept under the rug?

Apologies for mixing up the quote order in the above post.

mollwollfumble said:

Apologies for mixing up the quote order in the above post.

It is a great pity you do not do a little research on the statements you make, perhaps then we would get more sensible comment. You seem to think whatever knowledge you might have (or lack), should stop you from making the most ridiculous remarks as undisputed fact. I might add that you appear to have a primary school level understanding of environmental matters and hence most of your uttering here are completely incorrect.

Your comments completely ignore the scientific rigor relating to the environment, which thousands of scientists have spent their entire lives studying, yet you dismiss them and their work, as if they did not exist or were complete fools. Frankly I don’t think there is enough time to provide you with enough basic scientific knowledge to enable you to make qualified, or even elementary remarks in these areas, therefore I think it prudent that you stop making them and safeguard your intellectual integratory in the areas you are more familiar.

While we’re talking aborigines and cynicism,

I’ll have to check up the details again sometime, but there was a year in the early 1970s when the Australiana Bureau of Statistics recorded the total population of Aboriginal people in Victoria as less than 100, from memory it was 57 or 67. It’s not a case of being sidelined, simply a case of there weren’t any.

So when I see anywhere in Victoria acknowledging traditional owners of land as this or that tribe, and there are at least hundreds of these signs around, I always find myself tempted to remove the sign.

mollwollfumble said:

While we’re talking aborigines and cynicism,

I’ll have to check up the details again sometime, but there was a year in the early 1970s when the Australiana Bureau of Statistics recorded the total population of Aboriginal people in Victoria as less than 100, from memory it was 57 or 67. It’s not a case of being sidelined, simply a case of there weren’t any.

So when I see anywhere in Victoria acknowledging traditional owners of land as this or that tribe, and there are at least hundreds of these signs around, I always find myself tempted to remove the sign.

You don’t give up do you? If those figures you quoted are correct, it would refer to full blood Aborigines, not their descendants that are considerably more numerous. Have you ever bothered to investigate what happened to Aborigines after European occupation, or are you happy to live in ignorance and look the fool when you comment on the subject.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

While we’re talking aborigines and cynicism,

I’ll have to check up the details again sometime, but there was a year in the early 1970s when the Australiana Bureau of Statistics recorded the total population of Aboriginal people in Victoria as less than 100, from memory it was 57 or 67. It’s not a case of being sidelined, simply a case of there weren’t any.

So when I see anywhere in Victoria acknowledging traditional owners of land as this or that tribe, and there are at least hundreds of these signs around, I always find myself tempted to remove the sign.

You don’t give up do you? If those figures you quoted are correct, it would refer to full blood Aborigines, not their descendants that are considerably more numerous. Have you ever bothered to investigate what happened to Aborigines after European occupation, or are you happy to live in ignorance and look the fool when you comment on the subject.

Out for your usual arrogant argument PF?

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

While we’re talking aborigines and cynicism,

I’ll have to check up the details again sometime, but there was a year in the early 1970s when the Australiana Bureau of Statistics recorded the total population of Aboriginal people in Victoria as less than 100, from memory it was 57 or 67. It’s not a case of being sidelined, simply a case of there weren’t any.

So when I see anywhere in Victoria acknowledging traditional owners of land as this or that tribe, and there are at least hundreds of these signs around, I always find myself tempted to remove the sign.

You don’t give up do you? If those figures you quoted are correct, it would refer to full blood Aborigines, not their descendants that are considerably more numerous. Have you ever bothered to investigate what happened to Aborigines after European occupation, or are you happy to live in ignorance and look the fool when you comment on the subject.

Out for your usual arrogant argument PF?

snap.

:-)

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

While we’re talking aborigines and cynicism,

I’ll have to check up the details again sometime, but there was a year in the early 1970s when the Australiana Bureau of Statistics recorded the total population of Aboriginal people in Victoria as less than 100, from memory it was 57 or 67. It’s not a case of being sidelined, simply a case of there weren’t any.

So when I see anywhere in Victoria acknowledging traditional owners of land as this or that tribe, and there are at least hundreds of these signs around, I always find myself tempted to remove the sign.

You don’t give up do you? If those figures you quoted are correct, it would refer to full blood Aborigines, not their descendants that are considerably more numerous. Have you ever bothered to investigate what happened to Aborigines after European occupation, or are you happy to live in ignorance and look the fool when you comment on the subject.

Out for your usual arrogant argument PF?

No just trying to correct the ignorant, if not the stupid.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

You don’t give up do you? If those figures you quoted are correct, it would refer to full blood Aborigines, not their descendants that are considerably more numerous. Have you ever bothered to investigate what happened to Aborigines after European occupation, or are you happy to live in ignorance and look the fool when you comment on the subject.

