For those here who are really interested in the Australian Aborigine and their interaction with Europeans, there is a highly acclaimed series being repeated on NITV (an SBS station) on Sunday evenings. There are several episodes with tonight’s being episode 2. I have watched the series before and can vouch for its quality and authenticity and is an excellent introduction into the incredible hardship and humiliation these people have been subjected.

The link below is a video of episode 1 and being small screened, should not take up much bandwidth. I would strongly urge anyone who wishes to understand the background of our interaction to watch this interesting account. The first 5 minutes is the introduction before the arrival of the First Fleet. I think once you start it will be difficult to ignore following episodes.

http://www.sbs.com.au/firstaustralians/

from memory I’ve seen it a couple of times.

roughbarked said:

from memory I’ve seen it a couple of times.

Thought Awesome and furious might like to acquire a few facts.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

from memory I’ve seen it a couple of times.

Thought Awesome and furious might like to acquire a few facts.

I am always up for learning. Not sure you are though. You still butthurt that I don’t consider aboriginals to be hippies? Shields must be ceremonial eh?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

from memory I’ve seen it a couple of times.

Thought Awesome and furious might like to acquire a few facts.

I am always up for learning. Not sure you are though. You still butthurt that I don’t consider aboriginals to be hippies? Shields must be ceremonial eh?

Perhaps if you watched the program, you may learn that your preconceptions are wrong, but there again I am probably being over optimistic.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Thought Awesome and furious might like to acquire a few facts.

I am always up for learning. Not sure you are though. You still butthurt that I don’t consider aboriginals to be hippies? Shields must be ceremonial eh?

Perhaps if you watched the program, you may learn that your preconceptions are wrong, but there again I am probably being over optimistic.

What preconceptions are you referring to, the ones that are wrong?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I am always up for learning. Not sure you are though. You still butthurt that I don’t consider aboriginals to be hippies? Shields must be ceremonial eh?

Perhaps if you watched the program, you may learn that your preconceptions are wrong, but there again I am probably being over optimistic.

What preconceptions are you referring to, the ones that are wrong?

The words of a person without knowledge and who will do almost anything not to acquire it.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps if you watched the program, you may learn that your preconceptions are wrong, but there again I am probably being over optimistic.

What preconceptions are you referring to, the ones that are wrong?

The words of a person without knowledge and who will do almost anything not to acquire it.

What are you blathering about? You do a drive by insult about how I have preconceptions that are wrong and the best you can offer to support that is word salad.

What does it mean to be Australian

Like do we have a choice.

Imagine being the first australians, sort of incorporated.

Do they cover pre-colonial contact between Australia and South-east Asia?

australia is a term created by the first settlers and as aboriginies werent recognised to exist as humans but rather part of the fauna of the place , by rights the first australians were really those after 1901, before that people were british subjects that lived in australia

i’ve never heard of any term for australia from the aboriginies so they might have not had any term for australia?

wookiemeister said:

australia is a term created by the first settlers and as aboriginies werent recognised to exist as humans but rather part of the fauna of the place , by rights the first australians were really those after 1901, before that people were british subjects that lived in australia

Australia, as well as being a political entity, is also a continental landmass, and regardless of when the term was coined, it is the term we now use to refer to that landmass extending back to its creation hundreds of millions of years ago.

wookiemeister said:

i’ve never heard of any term for australia from the aboriginies so they might have not had any term for australia?

You see you used australia when looking for another term, it’s a terrible problem.

Oustide cultural (and ideological) conventions it’s like a fucken vacuum.

wookiemeister said:

i’ve never heard of any term for australia from the aboriginies so they might have not had any term for australia?

I’d be surprised if most learned Aboriginal elders weren’t aware that they lived on a large island. There was quite advanced trading networks over long distances with concurrent cultural exchange.

Prepared to be corrected though.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

i’ve never heard of any term for australia from the aboriginies so they might have not had any term for australia?

I’d be surprised if most learned Aboriginal elders weren’t aware that they lived on a large island. There was quite advanced trading networks over long distances with concurrent cultural exchange.

Prepared to be corrected though.

Does it matter?

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

i’ve never heard of any term for australia from the aboriginies so they might have not had any term for australia?

I’d be surprised if most learned Aboriginal elders weren’t aware that they lived on a large island. There was quite advanced trading networks over long distances with concurrent cultural exchange.

Prepared to be corrected though.

Does it matter?

Not really.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

australia is a term created by the first settlers and as aboriginies werent recognised to exist as humans but rather part of the fauna of the place , by rights the first australians were really those after 1901, before that people were british subjects that lived in australia

Australia, as well as being a political entity, is also a continental landmass, and regardless of when the term was coined, it is the term we now use to refer to that landmass extending back to its creation hundreds of millions of years ago.

the term australia wasn’t around till recently

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

australia is a term created by the first settlers and as aboriginies werent recognised to exist as humans but rather part of the fauna of the place , by rights the first australians were really those after 1901, before that people were british subjects that lived in australia

Australia, as well as being a political entity, is also a continental landmass, and regardless of when the term was coined, it is the term we now use to refer to that landmass extending back to its creation hundreds of millions of years ago.

the term australia wasn’t around till recently

Correct.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Australia, as well as being a political entity, is also a continental landmass, and regardless of when the term was coined, it is the term we now use to refer to that landmass extending back to its creation hundreds of millions of years ago.

the term australia wasn’t around till recently

Correct.

so by rights by terms alone , the first australians were those that came up with the term and were defined also as being recognised by the powers that be

wookiemeister said:

so by rights by terms alone , the first australians were those that came up with the term and were defined also as being recognised by the powers that be

sucks on pipe Quite.

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the term australia wasn’t around till recently

Correct.

so by rights by terms alone , the first australians were those that came up with the term and were defined also as being recognised by the powers that be

Incorrect. Read my previous post more carefully.

The word “Earth” has been around less than 1000 years, but this doesn’t mean the first earthlings existed so recently.

Read my previous post more carefully.

geeez if i’d known there was going to be homework i wouldn’t have come.

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

the term australia wasn’t around till recently

Correct.

so by rights by terms alone , the first australians were those that came up with the term and were defined also as being recognised by the powers that be

I suppose I am a english-descended-second-australian. It’s 9/10ths bullshit, flag-waving-crap. Like a Smith virus.

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Correct.

so by rights by terms alone , the first australians were those that came up with the term and were defined also as being recognised by the powers that be

Incorrect. Read my previous post more carefully.

The word “Earth” has been around less than 1000 years, but this doesn’t mean the first earthlings existed so recently.

by terms alone

what i’m saying is that the thread title needs to be changed to give a better answer

>The word “Earth” has been around less than 1000 years, but this doesn’t mean the first earthlings existed so recently.

Written by invading martians in martianese, it might be said first earthlings_(traanslated), much as _australia and earth are comparable in context.

The earth is sort of self contained and a reality independent of what minds do, it has gravity, reliably spins (gives us day and night) has a gas envelope, that sort of thing.
Whereas a nation is about administering a territory, and borders and more, so it’s in-large-part a human construction. Culture, ideology, laws etc.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

What preconceptions are you referring to, the ones that are wrong?

The words of a person without knowledge and who will do almost anything not to acquire it.

What are you blathering about? You do a drive by insult about how I have preconceptions that are wrong and the best you can offer to support that is word salad.

I’ll tell you what I am blathering on about Curve; I produced an educational documentary that would provide you with actual facts about our interaction with Aborigines and how we have severely mistreated them. From past discussions with you it was obvious you had no understanding of the situation, but this documentary would help educate you in that regard. My understanding of this complex situation is reasonably extensive, due to investigations into many sources. However, had I only watched a single episode of the First Australians, my knowledge would be hugely greater than your current understanding, yet you seam to think from your bias experience, qualifies you to make more qualified comment. I have given you the means to overcome your considerable ignorance regarding the indigenous people of this country, either take it and learn something so that you may speak at least sensibly on the subject, or do the right thing and keep your uninformed comments to yourself.

ChrispenEvan said:

Read my previous post more carefully.

geeez if i’d known there was going to be homework i wouldn’t have come.

Making a mess on your books is no excuse for not completing your assignment.

wookiemeister said:

i’ve never heard of any term for australia from the aboriginies so they might have not had any term for australia?

country.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

The words of a person without knowledge and who will do almost anything not to acquire it.

What are you blathering about? You do a drive by insult about how I have preconceptions that are wrong and the best you can offer to support that is word salad.

I’ll tell you what I am blathering on about Curve; I produced an educational documentary that would provide you with actual facts about our interaction with Aborigines and how we have severely mistreated them. From past discussions with you it was obvious you had no understanding of the situation, but this documentary would help educate you in that regard. My understanding of this complex situation is reasonably extensive, due to investigations into many sources. However, had I only watched a single episode of the First Australians, my knowledge would be hugely greater than your current understanding, yet you seam to think from your bias experience, qualifies you to make more qualified comment. I have given you the means to overcome your considerable ignorance regarding the indigenous people of this country, either take it and learn something so that you may speak at least sensibly on the subject, or do the right thing and keep your uninformed comments to yourself.

What uninformed opinion has got you so butthurt, you still haven’t said and still reporting to word salad.

i’m happy to make ‘Australia’ retrospective, and inclusive that way, as a device it works.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

What are you blathering about? You do a drive by insult about how I have preconceptions that are wrong and the best you can offer to support that is word salad.

