Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

I read somewhere, that Australia has been planning to establish a statehood for its Aboriginees, like the other states in its federation. Would this be a purely legal establishment, or would this have some territorial administrative power? If territorial, then where?

Also, where do the Aboriginees come from? Australia didn't have a human evolution history, like Africa, and the sea trench across the Indonesian Islands has kept the Australian and Asian lands separate so well, that not even animal species could mix across it. So, what is the origin of the Aboriginees?

 

ATSIC was heading down this sort of path until it was dismantled, but not sure if the main aims were to eventually become a separate entity from its then current aim of addressing "self determination". The Northern Territory sounds like the most likely place in terms of land or maybe far north Queensland if at all it were a real consideration! I don't think complete control of a territory is feasible but an arrangement that mirrors a treaty would definitely go towards addressing unlawful injustices and lifting the profile of aborigines. The only reason I say treaty is because you would expect for there to be non Aboriginal occupants in most locations!

I thought the land bridge theory was dominant amongst anthropologist/ethnologist etc. In any instance 60 odd thousand years is a massive continuum of culture and existence. One particular belief that doesn't have too much support from the field of study is that all life started from Australia and branched out. I thought there were always cassowaries and wallabies in PNG, which was evidence that there was a land bridge. I've never studied the topic indepthly but would keen to hear anything that makes sense. Have you got a link for the story?

 

The only way to grant Aboriginals an actual state would be through a referendum. The government can't just create states whenever it wants.

 

Well, my starting point was this http://wallacefund.info/the-1858-darwin-wallace-paper, but then the sea trench evidence came in at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace with the topographic map of the Malay archipelago jpg and the *03.jpg in that article. Check out the Mayuk Strait cutting diagonally across the entire island chain. Wallace heavily used this fact to support his theory about the uniqueness of Australia's and East Indonesia's fauna.

 

There are many in the anthropological scientific community who strongly believe the claims made by modern day Aborigines, that they are “the first Australians” are erroneous assumptions based on previous scientific evidence.

Mungo Man pre-dates modern day Aborigines residing in Australia by thousands of years, and there is no genetic links between modern day Aborigines and Mungo Man.

Scientific DNA tests and sampling of Mungo Man bone fragments proved the time frame dating, and the absence of genetic links.

Scientists wanted to do further scientific testing on Lake Mungo 3 bone fragments, but modern day Aboriginal communities will not allow additional scientific examinations.

Lake Mungo 1, first discovered in 1969 is dated at between 19,000 & 24,000 years old. No scientific examinations have ever been conducted on those remains, as they were unconditionally “repatriated” to the indigenous people of Australia in 1992.

They are now held in a vault.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mungo_remains

 

I found a file on the web with mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) comparison between Modern Humans, Modern Aborigines and Neanderthal. The Authors omitted the "common" DNA that we share with other animals, trees, etc.. (we are like 98% similar in DNA to apes). The Neanderthal DNA is fragmented as expected, but the available parts match the Australian DNA much more closely than modern human DNA. I looked at only the markers where there was an available marker for all three samples: 129, 189, 209, 223, 256, 258, 299 (possibly more after)

Modern Human: G, T, T, C, C, A, A

Modern Australian Aborigine: A, C, C, T, T, C, G

30,000 yr Neanderthal: A, C, C, T, A, G, G

In other words, in this sample Australian Aborigine DNA is a 0% match with modern human DNA, but it is a 71% match with Neanderthal DNA. Only 256 and 258 were mismatches, and yet the Aborigine still did not match the modern human DNA. If that isn't compelling evidence, I don't know what is. Apparently the Aborigines had some limited mixing with Polynesian people, so that could account for the differences (i.e. the Aborigines are Neanderthal hybrids).

You can see the original DNA evidence for yourself here in PDF format:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/98/2/537.pdf

Or there is an easier chart of the same data here, including a comparison to chimpanzee DNA (which is more similar to Neanderthal/Aborigine):

http://www.godandscience.org/evoluti...iregional.html

 

Cannot believe that Australians have been so naïve and stupid as to believe all the false garbage Aboriginals have been saying about them being the FIRST Australians, when there is factual scientific evidence to dispute their claims that Mungo Man pre-dates them, with NO genetic links.

We have all just been fed a convenient pack of LIES, and Australian children are been taught lies and false history.

 

Lies, distortion, selective emphasis, all the same thing, are just standard procedure for pc creeps who profit from racial tension. The longer that truth can be suppressed, the more racial hatred will breed, which is just what creeps who profit from racial hate want. It`s like a doctor propagating and dispersing a disease, then profiting from a useless treatment. No brains or talent needed, just low morals.