Out for your usual arrogant argument PF?

No just trying to correct the ignorant, if not the stupid.

You sir have been well and truly sucked in by the black PR machine.

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

Out for your usual arrogant argument PF?

No just trying to correct the ignorant, if not the stupid.

You sir have been well and truly sucked in by the black PR machine.

No, I just educated myself over a number of years. Something people like you and Mull have NEVER done.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PermeateFree said:

No just trying to correct the ignorant, if not the stupid.

You sir have been well and truly sucked in by the black PR machine.

No, I just educated myself over a number of years. Something people like you and Mull have NEVER done.

Stop squabbling kiddies. Neither one of you will ever convince the other so use your brains & time on more productive posts.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

You sir have been well and truly sucked in by the black PR machine.

No, I just educated myself over a number of years. Something people like you and Mull have NEVER done.

Stop squabbling kiddies. Neither one of you will ever convince the other so use your brains & time on more productive posts.

They say ignorance is bliss, so there musty be some very happy people about.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

You sir have been well and truly sucked in by the black PR machine.

No, I just educated myself over a number of years. Something people like you and Mull have NEVER done.

Stop squabbling kiddies. Neither one of you will ever convince the other so use your brains & time on more productive posts.

I am not even sure what the argument is about. I don’t think moll has said anything controversial and I am sure PF down there somewhere accepted that aboriginals did engage in conflict.

Maybe he can say what he is disagreeing with succinctly.

Witty Rejoinder said:

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

My error. It was Witty who at least accepted that there was conflict, albeit he also downplayed any notion of warfare. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

In fact in real terms the death of several during “inter tribal rivalry” would be as a percentage of population more devastating than modern war between states.

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

No, I just educated myself over a number of years. Something people like you and Mull have NEVER done.

Stop squabbling kiddies. Neither one of you will ever convince the other so use your brains & time on more productive posts.

I am not even sure what the argument is about. I don’t think moll has said anything controversial and I am sure PF down there somewhere accepted that aboriginals did engage in conflict.

Maybe he can say what he is disagreeing with succinctly.

Unfortunately it is not a single post, but pretty much all of his posts display an unbelievable lack of understanding, which even more regrettably he presents as fact.

If someone started quoting a scientific fact as fiction, they would get very short shrift here and deservedly so. Yet people like Mull can say the most ridiculous and outrageous things about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

Stop squabbling kiddies. Neither one of you will ever convince the other so use your brains & time on more productive posts.

I am not even sure what the argument is about. I don’t think moll has said anything controversial and I am sure PF down there somewhere accepted that aboriginals did engage in conflict.

Maybe he can say what he is disagreeing with succinctly.

Unfortunately it is not a single post, but pretty much all of his posts display an unbelievable lack of understanding, which even more regrettably he presents as fact.

If someone started quoting a scientific fact as fiction, they would get very short shrift here and deservedly so. Yet people like Mull can say the most ridiculous and outrageous things about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.

You are good at blather, what actually are you disagreeing with?

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

My error. It was Witty who at least accepted that there was conflict, albeit he also downplayed any notion of warfare. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

In fact in real terms the death of several during “inter tribal rivalry” would be as a percentage of population more devastating than modern war between states.

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

I think you need to see the bigger picture. In PNG where usagable land in the highlands is limited and with tribes now becoming more numerous, there will naturally be conflict between neighbors. In Australia the land areas in most instances are large and the Aboriginal population relatively small, therefore conflict is less as there is less interaction.

AwesomeO said:

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

What you are suggesting is that somehow there were lean times in one area and only tens of kilometres away an bountiful abundance. The environment doesn’t work that way.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

My error. It was Witty who at least accepted that there was conflict, albeit he also downplayed any notion of warfare. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

In fact in real terms the death of several during “inter tribal rivalry” would be as a percentage of population more devastating than modern war between states.

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

I think you need to see the bigger picture. In PNG where usagable land in the highlands is limited and with tribes now becoming more numerous, there will naturally be conflict between neighbors. In Australia the land areas in most instances are large and the Aboriginal population relatively small, therefore conflict is less as there is less interaction.

There were also designated places where members of different tribes could meet without conflict. They helped widen the gene pool.
One place I know of is at Cooktown where Capt Cook landed.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

What you are suggesting is that somehow there were lean times in one area and only tens of kilometres away an bountiful abundance. The environment doesn’t work that way.

