Aboriginals.

The Corinthian

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I suggest you do some research into Pre-Clovis settlement of the Americas and stop using a wiki page with a source material published in 2005 quoting mid 90's papers. There have been some major findings in the last 10 years.

How about you show us your sources rather than trying to pawn that responsibility off to others to do so?

Just a little Samba

The Corinthian wrote: »

How about you show us your sources rather than trying to pawn that responsibility off to others to do so?

Here's the wiki stub on Monte Verde seeing as that seems to be about the depth of your research ability.

The interpretations section is especially worth reading.

9000 years is a terrible, outdated and massively inaccurate statement of when the Americas were inhabited.

seamus

Zamboni wrote: »

Thread is now a certified "Amateur historian cocksize fight".

Hey, it's more educational than a "How's about dem abos and travellers?" thread.

stevestevenson

"Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named this indigenous people 'Aboriginals', which of course in German means a whale's vagina"

Just a little Samba

seamus wrote: »

Hey, it's more educational than a "How's about dem abos and travellers?" thread.

Wait, we need to get hold of the rudder and direct this thread back to where it was meant to go, casual racism and blatant stereotyping before we fall down this totally unrelated anthropological rabbit hole.

SeanW

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Boards (especially afterhours) has the single weirdest demographics I've ever encountered in an online community. Libertarianism is basically non-existant in Ireland, or Europe as a whole for the matter, but it's well represented on boards.

Because libertarians support genocide?

Just a little Samba

SeanW wrote: »

Because libertarians support genocide?

How was that even implied in the post you quoted.

Jesus wept.

Streetwalker

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They had the whole continent to themselves for thousands of years and did nothing with it. They didn't develop any technology, any means of defending themselves properly, didn't develop a state, any political system, any intelligentsia, any education system or architecture. They basically had only themselves to blame when people from more developed came in and took the continent and made Australia the country that it is today.

Hard to believe this post was constructed by an adult.

SeanW

You were replying to a post about genocide when you posted that bit about libertarians.

Just a little Samba

Streetwalker wrote: »

Hard to believe this post was constructed by an adult.

In fairess he lives in a country invented in the 40's which illegally occupies the land of it's neighbours, destroys poples homes and moves in settlers from Russia and the US and thinks this is perfectly ok because "it was just desert before we got here".
It kind of fits his narrative.

Just a little Samba

SeanW wrote: »

You were replying to a post about genocide when you posted that bit about libertarians.

Where I said nothing other than the fact that libertarianism basically not existing in Ireland but being "well represented" on boards as an example of the demographical oddity that is Boards.ie?

It was just an example of how boards has a very strange user base.

Yurt2

I remember seeing a great doc on TG4 years back about an Aboriginal community in Western Australia. Was very sad, rampant alcoholism and child neglect. There was a community shuttle bus that dropped them home from the bars in town to make sure they wouldn't go walkabout while drunk and come to harm. Really one of the most f*cked over people in the process of colonialism, their traditional society collapsed in the face of ethnic cleansing, and couldn't handle the modernity that Europeans brought with them.

Pretty much the only way out of the poverty trap is education (which very few of them access), or sport which they are incredibly genetically gifted for, but too many can't stay away from the grog or huffing paint to succeed.

fryup

i remember when i was in oz back in the 90s nearly every town i visited had aborigines in public parks drinking/drunk, very sad sight ....they just can't adapt to the western way of life i.e. 9 to 5 and all that

BlatentCheek

Yurt! wrote: »

I remember seeing a great doc on TG4 years back about an Aboriginal community in Western Australia. Was very sad, rampant alcoholism and child neglect. There was a community shuttle bus that dropped them home from the bars in town to make sure they wouldn't go walkabout while drunk and come to harm. Really one of the most f*cked over people in the process of colonialism, their traditional society collapsed in the face of ethnic cleansing, and couldn't handle the modernity that Europeans brought with them.

Pretty much the only way out of the poverty trap is education (which very few of them access), or sport which they are incredibly genetically gifted for, but too many can't stay away from the grog or huffing paint to succeed.

Yeah it's very sad to see; to give the Aussies their due their attitude nowadays is much more progressive but the damage seems almost irreversible.