I’ll tell you what I am blathering on about Curve; I produced an educational documentary that would provide you with actual facts about our interaction with Aborigines and how we have severely mistreated them. From past discussions with you it was obvious you had no understanding of the situation, but this documentary would help educate you in that regard. My understanding of this complex situation is reasonably extensive, due to investigations into many sources. However, had I only watched a single episode of the First Australians, my knowledge would be hugely greater than your current understanding, yet you seam to think from your bias experience, qualifies you to make more qualified comment. I have given you the means to overcome your considerable ignorance regarding the indigenous people of this country, either take it and learn something so that you may speak at least sensibly on the subject, or do the right thing and keep your uninformed comments to yourself.

What uninformed opinion has got you so butthurt, you still haven’t said and still reporting to word salad.

I shall leave you to your self-inflicted ignorance.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

I’ll tell you what I am blathering on about Curve; I produced an educational documentary that would provide you with actual facts about our interaction with Aborigines and how we have severely mistreated them. From past discussions with you it was obvious you had no understanding of the situation, but this documentary would help educate you in that regard. My understanding of this complex situation is reasonably extensive, due to investigations into many sources. However, had I only watched a single episode of the First Australians, my knowledge would be hugely greater than your current understanding, yet you seam to think from your bias experience, qualifies you to make more qualified comment. I have given you the means to overcome your considerable ignorance regarding the indigenous people of this country, either take it and learn something so that you may speak at least sensibly on the subject, or do the right thing and keep your uninformed comments to yourself.

What uninformed opinion has got you so butthurt, you still haven’t said and still reporting to word salad.

I shall leave you to your self-inflicted ignorance.

Dear oh dear, you keep insisting I have misconceptions about something, but you are unable to say what. You realise how silly that makes you sound?

I shall leave you to your angry sending back the soup routine.

Not wanting to interrupt you two in your love-in but you might consider watching the documentary just to see if it changes your mind at all. IIRC i thought it was worthwhile viewing.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

What uninformed opinion has got you so butthurt, you still haven’t said and still reporting to word salad.

I shall leave you to your self-inflicted ignorance.

Dear oh dear, you keep insisting I have misconceptions about something, but you are unable to say what. You realise how silly that makes you sound?

I shall leave you to your angry sending back the soup routine.

What about the sea my friend was it angry as well

Witty Rejoinder said:

Not wanting to interrupt you two in your love-in but you might consider watching the documentary just to see if it changes your mind at all. IIRC i thought it was worthwhile viewing.

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

AwesomeO said:

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

I agree that PF has an idealised view of Aboriginals but I’m not sure he says they were completely free of conflict. As you say Aborginals had the full gamut from petty squabbles to outright warfare but they also had tribal laws and ceremonies to solve these disputes that worked very well for them.

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

I agree that PF has an idealised view of Aboriginals but I’m not sure he says they were completely free of conflict. As you say Aborginals had the full gamut from petty squabbles to outright warfare but they also had tribal laws and ceremonies to solve these disputes that worked very well for them.

I have never denied that or tried to argue against it, it would be a silly argument for me to make as I fully accept that, and likewise laws and conflict resolutions is another world wide trait of humanity.

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Not wanting to interrupt you two in your love-in but you might consider watching the documentary just to see if it changes your mind at all. IIRC i thought it was worthwhile viewing.

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Not wanting to interrupt you two in your love-in but you might consider watching the documentary just to see if it changes your mind at all. IIRC i thought it was worthwhile viewing.

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

What misconceptions, what claptrap? You can keep doing your angry old man in the deli routine going all you like but for your own credibility you are going to have to explain what you are angry about, can you remember what these misconceptions of mine that you are so butthurt about?

Witty Rejoinder said:

AwesomeO said:

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

I agree that PF has an idealised view of Aboriginals but I’m not sure he says they were completely free of conflict.

I think the main issue is that PF will neither a) explain what he means or b) stfu

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

I know exactly what he is butthurt about, the reason he won’t say is because it is ridiculous. He is upset because I consider aboriginals to be exactly like the rest of humanity and that they engaged in conflicts.

That conflicts with his view of aboriginals as different to the rest of humanity and more akin to magical wood elves living in a Rousseaun paradise of peace and harmony.

If he is butthurt about anything else I am as baffled about it as he apparently is.

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

What misconceptions, what claptrap? You can keep doing your angry old man in the deli routine going all you like but for your own credibility you are going to have to explain what you are angry about, can you remember what these misconceptions of mine that you are so butthurt about?

Did you vote for Pauline H? She doesn’t know what she is talking about and neither do you. You have been given a painless way of learning a few facts in an interesting manner, but like Pauline, you just don’t want to know.

PermeateFree said:

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

This is trolling, plain and simple.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

This is trolling, plain and simple.

Probably do you a lot of good too if you watched it and that is not trolling, just advice, plain and simple.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

This is trolling, plain and simple.

Probably do you a lot of good too if you watched it and that is not trolling, just advice, plain and simple.

I watched the first episode and, frankly, a lot of it was incorrect or misleading.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

If you viewed the documentary, you would realise I do not hold the above views you. The problem is you just do not know what you are talking about, so I have provided the means where you can gain a better understanding. For goodness sake, learn a little about the subject before you voice the claptrap that you invariably do.

What misconceptions, what claptrap? You can keep doing your angry old man in the deli routine going all you like but for your own credibility you are going to have to explain what you are angry about, can you remember what these misconceptions of mine that you are so butthurt about?

Did you vote for Pauline H? She doesn’t know what she is talking about and neither do you. You have been given a painless way of learning a few facts in an interesting manner, but like Pauline, you just don’t want to know.

You are still unable to say what I am wrong about and what you take issue with.

I am pretty sure Pauline Hanson is a Queensland thing and didn’t even run any candidates down here.

Is that all you got?

PermeateFree said:

Probably do you a lot of good too if you watched it and that is not trolling, just advice, plain and simple.

Could you perhaps elucidate what specific knowledge one would gain from watching the series that would change preconceptions of forumites like Skunky?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

This is trolling, plain and simple.

Probably do you a lot of good too if you watched it and that is not trolling, just advice, plain and simple.

I watched the first episode and, frankly, a lot of it was incorrect or misleading.

And you would know of course?

dv said:

I watched the first episode and, frankly, a lot of it was incorrect or misleading.

In what regard?

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

I watched the first episode and, frankly, a lot of it was incorrect or misleading.

In what regard?

I’ll give you a full EWW when I get home.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

What misconceptions, what claptrap? You can keep doing your angry old man in the deli routine going all you like but for your own credibility you are going to have to explain what you are angry about, can you remember what these misconceptions of mine that you are so butthurt about?

Did you vote for Pauline H? She doesn’t know what she is talking about and neither do you. You have been given a painless way of learning a few facts in an interesting manner, but like Pauline, you just don’t want to know.

You are still unable to say what I am wrong about and what you take issue with.

I am pretty sure Pauline Hanson is a Queensland thing and didn’t even run any candidates down here.

Is that all you got?

Curve, it is you who are acting like a stupid kid, by not addressing your chronic lack of knowledge. If you want everyone to think you are an idiot, so be it. You are apparently beyond help, as you refuse to accept assistance when offered.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Probably do you a lot of good too if you watched it and that is not trolling, just advice, plain and simple.

Could you perhaps elucidate what specific knowledge one would gain from watching the series that would change preconceptions of forumites like Skunky?

How Aborigines lived, how they organised their lives and their way of life. Then how they were treated by invading Europeans.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Did you vote for Pauline H? She doesn’t know what she is talking about and neither do you. You have been given a painless way of learning a few facts in an interesting manner, but like Pauline, you just don’t want to know.

You are still unable to say what I am wrong about and what you take issue with.

I am pretty sure Pauline Hanson is a Queensland thing and didn’t even run any candidates down here.

Is that all you got?

Curve, it is you who are acting like a stupid kid, by not addressing your chronic lack of knowledge. If you want everyone to think you are an idiot, so be it. You are apparently beyond help, as you refuse to accept assistance when offered.

Ok, new tact, what have I said that you say is misconceived?

Does that assist your comprehension?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

You are still unable to say what I am wrong about and what you take issue with.

I am pretty sure Pauline Hanson is a Queensland thing and didn’t even run any candidates down here.

Is that all you got?

Curve, it is you who are acting like a stupid kid, by not addressing your chronic lack of knowledge. If you want everyone to think you are an idiot, so be it. You are apparently beyond help, as you refuse to accept assistance when offered.

Ok, new tact, what have I said that you say is misconceived?

Does that assist your comprehension?

Curve you are the Pauline Hanson of this forum. Congratulations!

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Probably do you a lot of good too if you watched it and that is not trolling, just advice, plain and simple.

Could you perhaps elucidate what specific knowledge one would gain from watching the series that would change preconceptions of forumites like Skunky?

How Aborigines lived, how they organised their lives and their way of life. Then how they were treated by invading Europeans.

riiiggghttt, that’s specific is it?

Nuffin to do with the only thing I have discussed here with you which is that conflict thing that you got butthurt about and that you refuse to mention because you know it would make you look like a tool.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Could you perhaps elucidate what specific knowledge one would gain from watching the series that would change preconceptions of forumites like Skunky?

How Aborigines lived, how they organised their lives and their way of life. Then how they were treated by invading Europeans.

riiiggghttt, that’s specific is it?

Nuffin to do with the only thing I have discussed here with you which is that conflict thing that you got butthurt about and that you refuse to mention because you know it would make you look like a tool.

If you say so dear.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Curve, it is you who are acting like a stupid kid, by not addressing your chronic lack of knowledge. If you want everyone to think you are an idiot, so be it. You are apparently beyond help, as you refuse to accept assistance when offered.

Ok, new tact, what have I said that you say is misconceived?

Does that assist your comprehension?

Curve you are the Pauline Hanson of this forum. Congratulations!