I am suggesting that some tribal lands were better than others. Some water was more reliable and even permanent compare to others. I don’t know why some people consider the idea that aboriginals engaged in conflict over resources so horrifying.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

What you are suggesting is that somehow there were lean times in one area and only tens of kilometres away an bountiful abundance. The environment doesn’t work that way.

Well it does if one area is scrub & next to it is rainforest.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I am not even sure what the argument is about. I don’t think moll has said anything controversial and I am sure PF down there somewhere accepted that aboriginals did engage in conflict.

Maybe he can say what he is disagreeing with succinctly.

Unfortunately it is not a single post, but pretty much all of his posts display an unbelievable lack of understanding, which even more regrettably he presents as fact.

If someone started quoting a scientific fact as fiction, they would get very short shrift here and deservedly so. Yet people like Mull can say the most ridiculous and outrageous things about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.

You are good at blather, what actually are you disagreeing with?

There is obviously too much for you to grasp, especially if you do not understand the contexts of what Mull presented and my replies.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

As for warfare, I don’t think the term could be applied to inter tribal rivalry which was mainly concerned with personal disputes and other breaches of community expectations. Warfare over land was very rare as traditional ties to the land trumped any desire to take over land that they had no spiritual relationship with.

My error. It was Witty who at least accepted that there was conflict, albeit he also downplayed any notion of warfare. Sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

In fact in real terms the death of several during “inter tribal rivalry” would be as a percentage of population more devastating than modern war between states.

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

I think you need to see the bigger picture. In PNG where usagable land in the highlands is limited and with tribes now becoming more numerous, there will naturally be conflict between neighbors. In Australia the land areas in most instances are large and the Aboriginal population relatively small, therefore conflict is less as there is less interaction.

Progress, you accept that there was conflict, just less in Australia than anywhere else and because of distance. That is a vast improvement on less conflict cos they were hippies.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Unfortunately it is not a single post, but pretty much all of his posts display an unbelievable lack of understanding, which even more regrettably he presents as fact.

If someone started quoting a scientific fact as fiction, they would get very short shrift here and deservedly so. Yet people like Mull can say the most ridiculous and outrageous things about subjects he knows absolutely nothing about.

You are good at blather, what actually are you disagreeing with?

There is obviously too much for you to grasp, especially if you do not understand the contexts of what Mull presented and my replies.

If you like, consider it too much for my feeble brain to take in. That is why I have asked you several times to specify to what you are disagreeing, in response you just drag out some verbose rendition of you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Or just continue blathering about how good you are. No skin off my nose. I am enjoying myself watching you say not much at all.

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

But I am happy to use the term inter tribal rivalry if any other term upsets those who think that aboriginals unique amongst humans were some sort of primitive hippies blissed out on spirituality and not at all concerned with a rumbling stomach whilst over the hill the other tribe was living it large.

What you are suggesting is that somehow there were lean times in one area and only tens of kilometres away an bountiful abundance. The environment doesn’t work that way.

I am suggesting that some tribal lands were better than others. Some water was more reliable and even permanent compare to others. I don’t know why some people consider the idea that aboriginals engaged in conflict over resources so horrifying.

Again you need to look at the bigger picture and appreciate that Aborigines have been on their land for thousands of years, during which time the climate changed and it (gradually) became drier. During this period the Aborigines also adapted to become proficient in survival on this land. They have their sacred sites and ancestry there too, something the European culture do not really appreciate. In other words, they had no reason to invade the neighbors, as they had no need to invade them. Aboriginal culture is very different to European culture.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

You are good at blather, what actually are you disagreeing with?

There is obviously too much for you to grasp, especially if you do not understand the contexts of what Mull presented and my replies.

If you like, consider it too much for my feeble brain to take in. That is why I have asked you several times to specify to what you are disagreeing, in response you just drag out some verbose rendition of you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Or just continue blathering about how good you are. No skin off my nose. I am enjoying myself watching you say not much at all.

I am sorry, but you do not understand and refuse to read past posts for more information. If you wish to remain ignorant and make stupid comment, please be my guest.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

What you are suggesting is that somehow there were lean times in one area and only tens of kilometres away an bountiful abundance. The environment doesn’t work that way.

I am suggesting that some tribal lands were better than others. Some water was more reliable and even permanent compare to others. I don’t know why some people consider the idea that aboriginals engaged in conflict over resources so horrifying.

Again you need to look at the bigger picture and appreciate that Aborigines have been on their land for thousands of years, during which time the climate changed and it (gradually) became drier. During this period the Aborigines also adapted to become proficient in survival on this land. They have their sacred sites and ancestry there too, something the European culture do not really appreciate. In other words, they had no reason to invade the neighbors, as they had no need to invade them. Aboriginal culture is very different to European culture.

