Bruce Tuncks Posted March 27 Posted March 27 No I don't nev.... why is the camel called "the ship of the desert?". Remember I'm slow.
facthunter Posted March 28 Posted March 28 Getting back to the Sovereign demands,.. Expecting a Herc to land there in risky circumstances and whisk them all away to safety seems a bit over the top. They certainly are big on expectations. What would they have done about 250 years ago You can't honestly cherry pick these thigs without some reality being part of the discussion. The MacArthur River is so polluted you can't fish in it. that's a bit of the other side of the story. Nev
old man emu Posted March 28 Posted March 28 A bridge too far? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13216819/Toobeah-Queensland-Battle-ramps-claims-95-cent-small-town-transferred-local-Indigenous-body.html 1
willedoo Posted March 28 Posted March 28 42 minutes ago, old man emu said: A bridge too far? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13216819/Toobeah-Queensland-Battle-ramps-claims-95-cent-small-town-transferred-local-Indigenous-body.html I had a job one harvest season carting grain into the silos at Toobeah from Lundavra in a Road Commander. It was a nice truck except the 250 Cummins engine was way too small. It was a White but it was red, so it was a red White. 1
facthunter Posted March 28 Posted March 28 IF Matt Canavan is involved I turn OFF, But the idea of a wholesale hand over is Not Gonna cut it. Nev 1
onetrack Posted April 6 Posted April 6 And where did the American Indians immigrate from? And who did they displace?
nomadpete Posted April 7 Posted April 7 1 hour ago, facthunter said: You're says that.. Nev Y'all just sayin that
old man emu Posted April 7 Posted April 7 On 06/04/2024 at 9:58 PM, onetrack said: And where did the American Indians immigrate from? And who did they displace? The common theory is that they crossed from Asia during the latter part of the last Ice Age when sea levels had dropped where the Bering Strait now exists. Then they spread across North America into South America where they displaced humans who it has recently been discovered share some genetic markers with Australian Aborigines. 1 1
Bruce Tuncks Posted June 26 Posted June 26 In spent most of my life repeating the story about the local abos being the second wave and that they killed off the first wave except for tasmania. Alas, I no longer think this is accurate, but I still have hopes.
old man emu Posted June 26 Posted June 26 50 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said: I no longer think this is accurate I think it is still not determined. Some present day clans say that some very old carvings are not part of their culture but belong to the "Old Ones". Given our knowledge of the spread of humans through Europe and Asia, it is only logical that settlement was in waves. We even see it in Eurasian settlement of Australia to this day. 2 1
Bruce Tuncks Posted June 27 Posted June 27 Thx for that, OME. I do not have the faith in oral traditions that you may have, but I still like the idea that the local aborigines we see around today were not really the first to colonise Australia. Why should it matter at all? Well for one thing, it would expose the "first nations " crap for what it is, which is a lie. Not that we should need any more evidence than we have already... the whites were first seen as potential allies against the real enemy, which was the tribe that lived next door. Invasion day!! What nonsense... we have first-hand documents showing how the abos collecting oysters didn't even look up to see the first fleet arriving... some invasion huh. 1 1
Bruce Tuncks Posted June 27 Posted June 27 Ever had dinner on the "Buffalo" replica? One of the wall-hangings was a copy of the proclamation which started South Australia. It plainly says how the abos were subjects of the king just like the rest of us, and how they were not to be despoiled. I'm quite proud of being South Australian. 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 8 Posted August 8 (edited) On 26/06/2024 at 2:47 AM, old man emu said: I think it is still not determined. Some present day clans say that some very old carvings are not part of their culture but belong to the "Old Ones". Given our knowledge of the spread of humans through Europe and Asia, it is only logical that settlement was in waves. We even see it in Eurasian settlement of Australia to this day. Is it the only logical explanation? Or maybe there was a war between a couple of First Nations' countries and the spoils went one way? Having said that, it would be illogical to think during the ice age or land bridge, a buch of people walked to Australia in one massive migration. It wouls make sense the migration was in waves, and it would make sense that there may have been some more migration over the years - esp fron Indonesia and Papua. But does this nullify the claim of first nations people being first nations people? On 27/06/2024 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Tuncks said: but I still like the idea that the local aborigines we see around today were not really the first to colonise Australia. Why should it matter at all? Well