When in Rome, do as the Roman's do?

[Raven]

In 60 short years they nearly eradicated the culture of the people who were here first.

That's the problem with you lefty destroyers of civilisation .. you deliberately ignore and distort history.
The people who were here first were long gone tens of thousands of years ago.

Actually it was Raven

Perhaps what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander.

Unless you're a self loathing left wing hypocrite who always point the finger at others as a distraction from their parasitic victim entitlement syndrome.

I notice all eight people who have voted "yes" to "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" have studiously avoided this point. Fit in or fuck off not applicable to whitey huh?

No, the "Fit in or fuck off" mantra is the typical mind set of vegetarian communists these days.
I'm a white mongrel made up of 5 different nationalities, and when you commies' desired fall of civilisation comes I'll be able to hunt you with pig dogs.
[/quote]

[Raven]

In 60 short years they nearly eradicated the culture of the people who were here first.

That's the problem with you lefty destroyers of civilisation .. you deliberately ignore and distort history.
The people who were here first were long gone tens of thousands of years ago.

Actually it was Raven who made that post. Are you perhaps referring to Mungo Man?

There have been a handful of anthropologists who have argued that Aboriginal people were not the first Australians, but the way science proceeds is that ideas are constantly questioned, tested and replaced.

Some researchers once argued that there may have been three separate population migrations into Australia. Later, other researchers argued there were two. More recently, researchers have assessed the earlier work and argued there was only one source population of all known skeletal remains in Australia.

Famously, one early study compared Australian remains to very early ones from Java but as more remains were uncovered, and as methods for comparison improved, that claim was dismissed and is no longer held by most people working in the field.

As for Mungo Man the DNA analysis suggesting another argument for a pre-Aboriginal population are not widely accepted in the anthropological community, and not even really debated any more. The 2001 DNA study was a very early attempt to extract DNA from an ancient skeleton in conditions that could be expected to be very bad for the survival of ancient DNA. Subsequent studies demonstrated that the DNA signature was most likely contamination from the scientists that handled the fossil remains.

Perhaps what is good for the goose is indeed good for the gander.

Unless you're a self loathing left wing hypocrite who always point the finger at others as a distraction from their parasitic victim entitlement.

Or you are incapable of presenting an actual argument and as such attack limply in order to cover your inability.

[Raven]

Whoops accidentally hit the button halfway through Raven's reply

[mellie]

My autistic daqughter's pediatrician advised there's an environmental aspect (parents who grew up near industrial sites) and possible link to fraternal age. Ie old sperm.


Either way it's still very much a puzzle.

I think it's an evolutionary thing... these kids are often quite bright.

We really don't know.

Different but not less.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Raven, Nicole ... everybody.
If I've misquoted Raven for Nicole, my apologies Nicole ... although without going back to confirm who stated what I suspect Raven is mistaken.

Yes Raven I was referring to Mungo woman (it's a female skull).
Accurate dating can't be done because all the strontium has been leached out by the (Mungo) lake, but is known to be 30,000 years old at a minimum.
This skull is from a very primitive human. Far more primitive than Australian Aboriginals, who are technically modern humans.

10 or more years ago now German geneticists proved beyond all doubt the Indian Dalit (Untouchables) [indigenous Indians] and the Australian Aboriginal are genetically identical, and the Indian wild dog is genetically identical to the Australian Dingo.

Even anthropological experts admit Aboriginal language changed dramatically between 5000 and 4000 years ago.
It is well known paleontological fact that the Dingo came to Australia between 5000 and 4000 years ago and wiped out the Thylacine (Taz tiger) and Tasmanian Devils on the mainland.

The people who crossed the land bridge between Tasmania and the mainland did so prior to 7000 years ago before all the great land bridges around the world collapsed and/or were submerged. These people had short stabbing spears like Neanderthals but could not light a fire like Neanderthals.
The modern Aboriginal on the mainland had long throwing spears aided by woomeras, and conducted fire farming.

So for modern humans to claim they were the "First Australians" invites derogatory terms like 'Mungo monkey'.
Or should we give 3rd place getters gold medals at the Olympics?

[Outlaw Yogi]

OK, checked .. Raven's correct ... I misquoted.

I noticed Nicole banging on about Catp Cook knowing OZ was inhabited ... Well yes, and he was under orders to attempt to communicate with any inhabitants and if possible do a deal with them. Cook's journal states they made attempts but were rebuffed, and on one occasion shot 2 belligerents.

On a later page I noticed Nicole state "We don't have to treat them like shit".
Well, generally we don't. Generally we give them a living, and if they act like shit, we think of them as shit ... but that goes for pretty much anybody ... like brian's precious muslims for example.

Sure our forebears destroyed their way of life, but that's been the never ending history of the world. Now China's working at destroying our way of life, and if we let them, they will. And I don't think the Han Chinese will give the Aboriginals any freebies or victim entitlements.