| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The British in Tasmania.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


The British in Tasmania.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 12:39


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 No they're not. Once upon a time in some parts of the continent yes, ok, but modern day no, Blacks don't necessarily have black skin (nor whites white).

 

Yes, the skin color differs among Australian aboriginals depending (among other things) how much mixed they are. And concerning Africans they can also be everything from light brown to nearly black. The same with Afro Americans.

 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 And let me just point out if you were to say that from an Australian university position, even if you were speaking strictly historically (because people are over-emotional sometimes), there would be a lot of pressure to have you fired. Skin colour was the basis of the stolen generation, so linking skin colour to aboriginality is an extremely emotional issue.

 

Still the original Australian aborigines where darker in their skin tone than the typical British. To deny differencies in looks and skin color is hypocritical and it can not hide the bad conduct of early British settlers anyway. Skin color is in itself neutral, it is only when racist notions come into the picture that it becomes something loaded and emotional.


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 I don't think that's really true. The Africans that accompanied the first fleet were never confused with Aboriginies by whites or blacks.

 

Maybe not confused, but many of the British had not always much higher regard for aborigines than for Africans. And also in Tasmania and other parts of Oceania indigenous persons where abducted and used as slaves, or at least were forced to work in slave like circumstances.


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 Only by racists who can't say Aboriginal or Orang Asli.

In older language the term Austral negroes was not uncommon. Today it is ofcourse another matter.


Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 Before the 1860s it would be unheard of in educated circles to suggest that Aboriginies were intellectually or genetically inferior to English. Culturally and Technologically yes, that was said, but the goal was always to educate them and make them upstanding British subjects.

Unfortunately it was not always the educated that interacted with the aboriginal peoples.

 
And some racial categories and assignment of different characteristics due to these categories did actually exist in educated circles too. Already a scientific giant as Linné did group people according to racial traits.


Edited by Carcharodon - 27 Mar 2012 at 12:56
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2012 at 02:06
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
Do not forget that even your beloved Spaniards discussed if Native Americans where humans or not.


Indeed. But Spaniards were the FIRST Europeans that recogned they were human beings, at the time of Las Casas!
Spanish also recognized blacks and asians were human beings, long time before the rest of the colonial poweres did.
 
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

...
Also remember that also old Linné himself talked about different taxa or categories of human beings. And according to him these categories had different characteristics and properties. Some of these human creatures he even called monstrosa.


As far as I know Linné wasn't Spanish but Swedish, like yourself. Wink


Edited by pinguin - 28 Mar 2012 at 02:06
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Mar 2012 at 09:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

As far as I know Linné wasn't Spanish but Swedish, like yourself. Wink
 
Yes, but his teachings did have a great influence also in other countries. At least in England which my post referred to.


Edited by Carcharodon - 28 Mar 2012 at 09:16
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Feb 2014 at 02:36
I'm Tasmanian, and have read these types of allegations time and again over the decades. I agree with Constantines original comments.

But, yes, the English colonialists did kill many Aborigines, deliberately by gunfire etc. and innocently by the importation of diseases to which the Aborigines had no tolerance-such as measles.

Yes, some Aborigines, including women, were taken prisoner to work on whaling ships. But no, there wasn't any institutionalised slavery.

Yes, the British took the Aboriginal land for themselves.

The fact is it was the British colonialist government behind the round up of Aborigines and their banishment to Bass Strait Islands.

As a Tasmanian, I have no sense of guilt over what was done over 200 years ago, but I do empathise with those who do.

The Tasmanian Aboriginal language and culture is lost, no matter what their modern day descendants will say. And there is no living Tasmanian Aboriginal either, only people of very diluted and mixed race.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 May 2014 at 20:35
Who are you? I thought you said you were Japanese? Big smile
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 03:38
Are there mixed descendants of Tasmanians? That's new for me.
In any case, in here in Chile, in Land of Fire something similar happened with the natives. There were few natives with a very simple society. The Chilean and Argentinean governments had the brilliant idea of importing Europeans and giving them lands in those austral regions. And happened exactly the same: natives were hunted like animals, exported to France to be exhibit like animals in human zoos, killed with diseases and alcohol, etc. In the only a few mixed descendants survived.
Shame!!

A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 05:16
He's Japanese.  He said that even though he would defend Australia to the death he's actually Japanese.