Still got nuffin eh? No recall at all, you just know in your waters that I have a misconception but for the life of you, you cannot recall what it is.

How’s the soup?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Ok, new tact, what have I said that you say is misconceived?

Does that assist your comprehension?

Curve you are the Pauline Hanson of this forum. Congratulations!

Still got nuffin eh? No recall at all, you just know in your waters that I have a misconception but for the life of you, you cannot recall what it is.

How’s the soup?

Impossible to discuss anything with you Curve coupled with your convenient memory. I can imagine Pauline fighting like mad to uphold her misconceptions instead of doing a little research, in order to find the truth.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Curve you are the Pauline Hanson of this forum. Congratulations!

Still got nuffin eh? No recall at all, you just know in your waters that I have a misconception but for the life of you, you cannot recall what it is.

How’s the soup?

Impossible to discuss anything with you Curve coupled with your convenient memory. I can imagine Pauline fighting like mad to uphold her misconceptions instead of doing a little research, in order to find the truth.

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Still got nuffin eh? No recall at all, you just know in your waters that I have a misconception but for the life of you, you cannot recall what it is.

How’s the soup?

Impossible to discuss anything with you Curve coupled with your convenient memory. I can imagine Pauline fighting like mad to uphold her misconceptions instead of doing a little research, in order to find the truth.

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

Didn’t wecome to some sort of agreement in a previous thread about Aboriginals that when they first arrived in Australia they didn’t show any sort of conservation or respect for the land (hence having a hand in the extinction of mega fauna) and learnt this behaviour over centuries after realising what they had done and decided for the most part to stop.

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Impossible to discuss anything with you Curve coupled with your convenient memory. I can imagine Pauline fighting like mad to uphold her misconceptions instead of doing a little research, in order to find the truth.

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

Didn’t wecome to some sort of agreement in a previous thread about Aboriginals that when they first arrived in Australia they didn’t show any sort of conservation or respect for the land (hence having a hand in the extinction of mega fauna) and learnt this behaviour over centuries after realising what they had done and decided for the most part to stop.

Forum we or me we, not an agreement I recall making.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

Didn’t wecome to some sort of agreement in a previous thread about Aboriginals that when they first arrived in Australia they didn’t show any sort of conservation or respect for the land (hence having a hand in the extinction of mega fauna) and learnt this behaviour over centuries after realising what they had done and decided for the most part to stop.

Forum we or me we, not an agreement I recall making.

Forum we

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Still got nuffin eh? No recall at all, you just know in your waters that I have a misconception but for the life of you, you cannot recall what it is.

How’s the soup?

Impossible to discuss anything with you Curve coupled with your convenient memory. I can imagine Pauline fighting like mad to uphold her misconceptions instead of doing a little research, in order to find the truth.

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

You just don’t get it do you? Every time you remark about Aborigines you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. It is not a specific thing, it is everything. You are just plain ignorant and I have given you the opportunity to educate yourself, but you are just not interested, you prefer not to know.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Impossible to discuss anything with you Curve coupled with your convenient memory. I can imagine Pauline fighting like mad to uphold her misconceptions instead of doing a little research, in order to find the truth.

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

You just don’t get it do you? Every time you remark about Aborigines you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. It is not a specific thing, it is everything. You are just plain ignorant and I have given you the opportunity to educate yourself, but you are just not interested, you prefer not to know.

The only comments I can recall are in that conflict discussion that you took great exception to, the one you refuse to raise.

As for “everything” it is not something I comment on much and when I do I don’t think it’s anything very controversial.

And once again we are at that point, you keep asserting I am ignorant and wrong, but you are unable to say what I am ignorant and wrong about. Onus is on you, you need something more substantial than word salad.

We can have a discussion but you keep back-pedalling into the horizon whilst throwing accusations over your shoulder as you retreat.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Ever since you invited me into this thread waaaay up there I have been asking you to clarify your position, about what you think I am wrong about to provoke a discussion.

You refuse to do so, I suspect it is because you know it would be stupid and that I was not wrong. I just upset your rose coloured vision of native hippies.

You got any other explanation for your refusal?

You just don’t get it do you? Every time you remark about Aborigines you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. It is not a specific thing, it is everything. You are just plain ignorant and I have given you the opportunity to educate yourself, but you are just not interested, you prefer not to know.

The only comments I can recall are in that conflict discussion that you took great exception to, the one you refuse to raise.

As for “everything” it is not something I comment on much and when I do I don’t think it’s anything very controversial.

And once again we are at that point, you keep asserting I am ignorant and wrong, but you are unable to say what I am ignorant and wrong about. Onus is on you, you need something more substantial than word salad.

We can have a discussion but you keep back-pedalling into the horizon whilst throwing accusations over your shoulder as you retreat.

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

You just don’t get it do you? Every time you remark about Aborigines you prove that you do not know what you are talking about. It is not a specific thing, it is everything. You are just plain ignorant and I have given you the opportunity to educate yourself, but you are just not interested, you prefer not to know.

The only comments I can recall are in that conflict discussion that you took great exception to, the one you refuse to raise.

As for “everything” it is not something I comment on much and when I do I don’t think it’s anything very controversial.

And once again we are at that point, you keep asserting I am ignorant and wrong, but you are unable to say what I am ignorant and wrong about. Onus is on you, you need something more substantial than word salad.

We can have a discussion but you keep back-pedalling into the horizon whilst throwing accusations over your shoulder as you retreat.

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

No need to leave it there, I am happy to work with you. You think I am wrong about something or other, you don’t know what I am wrong about, you can’t say what I am wrong about, but you are sure I am wrong about it.

In the spirit of handling a baffled old man with his bowl of soup we can try another angle.

What would you like to discuss? Try subjects that upset you that you feel in your waters I might be wrong about.

PermeateFree said:

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

As to whether you have identified what knowledge Skunky lacks I don’t think you have I’m afraid. I don’t disagree that watching the program would expand his understanding but i don’t think it is good enough to simply claim everything is the problem and expect another to work it out for themselves.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

The only comments I can recall are in that conflict discussion that you took great exception to, the one you refuse to raise.

As for “everything” it is not something I comment on much and when I do I don’t think it’s anything very controversial.

And once again we are at that point, you keep asserting I am ignorant and wrong, but you are unable to say what I am ignorant and wrong about. Onus is on you, you need something more substantial than word salad.

We can have a discussion but you keep back-pedalling into the horizon whilst throwing accusations over your shoulder as you retreat.

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

No need to leave it there, I am happy to work with you. You think I am wrong about something or other, you don’t know what I am wrong about, you can’t say what I am wrong about, but you are sure I am wrong about it.

In the spirit of handling a baffled old man with his bowl of soup we can try another angle.

What would you like to discuss? Try subjects that upset you that you feel in your waters I might be wrong about.

Sorry, I have given up trying to get anything through to you. Please go away and have the last word with someone else.

it’s like an argument with roughie.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

As to whether you have identified what knowledge Skunky lacks I don’t think you have I’m afraid. I don’t disagree that watching the program would expand his understanding but i don’t think it is good enough to simply claim everything is the problem and expect another to work it out for themselves.

Please yourself, but I have had enough of this foolishness and if you cannot appreciate that some people do not have a clue what they are talking about, then I guess Pauline Hanson would be looking pretty good.

ChrispenEvan said:

it’s like an argument with roughie.

No Curve is less bright.

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

No need to leave it there, I am happy to work with you. You think I am wrong about something or other, you don’t know what I am wrong about, you can’t say what I am wrong about, but you are sure I am wrong about it.

In the spirit of handling a baffled old man with his bowl of soup we can try another angle.

What would you like to discuss? Try subjects that upset you that you feel in your waters I might be wrong about.

Sorry, I have given up trying to get anything through to you. Please go away and have the last word with someone else.

No, don’t give up, I am happy to learn and correct my misconceptions. You just need to tell me what they are as a jump off point for a discussion.

I am happy to discuss anything with you.

ChrispenEvan said:

it’s like an argument with roughie.

uh?

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

No need to leave it there, I am happy to work with you. You think I am wrong about something or other, you don’t know what I am wrong about, you can’t say what I am wrong about, but you are sure I am wrong about it.

In the spirit of handling a baffled old man with his bowl of soup we can try another angle.

What would you like to discuss? Try subjects that upset you that you feel in your waters I might be wrong about.

Sorry, I have given up trying to get anything through to you. Please go away and have the last word with someone else.

No, don’t give up, I am happy to learn and correct my misconceptions. You just need to tell me what they are as a jump off point for a discussion.

I am happy to discuss anything with you.

To be quite frank Curve, I don’t think you are capable of understanding simple concepts, so I shall decline your kind offer.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it’s like an argument with roughie.

No Curve is less bright.

i’d rather that none of you silly people compared me with any silly people

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Sorry, I have given up trying to get anything through to you. Please go away and have the last word with someone else.

No, don’t give up, I am happy to learn and correct my misconceptions. You just need to tell me what they are as a jump off point for a discussion.

I am happy to discuss anything with you.

To be quite frank Curve, I don’t think you are capable of understanding simple concepts, so I shall decline your kind offer.

Go on, try me. I am up for it. Make it as simple as you like. Dumb it right down for me.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

it’s like an argument with roughie.

uh?

Don’t worry rb, just a bit of stirring going on by the usual culprits.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

No, don’t give up, I am happy to learn and correct my misconceptions. You just need to tell me what they are as a jump off point for a discussion.

I am happy to discuss anything with you.

To be quite frank Curve, I don’t think you are capable of understanding simple concepts, so I shall decline your kind offer.

Go on, try me. I am up for it. Make it as simple as you like. Dumb it right down for me.