You can understand why places like Bhutan chose to modernise on their own terms given how corrosive many aspects of modernity can be to cultures that haven't managed to develop coping mechanisms to manage those aspects (of course they had that choice whereas the Aboriginals didn't).

If anyone saw that film Mystery Road on Film4 last night it portrayed modern Aboriginals quite well.

StewartGriffin

This thread was really interesting, I learned a lot from the intellectual debate and little known facts posted by some well learned historians. But then "Just a little Samba" came and tweaked those historians ego's, and it all collapsed into a regular AH bitch-fest.

Bit of a lesson for us all here.

You might have the best minds in history gathered at a table, but if someone gets upset, it denigrates into chimps throwing their own poo very quickly.

jmayo

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

No, they're not.

They're the indigenous Australians, had their lands taken off them by the settlers.

AFAIK they believe no one ever owned the land.

unkel wrote: »

Perhaps not the most sophisticated or intelligent race on the planet but what would you do when a foreign power dumps thousands of convicted criminals in your land who end up taking over the place? They got a very, very bad deal to put it mildly

They happened to run into the might of the british empire.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They had the whole continent to themselves for thousands of years and did nothing with it. They didn't develop any technology, any means of defending themselves properly, didn't develop a state, any political system, any intelligentsia, any education system or architecture. They basically had only themselves to blame when people from more developed came in and took the continent and made Australia the country that it is today.

Actually that very point got me thinking whilst in Uluru.
They now make a few dollars from tourists but they had to wait around 1000s of years to do so.
Why didn't they just up sticks and move somewhere with more favourable conditions.

I have two theories and I am still not sure which one is more correct.
Either they are
a) lazy feckless eejits who couldn't care less or
b) they have figured out what is the point of running around like ants when you are going to croak someday anyway.

Now saying that ....
They were hunter gatherers and thus they never had the chance to spend time developing.
Look at any hunter gatherer people and they have not developed.
Agriculture is what allowed other peoples to develop states, technology, political system, etc, etc
Also being fair they were at a big disadvantage with the cards they were dealt.
For a start what animals did they have to work with ?
A wild dog, wombats, kanagaroos, emus, spaced out koalas, crocs and lots of very venemous snakes.
Good luck catching, taming and breeding the above to start a farm.

Maybe one of them thought about crocodile farming, but after losing his mates and his hands thought it time to shelve the idea.
Maybe some of them captured kangaroos, but got the shyte kicked out of them so gave up on it.

Really when you look at it they had the poorest raw materials to start with.

pmy.murphy

stevestevenson wrote: »

Key difference being though, that the Aboriginals are an indigenous group who had all they had taken from them by settlers (invaders), whereas Travellers have actually chosen their way of life, and with all the (usually self-imposed) problems that will inherently bring.

But apart from that they're exactly the same :rolleyes:

Well if your literacy skills were any way good you would have noticed in that statement of mine that I used the word "their" from the present tense. I didnt say anything about confiscated lands or whether their lifestyle was chosen or anything like that. I was talking about the present time and how abos share a lot of similarites today with travellers today in that they are a marginalised community by society, have their own unique culture, and many suffer with poverty and poor living conditions. Maybe inform yourself a bit better before you comment next time

Xeyn

jmayo wrote: »

Actually that very point got me thinking whilst in Uluru
I have two theories and I am still not sure which one is more correct.
Either they are
a) lazy feckless eejits who couldn't care less or
b) they have figured out what is the point of running around like ants when you are going to croak someday anyway.

Neither. Where they moved to and lived was deeply rooted in their spiritual upbringing. It had nothing to do with laziness or apathy.

Tombi!

Lads, again, knock it off with the use of the slur "abo".
Cards are being handed out from now on

BlaasForRafa

Just a little Samba wrote: »

In fairess he lives in a country invented in the 40's which illegally occupies the land of it's neighbours, destroys poples homes and moves in settlers from Russia and the US and thinks this is perfectly ok because "it was just desert before we got here".
It kind of fits his narrative.

What country would that be then?

Boskowski

Wtf? But god forbid some football fan shouts something at someone in a Paris Metro. How is this thread still open? This is a disgrace.

Just a little Samba

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

What country would that be then?

From your posts in the autumn I got the impression you either live in or have lived in Israel.
If I'm wrong, oh well.

BlaasForRafa

Just a little Samba wrote: »

From your posts in the autumn I got the impression you either live in or have lived in Israel.
If I'm wrong, oh well.

