New Zealand may get referendum on changes to their democracy.

[soylentgreen]

You care a lot about desert farm land and blaming white people about stuff...

No I care more about removing the myths colonialists created to justify there attempted genocides of natives.

 

[Ug make hammer]

In this case it is not the science that is the problem. It is the fact that the colonialists tried to pretend that the english style of farming is the only style. Hence large areas of land considered non arable weas the same land the natives farmed.

How strange that they would die of vitamin deficiency on the same food that the natives live quite well on.

Trade with other tribes ("nations") probably widened their diet. Surviving in arid land (let alone desert) requires a lot of traditional skills, but still I maintain that it's possible desert Aborigines were at the end phase of a lifestyle which was not sustainable. Invasion by other Aborigines (displaced by Europeans) would even further damage their viability. The ultimate cause is European settlement/invasion, but Aboriginal displacement is likely a vector. Loss of trade, plus internal migration.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You care a lot about desert farm land and blaming white people about stuff...

Easy for a New Zealander to say. Have you noticed the large number of Americans here, who absolutely do blame "white people" for the destruction of Native American civilization?

Ranked by Native rights, it's:

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. Canada
4. United States

Check your privilege.

 

[Bodi]

Easy for a New Zealander to say. Have you noticed the large number of Americans here,

Where? The USA?

who absolutely do blame "white people" for the destruction of Native American civilization?

That is because white people are to blame...

Ranked by Native rights, it's:

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. Canada
4. United States

Check your privilege.

What privilege?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

But apparently not one worth discussing on this site.

I don't know dick about Kiwi polly ticks. I just hope and pray they continue to build and strengthen their democracy and I'll continue to follow them as they progress.
They seem to have done a good job fighting the pandemic, that's for sure.

 

[soylentgreen]

Trade with other tribes ("nations") probably widened their diet. Surviving in arid land (let alone desert) requires a lot of traditional skills, but still I maintain that it's possible desert Aborigines were at the end phase of a lifestyle which was not sustainable. Invasion by other Aborigines (displaced by Europeans) would even further damage their viability. The ultimate cause is European settlement/invasion, but Aboriginal displacement is likely a vector. Loss of trade, plus internal migration.

You have got to be kidding with that white man bullshit.

They did not live in arid land. They tracked through it as they are nomadic but the main living was always along coastal areas where food was abundant. They also had very little in the way of arid land. It is only because europeans thought of australia as they did europe that europeans considered it arid land.

They were also in australia for an estimated 50,000 years without any problem surviving and would have continued along quite well until the europeans showed up.

Your opinion here is based entirely on the myth of white man superiority rather than any real understanding of aboriginals.

Yours is a typical response to what was one of the most primitive of tribes in existence. The Tasmanian aborigines did not know how to make fire and used only a few more tools than did your average ape. They were the most primitive of primitive man still in existence. . Not that they are any more as the whites did eventually manage to kill them all off.

The loss for aboriginals was that the europeans did not and still do not consider them as humans.

 

[Bodi]

You have got to be kidding with that white man bullshit.

More racism... not unexpected.

They did not live in arid land. They tracked through it as they are nomadic but the main living was always along coastal areas where food was abundant. They also had very little in the way of arid land. It is only because europeans thought of australia as they did europe that europeans considered it arid land.

Naw... if there were not aborigines in the desert then how did then ever know about Uluru, for instance?

 

[soylentgreen]

More racism... not unexpected.

Naw... if there were not aborigines in the desert then how did then ever know about Uluru, for instance?

Aborigines are nomadic. They walk all over australia and pass through many parts of the inland deserts. It is only that modern aboriginals are confined to the desert areas now because as any map of australia will show you the colonialists took all the coastal land for themselves. Aboriginals would walk from one end of australia to another. Although they lived with small independent family tribes they often would have children from differing tribes they passed in their walk abouts.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Where? The USA?

This forum.

That is because white people are to blame...

What privilege?

White people are less to blame in New Zealand, than they are in the US. That's actually a kind of privilege since not one of us can change history.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You have got to be kidding with that white man bullshit.

