Talk:Indigenous Australians/Archive 1

message: How come no mention of the 1967 Referendum?-Daeron 03:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Was that when Aborigines were finally granted citizenship? Something about that certainly needs to be added (and possibly also to the constitutional and political articles on Australia as well). Lisiate 21:15, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1967 Referendum

message: I wish this article would say more about what Aboriginal culture was like pre-colonisation, and less about what it isn't like. I don't want to hear that this stereotype is only correct in 70% of cases, or that stereotype is wrong, I just want a detailed description of their way of life. The article seems to be attempting to deny that they nomadic or primitive, as if being nomadic or primitive is somehow bad. In particular:
Despite their reputation as stone-age relics, there is evidence of substantial change in Aboriginal culture over time.
Not all readers of this article know about their reputation, and even fewer care for references to it, especially when it's phrased in such a demeaning way. What is a stone-age culture anyway? What sort of stone-age culture was it, if that's what it was? 
Lifestyles varied a great deal, and the stereotyped image of a proud and naked hunter standing one-legged in the red sand of the central Australian desert cannot be applied across the board.
I'm not here to read about stereotypes. Did they hunt or didn't they?
The 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the pre-colonisation section give the impression that nothing is known for certain about these people. That may be true, but if anything is known, I'd like to read about it, preferably before I read about the bits that aren't known. 
-- Tim Starling 06:01, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
They were hunter gatherers with most of their dietary intake coming from insects and small bush animals.  Whilst heavy research was thrown into their history in the early years of federation, especially, most of the last two decades has been spent tearing down the 'stereotypes' that that research put forwards and done very little into investigating further their lifestyle and history.
The history of aboriginal culture is forced upon all high school students in Australia, it is a compulsory topic, which I, as a student, found to be obnoxiously full of propaganda and not an inkling of facts on their lifestyle or actual history.  That vexed me beyond belief, more time was spent demonising white settlers than actualy telling us about the people themselves.
I do concur that more details should be put into defining them than defining what they are not.
Jachin 22:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I have a 1971 book which says that "The present theory" is a Three Wave Aboriginal colonisation theory. Tasmanoids (Negroid stock) arrived, then Murrayians who drove the Tasmanianoids off teh mainland, and settled in E/SE Australia, and then the Australoids, of more Caucasian origins (from Indian subcontinent) who "never penetrated south of the tropics". This replaced the old theory of Two waves, first negroids, then Caucasians.
Incidentally their date of initial colonisation is 20,000 or more years go (I guess 50,000 is "more").
It also mentions a theory that Tasmanoids never actually reached the mainland (because no archeaologic/palentologic evidence suggests this).
Anyone know what present theory is? Because the article seems to suggest a single wave of origin.--ZayZayEM 03:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting from "Gagudgu Man", by Bill Neidjie, JB Books 2002 - "The occupation of Australia by humans probably began as long as 65,000 years ago when, during a period of low sea level, a small group of coastal people made a ... voyage across the final gap separating this land from the Indonesian lowlands. ... It is most likely the Ancestor Aboriginals arrived at a time when a glacial period was in full swing. The sea level had dropped some 100 metres. The last time the levels were as low as that was between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago. However, at that time people were grinding their tools near the caverns by the East Alligator [River]... and Aborigines had been camping at Lake Mungo for at least 3000 and more years. The low sea level previous to the last was between 50,000 and 55,000 years ago. That then is a likely arrival period." 
Edit:Re-reading the above I note this does not clarify whether there were two "waves" or one. It may be that this recent low level they speak of may have brought more people from the Indonesian area. As archaeological evidence is sketchy for anything other than determining if people were present or absent at a time, I would suggest looking for a Dreaming that talks of new arrivals. Many Dreamings have accurately told of events happening more than 10,000 years ago, and later confirmed by methods of science. --Batronibat 03:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aboriginal Colonisation

message: As I have seen the image of the elderly gentleman featured on this page (image "Aborigene23323.jpg") on postcards and the like, I am removing it from the page as it is no doubt copyright.  If someone can show that it is not copyright, then feel free to return it to the page.  --Roisterer 01:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Image