A wise old man once told me to never argue with a fool, as you can never win.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

I think I have explained what the problem is with your lack of knowledge and I have provided a means for you to remedy it. Something I might add that would be to your advantage, as it would stop people from thinking of you as a fool and your word not worthy of consideration. Curve I really don’t care, all I can do is to provide you with an opportunity to improve yourself, but as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I shall leave it there, as this conversation is going nowhere.

As to whether you have identified what knowledge Skunky lacks I don’t think you have I’m afraid. I don’t disagree that watching the program would expand his understanding but i don’t think it is good enough to simply claim everything is the problem and expect another to work it out for themselves.

Please yourself, but I have had enough of this foolishness and if you cannot appreciate that some people do not have a clue what they are talking about, then I guess Pauline Hanson would be looking pretty good.

I think we all appreciate that you do not have a clue what you are talking about…

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

To be quite frank Curve, I don’t think you are capable of understanding simple concepts, so I shall decline your kind offer.

Go on, try me. I am up for it. Make it as simple as you like. Dumb it right down for me.

A wise old man once told me to never argue with a fool, as you can never win.

Was he referring to you at the time?

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

As to whether you have identified what knowledge Skunky lacks I don’t think you have I’m afraid. I don’t disagree that watching the program would expand his understanding but i don’t think it is good enough to simply claim everything is the problem and expect another to work it out for themselves.

Please yourself, but I have had enough of this foolishness and if you cannot appreciate that some people do not have a clue what they are talking about, then I guess Pauline Hanson would be looking pretty good.

I think we all appreciate that you do not have a clue what you are talking about…

Here they all come, the forum zombies. They are hobble along in the same direction, but not an original thought between them. :)

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Please yourself, but I have had enough of this foolishness and if you cannot appreciate that some people do not have a clue what they are talking about, then I guess Pauline Hanson would be looking pretty good.

I think we all appreciate that you do not have a clue what you are talking about…

Here they all come, the forum zombies. They are hobble along in the same direction, but not an original thought between them. :)

you started it…

if you were as smart as PF, Curve, you would know how you were ignorant.

;-)

it’s fun to see you make a complete idiot out of yourself PF. and we join in basically because we detest know-it-all idiots like you who wont be told. These forums have always been about sharing knowledge. You don’t fit that and never have.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I think we all appreciate that you do not have a clue what you are talking about…

Here they all come, the forum zombies. They are hobble along in the same direction, but not an original thought between them. :)

you started it…

No, ignorance stated it and the lack of brain power to rectify it. If he wants to be a fool and you wish to follow, what does that make you?

ChrispenEvan said:

if you were as smart as PF, Curve, you would know how you were ignorant.

;-)

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if you were as smart as PF, Curve, you would know how you were ignorant.

;-)

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

Nothing I tells ya!

Oh wait, actually I have been open for discussion, I have been receptive to you telling me where and why I am wrong, ever since you invited (or invoked) me into the thread I have been up for you to tell me the errors in my thinking and been happy to debate them with you.

PermeateFree said:

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

I’m not sure that any documentary could live up to the effect that you suggest it would have on Skunky.

ChrispenEvan said:

it’s fun to see you make a complete idiot out of yourself PF. and we join in basically because we detest know-it-all idiots like you who wont be told. These forums have always been about sharing knowledge. You don’t fit that and never have.

Don’t see how you can say that, as this thread is all about education, but you only see what you want to see. Usually very little.

Considering I only comment in threads where I can contribute (which are small in number), whereas you and others will contribute whether you know anything or not about the subject, So perhaps the idiots you speak of should be leveled more closely to home.

PermeateFree said:

Considering I only comment in threads where I can contribute (which are small in number), whereas you and others will contribute whether you know anything or not about the subject, So perhaps the idiots you speak of should be leveled more closely to home.

Forget about the numerous threads that Boris posts in, it’s the jokes that make him truly evil.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Considering I only comment in threads where I can contribute (which are small in number), whereas you and others will contribute whether you know anything or not about the subject, So perhaps the idiots you speak of should be leveled more closely to home.

Forget about the numerous threads that Boris posts in, it’s the jokes that make him truly evil.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha. Ha ha. Ha.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

if you were as smart as PF, Curve, you would know how you were ignorant.

;-)

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

Nothing I tells ya!

Oh wait, actually I have been open for discussion, I have been receptive to you telling me where and why I am wrong, ever since you invited (or invoked) me into the thread I have been up for you to tell me the errors in my thinking and been happy to debate them with you.

But you know nothing, so only think you can discuss. It must be nice to get all your friends to help you out, now that you are aware of your limitations.

well PF, it is funny that just about everyone has the same opinion about you as i do yet hardly anyone thinks of me in the same way you do.

(except for my “jokes” of course)

:-)

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

Nothing I tells ya!

Oh wait, actually I have been open for discussion, I have been receptive to you telling me where and why I am wrong, ever since you invited (or invoked) me into the thread I have been up for you to tell me the errors in my thinking and been happy to debate them with you.

But you know nothing, so only think you can discuss. It must be nice to get all your friends to help you out, now that you are aware of your limitations.

You can try me. As for friends helping me out, I suspect you are revealing a few issues of your own there, not my problem that you are Billy no mates. PS, place is a shark tank and what I say is berley to many of my detractors, but unlike yourself I can debate and argue the points.

Thus far have had no point apart from calling me ignorant of something or other known only to yourself and trying to demonstrate some intellectual superiority that is without any foundation.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

I’m not sure that any documentary could live up to the effect that you suggest it would have on Skunky.

No, like I said, it would only provide a little, but other episodes would add much more. However as Curve knows nothing, even a single episode would be a very large improvement to his knowledge base, but he prefers to remain ignorant, so guess he is just an ignorant fool.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Well he does, because he has been told, plus given the means to fix it, but what does he do? Nothing!

I’m not sure that any documentary could live up to the effect that you suggest it would have on Skunky.

No, like I said, it would only provide a little, but other episodes would add much more. However as Curve knows nothing, even a single episode would be a very large improvement to his knowledge base, but he prefers to remain ignorant, so guess he is just an ignorant fool.

I have been called many things, never an ignorant fool, so thank you, my collection is now complete.

How’s that soup tasting?

ChrispenEvan said:

well PF, it is funny that just about everyone has the same opinion about you as i do yet hardly anyone thinks of me in the same way you do.

(except for my “jokes” of course)

:-)

Yes I know I am not popular here, but I seriously wonder if it is all my fault. There are some seriously nasty people here of whom I must cope.

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

AwesomeO said:

Nothing I tells ya!

Oh wait, actually I have been open for discussion, I have been receptive to you telling me where and why I am wrong, ever since you invited (or invoked) me into the thread I have been up for you to tell me the errors in my thinking and been happy to debate them with you.

But you know nothing, so only think you can discuss. It must be nice to get all your friends to help you out, now that you are aware of your limitations.

You can try me. As for friends helping me out, I suspect you are revealing a few issues of your own there, not my problem that you are Billy no mates. PS, place is a shark tank and what I say is berley to many of my detractors, but unlike yourself I can debate and argue the points.

Thus far have had no point apart from calling me ignorant of something or other known only to yourself and trying to demonstrate some intellectual superiority that is without any foundation.

Sorry, but you cannot argue about things you have no knowledge. Ignorance and overcoming it is very important, but you seem to think your intuition is superior. So go figure.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well PF, it is funny that just about everyone has the same opinion about you as i do yet hardly anyone thinks of me in the same way you do.

(except for my “jokes” of course)

:-)

Yes I know I am not popular here, but I seriously wonder if it is all my fault. There are some seriously nasty people here of whom I must cope.

Stop being one of DO’s cronies and tell us what you really think PF…

AwesomeO said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I’m not sure that any documentary could live up to the effect that you suggest it would have on Skunky.

No, like I said, it would only provide a little, but other episodes would add much more. However as Curve knows nothing, even a single episode would be a very large improvement to his knowledge base, but he prefers to remain ignorant, so guess he is just an ignorant fool.

I have been called many things, never an ignorant fool, so thank you, my collection is now complete.

How’s that soup tasting?

You surprise me, perhaps it is just the people you mix with. Rarely eat soup, but thanks for your interest.

nasty eh, and yet we all seem to get on just fine. it’s only the dickheads that think otherwise.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

well PF, it is funny that just about everyone has the same opinion about you as i do yet hardly anyone thinks of me in the same way you do.

(except for my “jokes” of course)

:-)

Yes I know I am not popular here, but I seriously wonder if it is all my fault. There are some seriously nasty people here of whom I must cope.

Stop being one of DO’s cronies and tell us what you really think PF…

Well to be honest, it is the hypocrisy that is so annoying. Apparently what is good for one person is not good for all, but you already know about such things.

ChrispenEvan said:

nasty eh, and yet we all seem to get on just fine. it’s only the dickheads that think otherwise.

I have seen too many people driven out by your little malicious group. Wink,wink. don’t forget I been here a while now and know how things are done by the bully boys.

0:00 – 2:00 Presentation of mythology in a documentary without flagging it.

2:00 – 2:15 Reference to the period when humans were coming to Australia as though it was a closed period. New humans came to Australia in various waves over a period of 10s of 1000s of years, the most recent of these waves being an influx 5000 years ago of people with ancestry in the Indian subcontinent, which had a marked change on technology, culture, land use, and language. There was no one ancient time when humans arrived. The “first Australians” lived some 50000 years ago, or possibly more, and they may or may not have some connection to modern aboriginals.

2:10 “The first Australians number more than 250 tribes”
Each of these tribes is probably fairly recent in origin.