Every surviving culture has become proficient in managing change of all sorts, climate and technological. Every culture has sacred sites and ancestry. Aboriginals are not unique.

And am not talking about European culture. I am talking about universal human responses to scarce resources, which in every other human group has resulted in conflict in competition for those resources.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

There is obviously too much for you to grasp, especially if you do not understand the contexts of what Mull presented and my replies.

If you like, consider it too much for my feeble brain to take in. That is why I have asked you several times to specify to what you are disagreeing, in response you just drag out some verbose rendition of you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Or just continue blathering about how good you are. No skin off my nose. I am enjoying myself watching you say not much at all.

I am sorry, but you do not understand and refuse to read past posts for more information. If you wish to remain ignorant and make stupid comment, please be my guest.

I am sorry you are too stupid to explain what you are disagreeing with and instead would prefer to proclaim your brilliance instead of demonstrating it.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

If you like, consider it too much for my feeble brain to take in. That is why I have asked you several times to specify to what you are disagreeing, in response you just drag out some verbose rendition of you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Or just continue blathering about how good you are. No skin off my nose. I am enjoying myself watching you say not much at all.

I am sorry, but you do not understand and refuse to read past posts for more information. If you wish to remain ignorant and make stupid comment, please be my guest.

I am sorry you are too stupid to explain what you are disagreeing with and instead would prefer to proclaim your brilliance instead of demonstrating it.

And they are squabbling again.
You’ll never convince each other so let it go & move on.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I am suggesting that some tribal lands were better than others. Some water was more reliable and even permanent compare to others. I don’t know why some people consider the idea that aboriginals engaged in conflict over resources so horrifying.

Again you need to look at the bigger picture and appreciate that Aborigines have been on their land for thousands of years, during which time the climate changed and it (gradually) became drier. During this period the Aborigines also adapted to become proficient in survival on this land. They have their sacred sites and ancestry there too, something the European culture do not really appreciate. In other words, they had no reason to invade the neighbors, as they had no need to invade them. Aboriginal culture is very different to European culture.

Every surviving culture has become proficient in managing change of all sorts, climate and technological. Every culture has sacred sites and ancestry. Aboriginals are not unique.

And am not talking about European culture. I am talking about universal human responses to scarce resources, which in every other human group has resulted in conflict in competition for those resources.

Really! The problem with your reasoning is the situation in different parts of the world vary. In Europe there are large populations and limited land area, especially after agriculture. As I mentioned before this situation will create conflict. In Australia the situation is the reverse, plus the peoples (tribes) often separated by considerable distances, usually determined by unproductive county or geological feature. Your casual reference to all people having scared sites, is rather different when you have been living with them for thousands of years. It is nothing like Europe when different people invaded one after the other. That did not happen in Australia because of its size and climate.

AwesomeO said:

I am suggesting that some tribal lands were better than others. Some water was more reliable and even permanent compare to others. I don’t know why some people consider the idea that aboriginals engaged in conflict over resources so horrifying.

Tribes with better land had smaller territories and greater populations. The populations reached equilibrium with what the tribal lands could sustain.

Not horrifying. Just not backed by the historical evidence in the main. You pride yourself on being well read so maybe you should read up on the subject. I am sure you will find it most enlightening.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

If you like, consider it too much for my feeble brain to take in. That is why I have asked you several times to specify to what you are disagreeing, in response you just drag out some verbose rendition of you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Or just continue blathering about how good you are. No skin off my nose. I am enjoying myself watching you say not much at all.

I am sorry, but you do not understand and refuse to read past posts for more information. If you wish to remain ignorant and make stupid comment, please be my guest.

I am sorry you are too stupid to explain what you are disagreeing with and instead would prefer to proclaim your brilliance instead of demonstrating it.

I have explained, just you are too dumb to investigate and only wish (in your little mind) to teach me some sort of lesson. If you want to appear intelligent Curve, do some actual research.

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

I am sorry, but you do not understand and refuse to read past posts for more information. If you wish to remain ignorant and make stupid comment, please be my guest.

I am sorry you are too stupid to explain what you are disagreeing with and instead would prefer to proclaim your brilliance instead of demonstrating it.

And they are squabbling again.
You’ll never convince each other so let it go & move on.

Nahh, its cool, I have half an hour of scrabbling time left, I have no expectation of convincing PF of anything, he is firmly wedded to a rousseaun vision of aboriginals as hippies.