for one thing, it would expose the "first nations " crap for what it is, which is a lie. What? That is like saying all kids of the Greek, Italian, and others that settled after WWII aren't somehow Australian - not like the descendents of the first fleet. Almost every inhabited land mass that is accessible has had migration, but it does not detract from the overall claim to that land at the time of an invasion to disposess people of that land.. Or am I missing something? In other words, should Australia be taken over by NZ, it is OK to give up the property of all but the descendants of the first fleet as only the first fleet were the very first wave of migration. Does that really make sense to you? On 27/06/2024 at 10:55 AM, Bruce Tuncks said: Invasion day!! What nonsense... we have first-hand documents showing how the abos collecting oysters didn't even look up to see the first fleet arriving... some invasion huh. In what way is it nonsesne? There are many definitions of invasion in terms of humans invading lands of other humans - but an invasion does not need to be military driven. It is generally an act of entering by force into anothers domain, and often with an intention if subjugating or disposessing the existing population. How was the first fleet and subsequent actions to claim land and colonise without consent nor acquiescence, be achoieved in those days by anything other than an invasion? Maybe you want to take your argument to the High Court that has recognised as much in the Mabo cases - and they tend not to be woke or unecessarily oblighe themselves to solve complex legal matters that arise from acknoweldging the truth. On 27/06/2024 at 11:10 AM, Bruce Tuncks said: One of the wall-hangings was a copy of the proclamation which started South Australia. It plainly says how the abos were subjects of the king just like the rest of us, and how they were not to be despoiled Every colony proclaimed exactly the same thing. And under who's authority? Was it a legal authority, even at the time? Whether it was honoured or not is well and truly up for debate. Let me see, I don't recall white king's subjects being held liable for such massacres, and I don't recall black kings subjkects being allowed to massacre whites or blacks . Admittedly, there weren't a lot of massacres in SA, and compared to others, I guess it is a good news story: https://c21ch.newcastle.edu.au/colonialmassacres/map.php I really think you should bone up on the real history and not what was taught in schools - at least in our day. The invasion was, and is probably still not technically illegal - neither Putin nor Netanyahu are being pursued for invasion.. But the High Court of Australia found in 1992 that the settlement (colonisation) of Australia was illegal at the time as it was based on an objectively knowingly false declaration of terra nullius. This meant that, in accordance with the European laws at the time, the land was actually taken by conquest and that does not make the First Nations peoples automatically subjects of the king until a treaty is agreed, and that treaty, under law at the time, would have had to take into account both the land rights and laws of the native population. This is not as per modern times, but even required back then. You may be proud of the fact that SA (and the rest of Australia) treated them as kings subjects, but I am not; Because, in reality, it disposessed them of land and culture - a c. 60,000 year old culture with much stronger community ties than I have seen either in Australian modern society or other places I have been. And while we may argue cultures are just beliefs and norms, tell that to the current middle east people, and look at the effect it has had on the world.. I suggest you watch the First Australians, especially Episode 4: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=first+australians+episode This series touches the iceberg - you may just have a more fuller view of First Nations peoples. Edited August 8 by Jerry_Atrick 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 8 Posted August 8 Here is something else for you... another death knell in the theory of terra nullius:
gareth lacey Posted August 8 Posted August 8 1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said: Here is something else for you... another death knell in the theory of terra nullius: I would not belueve anything this guy puts out he has been found to be a fraud and not any indigenous in his family line another one who has his snout in the indigenous gravy train,no wvidence just fanciful stories 2
Jerry_Atrick Posted August 8 Posted August 8 (edited) Maybe, but while I found debate over the extent of Aboriginal agriculture, apart from what seemed more radical sites, there seems to be acceptance there was Aboriginal agriculture before Europeans arrived, including from the University of Sydney.. https://www.sydney.edu.au/science/our-research/research-areas/life-and-environmental-sciences/indigenous-grasslands-grain.html (Unless universities no longer rely on evidence) As I recall they also invented the world's first aerofoil Edited August 8 by Jerry_Atrick 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now