2:23 “A civilisation encompassing the entire continent”
We don’t normally consider stone age tribes to be civilisations: we don’t in reference to Europe or Asia so there’s no reason to do so for Australia. Urban development is a key component of civilisation. Also … they already noted that each tribe had separate laws and language. They had some interactions but it wasn’t a nationwide organisation or structure, so this sentence is misleading.

2:58 “80000 years 100000 years, it doesn’t matter whether if it’s 60000 years, it’s an incredible length of time, it’s the longest living civilisation on earth, and if you can’t learn from a people that successful then you’re really defying your own intelligence”
There has been no culture in Australia that lasted that length of time, going by archeology. The use of tools, art, and land use indicate waves of cultural change , as also took place on other continents. It is no more true to say that precolonial aboriginal culture is part of a civilisation spanning tens of thousands of years than it is to say this of any culture.

3:19 “Just over 200 years ago, without warning, strangers arrived… They’re about to come face to face with the first Australians”
Fair enough to say some strangers arrived 200 years ago, but this was something that repeatedly occurred in Australia. Aboriginals had been encountering Europeans since the early 1600s and had, for centuries before that, been visited by traders and “trepangers” from Sulawesi and elsewhere to the north. The doco gives a misleading impression.
And again: the people in Australia 200 years ago were not “the first Australians” in any meaningful sense. They may or may not have had some kind of ancestral connection to the first Australians but they also had ancestors who arrived relatively recently.

Ta for that.

How long is “relatively recently”?

The concept australian’s a social construction, so too australia. There’s a land mass, no question, with associated territorial waters. But the concept’s the work of minds and agreement of minds (the force of it a reality so generated). It’s a recent construction, last couple centuries, though the term’s descended of Terra Australis, the southern lands speculated to have existed.

Nations/states (and ideology for) can deem an entity’s existence back in time before the construction existed (sort of retrospectively). Ideology, or ideological devices often do this, otherwise they’d be undermined and considered something less than the natural order. The desire to give something a name and use that name so that it (the inhabitant/s, or subject/s) might turn and look and make whatever true’s been around probably as long as there has been a somewhere else wondered of, to conquer.

Sort of a desire looking to take up residence, to proliferate, there anticipating you, before you’re born, like it conceives you.

Ian said:

How long is “relatively recently”?

5000 years

transition said:

The concept australian’s a social construction, so too australia. There’s a land mass, no question, with associated territorial waters. But the concept’s the work of minds and agreement of minds (the force of it a reality so generated). It’s a recent construction, last couple centuries, though the term’s descended of Terra Australis, the southern lands speculated to have existed.

Nations/states (and ideology for) can deem an entity’s existence back in time before the construction existed (sort of retrospectively). Ideology, or ideological devices often do this, otherwise they’d be undermined and considered something less than the natural order. The desire to give something a name and use that name so that it (the inhabitant/s, or subject/s) might turn and look and make whatever true’s been around probably as long as there has been a somewhere else wondered of, to conquer.

Sort of a desire looking to take up residence, to proliferate, there anticipating you, before you’re born, like it conceives you.

Okay but it is clear from the context we are talking about Australia the land mass.

>Okay but it is clear from the context we are talking about Australia the land mass

I doubt it.

dv said:

Ian said:

How long is “relatively recently”?

5000 years

Those relative recent arrivals would have been very far removed culturally and ethnically from the whites ones of 200 years ago.

dv said:

0:00 – 2:00 Presentation of mythology in a documentary without flagging it.

2:00 – 2:15 Reference to the period when humans were coming to Australia as though it was a closed period. New humans came to Australia in various waves over a period of 10s of 1000s of years, the most recent of these waves being an influx 5000 years ago of people with ancestry in the Indian subcontinent, which had a marked change on technology, culture, land use, and language. There was no one ancient time when humans arrived. The “first Australians” lived some 50000 years ago, or possibly more, and they may or may not have some connection to modern aboriginals.

2:10 “The first Australians number more than 250 tribes”
Each of these tribes is probably fairly recent in origin.

2:23 “A civilisation encompassing the entire continent”
We don’t normally consider stone age tribes to be civilisations: we don’t in reference to Europe or Asia so there’s no reason to do so for Australia. Urban development is a key component of civilisation. Also … they already noted that each tribe had separate laws and language. They had some interactions but it wasn’t a nationwide organisation or structure, so this sentence is misleading.

2:58 “80000 years 100000 years, it doesn’t matter whether if it’s 60000 years, it’s an incredible length of time, it’s the longest living civilisation on earth, and if you can’t learn from a people that successful then you’re really defying your own intelligence”
There has been no culture in Australia that lasted that length of time, going by archeology. The use of tools, art, and land use indicate waves of cultural change , as also took place on other continents. It is no more true to say that precolonial aboriginal culture is part of a civilisation spanning tens of thousands of years than it is to say this of any culture.

3:19 “Just over 200 years ago, without warning, strangers arrived… They’re about to come face to face with the first Australians”
Fair enough to say some strangers arrived 200 years ago, but this was something that repeatedly occurred in Australia. Aboriginals had been encountering Europeans since the early 1600s and had, for centuries before that, been visited by traders and “trepangers” from Sulawesi and elsewhere to the north. The doco gives a misleading impression.
And again: the people in Australia 200 years ago were not “the first Australians” in any meaningful sense. They may or may not have had some kind of ancestral connection to the first Australians but they also had ancestors who arrived relatively recently.

So that covers a little over three minutes, which is but part of the introduction and does not mention the European settlement in any detail and their impact of the Aborigines, you might have to spend a little more time to get any realistic appreciation, but then we get your highly debatable conclusions, which most Anthropologists and Archeologists would strongly disagree. I think it is you who is misrepresenting the documentary after only a glimpse of the subject matter in what can only be described as a dishonest attempt to discredit.

The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

ruby said:

The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

This paper makes a useful contribution, but recent papers have reached other conclusions: despite the triumphalist tone used by Cooper here, this topic remains very much a matter of debate.

dv said:

ruby said:

The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

This paper makes a useful contribution, but recent papers have reached other conclusions: despite the triumphalist tone used by Cooper here, this topic remains very much a matter of debate.

One thing that is really not debated any more is that there was a massive influx roughly 5000 years ago, made plain through the Y-DNA evidence.

http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/documents/CurrentBiology.pdf
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/01/15/dna-confirms-recent-indian-influx

Could this be a forum first? An extended and pointless dust up (but not even top 50 imo) resolving into rational debate!

Ian said:

Could this be a forum first? An extended and pointless dust up (but not even top 50 imo) resolving into rational debate!

Oh I’m sure there’s time for it to go back…

dv said:

Ian said:

Could this be a forum first? An extended and pointless dust up (but not even top 50 imo) resolving into rational debate!

Oh I’m sure there’s time for it to go back…

If I was a betting man I’d be putting quids on it.

Willerslev’s study also resolves the apparent discrepancy between genetic findings implying that Indigenous populations have been in Australia for tens of thousands of years and the fact that the languages spoken by these populations are only around 4,000 years old. “You see a movement of people spreading across the continent and leaving signatures across the continent,” said Willerslev. “That is the time that this new language has spread. It’s a tiny genetic signature. It’s almost like two guys entering a village and saying ‘guys, now we have to speak another language and use another stone tool and they have a little bit of sex in that village and then they disappear again.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/21/indigenous-australians-most-ancient-civilisation-on-earth-dna-study-confirms

Hmmmm……

dv said:

dv said:

ruby said:

The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

This paper makes a useful contribution, but recent papers have reached other conclusions: despite the triumphalist tone used by Cooper here, this topic remains very much a matter of debate.

One thing that is really not debated any more is that there was a massive influx roughly 5000 years ago, made plain through the Y-DNA evidence.

http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/documents/CurrentBiology.pdf
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/01/15/dna-confirms-recent-indian-influx

Quote from Ruby’s link:
“People have changed and adapted over deep time as the country has … we just don’t see that in any other Homo sapiens populations.”

Can that really be true?
Surely all Homo Sapiens populations have adapted to changing conditions over time.
If not, why not?

My other point is that although this is of scientific interest, I don’t see it as having any political consequences at all, at all.

My other other point is that surely it would be very surprising if there was no genetic link between current aboriginal Australians and the first settlers?

The Rev Dodgson said:

“People have changed and adapted over deep time as the country has … we just don’t see that in any other Homo sapiens populations.”

Can that really be true?

Surely all Homo Sapiens populations have adapted to changing conditions over time.
If not, why not?

There are plenty of points in that article that don’t seem to gel with the evidence, or really make sense.

My other point is that although this is of scientific interest, I don’t see it as having any political consequences at all, at all.

Nor do I.

sibeen said:

Willerslev’s study also resolves the apparent discrepancy between genetic findings implying that Indigenous populations have been in Australia for tens of thousands of years and the fact that the languages spoken by these populations are only around 4,000 years old. “You see a movement of people spreading across the continent and leaving signatures across the continent,” said Willerslev. “That is the time that this new language has spread. It’s a tiny genetic signature. It’s almost like two guys entering a village and saying ‘guys, now we have to speak another language and use another stone tool and they have a little bit of sex in that village and then they disappear again.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/21/indigenous-australians-most-ancient-civilisation-on-earth-dna-study-confirms

Hmmmm……

There appears to be some conflation or confusion or something.
Aboriginals have ancestors who were in Australia at least forty thousand of years ago, corresponding to an early migration from Africa, and the evidence mentioned in the article confirms this. They have ancestors who arrived five thousand years ago, and others who arrived 15-20000 years ago. These facts are not conflicting.