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

AwesomeO said:

I am sorry you are too stupid to explain what you are disagreeing with and instead would prefer to proclaim your brilliance instead of demonstrating it.

And they are squabbling again.
You’ll never convince each other so let it go & move on.

Nahh, its cool, I have half an hour of scrabbling time left, I have no expectation of convincing PF of anything, he is firmly wedded to a rousseaun vision of aboriginals as hippies.

And you are living under a false impression that you have brilliant insight about things you do not understand. Wake up Curve and stop being so ridiculous.

Finding academic reasons to justify further dis-empowerment of the locals can only be viewed as a bigoted empirical attitude without any justifiable place in the modern philosophy.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Tamb said:

And they are squabbling again.
You’ll never convince each other so let it go & move on.

Nahh, its cool, I have half an hour of scrabbling time left, I have no expectation of convincing PF of anything, he is firmly wedded to a rousseaun vision of aboriginals as hippies.

And you are living under a false impression that you have brilliant insight about things you do not understand. Wake up Curve and stop being so ridiculous.

It is not a brilliant insight to view aboriginals as humans and expect them to act similarly and with the same drives, impulses, prejudices and responses as humans everywhere else and throughout history.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Nahh, its cool, I have half an hour of scrabbling time left, I have no expectation of convincing PF of anything, he is firmly wedded to a rousseaun vision of aboriginals as hippies.

And you are living under a false impression that you have brilliant insight about things you do not understand. Wake up Curve and stop being so ridiculous.

It is not a brilliant insight to view aboriginals as humans and expect them to act similarly and with the same drives, impulses, prejudices and responses as humans everywhere else and throughout history.

You just do not get it, even when explained to you twice. I think you and Pauline Hanson have a great deal in common.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

And you are living under a false impression that you have brilliant insight about things you do not understand. Wake up Curve and stop being so ridiculous.

It is not a brilliant insight to view aboriginals as humans and expect them to act similarly and with the same drives, impulses, prejudices and responses as humans everywhere else and throughout history.

You just do not get it, even when explained to you twice. I think you and Pauline Hanson have a great deal in common.

Heheheh, please explain.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

It is not a brilliant insight to view aboriginals as humans and expect them to act similarly and with the same drives, impulses, prejudices and responses as humans everywhere else and throughout history.

You just do not get it, even when explained to you twice. I think you and Pauline Hanson have a great deal in common.

Heheheh, please explain.

I don’t want to be a pedant, but do you mean “ploise exploin?”

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

While we’re talking aborigines and cynicism,

I’ll have to check up the details again sometime, but there was a year in the early 1970s when the Australiana Bureau of Statistics recorded the total population of Aboriginal people in Victoria as less than 100, from memory it was 57 or 67. It’s not a case of being sidelined, simply a case of there weren’t any.

So when I see anywhere in Victoria acknowledging traditional owners of land as this or that tribe, and there are at least hundreds of these signs around, I always find myself tempted to remove the sign.

You don’t give up do you? If those figures you quoted are correct, it would refer to full blood Aborigines, not their descendants that are considerably more numerous. Have you ever bothered to investigate what happened to Aborigines after European occupation, or are you happy to live in ignorance and look the fool when you comment on the subject.

I frequently change my mind. If. Yes. Yes. No.

It is not always greener on the other side. What we think is an improvement, others might find it a death trap.

>>It was 1984.
They’d been tracked down by family members from Kiwirrkurra, Australia’s most remote community, close to the Northern Territory–Western Australia border. They knew some of the family were still living “out bush” and, having seen two of the men, went out searching.

There were – and remain – sources of sadness among her people. Some have alcohol problems. A number of family members are ill, and some have had to leave country to live in Alice Springs, 850km to the east, for dialysis treatment. There are not enough services in remote communities to help the growing rates of Indigenous people with end-stage kidney disease.

“There’s not much old people, too much sugar, kidney problems,” says Yukultji-Ward.

“But we keep our country strong,” she says. “We go out bush, we work with the and land management. We care for our country, working together with whitefellas.”<<

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/31/the-first-time-she-saw-whitefella-she-reckoned-it-was-a-monster

PermeateFree said:

You just do not get it, even when explained to you twice. I think you and Pauline Hanson have a great deal in common.

Racism is racism.

Unless of course it involves aboriginals.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

You just do not get it, even when explained to you twice. I think you and Pauline Hanson have a great deal in common.

Racism is racism.

Unless of course it involves aboriginals.

WTF…..

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

You just do not get it, even when explained to you twice. I think you and Pauline Hanson have a great deal in common.

Racism is racism.

Unless of course it involves aboriginals.

Yes dear. whatever you say dear.