Big smile

Quote
For myself, I have Irish ancestry, of which I'm very proud, and European ancestry also. But my ancient paternal ancestry is Japanese, I can't explain that.
 
I prefer to call myself Australian, if need be, I would fight for my countrys freedom and the upholding of its cultural values, but I'm not blind to the failings in the Australian makeup. There are faults in all people and these have to be understood, and overcome without resorting to blatant boasts of the prowess of one or the other ethnicity, and even violence.





Edited by literaryClarity - 15 May 2014 at 05:23
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 07:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Are there mixed descendants of Tasmanians? That's new for me.
In any case, in here in Chile, in Land of Fire something similar happened with the natives. There were few natives with a very simple society. The Chilean and Argentinean governments had the brilliant idea of importing Europeans and giving them lands in those austral regions. And happened exactly the same: natives were hunted like animals, exported to France to be exhibit like animals in human zoos, killed with diseases and alcohol, etc. In the only a few mixed descendants survived.
Shame!!

 
 
Yes, the people in Tasmania in modern days, who claim Aboriginality, are in fact the results of European and Aboriginal admixture, with very little trace of the Aboriginal phenotypes remaining. They are more like Europeans to look at.
 
In fact, from appearance alone, it's usually impossible to identify a Tasmanian Aboriginal descendant.
 
As for LC, ignore his garbage, he doesn't read posts properly, what I said was that my ancient history is genetically linked to the Japanese Ainu people. Phenotypically, I'm a European, pale skin, blue eyes and brown hair. I have no Asian features at all.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 08:15
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

He's Japanese.  He said that even though he would defend Australia to the death he's actually Japanese.

Big smile

Quote
For myself, I have Irish ancestry, of which I'm very proud, and European ancestry also. But my ancient paternal ancestry is Japanese, I can't explain that.
 
I prefer to call myself Australian, if need be, I would fight for my countrys freedom and the upholding of its cultural values, but I'm not blind to the failings in the Australian makeup. There are faults in all people and these have to be understood, and overcome without resorting to blatant boasts of the prowess of one or the other ethnicity, and even violence.



 
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
— ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
 
Read the post.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 May 2014 at 08:31
Now I know why you say Chinese civilization came from the Cumans lol.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2014 at 05:48
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
 
Yes, the people in Tasmania in modern days, who claim Aboriginality, are in fact the results of European and Aboriginal admixture, with very little trace of the Aboriginal phenotypes remaining. They are more like Europeans to look at.
 
In fact, from appearance alone, it's usually impossible to identify a Tasmanian Aboriginal descendant.
 
As for LC, ignore his garbage, he doesn't read posts properly, what I said was that my ancient history is genetically linked to the Japanese Ainu people. Phenotypically, I'm a European, pale skin, blue eyes and brown hair. I have no Asian features at all.
 
 


Well. I know that Europeans have some Asian input. There are so many Germans and Scandinavians with a bit of Chinese facial features, that I wonder why nobody else notice it. There are even some British natives that resemble our local natives Wink
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2014 at 07:25
Yes, in modern days, there are so many different admixtures world wide and I guess that will increase as years go by.
 
But what does it matter what a persons ancestry is, it's the person who counts not his origins, hey amigo?


Edited by toyomotor - 16 May 2014 at 07:27
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2014 at 07:36
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Well. I know that Europeans have some Asian input. There are so many Germans and Scandinavians with a bit of Chinese facial features, that I wonder why nobody else notice it. There are even some British natives that resemble our local natives Wink


I noticed too when I saw Ivanhoe.  The women have more of that feature than the men I think.


Edited by literaryClarity - 16 May 2014 at 07:36
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2014 at 11:08
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:




I noticed too when I saw Ivanhoe.  The women have more of that feature than the men I think.
 
Yes, a modern TV program would accurately show a persons ancient ethnicity.Dead
 
And this has what to do with the British in Tasmania in the early 1800's?
 
The OP has already been discredited by another member, who is correct in what he writes.
 
Btw, the Australian Aborigines are Austronesian, or if you like Australoid, not Asian, nor do they have any Asian admixture!
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 16 May 2014 at 11:14
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2014 at 14:32
Ivanhoe certainly used a cast which reflected the traits of the people back in England/France/Germany etc.  I wouldn't be surprised if they actually had background ancestry of the very characters which they depicted.