Somewhere between the source document and the popsci presentation, someone has tried to insert the notion that aboriginal descent is solely from the early wave, and the evidence doesn’t support this idea.

The Rev Dodgson said:

My other other point is that surely it would be very surprising if there was no genetic link between current aboriginal Australians and the first settlers?

We fully expect there to be a genetic link between current aboriginal Australians and all living things on earth.

The Guardian article is even worse, claiming that the DNA evidence confirms “Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/21/indigenous-australians-most-ancient-civilisation-on-earth-dna-study-confirms?CMP=soc_567

Why is science reporting so shitty? Can’t news outlets cut the celebrity-bullshit budget by 5% so they can afford a science editor?

Just get Kim Kardashian to report the science.

dv said:

The Guardian article is even worse, claiming that the DNA evidence confirms “Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/21/indigenous-australians-most-ancient-civilisation-on-earth-dna-study-confirms?CMP=soc_567

Why is science reporting so shitty? Can’t news outlets cut the celebrity-bullshit budget by 5% so they can afford a science editor?

Why would people want to claim that a tribal culture was syphilisation anyway?

The Australia First website doesn’t shed much light on this issue.

Just to check that I didn’t have the wrong idea about what the word “civilisation” actually means, I checked on the answer to everything:

“A civilization (or civilisation, see spelling differences) is any complex society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms (typically, writing systems), and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment by a cultural elite. Civilizations are intimately associated with and often further defined by other socio-politico-economic characteristics, including centralization, the domestication of both humans and other organisms, specialization of labour, culturally ingrained ideologies of progress and supremacism, monumental architecture, taxation, societal dependence upon farming as an agricultural practice, and expansionism.”

dv said:

The Guardian article is even worse, claiming that the DNA evidence confirms “Indigenous Australians most ancient civilisation on Earth”.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/21/indigenous-australians-most-ancient-civilisation-on-earth-dna-study-confirms?CMP=soc_567

Why is science reporting so shitty? Can’t news outlets cut the celebrity-bullshit budget by 5% so they can afford a science editor?

You should write for the tassie times.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Why would people want to claim that a tribal culture was syphilisation anyway?

Syphilisation? Spell-check gone bad

Peak Warming Man said:

The Australia First website doesn’t shed much light on this issue.

lol

no really, I chuckled out loud

>Why is science reporting so shitty?

because repressive-right-think-dressed-up-as-something-else rules

>Can’t news outlets cut the celebrity-bullshit budget by 5% so they can afford a science editor?

someone should mention that to the producers of The Dumb on channel-first-three-letters-of-alphabet, they’re gravitating that way, into licencing incursions, the confusion between private and public, that AK-47.

transition said:

>Why is science reporting so shitty?

because repressive-right-think-dressed-up-as-something-else rules

>Can’t news outlets cut the celebrity-bullshit budget by 5% so they can afford a science editor?

someone should mention that to the producers of The Dumb on channel-first-three-letters-of-alphabet, they’re gravitating that way, into licencing incursions, the confusion between private and public, that AK-47.

ikr

Here is the actual paper in Nature, which doesn’t make any claims about the oldest civilisation, or any especially strong claims about aboriginal exceptionalism.

A genomic history of Aboriginal Australia

Two things I would mention about it:

a) ALL of the 83 subjects they used were speakers of Pama–Nyungan languages. This seems a very odd choice. I can understand why it would be interesting to test the ancestry of P-N speakers but to make the strongest statements of aboriginals generally, you’d want the broadest range of ethnicities.

b) “We compared one- and two-wave models, where each Australian region was either colonized independently, or by descendants of a single Australian founding population after its divergence from Papuans. “
They didn’t test for the basically quite commonly supported model that there were multiple waves that rapidly spread across the continent, which is not compatible with either of the models they tested.

Trust dv to take over this thread and redirect it to Aborigines of pre-European occupation, where there is much debate often based on individual tribal studies, when there were many groups, each with their own language spread and over the entire country. The documentary (the subject of this thread) is primary about post-European times, which are vastly different and when much information was lost and tribes decimated. However, this earlier doubt is just to dv’s liking as he can splash around freely in the murky waters, instead of addressing the actual situation where evidence from our own times is more complete.

PermeateFree said:

Trust dv

Thanks, PF.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Trust dv

Thanks, PF.

I find you to be a devious person.

PermeateFree said:

I find you to be a devious person.

His MC name is DVius

Just for the record, most Aboriginal people arrived in Australia during periods of low sea-levels, of which there have been only two, including the time of the first arrivals. The likelihood of mass migration of people at other times is highly unlikely, although no doubt some relatively small groups did arrive by sea. Later PNG peoples has the craft to island hop to Australia, which probably accounts for the unusually high migration during the later period.

Stone tools evolved from large flakes at the beginning to micro-flakes around 6,000 years ago and like stone tools everywhere, were made to suit local conditions and hence varied over a continent the size of Australia. As for direct descendancy from the first immigrants is highly debatable, Although the Tasmanian Aborigines are likely to be quite old, as are many groups around the WA coastal region. It is a highly complex subject with many gaps, which can be easily exploited by the unscrupulous.

PermeateFree said:

Just for the record, most Aboriginal people arrived in Australia during periods of low sea-levels, of which there have been only two, including the time of the first arrivals. The likelihood of mass migration of people at other times is highly unlikely, although no doubt some relatively small groups did arrive by sea. Later PNG peoples has the craft to island hop to Australia, which probably accounts for the unusually high migration during the later period.

Interestingly, even at max-glaciation, there are still “sea-gaps” that need to be traversed: there has not been an actual landbridge from Asia to Australasia during the existence of Homo sapiens. What this means is that all the likelihood of migration is higher at max-glaciation (because the required sea journeys are shorter and less numerous) and lower in interglaciation, but it is just a relative likelihood: there’s no time when migration is impossible and no time when it is easy. The glacial history is compatible with the notion of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or any number of migratory waves.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Just for the record, most Aboriginal people arrived in Australia during periods of low sea-levels, of which there have been only two, including the time of the first arrivals. The likelihood of mass migration of people at other times is highly unlikely, although no doubt some relatively small groups did arrive by sea. Later PNG peoples has the craft to island hop to Australia, which probably accounts for the unusually high migration during the later period.

Interestingly, even at max-glaciation, there are still “sea-gaps” that need to be traversed: there has not been an actual landbridge from Asia to Australasia during the existence of Homo sapiens. What this means is that all the likelihood of migration is higher at max-glaciation (because the required sea journeys are shorter and less numerous) and lower in interglaciation, but it is just a relative likelihood: there’s no time when migration is impossible and no time when it is easy. The glacial history is compatible with the notion of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or any number of migratory waves.

The land bridges were only to PNG and Tasmania, but during these periods of low sealevels, the distance between other land masses narrowed and became easier to cross. For a large group of people to make up one of these ‘waves’ at other times, would need many sophisticated ocean going craft of which there is no record.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

I find you to be a devious person.

His MC name is DVius

Hahahahahahaha!

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Just for the record, most Aboriginal people arrived in Australia during periods of low sea-levels, of which there have been only two, including the time of the first arrivals. The likelihood of mass migration of people at other times is highly unlikely, although no doubt some relatively small groups did arrive by sea. Later PNG peoples has the craft to island hop to Australia, which probably accounts for the unusually high migration during the later period.

Interestingly, even at max-glaciation, there are still “sea-gaps” that need to be traversed: there has not been an actual landbridge from Asia to Australasia during the existence of Homo sapiens. What this means is that all the likelihood of migration is higher at max-glaciation (because the required sea journeys are shorter and less numerous) and lower in interglaciation, but it is just a relative likelihood: there’s no time when migration is impossible and no time when it is easy. The glacial history is compatible with the notion of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or any number of migratory waves.

The land bridges were only to PNG and Tasmania, but during these periods of low sealevels, the distance between other land masses narrowed and became easier to cross. For a large group of people to make up one of these ‘waves’ at other times, would need many sophisticated ocean going craft of which there is no record.

Nah you overstate the difference. Even today you can skip from the Asian mainland to Australia without requiring any sea voyage longer than 90 km. It’s a good row but it doesn’t require “sophisticated ocean going craft”.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Interestingly, even at max-glaciation, there are still “sea-gaps” that need to be traversed: there has not been an actual landbridge from Asia to Australasia during the existence of Homo sapiens. What this means is that all the likelihood of migration is higher at max-glaciation (because the required sea journeys are shorter and less numerous) and lower in interglaciation, but it is just a relative likelihood: there’s no time when migration is impossible and no time when it is easy. The glacial history is compatible with the notion of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or any number of migratory waves.

The land bridges were only to PNG and Tasmania, but during these periods of low sealevels, the distance between other land masses narrowed and became easier to cross. For a large group of people to make up one of these ‘waves’ at other times, would need many sophisticated ocean going craft of which there is no record.

Nah you overstate the difference. Even today you can skip from the Asian mainland to Australia without requiring any sea voyage longer than 90 km. It’s a good row but it doesn’t require “sophisticated ocean going craft”.

There are some very strong currents between that have stopped the movement of plants and animals either way. It is called the Wallace Line.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

The land bridges were only to PNG and Tasmania, but during these periods of low sealevels, the distance between other land masses narrowed and became easier to cross. For a large group of people to make up one of these ‘waves’ at other times, would need many sophisticated ocean going craft of which there is no record.

Nah you overstate the difference. Even today you can skip from the Asian mainland to Australia without requiring any sea voyage longer than 90 km. It’s a good row but it doesn’t require “sophisticated ocean going craft”.

There are some very strong currents between that have stopped the movement of plants and animals either way. It is called the Wallace Line.