They did not live in arid land. They tracked through it as they are nomadic but the main living was always along coastal areas where food was abundant. They also had very little in the way of arid land. It is only because europeans thought of australia as they did europe that europeans considered it arid land.

Arid land refers to the amount of rainfall. It's not a subjective thing as you seem to think. Even with aboriginal skills it has very limited "carrying capacity" hence as you note, there were far more aboriginals living near the coast and on land with better rainfall.

They were also in australia for an estimated 50,000 years without any problem surviving and would have continued along quite well until the europeans showed up.

Your opinion here is based entirely on the myth of white man superiority rather than any real understanding of aboriginals.

And your opinion seems to be based on personal animus.

Yours is a typical response to what was one of the most primitive of tribes in existence. The Tasmanian aborigines did not know how to make fire and used only a few more tools than did your average ape. They were the most primitive of primitive man still in existence. . Not that they are any more as the whites did eventually manage to kill them all off.

The loss for aboriginals was that the europeans did not and still do not consider them as humans.

It could be just as well explained as Europeans not recognizing use of land as equivalent to European ownership of land. Asserting ownership of land and animals led to conflict but really would it have been any better if the Europeans had hunted game to extinction, like they almost did to bison in the US?

 

[soylentgreen]

Arid land refers to the amount of rainfall. It's not a subjective thing as you seem to think. Even with aboriginal skills it has very limited "carrying capacity" hence as you note, there were far more aboriginals living near the coast and on land with better rainfall.

Living yes, But not as in settled. They were known to be able to walk through some of the driest parts of inland australia. Much of what is called arid is influenced by western standards of land sustainability.

Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world; 70% of it is either arid or semi arid land. The arid zone is defined as areas which receive an average rainfall of 250mm or less. The semi arid zone is defined as areas which receive an average rainfall between 250-350mm.

Where as the aboriginal farmed most of australia.
https://www.integratesustainability.com.au/2019/08/07/australias-hidden-agricultural-legacy/

There is also evidence that Aboriginal people were among the worlds first bakers. Grindstones, used to grind seeds and grain to create flours, have been found and dated at up to 30,000 years old. It is estimated that aboriginal grain fields were grown in dry climates across a large portion of Australia, far exceeding our modern-day grain-belt regions [8].

And your opinion seems to be based on personal animus.

Dispelling some of the myths about aboriginals is not animus.

It could be just as well explained as Europeans not recognizing use of land as equivalent to European ownership of land. Asserting ownership of land and animals led to conflict but really would it have been any better if the Europeans had hunted game to extinction, like they almost did to bison in the US?

The europeans tried to hunt the aborigines as if they were game and to extinction. A big fail as they only caught two people. In tasmania called the black line. but in the end they did kill every last tasmanian aborigine.
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/the-black-line

Australia was more the other way around. What game there was was not considered fit for human consumption and native animals that were killed in australia was usually done for pet food. That has changed somewhat with gourmet cooking. It was the introduction of sheep and cattle and that the aboriginals had a different view on property when it came to having a feed. To which the colonialists responded in the same way they would repsond to any animal that attacks one of their sheep.

 

[Bodi]

This forum.



White people are less to blame in New Zealand, than they are in the US. That's actually a kind of privilege since not one of us can change history.

Really though, it is "white people back then" that are to blame... white privilege is a social construct and largely bogus. Economic privilege is real... and it does not benefit any one race and hurt others... and Native Americans and Maori were attacking and committing genocide and slavery against each other before they ever met a white person.

 

[Bodi]

Aborigines are nomadic. They walk all over australia and pass through many parts of the inland deserts. It is only that modern aboriginals are confined to the desert areas now because as any map of australia will show you the colonialists took all the coastal land for themselves. Aboriginals would walk from one end of australia to another. Although they lived with small independent family tribes they often would have children from differing tribes they passed in their walk abouts.

You ignored the point. No an uncommon tactic for dishonest debaters ...

 

[soylentgreen]

You ignored the point. No an uncommon tactic for dishonest debaters ...

What point. That you thought the aborigines lived in the desert.

Point out what point I missed.

 

[Peter]

Does Australia have desert?
I thought it was just dry scrubland rather than actual pure desert.