Statehood for Australia's Aboriginees?

I would strongly recommended waiting a few years before investing any real time into your quest.

 

Why? Pure academia is something to consider, but I am not sure exactly why you wish to wait. Do you think that there is more to come?

 

The writing was on the wall regarding this clown long ago! It's all entertainment! Not sure why people continue to respond.

 

Well first the discovery of Denisova man has blown the field wide open. I saw a rumor earlier this year that other remains have been discovered that might lead to the identification of a whole new branch in homo evolution as well. So anything our erstwhile scholar learns today could be redundant in a surprisingly short time

 

Waiting a few years to investigate still doesn’t deny the current facts, that preliminary scientific DNA testing puts Lake Mungo 1& 3 in Australia tens of thousands years before modern day Australian Aborigines, and there is no genetic link between the two apparently different species.

Further independent mtDNA testing cannot be conducted, because Aboriginal custodians refuse to offer fragment samples for testing.

If the original DNA testing is correct, the Aboriginal people don’t own the remains of Lake Mungo 1 & 2; the Australian people do, and these remains should be handed over to answer these important historical questions regarding our country.

Are the facts surround our countries history going to based on the scientific truth, or lies based on sympathy and convenience?

 

No body owns the land is the Aboriginal cultural and religious philosophy and mantra.

If the Aboriginal people’s philosophy and manta is that people don’t own the land, then how can they lease the land to mining companies for financial profit?

You legally have to own something in Australia before you can lease it.

Seems a convenient contradictions in terms to me. Either they own the land, or they don’t.

Sorry mate, you are never going to convince me with words that a white horse has suddenly turned black, when I can see the horse is white with my own eyes.

There is nothing redneck about this. Its called finding the scientific truth, and not accepting lies based on sympathy and convenience.

 

Children generally don't learn anything about the human genome and how races differ in the first place. I would argue that whether aboriginals were the first Australians or not is entirely irrelevant to any issues they face. Yeah, it's interesting, but you seem like you have a far more nefarious purpose behind your arguments. Hence you making the completely absurd and laughable claim that they shouldn't have the same rights because of differences in their genome.

Traditional aboriginal culture sees themselves as belonging to the land, not the land to them; correct, but it would be ridiculous for them to not adapt to western culture and western laws. It's a practical thing. Their cultural belief still exists but they would be doing themselves an injustice if they didn't also use the land as it is defined by western law when dealing in a western context.

 

It could well be but still what is known now from time lines is interesting, Sure something might come later to change the events but generally the evolution should be interesting as that does not change as long as decent research is done. Great exercise in finding what happened to these people, but I am sure that will be fruitless, because as you say the field is blown wide open and little has been done at present.

 

Well the biggest question is who is Mungo man. Until recently it was thought the out of Africa theory was pretty tight, successive waves of immigration get us to where we are now. With the discovery of Denisova Man, we now have the prospect that Australia was settled by at least to different branches of Homo. And my gut feeling is we might ultimately discover there have been three. Exciting times ahead for anthropology.

 

Australia AND Tasmania? What BOTH of them?

You ,of course have evidence of this, because you would never say such a thing based on your irish-American anglophobia would you!

.

What special kangeroo courts were these? I think they used the standard Crown courts.

Strangely people weren;t transported for being poor and homeless either. You had to be Guilty of a compounded felony where the maximum sentence was death to be transported.

.

History is full of the hard done by

 

True that the western concept of ownership of land, in fact the whole idea of private property, was alien to Australia's indigenous people before 1788. But then the Brits arrived, claimed the land mass, implemented English law and thus gave indigenous people the ability to use English law.

 

Yes that does sound interesting, but I would not be surprised if this is never answered.

 

I think you might have completely missed my point. Australia should have an equitable set of laws appropriate for everyone, regardless of race and gender, but that is not, and has not happened.

There are to many people, with to many hidden agendas, building to many fences, creating a “them” and “us” mentality for financial profit.