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation! So we know that palaeolithic people got across it. Bottom line, stone age people can build good enough canoes to get from Asia to Australasia even in the interglacial periods.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Nah you overstate the difference. Even today you can skip from the Asian mainland to Australia without requiring any sea voyage longer than 90 km. It’s a good row but it doesn’t require “sophisticated ocean going craft”.

There are some very strong currents between that have stopped the movement of plants and animals either way. It is called the Wallace Line.

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation! So we know that palaeolithic people got across it. Bottom line, stone age people can build good enough canoes to get from Asia to Australasia even in the interglacial periods.

You need navigation and power to cross those currents, which is why they make note of it being the dividing line between many species that cannot cross. During an Ice Age sealevels drop making the crossing easier and probably affecting the strength of the current. When sealevels rise the gap becomes larger and the currents stronger. And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

There are some very strong currents between that have stopped the movement of plants and animals either way. It is called the Wallace Line.

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation! So we know that palaeolithic people got across it. Bottom line, stone age people can build good enough canoes to get from Asia to Australasia even in the interglacial periods.

You need navigation and power to cross those currents, which is why they make note of it being the dividing line between many species that cannot cross. During an Ice Age sealevels drop making the crossing easier and probably affecting the strength of the current. When sealevels rise the gap becomes larger and the currents stronger. And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?

“And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?”

All in one hit? None. Then again, I didn’t say Australia. I said Australasia.

I mean fuck, stone age people populated the entire Pacific using dugout canoes …

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation! So we know that palaeolithic people got across it. Bottom line, stone age people can build good enough canoes to get from Asia to Australasia even in the interglacial periods.

You need navigation and power to cross those currents, which is why they make note of it being the dividing line between many species that cannot cross. During an Ice Age sealevels drop making the crossing easier and probably affecting the strength of the current. When sealevels rise the gap becomes larger and the currents stronger. And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?

“And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?”

All in one hit? None. Then again, I didn’t say Australia. I said Australasia.

>>Australasia, a region of Oceania, comprises Australia, New Zealand, the island of New Guinea, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean. Charles de Brosses coined the term in Histoire des navigations aux terres australes. Wikipedia<<

So pretty much Australia as we already know of migrations from PNG to Australia. And there were two (2) low sealevels when migration was made much easier, not one as you state.

dv said:

I mean fuck, stone age people populated the entire Pacific using dugout canoes …

clicks like

dv said:

I mean fuck, stone age people populated the entire Pacific using dugout canoes …

But that was within the last few thousand years and well after any island hopping from PNG.

This must have been before anyone thought of turnback policies…

buffy said:

This must have been before anyone thought of turnback policies…

The Polynesians had large ocean going canoes, not small craft dv implies.

dv said:

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation!

“Like the way i am talking right now. I would put exclamation points at the end of all these sentences. On this one and on that one”.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

You need navigation and power to cross those currents, which is why they make note of it being the dividing line between many species that cannot cross. During an Ice Age sealevels drop making the crossing easier and probably affecting the strength of the current. When sealevels rise the gap becomes larger and the currents stronger. And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?

“And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?”

All in one hit? None. Then again, I didn’t say Australia. I said Australasia.

>>Australasia, a region of Oceania, comprises Australia, New Zealand, the island of New Guinea, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean. Charles de Brosses coined the term in Histoire des navigations aux terres australes. Wikipedia<<

So pretty much Australia as we already know of migrations from PNG to Australia. And there were two (2) low sealevels when migration was made much easier, not one as you state.

Right.

I mean do you understand the information I’ve passed on to you? Are we all in agreement?

To summarise:

1/
Crossing from Asia to Australasia is possible using palaeolithic technology even during the interglacial periods

2/
It is easier to do it during glaciations due to shorter sea journeys

3/
Whether at interglaciation or glaciation, you’ll need to cross the Wallace line, so the presence of the Wallace line cannot be used as an argument that you can only cross during a glaciation! Please think on this carefully before replying.

4/
There have thus been countless opportunities for migrations to Australasia over the last 50000 years.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation!

“Like the way i am talking right now! I would put exclamation points at the end of all these sentences! On this one! And on that one!”

Fixed. Pardon my haste to post.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation!

“Like the way i am talking right now! I would put exclamation points at the end of all these sentences! On this one! And on that one!”

Fixed. Pardon my haste to post.

Well I am rather at the point where I need to use emphasis.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation!

“Like the way i am talking right now. I would put exclamation points at the end of all these sentences. On this one and on that one”.

Probably didn’t know he had to capture the mood.

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

dv said:

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

Is this determined through genealogy studies?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

“And just what mass migration do you think happened from ASIA to Australia?”

All in one hit? None. Then again, I didn’t say Australia. I said Australasia.

>>Australasia, a region of Oceania, comprises Australia, New Zealand, the island of New Guinea, and neighbouring islands in the Pacific Ocean. Charles de Brosses coined the term in Histoire des navigations aux terres australes. Wikipedia<<

So pretty much Australia as we already know of migrations from PNG to Australia. And there were two (2) low sealevels when migration was made much easier, not one as you state.

Right.

I mean do you understand the information I’ve passed on to you? Are we all in agreement?

To summarise:

1/
Crossing from Asia to Australasia is possible using palaeolithic technology even during the interglacial periods

2/
It is easier to do it during glaciations due to shorter sea journeys

3/
Whether at interglaciation or glaciation, you’ll need to cross the Wallace line, so the presence of the Wallace line cannot be used as an argument that you can only cross during a glaciation! Please think on this carefully before replying.

4/
There have thus been countless opportunities for migrations to Australasia over the last 50000 years.

As I said the strength of ocean currents are known to alter during climate change and at low sealevels, where the gap was less wide, more primitive craft did obviously make it across, but seagoing vessel technology was not available then, so where long and difficult sea voyages were involved, any crossing at high sealevels would likely have been by accident and in small numbers, not a wave.

I am not saying there was a single migration of humans into Australia, just mostly they happened when sea-levels were low, which was only twice during the migration period into Australia.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

Is this determined through genealogy studies?

yep, Who do you think you are.

;-)

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

The Tasmanian Aborigines crossed from the mainland during the last sealevel drop.

dv said:

…Are we all in agreement?

…..Please think on this carefully before replying.

Yes

Ooops. sorry.

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

Is this determined through genealogy studies?

Archaeology, genetics and language. Various authors have versions that differ but they all involve at least four waves of migration.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

Perhaps you might like to provide some references for these wild assertions?

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

The Tasmanian Aborigines crossed from the mainland during the last sealevel drop.

… and at least three occasions before that, the first being around 40000 BC.

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

Long ago.

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

There have been four or five major waves of migration from the mainland to Tasmania, over the last 40000 years.

None in the last 15,000.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Has the theory of the Tasmanian aborigines coming first and then being supplanted by todays mainland aborigines been discredited?

The Tasmanian Aborigines crossed from the mainland during the last sealevel drop.

… and at least three occasions before that, the first being around 40000 BC.

As you have this information at your fingertips, you might share it so we all could know the facts.

Okay I’ll have one more read of the replies here but I am losing faith that PF is going to get it so I may have to bow out after that.
You can take over, roughie.

dv said:

Okay I’ll have one more read of the replies here but I am losing faith that PF is going to get it so I may have to bow out after that.
You can take over, roughie.

Okay I did that, and no. Ah me.

dv said:

Okay I’ll have one more read of the replies here but I am losing faith that PF is going to get it so I may have to bow out after that.
You can take over, roughie.

I won’t know what to argue. I’ll have to read the whole thread again.

dv said:

Okay I’ll have one more read of the replies here but I am losing faith that PF is going to get it so I may have to bow out after that.
You can take over, roughie.

You make statements you cannot support, which I think are you just being your usual devious self. Why so call scientifically minded individuals can so easily discard all scientific principles like honesty and integrity is beyond me.

I’ll rely on y’all to tell me if something fresh comes up.

dv said:

I’ll rely on y’all to tell me if something fresh comes up.

We’re not expecting any new migrations across the Wallace line any time soon.

party_pants said:

dv said:

I’ll rely on y’all to tell me if something fresh comes up.

We’re not expecting any new migrations across the Wallace line any time soon.

cos, Border Force. Honk!

far be it from me to tread on DVs toes re references but wiki has this to say…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_Tasmanians#Migration_chronology

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

transition said:

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

—-

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

dv said:

transition said:

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

—-

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

I did mention anthropological invasion, it’s not something individuals do to themselves.

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

—-

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

I did mention anthropological invasion, it’s not something individuals do to themselves.

But how to get the genie back into the bottle

dv said:

I’ll rely on y’all to tell me if something fresh comes up.

digging the past evades us as the future unrolls.

transition said:

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

fair.

dv said:

transition said:

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

—-

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

By offering them the chance to help us know their names.

It is a bit late but fragments are still there.

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

>aborigines

Personally I have a problem with any name other than individuals being called by their names, first name (friendly nicknames inc), family names, and reference to tribal origin or whatever as required after those previously mentioned.

The departure from is less-than-helpful. It’s like a nasty anthropological invasion.

—-

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

I did mention anthropological invasion, it’s not something individuals do to themselves.

no.

dv said:

transition said:

dv said:

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

I did mention anthropological invasion, it’s not something individuals do to themselves.

But how to get the genie back into the bottle

it is us that have to learn what we meant by assimilate.

dv said:

transition said:

dv said:

Very well, but how would you propose to force aborigines to stop referring to themselves as aborigines?

I did mention anthropological invasion, it’s not something individuals do to themselves.

But how to get the genie back into the bottle

an individual needs a name, as sure as a mother knows who’s mother of her child.