message: The second para says that Torres Strait Islanders are '... culturally and linguistically distinct from Aboriginal peoples'. This is only half correct. There are, linguistically, two main groups in the Torres Straits: in the west there live speakers of an Australian language (one name for which is Kala Lagaw Ya), a member of the Pama-Nyungan family (the family of languages which covers most of Australia's mainland); in the east are speakers of a Papuan language called Meriam Mer (there are various spellings). The former group have close linguistic ties with 'Aboriginal people' while the latter have close linguistic ties with the Papuan people of the nearby coast of PNG.
A bit further down it is said that there were about 200 languages. Actually, it is generally accepted that there were more like 250, or even more.
Dougg 05:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: I've just reverted an anonymous edit which added that Aboriginal participation in serious crime is higher than the total population. I would like to see a sentence like that substantiated before being in the article. While I believe Aborigines may be over-represented in jails, I don't think it's due to serious crimes. Anyone with references? --ScottDavis 00:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation in crime? 

message: Is someone going to add discussion on the problems with Aboriginal society in Australia, ie: high rates of incarceration, alcoholism, petrol sniffing, high illiteracy, high unemployment - or is the bleeding-heart viewpoint only allowed to be presented to the world at large? (I haven't created an account yet, but plan on doing so)
:Wiipedia as a campaign platform for One Nation propaganda? Expect strong NPOV opposition and subsequent failure. (Unsigned, I don't need my talk page to get spammed by Nazis).
How is truth and facts propaganda?  Just look at the recent attention in the media (as of 12th August) of the petrol sniffing problem in Alice Springs?  All the problems I mentioned above, the stats which are way higher than mainstream Australia, ie: health, education, employment, crime, alcoholism, petrol sniffing, etc... How is that propaganda?  Please don't let your ideology bury your head in the sand and neglect the sad state of affairs that Aboriginal Australia is in.  The world at large should know the plight that these people face, rather than the bleeding heart, social-engineer, do-gooder view.  Face reality.
:Go ahead.--Ezeu 00:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Aboriginal Society 

message: There are 400,000 blacks in Australia and 300,000 have been assimlated - no connection to traditonal ways. Zero. Most are now of mixed decent and 69% are either living with or married to an non-aborignal.
Where is this information in the article?
Where does it say that aborignality as we now it has no future?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.88.184 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 August 2005.
:This is an encyclopædia. We document fact, not speculate - especially not on the basis of POV, as you seem to be proposing.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a white Australian with no connection to traditional white ways (serfdom and subsistence farming). What's your point? --Scott Davis Talk 12:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rants

message: Hottentot posed the question (in his edit summary) of why Koori and Yamaji were not wikilinks. Presumably the answer was that there aren't articles for them. Koori is a blue link, but it's a redirect back to this page. Does anybody know enough to write more than the one-sentence stub I could on Koori, and stop it being a redirect? --Scott Davis Talk 11:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Created Koori stub. --Ezeu 22:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Koori]] redirects to [[Australian Aborigine]] 

message: I read somewhere that it has been proposed that Australian Aborigines may have some genetic admixture of Homo Erectus. This would have putatively come from some residual population in Indonesia or Australia encountereed by the modern Homo Sapiens during their migration to the area. This is prompted in part by some physionomic characteristics of many aborigines (brow ridgs, large teeth, etc.) which more resemble archaic hominids and are different than the aborigines proposed ancestral populations in South India and Indonesia. I know this is the area of the world that homo erectus would likely have survived the longest on account of its archipelago geography (the "Hobit" miniaturized variant recently discovered supports this). Does anyone have any information on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.166.238.6 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 September 2005.
:All Homo sapiens would be an 'admixture' of H.erectus. Your ideas would presuppose the existence of pure bred H.sapiens which is genetically impossible. All this talk belongs in a discussion on greyhound breeding-not people. When man arrived on the Aust. continent he was one of us. Personally I believe that the 'business suit' is evidence of genetic degradation-but I have no evidence Eric A. Warbuton 03:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homo Erectus