Whilst these invisible fences are being created and built, nothing will ever change, and humanity as a whole will continue to spin its wheels in the mud of stupidity.

 

Simple truth. Aborigines are content to condemn Australian white culture when “their” agendas are not compatible, but will embrace white culture for greed and profit over their own culture. Seems a contradiction in morals, ethics and principals to me.

 

Who is Mungo Man 1 & 3? Petition the Aboriginal custodians to release some bone fragments for independent mtDNA testing, and we will all find out.

 

You seem to be doing a pretty good job creating your own "us" and "them" mentality culldav:

 

I do admit to pushing DV buttons on Aboriginal matters.

In my own defence, I pushed the ignore button on DV many months ago, but when he keeps slithering out of his hole attacking me with insults, then I believe I have the right to defend myself also.

When I first joined this forum 18 months ago, I became aware of DV’s circumstance and connection to the Aboriginal culture. I was interested in getting his unique perspective, and wanted to enter into a debate on Aboriginal affairs with him. I originally wanted to base the discussion on parameters that we both agreed were a good stating point for the topic, and work our way from there. I suggested we start at the beginning, and discuss the topic of Lake Mungo Man 1 & 3, and how that information effects, or did effect Aboriginal Social Construction, and Australian Social Construction today.

At the very mention of Lake Mungo Man 1 & 3 as the parameter reference to start the discussion, DV in the next message accused me of being racist towards Aboriginal people. When I suggested it was only a frame of reference, the ranting and raving from DV continued until I ended the topic.

If you look back through my postings, you will notice I have been logical and consistent in my messages, but have occasionally given DV and a few other idiots a verbal “back-hander” through irritation only.

I have apologised for being in error, and thanked others for their help and information, but I will not be crushed by voices of opposition to my own ideas and knowledge, when I know those voices of opposition are wrong.

I call a spade a spade, and for that you either like me, or dislike me, because nothing is going to change me. I don't believe in all that political correct language and nonsense politicians created to be deceitful and dishonest. Language by way of verbal communication should be used as a vehicle to communicate trust and truthful motives; not lies and dishonest motives by changing the parameters of the vehicle.

 

This thread is interesting because, unlike most threads, it does seem to have a semplance of education about with only one obvious webtard.

I tend to try and take an non ideological look. I object, obviously, to culdaves absurd racism and need to go to incredible lengths to prove that Aboriginal Australians were not the First Australians. Frankly after 35,000 years they have the right to call themselves autocthunos let alone indegenous. Frankly that there may have been humans there 50,000 years ago is really neither here nor there and if there was they probably intermixed.

However I also object the the utterly ahistorical character of narratives based on post colonial/Post modernist theories where evil colonisers oppress peaceful natives with a Provenance of something out of Avatar.Not only does it lead to some seriousl rotten history but it also gets in the way of any real progress of community cohesion.

I note that the 'big money' donated by the government seems to fund the activities of activists who seem to look not very Aborginal at all, a state mirrored in the USA and Canada where urban people with a quarter or an eighth ancestry became the greates beneficiaries of state largesse .

 

An example or two would be good.

 

Do I really need to go down that road?

 

Utter nonsense. They are subspecies and could happily interbreed with non sterile offspring.

 

You don't have to, no. But if there are no illustrative examples - I don't mean day, date, time, actors etc. just an idea of a set of circumstances - then it weakens your point I think.

 

I believe I gave a good example in message 181. Whereby generations of their culture are suddenly ignored, and Australian culture is adopted for financial profit. I find it perplexing, that the Aboriginal people want an independent culture and identity seperate from Australian culture and society, but are quite willing to use pieces of Australians culture for their own financial advantage when it suits their agendas. Surely its contridictory in terms to say you want to be independent and seperate from a certain culture, but then use attributes of that culture for your own advantage? Either you want to be seperate and independent from a culture, or you don't. You cannot have it both ways without being contridictory.

 

The branta canadensis is full of contradictions! Weird to say the least!

 

Culture is simply a way of doing things. It can be used, ignored or amended. It isn't a straitjacket.