Austronesian peoples are defined by their linguistic expansion thanks to their matrilines. Austronesia/Oceania and Austrailia are not the same territories nor have the same peoples.

This is just more of the same lumping together you've yourself have done which went to say the first Chinese were black Africans or white Cuman so that you get to render "effect" on something which did not require it in the first place.


Edited by literaryClarity - 16 May 2014 at 14:37
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 May 2014 at 03:15
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Ivanhoe certainly used a cast which reflected the traits of the people back in England/France/Germany etc.  I wouldn't be surprised if they actually had background ancestry of the very characters which they depicted.
 
Are you serious?

Quote Austronesian peoples are defined by their linguistic expansion thanks to their matrilines.
 
Rubbish!! There are Austronesian people all along the OoA migration route.
 
 
Quote Austronesia/Oceania and Austrailia are not the same territories nor have the same peoples.
 
For once that's correct.

Quote This is just more of the same lumping together you've yourself have done which went to say the first Chinese were black Africans or white Cuman so that you get to render "effect" on something which did not require it in the first place.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about. Do some research and you may, just may, obtain some understanding of ancient history.Thumbs Down
 
 And this has what to do with the British in Tasmania in the early 1800's?


Edited by toyomotor - 17 May 2014 at 03:17
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2014 at 10:02
I was showing how the person was incorrect.  He used "lumping" methodology and disregarded why those two populations are different.  Australoid is not Austronesian because they represent two significantly different linguistic groupings by accounts of geographic location, ecological differences, cultural differences, and civilizational differences, etc.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2014 at 12:50
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I was showing how the person was incorrect.  He used "lumping" methodology and disregarded why those two populations are different.  Australoid is not Austronesian because they represent two significantly different linguistic groupings by accounts of geographic location, ecological differences, cultural differences, and civilizational differences, etc.
 
But it wasn't always so.
 
Do you think that the Australoids, or more properly the people who became the Australoids, were all of different cultures?
 
I'd like to see some scientific evidence of that.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2014 at 13:12
From Wiki:
 
 
Quote The Australoid race is a broad racial classification. The concept originated with a typological method of racial classification.[1][2][3] They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of the Veddoid race of South Asia (including the eponymous Vedda people autochthonous to Sri Lanka) and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of the Melanesian and Negrito groups.

According to this model of classification, Australoid peoples ranged throughout Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Guinea, Melanesia, the Andaman Islands, the Indian subcontinent, as well as parts of the Middle East. In the mid-twentieth century, a separate argument emerged that Australoids were linked to Proto-Caucasoids.

In the Out of Africa theory, the ancestors of the Australoids, the Proto-Australoids, are thought to have been the first branch off from the Proto-Capoids to migrate from Africa about 60,000 BCE, migrating along the now submerged continental shelf of the northern shore of the Indian Ocean and reaching Australia about 50,000 BCE. This ostensible Proto-Australoid–Proto-Capoid link, however, has been contested.

Skulls of individuals with Australoid morphologies have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent.[13][14][15] If this hypothesis is correct, it would mean that some Proto-Australoids continued the Great Coastal Migration beyond Southeast Asia along the continental shelf north in East Asia and across the Bering land bridge, reaching the Americas about 52,000 BCE.
 
And yes, I was wrong to group Austronesian, the language, with Australoids, the people.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2014 at 13:15
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

Australoid is not Austronesian because they represent two significantly different linguistic groupings by accounts of geographic location, ecological differences, cultural differences, and civilizational differences, etc.
 
 
You are quite correct, my error.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2014 at 14:30
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Skulls of individuals with Australoid morphologies have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent.[13][14][15] If this hypothesis is correct, it would mean that some Proto-Australoids continued the Great Coastal Migration beyond Southeast Asia along the continental shelf north in East Asia and across the Bering land bridge, reaching the Americas about 52,000 BCE.

That idea was debunked this week. The so called "Australoids" in the Americas are genetically Beringians and related to modern Native Americans and Siberians, as it should be. Wink
A point of view from the antipodes
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2014 at 00:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Skulls of individuals with Australoid morphologies have been found in the Americas, leading to speculation that peoples with phenotypical similarities to modern Australoids may have been the earliest occupants of the continent.[13][14][15] If this hypothesis is correct, it would mean that some Proto-Australoids continued the Great Coastal Migration beyond Southeast Asia along the continental shelf north in East Asia and across the Bering land bridge, reaching the Americas about 52,000 BCE.

