🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 29 May 1997 17:30:09 GMT, stanr@melbpc.org.au (Stan Rosenthal)
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 May 1997 03:44:17 GMT, brindley@cheerful.com (David
>Brindley) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 May 1997 07:58:08 -0700, Geoff Pike <gpike@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>There was no aboriginal civilisation. Simply ekeing out an existence
>>as stoneage hunter/gatherers does not make a civilisation, no matter
>>how many years it lasted.
>>
>>By definition, a civilisation needs complex cultural, political and
>>legal structures, highly developed material resources, and cities.
>
>Whose definition is that? My Shorter Oxford does not mention cities at
>all, nor highly developed material resources - but what would it know?
>
Then get a new dictionary. try looking up the etymology of
civilisation / civil.

>As for complex cultural, political and legal structures - they were
>all present in aboriginal society.
>

>>These were not in evidence in aboriginal communities in 1788.
>
>Not in evidence because the observers lacked the discernment to
>distinguish them.
>
Ah! but now we can discern that?

>>As to living in harmony with the environment, are you aware that it
>>was the use of fire by aborigines that destroyed Australia's great
>>forests and turned much of the land into desert? This is fact.
>
>And your evidence for this is what? I haven't notice much rain west of
>the Divide to , say, coastal WA and NT. Did they do that too?
>
>>Can you prove there was no loss of fauna? Who wiped out the giant
>>kangaroos and wombats. And someone must have killed all those etcs.
>
>Can you prove that there was? I think it is accepted that there was
>some loss of species. Haven't heard of the "etcs" before though. Any
>further info on them?  :-)
>
Sorry, you will have to ask pike for that data.

>>Yes, on the scale of civilisation, the aborigine circa 1788 was at the
>>very lowest part of the scale.
>
>As you would be on a scale I designed. Who designed the scale you
>refer to and what are its criteria. Do those criteria appropriately
>evaluate what is actually present in tribal aboriginal society or do
>they merely measure the extent of European-style development?
>
>>They had no writing; no agriculture; no animal husbandry; no
>>technolgy; no cohesive social systems outside the tribe; no knowledge
>>of the wider world (your big picture, I believe); no foreign
>>relations; no science; no permanent settlements.
>
>When I was in Queensland a couple of years ago, I was shown some
>berries which were bush tucker. They had to be dried and ground up
>into a paste, which then had to be cooked in the fire of a particular
>species of tree which burned at a higher temperature than any of the
>other species. If other wood was used, consuming that food sent you
>blind because the toxins within would not be destroyed.
>
So in 40,000 years they learned how to cook a few berries. A fairly
long time for trial and error to suceed I would think.

>Aboriginal tribes had customs and taboos which were enforceable
>through sanctions including exile and death - a legal system in other
>words; they had special knowledge and initiation which was held by the
>elders and passed on; they had rule by the elders - a political
>system; they had inter-tribal trading which spanned huge distances
>(see Blainey's The Triumph of the Nomads); they understood how to find
>food where none was apparent to the European eye; ...
>
So have other tribes throughout history, but the fact remains that
other tribes progressed. The aborigines stagnated in a stone age
backwater. That cannot be denied.

>They were civilised - it just was not a European civilisation.
>
Refer to definition of civilsed I offered. they were not civilised -
they were a scattered collection of nomadic tribes.

A pair of simple questions for you:

If the aborigines were so advanced:-

1. What would have been their fate if white civilisation had not
arrived in 1788?

2. Name 10 contributions to technological advancment made by
aborigines prior to 1788.

><snip>
>>
>>Chookas
>>--
>>
>>David
>>
>>Cogito ergo sum.  uumh I think?
>>
>>--
>
>Stan Rosenthal