Indigenous Sovereignty Demands

[red750]

Then what do you call "going walkabout"?

[facthunter]

Nothing to do with Nomadic  if I read it correctly. Nomads travel in "sufficient" sized groups and armed to do "raids" to get what they need. Nev

[nomadpete]

The Cambridge dictionary does not mention 'raids'.

 

 

"a member of a group of people who move from one place to another rather than living in one place all of the time: "

 

So, despite it hijacking my monika, nomadic describes the early  Australian indigenous peoples.

[onetrack]

Quote

Why would people who take only enough to not kill plants not encourage their growth in other ways?

Simply because they lacked knowledge of what was required for promoting plant growth. They usually understood that they had to limit the level of stripping a food plant supply, to allow it to recover - but that was about as far as they went.

 

I can recall in a story about Harold Lasseter, how the native tribe that picked him up made their way to their favourite yam patch, to harvest more yams after their last digging of the patch - but the expected yam growth was not there, largely due to seasonal conditions - but also because the natives had done nothing to promote yam growth, just expecting them to appear naturally.

 

As a result, the tribe had no food and they abandoned a sick and weakened Lasseter, because they saw him as an unnecessary burden on them, consuming meagre food supplies, and doing nothing towards helping the tribe survive.

[facthunter]

pete the tribes don't migrate. They have 'their" land and occasionally have stoushes with those next door.  They have strict rules who they should breed with to prevent inbreeding.  Nev

[spacesailor]

The land of the " Grey Nomads " .

A liking for the greener pastures over the next hill .

spacesailor 

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

Simply because they lacked knowledge of what was required for promoting plant growth. They usually understood that they had to limit the level of stripping a food plant supply, to allow it to recover - but that was about as far as they went.

This myth has been debunked many times. The methods were not European, but they actively promoted plant supply rather than purely relying on what mother nature did herself: https://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/stories/australian-agricultural-and-rural-life/life-land#:~:text=Indigenous methods of agriculture%2C horticulture,plants and to facilitate hunting.

 

 

Edited August 20 by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

pete the tribes don't migrate. They have 'their" land and occasionally have stoushes with those next door.  They have strict rules who they should breed with to prevent inbreeding.  Nev

Quote right. Look up Aboriginal kinship, moiety, and totems, and it will reveal an complex social structure taking into account even foods that were to be protected by one mob (what people refer to as tribes) but could be eaten by another mob to ensure balance. In many ways, it is, as a social construct, more advanced than European and Asian hierarchies and well suited to life and environment at the time.

 

Arguably it could avoid the pitfalls of our modern society, too

[onetrack]

Jerry, there's a major distinction between an agrarian society and a hunter-gatherer society - as the Aborigines were and are. One can easily make it look like the Aborigines were agrarian, by extrapolating some crude efforts at harvesting and replenshing naturally-growing plants.

 

But the true definition of an agrarian society is that they cultivate plants and crops to produce FOOD SURPLUSES, to either store for future use, or to trade. The Aborigines did nothing like this - they had, and still have, no thought for tomorrow and little forward planning skills.

 

My Father worked with "bush" Aboriginals on a Station N of Meekatharra, W.A. in the 1930's. This was the era when the tribes were still mostly uneducated, largely nomadic (going "walkabout" on regular occasions), camping in multiple places on the stations with the station owners tacit acceptance of their lifestyle, and with the station owners occasionally requesting if any of the Aborigines wanted some mustering work (on horseback) for a supply of tea and flour and sugar. 

There would usually be a few Aboriginal blokes volunteer for some mustering work, but they were largely unreliable due to the Aborigines idea of urgency being different to white peoples idea of urgency.

 

The Aborigines on the stations in this era still largely lived on a diet of "bush tucker" (Kangaroos, Wallabies, Goannas, bush plant foods, etc) - and Dad often related how the whites would get a laugh out of the Aborigines stuffing themselves with any recently caught tucker - such as a Wallaby - even to the point of the blokes getting a gin to stand on their stomach, to force more wallaby in!

 

So they'd end up completely bloated with the food (because it was there, and it all had to be eaten now, otherwise it would spoil) - and then they'd lay around under the shade of the trees and bushes for several days, doing very little - until hunger drove them to go look for more food!

 

Dark Emu is largely a crock of sh**, and Pascoe tries to extrapolate a large number of Aboriginal food scenarios, into agrarian scenes, that don't fit the true story.

 

https://www.dark-emu-exposed.org/home/ancient-australians-the-worlds-first-9p2h6-hmgfm#:~:text=We would argue%2C because Aborigines,in Australia by the colonialists.

[facthunter]

The ones who have had a lot of contact with us are not suitable samples to base absolute conclusions on particularly when  definitions are couched in OUR terms.   They don't pollute their environment because without it they perish... They  did get seeds etc which could last when dried and that gave them more mobility if water was available on the way. Over the 50-60,ooo years they were her there were many changes they went through to the geography of the Land requiring that  they adapt.. Adapting to US has not been too good for them. Things are worse now than when I was young. Nev

Edited August 20 by facthunter
typo

[old man emu]

Where I grew up, on the southern shores of Botany Bay, in Dharawal country, the country seemed to be divided up into family areas, very similar to how we say we live on our place and our next-door neighbours live on theirs, but we chat over the back fence. I grew up on the country of the Gweagal clan. Although the area was completely Europenianised when I was born, there was still enough bush and water frontage to see that everyone had enough to survive. 

