False Recognition

[Outlaw Yogi]

I will be registering to vote soon. I may or may not cast a vote for a candidate, but will vote in the coming referendum.

False Recognition

Some time during the last ice age, between 100,000 and 30,000 years ago, the first Homo sapiens walked to Australia.
Most likely along the sea shores, which were upto 120 metres lower that they are today. These people were relatively
unevolved Homo Sapiens. We only know of their existence because of the Lake Mungo skull found in Western NSW.
This skull has a small brain cavity, indicating a low intellectual and creative capacity.

The next group of people to migrate to Australia came prior to 10,000 years ago, before the last Neanderthals died
out in Spain. They were small in stature and were technologically inferior to Neanderthals. They had throwing spears
unlike the stabbing spears used by Neanderthals, but unlike Neanderthals, could not light a fire. We knew these people
as Tasmanian Aboriginals. Around 7,000 years ago the Earth must have been subject to intense seismic activity, causing
most of the land bridges around the planet to collapse. Malta was separated from Europe, Sri Lanka separated from India,
and Tasmania separated from Australia.

Between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago some of the indigenous people of India, now refered to as Dalits or Untouchables,
migrated to Australia. These people were modern Homo Sapiens, technologically superior to Neanderthals. They could
light a fire by drilling a hard wood stick into a piece of soft wood, rather than the Neanderthal method of striking
pieces of black Chert (Flint). They had Woomeras, giving their throwing spears further range and increased velocity.
They had domesticated the Asiatic Wolf aka Indian Wild Dog aka Dingo, which they brought with them to Australia. And
used fire farming to create grazing areas from rain forest jungles to attract and multiply grass eating animals.
These are the people we know as Aboriginal or Indigenous Australians, and who refer to them selves as Koori, Murri or Noonga.
They took the continent from the prior inhabitants and their Dingos wiped out the Thylacine/Tasmanian Tiger/Marsupial dog
and Tasmanian Devil from mainland Australia.

During the 18th century British Caucasians arrived in wooden sailing vessels known as the First Fleet. Technologically
superior to the Aboriginals, they had muskets, swords, metal tools, literacy and numeracy, seed for growing food crops
and an array of domesticated animals, such as pigs, goats and horses. They took the land from the then current inhabitants
over a period of about a century, and over time created a Nation of States bound in common via a document known as the
Australian Constitution.

Now in the 21st century some the descendants of those who came from India between 5,000 and 4,000 years ago want the
Australian Constitution altered to declare them as "The First Australians". If these people were asking that the
Australian Constitution refered to them as "Prior Occupants/Inhabitants/Residents" I would support their request at
referendum. But as they are asking we give them recognition for something completely false according to both genetic
and paleontological evidence I will oppose the 'Recognise' campaign to alter our constitution.

My advice to Misha Schubert, Recognise's communications director and those involved or supporting this campaign is,
altering our constitution usually fails, and the only chance of success is to change the claim from 'First Australians' to
"Prior Occupants/Inhabitants/Residents".

NB: Anyone dismissing this as a racist rant should consider that my forster brother Eddie is Koori, Adopted sister Monique
is Korean, my first girl friend Angela is half Indian half Fijian, and my last defacto partner Sandy is Murri (Wakka Wakka).
And would point out that misrepresenting yourself gives others permission to do the same.

[Rorschach]

Yeah I'll be voting against changes to the Constitution too....
aborigines are already recognised in it... they are called Australians.

[freediver]

Interesting point. Not sure I agree about the historical info.

[Aussie]

Interesting point. Not sure I agree about the historical info.

What is far more interesting is that Bambi has no idea what the Referendum question will be, yet he has spent all that effort (containing fact or fiction matters not) telling himself why he will register to vote, 'No.'

....they are asking we give them recognition for something completely false according to both genetic
and paleontological evidence I will oppose the 'Recognise' campaign to alter our constitution.

[AiA in Atlanta]

The same argument could be made in the U.K.: thousands of years ago there was a land bridge connecting what is now known as England, Scotland and Wales to the European mainland. A dusky, dark-haired people related genetically to the Berbers in North Africa and the Basques of Northern Spain crossed over and settled. When the land bridge was swept away these people lived in isolation for several thousands of years before one wave after another of newcomers came by boats, pushing these original inhabitants further and further to the west and north and in the process obliterating any trace of their language and culture. Today traces of these original inhabitants can be found in Wales and Scotland. If the U.K. were to adopt a constitution there would be hysterical laughter if they were to be declared "First Britons."

[freediver]

It does all seem a bit backwards-looking to me. I think it is dangerous to put anything in the constitution that has no practical purpose in defining how the country is run.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Yeah I'll be voting against changes to the Constitution too....

Considering the time frame and typical mindset of the population then, it's a rather well written and set out document.
So adding fairy tales to it would just reduce its quality, and once the rot sets in, it wouldn't take much to convert it to toilet paper.

Interesting point. Not sure I agree about the historical info.

Got a better account of the history? If so, feel free to display it, so it can be debated.

What is far more interesting is that Bambi has no idea what the Referendum question will be,

Really? .. I thought it was common knowledge .. that certain characters, like Noel Pearson for example, want the Australian Constitution altered to state that Kooris, Murris and Noongas were 'the First Australians'. So obviously the question is 'should Aboriginals be refered to as the first Australians in the Australian Constitution?'

The same argument could be made in the U.K.: thousands of years ago there was a land bridge connecting what is now known as England, Scotland and Wales to the European mainland. A dusky, dark-haired people related genetically to the Berbers in North Africa and the Basques of Northern Spain crossed over and settled.

Correct. These short people were called 'Danans' (pronounced day-nans) .. a lot of them still live in Scotland today.

It does all seem a bit backwards-looking to me. I think it is dangerous to put anything in the constitution that has no practical purpose in defining how the country is run.

Fair point. Personally I think its just a political scam to make certain ignorant people feel good about themselves for no good reason.

Like I previously stated, if they changed the wording to a legitimate claim, I'd have no problem with it and support it.