That idea was debunked this week. The so called "Australoids" in the Americas are genetically Beringians and related to modern Native Americans and Siberians, as it should be. Wink
 
So God's in his heaven and all's well with the world.Wink
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2014 at 10:52
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I was showing how the person was incorrect.  He used "lumping" methodology and disregarded why those two populations are different.  Australoid is not Austronesian because they represent two significantly different linguistic groupings by accounts of geographic location, ecological differences, cultural differences, and civilizational differences, etc.
 
But it wasn't always so.
 
Do you think that the Australoids, or more properly the people who became the Australoids, were all of different cultures?
 
I'd like to see some scientific evidence of that.
 
 

Tasmanian Aborigines were quite distinct from Mainland Aborigines and it has been suggested they migrated to Australia in a earlier wave of migration.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jun 2014 at 11:35
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

I was showing how the person was incorrect.  He used "lumping" methodology and disregarded why those two populations are different.  Australoid is not Austronesian because they represent two significantly different linguistic groupings by accounts of geographic location, ecological differences, cultural differences, and civilizational differences, etc.
 
But it wasn't always so.
 
Do you think that the Australoids, or more properly the people who became the Australoids, were all of different cultures?
 
I'd like to see some scientific evidence of that.
 
 

Tasmanian Aborigines were quite distinct from Mainland Aborigines and it has been suggested they migrated to Australia in a earlier wave of migration.
 
Yes, there were differences between the Tasmanian and the Mainland Aborigines.
 
I think it's fair to say that the Tasmanian Aborigines were more "primitive" than their mainland cousins.
 
I think it's also fair to suggest that the Tasmanian Aborigines were part of perhaps the first wave of migrants to arrive in Australia from the Out of Africa Coastal Migration.
 
There have been recent reports suggestive of the fact that the Aborigines may have arrived as long ago as 130,000 years ago.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2014 at 19:45
There is no basis for saying the Tazmanian aborigines are more primitive than other peoples.  They may lack in native civilization and have imported their civilization from the English but they are not more primitive in any sense.  The out of Africa migrations in which you speak do not differentiate between modern humans since as recent as more than 100 thousand years ago.  Bipedal humans have been evolving upright since 5 or 6 million years ago. If humans have remained biped in all that time how much can humans have possibly changed?
http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4478
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 04:21
Originally posted by literaryClarity literaryClarity wrote:

There is no basis for saying the Tazmanian aborigines are more primitive than other peoples.  They may lack in native civilization and have imported their civilization from the English but they are not more primitive in any sense.  The out of Africa migrations in which you speak do not differentiate between modern humans since as recent as more than 100 thousand years ago.  Bipedal humans have been evolving upright since 5 or 6 million years ago. If humans have remained biped in all that time how much can humans have possibly changed?
 
Tasmanian Aborigines, and Australian Aborigines in general were, prior to white settlement among the most primitive in the world. FACT.
 
Scientist have suggested that, as the result of DNA studies, anthromorphology studies and so on, that the Australian Aborigines were probably part of the first migration OoA. FACT.
 
And as for
Quote Bipedal humans have been evolving upright since 5 or 6 million years ago. If humans have remained biped in all that time how much can humans have possibly changed?
 
You obviously need to do a lot more reading.
 
If you intend to troll this thread as you have others, I will simply refuse to recognise you.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
literaryClarity View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 02 May 2014
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote literaryClarity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2014 at 17:33
No I think it is you who had been trolling.  I noticed you keep referring to the notion of some embryonic determinism that somehow different embryos would eventually succumb to their biological predetermined state as though it mattered in the course of cultural evolution.  I suggest you read up more on how and why civilization first occurred in different parts of the world and not others.

http://www.academia.edu/397378/Primary_and_Secondary_States_in_Perspective_An_Integrated_Approach_to_State_Formation_in_the_Prehistoric_Aegean


http://hwyst.hangzhou.com.cn/wmyzh/content/2013-10/09/content_4920423.htm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.111 seconds.