|
|
Post by vincent on Mar 11, 2017 4:21:57 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Mar 12, 2017 10:04:28 GMT 10
Good catch.
There's a body of literature about the settlement of Sahul from years before that particular paper. The gist is that Oz was colonised in multiple waves going back to 50,000 ya but there is little or no remaining genetic trace of the original settlers. The most recent wave came from India - presumably the others did too. Anyway it's the most recent arrivals circa 3000 - 1500 years ago who are the forebears of today's Australian aboriginal people.
That paper and another one from about two years ago seem to represent efforts by Australia's urban "white aboriginal" lobby to rewrite history and to engineer the science to suit their agenda.
I'll put up some cites when get around to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bozos_all_around on Mar 12, 2017 10:55:00 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Mar 12, 2017 11:02:09 GMT 10
Care to expand on this:
"That paper and another one from about two years ago seem to represent efforts by Australia's urban "white aboriginal" lobby to rewrite history and to engineer the science to suit their agenda.
Clown... Sure. "Troublemakers get banned." We are NOT a democracy.  |
|
|
|
Post by dennisw on Mar 13, 2017 10:54:11 GMT 10
I always cringe a little at that "white aboriginal" term; my grandson is much lighter colour than his father but darker than his Jewish Grandfather and way darker than his blue eyed blonde haired grandmother (although she has a lot of silver among the gold and dislikes my summary - depreciation). He looks white except when he goes swimming with the kids from school they are white and he is a light caramel which just looks like a really nice suntan. He is a great kid but many of these terms are troublesome because he cops it from bigots of all colours fortunately they are not the majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Mar 17, 2017 5:50:28 GMT 10
I always cringe a little at that "white aboriginal" term; my grandson is much lighter colour than his father but darker than his Jewish Grandfather and way darker than his blue eyed blonde haired grandmother (although she has a lot of silver among the gold and dislikes my summary - depreciation). He looks white except when he goes swimming with the kids from school they are white and he is a light caramel which just looks like a really nice suntan. He is a great kid but many of these terms are troublesome because he cops it from bigots of all colours fortunately they are not the majority. Know where you're coming from Dennis. My answer is, there's plenty of non-aboriginal brownies around and no one should act apologetic for who they are. Take it up to the b*stards. "Wabo" usually means a white person pretending to be of "aboriginal heritage" & claiming to "speak" on behalf of real aboriginals. Phoneys all of them. What annoys ordinary Aussies is, it's gone political among under employed urban latte sippers and anti-Australian university greens-lefty set. They agitate for special treatment, their avowed aim is to break up the Australian Commonwealth and they carry on lawfare against anyone who says anything. Take a look at pictures of some of them at Andrew Bolt's show-trial. Aboriginal??
The White Aborigines Trial
quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/11/the-white-aborigines-trial/In recent years they've started turning out fake "science" papers in order to quash the long established fact that Australian aboriginal people came from India not very long ago. Some of them even go around doctoring rock art to "improve" the narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Mar 24, 2017 20:00:48 GMT 10
Sure. "Troublemakers get banned." We are NOT a democracy.
Anyway, banning an IP address is about as clever as the trump-wad.
You've never heard of TOR, obviously - Clown! :-)Oh ho. A smart*rse are we? Try it now, you putz. And yeah, Tor's my default browser .. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Mar 24, 2017 20:06:48 GMT 10
Y'know, people, I really don't encourage political slanging matches around here. Lots bother in times past from PC retards like "Freddo the F*ckwit", here. Politics is mainly for FB, these days. So look Fred, if you fancy your chances on FB, go ahead. I been running short of victims, lately ... |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Thomas on Mar 24, 2017 20:55:21 GMT 10
Ok, seeing as this topic attracted some attention , let's be serious, sober and scientific.
The settlement of Sahul was a complex process, in no way the simple abos-got-here-first-and-"own"-Australia mantra, as demanded by agenda pedlars of the Left.
DNA sequencing first showed that the 'aboriginal' population of Australia, as in the ones encountered by Captain Cook in 1770 in fact originate from India and not very long ago ... a mere 3000 years. Or considering the error estimates, as little as 1600 years ago. That'd be around the time the western Roman Empire was going under. On the other hand, could be as long ago as 5000 years. But 3000 years seems most likely because that's the time dingos arrived in Sahul and dingos are the West Asian 'Pariah dog'. West Asia as in the Indian sub-continent. Can hardly be a coincidence*?
* Pariah dogs
|
|