 

Here are the seasons according to Dharawal culture. https://foodfairnessillawarra.org.au/dharawal-seasons-and-cycles/

 

You can see that they relate to various food sources, and as such would require moving around their country from source to source, but the distances involved would be less that twenty kilometres east to west. Obviously, those living west of the Great Divide to the Indian Ocean would have greater distances to cross as food sources became less lush. So is a people nomadic simply because they move from place to place within "their" block of land throughout the year? 

 

And isn't "walkabout" really an expression for moving away from the normal areas the people inhabit to go to places where they practice the rituals of their spiritual and secular lives such as initiations?

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

So is a people nomadic simply because they move from place to place within "their" block of land throughout the year? 

There is that point, but at the same time there is the issue of 'songlines' which is the use of song to teach and recall the navigation information essential to travel great distances beyond the tribal back fence - across neighbouring territories, and informing where to find water and food along the way. Nomadic?

 

Separately from the wandering, I  question the liklihood of propagating crops when travelling on foot, limited to what each member can carry. A handful of seeds is unlikely to get far.

 

If it was done, wouldn't we find the same common food plants around every waterhole and other suitable patch?

[old man emu]

12 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

information essential to travel great distances beyond the tribal back fence

Think about that in terms of our European ancestors, and even our contemporaries. How many people lived their whole lives within 5 miles (8 kms) of the place in which they were born? That's how dialect develop and we acknowledge that there are about 250 indigenous language groups, not to mention local dialects.

[nomadpete]

12 hours ago, old man emu said:

Think about that in terms of our European ancestors, and even our contemporaries. How many people lived their whole lives within 5 miles (8 kms) of the place in which they were born? That's how dialect develop and we acknowledge that there are about 250 indigenous language groups, not to mention local dialects.

Europeans have not had to follow seasonal food routes for many thousans of years. Basically since they developed animal husbandy and farming. So not a fair comparison.

 

I have to agree about the many Australian indigenous languages. It pretty much proves that there was actually not much interaction between tribal groups.

 

However, such details as language, travel habits, and food sources really are a sideline when it comes to the topic of 'sovereignty '

[facthunter]

They carried the seeds for their own nutrition enabling safer travel over longer distances where waterholes water is assured. Nev

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

They carried the seeds for their own nutrition enabling safer travel over longer distances where waterholes water is assured. Nev

Is there evidence of grain carrying backpacks?

 

Dilly bags were not large, and water containers were not common.

 

When you are walking any distance with limited carrying capacity, there are problems after you are already carrying infants, digging sticks, woomeras, boomerangs, spears, nulla nullas, goods to trade, seeds to plant, etc.

[facthunter]

Plenty of animal skins to use for such items. After 1,000's of years they'd adapt to what they have as all other tribes in such circumstances do..   What you need to survive on would certainly be prioritised .  Nev

[nomadpete]

Is there verified history of Australian indigenous tanning hides? Or wearing warm fur skin coats in the freezing desert nights?

Are there eatly pictures of them carrying a lot in their hands?

[willedoo]

https://taungurung.com.au/possum-cloak/

[onetrack]

Pete - Yes. Not so much amongst the desert Aborigines, AFAIK. But the Southern tribes in the wetter regions, made and wore, animal skin cloaks.

 

https://www.nationalquiltregister.org.au/quilts/kangaroo-skin-cloak/

[facthunter]

They are far from uniform. Where you lived dictated HOW you lived. There's "salt water" people.as an example. They could'nt UNDERSTAND others Lingo  and that's still the case. Nev

[nomadpete]

13 hours ago, onetrack said:

Pete - Yes. Not so much amongst the desert Aborigines, AFAIK. But the Southern tribes in the wetter regions, made and wore, animal skin cloaks.

 

https://www.nationalquiltregister.org.au/quilts/kangaroo-skin-cloak/

Thanks. As you know, deserts are regularly brlow zero degrees. I don't get an impression that it was very common, otherwise I  would see historic paintings and early records of lots of clothed people.

Any idea what they traditionally used for tanning and softening hides?

 

I am just trying to work out how much of the modern narrative is a case of cherry picking, done to suit the polarised narratives on both sides.

Edited August 22 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

Probably Wattle Bark or such. You could ask the same question of all indigenous people. The ALL used animal skins for warmth and covering Canoes and making shelters..  Nev

[red750]

Urine can do magic for tanning leather. Indeed, the ancients used pee to remove hair and flesh from animal hides and to soften them.

[old man emu]

5 minutes ago, red750 said:

the ancients used pee to remove hair

Does that mean if you suffer from incontinence, you'll go bald below?