 

I from experience do not think most Aborigines want statehood and if they did I don't think that offering them the deserts is going to make them happy as most Aborigines have not lived in the desert, not now, not before, not ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Indigenous_Australians

The other thing is that Aboriginal is not a nationality, Aboriginals are a group of nations. It's like saying European or Middle Eastern.

 

All the anthropological dating of Australian Aboriginal prehistoric tools and cave painting found in Australia falsely claim these tools and paintings were made by modern day Aboriginal ancestors. There is no scientific evidence linking modern day Australian Aborigines to any of these prehistoric tools or cave paintings.

There is gathering evidence and support in the wider scientific community to suggest that Mungo Man and “perhaps” other humanoids were residing in Australia, before modern day Aborigines made their crossing from Papua New Guinea into Australia, and Mungo Man was responsible for creating these prehistoric tools and cave paintings, and modern day Aborigines just copied from them.

Most scholars date the arrival of humans in Australia at 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, with a possible range of up to 125,000 years ago
The earliest anatomically modern human remains found in Australia (and outside of Africa) are those of Mungo Man which have been dated at 42,000 years old. The initial comparison of the mitochondrial DNA from the skeleton known as Lake Mungo 3 (LM3) with that of ancient and modern Aborigines indicated that Mungo Man is not related to Australian Aborigines. However these findings have been met with a general lack of acceptance in scientific communities, the sequence is criticized as there has been no independent testing and these results may be due to posthumous modification and thermal degradation of the DNA. Although the contested results seem to indicate that Mungo Man may have been an extinct subspecies that diverged before the most recent common ancestor of contemporary humans it is generally accepted that the Lake Mungo remains are direct ancestors of present day Indigenous Australians. Independent DNA testing is unlikely as the indigenous custodians are not expected to allow further invasive investigations.

Why are we being forced to believe scientific guess-work that modern day Australian Aborigines are related to Mungo Man when there is no scientific evidence to support this claim? Indigenous custodians of Mungo Man are too frightened to allow further scientific investigation?

If we are being forced to believe in this kind of important historical scientific guess-work through lack of correct scientific investigation, then what else is the scientific community forcing us to believe in though guess-work?

Surely the Aboriginal custodians could offer a small sample of Mungo Man remains to secure the truth, or are they scared that the sample will reveal the REAL truth that they are NOT the first real Australians, and they have been financially ripping us off through erreneous claims that this is their land for decades.

 

Oh Em Gee

 

The book song of the Dodo discusses this at length. There is a very sharp demarcation in the flora and fauna as you described. I believe IIRC that in some places islands only 5 miles either side of the trench delineate sharply - except for birds

 

So if we can show a definitive link back 12,000 years, that does not count? Then we have the DNA samples of Tasmanian Aboriginals that show a lot of comparison to mainland Aboriginals but differer in some 17 markers making them identifiable as an extant population dating back 35,000 years on the island.

But it is all pretty mute, I have not encountered a claim by anthropologists that suggest Australia was only impacted once by human incursion. If my reading is as current as I hope the current belief is the existence of at least three distinct waves. Which matches well with the three major migrations out of Africa that we have identified

 

There is enough scientific uncertainty and biased research being done by both sides for more racist and political reasons than scientific ones to keep the real answers from ever being determined.

 

Well I do know the 125,000 year claim was withdrawn by the authors of the paper. They screwed up the sampling process of the paint flakes lol

 

This is my point. Modern day Australian Aborigines have made the extraordinary claim they are the “first” Australians based on a claim that the prehistoric remains discovered at the site of Lake Mungo 3 is their ancestor. The scientific DNA testing to determine the genetic connection between Mungo Man and modern day Australian Aborigines is totally inconclusive, due to the facts that the Aboriginal custodians of the Mungo Man remains will not allow any further scientific testing to determine the scientific truth. The DNA testing that was conducted, indicates that the remains found at Lake Mungo 3 belong to a completely different species to that of modern day Aborigines, but more testing needs to be done.

If modern day Aborigines have nothing to hide, then why not offer a small fragment of Lake Mungo 3 for scientific sampling?

Are we not all entitled to know the truth about Australian history, or are we going to accept it being hidden from us, because modern day Aborigines don’t want the real truth about our history being exposed?