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

I did mention anthropological invasion, it’s not something individuals do to themselves.

But how to get the genie back into the bottle

an individual needs a name, as sure as a mother knows who’s mother of her child.

indeed which has no genie or bottle.

PermeateFree said:

For those here who are really interested in the Australian Aborigine and their interaction with Europeans, there is a highly acclaimed series being repeated on NITV (an SBS station) on Sunday evenings. There are several episodes with tonight’s being episode 2. I have watched the series before and can vouch for its quality and authenticity and is an excellent introduction into the incredible hardship and humiliation these people have been subjected.

The link below is a video of episode 1 and being small screened, should not take up much bandwidth. I would strongly urge anyone who wishes to understand the background of our interaction to watch this interesting account. The first 5 minutes is the introduction before the arrival of the First Fleet. I think once you start it will be difficult to ignore following episodes.

http://www.sbs.com.au/firstaustralians/

I trust everyone watched episode 3 of The First Australians on NITV this evening? It brought it up to the 1967 referendum.

All you people with an interest in the human occupation of Australia will be interested in the latest genetic study of 90% of Australia and PNG and their Aboriginal populations.

It states the supercontinent of ‘Sahul’ that originally united Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea had only a SINGLE wave of people, who occupied this entire land mass until very recently, and all indigenous peoples within this region originate from these people. However further DNA testing needs to be done on the remaining groups to sort out a few discrepancies, although the basic understanding of human migration into this area has now been determined.

>>Australian co-author, Dr Michael Westaway of Griffith University said the study showed evidence only for one colonisation event in Australia, and a continuity of occupation from that genomic signature for 40,000-odd years.

It reveals Papuan and Aboriginal ancestors left Africa around 72,000 years ago and then split from the main group around 58,000 years ago.
They reached the supercontinent of ‘Sahul’ that originally united Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea around 50,000 years ago, picking up the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans and another extinct hominin along the way.

Papuans and Aboriginals then split around 37,000 years ago, long before the continents were finally cut off from each other around 8,000 years ago.<<

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/world-first-study-reveals-rich-history-of-aboriginal-australians/7858376

The large migration from PNG around 6,000 years ago, dispersed into the central and the western central portion of Australia.

The above study should clear up the murky water created by dv and others.

PermeateFree said:

All you people with an interest in the human occupation of Australia will be interested in the latest genetic study of 90% of Australia and PNG and their Aboriginal populations.

It states the supercontinent of ‘Sahul’ that originally united Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea had only a SINGLE wave of people, who occupied this entire land mass until very recently, and all indigenous peoples within this region originate from these people. However further DNA testing needs to be done on the remaining groups to sort out a few discrepancies, although the basic understanding of human migration into this area has now been determined.

>>Australian co-author, Dr Michael Westaway of Griffith University said the study showed evidence only for one colonisation event in Australia, and a continuity of occupation from that genomic signature for 40,000-odd years.

It reveals Papuan and Aboriginal ancestors left Africa around 72,000 years ago and then split from the main group around 58,000 years ago.
They reached the supercontinent of ‘Sahul’ that originally united Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea around 50,000 years ago, picking up the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans and another extinct hominin along the way.

Papuans and Aboriginals then split around 37,000 years ago, long before the continents were finally cut off from each other around 8,000 years ago.<<

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/world-first-study-reveals-rich-history-of-aboriginal-australians/7858376

The large migration from PNG around 6,000 years ago, dispersed into the central and the western central portion of Australia.

The above study should clear up the murky water created by dv and others.

Dude, seriously…

We referred to and discussed this paper already, in this thread!

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

All you people with an interest in the human occupation of Australia will be interested in the latest genetic study of 90% of Australia and PNG and their Aboriginal populations.

It states the supercontinent of ‘Sahul’ that originally united Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea had only a SINGLE wave of people, who occupied this entire land mass until very recently, and all indigenous peoples within this region originate from these people. However further DNA testing needs to be done on the remaining groups to sort out a few discrepancies, although the basic understanding of human migration into this area has now been determined.

>>Australian co-author, Dr Michael Westaway of Griffith University said the study showed evidence only for one colonisation event in Australia, and a continuity of occupation from that genomic signature for 40,000-odd years.

It reveals Papuan and Aboriginal ancestors left Africa around 72,000 years ago and then split from the main group around 58,000 years ago.
They reached the supercontinent of ‘Sahul’ that originally united Tasmania, Australia and New Guinea around 50,000 years ago, picking up the DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans and another extinct hominin along the way.

Papuans and Aboriginals then split around 37,000 years ago, long before the continents were finally cut off from each other around 8,000 years ago.<<

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/world-first-study-reveals-rich-history-of-aboriginal-australians/7858376

The large migration from PNG around 6,000 years ago, dispersed into the central and the western central portion of Australia.

The above study should clear up the murky water created by dv and others.

Dude, seriously…

We referred to and discussed this paper already, in this thread!

Perhaps you would like to point it out.

From: ruby
ID: 958626
Subject: re: The First Australians
The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

Posts ID: 958626, 958635, 958639, 958652, 958653, 958654, 958657, 958663, 958664, 958686, 958695, 958700, 958757

Also: we haven’t made anything murkier. We’ve been kind enough to take our time to use our familiarity with the subject matter to clarify matters for a lay audience. You could at least thank us.

ChrispenEvan said:

From: ruby
ID: 958626
Subject: re: The First Australians
The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

But it was hardy debated, more passed over as it did not agree with much of dv’s assertions.

dv said:

Posts ID: 958626, 958635, 958639, 958652, 958653, 958654, 958657, 958663, 958664, 958686, 958695, 958700, 958757

Also: we haven’t made anything murkier. We’ve been kind enough to take our time to use our familiarity with the subject matter to clarify matters for a lay audience. You could at least thank us.

Perhaps you might like to explain why you contradicted this study so many times.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

From: ruby
ID: 958626
Subject: re: The First Australians
The most comprehensive genomic study of Indigenous Australians to date confirms modern Aboriginal Australians are the descendants of the first people to inhabit Australia — a claim that has previously been the subject of debate

But it was hardy debated, more passed over as it did not agree with much of dv’s assertions.

“more passed over”

Discussion of that paper has made up a good chunk of this thread.

I mean seriously, what’s the point of discussing something with someone who won’t even keep up with the discussion, just blast the same disproven points they made days ago as though nothing’s been said? It’s very Trumpian but I don’t think it will play well here.

dv said:

I mean seriously, what’s the point of discussing something with someone who won’t even keep up with the discussion, just blast the same disproven points they made days ago as though nothing’s been said? It’s very Trumpian but I don’t think it will play well here.

Well here are a few of your quotes. They don’t sound like they are agreeing with the latest DNA study to me, but again I give you the opportunity to explain.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I mean seriously, what’s the point of discussing something with someone who won’t even keep up with the discussion, just blast the same disproven points they made days ago as though nothing’s been said? It’s very Trumpian but I don’t think it will play well here.

Well here are a few of your quotes. They don’t sound like they are agreeing with the latest DNA study to me, but again I give you the opportunity to explain.

>>Somewhere between the source document and the popsci presentation, someone has tried to insert the notion that aboriginal descent is solely from the early wave, and the evidence doesn’t support this idea.<<

>>They didn’t test for the basically quite commonly supported model that there were multiple waves that rapidly spread across the continent, which is not compatible with either of the models they tested.<<

>>Interestingly, even at max-glaciation, there are still “sea-gaps” that need to be traversed: there has not been an actual landbridge from Asia to Australasia during the existence of Homo sapiens. What this means is that all the likelihood of migration is higher at max-glaciation (because the required sea journeys are shorter and less numerous) and lower in interglaciation, but it is just a relative likelihood: there’s no time when migration is impossible and no time when it is easy. The glacial history is compatible with the notion of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or any number of migratory waves.<<

>>Nah you overstate the difference. Even today you can skip from the Asian mainland to Australia without requiring any sea voyage longer than 90 km. It’s a good row but it doesn’t require “sophisticated ocean going craft”.<<

>>The Wallace Line is delineated by deep, but not wide, troughs, and in any case the Wallace Line is still underwater at max glaciation! So we know that palaeolithic people got across it. Bottom line, stone age people can build good enough canoes to get from Asia to Australasia even in the interglacial periods.<<

>>There have thus been countless opportunities for migrations to Australasia over the last 50000 years.<<

dv said:

I mean seriously, what’s the point of discussing something with someone who won’t even keep up with the discussion, just blast the same disproven points they made days ago as though nothing’s been said? It’s very Trumpian but I don’t think it will play well here.

You are a bullshit artist dv, muddying the water is your specialty.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I mean seriously, what’s the point of discussing something with someone who won’t even keep up with the discussion, just blast the same disproven points they made days ago as though nothing’s been said? It’s very Trumpian but I don’t think it will play well here.

You are a bullshit artist dv, muddying the water is your specialty.

go and have your hissy fit somewhere else.

Look, someone give me a hoy if PF says something new or worth responding to.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I mean seriously, what’s the point of discussing something with someone who won’t even keep up with the discussion, just blast the same disproven points they made days ago as though nothing’s been said? It’s very Trumpian but I don’t think it will play well here.

You are a bullshit artist dv, muddying the water is your specialty.

go and have your hissy fit somewhere else.

I have noticed your rather narrow view of the world too Boris.

dv said:

Look, someone give me a hoy if PF says something new or worth responding to.

I just quoted what you wrote and now you don’t want to own it. Typical of you.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Look, someone give me a hoy if PF says something new or worth responding to.

I just quoted what you wrote and now you don’t want to own it. Typical of you.

Is this you dv?