You know what they say about assumptions.

Just a little Samba

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You know what they say about assumptions.

Impression, not assumption. But hey, no blood no foul?

RDM_83 again

Yurt! wrote: »

Pretty much the only way out of the poverty trap is education (which very few of them access), or sport which they are incredibly genetically gifted for, but too many can't stay away from the grog or huffing paint to succeed.

They have a lot of resources/funds available to pursue education apparently just the other stuff means its not taken up.

Was chatting with an australian guy about aboriginals recently, left wing liberal guy who had lived in areas with quiet a few aboriginals and was friends with a few his take on it was.

Either they have to go back to traditional lifestyle or they have to integrate more, being half way between the two and taking the worst of both cultures doesn't work.

He also made the point that they had a tiny population even before the arrival of colonists, this wasn't a like South America which had a fairly dense population pre-colonization.
As well as this, the population was very fragmented and remains so to this day.

What happened in the past and the crimes committed against them are important but when you have stuff like prostituting their own kids for petrol, and apparently truly massive rates of sexual violence you can't just dismiss it by saying its because Whitey took their land.

The anthropology thing is interesting personally I think they would have eventually been decimated by a Polynesian group if Europeans hadn't turned up Maori settlement only occurred aprox 300-400 years before the arrival of the first Europeans.
If I really wanted to stir up sh:t, I would ask the question, is 50,000 years long enough for Allopatric Speciation to begin occurring in Homo Sapiens Sapiens then we could see some proper mod warnings!

hellas

Does no one else find it ridiculous that "abo" is an insult? it's just aboriginal shortened.

Boring username

hellas wrote: »

Does no one else find it ridiculous that "abo" is an insult? it's just aboriginal shortened.

That's what I thought. No different to 'Brit', or 'Dub'.

Tombi!

Same way in how some words are used. Homo is a short form of homosexual but I'm sure we all know how people use it. I've seen far more people use both words as slurs that I've seen them used as just a short version

CruelCoin

Boring username wrote: »

That's what I thought. No different to 'Brit', or 'Dub'.

Try shortening Nigerian, and have it not be insulting.

Abo is definitely insulting to them.

Wibbs

RDM_83 again wrote: »

If I really wanted to stir up sh:t, I would ask the question, is 50,000 years long enough for Allopatric Speciation to begin occurring in Homo Sapiens Sapiens then we could see some proper mod warnings!

It would be long enough for sub sub speciation*, if they were sufficiently isolated, but it seems there were a couple of migration events. EG the one that later brought the dingo. Interestingly the very earliest native Australians at around 40,000 ago have fewer primitive features than ones that show up 10,000 years ago. The earliest modern humans to reach Oz are also genetically unrelated to current populations so there is all sorts of complexity going on. Modern Native Australians have a slightly smaller brain case than other populations, they also have larger teeth and more prominent brow ridges. Against that, brain case size isn't everything and has been in fact shrinking in humans worldwide over the last 20,000 years(if they were "primitive" humans they more likely have larger brains) and their other features could just be local adaptations or just genetic quirks.

It would be my humble that Native Australians would be echoes of the first modern humans out of Africa. Those that first migrated along the coasts spreading out that way, with later human migrations going more inland(where they would meet previous "archaic" humans). like Andaman islanders and other so callled "negritos" found on islands in isolated pockets along the coasts of Asia. The Andaman folks look like Africans and their genetics show a deep history to that origin. They also show a xenophobia and a strong not invented here mindset. New ideas and the like freak them out and they will sometimes react violently to them. Weird factoid; they can't make fire. They can store embers from previous fires/lightning strikes but making it, nope. They didn't have the dog either before foreigners showed up, but funny enough aren't afraid of them and take to them with affection and curiosity. But again it's complex and "oh sure they're just primitive versions of humans" isn't close to the story. They have not pottery today but excavations have shown they did have 2000 years ago, primitive though it may have been. Something drove this avoidance of new ideas and things. Maybe something as simple as exploitation by foreign sailers over the centuries? Its also possible that the isolation and local pressures selected for xenophobia and avoidance of new ideas.





*speciation is a hard one. I mean Neandertals were considered a separate sub species but we had viable young with them. Ditto for other archaic humans.