There is a scientific theory suggesting three wave of migration into Australia at different time frames, but some of migration time frames would also indicate that the peoples migrating would have needed sophisticated knowledge of navigation and an advanced knowledge of ship building for them to have been able to sail from either the Asian regions or from Papua New Guinea to Australia. A prehistoric “dug-our-canoe” would not have been capable of making that kind of a sea voyage as the land masses divided as they currently are. This speculation has divided the debate, and many suggest, considering the time frames applicable, there would have to have been some form of land bridge, as travelling to Australia by any kind of boat was beyond their technology and navigational skills at that time. Seriously, who 30,000 years ago would get in a dug-out-canoe and paddle out to sea for day, and days on end without knowing there is land beyond the horizon?

 

So besides anthropological curiosity, what are you trying to say...

a) White man was here first, so we had a right to come back?
b) Aboriginals are liers?
c) Aboriginals are descended from Neanderthals?
d) Other ...........................................................?

and is it really relevant to finding solutions.

 

Every person living in Australia, and every person who wants to live in Australia deserves to know the truth about Australian history; including Australian children.

Some people would like to hide the historical truth and the facts for specific agendas, but I have scientific intellectual curiosity to know the truth without hidden agendas.

I’m not suggesting that knowing the truth about Australian history, and the true nature of Mungo Man will erase some of the atrocities inflicted on the Aboriginal people since white settlement, its just about scientifically endeavouring to discover the “real” truth regarding our own historical past.

If we cannot be truthful about the historical events surround our past, then how can we progress towards a truthful future.

 

What is the moral of its story! Lol! I think there are other questions surrounding the nationality debate when you come to think of it! Very strange! I suppose I've learned not to bother reading into its posts!

 

I took the point of CD`s post as to not being closed minded about science. To not allow predetermined emotional agendas censor the quest for truth.

 

On "truth", not sure if that is a scientific concept. How about "at the moment we think that....."?

On aborigines and others. Of course I have absolutely not idea who got here first but cd's posts are very interesting on the topic and I found them informative. I think the more inquiry and disruption of assumptions there are in the search for a better "at the moment we think...." is a good thing, keeps us all on our toes and the boffins in jobs.

Statehood - ain't gonna happen. Nor should it. Do we really want bantustans in Australia?

 

We probably never will know who actually arrived here first but one thing for certain is that aborigines were here for quite a substantial amount of time! I suppose prior to others who followed them! The argument It has is one simply based on racism, which is not that hard to gauge! Hey, if aborigines weren't the first here, so what! their history is substantial! I certainly do not want future potential invaders to use the excuse that we had only settled the place for 200 years and, "there" has been a history of invasion and conquering of races in the "land down under" going back millennia, therefor it is "okay"! Our ancestors did wrong, on occasions it was inadvertent, it doesn't take much to acknowledge this!

 

I don’t read DV’s or TV'S ramblings anymore, as they have been on my ignore list for months now, because I am no longer interested in reading grade 2 essays.

The topic was an introduction to discuss Australian history, and the role Aboriginals played in that history.

My aim has been trying to find the truth about our history as its been accurately scientifically recorded and dated. I now find there is a massive scientific discrepancy regarding the true nature of who the “first” Australians really were, and I believe every Australian deserves to know the truth about our history.

The scientific discrepancy arises from modern day Aborigines claiming they were the “first” Australians on the basis that the prehistoric remains found at Lake Mungo 3 was their ancestor. Unfortunately, preliminary DNA testing done after the remains were discovered, indicated Lake Mungo 3 was a different species of humanoid, and had no genetic link to modern day Aborigines, but some claim these tests were inconclusive, and more independent tests need to be done. The Indigenous custodians of Lake Mungo 3 will not allow any further testing to be conducted.

I personally don’t believe the Indigenous custodians should have the legal, ethical or moral right to keep the historical truth from all Australians, and future Australians, because they are scared about what the testing might indicate.

How can the Aboriginal people expect true reconciliation, when they seem to be hiding behind scientific fear that “somehow” the results might disadvantage them, and are willing to facilitate generations of Australian children being educated in a false premise they are the “first” Australians, when the scientific evidence behind that claim is based on scientific speculation.

I call on the Indigenous custodians of Lake Mungo 3 & Lake mungo 1 (in the vault) to release fragments for independent sampling, so we can all learn the truth about the historical events of our country.

 

Ignore: verbal derivative of ignarus, Ignorant.

 

That was interesting, thanks. It's not very controversial either way if you ask me. It's highly plausible that more recent scientific discoveries could establish a different lineage of humans in any given place.

I hope it's not controversial, and that it's just not a well known possibility.