Skip to comments.
Evidence of pre-Aboriginal Australians?
The Times Online ^
| July 26, 2006
Posted on 08/01/2006 12:39:42 PM PDT by chichilarue
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
I have **** the sentence I think is the most outrageous portion. See the PC establishment go to the length of blotting out the history of an ancient society just so they can continue having something to feel guilty about. In Australia, the Aborigines are a protected class and no criticism of their absolute justice will be tolerated; it is literally against the religion of th e land to question the sob-story of Western oppression of Australia. The apparent Aboriginal genocide and attempt to obliterate the evidence for the previous inhabitants of Australia goes unspoken.
To: chichilarue
These things?
2
posted on
08/01/2006 12:43:40 PM PDT
by
humblegunner
(If you're gonna die, die with your boots on.)
To: chichilarue
Bradshaw art
3
posted on
08/01/2006 12:51:15 PM PDT
by
fishtank
To: humblegunner
mmmmm, yes but there are other prettier ones, I just don't know how to post them.
Their quality is not the point.
To: humblegunner
5
posted on
08/01/2006 12:52:48 PM PDT
by
fishtank
To: chichilarue
For similar controversies in North American history, look up Kenniwick Man or the theory that Clovis technology traces to Solutrean technology. Both of these topics point to "others" being here before the Indians. But we can't have any careless talk like that!
The Indian is the perfect victim; an image that gets a tad tarnished if they are just another bunch of invaders like the rest of us. As the perfect victims, living in harmony with nature and all the furry, woodland creatures and all that, Indians are darlings of the American Left and their culture of victimhood. And since victim status determines how much gubmint cheese your group gets, Indian leaders are careful to suppress any talk of "others" being on the continent first. I suspect that they pass out the cheese on the same basis in Oz. If that's so, then it's understandable that the Aborigines want to cover up any evidence of prior inhabitants.
6
posted on
08/01/2006 12:55:37 PM PDT
by
Redcloak
(Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
To: Redcloak
I'm totally with you on the reasons behind the cover-up, but I was no aware of the Clovis/Solutrean thing, that's really amazing. There's no talk about it...and as for Kennewick man, that too, I didn't know enough about it so I didn't suspect sininster motives. My favorite argument is that of the Umatilla Indians who claim that their religious beliefs are that they have been on the land since the dawn of time, so if the govt. denies this, then it's discriminating against their religious belief, lol...I think they've been taking lessons from imams.
To: Redcloak
Both of these topics point to "others" being here before the Indians.
If We don't know, how would they? 'Since the beginning of time' is very vague to say the least.
8
posted on
08/01/2006 1:18:31 PM PDT
by
wolfcreek
(You can spit in our tacos and you can rape our dogs but, you can't take away our freedom!)
To: wolfcreek
ummm...if we don't know what?
To: wolfcreek
We won't know if research is hampered by special interest groups. The tribes in western WA and ID tried for years to get the right to destroy the Kenniwick skeleton. It looks like the courts have finally decided that they have no relationship whatsoever to Kenniwick man's people and thus no claim to his remains. Research is now being allowed to continue.
(On a side note: There was a Time magazine cover story on Kenniwick Man recently. Someone decided that a more PC reconstruction of his appearance was needed. The version that appeared on the cover looked far more "Indian" than the version that was released just after the skeleton's discovery. I guess that Time didn't want to have readers wondering how Patrick Stewart's doppleganger could have died along the banks of the Columbia River 9000 years ago.)
10
posted on
08/01/2006 2:37:43 PM PDT
by
Redcloak
(Speak softly and wear a loud shirt.)
To: chichilarue
Perhaps a prosperous society developed on those now sunken plains; gentle, little people learned to dress elegantly in tassels and mini-skirts and to decorate their hair elaborately.Very odd. What basis is there for thinking these people were either little or gentle? Maybe they painted cute little pictures in between torture sessions.
Probably the same reason that archaeologists assumed the ancient Maya were peaceful ... until their writings were deciphered and it was learned they were about as bloodthirsty (literally!) as any people in history.
11
posted on
08/01/2006 2:58:11 PM PDT
by
Restorer
To: Restorer
This is really not the point. The point is not about whether the pre-Aboriginals were advanced or not or nice or not, but why there's a cover-up of their existence.
To: StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; 2ndDivisionVet; ...
Note: this topic is from 08/01/2006. Thanks chichilarue.
13
posted on
06/30/2016 9:42:10 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
To: chichilarue
The apparent Aboriginal genocide and attempt to obliterate the evidence for the previous inhabitants of Australia goes unspoken. But you forget history: Jean Jaques Rousseau, the intellectual "father" of Communism, created the false concept of the Noble Savage. The notion that human beings are naturally gentle, peaceful and cooperative and that class distinctions, capitalism and other "evil" Enlightenment concepts created tragedies that only Communism can heal, is fundamental to the Progressive mind. It's total BS but it's simple-minded enough for the masses to swallow whole. The lie must be maintained.
To: SunkenCiv
15
posted on
06/30/2016 2:43:45 PM PDT
by
Fred Nerks
(Fair Dinkum!)
To: chichilarue; Restorer; SunkenCiv; blam; All
I am on vacation and borrowing a PC. Look up Cow Marsh, Australia, people. Or maybe Kow. Remains about 12,000 years old, but pre homo sapien. Maybe Aborigenal guilt for killing their predecesors. Goodby till I get home.
To: gleeaikin
I didn’t get any search hits that were relevant, probably best if you try it.
17
posted on
06/30/2016 6:14:42 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
To: Fred Nerks
18
posted on
06/30/2016 6:46:18 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(I'll tell you what's wrong with society -- no one drinks from the skulls of their enemies anymore.)
To: gleeaikin
The Bradshaw paintings are in the South-West Kimberley.
19
posted on
06/30/2016 8:00:16 PM PDT
by
Fred Nerks
(Fair Dinkum!)
To: SunkenCiv; gleeaikin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kow_Swamp_Archaeological_Site
The Kow Swamp archaeological site comprises a series of late Pleistocene burials within the lunette of the eastern rim of a former lake known as Kow Swamp. The site is located 10 km south-east of Cohuna in the central Murray River valley, in northern Victoria, at
35.953553°S 144.318123°E. The site is significant for archaeological excavations by Alan Thorne between 1968 and 1972 which recovered the partial skeletal remains of more than 22 individuals.[1]
20
posted on
06/30/2016 8:18:00 PM PDT
by
Fred Nerks
(Fair Dinkum!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson